N ^ 
 
CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 GIFT OF 
 
 Alfred C. Barnes 
 
BS2575 .pVT" ""'"*""* '■'""^ 
 ^''*i?mV™iiim'lilNV,S?.!?,!X,.9.9,J,!ie...Gpspel acco 
 
 olin 
 
 3 1924 029 339 755 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tliis book is in 
 tlie Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029339755 
 
AN EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY 
 
 ON THE 
 
 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 
 S. MATTHEW 
 
 The Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D. 
 
AN 
 EXEGETICAL COMA/[ENTARY 
 
 ON THE 
 
 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 
 
 S. MATTHEW 
 
 Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D. 
 
 FORMERLY MASTER OF UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, DURHAM 
 AND SOME TIME FELLOW AND TUTOR OF TRINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD 
 
 LONDON: ELLIOT STOCK 
 62, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.G. 
 
 1909 
 
 H. 
 
TO THE MEMORY OF 
 
 ARTHUR THOMAS LLOYD 
 
 ONCE HIS PUPIL 
 
 AFTERWARDS HIS TEACHER 
 
 FOR EVER HIS FRIEND 
 
 THIS VOLUME IS DEDICATED 
 
 BY 
 
 THE WRITER 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The attempt to write this commentary has been made 
 under impulses given, in the one case consciously, in the 
 other not, by two friends. For some years, Bishop Lloyd 
 of Newcastle-on-Tyne, whose loss we are still deeply 
 lamenting, had been urging the writer to do something 
 of the kind ; and one of the latest letters received from 
 him, — a letter written shortly before his death, expressed 
 delight that this volume was progressing. And it was the 
 writer's privilege to take a very small part in the produc- 
 tion of the invaluable work on this Gospel by the Rev. 
 W. C. Allen in the International Critical Commentary 
 published by Messrs. T. & T. Clark. To share in that 
 work was to be inspired to continue it. 
 
 This volume, therefore, has two aims over and above 
 the desire to do something in accordance with Bishop 
 Lloyd's earnest wishes. On the one hand, this sequel to 
 Mr. Allen's commentary has for its object to call the 
 attention of some who do not already know it to a book 
 which Leaflet 31 of the Central Society of Sacred Study 
 (July 1907) pronounces to be "the best English com- 
 mentary on the first Gospel" (p. 5), and of which reviewers 
 have said much the same. On the other hand, this 
 volume aims at supplementing the earlier one. A re- 
 viewer in the Guardian doubted whether Mr. Allen " was 
 well advised to restrict himself so rigidly to questions of 
 literary, as distinct from historical — not to say theological 
 and religious — interest." How well he would have dealt 
 
 VII 
 
vm PREFACE 
 
 with the historical, theological, and religious sides of his 
 subject is shown in those places in which he somewhat 
 transgresses his self-imposed limits. But there can be no 
 doubt that his desire to do the critical and literary part of 
 the work (which was the part most needed) with thorough- 
 ness has caused him to omit a good deal that his readers 
 would have been glad to have from him. To supply, if 
 possible, some of the elements which he has passed by, 
 or has treated very briefly, is another of the aims of this 
 volume. 
 
 The works to which this commentary is indebted are 
 numerous. A list of some of them is given below, partly 
 as an expression of gratitude, partly as some help to 
 others who desire to labour in the same field. An asterisk 
 indicates that the writer's debt is large, and that others 
 may expect to find much to aid them. For further 
 information the list of works in the writer's International 
 Critical Commentary on St. Luke, pp. Ixxx-lxxxviii, 577- 
 580, may be consulted. 
 
 Abbott, E. A. . Paradosis, London, 1904. 
 
 Johanni7ie Vocabulary, 1905. 
 *Johannine Grammar, 1906. 
 Alexander, W. M. Demonic Possession in the New Testament, 
 
 Edinburgh, 1902. 
 
 Allen, W. C. . . '''A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the 
 
 Gospel according to St. Mattheiv, Edinburgh, 
 
 1907. 
 
 Briggs, C. A. . '''The Messiah of the Gospels, Edinburgh, 1894. 
 
 New Light on the Life of Jesus, Edinburgh, 
 
 1904. 
 The Ethical Teaching of Jesus, New York, 
 
 1904. 
 Criticism and the Dogma of the Virgin Birth 
 (N. Amer. Rev., June 1906).' 
 Bruce, A. B. . The Synoptic Gospels (The Expositor's Greek 
 
 Testament), London, 1897. 
 Burkitt, F. C. . *Evattgelion Da- Mepharresiie, Cambridge, 
 1904. 
 The Gospel History and its Transmission, 
 Edinburgh, 1906. 
 
 ' This valuable essay has been published separately. Scrlbner, 1909. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 IX 
 
 Burton and 
 
 Mathews 
 Charles, R. H. . 
 
 Dalman, G. . . 
 Deissmann, G. A. 
 
 Donehoo, J. de Q. 
 
 Girodon, P. . . 
 Godet, F. . 
 Gore, C. . . . 
 
 Gould, E. P. , 
 
 Gregory, C. R. . 
 
 Grenfell and 
 Hunt 
 
 Harnack, A. . 
 
 Harris, J. Rendel 
 Hastings, J. . . 
 
 Constructive' Studies in the Life of Christ, 
 
 Chicago. 
 The Book of Enoch, Oxford, 1893. 
 The Apocalypse of Baruch, London, 1896. 
 The Assumption of Moses, London, 1897. 
 The Ascension of Isaiah, London, 1900. 
 The Book of Jubilees, London, 1902. 
 *The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 
 
 translated from the Greek, London, 1908. 
 *The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the 
 
 Twelve Patriarchs, Oxford, 1908. 
 *The Words of Jesus, Edinburgh, 1902. 
 
 * Bible Studies, Edinburgh, 1903. 
 
 The Philology of the Greek Bible, London, 
 
 1908. 
 New Light on the New Testament, Edinburgh, 
 
 1907. 
 The Apocryphal and Legendary Life of Christ, 
 
 New York, 1903. 
 Encyclopedia Biblica, London, 1899-1903. 
 Comm.entaire critique et moral sur t Evangile 
 
 selon Saint Luc, Paris, 1903. 
 Introduction au Nouveau Testament, Neuchatel, 
 
 1897. 
 The Incarnation of the Son of God (The 
 
 Bampton Lectures, 1891), London, 1891. 
 
 * Dissertations on Subjects connected with the 
 
 Incarnation, London, 1895. 
 The New Theology and the Old Religion, 
 
 London, 1907. 
 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the 
 
 Gospel according to St. Mark, Edinburgh, 
 
 1896. 
 Canon and Text of the New Testament, 
 
 Edinburgh, 1907. 
 Sayings of our Lord from an early Greek 
 
 Papyrus, London, 1897. 
 New Sayings of Jesus, London, 1904. 
 Die Chronologie der altchristliche Literafur 
 
 bis Eusebius, Leipzig, 1897. 
 *The Sayings of Jesus, the Second Source of 
 
 St. Matthew and St. Luke, London, 1908. 
 The Newly Recovered Gospel of St. Peter, 
 
 London, 1893. 
 
 * Dictionary of the Bible, Edinburgh, 1898- 
 
 1902, with Extra Volume, 1904. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 Hastings, J. . , 
 
 Hawkins, Sir J. C 
 Herford, R. T. 
 
 Holtzmann, H. J 
 
 Holtzmann, O. 
 Hort, F. J. A. 
 
 Jiilicher, A. . 
 
 Kennedy, H. A, 
 
 A. 
 Klostermann, E 
 
 Knowling, R. J 
 Lang, C. G. . 
 
 Lock and Sanday 
 
 Mackinlay, G. . 
 
 Maclaren, A. 
 
 Moulton, J. H. . 
 
 Moulton, R. G. . 
 Nicholson, E. B. 
 
 Oxford Society 
 of Historical 
 Theology 
 
 Plummer, A. . . 
 
 Polano, H. . 
 Resch, A. 
 
 '''Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, 1906- 
 
 1908. 
 * HorcR Synoptica, Oxford, 1899. 
 Christiafiity in Talmud and Midrash, London, 
 
 1903. 
 Einleitung in das Neue Testarnefit, Freiburg i. 
 
 B., 1892. 
 The Life of Jesus, London, 1 904. 
 *Judaistic Christianity, London, 1894. 
 '''The Christian Ecclesia, London, 1897. 
 An Introductio7i to the New Testament, 
 
 London, 1904. 
 Sources of Neiv Testament Greek, Edinburgh, 
 
 1895. 
 Handbuch zutn Neuen Testament ; Marines, 
 
 Tiibingen, 1907. 
 Ottr Lord's Virgin Birth, London, 1907. 
 Thoughts on Some of the Parables of Jesus, 
 
 London, 1906. 
 Two Lectures on the Sayings of Jesus re- 
 cently discovered at Oxyrynchus, Oxford, 
 
 1897. 
 The Magi, How they recognised Christ s Star, 
 
 London, 1907. 
 '''The Gospel according to St. Matthew, 
 
 London, 1905, 1906. 
 *^ Granunar of New Testament Greek, 
 
 Edinburgh, 1906. 
 The Modern Reader's Bible, London, 1907. 
 The Gospel according to the Hebrews, London, 
 
 1879. 
 The Gospel according to St. Matthew, London, 
 
 i88r. 
 The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, 
 
 Oxford, 1905. 
 
 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the 
 
 Gospel according to St. Luke, Edinburgh, 
 
 1896. 
 The Tahmid (The Chandos Classics), 
 
 London, n.d. 
 Das Kindheits Evaiigeliuin (Texte und 
 
 Untersuchungen, x. 5), Leipzig, 1897. 
 *Agrapha, Aussercanonische Schriftfragmentc 
 
 (Texte und Untersuchungen, NF. xv. 3, 4), 
 
 Leipzig, 1906. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 XI 
 
 Robinson, J. A. . 
 
 Robinson and 
 
 James 
 Salmon, G. . 
 
 Sanday, W. 
 
 Schiirer, E. . 
 
 Smith, D. . 
 
 Steinbeck, J. 
 Swete, H. B.. 
 
 Taylor, C. 
 
 Wellhausen 
 Wright, A. 
 
 Zahn, T. . 
 
 Tlie Historical Character of St. Joim's Gosfcl, 
 
 London, 1908. 
 The Gospel according to Peter, London, 1892. 
 
 *The Human Element in the Gospels, London, 
 
 1907. 
 ^Inspiration (The Bampton Lectures, 1893), 
 London, 1893. 
 Sacred Sites of the Gospel, Oxford, 1903. 
 The Criticism of the fourth Gospel, Oxford, 
 1905. 
 * Outlines of the Life of Christ, Edinburgh, 
 
 1906. 
 *The Life of Christ in Recent Research, Oxford, 
 
 1907. 
 '''History of the Jewish People in the Time of 
 
 Jesus Christ, Edinburgh, 1885-1890. 
 ''' Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter 
 Jesu Christi; dritte Auflage, Leipzig, 1898. 
 The Gospel according to St. Matthew (The 
 Westminster New Testament), London, 
 1908. 
 *Das gottliche Selbstbewitsstsein Jesu nach dem 
 Zeugnis der Synoptiker, Leipzig, 1908. 
 The Akhniim Fragment of the Apocryphal 
 Gospel of St. Peter, London, 1893. 
 *The Gospel according to St. Mark, London, 
 
 1902. 
 '''The Appearances of our Lord after the Passion, 
 London, 1907. 
 Sayings of the Jewish Fathers comprising 
 Pirqe Aboth in Hebrew and English, 
 Cambridge, 1897. 
 Das Evangelium Matthaei, Berlin, 1904. 
 '''Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, London, 
 1903. 
 Einleitung m das Neue Testament, Leipzig, 
 1899. 
 '''Das Evangelium des Matthdus, Leipzig, 1903. 
 Introduction to the New Testame?zt, Edin- 
 burgh, 1909. 
 
 '''The Journal oj Theological Studies, London 
 and Oxford, 1899-1909. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 INTRODUCTION . 
 
 § I. The Author 
 
 § 2. The Sources 
 
 § 3. Plan of the Gospel . 
 
 § 4. The Christology of the First Gospel . 
 
 § 5. The Date 
 
 §6. "The Testaments of the Twelve Pat- 
 riarchs" AND their Relation to the 
 First Gospel 
 
 PAGE 
 
 ii-xlvi 
 
 vii 
 xi 
 
 xviii 
 
 XXV 
 
 xxxi 
 
 COMMENTARY . . . 1-439 
 
 The Birth and Infancy of the Messiah i 
 
 The Preparation for the Ministry . 20 
 
 The Ministry in Galilee . 45 
 
 The Ministry in or near Galilee . 200 
 
 The Journey through Per^a to Jerusalem 258 
 
 The Last Work in the Holy City . 283 
 
 The Passion, Deatfi, and Resurrection 352 
 
 INDEXES . . 441-451 
 
 I. General 441 
 
 II. Greek 449 
 
 XIII 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 !) The Author. 
 
 In no case is the title to a book of the New Testament part 
 of the original document. It was in all cases added by a 
 copyist, and perhaps not by the first copyist. Moreover, in all 
 cases it varies considerably in form, the simplest forms being the 
 earliest. The " according to " neither affirms nor denies author- 
 ship ; it implies conformity to a type, and need not mean more 
 than " drawn up according to the teaching of." But it is certain 
 that the Christians of the first four centuries who gave these titles 
 to the Gospels meant more than this : they believed, and meant 
 to express, that each Gospel was written by the person whose 
 name it bears. They used this mode of expression, rather than 
 the genitive case used of the Epistles, to intimate that the same 
 subject had been treated of by others \ and they often emphasized 
 the oneness of the subject by speaking of " the Gospel " rather 
 than " the Gospels." This mode of expression is accurate ; 
 there is only one Gospel, 'the Gospel of God' (Rom. i. i) 
 concerning His Son. But it has been given us in four shapes 
 (evayyt'A.ioi' Terpa/^op^ov, Iren. III. xi. 8), and " according to " 
 indicates the shape given to it by the writer named. 
 
 Was the belief of the first Christians who adopted these 
 titles correct ? Were the Gospels written by the persons whose 
 names they bear ? ^^'ith the trifling exception of a few passages, 
 we may believe this with regard to the Second, Third, and Fourth 
 Gospels : but it is very difficult to believe this with regard to the 
 First, the authorship of which is a complicated problem not yet 
 adequately solved. But the following results may be accepted 
 as probable, and some of them as very probable. 
 
 Ancient testimony in favour of Matthew being the author is 
 
 very strong. It begins with Papias and Irenseus in the second 
 
 century, and is confirmed by Origen in the third and Eusebius 
 
 in the fourth,^ not tq mention a number of other early writers, 
 
 ' Eusebius, H. E, iii. 39, v. 8, vi. 25, iii. 24, v. 10. 
 
 h i-vii 
 
 V 
 
vlii GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 whose evidence repeats, or is in harmony with, these four. 
 Papias speaks of " the oracles " or " utterances " (to. Aoyta) which 
 Matthew composed ; the other three speak of his " Gospel " 
 (ivayyiXiov). Assuming that the two expressions are equivalent, 
 the testimony is uniform that the First Gospel was written in 
 Hebrew by Matthew, the tax-collector and Apostle. In that 
 case the Greek Gospel which has come down to us must be a 
 translation from this " Hebrew " original.^ 
 
 But the First Gospel is evidently not a translation, and it is 
 difficult to believe that it is the work of the Apostle. Whoever 
 wrote it took the Second Gospel as a frame,^ and worked into it 
 much material from other sources. And he took, not only the 
 substance of the Second Gospel, but the Greek phraseology of it, 
 showing clearly that he worked in Greek. It is incredible that 
 he translated the Greek of Mark into Hebrew, and that then 
 some one translated Matthew's Hebrew back into Greek that is 
 almost the same as Mark's. The retranslation would have 
 resulted in very different Greek.' And it is not likely that the 
 Apostle Matthew, with first-hand knowledge of his own, would 
 take the Gospel of another, and that other not an Apostle, as the 
 framework of his own Gospel. There would seem, therefore, to 
 be some error in the early tradition about the First Gospel. 
 
 Very possibly the Ao'yia of Papias should not be interpreted 
 as meaning the whole of the First Gospel, but only one of its 
 elements, viz. a collection of facts respecting Jesus Christ, chiefly 
 consisting of His utterances, and the circumstances in which they 
 were spoken. The expression, to. Ao'yta, would fitly describe a 
 document largely made up of discourses and parables. That 
 such a document is one main element in both the First and 
 the Third Gospels, may be regarded as certain, and it may have 
 been written originally in Hebrew by S. Matthew.* 
 
 ' The subscriptions of certain cursives state that the Hebrew Matthew was 
 translated into Greek " by John," or "by James," or "by James the brother 
 of the Lord," or "by Bartholomew." Zahn, Einleitung in das NT. ii. 
 p. 267. 
 
 ''■ " The main common source of the Synoptic Gospels was a single written 
 document" (Burkitt, TAe Gosp. Hist, and its Transmission, p. 34). " Mk. 
 contains the whole of a document which Mt. and Lk. independently used " 
 (ibid. p. 37). 
 
 ^ The reader will find a good illustration of this in Duggan's translation of 
 Jacquier's History of the Books of the New Testament, pp. 35, 127. Jacquier 
 translated passages from English into French. Duggan translates them back 
 into English, and his English is surprisingly unlike the originals. 
 
 * " Hebrew " in this connexion must mean the Aramaic which Christ 
 Himself spoke. It is scarcely credible that any one would translate the words 
 of Christ into the Hebrew of the O.T., which was intelligible to none but the 
 learned. 
 
 The collection of Utterances often spoken of as "the Logia" is now 
 frequently denoted by the symbol " Q." 
 
THE AUTHOR ix 
 
 When the unknown constructor of the First Gospel took the 
 Second Gospel and fitted on to it the contents of this collection 
 of Utterances, together with other material of his own gathering, 
 he produced a work which was at once welcomed by the first 
 Christians as much more complete than the Second Gospel, and 
 yet not the same as the Third, if that was already in existence. 
 What was this Gospel to be called? It was based on Mark; 
 but to have called it " according to Mark " would have caused 
 confusion, for that title was already appropriated. It would be 
 better to name it after the other main element used in its con- 
 struction, a translation of S. Matthew's collection of Utterances. 
 In this way we get an explanation of the statement of Papias, 
 that " Matthew composed the Utterances in Hebrew, and each 
 man interpreted them as he was able," a statement which seems 
 to be quite accurate. We also get an explanation of the later 
 and less accurate statements of Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius, 
 which seem to refer to our First Gospel as a whole ; viz. that 
 Matthew wrote it in Hebrew. It was known that Matthew had 
 written a Gospel of some kind in Hebrew : the First Gospel, as 
 known to Irenseus, was called " according to Matthew'' ; and hence 
 the natural inference that it had been written in Hebrew. There 
 was a Gospel according to the Hebrews, which Jerome had trans- 
 lated into Greek and Latin, and from which he makes quotations. 
 A Jewish Christian sect called Nazarenes used this Gospel, and 
 said that it was by S. Matthew. It was Aramaic, written 
 in Hebrew characters. We do not know enough of it to be 
 certain ; but it also may have contained a good many of the 
 Utterances collected by Matthew, and for this reason may have 
 been attributed as a whole to him. It seems to have been very 
 inferior to our First Gospel, and this would lead to its being 
 allowed to perish. See Hastings' DB. extra vol. pp. 338 f. 
 
 Dr. C. R. Gregory (Canon atid Text of the New Testament, pp. 245 fif. ) 
 writes thus of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. " One book that now 
 seems to stand very near to the Gospels, and again moves further away from 
 them, demands particular attention. But we shall scarcely reach any very 
 definite conclusion about it. It is like an ignis fatuus in the literature of the 
 Church of the first three centuries. We cannot even tell from the statements 
 about it precisely who, of the writers who refer to it, really saw it. Ves, we 
 are even not sure that it is not kaleidoscopic or plural. It may be that 
 several, or at least two, different books are referred to, and that even by 
 people who fancy that there is but one book, and that they know it. . . . 
 Nothing would be easier for any one or every one who saw, read, or heard of 
 that book to call it the Gospel to the Hebrews, the Gospel according to the 
 Hebrews, or the Hebrews' Gospel. . . . We shall doubtless some day receive 
 a copy of it in the original, or in a translation. It may have contained much 
 of what Matthew, Mark, and Luke contain, without that fact having been 
 brought to our notice in the quotations made from it. For those who quoted 
 it did so precisely in order to. give that which varied from the contents of our 
 four Gospels, or especially of the three synoptic ones." The origin of this 
 
X GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 perplexing document must be placed early. After Matthew and Luke became 
 well known a Gospel covering much the same ground would hardly have been 
 written. E. B. Nicholson has collected and annotated the quotations from it ; 
 R. Handmann, in Texte und Untersuchungen, 1888, has done the same. See 
 also Mgr. A. S. Barnes, /«?<?-. of Th. St., April 1905. 
 
 The collection of Utterances made by Matthew and used by 
 the compiler of the First Gospel, and the similar collection used 
 by Luke, were not such as we might have expected. The 
 selection was determined by the needs and hopes of the first 
 Christians, who wanted moral guidance for the present and 
 revelation as to the future. Hence the sayings of Christ pre- 
 served in the Synoptic Gospels are largely of either a moral or 
 an apocalyptic character.^ Utterances which seemed to teach 
 principles of conduct, and prophecies or parables respecting the 
 Coming and the Kingdom were specially treasured. Some of 
 them were misunderstood at the time, and some appear to have 
 been misreported, either from the first or in repeated transmis- 
 sion ; but the result is a body of doctrine, of marvellous unity 
 and adaptability, the great bulk of which must be faithfully 
 reported, because it is inconceivable that the EvangeHsts or their 
 informants can have invented such things. It is evident that 
 these informants, in the last resort, are the memories of the first 
 body of disciples, who, happily for us, were sometimes stronger 
 in memory than in understanding. They remembered what per- 
 plexed them, because it perplexed them ; and they reported it 
 faithfully. That a collection of sayings and narratives was made 
 during our Lord's lifetime, as Salmon {The Human Element in 
 the Gospels, p. 275) and Ramsay {Expositor, 1907, p. 424) 
 suppose, is scarcely p.robable (Sanday, The Life of Christ in 
 Recent Research, p. 172). 
 
 The answer, therefore, to the question. Who was the author 
 of the First Gospel ? is a negative one. It was not S. Matthew. 
 The writer was an early Jewish Christian, not sufficiently import- 
 ant to give his name to a Gospel, and in no way desiring to do 
 so. But he used a great deal of material which was probably 
 collected by S. Matthew, whose name thus became connected 
 with the First Gospel as we have it.'^ That it is in no sense the 
 work of S. Matthew is not probable. Some more conspicuous 
 Apostle than the toll-collector would have been chosen, if the 
 title had no better basis than the desire to give a distinguished 
 name to a nameless document. Andrew, or James the son of 
 
 ^ J. R. Ropes, The Apostolic Age, p. 222. There is good reason for 
 believing that there existed a written collection of sayings which had the 
 definite title A6701 toO Kvpiov ^l-qaov, to which reference is made Acts xx. 35 ; 
 also in Clem. Rom. Cor. xiii., xlvi. ; and in Polycarp, ii. See Ilarnack, T/ie 
 Sayings of fesus, pp. 187-189. 
 
 ^ See Briggs, The Ethical Teaching of fesus, pp, 2, 3, 20. 
 
THE SOURCES XI 
 
 Zebedee, or Philip would have been preferred. And the writer 
 has given us "a Catholic Gospel," written in " a truly Catholic 
 temper." " Wherever his own hand shows itself, one sees that 
 his thought is as universalistic as it is free from the bondage of 
 the Law. . . . The individuality of the author makes itself so 
 strongly felt both in style and tendency, that it is impossible to 
 think of the Gospel as a mere compilation " (Jiilicher). 
 
 On the contrary, as Renan says, "the Gospel of Matthew, all 
 things considered, is the most important book of Christianity — 
 the most important book that has ever been written." Not 
 without reason it received the first place in the N.T. " The 
 compilation of the Gospels is, next to the personal action of 
 Jesus, the leading fact in the history of the origins of 
 Christianity; — I will even add in the history of mankind" 
 (Les Evangiles, p. 212 ,■ Eng. trans, p. 112). 
 
 The writer of this Gospel rises far above the limitations of 
 his own Jewish Christianity. To see in it anything directed 
 against the teaching of S. Paul is strangely to misunderstand it. 
 So far as there is anything polemical in Mt.j it is directed, not 
 against the Apostle of the Gentiles, but against Pharisaic 
 Judaism. This wide outlook as to the meaning and scope of 
 Christianity is clear evidence that what he gives us as the 
 Messiah's teaching is not the writer's own, but the teaching of 
 Him in whom both Jew and Gentile were to find salvation. Its 
 Catholic Christianity, which is the spirit of Christ Himself, has 
 made this Gospel, from the first century to the twentieth, a 
 favourite with Christians. 
 
 The Sources. 
 
 To some extent these have been already stated. The writer 
 of our First Gospel used Mk. in nearly the same form as that in 
 which it has come down to us,i and also a collection of 
 Utterances which was probably made either wholly or in part by 
 S. Matthew. This second document, which quickly went out of 
 use owing to the superiority of the Canonical Gospels, is 
 commonly spoken of as " the Logia," or (more scientifically) as 
 " Q," a symbol which commits us to nothing. Besides these 
 two main sources, there were at least two others. These are (i) 
 the O.T., the quotations from which, however, may have come 
 from a collection of passages believed to be Messianic, rather 
 than from the writer's knowledge of the O.T. as a whole ; and 
 (2) traditions current among the first Christians. It is also 
 
 ' If there were differences, it is not impossible that the text of Mk. which 
 Mt. used was inferior to that which has come down to us : corruption had 
 already begun. 
 
xii GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 possible that some of the many attempts at Gospels, mentioned 
 by S. Luke in his Preface, may have been known to our 
 Evangelist and u^ed by him. But the only one of his sources 
 which we can compare with his completed work is the Second 
 Gospel, and it is most instructive to see the way in which he 
 treats it. This has been worked out in great detail by the Rev. 
 W. C. Allen in his admirable work on St, Matthew in the 
 International Critical Commentary, which ought to be consulted 
 by all who wish to do justice to the Synoptic problem. Here it 
 will suffice to make a selection of instances, paying attention 
 chiefly to those which illustrate the freedom which the compiler 
 of the First Gospel allowed himself in dealing with the Second. 
 
 1. He appropriates nearly the whole of ity The chief 
 omissions are: Healing of a demoniac (Mk. i. 23-28); 
 Prayer before preaching in Galilee (i. 35-39) ; Seed grow- 
 ing secretly (iv. 26-29) \ Healing of a deaf stammerer (vii. 
 32-36); Healing of a blind man (viii. 22-26); The un- 
 commissioned exorcist (ix. 38-40); Widow's mites (xii. 41- 
 44). And there are other smaller omissions. 
 
 2. He makes considerable changes in order, chiefly so as to 
 group similar incidents and sayings together, and thus make the 
 sequence more telling. Thus we have three triplets of miracles : 
 leprosy, paralysis, fever (viii. 1-15) ; victory over natural powers, 
 demonic powers, power of sin (viii. 23-ix. 8) ; restoration of life, 
 sight, speech (ix. f8-34). And he omits sayings where Mark 
 has them, and inserts them in a different connexion, generally 
 earlier. Thus Mk. iv. 21 is inserted Mt. v. 15 instead of xiii. 23, 
 24; Mk. iv. 22 is inserted Mt. x. 26 instead of xiii. 23, 24; 
 Mk. ix. 41 is inserted Mt. x. 42 instead of xviii. 5 ; Mk. ix. 50 is 
 inserted Mt. v. 13 instead of xviii. 9 ; Mk. xi. 25 is inserted Mt. 
 vi. 14 instead of xxi. 22. 
 
 3. Although he adds a great deal to Mark, yet he frequently 
 abbreviates, perhaps to gain space for additions. He often omits 
 what is redundant. In the following instances, the words in 
 brackets are found in Mark but not in the First Gospel. ' [The 
 time is fulfilled, and] the Kingdom of God is at hand : repent ye 
 [and believe in the gospel] ' (Mk. i. 15). ' And at even, [when 
 the sun did set]' (i. 32). 'And straightway the leprosy 
 [departed from him, and he] was cleansed' (i. 42). '[And the 
 wind ceased] and there was a great calm ' (iv. 39). ' Save in his 
 own country, [and among his own kin,] and in his own house ' 
 (vi. 4). Such things are very frequent. He also omits un- 
 
 1 Why did both he and S. Luke have so high an estimate of Mk. as to 
 incorporate it in their own Gospels ? Because Mk. was believed to be the 
 mouthpiece of S. Peter, and because his Gospel emanated (as is highly 
 probable) from the great centre of all kinds of interests — Rome. 
 
THE SOURCES Xlll 
 
 essential details; e.g. 'He was with the wild beasts' (Mk. i. 13); 
 ' with the hired servants ' (i. 20) ; ' with James and John ' (i. 29) ; 
 'upon the cushion' (iv. 38); 'about 2000' (v. 13); '200 
 pennyworth' (vi. 37); 'so as no fuller on earth can whiten 
 them ' (ix. 3) ; ' 300 pence ' (xiv. 5) ; the young man who fled 
 naked (xiv. 51); ' the father of Alexander and Rufus' (xv. 21). 
 And he frequently omits notes about the crowds which impeded 
 Christ (Mk. i. 33, 45, ii. 2, 4, iii. 9, 10, 20, vi. 31). 
 
 4. On the other hand he frequently expands. Compare 
 Mk. i. 7, 8 with Mt. iii. 7-12; Mk. iii. 22-26 with Mt. xii. 
 24-45; *^k. iv. with Mt. xiii. ; Mk. vi. 8-1 1 with Mt. x. 5-42; 
 Mk. xii. 38-40 with Mt. xxiii. ; Mk. xiii. with Mt. xxiv.-xxv. 
 
 5. Among the many changes in language which he makes the 
 following are conspicuous ; and in considering the numbers we 
 must remember the different length of the two Gospels. Mark 
 has 'again' (irdXiv) about 26 times, Matthew about 16, of which 
 4 are from Mark. Mark has 'straightway' (eu^u's) about 41 
 times, Matthew about 7, all from Mark. Mark has the historic 
 present about 150 times, Matthew about 93, of which 21 are 
 from Mark. And the compiler seems to have disliked the 
 imperfect tense. He frequently turns Mark's imperfects into 
 aorists, or avoids them by a change of expression. Comp. 
 Mk. vi. 7, 20, 41, 56 with Mt. x. i, xiv. 5, 19, 36; and Mk. x. 
 48, 52 with Mt. XX. 31, 34. Such alterations are very frequent. 
 
 6. But the compiler, besides making changes of order and 
 language, and sometimes abbreviating and sometimes expanding 
 Mark's narrative, occasionally makes alterations in the substance 
 of Mark's statements. Some of these seem to aim at greater 
 accuracy; as the substitution of 'tetrarch' (Mt. xiv. i) for 
 'king' (Mk. vi. 14), the omissions of 'when Abiathar was 
 high priest' (Mk. ii. 26), 'coming from (work in the) field' 
 (xv. 21), 'having bought a linen cloth' (xv. 46), and perhaps the 
 change from 'after three days' (viii. 3T, ix. 31, x. 34) to 'on 
 the third day' (Mt. xvi. 21, xvii. 23, xx. 19). But other 
 changes involve more substantial difference ; e.g. ' Levi the son 
 of Alphseus' (ii. 14) becomes 'a man called Matthew' (Mt. ix. 
 9); 'Gerasenes' (v. i) becomes ' Gadarenes ' (Mt. viii. 28); 
 'Dalmanutha' (viii. 10) becomes 'Magadan' (Mt. xv. 39). 
 Where Mark has one demoniac (v. 2) and one blind man 
 (x. 46), the compiler gives two (Mt. viii. 28, xx. 30). 
 
 7. Sometimes he alters the narrative of Mark in order to 
 make the incident a more clear case of the fulfilment of 
 prophecy. Mark has, 'Ye shall find a colt tied, whereon no 
 man ever yet sat ; loose him and bring him ' (xi. 2). For this 
 he has, ' Ye shall find an ass tied and a colt with her ; loose 
 and bring to Me ' (Mt. xxi. 2), and then he goes on to quote the 
 
xiv GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 prophecy, ' riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an 
 ass.' Mark says, ' They promised to give him money ' (xiv. 1 1) ; 
 for which the compiler substitutes, ' They weighed to him thirty 
 pieces of silver' (xxvi. 15), which comes from Zech. xi. 12, and a 
 little later he quotes Zech. xi. 13, which he erroneously attributes 
 to Jeremiah (xxvii. 9). Mark has, 'They ofifered Him wine 
 mingled with myrrh' (xv. 23). In Mt. xxvii. 34 the 'myrrh' 
 is changed to 'gall,' perhaps to suggest a reference to Ps. 
 Ixix. 21. In a similar way Justin Martyr {Apol. i. 32) says that 
 the foal of the ass was "tied to a vine," in order to make 
 the incident a fulfilment of ' binding his foal unto the vine ' 
 (Gen. xhx. 11). 
 
 8. The compiler tones down or omits what see??is to be un- 
 favourable to the disciples. The rebuke, ' Know ye not this 
 parable? and how shall ye know all the parables?' (Mk. iv. 13) 
 becomes a blessing in Mt. xiii. 16 ff. ' For they understood not 
 concerning the loaves, but their heart was hardened' (vi. 52) is 
 omitted. At Mk. viii. 29 the compiler inserts ' Blessed art thou, 
 Simon Barjona,' etc. (xvi. 17-19). He omits (xvii. 4) that Peter 
 ' wist not what to answer ' (Mk. viii. 6) ; also that they 
 ' questioned among themselves what the rising from the dead 
 should mean' (ix. 10). For ' they understood not the saying, 
 and were afraid to ask Him ' (Mk. ix. 32) he substitutes, 'they 
 were exceeding sorry ' (xvii. 23). For ' they disputed one with 
 another, who was the greatest ' (Mk. ix. 34) and were rebuked 
 for so doing, he substitutes, 'the disciples came unto Jesus, 
 saying, Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?' 
 (xviii. i). The ambitious petition of the sons of Zebedee 
 (Mk. x. 3S) is assigned to their mother (Mt. xx. 20). 'They 
 wist not what to answer Him ' (Mk. xiv. 40) is omitted 
 (Mt. xxvi. 43). 
 
 9. Still more instructive and interesting are the cases in which 
 the compiler tones down or omits what might encourage a low 
 conception of the character of Christ. Reverential feeling seems 
 to have made him shrink from the freedom with which the 
 earlier record attributes human emotions and human limitations 
 to our Lord. ' And when He had looked round on them with 
 anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart ' (Mk. iii. 5) 
 is omitted Mt. xii. 13. ' He marvelled because of their unbelief,' 
 and ' He could there do no mighty work ' (vi. 5, 6) is changed 
 to ' He did not many mighty works there because of their 
 unbelief (Mt. xiii. 58). 'He sighed deeply in His Spirit' 
 (viii. 12) is omitted Mt. xvi. 4. ' He was moved with indignation ' 
 (x. 14) is omitted Mt. xix. 14. 'Looking upon him loved him' 
 (x. 21) is omitted Mt. xix. 21. 'Began to be greatly amazed ' 
 (xiv. 33) is changed to 'began to be sorrowful' (Mt. xxvi. 37), 
 
THE SOURCES XV 
 
 The compiler also omits questions which seem to imply 
 ignorance on the part of Christ. ' What is thy name ? ' (v. 9). 
 ' Who touched My garments ? ' (v. 30). ' How many loaves 
 have ye ? ' (vi. 38). ' Why doth this generation seek a sign ? ' 
 (viii. 12). 'Seest thou aught?' (viii. 23). 'What question ye 
 with them ? ' (ix. 16). ' How long time is it since this hath come 
 unto him?' (ix. 21). 'What were ye reasoning in the way?' 
 (ix. 33). 'Where is My guest-chamber?' (xiv. 14). The 
 compiler also omits what might imply that Christ was unable to 
 accomplish what He willed. 'Jesus could no more openly enter 
 into a city ' (i. 45). ' He said unto him, Come forth thou 
 unclean spirit ' (v. 8) when the demon had not yet come forth. 
 'He would have passed by them' (vi. 48). 'Would have no 
 man know it ; and He could not be hid ' (vii. 24). ' If haply 
 He might find anything thereon ... for it was not the season 
 of figs' (xi. 13); as if Christ did not know till He came and 
 looked, and as if He had expected what could not be. Perhaps 
 the change from 'driveth Him forth' (Mk. i. 12) to 'was led up' 
 (Mt. iv. I ) is of a similar character. 
 
 To the same feeling we may attribute the remarkable change 
 of ' Why callest thou Me good ? None is good save one, even 
 God ' (x. 18), into ' Why askest thou Me concerning that which is 
 good? One there is who is good' (Mt. xix. 17); and the 
 probable omission (the reading is doubtful) of ' neither the Son ' 
 (xiii. 32) in Mt. xxiv. 36. The change of 'the carpenter' 
 (vi. 3) into 'the carpenter's son' (Mt. xiii. 55) is of a similar 
 kind ; and perhaps the change of ' Master, carest Thou not 
 that we perish?' (iv. 38) into 'Save, Lord, we perish' (Mt. 
 viii. 25). But perhaps this last change was made to shield the 
 disciples. 
 
 Side by side with this toning down of what might lessen the 
 majesty of Christ's person is a readiness to heighten what 
 illustrates it. When Mark says that 'they brought to Him all 
 that were sick and them that were possessed,' and that ' He 
 healed many and cast out many demons' (i. 32, 34), the 
 compiler says that ' they brought to Him many possessed,' and 
 that ' He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all ' 
 (Mt. viii. 16). He thrice, by inserting 'from that hour,' insists 
 that the healing word took effect immediately (ix. 22, xv. 28, 
 xvii. 18). He makes the fig-tree wither immediately, and states 
 that the disciples were amazed at the sudden withering, whereas 
 Mark indicates that they did not notice the withering till next 
 day. He omits the two miracles in which Christ used spittle as 
 a means of healing (Mk. vii. 31, viii. 22), and he omits the 
 convulsions of the demoniac boy, which might imply that Christ 
 had difficulty in healing him (Mt. ix. 20), He also represents 
 
XVI GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 Jairus' daughter as being raised by merely taking her hand : no 
 word is recorded (ix. 25).! 
 
 These nine classes of changes, which by no means exhaust 
 the subject, strongly confirm the generally accepted view that 
 the Gospel according to S. Mark is the earlier. We can see 
 in the majority of cases why the change from Mark to Matthew- 
 has been made. Assume that Matthew is primary, and the 
 changes to what Mark gives us would be unintelligible. More- 
 over there is the fact that some of the changes made in Matthew 
 are found in Luke also. That again points to Mark being the 
 earliest." 
 
 The consideration of the material which is common to both 
 Matthew and Luke, but is not found in Mark, does not lead to 
 such sure results ; and a variety of hypotheses are possible, 
 (i) Both the compiler of Matthew and 'the beloved physician' 
 may have used the same collection of Utterances, translated from 
 the Hebrew of S. Matthew the Apostle. (2) S. Luke may have 
 used a collection similar to the one used by the compiler, but 
 varying somewhat from it. (3) Each may have used several 
 such collections, having a good deal of common material ; and 
 S. Luke knew of the existence of many such documents. (4) 
 Each may have drawn from oral traditions, which to a large 
 extent had become stereotyped. (5) S. Luke may have seen 
 the Gospel according to Matthew. With our present knowledge, 
 certainty is impossible. That S. Luke and the compiler of 
 Matthew used Mark, pretty nearly as we have it, is certain ; that 
 they had other and similar materials, is certain ; and that each 
 used materials which the other did not use, and perhaps did not 
 know, is also certain. Beyond that, all is more or less reasonable 
 conjecture. That each of them used Mark as we have it, is a 
 reasonable conjecture ; and Burkitt agrees with Wellhausen that 
 " Mark was known to both the other Synoptists in the same form 
 and with the same contents as we have it now " {The Gospel History 
 and its Transmission, p. 64). But perhaps it would be more 
 accurate to say that our Mark is derived from one copy of the 
 autograph, and that the other two Synoptists made use of 
 another ; and we must remember that in those days scribes were 
 not mere copyists whose one aim was to copy accurately ; they 
 thought that it was their duty to edit and improve what they had 
 before them. Again, it is a reasonable conjecture that the 
 material used by the Synoptists existed originally in Aramaic, 
 
 1 Perhaps the two demoniacs and the two bhnd men (viii. 28, xx. 30), 
 where Mark mentions only one, may be placed, under this head. 
 
 2 See an excellent article on "The Early Church and the Synoptic 
 Gospels" in \he Journal of Theological Studies, April 1904, pp. 330-342 ; 
 also January 1909, pp. i58, 172. 
 
THE SOURCES xvu 
 
 and that most of it had been translated into Greek before they 
 used it. 
 
 If copyists sometimes edited what they copied, much more 
 did Evangelists edit the materials which they used. We see 
 this in their grouping, in their wording, and in their insertion 
 of editorial notes. Such notes were indispensable. A writer 
 who has to unite in consecutive narrative anecdotes and utter- 
 ances of which the historical connexion has been lost, must insert 
 editorial links to form a sequence. He may or may not have 
 independent authority for the link, but a link of some kind he 
 must have, whether there be authority for it or not. And in 
 some cases the discourses or narratives which he has to piece 
 together may be said to be the authority for what is inserted, for 
 something of the kind must have taken place, or what is recorded 
 could not have happened. Thus, the record of a long discourse 
 on a mount implies that the Lord went up the mount, that He 
 had an audience, and that, when all was over. He came down 
 again. These details, therefore, are inserted (v. i, viii. i). After 
 charging the Apostles, He must have gone elsewhere to teach 
 (xi. i). The same thing would happen at the end of other 
 discourses (xiii. 53, xix. i, xxvi. i). Where there vcas nothing 
 known to the contrary, it might be assumed that the Twelve 
 understood Him (xvii. 13), even when at first they had not done 
 so (xvi. 12). If the Evangelist felt quite certain of the meaning 
 of our Lord's words, he might give the supposed meaning as 
 having been actually spoken by Him (xii. 40). If a prophecy, 
 which the Messiah must have known, seemed to be very 
 appropriate, He might be supposed to have quoted it (ix. 13, 
 xii. 7, xiii. 14, 15, xxiv. 30). If, at the Supper, the Twelve 
 said to Him, one by one, ' Is it I ? ' then Judas must have said 
 so, and the Lord would answer him (xxvi. 25). If the women 
 on Easter morning found the stone already removed from the 
 tomb, the removal must have had a cause ; and if there was an 
 earthquake, this must have had a cause. It was reported that 
 an Angel had been seen : then, doubtless, he was the cause 
 (xxviii. 2-4). There are other places where we may reasonably 
 conjecture that we are reading editorial comment rather than 
 the reproduction of historical tradition; e.g. xiii. 36a, xvi. ii/^, 
 xxii. 34 ; and there may be even more than these. 
 
 Editorial additions of this kind do not look like the work of 
 an Apostle and an eye-witness. If the First Gospel, as we have 
 it, were the production of S. Matthew, we should, as in the 
 Fourth Gospel, have much more important additions to what 
 is told us by S. Mark. In the feeding of the 5000, contrast the 
 vivid details which Jn. alone gives with the trifling inferences 
 which are peculiar to Mt. In the story of the Passion and of 
 
xvm GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 the Resurrection, the same kind of contrast will be felt. These 
 editorial notes, therefore, are a strong confirmation of the view 
 that only to a very limited extent can our First Gospel be 
 regarded as the composition of the Apostle. 
 
 The existence of these notes does not interfere with the 
 substantial trustworthiness of the Gospels. Even when we 
 have set aside all the verses which seem to be editorial, the 
 number of them is not large, and is almost infinitesimal in 
 comparison with the remainder. And it must be remembered 
 that we may be mistaken about some of them, and also that 
 some, although editorial, may be quite true. At any rate they 
 represent what writers in a.d. 60-100 regarded as sufficiently 
 probable to be affirmed. 
 
 Plan of the Gospel. 
 
 As already intimated, the framework is that of Mk. 
 Omitting the first two chapters respecting the Birth and Infancy 
 of the Messiah, which have no parallel in Mk., we may exhibit 
 the correspondence, or want of correspondence, between the 
 two Gospels section by section. If both Gospels are analysed 
 into five main divisions, the relations of the divisions to one 
 another will stand thus : — 
 
 Mark. Matthew. 
 
 i. 1-13 Introduction to the Gospel iii. i-iv. 11 
 
 i. 14-vi. 13 Ministry in Galilee iv. i2-xiii. 58 
 
 vi. 14-ix. 50 Ministry in the Neighbourhood xiv. i-xviii. 35 
 
 X. 1-52 Journey through Perssa to Jerusalem xix. l-xx. 34 
 
 xi. l-xvi. 8 Last Weelc in Jerusalem xxi. l-xxviii. 8 
 
 It is in the first two divisions that Mt. makes most changes 
 in the order of the shorter sections of which they are composed. 
 But from xiv. i, and still more decidedly from xv. 21, he follows 
 the order of Mk. very closely, although he both abbreviates and 
 expands. And it should be noted that where Mt. deviates from 
 the order of Mk., Lk. commonly follows it. Mk. is nearly always 
 supported by either Mt. or Lk. or both : his is the original order. 
 
 When we subtract from Mt. what has been derived from 
 Mk., we have a remainder very different from that which is 
 produced by subtracting from Lk. what has been derived from 
 Mk. In the latter case we have not only various discourses, 
 especially parables, which have not been recorded elsewhere, 
 but also a large proportion of narratives, which Lk. alone has 
 preserved. But in the case of Mt, that which remains after 
 Mk. has been subtracted consists almost wholly of discourses, 
 for which the compiler evidently had a great liking. The amount 
 
PLAN OF THE GOSPEL xix 
 
 of narrative which he alone has preserved for us is not very 
 great; nor, with the exception of the contents of the first two 
 chapters, is it, as a rule, of first-rate importance. It consists of 
 such stories as Peter's walking on the sea, the demand for the 
 Temple-tax, the suicide of Judas, the message of Pilate's wife , 
 and his washing his hands, the earthquake and the resurrection 
 of the saints, the setting of a watch at the sepulchre and the 
 subsequent bribing of the guards. What the Evangelist chiefly 
 has at heart is to add to Mk.'s narratives of the doings of the 
 Messiah a representative summary of the teaching of the Messiah. 
 'From that time began Jesus to preach' (iv. 17). 'He opened 
 His mouth and taught them' (v. 2). 'He departed thence to 
 teach and preach ' (xi. i). ' He taught them in their synagogue ' 
 (xiii. 54). 'And Jesus went about all the cities and the 
 villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the Gospel 
 of the Kingdom' (ix. 35). Statements such as these show 
 clearly the writer's deep interest in all that the Messiah said; 
 and the number of sayings which he has collected shows this 
 still more. 
 
 In this presentation of the words of Christ in this Gospel the 
 Evangelist is fond of gathering into one discourse a number of 
 shorter sayings, as may be seen from comparison with S. Luke, 
 who has these same sayings scattered about, in various con- 
 nexions, in his Gospel. The chief example of this is the 
 Sermon on the Mount (Mt. v.-vii.). But there are other 
 instances of what seems to be a similar process, making at least 
 seven in all. There is the address to the Apostles (x. 5-42) ; the 
 collection of parables (xiii.) ; the discourse on the little child and 
 the sayings which follow it (xviii.); the three parables of warning to 
 the hierarchy (xxi. 28-xxii. 14); the Woes against the Pharisees 
 (xxiii.); and the discourse on the Last Things (xxiv., xxv.). To 
 these we may perhaps add the discourse about John the Baptist, 
 which is grouped with other sayings (xi. 4-19 ; 20-30). Five of 
 these seven or eight discourses are clearly marked off, as we 
 shall see, by the Evangelist himself. 
 
 It is often pointed out that in this Gospel incidents and 
 sayings are frequently arranged in numerical groups of three, 
 five, or seven. Triplets are very common. The opening 
 genealogy is artificially compressed into three divisions, each 
 having two sevens in it. There are three events of the 
 Childhood, the visit of the Magi, the flight into Egypt, and 
 the return (ii. 1-23); three temptations (iv. i-ii); three 
 examples of righteousness, alms, prayer, and fasting (vi. 1-18); 
 three prohibitions, Hoard not. Judge not. Give not what is holy 
 to the dogs (vi. 19-vii. 6); under 'Hoard not' there are three 
 aims, the heavenly treasure, the single eye, and the banishment 
 
XX GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 of anxiety (vi. 19-34); threefold 'Be not anxious' (vi. 25; 
 31; 34) ; three commands, Ask, Enter by the narrow gate, 
 Beware of false prophets (vii. 7-20) ; three pairs of contrasts, 
 the broad and narrow way, the good and bad trees, and the 
 wise and foolish builders (vii. 13 ; 17 ; 24-27) ; threefold ' in Thy 
 Name ' (vii. 22); three miracles of healing, leprosy, palsy, fever 
 (viii. 1-15); three miracles of power, storm, demoniacs, sin 
 (viii. 23-ix. 8); three miracles of restoration, health, life, sight 
 (ix. 8-34); threefold 'Fear not' (x. 26; 28; 31); threefold 'is 
 not worthy of Me' (x. 37, 38); three cavils of the Pharisees 
 (xii. 2 ; 14 ; 24) ; three signs to the Pharisees, Jonah, Ninevites, 
 and Queen of the South (xii. 38-42); 'empty, swept, and 
 garnished ' (xii. 44) ; three parables from vegetation, Sower, 
 Tares, and Mustard-seed (xiii. 1-32); three parables of warning 
 (xxi. 28-xxii. 14); three questioners, Pharisees, Sadducees, and 
 lawyer (xxii. 15; 23 ; 35) ; three powers with which God is to be 
 loved, heart, soul, and mind (xxii. 37). In ch. xxiii. we have 
 numerous triplets : ' Scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites {passini) ; 
 feasts, synagogues, and market-places (6) ; teacher, father, and 
 master (8-10), Temple and gold, altar and gift, heaven and 
 throne (16-22); tithing of mint, dill, and cummin contrasted 
 with judgment, mercy and faith (23); tithing of trifles, straining 
 out gnats, cleansing of cup and platter (23-26); prophets, wise 
 men, and scribes (34). In the remaining chapters we have other 
 examples ; three parables against negligence, the Faithful and 
 the Unfaithful Slaves, the Ten Virgins, and the Talents (xxiv. 45- 
 xxv. 30) ; three addresses to the Three in Gethsemane (xxvi. 38 ; 
 40, 41 ; 45, 46) ; three prayers in Gethsemane (xxvi. 39 ; 42 ; 44) ; 
 three utterances at the Arrest, to Judas, Peter, and the multitudes 
 (xxvi. 50; 52-54); three shedders of innocent blood, Judas, 
 Pilate, and the people (xxvii. 4; 24; 25); three signs to attest 
 the Messiahship of the Crucified, the rending of the veil, the 
 earthquake, the resurrection of saints (xxvii. 51-53); three 
 groups of witnesses to the Resurrection, the women, the soldiers, 
 and the disciples (xxviii. i-io; 11-15 ; 16-20); the last words to 
 the Church, a claim, a charge, and a promise (xxviii. 18-20); of 
 which three the second was threefold, to make disciples, to 
 baptize, and to teach (19, 20); of which three the second again 
 has a triple character : ' into the Name of the Father and of the 
 Son and of the Holy Ghost' (19). 
 
 Many of these thirty-eight instances have no parallel passage 
 in Mk. or Lk. In many of the others it will be found that the 
 parallel passage omits one or more member of the triplet or adds 
 one to it ; e.g. Lk. (vi. 43-49) has the good and bad trees, and 
 the wise and foolish builders, but not the broad and narrow way. 
 Elsewhere (xiii. 24) he has the narrow door, but no broad or 
 
PLAN OF THE GOSPEL xxi 
 
 wide door. For 'judgment, mercy, and faith' Lk. (xi. 42) has 
 'judgment and the love of God.' He has (xi. 39, 42) the 
 cleansing of cup and dish, and the tithing of small herbs, but he 
 omits the straining out of the gnat. For the threefold 'Be not 
 anxious,' he has (xii. 22, 29, 32) 'Be not anxious,' 'Seek not,' 
 ' Fear not.' On the other hand, for heart, soul, and mind he 
 has (x. 27) heart, soul, strength, and mind. 
 
 There can be no doubt that some of these triplets were in the 
 sources which both Mt. and Lk. used, for both Gospels have 
 them. In a few cases it is just possible that Lk. derived them 
 from Mt. ; but it is much more reasonable to assign their origin 
 to the sources ; e.g. the three temptations probably come from 
 some unknown source ; the three addresses to the Three in 
 Gethsemane are in Mk., though not in Lk., and may be assigned 
 to Mk. ; and there are other triplets, not included in the above 
 list, which are in both Mt. and Lk. and may be attributed to the 
 sources which they used ; e.g. ' ask,' ' seek,' ' knock ' (vii. 7 ; 
 Lk. xi. 9) ; reed, man in soft clothing, prophet (xi. 7-9 ; Lk. vii. 
 24-26); Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum (xi. 20-23; Lk. x. 
 13-15). But, when all deductions are made, there remains a 
 considerable number of triplets which Mt. has constructed either 
 by grouping or by modifications in wording. 
 
 Groups of five are less common. Mt. has marked off for us 
 five great discourses, each of which is closed by him with the 
 same formula, ' It came to pass when Jesus finished ' {iyivero ore 
 eriXiCTiv 6 'Irjcrovs), vii. 28, xi. I, xiii. 53, xix. i, xxvi. i. These 
 five discourses are : the Sermon on the Mount ; the address to 
 the Apostles ; the collection of parables ; the discourse on the 
 little child with the sayings which follow it; and the great 
 apocalyptic discourse. The Sermon on the Mount contains 
 five corrections of inadequate conceptions about the Law, each 
 of them introduced by the words, 'But I say unto you' (v. 22, 
 28, 34, 39, 44) ; and in the apocalyptic discourse there are two 
 parables in which the number five is prominent, the five wise 
 and the five foolish virgins, and the five talents which gained 
 other five. In chapters xxi. and xxii. there are five questions ; 
 about authority, tribute, resurrection, great commandments, and 
 the Son of David. Of the five great discourses, the address to 
 the Twelve (x. 5-15; 16-23; 24-33; 34-39; 40-42) and the great 
 eschatological discourse (xxiv. 5-14; 15-51 ; xxv. 1-13 ; 14-30 ; 
 31-46) can be divided into five paragraphs; but the latter can 
 also be conveniently divided into seven (xxiv. 5-14; 15-28; 
 29-31; 32-51; xxv. 1-13; 14-30; 31-46). The discourses in 
 ch.xi. (7-19; 20-24; 2 5-30) and in ch. xviii. (3-14; 15-20; 21-35) 
 fall readily into three divisions ; but by further subdivision they 
 can be made into five. The Sermon on the Mount can also be 
 
xxil GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 divided into five parts (v. 3-16; 17-48; vi. 1-18 ; 19-vii. 6; 
 7-27), and some of these parts can be readily subdivided into 
 five or three paragraphs. 
 
 We have seen that this Gospel can be placed side by side 
 with Mk. and analysed into five main divisions. This means 
 omitting the first two chapters, which have no parallel in Mk. 
 If we add these two chapters as an Introduction, and break the 
 last great division into two (xxi. i-xxv. 46; xxvi. i-xxviii. 20), 
 thus separating the last days of work from the Passion, 
 Death, and Resurrection, we have a Gospel in sevoi main 
 divisions. 
 
 But the clearest examples of grouping by seven are the seven 
 parables in ch. xiii. and the seven woes in ch. xxiii. Some find 
 seven Beatitudes at the opening of the Sermon, and seven 
 petitions in the Lord's Prayer. It is also possible to find a 
 group of seven in vi. 25-34 (see notes there); and there are 
 some who think that the separate instructions to the Twelve 
 have been gathered up by Mt. "into a single sevenfold com- 
 mission." It has been already pointed out that a fivefold 
 division seems to fit this discourse well ; but, if we are to find a 
 seven in the Mission of the Twelve, we shall find it more 
 securely in the seven centres of work which resulted from it,- — 
 our Lord, and six pairs of Apostles. 
 
 It is plain from what has just been stated that groups of five 
 and groups of seven are far less frequent in this Gospel than 
 groups of three. Even if we were to count all the possible 
 instances of five and of seven, they would hardly amount to half 
 the number of triplets. The five great discourses, the seven 
 parables, and the seven woes are evidently intentional groupings. 
 Many of the others which have been suggested may be intended 
 also ; but we cannot be certain. 
 
 There is nothing fanciful or mystical in these numerical 
 arrangements. Groups of three and of seven are frequent in the 
 O.T., and were in use before its earliest books were written. 
 Three is the smallest number which has beginning, middle, and 
 end, and it is composed of the first odd number added to the 
 first even number. The days of the week, corresponding to 
 phases of the moon, made seven to be typical of plurality and 
 completeness. Although seven is a sacred number often in the 
 O.T. and sometimes in the N.T., e.g. in the Apocalypse, yet there 
 is no clear instance of this use in the Gospels. All that the 
 Evangelist need be supposed to imply by these numerical 
 groupings is orderly arrangement. Everything in the Gospel 
 history took place and was spoken cuo-;)(7;/xdv<os koX Kara tol^lv 
 (i Cor. xiv. 40); and everything must be narrated 'decently 
 and in order.' 
 
PLAN OF THE GOSPEL xxiii 
 
 It is possible that these groupings into threes, or fives, or 
 sevens, or tens would aid the memory of both teachers and 
 learners, and would in this' way be useful to catechists. It is 
 also possible that the Evangelist had this end in view in making 
 these numerical groups. Sir John Hawkins {Horn SynopticcE, 
 p. 131) favours such a theory. "This seems to have been 
 done in Jewish fashion, and perhaps especially for the use of 
 Jewish-Christian catechists and catechumens. . . . When we 
 think of the five books of the Pentateuch, the five books of 
 Psalms, the five Megilloth, the five divisions which Dr. 
 Edersheim and others trace in Ecclesiasticus, the five parts 
 which Mr. Charles as well as previous scholars see in the Book 
 of Enoch (pp. 25-32; Hastings' DB. art. 'Enoch'), and the 
 five Pereqs which make up the Pirqe Abotk, it is hard to believe 
 that it is by accident that we find in S. Matthew the five times 
 repeated formula about Jesus 'ending' His sayings (vii. 28, 
 xi. I, xiii. 53, xix. i, xxvi. i). Are we not reminded of the 
 colophon which still closes the second book of Psalms, 'The 
 prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended ' (Ps. Ixxii. 20) ? ' " 
 Comp. also, 'The words of Job are ended' (Job xxxi. 40). Of 
 course the fact that Mt. consciously made five great discourses 
 does not prove that he did so in order to assist the memory of 
 catechists and catechumens, but some of his numerical groups 
 may have had this aim. 
 
 Other instances of the occurrences of these and other 
 numbers in this Gospel might be cited ; but they are of less 
 importance. Some of them are probably to be understood 
 quite literally. It so happened that there were three, or five, or 
 seven; as in Peter's proposal for three tabernacles, or the five 
 loaves and the five thousand, or the seven loaves and the seven 
 baskets. In other cases it is a round number, as in Peter's 
 question, 'Until seven times?' But the examples given above 
 fully justify the statement that these numerical arrangements are 
 a characteristic of the First Gospel. 
 
 It is this intense desire for what is orderly that has caused 
 the Evangelist to gather together detached sayings of the Messiah 
 and group them into continuous discourses. The large pro- 
 portion of discourses in this Gospel has often been pointed out, 
 and it is one of the reasons which quickly made the Gospel so 
 much more popular than the earlier Gospel of Mark. In Mk. 
 about half consists of discourses, in Lk. about two-thirds, in Mt. 
 about three-fourths. The main portion of Mt., the ministry in 
 Galilee and the neighbourhood (iv. 12-xviii. 35), is expanded 
 from Mk. chiefly by the insertion of discourses, and it seems to 
 be arranged on a fairly symmetrical plan. 
 
 I. Opening activities, grouped round a prophecy of Isaiah 
 c 
 
xxiv GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 (Mt. iv. 15, 16), and ending with the Sermon on the Mount 
 (iv. i2-vii. 29). 
 
 2. Ten acts of Messianic Sovereignty, grouped round a 
 prophecy of Isaiah (Mt. viii. 17), and ending with the Charge to 
 the Apostles (viii. i-x. 42). 
 
 3. Many utterances of Messianic Wisdom, grouped round a 
 prophecy of Isaiah (Mt. xii. 18-21), and ending in seven 
 illustrations of teaching by parables, which are grouped round 
 Ps. Ixxviii. 2 (xi. i-xiii. 58). 
 
 4. Continued activities in and near Galilee, grouped round a 
 prophecy of Isaiah (Mt. xv. 8, 9), and ending in the discourses 
 on offences and forgiveness (xiv. i-xviii. 35). Thus, chapters 
 v.-vii., X., xiii., and xviii. seem to be intended as conclusions to 
 definite sections of the Gospel, and they consist almost entirely 
 of discourses. 
 
 The compiler's preference for discourses is shown, not only 
 by his insertion of them, but by his abbreviation of mere 
 narrative. He frequendy, as we have seen, omits details. He 
 cares little about local colour or chronological order. His aim 
 is to produce a definite impression — the Messianic dignity of Jesus. 
 This aim is clear from the outset. ' Book of the generation of 
 Jesus, Messiah, Son of David, Son of Abraham' (i. i). The 
 descent from David is emphasized (xii. 23, xxi. 9, 15, xxii. 42) 
 as indicating that He is the Messianic King (ii. 2, xxi. 5, xxvii. 
 II, 29, 37, 42). The book is at once Jewish and anti-Jewish. 
 It is manifestly written by a Jew for Jews. Its Jewish tone is 
 conspicuous throughout. Palestine is 'the Land of Israel' 
 (ii. 20, 21); its people are 'Israel' (viii. 10) or 'the lost sheep 
 of the house of Israel ' (x. 6, xv. 24) ; its towns are ' the cities of 
 Israel' (x. 23); and God is 'the God of Israel' (xv. 31). 
 Jerusalem is ' the holy city ' (iv. 5, xxvii. 53), an expression found 
 in Is. xlviii. 2, lii. i ; Dan. ix. 24 ; Tob. xiii. 9 ; but in the N.T. 
 peculiar to this Gospel and the equally Jewish book of 
 Revelation (xi. 2, xxi. 2, 10, xxii. 19). References to the 
 fulfilment of Jewish prophecies abound (i. 22, ii. 6, 15, 17, 23, 
 iii. 3, iv. 14, viii. 17, xii. 17, xiii. 14, 35, xxi. 4, xxiv. 15, xxvi. 31, 
 54, 56, xxvii. 9). It is evidently the aim of the Evangelist to let 
 his fellow-Christians of the house of Israel know the certainty of 
 that in which they had been instructed, viz. that Jesus of 
 Nazareth was the Messiah foretold in prophecy. And the book 
 is anti-Jewish in showing that, although the Messiah was of them, 
 and came to them first (x. 5, 6), yet by their rejection of Him 
 they had lost their birthright of priority. The old exclusive 
 barriers had been broken down, and the Kingdom of Israel had 
 become a Kingdom of the Heavens, open to all nations. In 
 order to enjoy the Messianic glory, the Jew must cease to be a 
 
THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE FIRST GOSPEL xxv 
 
 Jew, must become a Christian, with Jesus as his Messiah, and 
 be a subject in a Kingdom that was no longer Jewish. Thus 
 this Gospel represents a moment of transition, a passage from 
 the peculiar people to the whole race of mankind. On the one 
 hand, the Messiah is come, ' not to destroy but to fulfil ' (v. 1 7, 
 18), and, as regards His work on earth, is sent only to Israel 
 (xv. 24). But, on the other hand, the Law and the Prophets 
 find their limit in the Baptist (xi. 12, 13); the Son of Man is 
 Lord of the Sabbath (xii. 8) ; there is no moral pollution in food 
 (xv. II, 19); the Kingdom is about to be transferred to others 
 (xxi. 43, comp. viii. 11, 12); and the Gospel of the Kingdom is 
 to be preached in all the world to all peoples (xxi v. 14). And 
 thus the book, which opens within the narrow limits of Jewish 
 thought, with the origin of the Messiah as ' Son of David ' and 
 'Son of Abraham' (i. i), ends with the great commission of the 
 Messiah to the ' little flock ' of Jews that had not shared in the 
 national rejection of Him, ' Go ye and make disciples of all the 
 nations' (xxviii. 19). 
 
 The Christology of the First Gospel. 
 
 We have just seen that the impression which this Evangelist 
 desires to enforce is that of the rights of sovereignty which Jesus 
 possessed, in the first place over the ancient people of Israel, 
 and, after their rejection of Him as the Messianic King, over all 
 the nations of the earth. The King of Israel by right of descent 
 becomes, as Messiah, the King of the world. For He is not 
 only the Son of Abraham and the Son of David, but also the 
 Son of Man and the Son of God. 
 
 The Son of Man. It is specially in the First Gospel that our 
 Lord is set before us as the Son of Man. The expression occurs 
 frequently in all four Gospels ; about 80 times in all, of which 
 40 or more times are distinct occasions. And the expression is 
 invariably used by Christ, and of Himself. No Evangelist 
 speaks of Him as the Son of Man, or represents any one as 
 addressing Him as the Son of Man, or as mentioning Him by 
 this designation. Our Lord, like many Jews of Palestine in His 
 day, spoke both Aramaic and Greek, but He, no doubt, 
 commonly spoke Aramaic. From this fact, and from the 
 assumption that, so far as we know, the difference between ' son 
 of man' in the sense of 'human being' (vios di/^poiTrov = 6 
 avOpwiros) and ' the Son of Man ' (0 vios tov avOpmirov) could not 
 be expressed in Aramaic,^ it has been argued that our Lord 
 
 ^ This is assumption, and not fact. It is more reasonable to assume, from 
 the use in Daniel and the Book of Enoch, that it must have been possible to 
 express this difference in Aramaic (see Allen, St. Matthew, p. Ixxiii). 
 
xxvi GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 never called Himself ' the Son of Man.' In passing, it may be 
 urged that Christ sometimes spoke Greek, and that it is possible 
 that He may have used the very words 6 vtos tov avOpunrov of 
 Himself. But, in any case, the conclusion drawn from the 
 linguistic peculiarities of Aramaic is far short of demonstration, 
 and it is incredible. It is contradicted by the whole of the 
 evidence that bears directly on the subject. It assumes that, 
 although He never used the title, all four Evangelists have 
 insisted upon giving it to Him repeatedly : and yet in the 
 Gospels we find that t/iey never use it of Him, but report that 
 He frequently used it. On any theory of authorship, the 
 Gospels represent the memories of people who must have known 
 whether Christ used this remarkable expression of Himself or 
 not. And we may be sure that, the further we get away from 
 the memories of the first generation of disciples, the less 
 likelihood there would be of any such title being invented and 
 put into Christ's mouth. Something expressing His Divinity 
 rather than His humanity would have been chosen. We may 
 regard the unanimous testimony of the four Gospels as decisive 
 respecting His use of the term ; and His use of it explains 
 that of Stephen (Acts vii. 56), who would know the Gospel 
 tradition. 
 
 The compiler of Matthew found the expression used 14 
 times in Mark ; and he has kept all these.i Besides these 
 cases, he uses it 19 times. That means that he found it in l>o(k 
 his two main sources, Mark and the Logia or collection of 
 Utterances (Q) ; for most of the additional 19 must have come 
 from this second source. That again is strong evidence that the 
 phrase was used by Christ; and also that our Evangelist 
 welcomed the phrase as significant and appropriate ; for his 
 treatment of Mark shows that he did not scruple to omit, or 
 even to alter, what he did not approve. 
 
 The passage in Daniel, ' One like a son of man came with 
 the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days,' and 
 received a dominion which is universal and eternal (vii. 13, 14),^ 
 
 " Doubts have been thrown, on Unguistic grounds, upon the use by our 
 Lord of the title Son of Man with reference to Himself. Those doubts have 
 receded ; and I do not think that they will ever be urged with so much 
 insistence again. . . . Here is an expression which can only go back to our 
 Lord Himself, and it bears speaking testimony to the fidelity with which His 
 words have been preserved " (Sanday, TAe Life of Christ in Recent Research, 
 pp. 123-125 ; see also pp. 65-69, 100, 159, 190). 
 
 • There is an apparent exception in xvi. 21, which is no real exception, 
 for the term is used by anticipation in xvi. 13. In 8 cases the phrase is 
 common to Mt., Mk., and Lk. In 8 it is common to Mt. and Lk. In 9 it 
 is found in Mt. alone. In 8 it is found in Lk. alone. Jn. has it 12 times. 
 The total for the four Gospels is 81 times. 
 
 ^ Dan. vii. 18 seems to show that this ' Son of Man,' Uke the ' beasts,' is 
 
THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE FIRST GOSPEL xxvii 
 
 and several passages in Enoch (xlvi., li. 4, liii. 6, cv. 2), which 
 possibly are, but probably are not, post-Christian, show that the 
 phrase had come to be used of a Divine Messiah. But there is 
 nothing specially Christian in this supernatural Messiah. He is 
 the Son of God, but He is not the Word, not God. That He is 
 to live on earth, or has lived on earth, and died, and risen again, 
 is not hinted. It is a Jewish, pre-Christian Messiah that is 
 indicated by ' the Son of Man.' But it may be securely asserted 
 that the term was not commonly recognized among the Jews as a 
 name for the Messiah. In that case, our Lord, who carefully 
 abstained from calling Himself the Messiah, would never, until 
 He had revealed iiimself as the Messiah, have used the 
 expression of Himself. It is clear that that revelation was made 
 very gradually. Up to the question at Csesarea Philippi 
 (Mt. xvi. r3-i6 = Mk. viii. 27-29 = Lk. ix. 18-20) He had not so 
 revealed Himself: and even then He forbade that this partial 
 revelation should be made public (Mt. xvi. 2o = Mk. viii. 30 = 
 Lk. ix. 21 ; Mt. xvii. 9 = Mk. ix. g ; comp. Lk. ix. 36). Yet there 
 are passages in which ' the Son of Man ' is used by our Lord 
 of Himself before the incident at Caesarea Philippi. There are 
 nine such in Matthew. As our Evangelist so often groups things 
 independently of chronology, we may believe that some of these 
 nine cases, though placed before Caesarea Philippi, really took 
 place afterwards. But that can hardly be the case with Mt. ix. 
 6 = Mk. ii. io = Lk. v. 24, or Mt. xii. 8 = Mk. ii. 28 = Lk. vi. 5, 
 or Mt. xii. 32 = Lk. xii. 10. We may be confident, therefore, 
 that as Jesus used this term of Himself so early in the Ministry, 
 it cannot have been one which was generally known as a name 
 for the Messiah. Our Lord seems to have chosen the expression 
 because it had mysterious associations which were 7iot generally 
 known, and because it was capable of receiving additional 
 associations of still greater importance. It was like His parables, 
 able to conceal Divine truth from the unworthy, while it revealed 
 more and more to those whose hearts were being prepared to 
 receive it. It insisted upon the reality of His humanity and His 
 unique position as a member of the human race. It hinted at 
 supernatural birth. It harmonized with Messianic claims, if it 
 did not at once suggest them. And, when it became connected 
 with the future glories of the Second Advent, it revealed what it 
 had previously veiled respecting the present office and eternal 
 pre-existence of Him in whom human nature found its highest 
 and most complete expression. Thus it came to indicate the 
 
 to be understood collectively. They are tyrannical dynasties ; he is the 
 ' saints of the Most High.' But in the Psalms of Solomon (xvii, xviii) and in 
 the Apoc. of Baruch (Ixxii. 2, 3), as in Enoch, we clearly have an individual, 
 who is both King and Judge. 
 
xxviii GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 meeting-point between what was humanly perfect with what was 
 perfectly Divine.^ 
 
 The Son of God. Apart from the Fourth Gospel (v. 25, ix. 35 
 [?], X. 36, xi. 4), we could not be certain that our Lord used this 
 expression of Himself; and even with regard to those passages 
 we must allow for the possibility that S. John is giving what he 
 believed to be Christ's meaning rather than the words actually 
 used. In Mt. xvi. 16, for 'the Christ, the Son of the living God,' 
 Mk. has only 'the Christ,' and Lk. 'the Christ of God.' In Mt. 
 xxvi. 63 we are on surer ground ; there ' the Christ, the Son of 
 God,' is supported by Mk.'s ' the Christ, the Son of the Blessed,' 
 and by Lk.'s 'the Son of God.' And we have it in the voice from 
 heaven at the Baptism (iii. i7 = Mk. t. ii = Lk. iii. 22) and at the 
 Transfiguration (xvii. 5 = Mk. ix. 7 = Lk. ix. 35); in the devil's 
 challenge (iv. 3, 6 = Lk. iv. 3, 9) ; in the cries of the demoniacs 
 (viii. 29 = Mk. v. 7 = Lk. viii. 28; comp. Mk. iii. 11); and in the 
 centurion's exclamation (xxvii. 54 = Mk. xv. 39). But, allowing 
 for all critical uncertainties, we may regard it as securely 
 established that expressions of this kind were used both by our 
 Lord and of Him during His life on earth. Dispassionate study 
 of the Gospels, even without the large support which they receive 
 in this particular from the Epistles, will convince us that Jesus 
 knew that He possessed, and was recognized by some of those 
 who knew Him as possessing, a relation of Sonship to God such 
 as was given to no other member of the human race. A merely 
 moral relationship, in which Jesus reached a higher grade than 
 other holy persons, is quite inadequate to explain the definite 
 statements and general tone of the Gospels. To take a single 
 instance ; the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen indicates 
 clearly His own view of His relationship to God who sent Him. 
 There had been many sent, but all the others were servants. 
 He is the only ' son,' the sole ' heir,' the one whose rejection and 
 murder at once produces a crisis fatal to the wrong-doers. As 
 Dalman says, Jesus " made it indubitably clear that He was not 
 only a but the Son of God." ^ The sovereignty of which He was 
 the heir was the sovereignty over the world and over all its tenants. 
 It is evident that the editor of this Gospel is fully convinced 
 of the appropriateness of this far-reaching expression. If 'the 
 Son of the living God ' has been added by him to Peter's con- 
 fession (xvi. 16), it is because he felt that the addition was 
 
 ' See Hastings' DB. ii. pp. 622 ff. and iv. pp. 579 (if. ; also Sanday, 
 Outlines of the Life of Christ, pp. 92 ff. ; Calmes, Evangile selon S. Jean, 
 pp. 159 ff.; Zahn on Mt. viii. 18; Drummond \rv Journal of Theological 
 Studies, April and July 1 90 1. 
 
 * The Words ofJestis,y. 280. See also Hastings' DB. ii. pp. 850 f. , and 
 iv. pp. 570 S. ; Sanday, The Life of Christ in Recent Research, pp. 130-133 ; 
 Gore, The New Theology and the Old Religion, pp. 87-95. 
 
THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE FIRST GOSPEL xxix 
 
 necessary in order to express the full meaning of what the Apostle 
 said. More often than any other Evangelist he records that the 
 designation 'Son of God ' was applied to Him (ii. 15, iii. 17, 
 iv. 3, 6, viii. 29, xiv. 33, xvi. 16, xvii. 5, xxvi. 63, xxvii. 40, 43, 
 54). 'He records the crucial passage in which He speaks of His 
 relation to God as one of Sonship in a unique sense (xi. 25-27), 
 and also the two occasions on which God acknowledged Him as 
 His Son, His Beloved (iii. 17, xvii. 5). And for this he prepares 
 his readers by telling of His supernatural birth of a virgin, by 
 conception of the Spirit of God, so that by prophetic sanction 
 He may be called ' God-with-us ' (i. 20-2 3). And the Evangelist 
 finds that this prophetic sanction extends throughout the career 
 of the Son of God ; in the chief events of His infancy (ii. S, 15, 
 17, 23), in the chief scene of His Ministry (iv. 14), and in the 
 chief details of it. He finds it in John's proclamation of His 
 coming (iii. 3), in His healings (viii. 17), His retirement from 
 public notice (xii. 17), the hardness of His hearers' hearts 
 (xiii. 14), His consequent use of parables (xiii. 35), His riding 
 into Jerusalem (xxi. 4), the flight of His disciples (xxvi. 31), His 
 capture by His enemies (xxvi. 54, 56), and even in the way in 
 which the money paid for His blood was spent (xxvii. 9). He 
 is ministered to by Angels (iv. 11), who are at His disposal 
 (xiii. 41, xxiv. 31), to use or not as He wills (xxvi. 53), and who 
 will attend Him in His future glory (xvi. 27, xxv. 31). But the 
 final purpose of the Son's mission was not simply to minister to 
 the needs of men in body and soul, but ' to give His life a 
 ransom for many ' (xx. 28) by shedding His blood for them 
 (xxvi. 28). In the latter passage he adds to. Mark's report that 
 the blood is shed ' unto remission of sins.' 1 
 
 ' "Jesus felt that He stood in such closeness of communion with God the 
 Father as belonged to none before or after Him. He was conscious of speaking 
 the last and decisive word ; He felt that what He did was final, and that no 
 one would come after Him. The certainty and simple force of His work, the 
 sunshine, clearness and freshness of His whole attitude rest upon this founda- 
 tion. We cannot eliminate from His personality, without destroying it, the 
 trait of superprophetic conscious7iess of the accomplisher to whose person the 
 flight of the ages and the whole destiny of His followers is linked . . . Let us 
 contemplate this sovereign sense of leadership by which Jesus was possessed, 
 and the inimitable sureness with which it unfolded itself in every direction. 
 He knew how to value the authorities of the past, but He placed Himself 
 above them. He was more of account than kings and prophets, than David, 
 Solomon, and the Temple. The tradition of the elders He met with His 
 ' But I say unto you,' and even Moses was not an authority to whom He gave 
 unqualified submission." 
 
 As Sanday points out, these are extraordinary admissions to be made by a 
 writer (Bousset) who contends that the life of our Lord did not overstep the 
 limits of the purely human. The facts, as Bousset himself states them, flatly 
 contradict his own theory (The Life of Christ in Recent Research, pp. 
 189-191). 
 
XXX GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 The writer of this Gospel shows us very plainly what Jesus 
 Himself thought of His own relations to God and to man. He 
 sets Himself above the Law (v. 2 2-44, xii. 8) and the Temple 
 (xii. 6), and above all the Prophets from Moses to the Baptist, 
 for John is greater than the Prophets (xi. 9, 11), and He is 
 greater than John (iii. 14, 15, xi. 4-6). The revelation which 
 He brings surpasses all that has been revealed before (xi. 27), 
 and this revelation is to be made known, not merely to the 
 Chosen People (x. 6, xv. 24), but to all the nations (viii. 11, 
 xxiv. 14, xxviii. 19). He is the Source of truth and of peace 
 (xi. 28-30); and although He Himself is man, He can speak 
 of all other men as sinners (vii. 11, xxvi. 45). When the 
 Baptist shrinks from admitting Him to his baptism. He does 
 not say that He too has need of cleansing, but He quiets 
 John's scruples by quite other means (iii. 15). He prays 
 (xiv. 23), and prays for Himself (xxvi. 39, 42, 44), but He 
 never prays to be forgiven. He bids others to pray for forgive- 
 ness, and for deliverance from temptatipn (vi. 12, 13, xxvi. 41), 
 but He never asks them to pray for Him. Without proof, and 
 without reserve, He makes enormous claims upon the devotion 
 of His followers (viii. 22, x. 37, 38, xvi. 24), and He says that 
 the way to save one's life is to lose it for His sake (x. 39, xvi. 25). 
 He confers on Peter (xvi. 19) and on all the Apostles (xviii. 19) 
 authority to prohibit and to allow in the Church which He is 
 about to found ; and in the Kingdom which He has announced 
 as at hand(iv. 17) He promises to His Apostles thrones (xix. 28). 
 The Church is His Church (xvi. 18), the elect in it are His 
 elect (xxiv. 31), the Kingdom is His Kingdom (xvi. 28), and the 
 Angels in it are His Angels (xiii. 41, xxiv. 31). Even during 
 His life on earth He has authority to forgive sins (ix. 6), and by 
 His death He will reconcile the sinful race of mankind to God 
 (xxvi. 28). And all this is little more than the beginning. On 
 the third day after His death He will rise again (xvi. 2r, xvii. 23, 
 XX. r9), and then He will possess God's authority in heaven and 
 in earth, and also His power of omnipresence (xxviii. 18, 20). 
 At a later period He will come in glory to judge the whole 
 world, to reward righteousness and to punish unrepented sin 
 (xvi. 27, xxiv. 30, 31, 47, 51); and the character of His 
 judgments will depend upon the way in which men have behaved 
 towards those who are their brethren, but in His eyes are His 
 brethren and even as Himself (xxv. 31-46).^ 
 
 In most of these passages Mt. is supported by Mk. (ii. 10, 28, 
 iii. II, 12, viii. 29-31, 34-38, ix. 9, 31, 37, x. 34, 45, xii. 6, 
 xiii. 26, 27, xiv. 35-39, 62, XV. 34, xvi. 6), to say nothing 
 of the still stronger support to be found in the Fourth Gospel. 
 
 ' See Briggs, The Ethical Teaching of Jesus , pp. 199-206, 222. 
 
THE DATE xxxi 
 
 We cannot suppose that utterances such as these, so numerous, 
 so various, and yet so harmonious, are the invention of this or 
 that Evangelist. They are beyond the invention of any 
 Evangelist, and few of them are anticipated in the O.T. In 
 particular, there is no hint in the O.T. of a second coming of the 
 Messiah ; it cannot, therefore, be maintained that either Jesus 
 or the Evangelists derived the idea of His coming again from 
 type or prophecy. And what makes the hypothesis of invention 
 all the more incredible is the combination in Jesus of this 
 consciousness of Divine powers with a character of deep 
 humility, reticence, and restraint. While uttering these amazing 
 claims with a serenity which implies that they are indisputable, 
 He is still meek and lowly of heart (xi. 29), always charging 
 those who in some measure know who He is that they shall not 
 make Him known (xii. 16, xvi. 20, xvii. 9), bidding those whom 
 He has healed not to spread abroad His fame (viii. 4, ix. 30, xii. 1 6), 
 declaring that He came not to be ministered unto, but to 
 minister (xx. 28), and in His ministering quite ready to be 
 stigmatized as the friend of tax-collectors and sinners (ix. 11, 
 xi. 19). 
 
 If, then, criticism accepts the record of His claims and of His 
 actions as substantially true, how are we to explain them ? 
 Was He an ecstatic dreamer, a fanatic under the influence of a 
 gigantic delusion ? This question may be answered by another. 
 Is it credible that the Hmitless benefits which have blessed, and 
 are daily blessing, those who believe that Jesus is what He 
 claimed to be, are the outcome of a gigantic delusion ? The 
 Incarnation explains all that is so perplexing and mysterious in 
 the records of Christ's words and works, and in the subsequent 
 history of the society which He founded. But nothing less than 
 Divinity will explain the developments in. the life of Jesus and of 
 His Church. If, therefore, the Incarnation is a fiction, if it is 
 not true that God became flesh and dwelt among us, then we 
 must assume that flesh became God, and that hypothesis is, 
 intellectually, a far greater difficulty than God's becoming man. 
 To men of this generation the Incarnation may seem to be 
 impossible, but with God all things are possible.^ 
 
 The Date. 
 
 The time at which the unknown Evangelist compiled this 
 Gospel can be fixed, within narrow limits, with a high degree of 
 probabihty. All the evidence that we have falls into place, if 
 
 ^ See the notes on v. 21, 22, 48, vii. 23, 24-29, viii. 21, 22, ix. 12, 
 X. 16-18, 32, 39, xi. 23, 24, xii. 41, XX. 28, xxii. 34, xxviii. 18; Gore, The 
 New Theology and the Old Religion, pp. 103-108. 
 
xxxii GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 we suppose that he completed his work shortly before or (more 
 probably) shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. 
 He, used Mark and a translation of the Logia which had been 
 collected in ' Hebrew ' by Matthew. These materials cannot 
 well have been in existence much, if at all, before a.d. 65. The 
 parenthesis in Mk. xiii. 14, 'let him that readeth understand,' is 
 probably not to be taken as our Lord's words, directing attention 
 to the saying in Daniel, for in Mark Daniel is not mentioned ; 
 the parenthetical words are those of the Evangelist, warning the 
 reader of his Gospel that, although the time to which the sign 
 refers has not yet come, yet it must be near. This seems to 
 give us the time of the first march of the Romans on Jerusalem 
 (a.d. 66) as about the date for S. Mark's Gospel.^ In xxiv. 15 
 our Evangelist retains the parenthesis. But we cannot use the 
 same argument as to his date. He does mention ' Daniel the 
 Prophet,' and may understand the parenthesis as directing 
 attention to the prophecy ; or he may have retained Mark's 
 warning, although the reason for it had ceased to exist. Never- 
 theless, it is possible that both Gospels were completed before 
 A.D. 70. 
 
 But our Evangelist seems to have believed that the Second 
 Advent would take place very soon, and would be closely con- 
 nected with the tribulation caused by the destruction of Jerusalem 
 (xvi. 28, xxiv. 29, 34). A belief which caused our Lord's words 
 to be so arranged as to produce this impression, would not have 
 long survived the events of a.d. 70. When a year or two had 
 passed, and the Second Advent had not taken place, the belief 
 would be found to be erroneous. Therefore, while we can hardly 
 place this Gospel as early as a.d. 65, we can hardly place it as 
 late as a.d. 75. And, on the whole, a little after 70 is rather 
 more probable than a little before. The later date gives more 
 time for the publication of Mark and of the Logia in Greek. 
 Moreover, 'the king was wroth, and he sent his armies, and 
 destroyed those murderers, and burned their city ' (xxii. 7) may 
 be a direct reference to the destruction of Jerusalem regarded 
 as a judgment on the murderers of the Messiah. 
 
 And there is nothing in the Gospel which requires us to 
 place it later than a.d. 75. The famous utterance, ' on this rock 
 I will build My church' (xvi. 18), must not be judged by the 
 ideas which have gathered round it. ' On this rock I will build 
 My Israel ' — -the new Israel, that is to grow out of the old one, — 
 is the meaning, a meaning quite in accordance with thoughts 
 
 ' The statement that Eusebius in his Chronicle places the composition 
 of the First Gospel a.d. 41 = Abraham 2057, is untrue. The date of no 
 Gospel is given in the Chronicle. For other statements see Va^ Journal of 
 Theological Studies, Jan. 1905, p. 203. 
 
THE DATE xxxm 
 
 that were current in the first generation of Christians. Still less 
 does ' tell it unto the Church : and if he refuse to hear the Church 
 also' (xviii. 17) point to a late date. The local community, 
 either of Jews or of Jewish Christians, such as existed in Palestine 
 from the time of Christ onwards, is what is meant. 
 
 This early date is of importance in weighing the historical 
 value of the Gospel. At the time when the compiler was at 
 work on it many who had known the Lord were still living. 
 Most of His Apostles may have been still alive. Oral traditions 
 about Him were still current. Documents embodying still 
 earlier traditions were in existence, and some of them were used 
 by our Evangelist. It is possible — indeed, it is highly probable 
 — that the sayings of Christ, which the Evangelist got from the 
 translation of S. Matthew's Logia, and which form such a large 
 portion of the Gospel, are the very earliest information which we 
 possess respecting our Lord's teaching. In them we get back 
 nearest to Him, of whom those sent to arrest Him testified : 
 ' Never man thus spake,' OuScVotc IXoX-qa-ev ovTuy; avOptoTro^ 
 (Jn. vii. 46). 
 
 And it was the presence of this element which made the 
 First Gospel such a favourite, and gave it so wide a circulation. 
 It quite eclipsed S. Mark, and in almost all collections of the 
 Gospels took the first place. For many early Christians it was 
 probably the only Gospel that they knew, and it sufficed ; it told 
 them so much of what the Lord said. With it in their hands 
 they could obey the injunction which came direct from God to 
 man : ' This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased ; 
 hear ye Him' (xvii. 5). 
 
 There are critics, such as M. Loisy, who would put the date 
 of this Gospel some thirty years later, because they are unwilling 
 to admit the historical value of its contents. They have a con- 
 viction, which is a prejudgment, that certain things cannot have 
 happened, and therefore the evidence of those who say that they 
 did happen, must be untrustworthy. It must come from witnesses 
 who cannot be contemporary, but who stated what they con- 
 sidered to be edifying, or felt to be in harmony with their own 
 beliefs, rather than what they knew to be true. In some cases 
 they did not mean their narratives to be accepted as literally 
 true ; they meant them to be understood as symbolical. In 
 other cases they invented stories about Jesus, to show that He 
 was what they believed Him to be, viz. the promised Messiah 
 and the Son of God. Such theories are not sound criticism. 
 The true critic is not fond of ' cannot ' or ' must.' To decide 
 a priori that Deity cannot become incarnate, or that incarnate 
 Deity must exhibit such and such characteristics, is neither true 
 philosophy nor scientific criticism. A Person such as His con- 
 
xxxiv GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 temporaries and their immediate followers believed Jesus to be 
 is required to explain the facts of Christianity and Christendom 
 — Christian doctrine and the Christian Church. If their beliefs 
 about Him were erroneous, what is the explanation ? 
 
 "The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs" and 
 THEIR Relation to the First Gospel. 
 
 In the notes will be found frequent quotations from the 
 Testaments, of passages which either in substance or wording 
 or both are similar to passages in this Gospel. Some of these 
 may be mere coincidences ; but the number of parallels is so 
 large, and in some cases the resemblance is so close, that mere 
 coincidence cannot be the explanation of all the similarities. A 
 considerable number may be the result of independent use of 
 current ideas and phrases : yet even these two hypotheses will 
 not account for all the resemblances. The two writings, in the 
 forms in which they have come down to us, can hardly be 
 independent. Either the Gospel has been influenced by 
 the Testaments, or the latter has been influenced by the 
 Gospel. Dr. Charles, in his invaluable edition of the Testaments, 
 argues for the former hypothesis : a paper in the Expositor for 
 Dec. 1908 gives reasons for preferring the latter; and in the 
 Expositor for Feb. 1909 Dr. Charles repeats his own view. 
 
 The Testaments has long been a literary puzzle. We possess 
 the book in Greek, and in subsidiary translations into Armenian, 
 Latin, and Slavonic ; the Latin translation having been made in 
 the thirteenth century, from a Greek MS. of the tenth century, 
 by Bishop Grosseteste of Lincoln, who thus made the book 
 known to Western Christendom. He believed it to be a genuine 
 product of Jewish prophecy, with marvellous anticipations of the 
 Messiah ; and this view continued until the Revival of Learning. 
 The criticism of that age condemned it as a forgery by a Jewish 
 Christian, and for a long time it was neglected as worthless. A 
 better criticism has shown that the text is composite, and that 
 it consists of a Jewish document which has received Christian 
 interpolations and alterations. Neither the Latin nor the 
 Slavonic is of much value for critical purposes: in determining 
 the text of Testaments we have to rely chiefly upon the Greek 
 MSS. and the MSS. of the Armenian version, and it is from a 
 study of these that a more correct estimate of the Testaments 
 can be obtained. 
 
 Thanks to the labours of modern scholars, among whom it 
 will suffice to mention Bousset, Charles, Conybeare, Harnack, 
 Schiirer, and Sinker, some important questions have been settled 
 beyond reasonable dispute, (i) The original work was not 
 
THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS xxxv 
 
 Greek, but Hebrew. (2) The author of it was not a Christian, 
 but a Jew. (3) Numerous Christian features in the Testaments 
 have been introduced by changes of wording and by interpola- 
 tions, which are the work of Christian scribes. These three 
 points are certain ; but the details of the process by which the 
 book reached its extant forms, and the exact amount of the 
 alterations made by Christian hands, are not easy to determine. 
 
 Dr. Charles holds that there were two Hebrew recensions, 
 from each of which a Greek translation was made, one of which 
 is represented by three of the existing Greek MSS. {c, h, and i), 
 and the other by two Greek MSS. {b and g) ; while four Greek 
 MSS. {a, e, f, and d) appear to be derived from both the original 
 translations. 1 The Christian insertions and alterations are prob- 
 ably the result of a repeated process and not the work of any 
 one hand. They are more numerous in the Greek than in the 
 Armenian text, and at first one is inclined to regard absence from 
 the Armenian version as a test. Expressions which are in the 
 Greek but not in the Armenian might be assumed to have been 
 added to the Greek after the Armenian translation was made. 
 The proposed test, however, is of uncertain value, for the 
 Armenian translator was an audacious abbreviator. " On almost 
 every page," says Dr. Charles, "he is guilty of unjustifiable 
 omissions." Therefore absence from the Armenian version is 
 no sure evidence of an interpolation. 
 
 But what concerns us is the large number of passages in the 
 Testaments which resemble passages in the N.T. so closely that 
 they cannot all be explained as either mere accidents of wording 
 or the result of the same influences of thought and language 
 teUing upon different writers. There is a residuum, of uncertain 
 amount, which cannot reasonably be explained by either of these 
 hypotheses. In these cases, either the N.T. has influenced the 
 text of the Testaments, or the text of the Testaments has in- 
 fluenced that of the N.T. 
 
 Dr. Charles is persuaded that in nearly all the cases the 
 N.T. has been influenced by the Testaments. He has drawn 
 up lists of parallels between the Testaments on the one hand, 
 and the Gospels, Acts, Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and 
 the Apocalypse, on the other : and some of these exhibit 
 resemblances which are very striking. Moreover, he has not 
 tabulated by any means all the resemblances which exist. 
 
 It is remarkable that the parallels with the Gospels are chiefly 
 with the First Gospel, those with Mt. being about twice as 
 numerous as those with all the other three put together. It is 
 
 ' From this view Professor Burkitt dissents (Journal of Theol. St., Oct. 
 1908) ; also from the view that S. Paul quotes the Testaments. It is more 
 probable that a Christian copyist has put S. Paul's words into the Testaments. 
 
xxxvi GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 also remarkable that the passages in Mt. which show marked 
 resemblance with the Testaments " are almost exclusively those 
 which give the sayings and discourses of our Lord " (Charles, 
 p. Ixxviii). "Almost exclusively" may be too strong; but the 
 proportion is large. Dr. Charles explains this remarkable fact 
 by the hypothesis that our Lord knew the Testaments and 
 adopted some of the thoughts and language which can be found 
 there. There would be nothing startling in our Lord's making 
 such use of the Testaments, for the moral teaching in the Testa- 
 ments is sometimes of a lofty character. Some of His sayings 
 may have been suggested by Ecclesiasticus. The two cases, 
 however, are not quite parallel. We are quite sure that Ecclesi- 
 asticus was written long before the Nativity, and therefore 
 Christ may have read it ; but we are not sure that the Testa- 
 ments had been written when He was born. 
 
 Dr. Charles argues strongly for a year between B.C. 137 and 
 105 as the date of the original Hebrew of the Testaments, and 
 we may rest assured that the book cannot have been written 
 earlier than that. Harnack {Chron. d. altchrist. Litt. 1897, 
 p. 567) thinks that it cannot well be placed earlier than the 
 beginning of the Christian era. The problem of date would be 
 easier if the Book of Jubilees could be dated, for the connexion 
 between the Testaments and Jubilees is so close that they cannot 
 be independent of one another; and Schiirer {Gesch. d. Jiid. 
 Volkes, 3rd ed., iii. p. 259) thinks that it is the author of the Testa- 
 ments that has used the Book of Jubilees. There is, however, 
 at least one passage in the Testaments which seems to point to 
 a time subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem and of the 
 Temple. 
 
 " There the sanctuary (0 mos), which the Lord shall choose, 
 shall be desolate (£pi;/u.os) through your uncleanness, and ye 
 shall be captives unto all the nations. And ye shall be an 
 abomination to them, and shall receivfe reproach and eternal 
 shame from the righteous judgment of God" {Levi xv. i, 2). 
 
 Dr. Charles says, " I take these verses as a bona fide predic- 
 tion," and adds, "The sanctuary was so laid waste under 
 Antiochus Epiphanes : i Mac. i. 39." But " ye shall be captives 
 
 unto all the nations " {al^aktaroi ca-ecrOe (h irdvTa to. eOvr}) can 
 hardly refer to the persecution under Antiochus. What follows 
 these two verses seems to point to something much more com- 
 prehensive and permanent. "And all who hate you shall rejoice 
 at your destruction. And if ye were not to receive mercy 
 through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our fathers, not one of our 
 seed should be left upon the earth." Comp. Dan v. 13. The 
 passage looks like a fictitious prophecy made after the capture 
 of Jerusalem in a.d. 70; but it is possible that it is an interpola- 
 
THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS xxxvil 
 
 Hon inserted after that event, and not part of the original work. 
 We must be content to leave the date of the Hebrew original 
 an open question, as also the date of the earliest translation into 
 Greek. And there is also the question whether the Greek 
 translator was a Jew or a Christian. If the latter, then the 
 Christianizing of the Testaments may have begun at once ; but 
 in any case, whether it began with the translator or with subse- 
 quent copyists, it does not seem to have taken place all at one 
 time. 
 
 It is now admitted by every one that there-has been consider- 
 able manipulation of the Greek texts of the Testaments in order 
 to give them a Christian tone. There have been changes of 
 wording, and there have been insertions. May not many of the 
 cases in which the Testaments resemble the N.T. have come 
 about in the same manner? May we not suppose that Chris- 
 tians have assimilated the wording of the Testaments to the 
 wording of the Gospels and Epistles? This possibility is all 
 the more probable when the change or the insertion seems to 
 have been made somewhat late, because it is found in the later, 
 but not in the earlier authorities for the Greek text of the Testa- 
 ments ; and this Dr. Charles himself points out (see note on 
 Judah XXV. 4). Why may it not have taken place as soon as 
 the Testaments began to be Christianized? If Christians would 
 put their own words into the Testaments in order to make them 
 testify of Christ, much more would they be likely to put the 
 words of the N.T. into them. 
 
 This hypothesis, that it is the N.T. which has influenced the 
 Testaments rather than the Testaments which has influenced 
 the N.T. has considerable advantages. It solves one difificulty 
 which the other hypothesis fails to solve, and it avoids another 
 difficulty into which the other hypothesis leads us. 
 
 I. Why do the parallels with Mt. so greatly exceed in number 
 the parallels with the other Gospels ? In particular, why do the 
 large majority of the passages in the Testaments which recall 
 our Lord's teaching recall that teaching as recorded in Mt. ? 
 If Christ knew the Testaments, and adopted much of its moral 
 instruction and language, why does this influence show itself so 
 frequently in His sayings as reported in the First Gospel, and 
 so seldom in His sayings as reported in the other three ? If the 
 Testaments did influence the form of Christ's teaching, this 
 influence would be evident, if not in all Gospels alike, at any 
 rate in Lk. almost as often as in Mt. But if it was the Gospels 
 which influenced the Testaments, then at once we see why it 
 was Mt. which exercised the most influence. The Gospel 
 according to Matthew, as soon as it was published, became 
 mpst popular. It caused the Gospel according to Mark, which 
 
xxxvm GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 was in the field before it, to be almost neglected ; and the 
 Third Gospel never attained to equal popularity. In the 
 Christian literature of the first centuries, quotations from Mt. 
 and allusions to Mt. sxefar more frequent than references to 
 the other Gospels ; perhaps twice as frequent as references to 
 Lk. or Jn., and six or seven times as frequent as references to 
 Mk. This fact goes a long way towards showing that it is the 
 Gospels that have influenced the Testaments. If they did so, 
 then the influence of Mt. would be sure to be greater than that 
 of the other three ; which is exactly what we find. 
 
 2. If the influence of the Testaments on the Gospels, on 
 the Pauline Epistles, and on the Catholic Epistles was so great 
 as to produce scores of similarities in thought and wording, this 
 influence would not be likely to cease quite suddenly as soon 
 as the N.T. was complete; it would probably have continued 
 to work and to manifest itself in early Christian writings. But, 
 as Dr. Charles himself points out, "the Testaments have not 
 left much trace on Patristic literature " (p. Ixxv). He has col- 
 lected seven apparent parallels between the Shepherd of Hermas 
 and the Testaments, and he thinks that these suffice to show 
 that Hermas knew and used the Testaments. The conclusion 
 may be correct, but the evidence is not convincing. Three 
 of the parallels may be mere coincidences ; and in two cases 
 the agreement with passages in Scripture is closer than the 
 agreement with the Testaments, so that we may be sure that 
 Hermas is recalling the Bible and not the Testaments. Thus, 
 " Do not partake of God's creature, in selfish festivity, but give 
 a share to those who are in want" may come from Job xxxi. i6, 
 Prov. xxii. 9, Ep. of Jer. 28, or Lk. iii. 11 ; and "Speak against 
 no one" certainly comes from Prov. xii. 13 or Jas. iv. 11 rather 
 than from Issachar iii. 4. Of the two remaining parallels one 
 is striking : " There are two angels with man, one of righteous- 
 ness and one of wickedness" {Mand. vi. ii. i): "Two spirits 
 wait upon man, the spirit of truth and the spirit of error " {/udak 
 XX. i). But the former may come from Barnabas xviii. i, and 
 perhaps Origen thought so, for he quotes first Hermas and then 
 Barnabas {De Prin. iii. ii. 4) ; and both in Barnabas and in 
 Hermas we have ayytXoc and not •n-veu/xara. " The spirit of 
 truth and the spirit of error " is verbatim the same as i Jn. iv. 6, 
 and this rather than Hermas may be the source of Judah's 
 words. If the parallels between Hermas and the Testaments 
 suffice to make dependence probable, it is possible that Hermas 
 is the original. The Shepherd was written about a.d. 150 and 
 quickly became very popular. Before a.d. 200 it was better 
 known than 2 and 3 Jn., Jude, or 2 Peter, and was often regarded 
 as Scripture. It is not impossible that in some of the parallels 
 
THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS xxxix 
 
 it is the Shepherd that has influenced the text of the Testaments. 
 In any case, it remains somewhat uncertain whether Hermas 
 knew the Testaments. 
 
 There is a fragment (No. xvii.) attributed (but perhaps 
 wrongly, as Harnack thinks) to Irenseus, which is thought to 
 refer to the Testaments : " But from Levi and Judah according 
 to the flesh He was born as king and priest." This doctrine 
 about the Messiah is found in Simeon vii. i, 2. But, as neither 
 the authorship of the fragment nor the reference of the passage 
 is certain, this is somewhat slender evidence for the hypothesis, 
 which in itself is quite credible, that the Testaments were known 
 to Irenasus. 
 
 Not until we reach Origen, and the later years of his life, do 
 we get an indisputable reference to the Testaments. In his 
 Homilies on Joshua (xv. 6), which were written about a.d. 245- 
 50, he mentions the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs by 
 name, as a book which, whatever its merits, was not included in 
 the Canon. He calls it " a certain book," as if he did not much 
 expect his readers to know it. The fact that he nowhere else 
 quotes it need not mean that he himself did not know it well, 
 but only that he did not like it. Its muddling Christology, the 
 result of Christianizing a Jewish book by frequent re-touching, 
 would not attract him. 
 
 A single passage in Origen, therefore, written in the middle 
 of the third century, is the earliest certain evidence of a Christian 
 writer being acquainted with a book which is supposed to have 
 influenced, and in some cases to have influenced very strongly 
 indeed, nearly every writer in the N.T. Let us leave Hermas 
 and Irensus on one side, or even admit that they knew it. 
 How is it that we do not find clear traces of this most influential 
 document in either Clement of Rome, or Ignatius, or Polycarp, 
 or Barnabas, or the Letter to Diognetus, or the Didache, or 
 Aristides, or Justin Martyr, or Athenagoras, or TertuUian, or 
 Clement of Alexandria? The total absence of traces of 
 influence between a.d. 95 and 150, and the very scanty signs 
 of possible influence between 150 and 250 render it somewhat 
 improbable that our Lord and St. Paul, to mention no others, 
 frequently adopted the thoughts and words of this apocryphal 
 Jewish writing. What can explain the sudden and almost total 
 cessation of influence upon Christian literature about a.d. 100? 
 If, however, it was the writings of the N.T. which influenced the 
 early Christians who adapted the Testaments to Christian 
 sentiment by frequent alterations, we have an intelligible 
 explanation of the literary facts. These adaptations are known 
 to have taken place, and seem to have begun early, for it was 
 probably a Christianized edition that was known to Origen ; 
 d 
 
xl GOS?EL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 Otherwise he would hardly have raised the question about its 
 being included in the Canon or not. 
 
 How could the Testaments exercise such enormous influence on 
 the N.T. as Dr. Charles supposes, and yet, with the possible excep- 
 tions of Hermas and Irenjeus, leave no trace of bemg known to 
 any writer earlier than Origan ? or to writers later than Origan ? 
 
 Dr. Charles answers this question by asking several others. 
 "How is it that the Gospel of Mark exercised such a pre- 
 ponderating influence on the First and Third Gospels and yet 
 has left no certain trace in Barnabas, the Didache, i Clement, 
 Ignatius, Polycarp, 2 Clement? Or, again, how is it that the 
 Similitudes of Enoch exercised such a great influence on the 
 Fourth Gospel and certain passages of the Synoptics, arid yet 
 are not quoted by a single Apostolic Father? Or how is it that 
 I Thessalonians, the earliest Pauline Epistle, has left no trace on 
 Barnabas, the Didacha, i Clement, Polycarp, 2 Clement? I 
 need not further press this argument" {Expositor, Feb. 1909, 
 pp. 117, 118). 
 
 None of the three instances given by Dr. Charles is a true 
 parallel; for two reasons. No one asserts that Mark or 
 I Thessalonians has had such an influence upon nearly all 
 the writers of the N.T. as Dr. Charles attributes to the Testa- 
 ments; and perhaps he himself would not attribute as much 
 influence to the Similitudes of Enoch as he attributes to the 
 Testaments. Secondly, it could not be said that these three 
 writings have left no trace of influence upon any Christian writer 
 between S. John and Origen, with the possible exception of 
 Hermas and Irenseus. Mark was probably known to Hermas, 
 Justin Martyr, and some of the early Gnostics ; certainly to 
 Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, TertuUian, and other writers 
 in abundance, i Thessalonians was perhaps known to Ignatius, 
 Hermas, and the author of the Didache ; certainly to Marcion, 
 Irenseus, Clement, TertuUian, and later writers. And Dr. 
 Charles has shown that Enoch by no means passed into oblivion 
 between a.d. too and 250, or even later. Therefore the literary 
 history of these three writings does not explain what is supposed 
 to have taken place respecting the Testaments. 
 
 Dr. Charles supposes that some one has asked " how it is 
 that the Testaments have so largely influenced S. Matthew and 
 S. Luke, and have hardly, if at all, influenced S. Mark." That 
 question is easily answered, but it is not the question which has 
 been raised. The question is. How is it that the Testaments 
 (according to the view of Dr. Charles) have influenced S. Matthew 
 about twice as much as they have influenced the other three 
 Gospels put together? That is a question which deserves an 
 answer. Let us look at some of the facts. 
 
THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS xli 
 
 Matthew. 
 
 ii. 2. Where is He that is bom 
 King of the Jews, for we saw His 
 star in its rising {rdu affripa ev rrj 
 dvaToXjj). 
 
 iii. 14. I have need to be baptized 
 of Thee, and comest Thou to me ? 
 
 16. Lo, the heavens were opened 
 unto Him {jjveifixdwcti' ol oOpavol)f 
 and He saw the Spirit of God de- 
 scending as a dove, and coming upon 
 Him ; and lo, a voice out of the 
 heavens, saying. This is My beloved 
 Son, in whom I am well pleased. 
 
 iv. II. Then the devil leaveth 
 Him ; and behold Angels came and 
 ministered unto Him. 
 
 iv. 16. The people which sat in 
 darkness saw a great light, and to 
 them which sat in the region and 
 shadow of death, to them did light 
 spring up. 
 
 V. 3. Blessed are the poor in spirit, 
 for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. 
 
 4. Blessed are they that mourn, for 
 they shall be comforted. 
 
 6. Blessed are they that hunger 
 {ol ireij'tDi'Tes), for they .shall be filled 
 (XopTaffSijiroi'Tai). 
 
 10. Blessed are they that have been 
 persecuted for righteousness' sake. 
 
 19. Whoever shall do and teach 
 them, he shall be called great in the 
 kingdom of heaven. 
 
 21. Ye have heard that it was said 
 to them of old time, Thou shalt not 
 kill ; and whosoever shall kill shall 
 be in danger of the judgment : 
 
 22. but I say unto you, that every 
 one who is angry with his brother 
 shall be in danger of the judgment. 
 
 The Testaments. 
 
 Levi xviii. 3. His star shall arise 
 in heaven as of a king (di/aTeXei 
 dtXTpov avTov iv oipav^ ws /SatriX^ws). 
 
 Num. xxiv. 17. dvareXGi darpov. 
 
 Judah xxiv. I. And no sin shall be 
 found in him. 
 
 2. And the heavens shall be opened 
 unto him [dvoLyrfja-ovraL ^ir' adT(p ol 
 oipavol), to pour out the spirit, the 
 blessing of the Holy Father. 
 
 Levi xviii. 6. The heavens shall be 
 opened, and from the temple of glory 
 shall come upon him sanctification, 
 with the Father's voice as from 
 Abraham to Isaac. 
 
 7. And the glorj' of the Most High 
 shall be spoken over him, and the 
 spirit of understanding and sancti- 
 fication shall rest on him in the 
 water. 
 
 13. And the Lord shall rejoice in 
 His children, and be well pleased in 
 his beloved ones for ever. 
 
 Naphtali viii. 4. The devil shall 
 flee from you. . . . And the Angels 
 shall cleave to you. 
 
 Levi iii. 5. The hosts of the Angels 
 are ministering. 
 
 xviii. 4. He shall shine forth as the 
 sun in the earth, and shall take away 
 all darkness from under heaven. 
 
 Judah XXV. 4. They who were poor 
 for the Lord's sake shall be made 
 rich. 
 
 And they who have died in grief 
 shall arise in joy. 
 
 And they who have been in want 
 {if Trelvri) shall be filled [xopriur- 
 $ri(70VTat). 
 
 Dan iv. 6. If ye suffer loss volun- 
 tarily or involuntarily, be not vexed. 
 
 Levi xiii. 9. Whoever teaches noble 
 things and does them shall be en- 
 throned with kings. 
 
 Gad iv. 6. Hatred would slay the 
 living, and those that have sinned in 
 a small thing it would not suffer to 
 live. 
 
 V. I. Hatred therefore is evil, for it 
 maketh small things to be great. 
 
 5. Fearing to offend the Lord, he 
 will do no wrong to any man, even in 
 thought. 
 
xlii 
 
 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 28. Every one that looketh on a 
 woman to lust after her hath com- 
 mitted adultery with her already in 
 his heart. 
 
 42. Give to him that asketh thee, 
 and from him that would borrow of 
 thee turn not thou away. 
 
 44. Love your enemies, and pray 
 for them that persecute you ; that ye 
 may be sons of your Father which is 
 in heaven. 
 
 vi. 10. Thy will be done, as in 
 heaven, so on earth. 
 
 vi. 14. If ye forgive men their tres- 
 passes, your heavenly Father will also 
 forgive you. 
 
 16. [The hypocrites] disfigure their 
 faces {d(pai'ii^ov(n ret irp6(Tu)Ta airCjv). 
 
 19. Lay not up for yourselves 
 treasure upon the earth ; but lay up 
 for yourselves treasures in heaven. 
 
 22, 23. If thine eye be single (iav 6 
 6^6a\^6s aov a-jrXovs ly) . . . But if 
 thine eye be evil (^cti' 5^ 6 d(pddK^6s 
 <rov TTOVTjpb^ ri), thy whole body shall 
 be full of darkness ((TKOTei.vbv). 
 
 24. No man can be a slave {Sov- 
 Xiieiv) to two masters. . . . Ye 
 cannot serve God and mammon. 
 
 vii. 2. With what measure ye mete, 
 it shall be measured unto you. 
 
 viii. 17- Himself took our infirmi- 
 ties, and bare our diseases. 
 
 24-27. 7^he Storm on the Lake. 
 
 ix. 8. When the multitudes saw it, 
 they were afraid and glorified (e 564a- 
 Go.v) God. 
 
 X. I. He gave them authority over 
 unclean spirits. 
 
 16. Become therefore wise (ylveade 
 oZv ipp6viiJ.oi) as serpents. 
 
 39. He that loseth his life for My 
 sake shall find it. 
 
 Benjamin viii. 2. He that hath a 
 pure mind in love looketh not on a 
 woman with thought of fornication. 
 
 Zebulon vii. 2. Show compassion 
 and mercy without partiality to all, 
 and grant to every man with a good 
 heart. 
 
 Joseph xviii. 2. If any one willeth 
 to do evil to you, do you in doing 
 him good pray for him, and ye shall 
 be redeemed of the Lord from all 
 evil. 
 
 Naphtali iii. 2. Sun moon and 
 stars change not their order ; so do 
 ye also change not the law of God in 
 the disorderliness of your doings. 
 
 Zebulon viii. I. Have compassion 
 towards every man in mercy, that the 
 Lord also may have compassion and 
 mercy on you. 
 
 6. [The spirit of revenge] dis- 
 figureth the face (r6 irpbaiiiirov a(pav- 
 
 Levi xiii. 5. Do righteousness upon 
 the earth, that ye may find it in 
 heaven. 
 
 I-ssachar iii. 4. Walking in single- 
 ness of eye [iv 6(f>daK^'2v dTr\6T7]Ti). 
 
 iv. 6. He walketh in singleness of 
 soul, shunning eyes that are evil 
 {d(f)$a\fj.ovs TTOvrjpoOs). 
 
 Benjamin iv. 2. An eye full of 
 darkness {(tkot6li'6v). 
 
 Judah xviii. 6. For he is a slave 
 (SoivXfi'fi) to two opposite passions, 
 and cannot obey God. 
 
 Zebulon v. 3. Have mercy in your 
 hearts, because whatever a man doeth 
 to his neighbour, so the Lord will deal 
 with him. 
 
 Joseph xvii. 7. All their suffering 
 was my suffering, and all their sick- 
 ness was my infirmity. 
 
 Naphtali vi. 4-9. T/ie Storm on the 
 Sea. 
 
 Judah XXV. 5. All the peoples shall 
 glorify (Sofdcroufft) the Lord for ever. 
 
 Benjamin v. 2. The unclean spirits 
 will fly from you. 
 
 Naphtali viii. 10. Become therefore 
 wise in God and prudent {yiveaie ovv 
 (jhipoi iv Gey Koi <f>p6vip,0L). 
 
 judah XXV. 4. They who are put to 
 death for the Lord's sake shall awake 
 to life. 
 
THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS xliii 
 
 xi. 19. The Son of Man came eat- 
 ing and drinking. 
 
 27. He to whom the Son willeth to 
 reveal Him. 
 
 29. For I am meek and lowly 
 {irpfos Kal raiTfii'ds) of heart. 
 
 xii. 13. Withered Hand reslored. 
 
 35. The evil man out of his evil 
 treasure bringeth forth evil things. 
 
 45. Then goeth he and taketh with 
 himself seven other spirits more 
 wicked than himself, and they enter 
 in and dwell there. 
 
 xiii. 40. In the end of the world 
 {ev Ty avvreXeiq- tou alojpos). 
 
 XV. 14. If the blind lead the blind 
 both shall fall into a pit (e/s pddvvop). 
 
 xvi. 27. He shall render unto 
 every man according to his deeds. 
 
 27. The Son of Man shall come in 
 the glory of His Father with His 
 Angels. 
 
 xviii. 15. If thy brother sin against 
 thee, go show him his fault between 
 him and thee alone. Comp. Lk. 
 xvii. 3. 
 
 35. So shall also My heavenly 
 Father do unto you, if ye forgive not 
 every one his brother from your 
 hearts. 
 
 xix. 28. In the regeneration . . . 
 ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, 
 judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 
 
 29. And every one that hath left 
 houses, or brethren, or sisters . . 
 for My Name's sake shall receive 
 manifold [TroWaTrXaaioi'a), 
 
 xxii. 15. They took counsel how 
 they might ensnare {irayi.SfiKTOKTLi') 
 Him in His talk. 
 
 Thou shalt love the Lord thy God 
 with all thy heart. 
 
 39. Thou shalt love thy neighbour 
 as thyself. 
 
 xxiii. 34. Persectdion foretold. 
 
 38. Behold your house is left unto 
 you [desolate]. 
 
 Asher vii. 3. The Most High shall 
 visit the earth, coming Himself as 
 man, with men eating and drinking. 
 
 Levi xviii. 2. The Lord shall raise 
 up a new priest, to whom all the 
 words of the Lord shall be revealed. 
 
 Dan. vi. 9. For he is true and 
 long-suffering, meek and lowly 
 {■jrp^os Kal Taireivbs). 
 
 Simeon ii. 13. Withered Hand 
 restored. 
 
 Asher i. 9. Seeing that treasure of 
 the inclination hath been filled with 
 an evil spirit. 
 
 Reuben ii. 2. Seven spirits there- 
 fore were given against man. 
 
 Naphtali viii. 6. And the devil 
 dwelleth in him as his own vessel. 
 
 Levi X. 2. At the end of the world 
 (rf; (TuyreXef^ rijov atibvwp). 
 
 Reuben ii. 9. Desire leadeth the 
 youth as a blind man to a pit (^irj 
 ^Sepov). 
 
 Levi xviii. 2. He shall execute a 
 righteous judgment upon the earth for 
 a multitude of days. 
 
 5. The Angels of the glory of the 
 presence of the Lord shall be glad in 
 him. 
 
 Gad vi. 3. If any one sin against 
 thee, speak peace to him, and in thy 
 soul hold not guile, and if he repent 
 and confess forgive him. 
 
 7. But if he is shameless and per- 
 sists in his wickedness, even so for- 
 give him from the heart and give to 
 God the taking vengeance. 
 
 Judah XXV. i. Abraham and Isaac 
 and Jacob shaU arise unto life, and I 
 and my brethren shall be chiefs of the 
 tribes of Israel. 
 
 Zebulon vi. 6. For he who gives 
 a share to his neighbour, receives 
 manifold [TroWairXatTiova) from the 
 Lord. 
 
 Joseph vii. i. She looked about 
 how to ensnare (7ra7i5eu(rai) me. 
 
 Dan V. 3. Love the Lord in all your 
 life, 
 and one another in a true heart. 
 
 Judah xxi. 9. Persecution foretold. 
 
 Levi XV. I. Therefore the Temple, 
 which the Lord shall choose, shall 
 be desolate through your unclean- 
 ness. 
 
xliv 
 
 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 xxiv. II, 24. False Prophets fore- 
 told. 
 
 xxiv. 29. The sun shall be 
 darkened. Comp. xxvii. 45. 
 
 31. They shall gather together 
 (e7ri(riii'd|oii(ri>') His elect from the four 
 winds. 
 
 XXV. 33. He shall set the sheep on 
 His right hand, but the goats on the 
 left. 
 
 35. I was an hungered, and ye gave 
 Me meat : I was a stranger, and ye 
 took Me in ; 36. I was sick, and ye 
 visited Me ; I was in prison, and ye 
 came unto Me. 
 
 xxvi. 70. I know not what thou 
 sayest. 
 
 xxvii. 6. It is not lawful to put 
 them into the treasury, since it is the 
 price of blood (ti^i^) ct?|UaTos). 
 
 24. I am innocent {a,6C^l>^ elfii.) of 
 the blood of this righteous man. 
 
 28. They stripped Him and put on 
 Him a scarlet robe. 
 
 31. They took off from Him the 
 robe, and put on Him His own 
 garments, and led Him away to 
 crucify Him. 
 
 26. When he had scourged Jesus. 
 
 30, 31. They smote {Itvtttov) Him 
 on the head. And when they had 
 mocked Him. 
 
 46. Why hast Thou forsaken Me ? 
 {IvaTi /ie e7Kar AtTres y). 
 
 5 1 . The veil of the Temple was rent 
 (t6 KaraTiraa/xa rou vaou io'xlo'df]). 
 
 51. The rocks were rent (a! virpai 
 
 45. There was darkness all over 
 the land. 
 
 51. The earth was shaken (t; yij 
 icrel(r$7]). 
 
 xxviii. 2. There was a great earth- 
 quake [aeia/iios ey^vero /x^7tts). 
 
 viii. 24. There was a great earth- 
 quake in the sea {cTeta/j.bs iy^vero if rrj 
 da\d(7fTrj], 
 
 Judah xxi. 9. False Prophets fore- 
 told. 
 
 Leviiv. I. The sun being darkened 
 (h. A). Other texts, 'quenched.' 
 
 Naphtali viii. 3. Shall gather 
 together {iinuvvHu) the righteous 
 from among the Gentiles. 
 
 Benjamin x. 6. Then shall ye see 
 Enoch, Noah, and Shem, and 
 Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, 
 rising on the right hand in glad- 
 ness. 
 
 Joseph i. 5. I was kept in starva- 
 tion, and the Lord Himself nourished 
 me ; 6. I was alone, and God com- 
 forted me ; I was sick, and the Lord 
 visited me ; I was in prison, and my 
 God showed favour unto me. 
 
 xiii. 2. I know not what thou 
 sayest. 
 
 Zebulon iii. 3. We will not eat it, 
 because it is the price of our brother's 
 blood (ri^Ty at/uaros). 
 
 Levi X. 2. I am innocent [aB^bi 
 el/u) of your ungodliness and trans- 
 gression. 
 
 Zebulon iv. 10. They stripped off 
 from Joseph his coat . . . and put 
 upon him the garment of a slave. 
 
 Benjamin ii. 3. When they had 
 stripped me of my coat, they gave 
 me to the Lshmaelites ; and they 
 gave me a loin-cloth, and scourged 
 me and bade me run. 
 
 Josephii. 3. Iwassmitten(^i5097;>'), 
 I was scoffed at. Comp. Lk. xxiii. 
 
 35- 
 
 4. The Lord doth not forsake 
 (ovK iyKaToXetTrei) those that fear 
 Him. 
 
 6. For a little space He departeth, 
 to try the inclination of the soul. 
 
 Levi X. 3. The veil of the Temple 
 shall be rent (<!X'-i^Sri(rcTaL rh Karari- 
 raa-^a roO vaou). 
 
 iv. I. When the rocks are being 
 rent (n-erpuv (rxifo/x^vux) and the sun 
 darkened. Other texts, 'quenched.' 
 
 iii. 9. The earth and the abysses 
 are shaken (17 yij Kal at d^vaaoi 
 aaXedovrai.). 
 
THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS xlv 
 
 These tables give us more than sixty instances of resemblances 
 between the Testaments and the First Gospel, of which nearly 
 forty are concerned with the words of our Lord. More than 
 twenty come from passages which have no corresponding 
 passage in either Mk. or Lk. And in about ten of those which 
 are in both Mt. and Lk. the possible parallel in the Testaments 
 is closer to Mt. than to Lk. The preponderating similarity 
 between the Testaments and Mt. is therefore strong, and it can 
 be readily explained, if it was the Gospels which influenced the 
 Testaments. What is the explanation, if the Testaments 
 influenced the Gospels ? 
 
 In several instances the Armenian version omits the words 
 which produce the resemblance ; and that fact creates a certain 
 amount of probability that the resemblance is due to changes 
 which are later than that version. Again, in some of the 
 passages where these resemblances are found there are differ- 
 ences of reading, and the resemblance is confined to one of the 
 variants. Zebulon viii. 6 (i8) is instructive. We have three 
 readings : /cat to TrpoawTrov dtjbavi^ei (c h l) : Trjv vwap^iv dfjiavi^et, 
 {ae/, A, S^) : o yap jivqa-iKaKo^ (nrXa.y)(ya kXiov<: ovk ep(£t {i g). 
 The first of these recalls Mt. vi. i6; the last recalls Lk. i. 78. 
 Are we to suppose that Mt. knew the one reading, and Lk. the 
 other ? Or did one scribe of the Testaments remember Mt., and 
 the other Lk. ? In Zevi x. 3 (59) Dr. Charles himself suggests 
 that instead of a-xia-di^a-eTai TO /<aTa7r£Tao-/xa Tov vaov we ought 
 perhaps to read a-xt-fd^a-tTai. to evSv/ia, for evSv/xa is found in 
 most texts : and certainly " so as not to cover your shame" is a 
 more fitting consequence of rending garments than of rending 
 the Temple veil. We may therefore suppose that the reading to 
 
 KaTaTreVao-jUa TOV j/aov COmeS from Mt. Xxvii. 5I = Mk. XV. 38 = 
 
 Lk. xxiii. 45, rather than that the phrase in the Gospels comes from 
 the Testaments. In Benjamm viii. 2 (13) we have three different 
 readings, differing in the amount of resemblance to Mt. v. 28, one 
 having very little resemblance. In Issackar viii. 4 and iv. 6 (20) 
 the words which produce the resemblance are wanting in im- 
 portant witnesses. In Asber vii. 3 (28) Dr. Charles marks "as 
 man, with men eating and drinking " as an interpolation ; and 
 he does the same in Dan vi. 9 (30) with "for he is true and 
 long-suffering, meek and lowly." May we not suspect that some 
 of the other resemblances are due to a similar cause ? And it 
 should be noticed that most of the resemblances are in Levi and 
 Judah, just the two Testaments which would be most likely to 
 be Christianized; while very few are to be found in Simeon, 
 Issachar, or Asher. 
 
 To sum up. A few of these similarities between the Testa- 
 ments and the N.T. may be accidental coincidences. A great 
 
xlvi GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 many may be due to independent employment of current ideas 
 and phrases. The remainder may be the production of 
 Christian translators or copyists, who consciously or un- 
 consciously assimilated the wording of the Testaments to the 
 words of the N.T., and especially to the words of the First 
 Gospel. 
 
 Conybeare regards it as proved that the Greek text of the 
 Testaments is "a paraphrase of an old Aramaic midrash, in- 
 terpolated by generations of Christians" {Jew. Encyd. xii. p. 
 113): ^^Q Journal of Theological Studies, April 1909, p. 423. 
 In paraphrasing, there is almost boundless opportunity for 
 assimilating the language of the original to language which, to 
 the paraphraser, may be either more familiar, or may seem to 
 be either more pleasing or more edifying. Paraphrasing and 
 interpolating will account for a large number of the resemblances 
 between the Testaments and the New Testament. See J. Arm. 
 Robinson, Hastings' DB. ii. p. 501*. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 
 S. MATTHEW 
 
 I. II. THE BIRTH AND INFANCY OF THE MESSIAH. 
 
 I. 1-17. His Genealogy. 
 
 'The Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ.' This title is 
 probably meant to cover more than the mere pedigree, but 
 perhaps not the whole Gospel. We may regard it as a heading 
 to the first two chapters, the Gospel of the Infancy. In Gen. 
 V. I, ' the book of the generations of Adam ' covers not only the 
 genealogy from Adam to Japhet mixed with a certain amount of 
 narrative, but also the narrative of ' the wickedness of man ' in 
 the time of Noah (v. i-vi. 8).i The Evangelist no doubt had 
 the Septuagint of Genesis in his mind when he penned this title ; 
 and it was probably from the Septuagint that he compiled the 
 pedigree : but he may have found it already compiled in some 
 Jewish archives. Jews are tenacious of their pedigrees ; and, 
 even if the statement of Julius Africanus (Eus. H. E. \. 7) be 
 correct, that Herod the Great ordered the genealogies of old 
 Jewish families to be destroyed, in order to hide the defects of 
 his own pedigree, the statement causes no difficulty. Such an 
 order would be evaded, and in any case there were the Scrip- 
 tures, in which the descent could be traced. Josephus was able 
 to give his pedigree, as he found it " described in the public 
 records'' {Vita, i). The evidence of Africanus is valuable, in 
 that he claims to have got information from the family, who 
 gloried in their noble extraction, and in his referring both 
 genealogies (that in Lk. as well as that in Mt.), as a matter of 
 course, to Joseph. The theory that the one in Lk. is Mary's is not 
 
 ^ At Gen. vi. 9 we have a second title : ' These aie the generations of 
 Noah.' In Mt. there is no second title, which is in favour of the view that 
 the title in ver. i is meant to cover the whole Gospel, 
 
2 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [I. 1-17 
 
 worthy of consideration.'' Neither Jew nor Gentile would derive 
 the birthright of Jesus from His mother. In the eye of the law, 
 Jesus was the heir of Joseph, and therefore it is Joseph's pedigree 
 that is given. As the heir of Joseph, Jesus was the heir of David ; 
 and hence there is no inconsistency in the fact that precisely the 
 two Gospels which record the Virgin-birth are the two which give 
 the pedigree of Joseph. That Jesus was the 'son of David' 
 seems to have been generally admitted (xii. 23, xv. 22, xx. 30, 31, 
 xxi. 9, 15), and we do not read that His Messiahship was ever 
 questioned on the ground that He was not descended from 
 David. On the other hand, our Lord Himself does not seem 
 to have based any claim upon this descent, which might have 
 looked like a claim to an earthly kingdom. Indeed, the difBcult 
 passage, xxii. 43-45, shows that He was willing that the Davidic 
 descent of the Messiah should be questioned, rather than that 
 it should be supposed that the Messiah was a mere political 
 deliverer. Whether or no the details in the two pedigrees are in 
 all cases correct, there need be no doubt that the main facts 
 which they illustrate are historical, viz. that Joseph was of 
 Davidic origin, and therefore descended from the father of the 
 Jewish race and from the father of mankind : and it is quite 
 possible that Mary also was descended from David.^ 
 
 The fondness of our Evangelist for numerical groups, and 
 especially for triplets, has been pointed out (p. xix). Hence the 
 threefold division of the pedigree. The choice of fourteen may 
 be explained as either twice seven, or as the numerical value of 
 the three letters in the Hebrew name of David; 4 + 64-4= 14.^ 
 In our present text the third division has only thirteen names, 
 and elsewhere there is compression in order to get the right 
 number: 'begat' does not in all cases mean 'was the actual 
 father of.' But the precise points of division are significant. In 
 David (ver. 6) the family became royal ; at the Captivity the 
 royalty was lost (ver. ir) ; in 'Jesus, who is called Christ' (ver. 
 16), the royalty is recovered. 
 
 The names of women, Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and the wife of 
 Uriah, inserted in the pedigree are remarkable. Ruth was a 
 Moabitess and not a Jewess, and the other three had been guilty 
 of gross sins. They are evidently mentioned of deliberate 
 purpose. But what purpose ? It is difficult to believe that the 
 
 ' The theory is earlier than Annius of Viterbo {c. A.D. 1490). See on 
 Rev. iv. 7 in the commentary attributed to Viclorinus (Migne, P. L, 
 V. 324). 
 
 ^ In the second century it was commonly believed that Mary was of the 
 family of David; Justin M., Try. 43, 45, 100; Irenfeus, lu. xxi. 5; Tert. 
 ^dv. Jtid. 9 ; Ascension of Isaiah, x. 2 ; Gosp. of the Nativity of Mary, 
 i. I. 
 
 ' Interpreter, January 1906, p. 199. 
 
I. 18-25] THE MESSIAH'S BIRTH AND INFANCY 3 
 
 Evangelist is suggesting a parallel between them and the Virgin 
 mother ; and it is not easy to see how their inclusion in the 
 genealogy is any answer to the slander which circulated among 
 the Jews in the second century, and possibly in the first, that 
 Jesus was born out of wedlock and was the son of a paramour. 
 It is more likely that this parade of names that might be 
 supposed to be unfit for insertion in the pedigree of the Messiah 
 is intended to teach that He who ' came not to call the righteous, 
 but sinners' (ix. 13), and who so commended the faith of those 
 who were not of Israel (viii. 10, xv. 28; comp. Lk. xvii. 18, 
 xix. 5), was Himself descended from flagrant sinners and from a 
 stranger. 
 
 The difficulties connected with the details of the two 
 pedigrees have been abundantly discussed in commentaries 
 and in Dictionaries of the Bible, as well as in separate treatises, 
 and to these the reader is referred. It is sufficient to say here 
 that, although the difficulties are not such as to convict the 
 pedigrees of being fictitious, it cannot be said that the proposed 
 solutions of the difficulties are in most cases satisfactory. That 
 there are errors in both lists of names is neither unlikely nor very 
 important. Errors respecting matters of far greater moment can 
 be shown to exist in the Bible, and there is nothing that need 
 perplex us if errors are found here. 
 
 The reading in ver. 16 is uncertain, and it is possible that no Greek MS. 
 has preserved the original text. If in expressing the legal relationship 
 between Jesus and Joseph the Evangelist used words which might be under- 
 stood as expressing actual paternity, such words would be Hkely to be 
 changed, and perhaps altered in more ways than one. Whatever the reading, 
 it is quite certain from what follous what the writer means. See Sanday, 
 Outlines of the Life of Christ, pp. 197-200 ; Burkitt, Evangelion da- 
 Mephai-reshe , ii. p. 262 ; Nestle, Textual Criticism of the N. T. pp. 248, 
 249; Kenyon, Textual Criticism of the N.T. pp. 112, 115, 131, 132; 
 Zaljn, Eiiileitimg, ii. pp. 292, 293. 
 
 I. 18-25. The Messiah's Supernatural Birth. 
 
 It is evident that the Virgin-birth did not belong to the main 
 stream of Apostolic tradition. The two narratives of it come 
 from private sources, Matthew's from Joseph, Luke's from Mary. 
 Here we have the husband's impressions, his dismay and 
 perplexity, his humane decision, and his submission to the Divine 
 revelation. There we have the mother's impressions, her trouble 
 and amazement, and her submission to the Divine decree. The 
 two narratives are wholly independent, as their great differences 
 show. These differences do not amount to contradictions, 
 though we do not know how to harmonize them • and they 
 
4 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [l. 18-25 
 
 are confined to details.^ They confirm the general trustworthi- 
 ness of each narrative, for neither can have been based on the 
 other. The two accounts agree, not only as to the main fact of 
 the Virgin-birth, but also as to the manner of it, — that it took 
 place through the agency of the Holy Spirit. And this agree- 
 ment cannot be due to the influence of the Old Testament upon 
 both writers. 'Iliere is no such operation of the Holy Spirit on 
 a virgin in the Old Testament, in which the very expression 
 ' Holy Spirit ' is rare. And elsewhere in the New Testament the 
 Incarnation is indicated in a totally different way (Jn. i. 14). 
 And the two narratives agree with regard to four other points, 
 besides the two central facts just mentioned. They both say 
 that, at the time when the Divine will was made known to Mary 
 and to Joseph, the two were espoused to one another, that the 
 Child was to be called 'Jesus,' that He was born at Bethlehem 
 in Judsea, and that the parents brought Him up at Nazareth. 
 The account in Matthew is further confirmed by its accuracy 
 with regard to Jewish feeling and Law. Joseph's attitude is 
 indicated with great naturalness and delicacy, and the necessity 
 for divorce, although the marriage had not yet taken place, is 
 clearly shown. With the Jews, espousal was much more serious 
 than an 'engagement' is with us, and could be severed only by 
 divorce. 2 
 
 The delicacy and sobriety of both narratives are further signs 
 of historic reality. It is true that more or less analogous stories 
 are to be found both in pagan and in Jewish literature. But 
 Gentile readers would feel the unspeakable difference between 
 Luke's narrative and the impure legends about intercourse between 
 mortals and deities in heathen mythology ; and Jewish readers, 
 if they compared this chapter with the coarse imaginations of 
 their own people in the Book of Enoch (vi., xv., Ixix., Ixxxvi., cvi.), 
 would feel a similar contrast. And Christian legends exhibit the 
 like instructive contrast. The Apocryphal Gospels, when they 
 make additions to the Canonical Gospels, show that, even with 
 these to copy from, the early Christians could produce nothing 
 similar. Their inventions are distressing in their unseemli- 
 ness. If the two Evangelists had sought material in legends 
 of pagan or Jewish or Christian origin, we should have had 
 something very different from the narratives which have been 
 the joy and the inspiration of Christendom through countless 
 generations. 
 
 ' " Between these two accounts of Mt. and Lk. no contradiction exists" 
 (O. Holtzmann, Life of Jesus, p. 85). As to the witne.ss of S. AFark, see 
 Vmcen\.M''H3.hh, Journal of Theological Studies, April 1907, p. 448. 
 
 - Apparency Joseph had made up his mind that divorce was the only 
 thing possible ; i^ovk-fid-q dTroXwai, not ^/SoiyXero : ivOv/iijehTos, not 
 ^vdnjxovfx^vqv (19, 20). 
 
I. 18-26] THE MESSIAH'S BIRTH AND INFANCY 5 
 
 And each Evangelist gives his account of the marvel as 
 historical. He believes it himself, and is confident that it will 
 carry conviction. And it is not easy to see how either narrative 
 could have originated without an historical foundation. Nothing 
 in early Christian literature warrants us in believing that a writer 
 of the first or second century could have imagined such things 
 and described them thus. As the other two Gospels show, the 
 story of the Virgin-birth is not required to explain the history of 
 the Ministry, Passion, and Resurrection. i This history, although 
 it is greatly illuminated when the Virgin-birth is added, is quite 
 intelligible without it, and probably many of the first Christians 
 passed away without ever receiving this illuminating addition to 
 their faith. Moreover, both narratives are intensely Jewish in tone ; 
 and it is not likely that Judaism, with its very high estimate of 
 the blessings of marriage, would have invented either of them. 
 
 Of the two accounts, that by S. Luke is probably nearer to 
 the original source, 'i'here is nothing improbable in the hypo- 
 thesis that he received it, possibly in writing, from Mary herself. 
 She perhaps kept it to herself (iJc. ii. 52) till late in life ; and, if 
 there was any one between her and the Evangelist, it is not likely 
 that the narrative passed through many hands before it reached 
 him. With Joseph's account of the matter it may have been 
 otherwise. He seems to have died long before his wife, and 
 what he had to lell may have passed through many hands before 
 it was written down as we have it here. One may cohjecture 
 that James, the Lord's brother, was one of those who handed it 
 on to the Evangelist. 
 
 It has been urged that the double revelation indicates fiction ; 
 if a Divine announcement had been really made to either Mary 
 or Joseph, a repetition of it to the other would have been need- 
 less. This is not sound criticism. The annunciation to Mary 
 was necessary, in order to save her from cruel perplexity as to 
 her subsequent condition. An annunciation to Joseph was 
 equally necessary : he could not have believed so amazing a 
 story, if he had had only Mary's word for it. 
 
 Again, it has been urged that both narratives are to be 
 distrusted, because here Joseph receives the Divine announce- 
 ments in dreams, while in Lk. Mary receives them in her 
 waking moments. Certainly it is possible that the supernatural 
 agency is in each case due to the imagination of the writer : he 
 knew that a revelation was made, and he conjectured the way in 
 which the Divine message was communicated. But it is also 
 
 ' Both S. Mark and S. John confirm the Virgin-birth, though they do 
 not mention it. Mark calls Jesus the ' Son of Mary' (vi. 3) and the ' Son of 
 God' (i. i), but he nowhere, calls Him the Son of Joseph. John sometimes 
 corrects the earlier Gospels, but he does not correct the Virgin-birth (i. 14). 
 
6 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [l. 18-25 
 
 possible that the mode of communication was in each case 
 suited to the character of the person who received it. Mt. 
 does not always give us dreams or object to Angels (iv. ii, 
 xxviii. 5-7) ; nor does S. Luke do the opposite (Acts xvi. 9, 
 xviii. 9, 10). The important question is, whether God did com- 
 municate this gracious mystery, first to Mary and then to 
 Joseph. The precise mode of communication is of litttle 
 importance. And it is worth noting that, when heathens are 
 warned in dreams, no Angel appears to them (ii. 12, xxvii. 19). 
 Very possibly the information about all six dreams, the five in 
 these two chapters and that of Pilate's wife, comes from the same 
 source. 
 
 In marked contrast to the similar promises to Abraham and 
 to Zacharias (Gen. xvii. 19, 21; Lk. i. 13), the Angel here (21) 
 does not say ' shall bear thee a son ' : there is no o-ot after Tc'^crat, 
 although 'to thee' in ver. 21 and 'to him ' in ver. 25 are found 
 in Syriac Versions (Burkitt, Evano;elion da-Mepharreshe, ii. pp. 
 199, 200). Both Syr-Sin. and Syr-Cur. have ' to thee' in ver. 21, 
 and Syr-Sin. has 'to him' in ver. 25. But even if the crot were 
 in the Greek Text, in which it probably never had a place 
 (p. 262), it would not be of doctrinal importance, for the meaning 
 of the Evangelist is clear. " The points which Mt. wishes to 
 impress on his readers are the physical reality of the birth of 
 Christ from a virgin and the legality of the descent from David. 
 The physical reality of the descent from David was a matter of 
 no moment so long as the legal conditions were satisfied." The 
 doi, if Mt. had written it, would simply have meant. She 
 shall bear thee a " legitimate Heir of the Divine promises made 
 to David " (p. 260). That is the meaning of eyevvrjaev in the 
 genealogy: e.g. 'Joram begat Uzziah ' means that Uzziah was 
 the legitimate heir of Joram, not that he was actually Joram's 
 son. The insertion of the names of Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, 
 and the wife of Uriah indicates that the heir had sometimes 
 been born irregularly, " as if to prepare us for greater irregu- 
 larity at the last stage," and perhaps also to prepare us for the 
 welcome which the Messiah will give to aliens and sinners : see 
 above. 
 
 It would be rash to say that, without the Virgin-birth, the 
 Incarnation and Redemption would have been impossible. It 
 is enough for us that, with it, both are more intelligible. In so 
 mysterious a subject, dogmatism is out of place, and speculation 
 lis more likely to become irreverent than profitable. But the 
 question has been much discussed, and this much may be 
 suggested. If Christ had had no human parent, He would not 
 have taken our flesh, and would not have been of the same race 
 as those whom He came to save. It is not easy to see how a 
 
I. 18-25] THE MESSIAH'S BIRTH AND INFANCY / 
 
 newly created being could have helped the human race by death 
 and resurrection. If Christ had had two human parents, it is 
 not easy to see how the hereditary contamination of the race 
 could have been excluded. It might be urged that this difficulty 
 remains even with only one human parent ; we must either admit 
 the hereditary taint, or allow no connexion with the human race. 
 But there is no such alternative. There are three possibilities : 
 human parentage, a fresh creation, and the substitution of Divine 
 operation for the human father. In the last case, the Divine 
 element would exclude all possibility of taint from the human 
 mother, for it is inconceivable that the Divine element should 
 receive pollution. But it is safer to accept with reverent thank- 
 fulness what has been told us in the Gospels than to raise need- 
 less, and perhaps fruitless, questions about what has not been 
 told.i 
 
 The Messiah was born in the flesh, not of \k\& flesh. He was 
 born in the flesh ; and therefore was able to vanquish sin and 
 death in the region in which they had won their victories. He 
 was not born of the flesh, but of the Spirit ; and therefore He 
 did not share in the innate proneness towards evil which all other 
 human beings exhibit. It was possible for Him to pass the 
 whole of His life without sin. In human society, it is man who 
 represents individual initiative, while woman represents the con- 
 tinuity of the species. The Messiah was not the child of this or 
 that father, but of the race. He was not a son of any individual, 
 but He was ' the Son of Man.' 
 
 It was possible for Him to be sinless, and He was sinless. 
 Yet it cannot be argued that the Virgin-birth was imagined in 
 order to account for His sinlessness, for nowhere in the N.T. is 
 the one given as the explanation of the other. But all the 
 evidence that we have goes to show that no one ever convicted 
 Him of sin. Some charged Him with it, but they never brought 
 it home to His conscience so that He Himself was aware of it. 
 He called upon others to repent ; He said that they were by 
 nature (irapx"''"?) evil (Lk. xi. 13), that they must be born 
 anew, that He came to save sinners and had authority to forgive 
 sins, that He would give His own life as a ransom for sinners, 
 and, beyond all this. He said that He would hereafter appear as 
 the Judge of all. It is not credible that one who could thus 
 speak of Himself and of others, should Himself have been 
 conscious of sin. That would involve a psychological contradic- 
 tion. All experience teaches that, the holier men become, the 
 
 ^ See Hastings' DCG.. artt. 'Annunciation,' 'Birth of Christ,' 'Virgin 
 Birth,' and the literature there quoted. 
 
 On the different readings of i. 18 see Nestle, Textual Criticism of the 
 Gk. Test. p. 249; Scrivener (Miller), ii. pp. 321, 322. 
 
8 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [l. 18-25 
 
 more convinced they are of their own sinfulness. ^ This would 
 have been the case with Jesus, if He had been only the holiest 
 man that ever lived : and, had He been constantly advancing in 
 consciousness of His own frailty and faultiness, some evidence 
 of this would have found its way into the Gospels. The Gospels 
 are not in every matter of detail historically exact; but what they 
 give us, with overwhelming truthfulness of testimony, is the moral 
 impression which Jesus of Nazareth produced upon those who 
 knew Him or were influenced by those who knew Him ; and 
 that was, that He was one ' who did no sin, neither was guile 
 found in His mouth' (i Pet. ii. 22; 2 Cor. v. 21). 
 
 The quotation of Is. vii. 14 (23) is given according to the 
 Septuagint, with the necessary change from ' thou shalt call ' to 
 ' they shall call.' The original text, so familiar from its Christmas 
 associations, "is in some ways one of the most difficult verses 
 in the whole Bible" (W. E. Barnes, ad Inc.). The Hebrew for 
 ' virgin ' is almah, one who is not yet a wife, not bethulah, one 
 from whom all idea of marriage is excluded. The promised 
 sign is in the name to be given to the child, not in the strange- 
 ness of its birth. The prophecy, as ver. 16 shows, is connected 
 with the Prophet's own time, and it promises deliverance within 
 a short period. But "there are signs that the view that Isaiah 
 was using current mythological terms, and intended the sense 
 of supernatural birth, is rightly gaining ground. In any case the 
 LXX translators already interpreted the passage in this sense ; 
 and the fact that the later Greek translators substituted vcavts for 
 Trapdlvo's, and that there are no traces of the supernatural birth 
 in the later Jewish literature, is due to anti-Christian polemic " 
 (Allen, ad /oc). Justin Martyr {Try. 43 and 67) calls attention 
 to this change from -n-apOevos to veSvts. Nevertheless, it may be 
 true that anti-Christian polemic, by suggesting that Mary was an 
 unfaithful spouse, really points to the Virgin-birth. See Herford, 
 Christianity in Talmud and Mtdrash, pp. 35 ff. See also Briggs, 
 " Criticism and Dogma of the Virgin-birth," in N'. Amer. Rev., 
 June igo6. 
 
 In vv. 22, 23 we have the Evangelist's own reflexion on the 
 Angelic message to Joseph : it was the fulfilment, in its contents, 
 of a remarkable Messianic prophecy. But Mt. seems to give this 
 reflexion as if it was part of what the Angel said in the dream. 
 Irenasus (iv. xxiii. 1) expressly takes it so, and Zahn (ad loc. 
 p. 77) contends that he is right. In xxvi. 56 there is similar 
 doubt whether a similar reflexion is given as part of Christ's 
 
 ' This has been pointed out, in connexion with the sinlessness of Jesus, 
 not only by Godet (Introduction an N.T. p. 277), but by Strauss [Leben 
 Jesu, p. 195). See also DCG., art. ' Imraanuel' ; Moulton, Modern 
 Reaiei^s Bible, p. 1568. 
 
I. 18-25] THE MESSIAH'S BIRTH AND INFANCY 9 
 
 utterance or as the Evangelist's own. Possibly in both cases 
 Mt. was so convinced of the correctness of the view as to the 
 fulfilment of prophecy that he did not hesitate to give it the 
 highest sanction.! In the one case the Angel, in the other the 
 Messiah, must have known of the fulfilment of prophecy. In 
 much the same way Mt. gives his own interpretation of Jonah 
 as a sign to the Ninevites as if it were part of what our Lord 
 said to the Pharisees (xii. 40). Here the AV. places vv. 22, 
 23 in brackets, as a parenthetical remark, which is their 
 true character ; but the RV. omits the brackets, because the 
 Evangelist does not seem to make any parenthesis. He 
 remains in the background, while the Angel makes the re- 
 flexion. 
 
 In ' he knew her not ' {oIk lyivma-Kiv avTrjv), the imperfect tense 
 is important. It is against the tradition of the perpetual virginity 
 of Mary. This has been questioned ; but it hardly needs argu- 
 ment that, in such a context, ' he used not to ' or ' he was not in 
 the habit of means more than 'he did not.' It is quite true 
 that the aorist, ' he knew her not until,' would have implied that 
 she subsequently had children by him. But the imperfect implies 
 this still more strongly. "The meaning of ver. 25 seems clear 
 if only we could approach the subject without prepossessions " 
 (Wright, Synopsis, p. 259). As Zahn points out, Mt. wrote in 
 ■ Palestine for Jews and Jewish Christians, and he would know 
 whether 'the brethren' of the Lord were the sons of Mary or 
 not. Seeing how anxious he is to glorify the Messiah, and how 
 jealously he avoids whatever might seem to detract from His 
 glory, it cannot have been a matter of indifference to him whether 
 the Messiah was Mary's only child or not. If he knew that she 
 had no other child, he would have made this clear with eager 
 reverence. Instead of making it clear that the Messiah was the 
 only being who could call her His Mother, he uses an expression 
 which inevitably suggests and naturally implies that she had 
 children by Joseph. It is as if he knew that 'the brethren' 
 were her children, and yet could not bring himself in so many 
 words to say so. That he would have welcomed the theory that 
 they were Joseph's children by a former wife is by no means 
 certain, for in that case it could hardly be maintained that Jesus 
 was the heir of David through Joseph. But Mt. would perhaps 
 have regarded the wonderful circumstances of His Birth and the 
 fulfilment of prophecies as sufficient evidence that He was 
 appointed by God to be the Heir. Mt., however, gives no 
 
 ^ In both cases, as also in xxi. 4, where it is certainly Mt. who makes 
 the reflexion, the perfect in toSto di [S^ov] yiyovev may mean that the 
 narrator is near to the event (Lightfoot, On a Fresh JRevision, p. 100) ; or 
 it may mean that the result remains as an abiding fact. 
 
10 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [l. 18-25 
 
 indication that he knew of any former wife. The one fact 
 about which he leaves us in no doubt is that Mary was a virgin 
 when she gave birth to the Messiah. Hence this Gospel begins 
 with an emphatic contradiction of a well-known Jewish calumny, 
 and ends with an equally emphatic contradiction of another. 
 The Jews said that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of some man 
 who had seduced Mary. They also said that His disciples had 
 stolen His Body from the tomb in order to pretend that He had 
 risen from the dead. Thus this ' Gospel of the kingdom,' written 
 by a Jewish Christian for Jews and Jewish Christians, begins by 
 repelling a Jewish attack on the Virgin-birth, and ends by re- 
 pelling a Jewish attack on the Resurrection. See J. B. Mayor, 
 Ep. of S. James, pp. v-xxxvi ; Smith's DB., 2nd ed., artt. 
 'Brother,' 'James,' 'Judas, the Lord's Brother' ; Hastings' DB. 
 and DCG., artt. 'Brethren of the Lord,' 'Mary the Virgin'; 
 J. B. Mayor, Expositor, July and August 1908. 
 
 In dealing with his fellow-countrymen, whom he wished to 
 bring over to allegiance to the Messiah, the writer of the First 
 Gospel points out that in three conspicuous instances those who 
 were nearest to the Messiah, after having at first found an 
 occasion of falling in Him, became convinced that in Him and 
 in His word the Divine Wisdom was justified (xi. 19). At His 
 Birth, in the middle of His Ministry, and at His Death, precisely 
 those who had the best means of judging about the matter were 
 first of all offended, and then were divinely helped to a better 
 appreciation of His character as the promised Messiah and 
 Saviour. At the outset, even before He was born, Joseph, the 
 son of David, doubted whether she who was the Mother of the 
 Messiah was not a faithless spouse (i. 19). When the Messiah's 
 work had so increased that He appointed twelve of His best 
 disciples to assist Him in it, John, the greatest of the Prophets, 
 sent to Him to ask whether one who was so slow to assert 
 Himself was to be regarded as the promised Messiah (xi. 2, 3). 
 When the Messiah's work was closed, and to human eyes seemed 
 to be a failure, and He was already under sentence of death, the 
 first of the Apostles, one of the chosen Three, publicly declared 
 and swore that he did not know the Man (xxvi. 70-75). It was 
 not to be wondered at, if other Jews, who had never seen Jesus 
 of Nazareth, should have misgivings about Him ; but, with these 
 three examples before them, they might take courage and accept 
 Him as their Messiah. 
 
 The date of Christ's birth cannot be determined with certainty. 
 Sir William Ramsay has argued in favour of B.C. 6. Colonel 
 Mackinlay has shown that B.C. 8 is more probable {The Magi, 
 how they recognised Christ's Star, pp. 135 ff.) ; and this Ramsay 
 admits. He says : " Though the evidence is still inconclusive, 
 
II. l-lSj THE MESSIAH'S BIRTH AND INFANCY 1 1 
 
 it seems more probable that his date 8 B.C. is right. It is clearly 
 demonstrated that there was a system of periodic enrolment in 
 the Province of Syria according to a fourteen-years cycle, and the 
 first enrolment was made in the year 8-7 B.C. (Christ Born in 
 Bethlehem, p. 170). Such was the rule, but in carrying out of 
 such an extensive and novel operation in the Roman world 
 delays sometimes occurred ; and an example of such delay for 
 about two years (as revealed by a recent discovery) is quoted in 
 my article 'Corroboration' in the Expositor, Nov. 1901, pp. 
 321 f. Accordingly I concluded that the enrolment in Herod's 
 kingdom was probably delayed until autumn 6 e.g. While such 
 delay is possible, it has against it the distinct testimony of 
 Tertullian that the enrolment in Syria at which Christ was born 
 was made by Saturninus, who governed the Province 9-7 B.C. 
 The evidence which determined me to favour the date 6 B.C. is 
 distinctly slighter in character than that which supports the date 
 8 B.C." (Preface to Mackinlay's The Magi, how they recognised 
 Christ's Star, pp. ix, x). As to the time of year, Mackinlay 
 gives reasons for preferring the Feast of Tabernacles, and 
 probably the first day of it, to any other season (p. 176). If this 
 is correct, then, although 25 th December must be quite wrong 
 for the day of the Nativity, yet 28th December may be fairly exact 
 for the murders at Bethlehem, which took place about three 
 months after the Nativity (p. 199). 
 
 When we consider how very little of ch. i. affords any scope 
 for the writer to give any evidence of characteristics or peculi- 
 arities of style, the number of expressions which are found 
 broadcast over the rest of the Gospel is large. Even in the first 
 seventeen verses, which are occupied with the pedigree of the 
 Messiah, there are two or three characteristic expressions : 
 VLo<; Aavet'S (l), Aeyo/iei'os (16), and tov XptcTTOv (17), which 
 anticipates xi. 2. In the narrative portion we have l8ov (20), 
 <jiaiv€crOai (20), vibi AauetS (20), 'Iva TrkrjpuiOy (22). The following 
 are peculiar to Mt. : kot ovap (20), pri$tv (22); peculiar to this 
 chapter: /xErotKetria (11, 12, 17). 
 
 II. 1-12. TAe Visit of the Magi to the Newborn Messiah. 
 
 There can be no doubt that the Evangelist regards this 
 narrative, like that of the Virgin-birth, as historical. He has it 
 on what he believes to be good authority, and he would have his 
 readers accept it as completely as he does himself. And there is 
 no sufficient reason why they should refuse to do so ; for the 
 story is not in any way incredible in itself, and it is difficult to 
 find any satisfactory explanation of its origin, excepting that in 
 
12 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [II. 1-12 
 
 the main it is true.^ The attempts to explain it by legendary 
 analogies are very unsuccessfal. The examples cited are more 
 remarkable for their differences than for their resemblances ; 
 and, even if the resemblances were great, it would be a monstrous 
 principle to lay down, that what resembles fiction must itself be 
 fiction. The only element in the story which resembles legend 
 is the statement that the star 'went before them, till it came 
 and stood over where the young child was,' a statement of 
 " great poetical beauty," which may be intended to mean no 
 more than that what they had seen in the heavens led to their 
 finding the newborn Messiah. But the mode of statement may 
 be duej not to a poetic vein in the Evangelist, who does not 
 elsewhere seem to have any such vein, but to his informants, or 
 to the Magi themselves. The expression may be Oriental 
 rhetoric, or it may state what appeared to them to be the'case. 
 Even if we pronounce this detail to be deliberate embellishment, 
 that does not show that the whole story is a fiction. ^ 
 
 There is abundant evidence of a wide-spread desire and 
 expectation of a coming Deliverer or universal King some time 
 before the Birth of Christ. Eastern astrologers would search the 
 heavens for signs of this great event. Whether it was planetary 
 conjunctions which are known to have taken place in B.C. 7-4, 
 or transitory phenomena which cannot now be calculated, that 
 attracted the attention of the Magi, cannot be determined. The 
 character of the phenomena, or a knowledge of Jewish anticipa- 
 tions, may have directed them to Palestine. The remainder of 
 the narrative needs no explanation ; but, if we like to omit the 
 Magi's dream, and substitute for it a feeling of distrust for Herod, 
 we shall have an account which reads like sober history, wholly 
 in harmony with the known circumstances of the time and with 
 the cruel character of Herod. The Old Testament is not the 
 source of the star or of the gifts ; for the Evangelist, in spite of 
 his great fondness for fulfilments of prophecy, does not quote 
 
 ' The objection made to it by Celsus, that Magi have been confused with 
 Chaldeans, is very weak (Oiig. Con. Ce/s. i. 5S), and does not seem to have 
 been taken up Iw Jewish opponents of Christianity. 
 
 '' It is not often that we find anything of real poetical beauty in the 
 apocryphal additions to the Gospels ; but, as to the star, we are told that it 
 fell into the well at Bethlehem, and there sometimes it is still seen by those 
 who are pure in heart (Donehoo, Apocryphal and Legendary Life of Christ, 
 PP- 73. 74)- 
 
 Bethlehem is specified as ' of Judsja,' not to distinguish it from Bethle- 
 hem of Galilee (Josh. xix. 15), Ijul, either in accordance wilh O.T. usage, 
 or (more probably) to indicate that the King of the Jews was born in the 
 territory of the tribe of Judah. Jerome says that ' in the actual Hebrew ' 
 (in ipso Ileliraico), by which he probably means the Gospel according to the 
 Hebrews, the reading was ' of Judah,' not 'of Judaea,' which he regards as a 
 mistake of the copyists. 
 
II. 1-12] THE MESSIAH'S BIRTH AND INFANCY 1 3 
 
 either Num. xxiv. 17 for the one, or Ps. Ixxii. 10, 15, Cant. iii. 6, 
 Is. Ix. 6 for the other. The gifts mentioned are intrinsically 
 probable, independently of any prophecy or previous narrative. 
 We may believe that the Evangelist knew that the Star in 
 Balaam's prophecy indicated the Messiah Himself, as even the 
 Targums interpreted it. It was Christians who, under the influ- 
 ence of this narrative, misinterpreted Balaam's Star as meaning 
 the star which guided the Magi ; and it was Christians who, 
 under the influence of Ps. Ixxii., turned the Magi into kings. 
 
 The expression 'King of the Jews' (2) shows that the Magi 
 were heathen. ' In the east ' (cV ttj avaroXfj) should probably be 
 ' at its rising ' : the appearance in the heavens, not in a particular 
 quarter of the heavens, suggested the birth of a king.i The 
 Evangelist purposely speaks of Herod as ' Herod the king ' to 
 explain why he was troubled : his throne was in danger. ' All 
 Jerusalem ' (Trao-a 'Jepoo-oA.uj[ta : the feminine singular is unusual) 
 is common hyperbole : it was to their interest not to have a 
 disputed dynasty. The expression 'chief priests and scribes i?/ 
 tke peopW indicates representatives of the Sanhedrin. Comp. 
 xxi. 23 and xxvi. 3, where we have 'elders of the people.'' In 
 xvi. 2 1 all three of the component elements are mentioned. 
 
 Here begins, by implication, the Evangelist's attitude of 
 condemnation towards the official instructors of the Jewish 
 nation. A message is brought, under highly exceptional and 
 remarkable conditions, that the King of the Jews has been born ; 
 and these national leaders take no kind of pains to find out 
 whether or no it is true ; they hope that it is not, for they do not 
 want to have to decide between rival claims. The only person 
 who takes any trouble in the matter is Herod, and his aim 
 respecting the newborn King of the Jews is to compass His 
 destruction. Pagans, who had nothing to guide them but 
 smatterings of science mingled with much superstition, neverthe- 
 less are so kindled with enthusiasm by the signs which God, by 
 means of these imperfect instruments, had granted to them, that 
 they take a long journey and make careful investigations, in 
 
 1 ' We saw ' (RV. ) is better than 'We have seen' (AA'.) ; J. H. IMoulton, 
 Gramniar of N.T. Greek, i. p. 138. 
 
 In the Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs there are many points of 
 contact with the N.T. , especially with Mt. In the Messianic hymn near the 
 end of the Test, of Levi we have this prediction: "Then shall the Lord 
 raise up a new priest ; To him all the words of the Lord shall be revealed ; 
 And he shall do judgment of truth on the earth. And his star shall arise in 
 heaven as of a king, lighting up the light of knowledge as the sun in the 
 daytime " {Levi xviii. 2, 3). See below on iii. 17, 
 
 For the "vernacular genitive " in eXiojxi;v yap auTod tov dcrrepa see Abbott, 
 fohanniite Gramma?-, 2782 ; the effect is to emphasize ' seen ' and ' star,' esp. 
 the latter. For the use oi irpoaKvvniv in the N.T. ste foftaiinine Vocabulary ^ 
 1643. 
 
14 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [II. 1-12 
 
 order to pay due reverence to the new Ruler who has been sent 
 into the world. But the Jewish hierarchy, with the Pentateuch 
 and Prophets in their hands, are so far from being elated at this 
 report of the fulfilment of types and prophecies, that they do not 
 care so much as to verify it. They are content to be ruled by 
 the Herods rather than be roused out of their accustomed modes 
 of life. 
 
 The cause of the varying translations of the term dpxiepctjs in Latin texts 
 is a. problem which has yet to be solved : we have princeps sacerdotum, 
 suiiiinus sacerdos, pmitifex, princeps, sacerdos, the last being rare for apx^epeis, 
 but the regular translation everywhere of iepe6s. In Mt. princeps sacerdoHtm 
 prevails, and in Lk. also, in Mk. sumiiius sacerdos ; in Jn. pontifex, with 
 princeps sacerdoliim frequent in Old Latin texts. Miilta pati a sacerdolibus 
 (iVIt. xvi. 2i) is found in IrenjEus (ill. xviii. 4); and Judas sacerdotibiis et 
 seniorihis dixit (Mt. xxvii. 3) is found in Cyprian (Test. ii. 14). See 
 Burkitt, yo«(r. of Th. St. for Jan. 1908, pp. 290 ff. 
 
 Field gives an interesting parallel to ii. 4 from Dionysius Hal. ^nt. A'o//i. 
 iv. 59 : (XvyKctKetxa^ d^ (Tarquinius) rot)s e-rt^wpioi's fxavTU^, iirvvddi^fro Trap' 
 a^Tuiv, tL ^ouXcTat. ff-qiialvsiv Th ripas ; {Otiuin No7'vic. iii. p. i). In both 
 cases the imperfect is effective : ' he kept on asking,' ' he repeatedly asked.' 
 
 On the hypothesis that the Magi connected the appearance of a new star 
 (like that which appeared in Perseus in Feb. 1901) with t\\e fravashi or 
 representative spirit of a new king, see J. H. Moulton in theyOT/r. of Th. St., 
 July 1902, p. 524. They may have heard of Jewish hopes of a Messiah. 
 
 The quotation from Mic. v. 2 which is put into the mouths 
 of the hierarchy varies greatly from the Septuagint and looks like 
 a free translation from the Hebrew. It is remarkable that Mt. 
 does not quote any prophecy as pointing to the visit of the Magi. 
 We might have expected to have Is. xlix. 12 or Ix. 3 cited as an 
 anticipation of this reverence paid by those who 'came from far,' 
 and of this early instance of ' nations coming to the light ' of the 
 Messiah. 1 But at any rate we have in this visit of the Magi, 
 to do homage to one whom the rulers of the Jews despise and 
 persecute, an early instance of that truth which is again and 
 again alluded to through this Gospel, that the Jews, who trusted 
 in their descent from Abraham and rejected the revelation which 
 God made through His Son, are expelled from their inheritance, 
 while the Gentiles, who welcome that revelation, are admitted 
 into the Kingdom (iii. g, viii. 11, 12, xii. 18-21, xv. 28, xxi. 43, 
 xxii. 5-10, xxiv. 14, xxviii. 19). 
 
 The fact that the Magi found Mary and the Child in ' the 
 house' tells us nothing as to the place of birth. Mt. may have 
 believed that the Messiah was born in a house rather than in a 
 
 ■ The fact that Mt. does not cite either these prophecies, or Num. xxiv. 
 17, or Deut. xviii. 15, is strong evidence that he has not himself invented 
 the story as a fulfilment of 0:T. predictions. Comp. also 2 Sam. v. 2. On 
 what is here quoted from Micah, Svvete remarks: 'The Evangelist has put 
 into the mouth of the Scribes an interpretation rather than a version of the 
 prophecy" (Int. to the O.T. in Greek, p. 396). 
 
II. 1-12] THE MESSIAH'S BIRTH AND INFANCY IS 
 
 stable or a cave, but all that he cares to emphasize is that He 
 was born at Bethlehem, not at Nazareth. Again, he may have 
 believed that the star moved at first and then stood still over 
 Bethlehem ; but all that is required for his narrative is that the 
 Magi, as they Journeyed from their home to Jerusalem and 
 Bethlehem, had the star in front of them. The gifts which they 
 bring tell us nothing respecting the home of the Magi.^ They 
 were offerings such as were often made to princes, and they 
 could be obtained everywhere. The mystical interpretation of 
 them, as pointing to royalty, divinity, and mortality, is as old 
 as Origen. Gold and frankincense occur together in Is. Ix. 6. 
 The three gifts led to the legend of three kings, each offering 
 one. 
 
 There is not one word in the narrative to indicate that the 
 Magi did wrong in drawing inferences from what they saw in 
 the heavens, or that their knowledge of the birth of the Messiah 
 was obtained from evil spirits or by the practice of any black 
 art. Yet Christian writers, while insisting that magic was over- 
 thrown by the Advent of Christ, often connect this overthrow 
 with the visit of the Magi, whose adoration of the Holy Cliild 
 is taken as an admission of their defeat (Ign. Eph. ig; Just. 
 M. Trypho, 78; Orig. Con. Cels. i. 60; Tert. De Idol. 9, etc.). 
 Augustine's epigram is attractive, but it is not in harmony with 
 the facts : Quid erit tribunal judicantis, cum superbos reges cunce 
 terrebant infantis'? The Magi were not proud kings, and it was 
 not terror which moved them to come. 
 
 Attention may here be called to two words which are of very frequent 
 occurrence in Mt., one of which occurs in this section for the first time. 
 'Then' {jbri) is a favourite way of beginning a narrative: ii. 7, 16, 17, 
 iii. 5, 13, 15, iv. I, 5, 10, II, viii. 26, ix. 6, 14, 29, 37, xi. 20, xii. 13, 22, 
 38, 44, 45, etc. etc. Somewhat similar in use is 'Lo' or 'Behold' (ihoi) : 
 i. 20, ii. I, 13, 19, ix. 18, 32, X. 16, xi. 8, etc. ; and ko-X l5o6, ii. 9, iii. 16, 
 17, iv. II, vii. 4, viii. 2, 24, 29, 32, 34, ix. 2, 3, 10, etc. Comp. also aipodpa, 
 which occurs once each in Mk., Lk., Acts, and Rev., but in Mt. seven times : 
 ii. 10, xvii. 6, 23, xviii. 31, xix. 25, xxvi. 22, xxvii, 54; and note the re- 
 currence of wfoaKvveiv, a very favourite word with Mt., but rare in Mk. and 
 Lk. : ii. 2, 8, 11, iv. g, viii. 2, ix. 18, xiv. 33, xv. 25, xviii. 26, xx. 20, 
 xxviii. 9, 17. We might add iropeieaBai to these, as a word which is very 
 frequent in .Mt. and occurs first in this paragraph : ii. 8, 9, 20, viii. 9, ix. 13, 
 X. 6, 7, xi. 4, 7, xii. I, 45, xvii. 27, xviii. 12, xix. 15, etc. ; but it is very 
 frequent in Lk. also, and in Acts. See small print at the end of this 
 chapter. 
 
 Both ISov and Kal ISoi are frequently used to introduce some wonderful 
 thing, as in these two chapters ; hut this is not always the case, as the above 
 references show. Nevertheless, Bengel's particula signo exhibendo aptissiiiia 
 holds good. 
 
 ^ Arabia is an early guess (Justin, Tertullian), but it is not a good one ; 
 for Arabia is south rather than east of Judsa. The Queen of Sheba is ' Queen 
 of the South' {xii. 42). 
 
1 6 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [II. 13-23 
 
 II. 13-23. The Flight into Egypt, the Massacre of the 
 Innocents, and the Eeturn to Palestifie. 
 
 Here again we may, if we like, regard the dreams as the 
 Evangelist's own interpretation of what took place. He knew 
 that all that was done came to pass under Divine guidance ; and 
 this guidance could be most easily understood as operating 
 through dreams. The Divine ordering of the events is all that 
 is essential ; the manner in which God's will took effect is of 
 small moment. The Magi would tell Joseph and Mary of the 
 excitement which had been produced in Jerusalem by their 
 visit, and Joseph would naturally think it prudent to withdraw 
 the Child from Palestine. They could not tell of Herod's evil 
 designs, for they did not know them ; but Joseph would know 
 enough of Herod's character to surmise that his great interest 
 in the birth of a King of the Jews boded no good. He had 
 recently (b.c. 7) put his own sons by Mariamne, Alexander and 
 Aristobulus, to death, believing that they were a danger to his 
 throne; which made Augustus (under whose eye they had been 
 educated at Rome) remark, that it was better to be Herod's pig 
 than his son. If Joseph decided that they must leave the 
 dominions of such a ruler, Egypt was an obvious place of refuge. 
 It was close at hand, and there were many Jews there. The 
 return to Palestine would be equally natural after Herod was 
 dead. 
 
 This paragraph (13-18) is in emphatic contrast to the pre- 
 ceding one, and the contrast is at once marked by the Angel's 
 warning in the opening verse : ' For Herod is about to seek 
 the young Child to destroy Him ' is in simple but emphatic 
 antithesis to the Magi, who sought Him out ' to worship Him.' 
 Other instances of dramatic juxtaposition of incidents will be 
 found in this Gospel, especially in the concluding chapters. 
 There may be some reference to this in Rev. xii. 1-6. 
 
 Just as in the preceding case the Evangelist's chief point is 
 that the Messiah was born at Bethlehem and was found there 
 by the Magi, while he tells nothing about their home or the 
 details of their journey, so here his main point is that the Messiah 
 took refuge in Egypt. About the route by which He was taken 
 or brought back, or the length of time that He remained in 
 Egypt, nothing is said. He had two reasons for insisting upon 
 the flight into Egypt, one of which is conspicuous in his 
 narrative, the other not. He wished to show that here again 
 we have a fulfilment of prophecy, and also to show that the 
 King of the Jews, like the Jewish nation itself, left Palestine 
 and took refuge in Egypt, and then returned to Palestine again. 
 It is possible also that Mt. had the story of the flight of Moses 
 
II. 13-23] THE Messiah's birth and infancy 17 
 
 from Egypt, and his return to it, in his mind ; comp. Ex. 
 iv. 1 9. 
 
 With regard to the prophecy in ver. j 5, Mt. does not, any 
 more than in ver. 6, quote the Septuagint, which would not have 
 suited his purpose in either case : he gives an independent 
 translation of the Hebrew, which he may or may not have made 
 for himself.! In Hos. xi. i the Septuagint gives, ' Out of Egypt 
 I called his children ' (e^ AiyvVrou /itreKaXco-a Ta TtKi'a avTov). 
 In any case, however, the verse is not a prophecy, but the 
 statement of an historical fact, — the call of Israel out of Egypt 
 into the land of Canaan, to make known there the true religion. 
 But the history of the nation is often regarded as a typical 
 anticipation of the life of the Messiah. 
 
 We know neither how old the Child was when He was taken 
 into Egypt nor how long He remained there. Herod died e.g. 4, 
 five days after he had put his son Antipater to death, and a little 
 before the Passover. The flight into Egypt probably took place 
 two or three years before that ; the stay in Egypt must have 
 lasted some years. 
 
 There was a Jewish tradition respecting the stay in Egypt, 
 which, although false, is of great value. Origen gives it as 
 having been brought forward by Celsus, who asserted that Jesus, 
 "{laving been brought up as an illegitimate child, and having 
 served for hire in Egypt, and then coming to the knowledge 
 of certain miraculous powers, returned thence to His own 
 country, and by means of those powers proclaimed Himself a 
 God" {Con. Cels. i. 38). ^ Another form of the tradition is 
 that Jesus wrought miracles by means of charms, which He 
 brought, concealed in His flesh, from Egypt. This tradition 
 confirms two things, that Jesus went into Egypt, and that He 
 afterwards wrought mighty works. The Jews regarded Egypt 
 as the home of magical arts. The Talmud says: "Ten 
 measures of sorcery descended into the world ; Egypt received 
 nine, the rest of the world one " (Herford, Christianity in Talmud 
 and Midrash, p. 55). It is possible that this Jewish tradition 
 that Jesus learnt magic in Egypt, or brought charms out of 
 
 ' Only in a. few cases are the quotations in Mt. taken from the LXX. 
 "The greater number are based on the Hebrew, some of these exhibiting 
 curious inaccuracies arising out of a misconception of the Hebrew text. " And 
 perhaps Mt. used a collection of Messianic texts rather than a MS. of the O.T. 
 (Burkitt, The Gospet History mid its Transmission, pp. 125, 126). See also 
 Allen, pp. Ixi, Ixii. 
 
 '^ Comp. Con. Cels. iii. I, where Origen states that the Jews of his own 
 day, "approving what the Jews of former times dared to do against Jesus, 
 speak evil of Him, asserting that it was by a kind of sorcery (5id neos yoTp-eias) 
 that He passed Himself off for Him who was predicted by the Prophets as 
 He that should come." 
 
1 8 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [11.13-23 
 
 Egypt, is quite independent of the narrative of Mt., and goes 
 back to the first century. When Celsus criticizes Mt.'s story, 
 he does so in a very different manner, and does not mention 
 this tradition {Con. Cels. i. 66). The simplicity of the narrative 
 in Mt. is a considerable mark of truth. It should be contrasted 
 with the elaborate details in the Apocryphal Gospels ; see Pseudo- 
 Matthew xvii.-xxv. ; Arabic Gospel of the Infancy ix.-xxvi. ; 
 Gospel of Thomas, Latin form, i.-iii. The second of these 
 makes the stay in Egypt last three years ; but it is unlikely that 
 this rests on independent tradition. The time is made long in 
 order to have room for many miracles. 
 
 The change of formula in introducing the prophecy in ver. 1 7 
 is probably intentional. Instead of ' in order that it might be 
 fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet' 
 (i. 22, ii. 15), we have, 'Then was fulfilled that which was 
 spoken through Jeremiah the prophet.' 1 The change is three- 
 fold. Nothing is said about Divine purpose ; nor about Divine 
 utterance ; and the name of the Prophet is given. Perhaps Mt. 
 was unwilling to attribute the massacre at Bethlehem to God as 
 designed by Him in order that His .own word might be fulfilled. 
 Possibly Jeremiah is named because he was the Prophet of doom 
 and deatli, and in his mouth this tragic prediction was natural. 
 Similar motives may have influenced the formula in xxvii. 9. , 
 
 The difficulty about the prophecy quoted in ver. 23 is one 
 which our present knowledge does not enable us to solve. It is 
 not certain that there is any original connexion between Na^co/jaios 
 and Na^apci, and nothing in the O.T. seems to connect Na^wpaios 
 with the Messiah. Na^wpatos occurs xxvi. 71 ; Lk. xviii. 37 ; Jn. 
 xviii. 5, 7, xix. j 9, and often in Acts. The form Na^apv/vo'; is 
 found in Lk. and uniformly in Mk., but nowhere in Mt., Jn., 
 or Acts. The adjectives sometimes have a tinge of contempt, 
 whereas o d-n-o fia^apET (xxi. 11 ; Mk. i. 9 ; Jn. i. 46; Acts x. 38) 
 is a mere statement of fact. No connexion with ' Nazirite ' can 
 be intended ; our Lord was not a Nazirite. It is possible that 
 the Evangelist is playing upon Aramaic or Hebrew words which 
 resemble 'Nazarene' and mean 'Branch'; and this solution is 
 approved in Hastings' DCG., art. 'Nazarene,' but it is not 
 satisfactory. Zahn points out that there is no ' saying ' (Acydi'Twi') 
 after ' Prophets,' a word which Mt. commonly inserts when he 
 quotes a prophetical utterance (i. 22, ii. 15, 17, iii. 3, iv. 14, 
 viii. 17, xii. 17, xiii. 35, xxi. 4, xxvii. 9; comp. xiii. 14, xv. 7, 
 xxii. 31). The inference is that ' He shall be called a Nazarene' 
 
 ^ Possibly ' fulfilled ' implies more ihan is meant.; ' then wns exemplified,' 
 ' then there was an instance of,' is perhaps all that is intended. 'Because 
 they are not ' is vague ; 'because they are no more' is the English phrase. 
 ' Lamentation and ' (Bprjvos Kat) is omitted in N B Z 22, Latt. Sah. Boh. Arm. 
 
II. 13-S3] THE MESSIAH'S BIRTH AND INFANCY 1 9 
 
 is not meant to be a quotation, but is the Evangelist's justifica- 
 tion of what precedes, oVt meaning not ' that,' but ' because ' or 
 'for': 'for He shall be called a Nazarene.' This harmonizes 
 with Jerome's suggestion that the reference is to passages in the 
 Prophets which predict that the Messiah shall be despised. 
 
 Mt. can hardly have known that Nazareth was the home of 
 Joseph and Mary before the Birth at Bethlehem, for he treats 
 the settlement of the Holy Family at Nazareth as remarkable 
 and providential, — not at all as a matter of course. The return 
 from Egypt is as divinely ordered as the flight into Egypt ; but, 
 at first, all that is commanded is a return to Palestine, which, in 
 true Jewish phraseology, is called ' the land of Israel' Then, 
 when Joseph is afraid to enter Judcea, a second command directs 
 him to Galilee. That Joseph should fear to enter the territory 
 of Archelaus was as natural as it was providential. Archelaus 
 was the worst of Herod's sons, and Josephus {B.J. 11. vi. 2) tells 
 us that, in order to show that he was a true son of that tyrant, 
 he inaugurated his reign with a massacre of 3000 people. So 
 Joseph is directed to Galilee, and there he himself selected 
 Nazareth ; ' that what was spoken by the Prophets might be 
 fulfilled.' 
 
 As to the general credibility of this second chapter, and the 
 way in which it reflects the condition of Palestine at the time, 
 see W. C. Allen, ad loc. pp. 14, 21, 22; G. H. Box, in the 
 Interpreter, Jan. 1906, and Hastings' DCG., artt. 'Egypt,' 
 'Magi,' 'Innocents,' 'Rachel.' To what is said there may be 
 added the fact that, respecting this period of the Messiah's 
 childhood, the Third Gospel gives us what we might have ex- 
 pected to find in the First, while the First gives us what we might 
 have expected to find in the Third. Antecedently, we should 
 have looked for the account of the obedience to the Law paid 
 by Mother and Child, and the visit of the Holy Family to the 
 Temple, in the Jewish Gospel ; while the visit of the Gentile 
 Magi to the Saviour of the world would have fitted admirably 
 into the universal Gospel of the Gentile Evangelist. But in this 
 matter each writer gets beyond his own special sympathies and 
 point of view ; and this is a valuable confirmation of the trust- 
 worthiness of what he has written. Neither of them can be 
 justly suspected of having imagined and given as history just 
 what suited his own peculiar standpoint.' 
 
 In this second chapter we seem to have a group of three 
 events which are closely connected with one another : the visit 
 of the Magi (1-12), the flight into Egypt (13-18), and the return 
 
 ^ That the flight into Egypt was providentially designed to form a decided 
 break between the wonders at Bethlehem and the ordinary life at Nazareth is 
 maintained by W. G. Elmslie, Expositor, ist series, vi. 403. 
 
20 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [ill. 1-12 
 
 to Palestine (19-23). In what follows we have another group of 
 three connected events: the preaching of John (iii. 1-12), the 
 Baptism of the Messiah (13-17), and the Temptation (iv. i-ii). 
 
 This chapter contains a considerable number of the expressions which are 
 either peculiar to Mt. or are characteristic of his style : see above on ver. 12. 
 Several of them are found in ch. i. also, and they go a long way towards 
 proving that these first two chapters have the same author as the rest of 
 the Gospel. The tables drawn up by Sir J. Hawkins [Hone Synoptidt, 
 pp. 3-9) bring this result out very clearly. " If the Nativity Story be not an 
 integral part of the First Gospel, it must be counted one of the cleverest of 
 literary adaptations, a verdict not likely to be passed on it by a sane criti- 
 cism " (Burkitt, Evangdioii da-Mcpharreshe, ii. p. 259). 
 
 Characteristic : lioi {l, 19), Trpoanvveiv {2, 8, II), a\)va.yei.v (4), rjytfiiiv (6), 
 rSre (7, 11), (ftaiveaSai (7, ig), iropeieaBai (8, 9) Kal iSoi) (9), cr(p6Spa (lo), 
 7rpo(r0^/)eiv (ll), drfaavpos (ll), di'ttx^p"" (l2, 13, 14, 23), 6'pia (16), Xeyci/ieJ'O! 
 (23), 'iva Tr\f)pwdri (15), oirws irXrfpJidT] (23), Tore erXripiiBrj (17). Peculiar: 
 Kar' 6vap (12, 13, 19, 23), pTjdh {15, 17, 23) ; peculiar to this chapter : o6Sa- 
 IJ,C>s(6), aKpijioOf (7, 16), reXevTri (14), 6v/xov<rBai. (16), Sierijs (16). 
 
 Mt. has three ways of pointing out the fulfilment of prophecy, and all 
 three of them are found in these two chapters : it is in connexion with them 
 that rb pTjSiv is commonly used. An event took place, either IVa irX-qpiiiBri 
 (i. 22, ii. 15, iv. 14, xxi. 4, xxvi. 56 = Mk. xiv. 49), or bira^ iv\-qpwdri 
 (ii. 23, viii. 17, xii. 17, xiii. 35) ; or it took place, and rdre iir\T}pih6ri (ii. 17, 
 xxvii. 9) — what the Prophet had said. 
 
 III. 1-IV. 11. THE PREPARATION POE, THE MINISTRY. 
 
 III. 1-12. The Herald of the Messiah. 
 
 The Evangelist has shown us how the Magi from the East 
 have done homage to the newborn Messiah, and how the 
 usurper-king tried to kill Him and failed. The true King, 
 exiled for a time, outlived the usurper and returned to His own 
 country, but not as yet to reign. At last the time draws near, 
 and He has His herald in John the Baptist. ^ 
 
 The appearance of the son of Zachariah as a Prophet on the 
 banks of the Jordan, preaching repentance-baptism for the re- 
 mission of sins, and proclaiming the near approach of the 
 Kingdom of God, produced an excitement throughout the nation 
 which it is not easy for us to estimate. After having had a long 
 
 'This preparatory ministry of John is in all four Gospels. It is part of 
 the earliest Christian tradition. Each Gospel has details which are not in 
 the others, but all agree as to the chief elements. The revolutionary rite of 
 repentance-baptism for Jews is in all four. The proclamation of the coming 
 Messiah is distinct ; and the coming has two resulls, — redemption for those 
 who are ready, and judgment for those who are not. See Briggs, The 
 Messiah of the Gospels, pp. 63 ff. 
 
 It is possible that, in the cjuotation, ' in the wilderness ' .should be taken 
 with ' make ye ready the way of the Lord,' as in the RV. of Is. xl. 3, and 
 not with ' The voice of one crying.' 
 
III. 1-12] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 21 
 
 succession of Prophets, through whom close communion with 
 Jehovah was always possible, there had been, since Malachi 
 (c. 460-430 B.C.), four weary centuries, during which God 
 seemed to have ceased to take interest in His people : ' There 
 was no voice, nor any that answered.' This oppressive silence 
 had at last been broken, and once more God had a message for 
 the nation, spoken by the living voice of a herald sent by Him, 
 and not merely recorded in the prophetic scrolls. But the 
 message of this new Prophet was not altogether acceptable. It 
 was a great joy that a Prophet had appeared. It was indeed 
 good tidings that the Kingdom of God was at hand. But it was 
 not such welcome news that not every child of Abraham would 
 have the right to enter into the Kingdom ; that many of them 
 had no better right than Gentiles had to enter into it; and that 
 even those who were not children of Abraham could win the 
 right to enter. It had been the conviction of the Jews for many 
 generations that salvation was for all of them, but for them only 
 and the few proselytes who formally joined them. For some 
 time they had come to believe that the Advent of the Messiah 
 would be both a time of joy and a time of judgment ; but the 
 joys of the Kingdom were to be for themselves, while God's 
 judgments were to fall upon the Gentiles. It shows the great 
 originality of John as a Prophet that he entirely broke with these 
 ideas. God had no such plan as that of a kingdom reserved for 
 Abraham's children and peopled entirely by them. Out of the 
 most unpromising material He could make subjects who in the 
 Kingdom would be equal to the children of Abraham. And the 
 axe of God's judgments was not for the wild olives only. Every 
 tree that is not bringing forth good fruit is in peril. What is 
 needed to secure entrance into the Kingdom is repentance, 
 a change of heart (/ierai/oia), a fundamental revolution in 
 moral purpose ; and, as a sign and seal of this fundamental 
 change, he required all who came to him confessing their sins to 
 submit to the rite of baptism. In this he conformed to the ideas 
 of his nation. In the East, nothing of importance takes place in 
 religion without some external act which appeals to the senses 
 and the imagination ; and hence John's baptism. It was this 
 surprising requirement that won for him the title by which he 
 became known, 'the Baptist' or 'the Baptizer' (Mk. i. 4, vi. 
 14, 24). And it was this which made the emissaries of the 
 hierarchy challenge his right to make Jews submit to this sym- 
 bohcal bath (Jn. i. 25). It might almost be said that John had 
 excommunicated the whole nation, and would re-admit none to 
 communion, unless they professed, not merely sorrow for their 
 sins, but resolution to break off from them and start afresh. As 
 a token of this solemn change of life, he plunged them under the 
 
22 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [ill. 1-12 
 
 water, to bury the polluted past, and then made them rise again 
 to newness of life. Analogies for this symbolical washing have 
 been sought in the levitical purifications of the Jews and the 
 frequent bathings of the Essenes. But there was this marked dif- 
 ference. These purifications and bathings were repeated daily, 
 or hourly, if technical pollution was suspected ; whereas John's 
 baptism was administered only once. It represented a decisive 
 crisis, which, it was assumed, could never be experienced again. 
 
 It has been discussed whether ' baptism wito (ets) remission 
 of sins ' means that forgiveness was the immediate effect of the 
 baptism, or that it was an ultimate result towards which the rite 
 was preparatory. Was it a symbol that the baptized person was 
 then and there forgiven, or a pledge that he would be forgiven ? 
 The latter seems to be correct (see Swete on Mk. i. 4).^ Cyril 
 of Jerusalem, in comparing John's baptism with the Christian 
 rite, says that the former " bestowed only the remission of sins " 
 (Cateck. XX. 6; comp. iii. 7). But there is nothing in Scripture 
 to show that it did as much as that. Tertullian points out that 
 'baptism/^?/- the remission of sins' refers to a /?//?/re remission, 
 which was to follow in Christ {De Bapt. x.). The expression of 
 Ambrose, that one is the 'baptism of repentance,' the other the 
 ' baptism of grace,' leaves the question of forgiveness open. But, 
 if John had professed to forgive sins, would not that have been 
 challenged, as it was m our Lord's case (ix. 3 ; Mk. ii. 7 ; 
 Lk. v. 21, vii. 49)? And, if it had been generally understood 
 that John's baptism was a washing away of sins, would our Lord 
 have submitted to it ? Its main aspect was a preparation for the 
 Kingdom, and as such it fitted well into the opening of the 
 Messiah's ministry. To every one else this preparation was an act 
 of repentance. The Messiah, who needed no repentance, could 
 yet accept the preparation. John's rite consecrated the people 
 to receive salvation ; it consecrated the Messiah to bestow it. 
 
 Of the two notes in John's trumpet-call it was the second 
 which characterized him as the herald of the Messiah. The old 
 Prophets had cried, 'Repent ye': he alone was conmiissioned 
 to proclaim that 'the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.' It is a 
 new reason for repentance that the long-looked-for Kingdom 
 would come soon. 
 
 John's baptism should be compared, not so much with 
 levitical purifications or Essene bathings, which a person could 
 administer to himself and could repeat, as with the baptism of 
 proselytes, which was administered by another and could not be 
 repeated. It did not merely restore the cleansed person to his 
 normal condition ; it admitted to a new condition. The practice 
 
 'Salmon thinks otherwise; but his reasons are not convincing {Tlie 
 Hiiiuan Element in the Gospels, p. 46). 
 
III. 1-12] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 23 
 
 of admitting proselytes by baptism was in existence before John's 
 day, and it no doubt influenced him. The peculiarity of John's 
 baptism was that it was administered to Jews. By it the Jewish 
 nation was forcibly instructed in the momentous truth, that, 
 although they were Abraham's seed, they could not enter the 
 Messianic Kingdom, which was now so near, without a thorough 
 moral purification. It was John's function to reach men's 
 consciences ; and no earlier Prophet had been more successful 
 in doing so. Those who came to him not merely confessed 
 their sins ; by submitting to baptism they made a public resolu- 
 tion to renounce them. 
 
 There are questions of chronology and geography which 
 cannot be determined with certainty ; but they are not of great 
 importance, as is shown by the small amount of attention 
 bestowed on them by the Evangelists. We do not at all know 
 how long John was in the wilderness before he came forward as 
 a Prophet and as the herald of the Messiah. And it is not easy 
 to make out exactly when and where he and the Messiah came 
 in contact with one another, or when the Ministry of the Messiah 
 begins. On the former question see Sanday, Sacred Sites of the 
 Gospel, p. 23, and articles on ' Bethabara ' : on the latter question 
 see Briggs, New Light on the Life of Jesus, pp. 1-16. 
 
 This opening paragraph of the account of the Preparation 
 for the Ministry of the Messiah is in two sections : the Appear- 
 ance of the Baptist (1-6), and the Preaching of the Baptist 
 (7-12). It is in the first section that both Mt. and Lk. begin 
 to make use of Mk., and here what is called " the triple tradition " 
 begins. That expression is convenient, but it must not be 
 understood as meaning that in such places we have three 
 independent accounts of the same facts. All three accounts 
 are based on one and the same source, viz. that which lies at the 
 back of Mk. In the second section Mt. and Lk. both make 
 use of another source, either unknown to Mk. or very little used 
 by him (Q). They insert the contents of vv. 7-10 before 
 ver. II, and of ver. 12 after ver. 11. But in the first section 
 Mt. and Lk. agree with one another against Mk. in two remark- 
 able particulars. Mk. quotes the prophecy from Is. xl. 3 first 
 and then mentions the appearance of the Baptist, while Mt. and 
 Lk. place the appearance of John before the quotation. Again, 
 Mk. quotes Mai. iii. i along with Is. xl. 3 as one utterance. 
 Both Mt. and Lk. omit Mai. iii. i here and give it elsewhere 
 (xi. 10; Lk. vii. 27), viz. in Christ's praise of John after his 
 messengers had departed. ^ 
 
 ' On the problem presented by these agreements of Mt. and Lk. against 
 MU. see Hawkins, Horie Synopticic, pp. 174, 175; Biirkitt, The Gospel 
 History and its Transmission, pp. 40-58. 
 
24 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [III. 1-12 
 
 It is obvious that the ministry of the Baptist was a large 
 portion of the preparation for that of the Messiah. There were 
 three great occasions on which the Forerunner preceded the 
 Messiah : at his birth, at the beginning of his ministry, and at 
 his death. AVith regard to the last, Christ Himself called atten- 
 tion to the precedence and the resemblance : ' Even so shall the 
 Son of man also suffer of them ' (xvii. 12). 
 
 Mk. begins his narrative at this point. Both Mt. and Lk. 
 give some account of the childhood of the Messiah before 
 joining the narrative of Mk., but they make the transition to 
 Mk. in very different ways. Mt. starts with the vague expression, 
 ' Now in those days ' ('Ev Si rats ■fj/xepai's €K«vats), which is not 
 in Mk., but which reminds us of the O.T. Comp. Ex. ii. 
 II, 23; Judg. xviii. I, xxi. 25 ; Is. xxxviii. i. This is in marked 
 contrast to the care with which the historian Luke endeavours 
 to date the beginning of the ministry of the Baptist (Lk. iii. i, 2), 
 and it seems to show that, as in the first two chapters, Mt. does 
 not take much interest in chronology. Without any intimation 
 of the amount of interval, he leaps over some thirty years to those 
 days in which the ministry of the Herald of the Messiah began. 
 
 The description of the Baptist given by Josephus (Ant 
 XVIII. V. 2) should be compared with that in the Gospels. He 
 says that he was "a good man, and exhorted the Jews to exercise 
 virtue by practising righteousness towards one another and piety 
 towards God, and thus to come to baptism. For in this way 
 their baptism also would be acceptable to Him, if they practised 
 it not for the cancelling (7rapatTi;o-et) of certain sins, but for the 
 purification of the body, provided that the soul had been 
 thoroughly cleansed beforehand by righteousness." John's hard 
 mode of life was not mere asceticism. His object was not to 
 make men ascetics, but to rescue them from the wrath to come. 
 It was imminent, and in order to escape it they must abandon 
 their pleasant sins. To help them towards this he lived a life 
 of self-denial, wearing the coarse garment of a Prophet (2 Kings 
 i. 8 ; Zee. xiii. 4), and living on such coarse food as could be 
 found in the wilderness.^ Lk. omits this account of John's mode 
 of life, and Mk. places it after the statement respecting the 
 success of his ministry, which attracted multitudes from long 
 distances. 
 
 ' The Kingdom of Heaven,' or, more literally, ' The Kingdom 
 of the Heavens,' is an expression which occurs 32 times in 
 
 ' It is doubtful whether the garment was a camel's skin with the hair on, 
 or cloth made of camel's hair ; whether the ' locusts ' were the insects or 
 carob-beans ; and whether the honey was that made by wild bees or the gum 
 of a tree. See artt. ' Camel,' ' Locust,' ' Husk,' ' Honey ' in DCG. and Enc. 
 Bibl. Did John adopt his dress in order to intimate to the people that he 
 was a Prophet? Comp. xi. 14, xvii. 10-13 ; Lk. i. 17. 
 
III. 1-12] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 25 
 
 Mt., while Mk. has 'The Kingdom of God' 14 times, and Lk. 
 has it 32 times. With the possible exception of xix. 24 = 
 Mk. X. 25, Mt. either omits or paraphrases Mk.'s expression, 
 or changes it to ' The Kingdom of the Heavens.' We may 
 conjecture that in the Aramaic Logia of S. Matthew, and in 
 the Greek translation used by our Evangelist, the phrase was 
 ' Kingdom of the Heavens,' and that Mk. and Lk., writing for 
 Gentiles, preferred a less Jewish phrase. But in xii. 28 and 
 xxi. 31, 43, Mt. has 'The Kingdom of God,' perhaps to mark 
 some difference of meaning which he thought was required. 
 For him, 'The Kingdom of the Heavens' is the Messianic 
 Kingdom, which is declared to be near at hand ; and in these 
 three passages he may have thought that this meaning was not 
 quite suitable. But the probability is, that there is no real 
 difference of meaning between the two phrases, that our Lord 
 used both, and that He often spoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, 
 in accordance with Jewish usage. The Jews had many devices 
 for avoiding the use of the sacred Name, and one of these was 
 to speak of Heaven, when they meant God, as in the Parable 
 of the Lost Son (Lk. xv. 18, 21). So also of the Baptism of 
 John (Mt. xxi. 25). This reverence had degenerated into super- 
 stition, but our Lord would be likely to respect usage which had 
 originated in reverence. Nevertheless, by frequently speaking 
 of God, He gave no countenance to superstition. Mk. and Lk. 
 may sometimes have changed ' Heaven ' into ' God,' because the 
 latter was more intelligible to Gentiles ; but Mt. has certainly 
 made changes in order to avoid using the word ' God.' In his 
 Gospel Christ speaks of God as ' Father ' more than 40 times ; 
 in Lk. this occurs less than 20 times, in Mk. only 4 or 5 times. 
 His bias, therefore, is manifest.^ 
 
 This Kingdom is the rule of God, whether in the human 
 heart, or in society. It exists now, but it has its full realization 
 in eternity.2 Some have to seek and gain it. Those who have 
 gained it have to labour to retain it, and this retaining may be 
 regarded as winning it. 
 
 It is to be noted that Christ Himself never gave any 
 definition of the Kingdom, and perhaps it is not wise for us 
 to attempt to do so. Any definition which we could frame would 
 be almost certain to exclude important elements of truth. He 
 seems to have used more than one phrase to express it, and He 
 places each phrase in a variety of contexts which do not always 
 seem to be quite harmonious. The idea of the Kingdom is 
 
 ^ See O. Holtzmann, Life of Jesus, pp. 160 ff. 
 
 ^ See A. Robertson, Regmim Dei, Bampton Lectures 1901, pp. 75-77 ; 
 and for S. Paul's equivalent, Sanday in the Journal of Th. St., July 1900, 
 p. 4S1. 
 
26 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [ill. 1-12 
 
 planted in the minds of His hearers as a sort of nucleus round 
 which different truths may gather. The Kingdom is sometimes 
 the Way, sometimes the Truth, sometimes the Life. Perhaps 
 most of all it is the Life. It is something living, organic, and 
 inspiring, in which the will of God, through the free and loyal 
 action of those who receive it, prevails. It works inwardly, both 
 in individuals and communities, but it manifests itself outwardly. 
 It wins adherents, and inspires and controls them. And it 
 possesses powers, not merely of growth and improvement, but 
 of recovery and reformation. While it prevails against the 
 opposition and persecution of enemies, it triumphs also in the 
 long-run over the errors and slackness and corruption of its own 
 supporters. We possess it, and yet we have to seek it and win 
 it. It is within us, and yet we have to strive to enter it. The 
 truth about it is so vast that we need to have it stated in all 
 kinds of ways in order to appropriate some of it. 
 
 In this world there is so much that cannot be regarded as part 
 of the Kingdom, or even brought into harmony with it, that the 
 tendency to connect the idea of it almost entirely with the 
 future is very natural ; and that is what we find in the First 
 Gospel. To the Evangelist the Kingdom of Heaven is that 
 Kingdom which the Messiah will found or bring with Him, when 
 He returns in glory on the clouds of Heaven (xxiv. 30, xxvi. 64) ; 
 it is still in the future. The parables in which the judgment, 
 with bliss for the righteous and woe for the wicked, is indicated, 
 represent this judgment, and the consequent bliss or woe, as 
 future. This is evident in the Tares (xiii. 37 ff.), the Virgins 
 (xxv. I ff.), and the Talents (\xv. 14 ff.). Still more clearly in 
 the discourse about the Sheep and the Goats (xxv. 31 ff.). 
 
 And this return of the Messiah to begin the Kingdom was 
 believed to be imminent. It would follow closely on the 
 tribulation which must result from the destruction of Jerusalem 
 (xxiv. 16, 29), and some of the generation then living would live 
 to see it (xxiv. 34 ; comp. xvi. 28). Cheerful trust and con- 
 fidence was to be the attitude of those who looked forward to its 
 coming. The faithful were to pray for its coming (vi. 10). It 
 was well worth while to part with one's dearest possessions and 
 even with life itself, in order to secure admission into it (xiii. 44- 
 46, xvi. 25, 26). 
 
 'The Kingdom of the Heavens' is not the Church. The 
 Church is visible, the Kingdom not. The Kingdom is the end, 
 complete, perfect, and final ; the Church is the means to the 
 end, working towards perfection and striving to realize its ideal. 
 So far as it expresses the will and character of the Messiah, the 
 Church may be called the Kingdom of Christ, but it is not what 
 is set before us in this Gospel as 'the Kingdom of the Heavens.' 
 
III. 1-13] TREPARATION FOR TIIE MINISTRY 27 
 
 In this verse the leading idea is that of warning : ' repent, for the 
 judgment of impenitent sinners is at hand.' 
 
 The quotation from Is. xl. 3 is in all four Gospels, and it 
 is clear from Jn. i. 23 that the Baptist applied the words to 
 himself. He was a Voice making known the Word, and mean- 
 ingless without the Word. The quotation is mainly from the 
 Septuagint. The words from Malachi are given xi. 10. 
 
 John consciously took Elijah as his model (2 Kings i. 8). 
 There is the same rough garb and ascetic life, the same isolation 
 from society and fearlessness towards it, the same readiness to 
 rebuke either kings or multitudes. Herod and Herodias are to 
 him as Ahab and Jezebel to his predecessor. The lives of both 
 Prophets are a protest against the corruptions of contemporary 
 society. But far less than Elijah is John a despairing pessimist : 
 his message is full of hope. And in this Gospel, as in Mk. and 
 Jn., he comes on the scene with the same startling suddenness 
 with which Elijah enters (i Kings xvii. i). "John leaps, as it 
 were, into the arena full grown and full armed" (A. Maclaren ; 
 comp. Pere Didon, /hus Christy pp. 191, 196). But his asceti- 
 cism was not mere acting ; it was the expression of his character 
 and the instrument of his work. To the self-indulgent, self- 
 denial is impressive. 
 
 In the summary of the Baptist's preaching (7-12), which 
 perhaps both Mt. and Lk. take from memoirs of the Baptist 
 (either written or in a stereotyped tradition), the dominant idea 
 is that of judgment. In Lk. (iii. 7) this stern warning is addressed 
 to the people ; but it is probable that it was addressed to the 
 Pharisees and Sadducees, to whom it is much more appropriate. ^ 
 As addressed to them it shows how, from the very first, the 
 leading sections of the nation were told that their rejection of the 
 Messiah would be fatal. John welcomed the multitudes, but he 
 suspected, or by spiritual intuition discerned, the insincerity of 
 these professional religious guides. The formal piety of the 
 Pharisees and the self-indulgent scepticism of the Sadducees 
 would be equally hateful to him, and he meets them with 
 indignant surprise. Why had they come ? Curiosity about this 
 revolutionary preacher, possibly a wish to get a handle against 
 him, or to learn how he gained such a hold upon the multitude, 
 may have influenced them ; or the pressure of the people may 
 have been too great for them to resist — they must come and see 
 for themselves. All that is clear about them is that John does 
 
 ' When Mt. and Lk. differ in those sections which are common to both 
 but are absent from Mk., it is generally Mt. that seems to be nearer to the 
 original source. Twice elsewhere in Mt, (xii. 34, xxiii. 33) the Pharisees 
 are addressed as ' vipers' brood,' both times by our Lord. There is no 
 parallel to either passage in Lk. Here the thought may be of snakes flying 
 before a prairie-fire. 
 
28 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [ill. 1-12 
 
 not regard them as true penitents. They claim to be Abraham's 
 children, but they have a very different parentage. Their 
 serpent-like natures are among the crooked things that must be 
 made straight, before they can be fit for a baptism of repentance. 
 If they are in earnest, let them give some proof of it, and never 
 suppose that mere birth from Abraham can save them i (Rom. 
 ii. 17-29). 
 
 This is the first marked instance of the feeling of abhorrence 
 for the Pharisees which runs through the First Gospel, and which 
 continues down to xxvii. 62, where see note. Neither in Mk. 
 nor in Lk. is there any indication that the Pharisees were 
 denounced by the Baptist. And Jn., though he says that the 
 Pharisees sent to inquire about the Baptist (i. 19, 24), gives no 
 denunciation of them. 
 
 Yet the Baptist seems to think them not quite hopeless. He 
 exhorts them to bring forth good fruit before it is too late (8-10). 
 He warns them that even now, although they do not at ail 
 expect it, judgment is at the door, and procrastination will be 
 disastrous. Every one who does not repent will be destroyed 
 (vii. 19) like a fruitless tree.- 
 
 Here the address to the Pharisees and Sadducees, which 
 Mt. and Lk. have in common, ends. What follows (11, 12) is 
 common to all four, but by the others is placed somewhat 
 differently (Mk. i. 7, 8 ; Lk. iii. 16, 17 ; Jn. i. 26, 27). Mt. adds 
 it to the address to the Pharisees, with which it does not agree. 
 John was not baptizing them unto repentance ; nor would he 
 have promised that the Messiah would baptize them with the 
 Holy Spirit. But the ruling idea of this second address i^vv. ir, 
 12) is still one of judgment. 
 
 It is his office to bind them to a new life, symbolized by 
 immersion in water. But One far mightier, whose bondservant 
 he is unworthy to be,^ is coming to immerse them in an element 
 far more potent — the Holy Spirit and fire. Mt. alone has ' unto 
 repentance' (n); comp. xxvi. 28. 
 
 The meaning of ' baptizing with fire ' (which is not in Mk. 
 or Jn.) is difficult. Apparently the same persons ('you') are 
 baptized with the Spirit and with fire. In that case, the ' fire ' 
 would mean the illuminating, kindling, purifying character of the 
 Messiah's baptism (Mai. iii. 2, 3) to all those who prepare them- 
 
 ' On the variation between ixt\ Sd^r/re (Mt.) and /jlt] &p^r)a6e (Lk.) see 
 J. H. Moulton, Grammar of N.T. Greek., i. p. 15. 
 
 ^ In the statement that God can raise up children to Abraham out of the 
 most unlikely material, we have another intimation that Gentiles may come 
 in to enjoy that which Jews neglect or abuse. 
 
 ^ The aorist ^aardaai may mean ' not worthy to carry His sandals even 
 once.' So also in Mk. i. 7, Xvcrai t. Ifidt'ra. The baptizing in Jordan may 
 have suggested the carrying of sandals at the bath. 
 
III. 1-12] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 29 
 
 selves to receive it. But the ' you ' may embrace the two classes 
 of penitent and impenitent ; and in the next verse two classes are 
 clearly distinguished. On this hypothesis it is commonly sup- 
 posed that the graces of the Spirit are for the one, and penal fire 
 for the other. There is yet a third possibility : that both classes 
 are baptized in the Spirit and in fire. The result of such 
 baptism will be, that those who have prepared themselves for 
 the Messiah will be enabled to attain to that righteousness to 
 which repentance-baptism leads ; they will be purified, warmed, 
 and enlightened ; while those who have refused to prepare them- 
 selves will be consumed, as chaff, with unquenchable fire.^ The 
 same influences to the one class are salvation, to the other 
 destruction. But, in any case, we must beware of drawing 
 unwarranted conclusions from metaphorical language. Just as 
 ' fire ' tells us nothing about the manner in which God's 
 judgments are executed upon the unrepentant, so ' unquenchable ' 
 tells us nothing about the duration of the punishment. 'Un- 
 quenchable ' (cxo-ySfCTTos) does not necessarily mean that the fire 
 will burn for ever ; still less that it will burn, but never consume, 
 what is in it ; but rather that it is so fierce that it cannot be 
 extinguished. Here it is expressly stated that the worthless 
 material will be consumed. But inferences drawn from meta- 
 phors are very insecure (see on v. 26). 
 
 In ver. 1 2 Mt. returns to the source which he uses in common 
 with Lk. So far as there is difference of wording, Mt. seems 
 again to be more original. The repetition of ' His ' (airoC) in 
 both cases is remarkable. It is ' His fan,' and ' His threshing- 
 floor,' and ' His wheat.' In some texts it is also ' His garner,' as 
 in Lk. But it is not His chaff or His fire. This Mightier than 
 John is not, like John himself, a mere instrument : He is King 
 in the Kingdom which John has come to announce. It is also 
 remarkable that neither here nor in the message which he sends 
 to Jesus (xi. 3) does John speak of Him as the Christ. The 
 reason may possibly be that the popular ideas respecting the 
 Messiah were so grossly erroneous. 
 
 In the summaries of the Baptist's preaching, two verses 
 (11, 12) are in all four Gospels ; four (7-10) are common to Mt. 
 and Lk., while the remainder are peculiar to Lk. (iii. 10-14). 
 " It is natural to believe that those verses are oldest which are 
 most frequently produced, and those the latest which are in one 
 
 ^ The Sinaitic Syriac places the ' fire ' before the ' Holy Spirit ' ; and 
 some authorities omit 'and in fire.' Briggs thinks that in the original 
 Aramaic there was no mention of the Spirit, and that the line ran : ' He will 
 baptize you with fire' (The Messiah of the Gospels, p. 67). The idea of 
 judgment was probably uppermost in John's mind, when he spoke of 
 baptizing in fire. Or ' fire ' may refer to the persecution which the baptized 
 must expect. 
 
30 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [III. 13-17 
 
 Gospel only" (Wright, Synopsis, p. 6). The inference is not 
 quite secure. 
 
 III. 13-17. The Messiah baptized by the Herald and proclaimed 
 by God to be His Son. 
 
 Painters have made us familiar with the idea that the Christ 
 and the Baptist were playmates during their childhood ; but we do 
 not know that they ever met, until Jesus came to be baptized by 
 John. The absence of evidence makes a previous meeting im- 
 probable. And just as we do not know how long John was in 
 the wilderness before he came forward as a Prophet, so we do 
 not know how long he had been working as a Prophet and as 
 ' the Baptist' when the Messiah came to him. Mt. gives us no 
 more than his characteristic 'Then,' i.e. during the time when 
 John was preaching and baptizing. And the Messiah came 
 expressly to be baptized. It was not because John recognized 
 Him as the Messiah that he was at first unwilling to baptize Him. 
 John had not yet received the sign by which he was to know the 
 Messiah, and until this special revelation was granted to him he 
 was as ignorant as others that Jesus was the Christ (Jn. i. 33). 
 But he baptized no one without a preliminary interview, which in 
 all other cases was a confession of sins as a guarantee of repent- 
 ance. The preliminary interview with his kinsman from Nazareth 
 convinced John that he was in the presence of One who had no 
 sins to conless, and who therefore, in an unspeakable degree, was 
 morally his superior. It would be far more fitting that he should 
 confess his sins to Jesus and be baptized by Him, the only 
 Sinless One. And Jesus, by His reply, ' Suffer it to be so now,' 
 seems to admit that John's plea for an interchange of positions 
 is not a false one. He knows, far better than John himself. His 
 own superiority ; but He also knows that what both of them 
 have to do is to fulfil what God has willed. It was God's 
 will that all Israel should be baptized and enter the Kingdom, 
 and God's own Son, who claimed no exemption from paying 
 tribute to the Temple (xvii. 25, 26), claims no exemption here. 
 At the end of His ministry, He was to be baptized in suffer- 
 ing (Lk. xti. 50 ; Mk. x. 38), and to bear the sins of others, as a 
 sinless Victim, on the tree (i Pet. ii. 24). Must He not, at the 
 beginning of His ministry, express His sympathy with those who 
 were burdened by sin, although He had none of His own, by 
 submitting to be baptized by John ? He, like others, could bury 
 His past beneath the waters of Jordan, and rise again to a life in 
 accordance with God's will. The change with them was from a 
 life of sin, displeasing to God, to a hfe of righteousness, accept- 
 able to Him. The change with Him was from the home-life of 
 
III. )13-17] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 31 
 
 intellectual and spiritual development (Lk. ii. 52) to the life of 
 puHlic ministry as the Messiah ; but both were equally pleasing 
 to God. The thirty years of peaceful preparation are buried ; 
 an.d the Messiah comes out of Jordan for the storm and stress of 
 tlie work that His Father has given Him to do. 
 
 We need not infer from the words ' Jesus cometh from 
 Galilee' (Mk. 'came from Nazareth of Galilee') that our Lord 
 was the lirst who came to John from that district. More 
 probably the expression merely calls attention to the fact that 
 the Messiah now leaves His home and is seen in public. The 
 attempt of John to prevent Him from being baptized by him, 
 and Christ's reply to him, are recorded by Mt. alone ; and the 
 reply is the first utterance attributed to the Messiah in this 
 Gospel. But we need not suppose that they are invented by the 
 Evangelist to get rid of the difficulty of a sinless Messiah accept- 
 ing repentance-baptism. Could Mt. have invented the Messiah 's 
 reply? What the imagination of Jewish Christians of the first 
 ages could do in dealing with this difficulty is seen from a 
 fragment of the Gospel according to the Hebrews which is 
 preserved by Jerome l^Adv. Felag. iii. 2). " Behold the Mother 
 of the Lord and His brethren said to Him, John the Baptist 
 baptizeth for the remission of sins ; let us go and be baptized by 
 him. But He said to them, What sin have I committed, that I 
 should go and be baptized by him ? Except perchance this very 
 thing that I have said is ignorance." A similar narrative was 
 contained in a writing called the Preaching of Paul, as is seen 
 from the Tractatus de Rebaptisinate, 17 (Hartel, ii. p. 90), where 
 it is said that in the Pradicatio Paiili, "in opposition to all the 
 Scriptures, you will find Christ, the only person who was 
 absolutely free from fault, both making confession respecting 
 His own sin, and that almost against His will He was compelled 
 by His Mother Mary to receive the baptism of John ; and also 
 that, when He was being baptized, fire was seen upon the water, 
 which is not written in any Gospel." But, as Klostermann 
 remarks, the difficulty felt about the baptism of Jesus is strong 
 evidence to its being an historical fact. 
 
 It is here that we come on the first of the points of contact between Mt. 
 and the Epistles of Ignatius. That Ignatius knew Mt. cannot reasonably be 
 doubted ; and in him we have a marked ilKistration of what is so common a 
 feature in early Christian Uterature, that parallels with Mt. are more frequent 
 and closer than parallels with Mk. or Lk. This is the case in Hermas and 
 2 Clement, perhaps also in t Clement and Polycarp. As soon as this Gospel 
 was published, it seems to have become the favourite ; and even now it is 
 probably more read than the others. Ignatius (Smyni. i) speaks of our 
 Lord as " truly born of a virgin, and baptized by Johii that all righteousness 
 might be fulfilled by Him" (Zra -n-Xiipuidrj irS,<ra diKatoa-ivTj), a reason for His 
 Baptism which is given by Mt. alone. Comp. Ign. Pa/. I, Trdvras /3t£trTafe, 
 lis Kai ffe 6 Kiptos . . , irivruv ris v6(70Vi /Sdcrrafe, with Mt. viii. 17; Pol. 2 
 
32 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [ill. I S-l? 
 
 (ppovLfjLos yhov OJS 6 60iS €f TrdaiVj nal aKipatos uis ij ■jrepto'Tepd., with Mt. x. ^° 5 
 £p/i. 5) ft yap f''^? Kctt devT^pou Trpotreuxv roaair-qv Iffx^^ ^X^^j with Mt. x'^^'i* 
 19, 20 ; Mph. 6, ouTW? 5ei ^/xas avrbv dix^^^^'-^ '^^ avrbv rbv irlii\l^avTay v ^'_'^h 
 Mt. A. 40; Trail. 11 {Philad. 3), oi5roi 70/3 oi?/f eitriK (jivrcla Trarpdi, %\ 'Jth 
 Mt. XV. 13; and Stnyrn. 6, 6 x"!'"^'' X"Pf'''<'> with Mt. xix. 12. S^^ 
 Lightfoot's notes in each place. There are other passages, less clear tha n 
 these, where Ignatius seems to recall Mt. 
 
 MU. tells us that Jesus, ' straightway coming up out of the water, saw' 
 the heavens being rent asunder' [el^ev (xxf-'^opiivovs TOi>s ovpavo^s), & graphic' 
 expression, which is the more remarkable because there seems to be no other 
 example of this verb (which all three have of the rending of the veil of the _ 
 Temple) being used of rending the heavens. Here both Mt. and Lk. have 
 the O.T. verb, which was evidently in common use for the opening of the 
 heavens {dveuix^V^^^ abri^ oi ovpavoi) ; comp. Jn. i. 51 J Acts x. II ; Rev. 
 iv. I. So also in the Septuagint : Is. Ixiv. I, Ezek. i. I, which is perhaps 
 the earliest example of the idea of the heavens being opened. In Gen. vii. 1 1 
 the windows of heaven are opened for the rain, and in Ps. Ixxviii. 23 the 
 doors of heaven for the manna, but that is not the same idea ; nevertheless 
 there also the same verb is used. The Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs 
 exhibit the same constant usage : I,em ii. 6, v. i, xviii. 6 ; Judah xxiv. 2. 
 The last two passages are Messianic, and are strikingly parallel to the Gospel 
 narrative. "The heavens shall be opened, and from the temple of glory shall 
 come upon him sanctification, with the Father's voice as from Abraham to 
 Isaac. And the glory of the Most High shall be uttered over him, and the 
 spirit of understanding and sanctification shall rest upon him [in the water]." 
 The last three words are probably a Christian interpolation of early date. 
 Near the end of the passage we read that "the Lord shall rejoice in His 
 children, and be well pleased in His beloved ones for ever"; koX evSoKria-ei 
 ^TTi Tois dyaTTfjTo'is avTou ?ajs ala>tfos (xviii. 13). The similar passage in the 
 Testament of Judah runs thus: "And no sin shall be found in hiin. And 
 the heavens shall be opened unto him, to pour out the spirit, the blessing 
 of the Holy Father." For the combination of opened heavens with a voice 
 from heaven, comp. the Apocalypse of Baruch xxii. i: "The heavens 
 were opened, and I saw, and power was given to me, and a voice was 
 heard from on high."^ For the opening of the heavens without a voice 
 comp. Cic. Z>e Divin. i. 43 ; Livy, xxii. I. Other references in Klostermann 
 on Mk. 
 
 Mt. follows Mk. in stating that Jesus saw the Spirit 
 descending ; Jn. says that the Baptist saw it ; Lk. that the 
 descent took place as Jesus was praying. We need not suppose 
 that others saw it, or even that others were present. Possibly 
 our Lord waited till He could be alone with John. With the 
 symbolical vision of the dove we may compare the symbolical 
 visions of Jehovah granted to Moses and other Prophets ; and 
 we have no right to say that such visions are impossible, and 
 that those who say that they have had them are victims of a 
 delusion. Every messenger of God must be endowed with the 
 Spirit of God in order to fulfil his mission ; and there is nothing 
 incredible in the statement that in the case of the Messiah, as in 
 the case of the Apostles, this endowment was made known by a 
 
 ' Zahn compares the combination, ' opened His mouth and taught ' (v. 2) ; 
 comp. Acts viii. 35, x. 34, xviii. 14. 
 
III. 13-17] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 33 
 
 perceptible sign.i In the case of Old Testament Prophets, there 
 was sometimes a violent effect on body and mind, when the 
 Spirit of the Lord came upon them. But here, as at Pentecost, 
 all is peaceful, and peaceful symbols are seen. The sinless Son 
 of Man is the place where this Dove can find a rest for its foot 
 (Gen. viii. 9) and abide upon Him (Is, xlii. i). Again, in the 
 case of the repentant people, the baptism in water was by John, 
 the baptism in the Spirit was to be looked for from the Messiah. 
 In the Messiah's case, the two baptisms are simultaneous. He 
 who is to bestow the Spirit Himself received it, and He receives 
 it under the form of a dove. 
 
 The contrast between this anointing of the Messiah, this 
 coronation of the promised King, and the Herald's proclamation 
 of the coming of the Kingdom is remarkable. John had foreseen 
 that the coming of the Messiah would be accompanied by an 
 outpouring of the Spirit ; but his mind is full of the thought that 
 God's vineyard has become a wilderness, and that vast changes 
 are necessary in order to make Israel in any degree ready for the 
 coming of the Messiah. Many, perhaps most, will be found still 
 unprepared, and 'the Coming' will be chiefly a coming of 
 judgment. To hira, therefore, the outpouring of the Spirit is a 
 baptizing in fire. Fire to him is the most fitting symbol. But 
 when the Messiah Himself comes to him, John sees the Spirit 
 descending in the form of a dove (see Driver on Gen. i. 2 and 
 Deut. xxxii. 11). Meekness and gentleness are the qualities 
 commonly associated with the dove. The metaphor of fire is 
 true ; the Spirit of necessity searches and consumes ; but the 
 attributes of the Dove are equally true. The Messiah is ' meek 
 and lowly in heart ' (xi. 29, xxi. 5) ; it is by meekness that His 
 ministers prevail (x. 16), and it is the meek who inherit the earth 
 (v. 5)- 
 
 But we are not to understand that He who was conceived 
 by the Spirit was devoid of the Spirit until the Baptism ; ^ nor 
 that the gift of the Spirit then made any change in His nature. 
 
 ' It is of no importance whether the eye saw and the ear heard ; whether, 
 if others had been present, they would have seen and heard. What is of 
 innportance is, that there was a real manifestation, a communication from 
 God to man, and no mere delusion of a disordered brain. What was per- 
 ceived as a dove was the Spirit of God, and what was perceived as a voice 
 was the word of God. 
 
 ■■^ It was perhaps in order to avoid this idea that Mt. (16), followed by 
 Lk., changed the fls airdv of Mk. into iw' aiirdv : ' into I£im' might seem to 
 imply that previously there had been a void. In the Ebionite Gospel quoted 
 by Epiphanius {Har. xxx. 13) the dove is described as entering into Him: 
 eWev rd irvevfui rb dyiov ^v ei'Set Trepitrrepa? KareKBovu-qs Kai elueXdoija-ijs e/s 
 aiJrdc. There also we have "a great light" accompanying the voice. 
 Comp. Justin M. Try. 88 ; also the Diatessaron (Burkitt, Evanoelion da- 
 Mepharreshe, ii. p. 115). 
 
 3 
 
34 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [III. 13-17 
 
 Some Gnostics imagined that the descent of the Spirit then was 
 the moment of the Incarnation, and that, until the Baptism, He 
 was a mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary. That is not the 
 teaching of Scripture ; nor is it easier to believe than what is told 
 us in Scripture. But the new gift of the Spirit may have illumin- 
 ated even Him, and made Him more fully aware of His relations 
 to God and to man (Lk. ii. 52). For Him it marked the 
 beginning of His public career as the Messiah, like the anointing 
 of a king. For John it was the promised revelation, and he now 
 had Divine authority for declaring that the Coming One had 
 come. This was the last of his three functions. He had 
 previously to predict the coming of the Messiah, and to prepare 
 the people for His coming. When he has pointed out the 
 Messiah, his work will be nearly complete. 
 
 The voice from heaven here, and at the Transfiguration, and 
 before the Passion (Jn. .xii. 28), follows upon our Lord's prayer, 
 and may be regarded as the answer to it. He who on the Cross 
 cried, ' Why hast Thou forsaken Me ? ' may have been, on each 
 of these occasions, capable of receiving help from such testimony 
 as this from the Father.^ Both Mk. and Lk. have ' Thou art 
 My Son,' which some authorities have in Mt. also ; and this form 
 implies that the voice had a special meaning for the Messiah, 
 and was not meant for John alone. And, as addressed to John, 
 it tells him of the Messiahship, rather than of the Divinity of 
 Jesus. Even John was hardly ready for a revelation of the 
 unique relation in which the Messiah stood to the Godhead ; 
 and we can hardly suppose that the Divinity of Christ, which was 
 only gradually revealed towards the close of the Ministry, was at 
 the outset made known to John at the beginning of it (Briggs, 
 The Messiah of the Gospels, p. 77). 
 
 There are three ways of taking the sentence : (ij This is My 
 beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased ; (2) This is My Son, 
 the Beloved, in whom I am well pleased ; (3) This is My Son, the 
 Beloved in whom I am well pleased.^ The chief point is whether 
 ' the Beloved ' is a separate title, indicating the Messiah. In any 
 case there seems to be a reference to the Son of God promised 
 in Ps. ii. 7, where the Messiah quotes Jehovah as constituting 
 His Son and giving Him the nations as His inheritance. 
 
 ' In the Messianic hymn in the Testament of Levi, of which the opening 
 words were quoted on Mt. ii. 2, there is this prophecy : " The heavens shall 
 be opened, And from the temple of glory shall come on him sanclification, 
 With the Father's voice as from Abraham to Isaac. And the glory of the 
 Highest shall be uttered over him, And a spirit of understanding and 
 sanclification shall rest upon him" {/c?'/' xviii. 6, 7). 
 
 2 J. Armitage Robinson, Ephcsians, p. 229, and Hastings' DB. ii. p. 
 501, Z'CC,art. 'Voice'; Dalman, Jl'ords of Jesus, 'p. 20^; \\'r'\^hi,Synof5is, 
 p. 9 ; Charles, Ascension of Isaiah, p. 3. 
 
IV. 1-11] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 35 
 
 ' This is ' is doubtless the true reading here ; but the Old Latin a, with 
 the Curetonian and Sinaitic Syriac and Irenteus, supports D in reading 
 ' Thou art ' for ' This is.' All three Synoptists have ' This is ' of the voice 
 at the Transfiguration (xvii. 5). P'or other variations and additions here see 
 Resch, Agraplm, 2nd ed. pp. 36, 222. 
 
 On the introductory words to ch. iii., 'Ep hi rah r)iiipai^ iKeivats, see 
 Droosten in ihnjottr. of Th. St., Oct. 1904, p. 99 ; and conip. xi. 25, xii. I, 
 xiii. I, xiv. I, xxii. 23. In ver. 3 read Sid (N B C D 33 157 700, Latt.), not 
 uTTii, before "Hiratoi' ; and in ver. 8 read Kapirbv S.^iov (N B C E etc. 565 700, 
 Latt. Sah. Boh., Orig. ), not Kapiroiis d^iov!. The insertion of iracra before 
 'Iepo<T6\vfj.a in ver. 5 (Lat-Vet. Aeth.) is interesting : comp. the Traira in ii. 3. 
 
 Among the expressions which are characteristic of Mt. are ^ySvfia (4), 
 ^aSSovKaloi (7), whom Mt. mentions far more often than any other Evangelist 
 (once each in Mk. and Lk. and never in Jn.), y€vvr}fxaTa ^x^^vuiv (7), irvvdyeLV 
 (12), Tire (13), Kal i8o6 (16, 17). Here for the first time we have the phrase 
 which more than any other distinguishes this Gospel, ii /SairtXeia tQv ovpavwii 
 (2) ; see Dalman, T/ie it^ords of Jesus, pp. gi ff. Neither diaKadapi^eLv (12) 
 nor diaKuXieiv (14) occur elsewhere in the N.T. 
 
 IV. 1-11. T/ie Teinptation of the Messiah. 
 
 It is the common experience of mankind that times of special 
 spiritual endowment or exaltation are followed by occasions of 
 special temptation. The Messiah is no exception. No sooner 
 is He anointed with the Spirit for the work of the Ministry than 
 He has to undergo a fierce conflict with the great personal power 
 of evil. We have no right to assert that there had been no 
 previous attacks ; and we know that there were subsequent attacks 
 (xvi. 23 ; Lk. xxii. 28, 42-44). But this attack is of a special 
 kind ; it is an attempt to overthrow the Messiah at the very 
 opening of His public career as the Saviour of the world, just 
 as the Agony in the garden was caused by an attempt to over- 
 throw Him when that career was near its awful close. And it 
 is encountered under the guidance of the Spirit, as all three 
 Evangelists point out. Jesus, who certainly from His Baptism 
 onwards is fully conscious of His Messiahship, knows what 
 awaits Him in the wilderness. He goes thither to meditate 
 upon the work which His Father has given Him to do, and 
 which must be carried out in accordance with the Father's will. 
 That work was 'to destroy the works of the devil ' : conflict with 
 the evil one was of its very essence from beginning to end. And 
 conflict involved the inexpressible torture of contact. Contact 
 with moral evil is intense suffering to a pure soul. What must 
 this have been in the case of Jesus ? Yet He shares this most 
 acute agony with His saints. ^ 
 
 The temptation in which the Son of Man conquered is the 
 counterpart of the temptation in which man first fell. As the 
 descendant and representative of a fallen race, it is His mission 
 
 ^ Pere \i'\Aon, Jisits Christ, p. 214. Ad hoc pu«n(it Iinperator, id dissant 
 milites (Augustine). 
 
36 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, MATTHEW [IV. 1-11 
 
 to vanquish in the sphere in which they have been vanquished ; 
 and there is no postponement of the struggle. All three accounts 
 make the conflict with Satan the first act of the Messiah after 
 His consecration for His work. ' Then was Jesus led up by the 
 Spirit' (Mt.). 'And straightway the Spirit urgeth Him forth' 
 (Mk.). 'And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the 
 Jordan, and was led in the Spirit' (Lk.). Mk. and Lk. imply 
 that the temptations lasted throughout the forty days. Mt. 
 places the temptations towards the close of the time, when, after 
 the long ecstatic fast, natural cravings were felt and Satan had 
 a special opportunity. Lk. agrees in placing these particular 
 temptations at the close. As in the case of the Baptist's teaching 
 (iii. 7-i2 = Lk. iii. 7-17), Mt. and Lk. may here also have had 
 similar, but independent sources of information, either oral or 
 written.^ 
 
 The ultimate source of information must have been our Lord 
 Himself, as the most rigorous criticism admits. His disciples 
 would not have been likely to think that He could be tempted 
 to evil ; and, if they had supposed that He could, they would 
 have imagined quite different temptations for Him, as various 
 legends of the saints show.^ The form, therefore, in which the 
 temptations are described, is probably our Lord's, chosen by 
 Him as the best means of conveying the essential facts to the 
 minds of His followers.'^ It does not follow, because the tempta- 
 tions are described separately, that they took place separately, 
 one ceasing before the next began. Temptations may be simul- 
 taneous or interlaced ; and, in describing these three, Mt. and 
 Lk. are not agreed about the order. Nor does it follow, because 
 the sphere of the temptation changes, that the locality in which 
 Christ was at the moment was changed. We need not suppose 
 that the devil had control over our Lord's person and took Him 
 through the air from place to place : he directs His thoughts 
 
 ' Mk. speaks of 'Satan,' where both Mt. and Lk. have 'the devil.' In 
 Job i. 6 and Zech. iii. i the Septuagint has 6 5<(i/3oXos where the Hebrew has 
 Satan. 
 
 ^ "At the time when the story of the Temptation was first told and first 
 written, no one possessed that degree of insight into the nature of our Lord's 
 mission and ministry which would have enabled him to invent it " (Sanday). 
 
 ' " In this our I,ord goes to what may seem to be great lengths in the use 
 that He makes of the traditional machinery of Judaism. . . . The Power of 
 Evil is represented in a personal bodily form, and the machinery or setting 
 of the story is full of the marvelloiis— locomotion through the air to impossible 
 positions and with impossible accompaniments, such as the literal view of all 
 the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. . . . Realism could hardly go 
 further. And yet the meaning and essence of the Temptation is wholly spiritual ; 
 it is the problem what is to be done with supernatural powers : shall the 
 possessor of them use them for his own sustenance, or for his own aggrandise- 
 ment?" (Sanday, Tlie Life of C/irist in Recent /■research, pp. 27, 28, 109, 
 no). 
 
IV. 1-11] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 37 
 
 to this or that. The change of scene is mental. From no 
 high mountain could more than a small fraction of the world 
 be seen ; but the glory of all the kingdoms of the world could 
 be suggested to the mind. Nor again do the words, ' the tempter 
 came and said to Him,' imply that anything was seen by the 
 eye or heard by the ear : any one of us might describe his own 
 temptations in a similar way.i What these words do imply is 
 that the temptations came to Him from the outside ; they were 
 not the result, as many of our temptations are, of previous sin. 
 
 In short, in making known His experiences in the wilderness, 
 the Messiah acted somewhat as the Forerunner did in preparing 
 the way for Him. He coupled his moral teaching with a 
 picturesque symbolical act, such as Orientals love, in order to 
 impress upon his hearers the necessity for a complete break 
 with the past and a new start. The Messiah describes His 
 temptations in a way which impressed upon the disciples the 
 absolute antagonism between Himself and moral evil, the violence 
 of the attacks, and the completeness of the victory. A dialogue 
 between Himself and the prince of the world would be the 
 simplest mode of producing this impression and rendering it 
 permanent ; and dialogue, like symbolical rites, was a favourite 
 way with Orientals of conveying moral and spiritual instruction. 
 There is no need to suppose that anything was audibly said on 
 one side or the other. 
 
 But it is rash to assert that ' Satan ' is only a generic name 
 for impersonal evil impulses.- Science has no objections to 
 urge against the existence of personal powers of evil ; indeed 
 some psychological phenomena are held to be in favour of such 
 an hypothesis. And the teaching of our Lord and the Apostles 
 is quite clear on the subject. It is incredible, as Keim has 
 pointed out, that all the passages in which He speaks of the evil 
 one and of evil spirits are interpolations. " Jesus plainly desig- 
 nated His contention with the empire of Satan as a personal 
 one" {/esus of Nazara, Eng. tr., ii. pp. 315, 325). Only three 
 hypotheses are possible. Either (i) He accommodated His lan- 
 guage to a gross superstition, knowing it to be such ; or (2) He 
 shared this superstition, not knowing it to be such ; or (3) the 
 doctrine is not a superstition, but a truth which it concerns 
 us to know. Even those who regard Him as merely the most 
 
 ' Mt. is very fond of wpoiripxc<^So-i; and this is his first use of the verb, 
 which occurs more often in this Gospel than in the rest of the N.T. : iv. 3, 
 II, V. I, viii. 2, 5, 19, 25, ix. 14, 20, 28, xiii. 10, 27, 36, etc. etc. In the 
 true text aunj comes after el-rrev, not after npoae'Kdthv. 
 
 ^ At the very outset two personal influences, other than that of Christ 
 Himself, are clearly indicated : ' Jesus was led up dj the Spirit (u7r6 Toi5 
 llv€vij,aTos) to be tempted ij the devil (u?r6 toS SiajSdXov).' The repetition 
 of the same preposition is probably not accidental. 
 
38 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [IV. 1-11 
 
 enlightened spiritual teacher which the world has ever seen might 
 hesitate to assert that He was ignorant in such a matter, or that 
 He encouraged error (xiii. 19, 39, xxv. 41), when He knew the 
 truth. That the Jews had many superstitious beliefs about Satan 
 and other evil spirits, some of them borrowed from other systems, 
 is true enough ; but that is no evidence as to the non-existence 
 of such beings. Excepting in the Epistle of Jude and 2 Peter, 
 there is little trace of such beliefs in the New Testament, where 
 the existence of the devil and demons is taken for granted. See 
 Gore, Dissertations on Subjects connected with the Incarnation, 
 pp. 23-27 ; Edersheim, Life of Jesus the Messiah, ii., App. xiii. ; 
 Charles, Book of Enoch, pp. 52, 119; Book of Jubilees, p. Ivi ; 
 Hastings, DCG., art. 'Demon,' DB., art. 'Satan'; Neander, 
 Life of Christ, § 47. 
 
 The story of the Temptation has an important bearing on the 
 question of miracles.' We have seen that the source of the 
 narrative must have been our Lord Himself, for no one at the 
 time when the narrative was written down could have invented 
 it. But the temptations assume that our Lord could work 
 miracles. The whole narrative collapses, if He could not and 
 did not do so. It is incredible that any one should have told 
 such a story about himself to persons who knew that he had 
 never done any mighty work. It is equally incredible that any 
 one should invent such a story about a person who had never 
 been known to do anything of the kind.^ 
 
 The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews insists upon three 
 points (ii. 18, iv. 15), and they suffice, i. The temptations were 
 real. 2. Jesus was absolutely victorious. 3. One reason for His 
 subjecting Himself to such trials was that we might be sure of 
 His sympathy in our temptations. The first point involves 
 difficulty. How could evil be attractive to Him? and, if it 
 was not attractive, where was the temptation ? But many things 
 which are morally wrong may seem to promise great advantages ; 
 and the most saintly person, who never hesitates for an instant, 
 may yet feel the attractiveness of the advantages. And the man 
 who never yields is the man who has felt the full force of the 
 temptation ; for the man who yields has not waited for the 
 tempter to do his worst. Hence the fallacy of supposing that, 
 
 ^ " The temptations are such as scarcely any one but Himself could have 
 had experience of. They all turn on the conflict that arises when one who 
 is conscious that he is possessed of supernatural power feels that there are 
 occasions when it would not be right that he should exercise it" (Salmon, 
 Tlie Htiman Elemciil, p. 64). 
 
 - It is strong confirmation of the miracles attributed to Jesus that none 
 were attributed to the Baptist, either by himself or by his disciples, strongly 
 as he impressed them (Neander, Life of C/trisi, § 38). See Sanday, Outlines 
 of t lie Life of Christ, pp. loi ff. 
 
IV. 1-11] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 39 
 
 in order to have complete sympathy with sinners, Jesus ought to 
 have consented to sin. It is precisely because He resisted in 
 all cases to the very end, that He knows, as no one else has ever 
 known, how severe the strain of temptation can be. In one 
 particular He has not shared, and could not share, our experience 
 in reference to temptation. He has never felt shame or remorse 
 for having sinned. But otherwise He has shared our experiences 
 to the full. All our temptations are brought about through the 
 instrumentality of pleasure or pain. In the wilderness our Lord 
 withstood the seductiveness of effortless comfort and success and 
 glory ; in Gethsemane He withstood the dread of suffering and 
 failure and a shameful death. 
 
 It is through the Messiahship, which has just been super- 
 naturally confirmed to Him, that the attack is made. It is 
 suggested to Him that He may exercise His Messianic power 
 at once and thereby save Himself much suffering and trouble : 
 and will not this be helping forward the very work that lies before 
 Him ? But, while the evil one urges the Messiahship, Jesus 
 Himself seems to leave it out of consideration. To Satan's plea, 
 ' If Thou art the Son of God,' He makes no direct reply. His 
 answers are those of a dutiful child of God rather than those of 
 the Divine Son. 
 
 It is sometimes said that the first temptation is a temptation 
 of the flesh.i But that would rather have been a temptation to 
 eat greedily or to excess. Satan's suggestion is a manifest refer- 
 ence to the voice from heaven : ' Hath God said, Thou art My 
 Son, and yet said. Thou shalt not eat?' (Comp. Gen. iii. i.) 
 Why should He starve in the wilderness, when, as God's Son, 
 He has power to turn stones into loaves ? God fed His people 
 by frequent miracles in the wilderness : may not His Son work 
 one miracle to feed Himself? What would have become of 
 God's plans for Israel, if the people had died of starvation ? 
 \Vhat will become of the Messiah's work, if He allows Himself to 
 perish for want of food ? In short, Jesus is to work a miracle in 
 order to prove the truth of His conviction that He is the Son of 
 God, a conviction that has just been confirmed by the voice of 
 God Himself. 
 
 Our Lord's reply seems to show that He ■ recognizes an 
 allusion to the manna in the evil one's suggestion. All His 
 answers are from Deuteronomy, on which He may recently have 
 
 ^ See Milton, Paradise Regained^ 340-390, where all the dainties which 
 Satan showed to our Lord are described, and our Lord rejects the "pompous 
 delicacies." But this is quite erroneous. The temptation is directed to the 
 mind, not to the senses. God allows Him to suffer hunger ; then can He 
 be God's Son? See Wiight, Synopsis, p. 11, on our Lord's fasting. It is 
 rash to say that because of the fasting and hunger "the temptation to turn 
 the stone into a loaf must have come last " ( Westminster N. T. p. 43). 
 
40 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [IV. 1-11 
 
 been meditating.^ This quotation of Deut. viii. 3 has direct 
 reference to the manna. It may be doubted whether the 
 comment which is sometimes made upon it is its precise meaning 
 here. No doubt it is true that man has more important needs 
 than that of food, and that, unless his spiritual wants are supplied, 
 he can hardly be said to Hve. But that does not fit the context. 
 The point rather is, that food will not keep a man alive, unless 
 God says that he is to live ; and if God says that he is to live, 
 he will live, whether he has food or not. Jesus knows that God 
 wills that He should live, and He leaves all in God's hands. He 
 refuses to work a miracle which God has not willed, in order 
 to effect what God has willed. To the insinuated doubt as 
 to His being really the Son of God He makes no reply. He 
 gives an answer which holds good for any human being who 
 is a loyal believer in Providence ; quasi unus e multis loquitur 
 (Bengel). 
 
 Mt. and Lk. vary as to the order of the next two temptations, 
 and it is idle to ask which order is more likely to be correct.^ 
 To Mt. it may have seemed that the offer of all the kingdoms 
 of the world was the most fevere temptation, and therefore 
 appropriately comes last. Lk. may have thought that the Temple 
 was a fitting scene for Satan's last effort. Comp. xii. 39-42, 
 where Mt. has Jonah, Ninevites, Queen of the South, while Lk. 
 (xi. 29-32) has Jonah, Queen of the South, Ninevites. 
 
 The devil once more insinuates the doubt about Christ's 
 being the Son of God, which seems to show that this second 
 temptation is partly a repetition of the first. If He will not 
 prove His Messiahship by working a miracle to save Himself 
 from being starved to death, will He not let God prove it by 
 working a miracle to save Him from being dashed to pieces?^ 
 And this second temptation is not only thus linked on to the 
 first ; it also appears to prepare the way for the third. Like it, 
 it is perhaps a suggestion that He should take an easy road to 
 success. So prodigious a sign as that of falling unharmed from 
 the top of the Temple would, even against their wills, convince 
 
 'The "spiritual setting forth of the Law" in Deuteronomy may have 
 given Him a special interest in the book. "When He declares the essence 
 of the Law to inquiicrs, He invariably states it in the Deuteronomic form " 
 {DCG. ii. p. 271). 
 
 '^ The only reasonable form which such a question can take is, Which was 
 the order in the source which bolh Mt. and Lk. used? Mt. , as often, is 
 likely to be nearer the original ; the temptation which he places last was not 
 only the most severe, it was also to the deepest depth of sin. Jesus is not 
 merely tempted to put the Divine Sonship to the test, but to renounce it and 
 become the vassal of Satan. Harnack, The Sayings ofjesiis, p. 43. 
 
 * With ' the holy city ' comp. xxvii. 53 ; Rev. xi. 2, xxi. 2, 10, xxii. 19 ; 
 Is. xlviii. 2, Hi. i ; Dan. ix. 24 ; Tob. xiii. 9. Lk. substitutes ' Jerusalem ' ; 
 so also the Gospel of the Hebrews. 
 
IV. 1-11] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 4I 
 
 both priests and people that He was the Messiah ; and then the 
 greater part of His work would be accomplished. But this 
 cannot be pressed, for there is no mention of spectators. 
 Nevertheless, what is the point of mentioning the Temple, 
 unless those who thronged its courts are to be understood ? 
 Any precipice in the wilderness would have served for a 
 temptation to presumptuous rushing into needless danger. But, 
 in any case, there are these differences between the first 
 temptation and the second. In the first, Jesus was to be freed 
 by miracle from a peril which already existed, and He was to 
 work the miracle Himself. In the second. He was to create a 
 peril for Himself, and expect God to free Him from it by 
 miracle. 
 
 It is from this temptation that the proverbial saying, "The 
 devil can cite Scripture for his purpose " (^Merchant of Venice, 
 I. iii.) has arisen. The citation is from Ps. xci. 11, 12. Mt. 
 omits the whole of ' to keep thee in all thy ways,' and Lk. omits 
 the last four words, which are not suitable to the temptation. 
 But it is perhaps giving more meaning to the omission than 
 is intended, to say that throwing oneself from a height is not 
 going 'in one's ways,' but out of them. ^ The graphic beauty of 
 ^ upon their hands' or 'palms' (not '/« their hands,' as AV.), 
 implying great carefulness, should not be missed. Our Lord 
 does not stay to expose the misapplication of Scripture, any more 
 than to answer the doubt about His Messiahship. He once 
 more gives a quotation from Deuteronomy, perfectly simple, and 
 such as holds good for any human being. In reply to the first 
 temptation. He had declared His trust in God ; God would not 
 let Him starve. The evil one then suggests that He should 
 show His trust in God in a still stronger way. Our Lord replies 
 that putting God to the test ^ is not trusting Him. He is willing 
 to face peril of death, when God wills that He should do so, not 
 before. He is commissioned to teach His people that He is the 
 Messiah ; but by winnmg their hearts, not by forcing them to 
 believe. He did not force the Jewish hierarchy to believe in 
 His Resurrection by appearing to any of them, yet many of them 
 eventually believed (Acts vi. 7). 
 
 " He that complies against his will 
 Is of his own opinion still." 
 
 ' Yet, in any case, " under guise of an appeal to filial trust lies concealed 
 a temptation to distrust " (E. D. Burton and Shailer Mathews, Constructive 
 Studies in the Life of Christ, p. 59). But in His rebuke Christ raises no 
 objection to the doctrine of Angelic ministry and protection. It is not there 
 that the evil one's suggestion is wrong. 
 
 ^ The verb in the Septuagint of Deut. vi. 16 is a strong compound 
 (iKTreipd^ew) implying thorough testing, and both Mt. and Lk. reproduce it. 
 
42 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [IV. 1-11 
 
 The conviction that is to be permanent, and bear fruit in 
 conduct, must be one in which the will and the reason can 
 acquiesce with some measure of satisfaction. Man's freedom is 
 destroyed, if he is surprised into a belief by some stupendous 
 phenomenon ; and when the first overwhelming impression has 
 passed away, the reality of the phenomenon is likely to be 
 questioned. Our Lord during His Ministry worked as God 
 works in history. Man's freedom is respected. He always 
 refused to give a sign from heaven to His opponents. It was 
 only to the most 'intimate of the Twelve that He granted the 
 significant vision of the Transfiguration, and they were not to 
 reveal it till the still greater sign of the Resurrection had been 
 granted. That sign was not allowed to His enemies. He might 
 easily have confounded them by appearing and teaching in the 
 Temple after His Crucifixion and burial. But they had Moses 
 and the Prophets, and they would not have been persuaded of 
 His Messiahship even by His Resurrection. His appearances 
 were reserved for chosen witnesses, who with full freedom of 
 reason and will accepted them (Acts x. 40, 41).^ 
 
 The third temptation is the most clearly symbolical of the 
 three. As already pointed out, all the kingdoms of the world 
 could not be seen at once from any place. ^ Moreover, a literal 
 falling down and worshipping of Satan cannot be meant. The 
 doubt about the Messiahship is not insinuated again : that He 
 is the Messiah is now accepted as certain. The Messiah is to 
 destroy the works of the devil, and at last become King of 
 Israel and of the whole world. That means a long and painful 
 contest, involving much suffering to the Messiah and His 
 followers. Why not have Satan for an ally instead of an enemy ? 
 Then sovereignty over Israel and all the nations may be quickly 
 won, without pain or trouble. With wealth, fashion, rank, 
 intellect, intrigue, and force on His side, all backed by mighty 
 works, success will be rapid and certain. A triumphant progress 
 to supreme power, and such glory as neither Jew nor Gentile 
 ever dreamed of, is offered to Him. In other words, it is 
 suggested to Him that, by natural and supernatural means of 
 unholy character. He can quickly establish Himself as far greater 
 than Solomon, with the whole world for His empire. 
 
 Once more our Lord gives a swift and simple answer from 
 Deuteronomy (vi. 13), an answer that is absolutely decisive. He 
 anticipates His own declaration, that it is impossible to serve 
 
 ■ Latham, Pastor Pasloruin, p. 143. 
 
 ^ Lk. omils the place, saying nothing about the ' exceeding high mountain.' 
 Comp. the Apocalypse of Baruch : "Go up therefore to the top of that 
 mountain, and there will pass before thee all the regions of that land, and 
 the figure of the inhabited world, and the top of the mountains, and the 
 depth of the valleys, and the depths of the seas " (Ixxvi. 3). 
 
IV. 1-11] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 43 
 
 two masters (vi. 24). The loyal servant of God can make no 
 terms with God's enemy. The evil one is dismissed, and Angels 
 come to minister. 
 
 With the ' Get thee hence, Satan ' ('Yiraye, 'S.aravS.) here should 
 be compared the stern rebuke to Peter in similar words (xvi. 23).! 
 In Peter's plausible suggestion the evil one was again tempting 
 the Messiah to abandon the path of duty and suffering and take 
 a short and easy course to success. The rebuke to Peter is also 
 in Mk. (viii. 33), but the dismissal of Satan here is not in Lk. 
 That is no sufficient reason for believing that the words are not 
 original here, but have been imported by Mt. from xvi. 23, On 
 the contrary, we may believe that Christ had already told the 
 disciples as much as they could understand respecting His own 
 temptations when Peter was guilty of an attempt to lead the 
 Messiah astray. Otherwise Peter could hardly have seen the 
 meaning of the severe words which Christ used. Lk. quite 
 naturally omits the dismissal of the tempter, because, according 
 to his arrangement, there is another temptation still to come. 
 
 In some texts (DELMUTZ, Just. Tert.) the 'behind Me' {diricru fiov) 
 of xvi. 23 has been imported into this passage. In the quotation from Deul. 
 vi. 13 ipoj3r]07iaTi has been changed to Trpo(rKmricrei.i owing to the preceding 
 Trpo(TKvj'-fia-y!, and fi6po> has been added after aiiroj to make the charge 
 more emphatic. In the A text of the LXX the wording of Deut. vi. 13 
 has been brought into liarmony in both particulars with Mt. 
 
 ' The devil leaveth Him ' (d<^tr;o-iv airov) means more than 
 'departed from Him' {a-n-ea-Tr] arr' airov, Lk.) : it means 'left 
 Him alone, ceased for a time to trouble Him,' or ' let Him go, 
 released Him.' 
 
 Lk. tells us that the departure of Satan was only ' until a 
 convenient season ' (o-xpi- Kaipov). The evil one is defeated, but 
 he is not destroyed, and 'the power of darkness' (Lk. xxii. 53) 
 is again to do its worst before the final victory is won. Indeed, 
 the temptation to adopt a selfish, spectacular, and secular 
 Messiahship was again and again put before Him during His 
 Ministry {Westminster N.T. p. 46). The ministry of Angels 
 here, which is in Mk. also, but not in Lk., perhaps means 
 that the miracle which the Messiah refused to work without 
 God's sanction now takes place with His sanction, and that the 
 Angels either supply Him with food or with support which 
 rendered food unnecessary. ^ The Messiah returned to work 
 that involved a severe strain upon His physical powers. His 
 
 ' In xii, 26 Christ substitutes ' Satan ' for tlie ' Beelzebul ' of the Pharisees. 
 Elsewhere He speaks of him as 6 SidjSoXos (xiii. 39, xxv. 41) and 6 wovripd^ 
 (xiii. 19, 38), neither of which names is found in Mk. Nor does Mk. use 
 o.iretpdtoji' (Mt. iv. 3). 
 
 ^ For this meaning of SiaKOveiv comp. xxv. 44 ; Lk. xxii. 27 ; Jn. xii. 2 ; 
 Acts vi. 2. 
 
44 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [IV. 1-11 
 
 human character had been strengthened by triumphant resistance 
 of prolonged temptations. His human experience had been 
 increased respecting the possibilities of evil (Heb. v. 8) and the 
 dangers which His mission would have to encounter. And we 
 may believe that He would be supplied with all the physical 
 strength that His humanity required for the work that lay before 
 Him. 
 
 Christ's refusal to avail Himself of supernatural aid to avert 
 the danger of perishing with hunger is parallel to His abstaining 
 from asking for supernatural aid to avert the certainty of perish- 
 ing on the Cross. He would not turn stones into bread, and He 
 would not have legions of Angels (xxvi. 53), because in neither 
 case was it His Father's will that He should do so. He knew 
 that He was the Father's only Son, and He knew what His 
 Father's will was. Now that throughout the strain of the 
 temptations the Father's will has been absolutely triumphant, 
 supernatural means of supplying physical needs are allowed 
 Him. Angels minister to Him (comp. i Kings xix. 5-9), and 
 He has strength for the work which lies before Him.' 
 
 This is a foretaste and an earnest of the glory which is to be 
 His hereafter. And it resembles that glory in being a return for 
 what He had foregone in order to do that which His Father had 
 decreed for Him. Satan had offered Him ' all the kingdoms of 
 the world and the glory of them.' 'The Prince of this world' 
 (Jn. xiv. 30) had placed the whole of his vast dominion 
 and its resources at Christ's disposal, if He would enter his 
 service. That offer had been decisively rejected and the 
 proposer of it had been dismissed. And, in a few years, 
 all the power and glory which the evil one had offered to Him, 
 and ten thousand times more which it was not in his power to 
 offer, had been bestowed upon Him by His Father, because He 
 had refused the tempter's conditions and had accepted suffering 
 and shame and death (xxviii. 18). 'The Stronger' than Satan, 
 instead of sharing power with him, deprived him of it (Lk. xi. 
 21, 22); and 'the Kingdom of the world became our Lord's 
 and His Anointed's, and He shall reign for ever and ever ' 
 (Rev. xi. 15). 
 
 It is in the narrative of the Temptation that we have the first instances of 
 our Lord's quoting Scripture. In this Gospel He quotes thirteen of the 
 
 ' In the description of the sixth heaven in the Testaments of the XII. 
 Patriarchs we have a verbal parallel: /'In it are the Archangels who 
 minister and make propitiation to the Lord," or (according to other te.xts) 
 "the host of the Angels are ministering," or " the Angels of the presence of 
 the Lord who minister" (Levi iii. 5). With the narrative in Mk. i. 13, 14 
 comp. "The devil shall flee from you, and the wild beasts shall fear you, 
 and the Angels shall cleave to you" (Naphtali viii. 4). 
 
IV. 12-16] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 45 
 
 Canonical Books of the O.T. and makes clear reference to two other Books ; 
 and there are several possible references to O.T. passages. Deuteronomy, 
 Psalms, and Isaiah are most frequently quoted, and we may believe that 
 they were often in our Lord's thoughts. In the following list the references 
 are to the passages in Mt. in which the quotation occurs. Genesis (xix. 4, 5) ; 
 Exodus (v. 21, 27, 33, 38, xix. 18, 19) ; but some of these might be referred 
 to Deuteronomy : Leviticus (v. 43, xix. 19, xxii. 39) ; Numbers (v. 33) ; 
 Deuteronomy (iv. 4, 7, 10, v. 31, xxii. 37, xxiv. 31); Psalms (xxii. 44, 
 xxiii. 39, xxvi. 64, xxvii. 46); Isaiah (xiii. 14, 15, xv. 8, xxi. 13, xxiv. 7, 
 10, 29, 31) ; Jeremiah (xxi. 13) ; Daniel (xxiv. 15, 21, 30, xxvii. 64) ; Hosea 
 (ix. 13, xii. 7) ; Micah (x. 35, 36) ; Zechariah (xxiv. 30, xxvi. 31) ; Malachi 
 (xi. 10). The references to i Samuel (xii. 4) and Jonah (xii. 39, 41) are 
 clear ; and there may be one to 2 Kings (vi. 6). The absence of any certain 
 quotation from the Sapiential Books is remarkable ; but comp. xvi. 27 with 
 Prov. xxiv. 12, and xix. 26 with Job xlii. 2 ; also xii. 43 with the addition in 
 the Septuagint to Prov. ix. 12. With Ecclesiasticus there are many parallels : 
 e.g. vi. 7, vi. 14, vi. 20, and xix. 21 with Ecclus. vii. 14, xxviii. 2, xxix. 12 ; 
 and V. 33, 34 with Ecclus. xxiii. 9-1 1. See also Ecclus. iv. 5, v. 13, vii. 
 35, ix. 8, x. 6, xix. 21, xxvii. 6, xxviii. 3-5, and Wisd. ii. 18, iii. 7, iv. 4, 
 16, xvii. 21. 
 
 IV. 12-XVIII. 35. THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE AND 
 THE NEIGHBOURHOOD. 
 
 This is the main portion of the Gospel. To the end 
 of xiii. the scene is chiefly in Gahlee ; the scene of xiv.-xviii. 
 is chiefly in or near Galilee. The sources are Mark, the 
 Logia of Matthew, and some independent traditions, written 
 or oral. 
 
 The Galilean section is in three division.?, i. Opening 
 activities, ending with the Sermon on the Mount (iv. 12-vii. 29). 
 2. Ten Acts of Messianic Sovereignty, ending in the charge to 
 the Apostles (viii. r-x. 42). 3. Many utterances of Messianic 
 VVisdom, ending in numerous illustrations of teaching by 
 parables (xi. i-xiii. 58). The remaining section constitutes a 
 fourth division, consisting of activities in or near Galilee, and 
 ending in the discourses on offences and forgiveness (xiv.-xviii.). 
 Hence chapters v.-xii., x., viii., and xviii. are conclusions to 
 definite divisions of the Gospel, and they consist almost entirely 
 of discourses. 
 
 The long Galilean section consists of nine subdivisions. 
 We begin with an historical introduction, dating from John's 
 imprisonment, and placed in surroundings which are a fulfilment 
 of prophecy (iv. 12-16). Then the Ministry begins with the 
 call of the first disciples (17-22). After a prehminary statement 
 about the Messiah's teaching and work (23-25), we have copious 
 illustrations, both of His teaching (v.-vii.), and also of His work 
 (viii. i-ix. 34). This is followed by the mission of the Twelve 
 (ix. 35-xi. i), by illustrations of the opposition which His 
 
46 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [IV. 12-16 
 
 ministry provoked and of His consequent isolation (xi. 2-xii. 50), 
 and by illustrations of His public teaching by parables and His 
 private interpretations of them (xiii. 1-52). Henceforward Mt. 
 keeps closely to the order of Mk., and the prolonged Galilean 
 section comes to an end with the tragic rejection of the Messiah 
 by His own people at Nazareth (xiii. 53-58). The substance of 
 all this must, in the last resort, be carried back to the testimony 
 of eye-witnesses : see Klostermann on Mk. i. 16. 
 
 IV. 12-16. Fulfilment of Prophecy by the Messiah's Appearance 
 
 in Galilee. 
 
 It was 'when He heard that John was delivered up ' by the 
 Pharisees into the hands of Herod Antipas, that Jesus departed 
 from the scene of John's activity and of the Pharisees' hostility, 
 and withdrew once more to Galilee, where He made Capernaum, 
 instead of His original home Nazareth (ii. 23), to be His head- 
 quarters. The expression, ' when He heard ' (ctKowVas), is not 
 in Mk., nor in Lk., who here arranges his material differently, 
 but it is important, as illustrating a principle of our Lord's 
 action which emerges from the narrative of the Temptation. 
 He does not work miracles where ordinary means suffice. It 
 is not by supernatural knowledge, but by common report, that 
 He learns the persecution of the Baptist by the Pharisees 
 (comp. xiv. 13). In both places the insertion of dicov'cra? by Mt. 
 is the more remarkable, because his tendency is to emphasize 
 the supernatural powers of the Messiah. What specially 
 interests him here, is the statement in Mk. i. 14, 21, that Christ 
 not merely moved to these northern regions, but had Capernaum 
 as the centre of His activity, in which fact he sees a fulfilment 
 of prophecy. The fulfilment which he sees is partly geographical. 
 He understands the ' sea ' in Is. ix. i, 2 to be the sea of Galilee ; 
 and, on any hypothesis as to site,i Capernaum was .on the Lake. 
 Isaiah mentions Zebulon and Naphtali ; and Capernaum was in 
 the territory of these two tribes. But more important than these 
 geographical coincidences is the fact that the Prophet speaks of 
 ' Galilee of the Gentiles ' {Ta\i\a.!.a twv idvS)v),^ and also of ' a 
 great light ' that is to shine on the inhabitants of these darkened 
 regions. This, like the visit of the Magi, and perhaps the warn- 
 ing uttered by the Baptist (iii. 9), is an intimation that the 
 salvation brought by the Messiah to the Jews does not belong 
 to them exclusively, but is to extend to the heathen. 
 
 Mt. once more shows his indifference to chronology. He 
 
 ' See Sanday, Sacred Si Us, pp. 36 ff., and /ear. of Th. S/., Oct. 1903. 
 ^ Comp. ra\i\aia dWoipvXuv (i Mac. v. I^). 
 
IV. 12-16] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 47 
 
 did not tell us how soon after the Birth the visit of the Magi took 
 place, nor how long the retirement in Egypt lasted, nor how long 
 after the return to Palestine the appearance of the Baptist and the 
 Baptism of the Messiah took place. So here we are left in doubt 
 whether the interval between the Temptation and the beginning 
 of the Messiah's Ministry in Galilee was one of days or of years. 
 Just as the beginning of John's preaching is given without any 
 connexion with the settlement of the Holy Family at Nazareth, 
 so the beginning of Christ's preaching is given without any 
 connexion with the Temptation. It is the news that John had 
 been handed over to his enemies, not the victory of the Messiah 
 over the evil one, which leads to the settlement at Capernaum 
 as a centre for preaching. 
 
 Mt. says that Jesus ^withdrew into Galilee' (ave.xiLp-q<j(.v)^ 
 which does not mean that He returned thither after the Tempta- 
 tion ; 1 and perhaps Mt. means that He retired to a part of the 
 dominions of Antipas where He would be less likely to be 
 molested by him than in the region where the Baptist had been 
 working. What Mk. gives as a date, ' after John was delivered 
 up,' Mt. gives as a motive, 'when He heard that John was 
 dehvered up.' A possible meaning is that, as the Baptist's 
 activity had been made to cease, there was all the more reason 
 for the Messiah to begin to preach ; and the best centre for Him 
 to choose for the purpose was the thick and mixed population 
 on the west shore of the Lake. Yet it probably is not in order 
 to hint at the excellence of the centre that the Evangelist 
 reminds us that Capernaum was 'by the sea,' but in order to 
 prepare for a detail in the prophecy which he is about to quote. 
 The quotation agrees with neither the Hebrew nor the LXX, yet 
 it appears to be taken from some Greek version (see Allen, ad loc, 
 and Swete, Introduction to the O.T. in Greek, p. 396) of Is. ix. i. 
 As often, Mt. gives quite a new meaning to the prophecy which 
 he quotes. Isaiah is thinking of the devastation of Palestine by 
 the Assyrians in the reign of Pekah, and he has a vision of 
 deliverance from the ravagers by a ruler of the house of David. 
 Then follows the great prophecy, ' Unto us a child is born,' etc. 
 In Mt. it is spiritual desolation (ix. 36) and a spiritual Deliverer 
 (i. 21) that is meant.2 
 
 ' dvaxwpei)' is frequent in Mt., very rare in Mk. Jn. and Acts, and is not 
 found elsewhere in the N.T. Here Mk. (^XSei/) and Lk. {uTr^a-Tpe\p(v) each 
 use a different word. 
 
 2 A passage in the Testaments illustrates Mt.'s application of the prophecy 
 to the Messiah's preaching of repentance : " For true repentance after a godly 
 sort {Kara dedv, as 2 Cor. vii. 10) driveth away the darkness, and enlighteneth 
 the eyes, and supplieth knowledge to the soul, and guideth the purpose to 
 salvation" (Cad w 7). 'Galilee of the Gentiles' may mean 'Heathenish 
 Galilee.' 
 
48 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [IV. 17-22 
 
 IV. 17-22. The Messiah begins to preach and He calls 
 Four Disciples. 
 
 ' From that time Jesus began.' ^ The formula with which the 
 Messiah's preaching to the people is here introduced is repeated 
 xvi. 2 1, and is perhaps intended to suggest a comparison between 
 the two occasions. There Jesus has to give a very different kind 
 of teaching, not to the people, but to the Twelve : ' From that 
 time Jesus began' to tell His disciples about His approaching 
 Passion and Resurrection. 
 
 The quotation of our Lord's words here illustrates Mt.'s 
 practice of abbreviating Mk. by omitting one half of his double 
 statements. Mk. condenses the substance of Christ's preaching 
 thus : ' The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand : 
 repent ye, aiid believe in the gospel' ; a very unusual phrase, in 
 which 'gospel' means the 'good tidings' of the nearness of the 
 Kingdom of God. As Mt. has already pointed out the fulfilment 
 of prophecy, the first words are not needed ; and the last words 
 are implied in what precedes. 
 
 The substance of the Messiah's first preaching is the same as 
 that of His Herald : He acts, so to speak, as His own Forerunner.^ 
 And it is because He is as yet His own Herald, that, although 
 He proclaims the approach of the Kingdom, He says nothing of 
 the King. But it is with regal authority that He calls His first 
 disciples.^ Without explanation. He gives what, even in form, 
 is a command rather than an invitation : and this assumption of 
 authority is not resented, but instantly obeyed. And His words 
 imply that this time (contrast Jn. i. 35 ff.) it is no temporary 
 invitation ; they are to give up their calling as catchers of fish, 
 and pursue a new calling as fishers of men.^ From what they 
 had learnt of Him during the preliminary Ministry in Judaea, 
 about which Mt. and Mk. are silent, these fishermen knew to 
 some extent what sort of work was in store for them, and under 
 what kind of Master they would have to serve. All the patience, 
 
 ' The phrase avb t6t£ is rare in the N.T. (Mt. iv. 17, xvi. 21, xxvi. l5; 
 Lk. xvi. 16) and in the LXX (Eccles. viii. 12; Ps. xciii. 2). The exact 
 time cannot be determined. Colonel Mackinlay argues for A.D. 25 {T/ie 
 Magi, p. 63). As he accepts A.D. 29 as the year of the Crucifixion, this 
 involves a ministry of three years and a half, which has its difficulties. 
 
 ''■ They had previously been disciples of the Baptist, and through him had 
 come to know Jesus. When the Baptist was put in prison, Jesus calls them 
 to become His disciples. It is the Fourth Gospel that enlightens us on this 
 point (Jn. i. 35-42). Here, contrary to the usage of each, Mt. has the 
 historic present (19), and Mk. the aorist (i. 17). 
 
 3 Gould, on Mk. i. 17, points out that this is the first instance of parabolic 
 language, so common in Christ's teaching afterwards. The Baptist had used 
 harvest-work (iii. 12), as Jesus Himself does later (ix. 37, 38), to signify the 
 gathering in of souls. 
 
IV. 23-25] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 49 
 
 perseverance, and courage which they had acquired in their 
 uncertain and dangerous craft on the lake would be required, 
 and they would have to sacrifice their home and their means of 
 life. But neither pair of brothers hesitates, and each of the four 
 has the happiness of taking a brother with him. Apparently, 
 Simon and Andrew leave their net in the lake, without waiting 
 to draw it in. Their readiness is even more marked than that of 
 the sons of Zebedee, for they seem to have had no one to leave 
 in charge of the nets (and boat?) which were their means of 
 subsistence. Mt. is anxious to mark the readiness in both pairs 
 of brothers. Very often he omits the 'straightway' (eiOew;) 
 which is so frequent in Mk. (iv. r, viii. 4, 14, ix. 4, 7, xii. 4; 
 comp. Mk. i. 12, 29, 43, ii. 8, 12, iii. 6, etc.). But here he retains 
 it in both places, and in the second case he transfers it from the 
 Messiah's call to the disciples' obedience ; for he desires to 
 emphasize the fact that at the outset the Messiah's authority was 
 at once loyally recognized. These followers are worthy subjects 
 of the King. 
 
 Mt. does not mean that Simon on this occasion received the name of Peter 
 {18), but that Simon is the same disciple who was afterwards famous as Peter ; 
 comp. X. 2. Of the Evangelists, John is the only one who gives the Aramaic 
 original Cephas (i. 42), which S. Paul frequently uses in i Cor. and Gal. 
 Whether the dn^ip\i)(rTpoi> which he and Andrew left differed from the 
 a-ayrii'Ti in the parable (xiii. 47) is uncertain ; neither word occurs else- 
 where in the N.T. In deSre (6 times in Mt. and 6 elsewhere) and (KeWei/ 
 (12 times in Mt. and 15 elsewhere) we have words of which Mt. seems to be 
 fond. 
 
 The position which Mt. gives to the call of the four disciples 
 indicates that a new stage has been quickly reached in the 
 Messiah's ministry. He is surrounded, not merely, as John was, 
 by a multitude of casual and constantly changing hearers, but by 
 a select number of constant followers. It was with these professed 
 disciples that He went up and down Galilee, teaching in the 
 synagogues and healing the sick. This was part of their training 
 for taking up and continuing His work. 
 
 IV. 23-25. Preliminary Summary of the Work. 
 
 The Evangelist here leaves the narrative of Mk. to give an 
 introductory epitome of the Ministry which he is about to illus- 
 trate in detail. He begins the description with a simple ' And ' 
 (Ka6), the first instance of this use in this Gospel. He tells us 
 that, unlike the Forerunner, who required the people to come to 
 him in the wilderness, the Messiah sought them; He 'went 
 about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues.' Not many 
 of these Galileans had been out to listen to John ; none are 
 mentioned in iii. 5. They are still a 'people sitting in darkness' 
 4 
 
so GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [IV. 23-25 
 
 (i6). But the general result of the Messiah's; first appearance 
 among them is in harmony with the happy beginning in calling 
 the two pairs of brothers. There is no mention of any opposition. 
 He brought to His fellow-countrymen much the same message 
 as the Baptist (17, iii. 2); but it is probable that, whereas John 
 emphasized the coming of judgment, Jesus dwelt rather upon the 
 coming of deliverance and of joy. It is ' the Gospel of the 
 Kingdom ' which He preaches to them, a remarkable expression,^ 
 and peculiar to Mt. (23, ix. 35, xxiv. 14), for which iVIk. has 'the 
 Gospel of God' (i. 14). Both exhorted men to repent, and both 
 announced that the Kingdom was at hand ; but while John said 
 most about the forsaking of sin, the Messiah said most about 
 'the good tidings.' 
 
 As a Healer the Messiah is everywhere popular, and His fame 
 spreads widely, even into heathen territory. ' All Syria ' and the 
 country ' beyond Jordan ' are excited about the reports of His 
 work, and every kind of sickness is brought to Him to be cured. 
 The Evangelist seems to delight in enlarging upon the vast 
 amount of the healings and the great variety of them. He 
 strings together, from several places in Mk. (i. 28, 32, 34, iii. 7, 8, 
 V. 24), the different items of the Messiah's success. Possibly 
 Deut. vii. 15 is in his mind : 'The Lord will take away from thee 
 all sickness {-jraa-av juaXaKt'av), and He will put none of the evil 
 diseases (Tracras vouovs) of Egypt upon thee.' ^ Comp. the 
 Testament of Joseph xvii. 7. But it was not the case that 'the 
 people ' tolerated the teaching for the sake of the cures. The 
 preaching of the good news of the Kingdom came first, and the 
 miracles were secondary. Many followed Him who neither 
 required healing themselves nor brought sick friends to be 
 healed. To all, whether sick or whole, the good tidings of the 
 Kingdom proved attractive. Even the stern preaching of John 
 had drawn multitudes into the wilderness, although he ' did no 
 sign' (Jn. X. 41). Comp. ix. 35, where this verse is repeated 
 almost verbatim, but without 'among the people,' which means 
 among the Jews in Galilee. 'The whole of Syria,' with its 
 heathen population (24), is in manifest contrast to Galilee with 
 its Jewish population. 
 
 It is notable that ' the good tidings ' (to ^vayyikiov) is first 
 used in the N.T. of the preaching of Christ. John's preaching 
 might have been called ' good tidings,' but (with one indirect 
 exception in Lk. iii. 18) it is not. Perhaps the note of judgment 
 
 ' It is here that the important word eia.yy^'Kcov first appears in Mt. It 
 originally meant the reward for good tidings (2 Sam. iv. 10), but afterwards 
 always the good tidings themselves. See Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 102 ; 
 Hastings' DCG., art. ' Gospel.' 
 
 2 In the N.T., Mt. alone uses naKaKla {iv. 23, ix. 35, x. i). Of course 
 ' all Syria ' is used in a loose sense. 
 
IV. S3-25] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE SI 
 
 —the axe, the winnowing fan, the fire — was too strong for his 
 message to win that gracious name. After the Messiah had 
 encountered more and more of the hypocrisy and hostility of the 
 hierarchy, His preaching became sterner even than John's ; but 
 here, at the outset, there is no record of any word of condemna- 
 tion or warning. The exhortation to repentance seems to have 
 been so readily heard, and the invitation to believe the good 
 tidings to have been so generally accepted, that He was able to 
 do many mighty works. Even those who were brought from 
 Syria were healed. But this concourse is represented as less 
 continuous (aorists) than His own activity in Galilee {Tnpirjyev). 
 
 " It may be doubted whether we have an adequate notion of 
 the immense number of Christ's miracles. Those recorded are 
 but a small proportion of those done. These early ones were 
 illustrations of the nature of His Kingdom. They were His 
 first gifts to His subjects." ^ 
 
 " The healing ministry, judged by critical tests, stands on as 
 firm historical ground as the best accredited parts of the teaching. 
 In most of the reports the action of Jesus is so interwoven with 
 unmistakable authentic words that the two elements cannot be 
 separated. That the healing ministry was a great outstanding 
 fact, is attested by the popularity of Jesus, and by the various 
 theories which were invented to account for the remarkable 
 phenomena."^ Harnack and Professor Gardner both admit that 
 wonderful works of healing are too closely woven with the 
 narrative to be torn from it : there is an irreducible minimum. 
 Why should the Pharisees accuse Him of being the ally of 
 Beelzebub, or Antipas suggest that He was the Baptist come to 
 life again, or Celsus declare that He had brought charms back 
 from Egypt, if there were no mighty works to be accounted for ? 
 "The healing activity of Jesus is firmly established in the 
 tradition " (O. Holtzmann). 
 
 Many critics at the present day limit the mighty works to acts 
 of healing, and limit the acts of healing to those "which even at 
 the present day physicians are able to effect by psychical 
 methods, — as, more especially, cures of mental maladies " 
 (Schmiedel). They were " acts of faith-heahng on a " mighty 
 scale " (E. A. Abbott). " Physicians tell us that people can be 
 cured by suggestion ; the term describes what has often been 
 observed precisely in a quarter in which religious enthusiasm has 
 been stirred " (O. Holtzmann). 
 
 But do the records give any intimation that Jesus Himself 
 was conscious that His power to do mighty works was confined 
 
 ^ A. Maclaren, ad loc. 
 
 - Enc. Bibl. ii. 2445. See Sanday, Outlines of the Life of Christ, pp. 
 105-113. 
 
52 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S.MATTHEW [IV. 23-25 
 
 to works of healing ? Did His disciples notice any such limi- 
 tation ? Did His enemies ever taunt Him with the fact that, 
 while Moses and the Prophets did all kinds of miracles, He 
 could do nothing but heal ? No evidence tending in this 
 direction can be produced. On the other hand, there is 
 considerable evidence that He was believed to be able to do 
 many other mighty works. 
 
 Again, when we confine our attention to the acts of healing, 
 do the records confirm the view that these acts were confined to 
 curing neurotic patients by strong mental impressions ? > Let us 
 suppose that our Lord worked some striking cures by means of 
 "moral therapeutics"; which is not improbable, for He would 
 not use supernatural power where ordinary means would suffice. 
 Let us suppose that all His first miracles were of this character. 
 The result, we are told, would be that He would get the reputa- 
 tion of being able to perform all kinds of wonders, and in time 
 they would be attributed to Him by tradition. Very possibly ; 
 but there would be another result much more certain. In 
 consequence of His first successes, multitudes of sick would 
 be brought to Him who could not be cured by "psychical 
 methods" or "suggestions," or "moral therapeutics"; and 
 therefore many would be sent away uncured. Where is the 
 record of these mournful disappointments ? It is suggested that 
 there were no actual failures to heal, because He may have 
 known by "a kind of instinct," or by "experience and some 
 kind of intuition," what cases He could not cure ; and therefore 
 He did not attempt to cure such. Yet such a remarkable 
 limitation of His healing activity must have made an impression 
 which would affect traditions respecting Him. And is "a kind 
 of instinct " a scientific hypothesis ? Even if we omit the Fourth 
 Gospel, the reported cases are too numerous and too varied to 
 be explained by faith-healing. It is incredible that all the sick 
 laid in the streets were neurotic patients ; and are leprosy, 
 dropsy, fever, withered hand, issue of blood, and blindness 
 "susceptible of emotional cure"? Just so far as a disease is 
 due to delusion or lack of faith, is it possible to expel it by 
 faith-healing ; and the number of maladies which admit of such 
 treatment is comparatively small. - 
 
 Of course, the mighty works, whether of Christ or of His 
 disciples, are not violations of law. Violations of law do not 
 
 ' But " it would be rash to assert that this is the whole secrel in any case " 
 (Hastings' DB., art. 'Miracles,' iii. p. 390). 
 
 ^ See a valuable paper on ' The Neurotic Theory of the Miracles of 
 Healing,' by R. J. Ryle, M.A., M.D., in the Hibhert Journal, Apr. 1907, 
 pp. 572-586. The theory that many of the cures wrought by Christ, like 
 many of those wrought at Lourdes, were only temporary, is entirely devoid of 
 evidence. See Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, p. 49. 
 
IV. S3-25] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 53* 
 
 occur in God's ordered universe. But we do not yet know the 
 laws by which these mighty works become possible. Still less do 
 we know the laws of such an unique Personality as that of the 
 Messiah ; and we are not in a position to decide what was 
 possible and what was impossible for Him in dealing with mind 
 and matter. The evidence for the mighty works is not only 
 strong but stringent ; and the case for them stands, until the 
 evidence can be explained upon any other hypothesis than that 
 the substance of the evidence is true. 
 
 The chief characteristics in ch. iv. are rire (i, 5, 10, 11), (i<TTepov (2), 
 irpoa^pX^o'Oa-i (3, 11), TrpoaKvvelv (9, 10), Kal l5ou (ri), ivaxojpeiv (12), 'iva 
 T'KTjpuidji {l/^), Xeydfjiepos (18), Seure {ig), eKeidev {21), 7rpoo"</)^peiZ/ (24). The 
 following are peculiar to Mt. : rb prjBiv (14), ^ pa<n\da, tQiv ovpavSm (17), t6 
 ei/a77eXiov ttjs ^affiXetas (23), /iaXaxi'a (23). Of the above, the following are 
 absent from the parallel passages: irpocripxe(Tdai {3, 11), tStc (5), Kal ISov 
 (11), a>'axwpf<>' (12), Xeydfiivos {j8), (KeWei/ (21). The paragraph 23-25 has 
 no parallel. The word Trapa0a\da-<nos occurs nowhere else in the N.T. 
 
 V. VI. VII. Illustrations of the Messiah's Teaching. 
 The Senno?i on the Mount. 
 
 The concluding verse of ch. iv. is given partly as the end of 
 the summary of the Messiah's Ministry, partly as an introduction 
 to the Sermon. One result of His Ministry was that 'great 
 multitudes ' {o-)(Xol iroXXoi: 1 Mk. nearly always has o;(Aos TrokX.6<;) 
 followed Him, coming from long distances. These multitudes 
 constituted a large audience for His teaching; and forthwith the 
 Evangelist gives us abundant evidence of what the teaching was 
 like. He evidently regards the teaching as of more importance 
 than the healing. In the summary he mentions the teaching 
 first ; and here he gives us details about that before giving us 
 details about the mighty works.^ Mk. just mentions the astonish- 
 ment produced by the teaching (i. 22, 23), and then passes to 
 the details of healing ; and it was probably the small amount of 
 the Lord's teaching contained in his Gospel, as compared with 
 Mt., which caused the latter to take the first place, although that 
 of Mk. was first in the field. Indeed there is some reason for 
 thinking that, at a very early period of its existence, the Gospel 
 of Mk. was in danger of perishing altogether; as it is, its con- 
 cluding portion has perished (Burkitt, The Gospel History and its 
 Transmission, p. 261); and the other document used by Mt. and 
 Lk. (Q) has perished. 
 
 ' It is a favourite expression with Mt. (iv. 25, viii. i, 18, xiii. 2, xv. 30, 
 xix. 2). 
 
 ° This is in accordance with Christ's own estimate of the comparative 
 value of His words and His works : His words ought to suffice without the 
 works, but He gives both (Jn. x. 38, xiv. 11). 
 
54 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 1 
 
 Mt. again omits all indications of date ; but it is obviously 
 incorrect to say that he places the Sermon at the beginning of 
 the Ministry. There are two proofs that he does not. First, 
 ' the multitudes ' in v. i clearly refers to the ' great multitudes ' 
 in the previous verse ; and these great multitudes did not gather 
 until our Lord had been at work for some time and the report 
 of Him had spread through Syria, Persea, Judaea, etc. Secondly, 
 the teaching in the Sermon is not elementary ; it is evidently 
 intended for those who had already received a good deal of 
 instruction. 
 
 The place at which the Sermon was delivered is almost as 
 vague as the date : ' He went up into the mountain.' But no 
 mountain has been mentioned. As in xiv. 23 and xv. 29, high 
 ground in the neighbourhood of the lake is no doubt meant.^ 
 The concourse was so great that the shore of the lake was no 
 longer a convenient place for giving instruction, and our Lord 
 goes up to one of the terraces on the hills above the lake. It is 
 possible that there was some one spot to which He so often went 
 up with His disciples that they commonly spoke of it as '■the 
 mountain ' (to opos), and that this domestic name for a particular 
 place survives in the Gospels (Mk. iii. 13, vi. 46; Lk. vi. 12; 
 Jn. vi. 3, 15). The mention of this going up to the high ground 
 above the lake lets us know that we are passing from the general 
 sketch in iv. 23-25 to a definite occasion. At the same time 
 there is some intimation that not all of it was delivered at one 
 and the same time, for some of it is as clearly addressed to the 
 Apostles (13-16) as other parts are to a larger circle of disciples ; 
 and both classes of hearers are mentioned (v. i, vii. 28). That 
 our Lord sat down ^ would intimate that He was about to give 
 instruction for some time (xiii. 2, xxvi. 55; Mk. xiii. 3). The 
 solemn introducdon, " opened His mouth and taught," points 
 in the same direction (comp. Acts viii. 35, x. 34; Job iii. i). 
 This is the first mention of ' His disciples,' which in this Gospel 
 commonly means disciples in the stricter sense. 
 
 The critical questions connected with the form in which the 
 Sermon has come down to us need not detain us long. They 
 cannot be discussed without consideration of the similar, but 
 much shorter, report of a discourse in Lk. (vi. 20-49); ^"d 
 ample materials for forming reasonable conclusions respecting 
 them will be found in Bible Dictionaries, commentaries, and 
 
 ' It is strange that any ' simple brethren ' should have supposed, as 
 Jerome states, that the Mount of Olives is meant ; and Tabor is not very 
 probable. 
 
 ^ Sitting was the common attitude (Lk. iv. 20; Acts xvi. 13), standing 
 the exception (Acts ii. 14, xiii. 16). Excitement or intense earnestness would 
 make standing more natural at times. On the solemn introduction see Loisy, 
 Le Discours sur la Montague, p. 13. 
 
V. 1] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 55 
 
 separate treatises.^ It is not of great importance to determine 
 whether Mt. and Lk. give us divergent reports of one and the 
 same discourse, which is the opinion held by most scholars ; or 
 of two similar but different discourses, addressed to different 
 audiences on different occasions, which is a tenable view, still 
 advocated by some. Neither view is free from difficulty. That 
 a sermon closely resembling these two reports was actually 
 delivered by our Lord, need not be doubted for a moment : 
 the contents are quite beyond the power of any Evangelist to 
 invent, and the evidence for the Lord's utterance of this teach- 
 ing is satisfactory. But study of the two reports will convince 
 us that neither of them is an exact reproduction of what was 
 actually said. This is at once evident, if they are supposed to 
 be reports of the same discourse ; and this conclusion cannot 
 be escaped by adopting the theory of two original discourses, 
 (i) No one, however greatly impressed, would be likely to 
 remember every word that had been said. (2) What was re- 
 membered was not at once written down. (3) Either before or 
 after it was written down it was translated from Aramaic into 
 Greek ; and translations of both kinds probably existed, some 
 made from Aramaic oral tradition, some from Aramaic docu- 
 ments. We may believe that both Mt. and Lk. had the sermon 
 in Greek in a written form, but by no means the same written 
 form. (4) It is evident that, although both reports are probably 
 much shorter than the original sermon or sermons, yet in some 
 particulars they have been enlarged. Lk. to some extent, and 
 Mt. to a still greater extent, has added to the original discourse 
 some sayings, which, although they were certainly spoken by 
 Christ, were not spoken in that particular connexion. The 
 most certain instance of this in Mt. is the Lord's Prayer and its 
 immediate context (vi. 7-15). But v. 25, 26, 31, 32, vii. 6-ir, 
 22, 23 may also be suspected of having been added by com- 
 pilation, and this for two reasons : (a) because there is a want 
 of connexion with the main subject ; and (i) because a good deal 
 of this material is found in Lk. in quite a different setting ; e.g. 
 V. 25, 26 = Lk. xii. 58, 59, v. 32 = Lk. xvi. 18, vii. 7-11= Lk. xi. 
 9-13, vii. 23 = Lk. xiii. 27. Neither of these reasons is con- 
 clusive; for the apparent want of connexion may be due to 
 abbreviation ; and it is quite possible that our Lord may in 
 some cases have included in a sermon what had been said on 
 some special occasion, or may have repeated on some special 
 occasion what had been said in a sermon. Nevertheless, the 
 
 ' See especially Hastings' /)/?. v., art. 'Sermon on the Mount' ; /«/«-- 
 national Critical Comm. on .y. Matthew and on 5. Luke ; C. Gore, The 
 Sermon on the Mount, 1896; Hase, Geschickte Jesii, § 55; DCG., art. 
 ' Sermon on the Mount.' 
 
S6 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 1 
 
 two reasons together make a strong argument.^ It is generally 
 agreed that the Sermon on the Mount, as we have it in Mt., is 
 to some extent the result of compilation. The theory, however, 
 that it is entirely made up of short utterances cannot be sustained. 
 Antecedently, the theory is not probable, and the facts do not 
 bear it out. There is too much order in the report as a whole, 
 and too much coherence in the parts, — especially when the less 
 relevant sections are set aside as probable interpolations, — for 
 the supposition that we have here nothing more than a number 
 of pearls on a string. Could anything so orderly and coherent 
 be constructed out of short extracts from the Epistles of St. Paul ? 
 And what difficulty is there in the supposition that the main 
 portion of the sermon is a substantially true report of a sustained 
 discourse, addressed to a Galilean audience about the middle 
 of the Galilean Ministry ? And there is nothing improbable in 
 the theory of two similar sermons. 
 
 It is a matter of no moment whether the insertion of extraneous matter, 
 such as the Lord's Prayer, was made by the Evangelist, or had been previously 
 made in the report which he used. It is of equally little moment whether 
 the immense abbreviation in Lk., if he reports the same sermon, is due to 
 himself or his source. Mt. has 107 verses, Lk. 29; and of Lk.'s 29 all 
 but six have a parallel in Mt. But 36 verses in Mt. , though they have no 
 parallels in Lk.'s report of the sermon, have parallels in other parts of Lk. 
 And more than 40 verses in Mt. have no parallels in Lk. Thus nearly half 
 of the report in Mt. is peculiar to that Gospel. 
 
 The parallels exhibit great variety in degrees of similarity of wording. 
 Sometimes the two passages are almost verbatim the same ; e.g. Mt. vii. 
 3-5 = Lk. vi. 41-42. Sometimes the differences are very considerable, as 
 in the parable with which each report ends. Even the Golden Rule is 
 differently worded (Mt. vii. i2 = Lk. vi. 31). And examination of the 
 parallels will lead us to the conclusion that the report in Mt. is closer to 
 the original sermon, if the same sermon is the basis of both reports. The 
 much greater fulness of Mt.'s report points in the same direction. Jewish 
 phrases, and allusions to the Old Testament, abound in Mt. , but are absent 
 from Lk. ; and it is-much more likely that Lk., or the Gentile source which 
 he used, omitted these topics and touches, as lacking interest for Gentile 
 Christians, than that Mt. inserted them in order to please Jewish readers. 
 Whether there was one sermon or two, our Lord's audience would consist 
 mainly of Jews, and it is highly probable that the discourse delivered by Him 
 had a great deal of the Jewish tone which pervades Mt.'s report. Critics, 
 however, are not agreed as to the comparative accuracy of the two reports : 
 some regard Lk.'s as nearer to the original sermon, but more prefer that of 
 Mt. "In all these cases it is simply inconceivable that S. iVIatthew had 
 before him, and has altered, the text presented in S. Luke" (Harnack, The 
 Sayings of Jesus, p. 57). 
 
 ' Perhaps we may add to them the improbability that our Lord would 
 have given so large an amount of instruction all at once. Even the most 
 advanced among His hearers could hardly take in so much of such lofty 
 teaching at one and the same lime. Augustine suggests that the circum- 
 locution, 'He opened His iiuuilh and taught them,' is perhaps meant liy the 
 Evangelist to indicate aliqtianio longiorem fuiiLrum esse ser/uonew [De Serin. 
 Doni. I. i. 2). 
 
V. 3-12] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 57 
 
 There are two assumptions which are rather frequently made, 
 and which are almost certainly untrue and misleading: (i) that 
 each Evangelist, as a rule, tells us all that he knew, and that, 
 therefore, nearly all that he omits was unknown to him ; (2) that 
 our Lord seldom repeated His sayings, and that, therefore, 
 similar but different reports of His words in different Gospels 
 must be referred to the same occasion. 
 
 All these questions, interesting as they are, sink into in- 
 significance as compared with the supreme importance of under- 
 standing, and appropriating, the mea?ung of these reports of our 
 Lord's teaching, which have been preserved for the spiritual 
 instruction of mankind. 
 
 The general plan of the Sermon in both Gospels is the same. 
 I. The Qualifications of those who can enter the Kingdom 
 (v. 3-16 = Lk. vi. zo-26); 2. The Duties of those who have 
 entered the Kingdom (v. 17-vii. i2 = Lk. vi. 27-45); 3. The 
 Judgments which await the Members of the Kingdom (vii. 
 1 3-2 7 = Lk. vi. 46-49). Invitation, requirement, warning ; — these 
 are the three leading thoughts ; and, as Stier remarks, the course 
 of all preaching is herein reflected. 
 
 In somewhat different words, we may say that the subject of 
 the Sermon is The Ideal Christian Life, which is described in the 
 Beatitudes (3-12) and the two metaphors which follow them 
 (13-16).^ Then the characteristics of the Christian Life are dis- 
 cussed, first in contrast to the Jewish Ideal (17-48), secondly in 
 contrast to faulty Jewish practice (vi. 1-18), and finally in their 
 own working (vi. 19-vii. 12), the climax being the statement of the 
 Golden Rule (vii. 12). Lastly, there is an earnest exhortation 
 to enter upon this Christian Life (vii. 13, 14), avoiding un- 
 trustworthy guides (15-20) and profession without performance 
 (21-23): the responsibility of rejecting this teaching will be 
 great (24-27). The central portion of the discourse (vi. 19-vii. 
 12) consists of three prohibitions and two commands. The 
 prohibitions are (i) lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the 
 earth; (2) Judge not; and (3) Give not that which is holy to the 
 dogs. The commands are (i) Pray to your Father in Heaven; 
 (2) Love your neighbour as yourself 
 
 v. 3-lS. The Beatitudes, a Summary of the Christian Life. 
 
 By ' the Beatitudes ' is almost always meant the declarations 
 of blessedness made by Christ at the beginning of the Sermon 
 on the Mount, — blessedness which He attached to certain virtues, 
 or conditions, or persons. And this blessedness is not some- 
 
 ^ Matthieii a pens& ^crire 1111 iraite complet de la justice chretienne (Loisy, 
 Le Discours sur la Montame, 2). 
 
58 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 3-lS 
 
 thing which the persons who are thus described feel; it is a 
 property unerringly ascribed to them in the estimate of God. 
 Thus it comes to pass that, while the Law is represented as 
 having been given on Mount Sinai amidst thunders and 
 threatenings, the Magna Carta of the Gospel is introduced on 
 ' the Mountain ' in Galilee with a series of new blessings. 
 
 Jt is remarkable that there is wide difference of opinion as to 
 the exact number of these beatitudes. They are differently 
 reckoned as being seven, eight, nine, and even ten in number. 
 In Lk. there is no question about the number : there we have 
 four Beatitudes and four Woes.i That is perhaps some indica- 
 tion that the Sermon began with eight aphorisms of some kind, 
 and is in favour of the common reckoning that Mt. gives us 
 eight Beatitudes. But the question is merely one of arrange- 
 ment ; no one need propose to strike out one or more of the 
 sayings as unauthentic. From different points of view Mt. 
 might wish to have seven (the sacred number), or eight (sym- 
 bolical of completeness), or nine (three triplets), or ten (to equal 
 the Decalogue). All commentators agree that in verses 3-9 
 we have seven Beatitudes summing up the ideal of a Christian 
 character. Then comes a declaration that those who are 
 persecuted for possessing this character are blessed ; and it is 
 probable that this is intended as a distinct Beatitude. It is a 
 very blessed thing to possess the ideal character ; but he who 
 has to suffer for his righteousness is still more blessed. That 
 this should be regarded as an eighth Beatitude is confirmed by 
 the fact that it is included in the four in Lk. Lk. omits those 
 respfecting the meek, the merciful, the pure in heart, and the 
 peacemakers, but he includes this one respecting the persecuted. 
 Nevertheless, some refuse to recognize this as an eighth Beati- 
 tude : (i) because the blessedness does not depend upon the 
 internal conditions which are in the Christian's own control, but 
 upon the way in which other people treat him ; and (2) because 
 the result is a mere repetition of what has been already pro- 
 mised, — 'theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.' ^ 
 
 There is much less to be said for regarding as a separate 
 Beatitude, ' Blessed are ye when men shall persecute you . . . 
 for My sake' (11). It is true that the word 'Blessed' is 
 repeated ; but what follows is a mere application of the pre- 
 
 ' The wide difference as to the wording of the Beatitudes, and the inser- 
 tion of the Woes, are among the chief arguments for the hypothesis that Lk. 
 gives a report of a different sermon. 
 
 2 In the Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs the cheerful endurance of 
 persecution is enjoined, because anger is so disturbing to the soul. " If ye 
 suffer loss voluntarily or involuntarily, be not vexed, for from vexation ariseth 
 wrath . . . and when the ?ouI is continually disturbed, the Lord departeth 
 from it, and Beliar ruleth over it" {Dan iv. 7). 
 
V. 3-12] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 59 
 
 ceding Beatitude to the disciples who are present, together with 
 an amplification of the word 'persecute.' The psalm-like 
 parallelism and rhythm of the preceding eight is here wanting, 
 and we seem to be in the region of interpretation rather than of 
 text. It is true that the equivalent of this saying is certainly 
 counted as one of the four Beatitudes in Lk., but that is because 
 he puts all the Beatitudes in the second person : ' Blessed are 
 yei' Consequently, what is here given in two forms, one general, 
 and one special ('Blessed are they which are persecuted,' and 
 ' Blessed are ye when men shall persecute you '), is in Lk. given 
 only in the latter, to harmonize with the other three, which are 
 in the special or second person form. 
 
 It is altogether unreasonable to regard ' Rejoice and be 
 exceeding glad . . . before you ' as a Beatitude in any sense. 
 The word ' blessed ' is not used, and the verse is only the 
 complement of the one which precedes. Only when we put 
 the two verses together do we get the right correspondence of 
 parts, a correspondence which is obscured by amplification. 
 The foundation of the whole is, ' Blessed are ye when men shall 
 persecute you for My sake, for great is your reward in heaven.' 
 The remainder, though probably original, is explanatory. There 
 is, in short, no indication that Mt. intended to make ten Beatitudes. 
 His report of the Sermon, as has been pointed out, is partly the 
 result of compilation. Had he wished to give ten Beatitudes he 
 might easily have included other sayings, similar in type, which 
 he records elsewhere. ' Blessed are your eyes, for they see ; 
 and your ears, for they hear' (xiii. 16). 'Blessed art thou, 
 Simon Bar-jona ; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto 
 thee, but My Father which is in heaven' (xvi. 17). 'Blessed is 
 he, whosoever shall find none occasion of stumbling in Me ' 
 (xi. 6). ' Blessed is that servant, whom the Lord when He 
 Cometh shall find watching' (xxiv. 46). And there are others 
 elsewhere, which may have been known to Mt. ' Blessed are 
 they that hear the word of God and keep it ' (Lk. xi. 28). 
 ' Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed ' 
 (Jn. XX. 29). The frequency of such sayings among Christ's 
 utterances shows that, whereas warnings of judgment were 
 prominent in John's teaching, assurances of blessedness must 
 have been very prominent in that of the Messiah. 
 
 Here again perhaps we have a reason for the fact that the 
 First Gospel was so much more popular than the Second. Mt. 
 contains thirteen Beatitudes; in Mk. there are none. It is the 
 Hebrew Gospel at the beginning of the N.T., and the Hebrew 
 Apocalypse at the end of it, which are so rich in such things 
 (Rev. i. 3, xiv. 13, xvi. 15, xix. 9, xx. 6, xxii. 7, 14). 
 
 It is not irreverent to conjecture that our Lord may have 
 
6o GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 3-12 
 
 had the beginning of the Book of Psalms in His mind, when He 
 placed these Beatitudes, whether four or eight, at the beginning 
 of the Sermon. ' Blessed is the man that walketh not in the 
 counsel of the wicked, but his delight is in the law of the Lord. 
 He shall be like a tree planted by the streams of water, that 
 bringeth forth its fruit in its season' (Ps. i. 1-3). If so, then 
 we have the counterpart of the Woes as well as of the Beati- 
 tudes ; for the Psalm goes on : ' Not so are the wicked, not so ; 
 but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away. Therefore 
 the wicked shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the 
 congregation of the righteous.' This is perhaps some slight 
 support to the authenticity of the Woes. 
 
 The Acta Pauli et Theclce contains a large number of Beatitudes made up 
 of scriptural language : e.g. Blessed are those who have kept their flesh pure, 
 for they shall become temples of God. Blessed are the continent, for God 
 will speak to them. Blessed are those who have bid farewell to this world, 
 for they shall be well-pleasing to God. Blessed are those who have wives as 
 not having them, for they shall become Angels of God. Blessedaretho.se 
 who have received the wisdom of Jesus Christ, for they shall be called sons of 
 the Highest. See Resch, Agrapha., 2nd ed. 1906, pp. 272-4. 
 
 There is yet another way of treating this portion of the Sermon : "not as 
 a string of eight Beatitudes, but as a single Beatitude with a sevenfold expan- 
 sion. The significance of ' poor in spirit ' must be looked for in the seven 
 applications into which it is expanded" (Moulton, The Modern Readei's 
 Bible, p. 1692). This is attractive, and it is possible to regard some of the 
 Beatitudes as expansions, or other sides of, the blessedness of being poor in 
 spirit. But can 'hungering and thirsting after righteousness,' or being 
 'merciful,' or 'peacemakers,' be said to be included in the idea of being 
 ' poor in spirit' ? It is better to regard ' Blessed are the poor in spirit' as 
 the leading Beatitude, marking at once the contrast between the standard to 
 be observed in the Kingdom of heaven and the standard commonly observed 
 in the world, rather than as one which virtually includes all the others. If 
 the number seven is to be found in the Beatitudes, we must regard the first 
 seven as distinct from all that follows, in that they are concerned with a 
 man's own character, while the rest is concerned with the way in which he is 
 treated by others for being of this character. The RV. seems to favour the 
 view that there are seven Beatitudes, whereas the \VH. text indicates that 
 there are nine. 
 
 The attempt of Augustine {De Serm. Dom. in Mont. i. ) to fit the seven 
 Beatitudes to the seven gifts of the Spirit is very forced : timor Domini, 
 pauperes ; pietas, mites; sapieniia, liigentes ; fortitudo, qui esuriunt et 
 sitiunt ; consilitim, misericordes ; inlellectus, mundo corde ; scientia, pacifici. 
 See the Vulgate of Is. xi. 2, 3 and of Mt. v. 3-9. 
 
 Adopting the common enumeration of eight Beatitudes, 
 which is certainly as old as St. Ambrose {De Offic. i. 6), and 
 which renders the comparison of them to a peal of " sweet bells " 
 a happy one, we may notice these points respecting them. 
 
 (i) There is no logical order in their arrangement, except 
 that the one which depends, not on the Christian himself, but on 
 the way he is treated by others, comes last. The first seven 
 cannot be arranged in logical or chronological order. In some 
 
V. 3-12] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 6l 
 
 texts the second and third Beatitudes change places, and this 
 arrangement is as early as the second century,' and Lk. places 
 the fourth before the second. 
 
 (2) They do not describe eight different classes of people, 
 but eight different elements of excellence which may all be 
 combined in one individual, who may acquire them in any order, 
 or simultaneously. The poor in spirit are certain to be meek ; 
 those who are merciful are likely to be peacemakers ; those who 
 hunger and thirst after righteousness are likely to be pure in 
 heart ; and those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake will 
 mourn with the mourning that is sure to be comforted. In 
 other words, the Beatitudes are an analysis of perfect spiritual 
 well-being, a summary of what is best in the felicity which is 
 attainable by man. There is nothing like them, either in depth 
 of insight or in definiteness of meaning, in either Jewish or 
 Gentile philosophy. The word (eiSai/xoi/ta) by which Plato and 
 Aristotle express the highest well-being of man does not occur in 
 them or anywhere in the N.T. ; and to Greek philosophers the 
 sentences in which the Messiah sets before the world the 
 elements of the highest well-being would have seemed like a 
 series of paradoxes. They would have regarded the Propounder 
 of them as 6^a-iv Sia<j>vXa.TTwi>, — adopting an extravagant position 
 for the sake of provoking argument. And they are, as S. 
 Ambrose says, eight paradoxes ; for, according to the Divine 
 judgment, blessedness begins where man deems that misery 
 begins. 
 
 We can hardly measure the surprise with which Christ's 
 audience listened to these Beatitudes. With some it would be 
 the surprise of admiration and sympathy ; here once more was 
 the voice of One who taught with authority. With others it 
 would be the surprise of incredulity ; this was indeed interesting 
 doctrine, but it was not very likely to prove true. With others 
 it would be the surprise of repugnance; teaching so subversive 
 of ordinary ideas respecting human felicity could not be accepted, 
 and ought to be strenuously opposed. Among the conditions of 
 blessedness, the privileges of the children of Abraham were not 
 so much as mentioned. It was not the form of the Beatitudes 
 
 ,' D, 33, Old Latin, Curelonian Syriac, TertuUian, Oiigen. The wish to 
 mark the contrast between ' the Kingdom of Heaven ' and ' the earth ' may 
 have helped to cause the transposition. 
 
 Some Fathers, and some moderns, try to make a natural sequence in the 
 Beatitudes, but take them in any order, and the result would be as true as 
 this: "Poverty of spirit disposes to meekness, and meekness to mourning, 
 and mourning or compunction to hungering after righteousness. Thirsting 
 after righteousness disposes to mercy, mercy to purity of heart, purity of heart 
 to the promotion of peace ; and the promotion of peace provokes the hatred 
 of the depraved." 
 
62 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 3-12 
 
 which they dishked ; that was familiar to them from the Psalms 
 (i. I, ii. 12, xxxii. i, 2, xxxiii. 12, xl. 4, Ixv. 4, etc.); but how 
 different was the substance ! ' Blessed is he that considereth the 
 poor' (Ps. xli. i); this they could understand. But 'Blessed 
 are the poor ' was strange doctrine indeed. 
 
 The Beatitudes may be regarded as setting forth the subject 
 of the whole Sermon. The Sermon treats of the character and 
 conduct of members of the Messiah's Kingdom, and at the 
 outset we have the required character sketched in a few expressive 
 touches. And the sketching of this character acts as a test : it 
 turns back those who have no sympathy with such a character. 
 It also acts as a corrective of false ideas about the Kingdom. 
 The ideas of the multitude were for the most part vague ; and in 
 their want of knowledge they degraded and materialized it. 
 They thought of the Kingdom as a perpetual banquet. The ideas 
 of the upper classes were more definite, but not more spiritual. 
 They thought of it as a political revolution. Roman rule was to 
 be overthrown, and a Jewish monarchy of great magnificence 
 was to be restored. To both these conceptions of the Kingdom 
 the Beatitudes were an emphatic contradiction.^ 
 
 It is probable that our Lord, speaking in Aramaic, said 
 simply ' Blessed are the poor.' But, inasmuch as the Aramaic 
 word need not mean, and was not intended to mean, those who 
 are destitute of this world's goods, the Greek translator was more 
 than justified in rendering the single word 'poor' by 'poor in 
 spirit ' {-n-TUixo'i- TO) TTviv/xaTi). Those who are literally poor are 
 not necessarily poor in spirit ; and those who are wealthy can 
 nevertheless be poor in spirit.^ Of course, being poor in spirit 
 does not mean spiritual poverty, want of spiritual gifts. It 
 means the character of those who feel their great needs (^ut 
 sentiunt se per se non habere justitiam) and their entire depend- 
 ence upon God for the supply of all that they require (see below 
 on the third Beatitude). 
 
 Of all such it is true that ' theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.' 
 This is not the reward of their being poor in spirit, but the 
 result of it. It is not so much a question of recompense as of 
 consequence.' It explains why the poor in spirit are blessed. 
 
 ' Dieti est Ic Pire des esprits, et r amour est la constitution du royaume 
 clernel. On ne peut vaincre la terrc iju'aji nam du del ; et le tiionde est aiix 
 pieds de celui qu'il ne peut pas seduire (Amiel). 
 
 2 "A rich man, who is able to despise in himself whatsoever there is in 
 him by which pride can be puffed up, is God's poor man " (Augustine, quoted 
 by Cornelius a Lapide, ad he). Such men "confess their poverty with as 
 great humility of spirit, and pray for grace with as great earnestness, as 
 beggars ask alms of the rich." 
 
 ^Comp. the blessing in the Testaments: Kal ol Trroixoi hia KtJpLov 
 irXovTiffSiicrovTai, Kal ol iv irelvy x"?''"'''^'}'''""''™', Kal ol iv dcrBepelq, l<xxi<^ovaiV 
 (Judah XXV. 4 ; comp. Lk. vi. 20, 21). See Hort on Rev. i. 3. 
 
V. 3-12] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 63 
 
 And so also in each of the Beatitudes; the 'for' introduces a 
 fact which justifies the paradoxical declaration. And the placing 
 of the s:ime fact as the explanation both of the first and of the 
 last Beatitude {vv. 3, 10) indicates that the possession of the 
 Kingdom sums up all the other results of the blessed dispositions 
 that are mentioned. This is true even of 'inheriting the earth'; 
 for only when the rule of God has completely superseded and 
 extinguished the prevalence, and even the presence of evil, will it 
 be true that the meek are the universal inheritors. Of course, 
 'theirs is the Kingdom' does not mean that the poor in spirit 
 and the persecuted for righteousness' sake are to rule : the 
 one ruler of the Kingdom is God. It means that they are 
 worthy members of the Kingdom, and are counted among 
 His subjects. In each Beatitude the emphasis is on the pro- 
 noun ; 'for theirs is,' 'for they shall'; — precisely they among all 
 classes. 
 
 The first Beatitude by itself, and still more the whole series, 
 shows that the Sermon is addressed to those who have already 
 made some progress as the followers of the Messiah. They have 
 responded to the call to repentance, and have believed the good 
 news of the nearness of the Kingdom. And this tells us that, 
 although Mt. places this illustration of the Messiah's teaching 
 very early in his Gospel, yet the Serftion cannot have been delivered 
 at the begin?iing of the Galilean ministry, for the people would 
 not have been ready for it. It implies a good deal of previous 
 preaching, and we must consider that iv. 23-25 is a summary of 
 months of work (see above). 
 
 It is fanciful to say that " each Beatitude springs from the 
 preceding " ; but it was probably a wish to make the second 
 spring from the first that caused some copyists to place ' the 
 meek ' immediately after ' the poor in spirit.' It is permissible 
 to say that the first Beatitude, like the last, is excellently placed, 
 and that perhaps no other would have filled the position of 
 leader so well, although much might be said for the fourth ; but 
 we cannot reasonably deduce each from the one that immedi- 
 ately precedes it. 
 
 Just as ' the poor ' does not mean all who are in actual 
 poverty, so ' those who mourn ' does not mean all who happen to 
 be lamenting. Much will depend on the cause of the mourning 
 and of the spirit of the mourners. Those who lament earthly 
 losses are not sure of comfort. But those who mourn over their 
 own shortcomings and sins, and those who lament the wicked- 
 ness of the world 1 may count upon the Divine sympathy. 
 
 ' Comp. I Cor. v. 2 and 2 Cor. xii. 21, where the same verb {invQiiv) is 
 used, and St. Paul's mourning over his own spiritual condition (Rom. 
 vii. 24). 
 
64 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 3-12 
 
 Whatever hinders the realization of the Kingdom, and interferes 
 with God's complete sovereignty on earth, must be a cause of 
 sorrow to all who desire to be His loyal subjects ; and sorrow of 
 this kind is certain of relief. Nor is the relief to be understood 
 exclusively of the day when ' God shall wipe away all tears from 
 their eyes.' In this life also there is large comfort and com- 
 pensation for mourners, if only they mourn because God's will is 
 not obeyed, and not because ' He maketh not their own desire 
 to grow' (2 Sam. xxiii. 5).^ 
 
 We cannot be certain of the exact difference which ought to 
 be drawn between the 'poor in spirit' and the 'meek.' But the 
 latter (Trpaet?) are, as regards their name, more definitely religious 
 and pious in their lowliness than the former. The two classes 
 perhaps correspond to two Hebrew words, which are thus dis- 
 tinguished. The prominent idea of a 'poor' man {dtii) is that 
 of one who is ill-treated and therefore in need ; but gradually 
 there was added the idea that the ' poor ' man was righteous, and 
 perhaps ill-treated on account of his righteousness, and therefore 
 having a special claim on God's help. The word is used of 
 Israel, as the ideally holy nation, suffering in the wilderness or 
 from oppression. On the other hand, the ' meek ' man {dndw) 
 is one who is humble-minded and bows at once to the will of 
 God. So that, while ' poor ' means first ' humbled ' by man's 
 oppression and then ' humble ' in the religious sense, ' meek ' has 
 a religious signification from the first, and therefore might be 
 rendered ' humble.' For ' meekness ' commonly means a dis- 
 position towards men; but what is meant here and in Ps. xxxvii. 
 II, from which this Beatitude is taken, is a disposition towards 
 God, humility; comp. Ps. x. 17, xxii. 26, xxv. 9, xxxiv. 2. But 
 sharp distinctions of meaning in such words have a tendency to 
 wear off, and we cannot always insist upon them. The ' poor,' 
 'meek,' 'humble,' are often mentioned in the Psalms and 
 Prophets as those who have a special claim upon the protection 
 of God and of the good rulers who represent Him. They are 
 the ' Israelites indeed,' waiting patiently for the salvation of 
 Israel, a ' little flock,' that often suffers from the persecution of 
 the ungodly, but submits patiently to the will, and trusts always 
 to the care, of the Lord who is their Shepherd (Ps. xxiii.). ^ 
 When, through the growth of the Kingdom, the ungodly are 
 weeded out from the earth, the ' meek ' are left to inherit it. 
 Ps. xxxvii. 10, II shows that the patristic interpretation, 'the 
 
 ^ Nevertheless there is a sense in which literal poverty and sorrow for 
 worldly troubles may be regarded as blessings ; for suffering of this kind may 
 lead men to desire the Kingdom of Heaven, and this desire may lead them to 
 prepare themselves for it. 
 
 ^ See Driver, art. 'Poor' in Hastings' DB. iv. ; Kirkpatrick on Ps. 
 ix. 12 ; Hatch, Biblical Greek, pp. 73-77. 
 
V. 3-lS] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 6$ 
 
 earth ' = the 'new earth '=' heaven,' 'the land of the Hving,' is 
 not correct. 
 
 The/ourf/i Beatitude is much less paradoxical in form than 
 the first three. It is easy to understand that those who eagerly 
 desire what it is God's will that they should possess are likely to 
 be gratified. And it is remarkable that it is the hunger and 
 thirst for righteousness, and not the possession of it, that is 
 pronounced blessed. To believe oneself to be in possession of 
 righteousness, like the Pharisee in the parable, is fatal. To 
 know oneself to be in want of it is not enough. One must feel 
 the want of it, and have a passionate and persistent longing for 
 it, in order to be accounted blessed by Christ ; for such a longing 
 is sure to induce the person who feels it to strive hard for the 
 object of his desire. Contentment, even in material things, 
 ought not to extinguish efforts for improvement ; and we ought 
 never to be content with our moral and spiritual condition. We 
 must ever have a hunger and thirst for something better ; and 
 the greater progress that a man makes towards something better, 
 the greater will be his dissatisfaction with the attainment, and 
 the greater his desire for something more. In this case, he who 
 eats will yet be hungry, and he who drinks will yet be thirsty ; 
 for self-satisfaction becomes less and less possible, the more he 
 gets of the 'righteousness' with which God is enriching him. 
 It is the hungry soul that God fills with goodness, and it is the 
 mouth that is opened wide for spiritual blessings that He has 
 promised to make full.^ The whole purpose of the Sermon on 
 the Mount is to teach mankind the nature of the righteousness 
 which God wills, and thereby to excite a strong desire for it. 
 But this Beatitude is not placed first, perhaps because, for the 
 sake of arresting the attention, the three that are most startling 
 were selected as the opening proclamations. F"or a similar 
 reason, in order to make a lasting impression, a Beatitude as 
 surprising as the first three is placed last and enlarged (10-12). 
 
 The Ji/t/i Beatitude declares a law which holds good to a 
 large extent even in the deahngs of men with one another. On 
 the whole, the merciful are mercifully treated, and those who 
 show no mercy get none. But there are plenty of exceptions 
 to this general principle. Yet, although this roughly equitable 
 custom is perhaps included in the Beatitude, it is certainly not 
 the chief part of its meaning. The chief meaning is, that those 
 who are merciful to their fellow-men will themselves find mercy 
 at the Day of Judgment. And here God's mercy is at once 
 cause and effect. Because God is merciful to him, the righteous 
 
 ' The other aspect of BiKaio<Tvpri, as justice between man and man, need 
 not be excluded. The Christian must desire earnestly that justice may prevail 
 everywhere, and it is a blessed thing to have a consuming zeal for it. 
 
 5 
 
66 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 3-12 
 
 man is merciful to others (xviii. 21-35); and, because he is 
 merciful, he wins God's mercy. ' Merciful ' (ike-q/xwv) is very 
 frequent in the O.T., especially of God, in which connexion it 
 is often joined with 'gracious' or 'compassionate' (otKTi'p/xwv), 
 particularly in the Psalms (Ixxxvi. 15, ciii. 8, cxi. 4, cxii. 4, 
 cxvi. 5, cxlv. 8). But in the N.T. it is found only here and 
 Heb. ii. 17, where it is used of Christ proving Himself a merciful 
 and faithful High Priest. On the other hand, the verb (tXeeti^) 
 is frequent in both O.T. and N.T. (ix. 27, xv. 22, xvii. 15, xviii. 
 33, XX. 30, 31, etc.). It is in favour of including justice between 
 man and man in the ' righteousness ' which we are to hunger and 
 thirst after that the Beatitude respecting the merciful follows 
 immediately afterwards. However great our zeal for justice 
 may be, it must not exclude the element of mercy. If justice 
 is an attribute of God, so also is mercy; and those who have 
 set the Divine excellence before them as an ideal to be longed 
 for and striven after, must not forget that He is merciful as well 
 as just. The Psalmist in describing the perfect man ascribes 
 to him just the combination of mercy and justice (cxii. 4) which 
 had previously been ascribed to Jehovah (cxi. 3, 4) ; and it is the 
 man who fears such a God that is declared to be ' blessed ' (cxii. i). 
 Only men, and evil men, are said to be without mercy (dvcAcTJ/joves) 
 either in the N.T. (Rom. i. 31), or in the O.T. (Prov. v. 9, xi. 17, 
 xii. 10, xxvii. 4; Job xix. 14). But Prov. xvii. 11 may be an 
 exception, if the 'pitiless messenger' means a severe judgment 
 inflicted on the sinner by God. But we limit 'mercy' too much 
 when we make it synonymous with forgiveness. God bestows 
 many mercies upon us besides those which have reference to 
 our sins ; and we must be ready to bestow many on others, 
 quite independently of any injuries which we think that we have 
 received from them. ' Freely ye have received ; freely give.' 
 While the first four Beatitudes set forth some of the main 
 features in the love of God, this and the seventh inculcate 
 the love of man. Yet it is remarkable that in none of them 
 does the word ' love ' appear. 
 
 There is danger also of limiting unduly the meaning of the 
 sixlA Beatitude. It is very frequently regarded simply as the 
 spiritual counterpart and enlargement of the seventh Command- 
 ment. Purity of heart in that restricted sense is no doubt part 
 of the meaning of this declaration ; but it is not the whole of it. 
 ' He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart (KaOapb'; rfj KapSia, 
 as here) ; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity (unreality, 
 insincerity), and hath not sworn deceitfully ' (Ps. xxiv. 4), is the 
 character to be understood here.^ Such a one is innocent of all 
 
 ^ ' In heart' here is exactly parallel to ' in spirit' in the first Beatitude ; 
 the qualification indicates the region in which the special virtue is exercised. 
 
V. 3-12] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 6/ 
 
 evil, not only in fact, but in intention ; his eye is single (vi. 22) ; 
 he has, as Augustine says, cor simplex, a heart without folds ; 
 he has no desire to offend either God or man. Cleanness of 
 mind and sincerity of purpose are his characteristics : and such 
 as he ' may ascend into the mountain of Jehovah, and stand in 
 His holy place' (Ps. xxiv. 3). 'And they shall see His face' 
 (Rev. xxii. 4), and 'they shall be like Him, because they shall 
 see Him even as He is' (i Jn. iii. 2). And, as Irenasus says, 
 " the vision of God is productive of immortality " (iv. xxxviii. 3). 
 This ' seeing God ' has its complete realization when the Kingdom 
 comes in its completeness ; but even in this world it has much 
 fulfilment. It is the pure-minded, single-hearted man who is 
 best able to see God in His works, and to trace His counsels 
 in the course of history. His mind, like a mirror that is kept 
 clean and bright, is able to reflect the workings of Providence. 
 And it is he who is most frequently conscious of the presence of 
 God in himself And, as to the final revelation, when ' God is 
 all in air (i Cor. xv. 28) ; if even another sovereign could speak 
 with such enthusiasm of the happiness of those who stood 
 continually in the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom and 
 see his glory (i Kings x. 8), we may well believe that it 'has not 
 entered into the heart of man to conceive' (i Cor. ii. 9) what the 
 blessedness will be. And there will be the progress of a con- 
 tinual action and reaction. Those who are admitted to the 
 Presence will see Him, because they are like Him, and they will 
 become more like Him, because they see Him. Assimilation is 
 the natural result of intimacy, and the intimacy must be begun 
 in this world, if it is to bear fruit in the next. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria {Sirom. 11. xx. pp. 4S8, 9, ed. Potter) 
 quotes a fine passage from Valentinus, showing that this Gnostic 
 teacher used Mt. and delighted in the sixth Beatitude. " Now 
 One is good (Mt. xix. 17), whose revelation through His Son was 
 made openly, and through Him alone could the heart be made 
 pure, every evil spirit being thrust out from the heart. For 
 many spirits by dwelling in it do not allow it to be pure. And 
 methinks the heart is treated very much the same as a common 
 inn. For it has holes and gutters made in it, and is often filled 
 with filth, through men staying in it who have nasty ways, and 
 pay no respect to the place, because it belongs to some one else. 
 So fares it with the heart also, so long as it meets with no 
 respect, being impure and the home of many demons (Mt. xii. 
 44, 45). But when the Father who alone is good (Mt. xix. 17) 
 visits it, it is sanctified and beams with light. And so he is 
 blessed who has such a heart, for he shall see God" (Mt. v. 8). 
 
 Here it is clearly intimated that 'the pure' does not refer to external or 
 ceremonial purifications, and is not limited to abstention from impure acts. 
 
68 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 3-12 
 
 The seventh Beatitude concludes the description of the ideal 
 Christian ; the remaining one describes the way in which he is 
 treated by the world. Here we return once more to the love of 
 his fellow-men, which is conspicuous in the 'merciful' of the 
 fifth Beatitude, and which is part of the meaning of the ' pure in 
 heart ' of the sixth.^ As to the connexion between the sixth and 
 the seventh, it is remarkable that we have the substance of them 
 in close proximity, but in the reverse order, in Heb. xii. 14 : 
 ' Follow after peace with all men, and the sanctification (dytao-/ios) 
 without which no man shall see the Lord.' The order here is 
 better. The sanctification comes first, and that in two ways. 
 The would-be peacemaker is hardly likely to be successful, 
 unless his own life is clean and his motives pure. Again, 
 sanctification must not be sacrificed, even in the sacred interests 
 of peace (see Westcott, ad loc). The blessedness of peacemaking 
 is intelligible even to those who never try to win it, though the 
 office of peacemaker is often a thankless one. Hillel is reported 
 to have said, "Be ye of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and 
 pursuing peace." In the Book of the Secrets of Enoch, which 
 was written not much, if at all, before this Gospel, there is a 
 remarkable passage somewhat similar to the Beatitudes, 
 especially as given in Lk. with parallel Woes. We have fourteen 
 aphorisms, seven of which begin "Blessed is," and seven, 
 " Cursed is " ; and they are placed alternately. The sixth pair 
 runs thus : " Blessed is he who establishes peace and love. 
 Cursed is he who troubles those who are at peace " (lii. 
 
 II, I2).2 
 
 The Messiah is the 'Prince of Peace,' and the Kingdom 
 which He came to found is a Kingdom of peace. All peace- 
 makers, therefore, are spreading His sovereignty and the rule of 
 the Father ; and they ' shall be called sons of God,' for ' such 
 they are' (i Jn. iii. i). Called so, not by the world, which 
 perhaps will abuse them for uncalled-for interference, but by 
 God Himself and by His Son. The Messiah will 'give them 
 
 ' Origen includes among the peacemakers those who reconcile what 
 appears to be discordant in Scripture ; such a one tXtjOos elpifrqs ^Mirei. iv 
 dXatj rais ypatpaiSj Kai rah SoKoijaaLS irepUx^'-^ ^^■XV*' /^^^ ivavTHjifiara irobs 
 dXXiiXas {Philocal. vi. l). 
 
 - In an earlier chapter (xlii. 6-14) are nine Beatitudes, which (like these 
 in Mt.) have no Woes or Curses; but there is little resemblance with these. 
 "Blessed is he who has love upon his lips, and tenderness in his heart" 
 comes nearest. In the Talmud, Abaygeh says: "Let him be affable and 
 disposed to foster kindly feelings between all people ; by so doing he will 
 gain for himself the love both of the Creator and of His creatures. " Cornelius 
 5 Lapide tells of one Caspar Barzaus of Goa, who was so successful as a 
 peacemaker that the lawyers said that they would be starved, for he put a 
 stop to all litigation. Did they persecute him, and thus make a connexion 
 between the seventh Beatitude and the eighth ? 
 
V. 3-12] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 69 
 
 the right to become children of God' (Jn. i. 12), and the 
 Father will recognize them as such, because they have striven 
 to make the contentious members of His family 'dwell together 
 in unity.' And this special title of 'sons of God' indicates one 
 of the ways in which peacemakers should work, viz. by trying to 
 reconcile each of the contending parties to God before trying to 
 reconcile them to one another. Men will often listen more 
 readily to what is set before them as their duty to God than 
 to what is urged upon them as due to those who have offended 
 them. And if the peacemaker is to be successful in reconciling 
 to God those who are at strife with one another, he must himself 
 be reconciled to God, and thus be at peace with himself Peace- 
 making begins at home, in a man's own heart, and thence 
 spreads to the whole circle of God's family. 
 
 The first seven Beatitudes state the leading features of the 
 ideal Christian character as it is in itself, and these features 
 consist largely of the Christian's attitude towards God and 
 towards men. The eighth and last Beatitude deals with men's 
 attitude towards the Christian. That attitude will commonly be 
 one of hostility. ' Because ye are not of the world, but I chose 
 you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you' (Jn. xv. 19). 
 Men commonly dislike those whose principles differ greatly from 
 their own, and especially those whose principles are much higher 
 than their own. The righteous man is a standing reproach to 
 those who are not righteous, and it is exasperating to be con- 
 stantly reminded that one's life is not what it ought to be. The 
 true Christian is sure to be persecuted (by coldness, contempt, 
 and ridicule, if not by actual ill-usage) ; and when he has been 
 thus persecuted, this is another element of blessedness, in addition 
 to the many elements which are the results of his beautiful 
 character. Here then, as in the first three Beatitudes, we have a 
 highly paradoxical statement.^ Granted that it may be a happy 
 thing to long for righteousness, to be merciful, single-hearted, and 
 strivers after peace, to be told that it is a blessed thing to be 
 persecuted for well-doing is as startling as to be told that it is a 
 blessed thing to be meek and poor in spirit, and to mourn. But 
 those who have accepted the first seven Beatitudes are not likely 
 to take offence at the eighth. Those who mourn over the lack 
 of righteousness in themselves and in the world, — those who 
 hunger and thirst for the righteousness that is thus lacking, will 
 be ready to suffer persecution rather than let go, either the 
 ' Christ purposely adopted paradoxical forms of expression, to arrest 
 attention and to stimulate thought. Thus He says that to find one's life is 
 to lose it, and to lose one's life for His sake is to find it (x. 39 ; Mk. viii. 35 ; 
 Lk. xvii. 33 ; Jn. xii. 25). Self-seeking is self-destruction ; self-sacrifice is 
 self-preservation. He uses vivid, popular language, calculated to remain in 
 the memoiy. 
 
70 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 3-12 
 
 righteousness which has been attained, or the hope of attaining 
 more ; and they may be assured that it is a blessed thing thus 
 to suffer. They have given one more proof that they are worthy 
 of admission to the Kingdom of Heaven. 
 
 The fact that the explanation of the blessedness in the last 
 Beatitude is the same as that in the first seems to intimate that 
 the possession of the Kingdom sums up all the other results in 
 the six intermediate Beatitudes.^ He who is admitted to the 
 fulness of the Kingdom, is comforted, inherits the earth, is filled 
 with righteousness, has obtained mercy, sees God, and is 
 welcomed as a son of God : ' I have called thee by thy name, 
 thou art Mine' (Is. xliii. i). It is no objection to this that the 
 result in the first and last Beatitudes is stated in the present 
 tense, whereas the results in the intervening six are in the future. 
 In the first and last Beatitude the 'is' was probably absent from 
 the Aramaic original : ' Blessed the poor, for theirs the Kingdom ' ; 
 ' Blessed the persecuted, for theirs the Kingdom.' And seeing 
 that the Kingdom is partly present and partly future, the differ- 
 ence between ' is ' and ' shall be ' is not great. 
 
 This last Beatitude does not mean that the ideal Christian 
 character cannot be attained without persecution. That would 
 make the wickedness of the unrighteous to be essential to the 
 perfection of the righteous. It means that, where the Christian 
 character provokes persecution (as, until God's rule is fully 
 established, it is sure to do), the Christian has an additional 
 opportunity of proving his sonship and his fitness for the 
 Kingdom. Jesus Himself suffered for righteousness' sake, and 
 those who take up His work, and would share His glory, must 
 not expect, and will not ask for, any other experience (Jn. xv. 
 18-20, xvii. 14, 15). It is persecution rather than prosperity 
 that promotes the well-being and progress of the Church. See 
 Cyprian, De Lapsis, 5-7 ; Eusebius, H. E. viii. i. 7. 
 
 The Beatitudes in Lk. are addressed to the disciples through- 
 out : 'Blessed are ji/e poor ; arejc^ that weep,' etc. Only to the 
 disciples of Christ is actual poverty and sorrow of any kind sure 
 to be a blessing : but all men are the better for being meek, 
 merciful, and peacemakers. Here our Lord, having stated the 
 eight Beatitudes in their universal and more spiritual form, 
 passes on to apply the last Beatitude to the disciples, and to 
 explain it more fully. 'Blessed axe. ye when men shall reproach 
 
 ' Oclava I ail qua III ad caput redil ; quia toiismnmatum perfectuinque 
 osiendil, the complete and perfect man has been set forth (Aug. De Serin. 
 Dom. 1. iv. 12). " In these separated blessings there is an implicit summons 
 to seek to complete the Christian character in all its aspects, to polish the 
 diamond on all its sides, that so on every side it may be capable of reflecting 
 that lipht of heaven which will on that side also fall upon it" (Trench, 
 Exp. of the Serin, on the Mount, p. 181). 
 
V. 13-16] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE Jl 
 
 you.' 'For My sake' is essential; it is equivalent to 'for 
 righteousness' sake' in the preceding verse, and it belongs to 
 ' reproach you ' and ' persecute you,' as well as to ' say all manner 
 of evil against you falsely.' Here we have the form which 
 religious persecution commonly takes at the present time. The 
 cruelties of the arena and of the scaffold are in abeyance, but 
 reviling clamour and slanderous statements are still frequent ; 
 and those who suffer from them should remember these verses. 
 They may rejoice, for they will share the reward of the Prophets 
 and of Him who is greater than the Prophets. ^ 
 
 From slightly different points of view the next four verses 
 (13-16) might be grouped either with what precedes, as a con- 
 tinuation of the statement of the qualifications of those who can 
 enter the Kingdom, or with what follows, as an introduction to 
 the duties of those who have entered the Kingdom. The former 
 arrangement seems better; but in neither case is the connexion 
 very close. We may suspect that some words of the original 
 Sermon are omitted between verses 12 and 13, and again between 
 16 and 17. In these four verses the metaphors of salt and of 
 light are used to set forth certain necessary functions of the true 
 disciple. Lk. gives the salt-metaphor in a different connexion 
 (xiv. 34, 3s) ; and, if the saying was uttered only once, his 
 arrangement seems more probable than that of Mt. But the 
 wording in Mt. may be nearer the original. 
 
 V. 13-16. The Christian Life as Salt and Light. 
 
 "There is nothing more useful than salt and sunshine," says 
 Pliny {N. H. xxxi. 9, 45, 102). Salt gives savour to food and 
 preserves from corruption. It makes food both more palatable 
 and more wholesome. The disciple whose life is shaped accord- 
 ing to the Beatitudes will make the Gospel both acceptable and 
 useful. But selfish and apostate disciples are worse than useless. 
 Many substances, when they become corrupt, are useful as 
 manure. Savourless salt is not even of this much use ; it 
 cumbers the ground. " I saw large quantities of it literally 
 thrown into the street, to be trodden under foot of men and 
 beasts" (Thomson, Land and Book, p. 381).^ Ministers that 
 
 ' "When Jesus comforts them by reminding tliem that formerly the 
 Prophets fared no better than they, we see clearly with what class of men He 
 ranks Himself. He is now the Prophet of His people — a view in no sense 
 at variance wiih His secret conviction that He is the Messiah" (0. Holtzmann). 
 And as to the rejoicing, gmidijim non solum affectus est, sed eliain ojfficium 
 Christiani (Bengel). 
 
 " The fact, if it be a fact, that pure salt cannot lose its savour, need cause 
 no difficulty. The salt in use in Palestine was not pure, and savourless salt 
 means the salt in common use, with the sodium chloride washed out of it. 
 
72 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 13-16 
 
 have lost the spirit of devotion will never rescue the world from 
 corruption. Perhaps the connecting thought is, that Christians, 
 like the Prophets who saved Israel from corruption, must be 
 ready to suffer persecution. And in Jesus we have a Prophet 
 who dares to tell the group of unknown persons around Him 
 that they will be more than equal to Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel ; 
 they will be as ready as these Prophets were to suffer for pro- 
 claiming the truth ; and they will recall, not one nation, but 
 many, from spiritual decay. But they must beware lest, instead 
 of preserving others, they themselves become tainted with rotten- 
 ness. The salt must be in close contact with that which it pre- 
 serves ; and too often, while Christians raise the morality of the 
 world, they allow their own morality to be lowered by the world. 
 
 If we assume that the sayings about salt and light (13, 14) 
 followed immediately after the sayings respecting the blessedness 
 of being persecuted for Christ's sake, especially in the case of the 
 Apostles, then the connexion in thought will be : Great indeed is 
 the blessedness, but great also is the responsibility. You can do 
 an immense amount of good to others ; but you can also do an 
 immense amount of harm. You can win a great reward ; but 
 you can also incur a heavy retribution. In Lk. xiv. 34, 35 the 
 saying about salt is addressed to the multitudes who flocked after 
 Him as if desiring to become disciples, and He warns them to 
 count the cost. In Mk. ix. 50 the saying is addressed to the 
 disciples, as here. See Latham, Pastor Pastorurn, p. 360. It 
 is not probable that there is any special connexion between this 
 saying and the fourth Beatitude. "Salt excites thirst; so the 
 Apostles have excited a thirst for heavenly things." This is not 
 one of the good properties of salt, and if it lost this property, it 
 would hardly be less useful. The analogy is forced and fanciful. 
 Comp. rather Col. iv. 6 ; and for ' earth ' in the sense of the 
 inhabitants of the earth, ' Shall not the Judge of all the earth do 
 right?' (Gen. xviii. 25). It is obvious that there can be no 
 thought here of salt as the cause of barrenness, an idea which is 
 not rare in the O.T. (Deut. xxix. 23; Job xxxix. 6; Jer. xvii. 6; 
 Ezek. xlvii. 1 1 ; Zeph. ii. 9). Sowing a city with salt (Judg. 
 ix. 45) may mean that the place was laid under a curse, salt 
 being used in religious rites (Lev. ii. 13; Ezek. xliii. 24). 
 ' Wherewith shall the earth be salted ' (k, Luther) is of course 
 not the meaning. 
 
 This leads to the second metaphor.^ If the Christian must 
 
 ^ With the pair of metaphors compare the parables of the Mustard Seed 
 and the Leaven (xiii. 31-33). Abbott suspects that Jn. viii. 12 alludes to 
 Mt. V. 14, and is meant to be a correction of it. In Mt. Christ says, ' Ye are 
 the light of the world,' in Jn. He says, '/ am the Light of the world.' 
 Johannine Vocabulary, 1748. 
 
V. 13-16] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 73 
 
 live in the world, in order to save it from moral decay, he must 
 also live above it and aloof from it, like a light on a high place 
 illuminating far and wide. By his own life he will show what 
 true life is. In both metaphors the emphasis is on character ; 
 on what men are rather than on what they accomplish. Good 
 salt cannot help giving a wholesome savour. Unobscured light 
 cannot help shining. So also the man whose character reflects 
 the Beatitudes cannot help being a wholesome and illuminating 
 influence. Such a man cannot and will not isolate himself : his 
 goodness will be infectious. Christian character is not individual 
 and selfish, but social and beneficent. To attend only to his 
 own soul is to lose savour and to obscure light. The light must 
 shine ' before men ' ; which is not the same thing as shining ' to 
 be seen of men.' Good influence is to be allowed free play ; not 
 for self-glorification, but for the glory of God.'^ And influence 
 there will be, whether good or bad. Moreover, the world will 
 measure the value of the Gospel by it. Men estimate the worth 
 of Christianity, not by the Beatitudes, not by the Sermon on the 
 Mount, but by the lives of the Christians whom they see and know. 
 
 In both metaphors there may be a reference to the last 
 Beatitude. It may be the fear of being laughed at and 
 persecuted that causes the disciple to cease to work against the 
 corruption of the world and to cease to make the Gospel 
 palatable ; and it may be the same fear that causes him to hide 
 the light of a Christian life and in the end to allow it to become 
 extinguished. Thus human society loses what might have 
 preserved and illuminated it, and it is left to decay in the dark. 
 The saying is as old as S. Chrysostom, that there would be no 
 more heathen, if Christians took care to be what they ought to 
 be ; or, as the same truth is sometimes expressed, if the Church 
 were for one day what it ought to be, the world would be 
 converted before nightfall. 
 
 With the metaphor of the light is joined that of ' a city set on 
 a hiU ' ; and we thus have a triplet of metaphors. But the third 
 is not parallel to the other two, for it does not set forth a duty, 
 but states a fact. It is the duty of disciples to become as salt 
 and as light ; but they cannot help being as a city on a hill. 
 They may hide the goodness of their lives, or cease to have any 
 goodness to exercise, but they cannot hide their lives. For 
 good or for evil the life will be seen and will have influence. 
 ' The bushel ' and ' the lampstand ' mean such as are usually 
 found in a house; comp. Mk. iv. 21, 22; Lk. xi. 33; and 
 contrast Lk. viii. 16, 17. 
 
 ^ Excepting Mk. xi. 25, the expression 'your Father which is in heaven ' 
 is peculiar to Mt. and characteristic. It perhaps originated in Jewish 
 Christianity (Dalman, The Words of Jesus, pp. 184-194). 
 
74 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 17-48 
 
 The Oxyrhynchus Logion vii. is little more than ver. 14 partly abbreviated 
 and partly expanded, and the expansion may have been suggested by vii. 
 24, 25. A^7ei 'ItjitoCs, tAXis olKooo/i.ijfiii'T) iw' 6.iipov 6povs in/'jjXoO Kal 
 iaTtipiyfjAvri oihe TrecrEic dvparai. oi'ire Kpv^ijvai. "Jesus saith, A city built 
 upon the top of a high hill and stablished can neither fall nor be hid." The 
 reading ifiKo5o)iriixivrj for Kei/iivri (Mt. v. 14) is supported by Syr-Sin. and 
 Syr-Cur., Tatian and Hilmy {tzdi/icai a) ; and olKoSo/iitfi^in) v/ilhout augment 
 is found in some MSS. and inscriptions.' Grenfell and Hunt, AA-yta TtjctoO, 
 1897, p. 15; Lock and Sanday, Two Lectures on the ^Sayings of Jesus, ^ 
 1897, p. 26. 
 
 As in many other passages (iii. 15, v. 12, vi. 30, vii. 12, 17, etc.) 
 the ' so ' (ovrws) in ' So let your hght shine before men ' may 
 refer to what precedes rather than to what follows. There seems 
 to be no example elsewhere of outiu? being used to anticipate 
 oTTcos. The meaning probably is, ' In the same way as a well- 
 placed lamp lights every one in the house let your light shine 
 before men, so that they may see your good works.' But, what- 
 ever the construction may be, it is evident that it is conduct 
 that is insisted upon rather than preaching. No doubt 'your 
 good works' will cover preaching (Jn. x. 32), but it is the life 
 that is lived rather than the words that are spoken that Christ 
 emphasizes. Example is the best kind of teaching. Comp. 
 Jn. xiii. 35. 
 
 Here for the first time Mt. uses the expression, which is so frequent in his 
 Gospel, 'the Father who is in heaven' (6 warripo iv rois ovpavoi^), and which 
 occurs only once in Mk. (xi. 25). Comp. 'the heavenly Father' (6 Trarrjp 6 
 oi)p6,v\.o%) which is frequent in Mt. (v. 48, vi. 14, 26, 32, xv. 13, xviii. 35, 
 xxiii. 9), and is found nowhere else. He often represents the Messiah as 
 saying 'your Father' (v. 16, 45, 48, vi. i, 14, 15, 26, etc.), 'thy Father' 
 (vi. 4, 6, 18), and 'My Father' (vii. 21, x. 32, 33, xi. 27, etc.), but never 
 ' Our Father.' The Lord's Prayer (vi. 9) is not one in which the Lord 
 Himself joins. Even where Christ calls His disciples His brethren (xii. 49, 
 so), He does not say ' Our Father,' but ' My Father,' 
 
 v. 17-48. The Christian Life contrasted with the Jewish Ideal. 
 
 The general drift of this section is that the Christian ideal is 
 immeasurably higher than the Jewish. It excludes all degrees 
 of sin, even in thought and feeling, whereas the old ideal excluded 
 only acts, and only those acts which were specified as prohibited 
 by the Law. This higher principle is illustrated in respect to 
 murder (2 1-26), adultery (27-30), divorce (31, 32), oaths (33-37), 
 retaliation (38-42), love of others (43-47), and is summed up as 
 a law of perfection (48). 
 
 But, while the general drift is clear, it is not always easy to 
 reconcile the particular statements with one another, or with 
 other portions of the Sermon. That, however, need not perplex 
 us. We have to remember that we have not got the exact words 
 
V. n-48] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 75 
 
 that Christ said, nor all the words that He said. We must also 
 remember that it was often His method to make wide-reaching 
 statements, and leave His hearers to find out the necessary 
 limitations and qualifications by thought and experience. 
 Ruskin has said that in teaching the principles of art he was 
 never satisfied until he had contradicted himself several times. 
 If verbal contradictions cannot be avoided in expounding 
 principles of art, is it likely that they can be avoided in setting 
 forth for all time and all nations the principles of morality and 
 religion ? 
 
 'Think not (comp. iii. 9, x. 34) that I came to destroy the 
 Law or the Prophets.' Such an expression implies that He 
 knew that there was danger of their thinking so, and possibly 
 that some had actually said this of Him.i The Pharisees would 
 be sure to say it. He disregarded the oral tradition, which they 
 held to be equal in authority to the written Law ; and He inter- 
 preted the written Law according to its spirit, and not, as they 
 did, according to the rigid letter. He did not keep the weekly 
 fasts, nor observe the elaborated distinctions between clean and 
 unclean, and He consorted with outcasts and sinners. He 
 neglected the traditional modes of teaching, and preached in a 
 way of His own. Above all. He spoke as if He Himself were 
 an authority, independent of the Law. Even some of His own 
 followers may have been perplexed, and have thought that He 
 proposed to supersede the Law. They might suppose " that it 
 was the purpose of His mission simply to break down restraints, 
 to lift from men's shoulders the duties which they felt as burdens. 
 The law was full of commandments ; the Prophets were full of 
 rebukes and warnings. Might not the mild new Rabbi be 
 welcomed as one come to break down the Law and the Pro- 
 phets, and so lead the way to less exacting ways of life ? This is 
 the delusion which our Lord set Himself to crush. The gospel 
 of the Kingdom was not a gospel of indulgence." ^ He was not 
 a fanatical revolutionary, but a Divine Restorer and Reformer. 
 
 This section of the Sermon is by some regarded as the theme 
 of the whole discourse. But this is not probable : much of the 
 Sermon has no direct relation to it. Lk., while giving so much 
 of tlie same or of a similar sermon, omits this section altogether, 
 
 ^ This is further evidence that the Sermon could not have been delivered 
 at the beginning of the ministry. 
 
 ^ Hort, Jtidaistic Christianity, p. 15. The ' I came ' [tiKBov) probably 
 implies the pre-existence of the Messiah, as also in x. 34 ; compare irapeSdOTi 
 (xi. 27). ' The Law and the Prophets ' is a Jewish expression for the 
 Scriptures: vii. 12, xi. 13, xxii. 40; Lk. xvi. 16: comp. Lk. xvi. 29, 31, 
 xxiv. 44 ; Jn. i. 45. Christ here says ' the Law or the Prophets,' because 
 He might have upheld the one and rejected the other ; but He has not come 
 to abolish either. 
 
y6 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 17-48 
 
 as of less interest for Gentiles. Could he have done so, had it 
 been the main subject ? 
 
 The first four verses (17-20) give the general principle of the 
 Messiah's relation to the Law : "not destruction, but fulfilment." 
 The remainder (21-48) give the illustrations. At the outset He 
 implies that He is the Coming One (6 cpxo/^evos) : 'Think not 
 that I came ' : and throughout He speaks with a calm assertion 
 of supreme authority, which impresses readers now, as it im- 
 pressed hearers then. ^ He is evidently conscious of possessing 
 this supreme authority, and it manifests itself quite naturally, not 
 in studied phrases, but as the spontaneous expression of His 
 habitual modes of thought. One who knew that He was the 
 Messiah, and was conscious of His own absolute righteousness, 
 would consistently, perhaps we may say, inevitably, speak in 
 some such way as this.^ Could any one else speak in this quiet 
 majestic way of 'fulfilling the Law,' or side by side with the Law 
 place His own declarations : ' But / say to you.^ 
 
 It is not obvious at first sight what Christ means by 'fulfill- 
 ing {7rXripu)a-a.i) the Law.' He does not mean taking the written 
 Law as it stands, and literally obeying it. That is what He con- 
 demns, not as wrong, but as wholly inadequate. He means 
 rather, starting with it as it stands, and bringing it on to 
 completeness ; working out the spirit of it ; getting at the 
 comprehensive principles which underlie the narrowness of the 
 letter. These the Messiah sets forth as the essence of the 
 revelation made by God through the Law and the Prophets. 
 Through them He has revealed His will, and it is impossible 
 that His Son should attempt to pull down or undo {KaraXvo-ai) 
 this revelation of the Father's will, or that His will, in the small- 
 est particular, should fail of fulfilment.^ Not until the whole of 
 the Divine purpose has been accomplished (e<us av Travra 
 yiv-qraL), can the smallest expression of the Divine will be 
 abolished. And he who prematurely relaxes the hold {^va-g) 
 which one of these minor enactments has on the conscience, 
 will be the worse for it. He will not be expelled from the 
 
 ' It was a rabbinical principle that some authority must confirm the 
 dictum of every teacher, the authority either of some previous teacher or of 
 the Torah interpreted according to rule. No teacher must base his teaching 
 simply on his own authority : that Jesus did this was one of the grievances 
 against Him (Herford, Christianity in Talmud'and IMidrash^ pp. 9, 151). 
 
 ^ See Steinbeck, Das gdttliche Selbsheivusstsein Jesii nach dem Zeugniss 
 der Synoptiker, Leipzig, 1908, p. 21. "There are none of our Lord's 
 sayings which bear a stronger mark of genuineness than those in which He 
 criticises and enlarges the Mosaic precepts " (Salmon, Hitman Element, 
 p. 120). 
 
 ' Here for the first time the solemn ' Verily ' ('A/u,7)j') is used in this 
 Gospel. With the whole verse comp. Lk. xvi. 17, which is in quite a differ- 
 ent connexion. ' kfi.r\v \iyu occurs 30 times in Mt., 13 in Mk., and 6 in Lk. 
 
V. 17-48] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE TJ 
 
 Kingdom, but his place in it will be less glorious and less secure ; 
 for he is unable to appreciate the relation of small parts to the 
 whole, and, although loyal to the whole, he has, in this particular, 
 been weakening its authority. i But there is a much worse error 
 than undervaluing this or that detail of what makes for righteous- 
 ness. There is the error of misconceiving and misinterpreting 
 the very nature of righteousness. This was the error of the 
 Scribes and Pharisees, and it is fatal ; it excludes from the 
 Kingdom. 
 
 Our Lord is not here alluding to the hypocritical professions 
 of the Scribes and Pharisees ; nor to their sophistical evasions of 
 the Law. We are to think of them rather at their best ; as care- 
 fully preserving in writing and in memory the words of the Law 
 and of the oral tradition ; as scrupulously observing the exact 
 letter of them ; and as supposing that this punctiliousness 
 is righteousness.^ Those who can suppose that by formal 
 obedience to definite precepts they fulfil the will of God and 
 do all that is required of them, do not know the barest elements 
 of what is required for admission into the Kingdom. They 
 know nothing of that inward holiness, the chief characteristics 
 of which have just been set forth in the Beatitudes. They have 
 been in closest contact with the expression of God's will, and 
 yet have never discovered, or wished to discover, the true mean- 
 ing of the expression. It is not the Law or the Prophets that 
 Jesus proposes to abolish, but the traditional misinterpretations 
 of these authorities. To destroy these misinterpretations is to 
 open the way for the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets ; 
 and He thus substitutes free development of spiritual character 
 for servile obedience to oppressive rules. 
 
 The first illustration of the contrast between the Christian 
 life and the Jewish ideal is taken from the sixth commandment 
 (21-26). There are six illustrations in all, grouped in two 
 triplets, which are marked off from one another by the ' Again ' 
 (iraAiv) in ver. 33. Six times in succession does our Lord use the 
 magisterial ' But / say to you ' in correction of what had been 
 said to an earUer generation (22, 28, 32; 34, 39, 44). The 
 first triplet refers to the Decalogue, the question of divorce 
 
 ^ We have here another of the remarkable parallels between Mt. and the 
 Testaments of the XIL Patriarchs: lias Ss h.v BiSda-Ket KaXa Kal irpdrTei., 
 ffvv8poi>os larai jSaffiX^uiv (Levi xiii. 9). See Charles, p. Ixxx. For Xueip in 
 the sense of * do away with,' 'destroy,' comp. TrotTjtrtj \vdrivai <rK7JTrrpov 
 SeijTepov Tif 'Icrpa-riX, "cause a second tribe to be destroyed for Israel" 
 {Dan i. g). 
 
 ^ " The Scribes were the trained theologians of Israel, the Pharisees 
 were the religious world of Israel. They therefore represented that element 
 in the Jewish people with which a religious Teacher might have been ex- 
 pected to be in harmony" (Burkitl, T/ie Gosf. Hist, and its Transmission^ 
 p. 169). 
 
78 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 17-48 
 
 being connected with the seventh commandment; the second 
 triplet refers to other rules which are prescribed in the 
 Pentateuch. 
 
 'Ye have heard that it was said' (21, 27, 33, 38, 43) ; ^ not, 
 ' Ye have seen that it was written.' Christ is addressing an 
 illiterate crowd, most of whom can neither read nor write ; 
 consequently their knowledge of the Law comes from public 
 instruction in the synagogues, where the letter of the Law 
 was faithfully read, but the spirit of it frequently missed or 
 obscured. It was quite right that whoever committed murder 
 should be liable to prosecution ; but they ought to have been 
 taught more than this. The command, 'Thou shalt not kill,' 
 is based on the principle, ' Thou shalt not hate,' and that 
 again on the principle, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as 
 thyself (Lev. xix. 18, 34). 'Whosoever hateth his brother 
 is a murderer' (1 Jn. iii. 15), and in the eye of the Divine 
 justice he is liable to the same punishment as the actual 
 murderer; 2 where 'brother' is to be understood in its widest 
 sense as any member of God's family (vii. 3-5, xviii. 15, 21). 
 Christ leaves the old commandment standing ; but on His own 
 authority He adds what is equally binding with it and ought 
 to be regarded as included in the spirit of it. 
 
 ' Without cause ' [elKij, sins causa) after 'angry with his brother' may be 
 an explanatory gloss which has found its way into a large number of the 
 less authoritative texts. It is as old as the second century (D, Lat-Vet. Syrr. 
 Iren.) ; but it is more likely that it was inserted as an obvious qualification 
 than that it was omitted (K B and MSS. known to Jerome and Augustine, Vulg. 
 Aeth. , Justin. Tert.) because it was superfluous. The qualification 'falsely' 
 (i/'cuSi/iej'oi) vav. II might seem to justify a similar qualification here. The 
 evidence of Irenasus is not certain. The Latin translator or a scribe may 
 have inserted the sine caussa iv. xiii. i, for, when Irenteus comments on 
 the text § 3, he omits the qualification. 
 
 The remainder of ver. 22 is ditificult. It is possible that the 
 report has been so condensed as to be obscure, or that sayings 
 which belong to a different occasion have been inserted here. 
 The paragraph makes excellent sense if the sayings about 
 'Raca' and 'Fool' are omitted, and also if vv. 25, 26 are 
 omitted. Taking the text of ver. 22 as it stands, we have a 
 climax in the penalties : those of the local court, those of the 
 
 ^ This introductory formula occurs five times ; so that Mt. has a group of 
 five side by side with two groups of three. When He is addressing the 
 educated classes, Pharisees or Scribes or Sadducees, Christ says, ' Have ye 
 not read'C (xii. 3, 5, xix. 4, xxi. 16, 42, xxii. 31). 
 
 '^ We find this idea in the Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs : " P'earing lest 
 he should offend the Lord, he willeth not to do wrong to any man, even in 
 thought" ; 01) Qi\^i rh Ka66Xou ovS^ ?ws ifvoias ddtKyjaai dv$pu)iroy {Gadx, 5). 
 And again : "As love would quicken even the dead, so hatred would slay 
 the living " {Gad iv. 6). Odium est ira inveterata. 
 
V. 17-48] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 79 
 
 supreme court at Jerusalem (the Sanhedrin), and those of God's 
 final judgment. We assume that there must be a similar climax 
 in the offences, which may be expressed thus : unexpressed 
 hatred, expressed contempt, and expressed abuse. But it is 
 by no means certain that ' Thou fool ' (/xupe) is a stronger term 
 of abuse than ' Raca ' : it may be a translation of it. Our Lord 
 Himself uses the word of the foolish builder (vii. 26) and of 
 the foolish virgins (xxv. 2, 3, 8), and S. Paul uses its equivalent 
 in rebuking the Galatians (iii. i). The very word 'Raca' is a 
 puzzle as regards orthography, derivation, and use (see Nestle in 
 DCG.). But, assuming that 'Thou fool' is much worse than 
 'Raca,' it cannot be meant that while the Sanhedrin can impose 
 sufficient penalty for the one, nothing less than the fires of 
 Gehenna would suffice for the other.i It is doubtful whether 
 the Sanhedrin would regard the utterance of ' Raca ' as an 
 offence at all ; and certainly our Lord is not condemning all 
 use of the word ' fool,' or all use of strong language (xii. 34, 39, 
 xvi. 23, xxiii. 13735)- 
 
 Possibly Christ is ironically imitating the casuistical distinc- 
 tions drawn by the Rabbis, and at the same time is teaching 
 that all degrees of hatred and contempt, whether expressed or 
 not, are sinful and are liable to (cVoxos) condemnation by man 
 and by God, who alone can judge of the feeling and malevolent 
 intention in the heart.^ This point is enforced by a striking 
 illustration. To obey the law of love is better than sacrifice ; 
 therefore postpone sacrifice rather than postpone reconciliation. 
 Suppose that a man with feelings of enmity in his heart has 
 actually come to the altar in the Temple with his offering. He 
 must not offer it until he has got rid of his bad feehngs and 
 done his best to make peace with the brother who, rightly or 
 wrongly, is offended with him. One who hates the children 
 of God will not be accepted as His child by the heavenly 
 Father, and it is peacemakers who have a special right to be 
 regarded as His children (9).^ 
 
 ^ ' Gehenna,' as a place of future punishment, is frequent in Mt. (v. 22, 
 29, 30, X. 28, xviii. 9, xxiii. 15, 33) ; in Mk. thrice ; in Lk., Jas., 2 Pet. 
 once each. For the important difference between ' Gehenna ' and 'Hades,' 
 tlie obliteration of whicli is one of the most serious defects in the AV., see 
 commentaries, DB, and DCG. 
 
 ^ Our Lord cannot mean that one who cherishes angry feelings may be 
 prosecuted : who is to know ? He means that to cherish such feelings is a 
 kind of murder, and merits the like penalty. Occidisti quern odisti. 
 
 ^ The change of construction from froxos tj; k. and tcj" tr. to ei's tt]v y. t. it. 
 should be noted. It seems to indicate the difference between liable to prose- 
 cution and liable to punishment ; between being brought before the court and 
 being cast into Gehenna. 
 
 The pres. subj. ea.v ■jrpo(T<j>iprjs means, 'if thou art in the act of offering' -^ 
 comp. XV. 14. 
 
8o GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 17-48 
 
 We may suspect that the next two verses (25, 26) are no 
 part of the original Sermon, but come from some other context 
 (Lk. xii. 58). They seem to introduce a new and not wholly 
 harmonious thought. The previous case teaches a man to be 
 reconciled to his fellow-man, because God forbids enmity. 
 This case teaches a man to be reconciled to his adversary, 
 because the adversary may put him in prison. But, taking the 
 verses as they are placed here, we may say that they contain a 
 parable to enforce one of the lessons of the previous illustration, 
 viz. that no time must be lost. The connecting link is ' quickly ' 
 (raxvi). Enmity is hateful to God, therefore put an end to it 
 without delay. The offended brother may die, or you may die ; 
 and if you both live, the enmity is likely to become more intense ; 
 in either case there is a disastrous conclusion. Possibly the 
 parable means no more than this : one cannot be too speedy 
 in putting an end to bad feeling. And if so, that is the whole 
 moral of the parable. But if 'the adversary' is to be interpreted, 
 it would seem to mean, not the offended brother, but the 
 offended Father, who has become hostile to one who persists 
 in violating His law of love.i The solemn warning, 'till thou 
 have paid the last farthing,' points to this ; for any interpretation 
 of it as referring to earthly penalties and the evils of litigation 
 seems to be inadequate. Thus interpreted the parable says, 
 " Beware of persisting in conduct which must expose you to the 
 action of Him who is at once Prosecutor, Witness, Judge, and 
 the Executor of the judgment." Nothing is said about the 
 possibility or impossibility of payment being made in prison : 
 see on iii. 12. The wise and right thing to do is to be recon- 
 ciled before being prosecuted. The passage is highly meta- 
 phorical, and metaphors must not be pressed. 
 
 The second illustration of the contrast between the Christian 
 life and the Jewish ideal is taken from the seve?itk comiitandment 
 (27-30).^ This commandment, especially when supplemented 
 by the tenth, protected the sanctity of marriage and the peace 
 of married life. But the Messiah, while confirming this, again 
 sets His own standard of purity beside the old one, and intimates 
 that His standard is the true spirit of the old commandments. 
 To abstain from even wishing to possess one's neighbour's wife 
 is far from being enough. To lust after her, or any woman, is 
 
 ' "The born are to die, and the dead to revive, and the living to be 
 judged ; that it may be known that He is the Discerner, and He the Judge, 
 and He the Witness, and He the Adversary, and that He is about to judge 
 with whom there is no iniquity, nor foigetfulness, nor respect of persons" 
 {Pirqe Aboth, iv. 31). 
 
 2 We have here another parallel (see on v. 19) with the Testaments of 
 the Xn. Patriarchs: '0 ^x^ ii-<^voi.a.v KO-Oapav iv iyaTr} oix opji 7Di/arKa els 
 TTopvetav {Benj. viii. 2 /3). See Charles, p. Ixxix. 
 
V. 17-48] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 8l 
 
 a breach of the commandment. Not only is social purity 
 binding on both the married and the unmarried, whether male 
 or female, but purity of heart (8) is absolutely indispensable 
 for admission to the Kingdom. So indispensable is it, that no 
 sacrifice ought to be regarded as too great, if it is the only 
 means of securing the necessary cleanness of thought and will.^ 
 On the analogy of the right hand, the right eye was regarded 
 as the better of the two (i Sam. xi. 2; Zech. xi. 17), and the 
 right hand and eye are among the most valuable members 
 that could be sacrificed without causing death ; they therefore 
 signify what is most precious. Like the passage about the 
 adversary (25, 26), these verses (29, 30) are highly figurative, 
 and we must once more be cautious about drawing inferences 
 from metaphors. The actual sacrifice of eye or hand would do 
 little towards securing purity ; and it is not safe to argue from 
 what is said here to the belief that there must be physical 
 pains in Gehenna. The ' eye ' and ' hand ' are figurative, 
 and therefore the ' whole body ' is figurative. See notes on 
 xviii. 8, 9. 
 
 The third illustration of the superiority of the Christian ideal 
 to the Jewish is taken from the question of divorce (31, 32). 
 As being a subject connected with the preceding illustration it 
 comes not inappropriately here, but we may doubt whether it 
 was part of the original Sermon. The substance of it, partly in 
 the same words, is found again xix. 3-9 ; but in neither place 
 does it, according to the existing texts, show that Christ's teaching 
 about divorce was superior to that of the stricter Jewish teachers. 
 There is grave reason for doubting whether Christ, either in the 
 Sermon or elsewhere, ever taught that divorce is allowable when 
 the wife has committed adultery. That -n-opveia here and xix. 9 
 means adultery (Hos. ii. 5 ; Amos vii. 17) is clear from the 
 context. According to the earliest evidence (Mk. x. 1-12), 
 which is confirmed by Lk. xvi. 18, Christ declared that Moses 
 allowed divorce as a concession to a low condition of society. 
 But there was an earlier marriage law, of Divine authority, 
 according to which the marriage tie was indissoluble. To this 
 Divine law men ought to return. Teaching such as this is 
 entirely in harmony with the teaching about murder (21-24) and 
 about adultery (27, 28), and is above the level of the best Jewish 
 teaching. But what is given here (31, 32) and in xix. 9 is not 
 above that level. The stricter Rabbis taught that the ' unseemly 
 thing ' {acrxriiJiov irpSy/xa — impudicum negotium, Tertullian) which 
 
 ■' These verses have no parallel in Lk. "It seems to me probable that 
 Luke the Physician preferred to leave out the metaphor of amputation " 
 (Burkitt, The Gospel History and its Transmission, p. 159). But Lk. also 
 omits the paragraphs about murder and swearing. 
 
 6 
 
82 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 17-48 
 
 justified divorce (Deut. xxiv. i) was adultery : and, according 
 to Mt., Christ said the same thing. Nothing short of adultery 
 justified divorce, but adultery did justify it. It is very improbable 
 that Christ did teach this. If we want His true teaching we must 
 go to Mk. and Lk., according to whom He declared the indis- 
 solubility of the marriage bond. He told His disciples that the 
 remarriage of either partner, while the other is living, is adultery.^ 
 
 But it is a violent hypothesis to assume (in the face of all 
 external evidence) that ' except on account of fornication ' is a 
 later interpolation by early scribes (Wright, Synopsis of the Gospels 
 in Greek, p. 99). If the interpolation had not already been made 
 in the Jewish-Christian authority which Mt. used, then we must 
 attribute the interpolation to the Evangelist himself. It is clear 
 from other cases that he treated his authorities with freedom, and 
 he may have felt confident that Christ, while forbidding divorce 
 on any other ground, did not mean to forbid it in the case of 
 adultery.^ Yet, even on the Evangelist's authority, we can 
 hardly believe that our Lord, after setting aside the Mosaic 
 enactment as an accommodation to low morality, should Himself 
 have sanctioned what it allowed. Mark would have no motive 
 for omitting the exception, if Christ had made it; but there 
 would be an obvious motive for a Jewish-Christian to insert it, 
 as meant, though not reported. 
 
 The fourth illustration is on the subject of oaths (33-37) ; and 
 it is more like the passage on divorce than those on murder and 
 adultery. In the cases of murder and adultery Christ interprets 
 the Law, and shows how much more ground it covers than 
 the Rabbis supposed. In the cases of divorce and oaths Christ 
 simply opposes Jewish tradition. The Law said that promises 
 to Jehovah, whether oaths or not, must be kept : a man ' must 
 do according to all that goeth forth from his mouth' (Num. 
 XXX. 2 ; see Gray, ad loc. ; also Barton on Eccles. v. 4). The Jews 
 held that only oaths need be kept, and not all of them ; only 
 certain forms of swearing were binding. Christ says that such 
 distinctions are iniquitous ; all oaths are binding. But no oaths 
 ought to be used, because a man's word ought to be enough. 
 Oaths and other strong statements have come into use, because 
 
 ^Augustine's view is this: solius fornicationis causa licet tixorem adul- 
 terant dimittere, sed ilia vivente non licet alteram ducere ; but he is not 
 satisfied with any solution of the difficult question. Yet he would use Mk. 
 and Lk. to explain Mt. Qtwd subobscure apud Mailhceum positum est, ex- 
 positum est apud alios, sicut legitur apud Majxuni et apud Lucani. Tertullian 
 is very decided for this view (Adv. Marc. iv. 34). 
 
 ' See Allen, ad. loc, and art. on 'Divorce' in Hastings' DCG., Driver on 
 Deut. xxiv. I and ' Marriage ' in Hastings' DB. ; Edersheim, Life and Times, 
 ii. pp. 331 ff. ; Luckock, History of Marriage ; Watkins, Holy Matrimony ; 
 Loisy, Le Disconrs sur La Montagne, pp. 56-61 ; Wright, Synopsis, 99. 
 
V. 17-48] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 83 
 
 men are so often liars ; but it is a grievous error to suppose that 
 a lie is not sinful, unless it is sworn to. The Jew went beyond 
 even this, and held that perjury was not sinful, unless the oath 
 was taken in a particular form (xxiii. 16-22). False swearing 
 was specially common among the Jews of the Dispersion engaged 
 in trade (Martial, xi. 94) ; and hence the charge given by S. 
 James (v. 12), in a passage which strongly resembles this. So 
 great had the evil become that the Talmud raises the question 
 whether ' Yes ' and ' No ' are not as binding as oaths : and it 
 decides that they are, if they are repeated, as here. Christ does 
 not say that anything stronger than ' Yea, yea' is sinful, but that 
 it is, or comes, of what, is evil,i viz. the prevalence of untruthful- 
 ness. In the Kingdom God's rule prevails, and all speak the 
 truth : oaths would be a senseless profanity. In this world, 
 while falsehood remains so common, specially solemn statements 
 may sometimes be necessary, and therefore are permissible. God 
 Himself had at times recognized this necessity (Lk. i. 73; Acts 
 ii. 30; Heb. iii. 11, 18, iv. 3, vi. 13-18, vii. 20, 21); and so 
 did Jesus, when He responded to the adjuration of the high 
 priest (xxvi. 63). Moreover, He frequently strengthened His 
 utterances with ' Verily I say unto you ' ; and Origen remarks 
 that Christ's 'A/ixrjv was an oath. It would seem from passages 
 in Philo and from the Book of the Secrets of Enoch (xlix. i) 
 that teaching similar to what we have here was not uncommon 
 among the Jews. The latter passage runs : " For I swear to you, 
 my children, but I will not swear by a single oath, neither by 
 heaven, nor by earth, nor by any other creature which God made. 
 God said : There is no swearing in Me, nor injustice, but truth. 
 If there is no truth in men, let them swear by a word. Yea, yea, 
 or Nay, nay. But I swear to you. Yea, yea." Passages from 
 Philo are quoted by Charles, ad loc. But it is not probable that 
 Christ meant absolutely to forbid all swearing for any purpose 
 whatever. It is provided for in the Law. It is expressly com- 
 manded, 'Thou shall swear by His Name ' (Deut. vi. 13, x. 20). 
 To swear by idols representing Jehovah (Am. viii. 14) or by 
 Baal (Jer. xii. 1 6) is wrong ; but to swear truthfully in the Name 
 of Jehovah brings a blessing (Jer. iv. 2, xii. 16). Indeed, 'every 
 one that sweareth by Him shall be commended ' or ' shall glory ' 
 (Ps. Ixiii. 11). Ctirist would not forbid this. 
 
 Jewish casuists sometimes taught that it was oaths in which 
 the Divine Name, or some portion of it, was mentioned that were 
 binding ; other oaths were less stringent or not binding at all ; 
 and the oaths which Christ takes as examples here are such as 
 
 ' ' Is of the evil one ' ( RV. ) makes good sense, but is less probable. Some 
 who adopt the neuter explain the ' evil' as meaning that an oath implies that 
 one is not bound to speak the truth unless one swears to one's statement. 
 
84 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 17-48 
 
 do not name God. These were, therefore, just such oaths as 
 many Jews took and broke without scruple. This light taking 
 of oaths, even when there is no false swearing, Christ absolutely 
 forbids.i Thus, as in the previous cases. He confirms the letter 
 of the Law, but explains and expands the spirit of it. The Law 
 said, 'Ye shall not swear by My Name falsely' (Lev. xix. 12), 
 and Christ points out that the way to avoid false swearing is to 
 be content with simple affirmations and negations. He cannot 
 be admitted to the Kingdom in which truth reigns who holds 
 that he need not speak truth, unless he confirms his word with 
 an oath. The absence of an oath in no way lessens the obliga- 
 tion to speak the truth. 
 
 It is an interesting question whether S. James (v. 12) has not preserved 
 our Lord's words more accurately than Mt. does here. ' But let your Yea 
 be Yea, and your Nay, Nay' (iJTu Si ifiUp t6 pal val, Kal rb o() oil). A 
 number of early writers, who possibly did not know the Epistle of James, 
 nevertheless agree with his wording in inserting the article before vai and 
 oi3. So Just. ^/<)/. i. 16 ; C/em. Horn. iii. 55, xix. 2 ; Epiph. Har. 
 xix. 6. Comp. Clem. Alex. Strom, vii. 8 (a valuable commentary on the 
 passage, showing that the true Christian is so addicted to truth that he does 
 not need an oath) and vii. 11 (where he has the article with va.1, but not with 
 otf). The difference between the two forms of wording seems to be this. 
 ' Let your speech be, Yea, yea ; Nay, nay ; and whatsoever is more than 
 this is of evil ' may mean, ' Be content with simply affirming and denying : 
 oaths imply untrustwoithiness on one side and distrust on the other. ' 'Let 
 your Yea be a Yea, and your Nay a Nay ; that ye fall not under judgment' 
 appears to mean, ' Be straightforward ; do not shufHe and try to say both 
 Yes and No, or Yes to-day and No to-morrow. Then you will have no need 
 of an oath, and will be guiltless before God and man.' It is possible to 
 bring Jas. v. 12 into harmony with Mt. v. 37 by translating, ' Let yours be 
 the Yea, yea and the Nay, nay' (see WH. text and RV. margin) ; but the 
 usual translation is simpler and more probable. See J. B. Mayor on Jas. 
 V. 12, p. 155, and Knowling, pp. 135, 153; also Zahn on Mt. v. 37, pp. 
 244-246, and Dalman, Words, pp. 206, 227. For Jewish condemnation of 
 swearing see Ecclus. xxiii. 9-11, and comp. Eccles. ix. 2; but in the latter 
 passage ' he that feareth an oath ' may mean the man who is afraid to swear 
 to what he says, because he knows that it is false. In the other pairs in the 
 series the good is placed first. 
 
 The fifth illustration of the superiority of the Christian ideal 
 is taken (38-42) from the law of retaliation, which was afifirmed 
 Ex. xxi. 23-25; Lev. xxi. 17-21; Deut. xix. 18-21. Neverthe- 
 less, the spirit of revenge was forbidden (Lev. xix. 18; Prov. 
 XX. 22, xxiv. 29); vengeance belongs to God (Deut. xxxii. 35; 
 Ps. xciv. i) ; and the 'meekness' of Moses was praised (Num. 
 xii. 3), where the meaning of not resenting injuries seems to be 
 implied; comp. Prov. xx. 22; Lam. iii. 30. But the Jews too 
 
 ' Josephus (B. /. II. viii. 6, 7) says that the Essenes regarded their word 
 as stronger than an oath, and that they avoided swearing as worse than 
 perjury. Vet in the next section he says that those who became Essenes were 
 required to take tremendous oaths {SpKovs (ppmuScis). 
 
V. 17-48] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 8S 
 
 often remembered the letter of the Law and thought Uttle of the 
 necessary limitations. Nevertheless such a passage as Ecclus. 
 xxviii. 1-7 shows that some thoughtful Jews felt that the principle 
 of retaliation was out of harmony with the other principle of 
 loving one's neighbour as oneself (Lev. xix. 18). And there 
 are passages in the Testaments of the XIL Patriarchs which 
 give similar evidence {Gad y. 5, vi. 3, 6).' 
 
 But the lex talionis is too much in harmony with natural 
 feelings of vengeance and man's rough ideas of justice not to 
 be very prevalent. And in a primitive state of society it is 
 beneficial, as restricting the wildness of revenge. If a wrong- 
 doer must "have as good as he gave," it is best that the law 
 should inflict it. Ex. xxi. 24, which Christ here quotes, is 
 thought to belong to the oldest part of Jewish law, the Book 
 of the Covenant. And the lex talionis is found in the Code 
 of Hammurabi. ",If a man has caused the loss of a gentleman's 
 eye, one shall cause his eye to be lost. If a man has made the 
 tooth of a man that is his equal to fall out, one shall make his 
 tooth fall out. If a man has struck a gentleman's daughter and 
 ... if that woman has died, one shall put to death his daughter. 
 If a builder has caused the son of the owner of the house to 
 die, one shall put to death the son of that builder" (§§ 196, 200, 
 210, 230). See also Monier-Williams, Indian Wisdom, p. 273. 
 
 Just as Christ condemned the casuistry of the Scribes as to 
 what oaths were binding and what not, and charged His disciples 
 to be content with simple affirmations and denials, so here He 
 condemns a similar casuistry as to what penalties should be 
 exacted for what injuries, and charges His disciples to be 
 content to receive injuries without taking vengeance. But, as 
 in the one case we need not suppose that He forbade the use 
 of specially solemn affirmations, when (the world being what 
 it is) something more than a man's word is necessary, so in 
 this case we cannot suppose that He condemned the laws 
 which (the world being what it is) are necessary for the pre- 
 servation of society. What He condemns is, not the prosecution 
 of those who are guilty of robbery and violence, but the spirit 
 of revenge.^ The law of the Kingdom is not selfishness, but love. 
 
 ' We may compare the well-known story of Pericles, who allowed a man 
 to abuse him all day long and all the way home, and then sent his servant 
 to light the man back to his house (Plutarch, Per. 5). Phocion, when he 
 was condemned to death, was asked what message he had to send to his son 
 Phocus, replied : "Only that he bear no grudge against the Athenians," for 
 putting him to death. 
 
 ^ Posse peccatuvi amore potius vindicarij quavi impimitttni relinqui {Aug. 
 De Serm. Dom. I. xx. 62). Plurimimi interest quo animo qidsque parcat. 
 Sicut eniin est aliquando misericordia puniens, ita et crudelitas parcens 
 {Ep- 153)- 
 
86 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 17-48 
 
 Therefore, in causing transgressors to be punished, those who 
 have been injured by them must have no feeling of revenge. 
 They ought to be fulfilHng a sad duty, not gratifying angry 
 feeUng. So far as their own personal feeling is concerned, they 
 ought to be quite ready that the injury should be repeated. 
 "Why are we angry?" asks Epictetus (Discourses, i. i8). "Is 
 it because we value so much the things of which these men rob 
 us? Do not admire your clothes, and then you will not be 
 angry with the thieves. They are mistaken about good and 
 evil. Ought we then to be angry with them, or to pity them ? " 
 ' Resist not evil, or the evil man,' says our Lord ; * and His 
 Apostle shows why this is right ; because ' love suffereth long 
 and endureth all things' (i Cor. xiii. 4, 7). Where resistance 
 is a duty for the sake of others and for the evil-doer himself, 
 it must be done in the spirit of love, not of anger and revenge 
 (see Cyprian, De bono patienticB). 
 
 And there are cases in which the injured person is under 
 no obligation to prosecute, and in which the abstention from 
 retaliation is a telling rebuke, more likely to bring the wrong- 
 doer to repentance than any penalty would be. Resistance can 
 only subdue, gentleness may convert ; it is the spirit of the 
 martyrs, and martyrs have often touched the hearts of their 
 executioners (Pere \)\Aox\, Jesus Christ, p. 358).^ 
 
 Our Lord gives five examples : assault, lawsuit, impressment, 
 begging, and borrowing. They are all figurative. They do not 
 give rules for action, but indicate temper. To interpret them as 
 rules to be kept literally in the cases specified is to make our 
 Lord's teaching a laughing-stock to the common sense of the 
 world. Are we to surrender our property to any one who 
 claims it, and to give to every beggar, thus encouraging fraud 
 and idleness ? No ; but we ought to be ready to give to all 
 who are in need, and our reason for refusing to give must 
 not be that we prefer to keep all that we have got. See notes 
 on Lk. vi. 27-31 in the Int. Crit. Commentary, and Deissmann, 
 Bible Studies, p. 86. As Augustine points out, we are not told 
 to give everything that is asked for, but to every one who asks. 
 We may give him a wholesome word, or may pray for him. 
 
 ' T(^ iroPTjpu is probably neuter : if it were masculine it would mean Satan 
 rather than an evil man. 
 
 " Comp. the story of the thief bringing back Gichtel's cloak, when the 
 latter called out to him that he might have his coat as well (Hase, Geschichte 
 Jesu, p. 501 ). With T(^ alToxjvrl ce 56$ comp. Trap^x^^^ Tavri AyBpihirij: iv dya&ri 
 Kap5i^ (Testament of Zebulon, vii. 2 ;' Charles, p. Ixxx) ; also, Ik^ttjv dXtj36]j,sifov 
 fjLT] diravaivov, Kal fiTj diroaTp^^r)? rb trpdaiiiTrdv aov d-jrh ttti^x^^' ^^^^ 5eop.hov 
 fiyj d,ToaTpi^-r}S 6(p6aXp.6v, Kal /xr} 5ys tSttov 6.vdpihiri^ Karapdaaffdai tre (Ecclus. 
 iv. 4, 5, xxix. 2); also, "Be pliant of disposition and yielding to impress- 
 ment" (Pirge Aboth, iii. 18). 
 
V. 17-48] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 8/ 
 
 Christ did not consent when He was asked to interfere about 
 the inheritance ; but He gave a wholesome rebuke and warning 
 (Lk. xii. 13-15). 
 
 The sixth illustration of the contrast between the Messiah's 
 teaching and that of the Jews is taken (43-47) from the law of 
 love. The Jews regarded the obligation to love one's neighbour 
 (Lev. xix. 18) as binding ; but they asked, Who is my neighbour ? 
 And they raised this question, not in order to extend the circle 
 of those whom they were to love, but in order to see who it was 
 that they were not bound to love, and therefore were free to 
 hate. They were bound to love, but only within their own 
 nation. No Gentile was a 'neighbour.' In Ecclus. xviii. 13, 
 where the limitless character of the Divine mercy is contrasted 
 with the limitations of human mercy, 'neighbour' appears to 
 mean Israelite, and perhaps not even all who are such. And, 
 although the words 'hate thine enemy' are not in the O.T., 
 yet the spirit of them might seem to be there. ' Thou shalt 
 not take vengeance nor bear any grudge against the children of 
 thy people'' (Lev. xix. 18) might easily suggest that vengeance on 
 foreigners was permitted, if not enjoined ; and the treatment 
 decreed for Ammonites, Moabites, and Amalekites (Deut. xxiii. 3, 
 XXV. 19; Ezra ix. i, iz; Neh. xiii. i, 2; Ex. xvii. 14) would 
 encourage this view. The stringent separation between Israel 
 and all heathen nations which was insisted upon of necessity, 
 to avoid the contamination of idolatrous immorality, would 
 readily confirm the belief that the loyal servant of Jehovah was 
 bound to hate all who were both God's enemies and his own ; 
 and it was convenient to assume that his own enemies were 
 God's enemies also. To this day, racial distinctions, even 
 within the same commonwealth, are among the gravest causes 
 of strife and bloodshed. See J. B. Mozley, Lectures on the O.T. 
 pp. 180-200. 
 
 The Jews themselves sometimes rose above this feeling 
 (Job xxxi. 29 ; Prov. xvii. 5, xxiv. 29 ; Ps. vii. 4, 5, xxxv. 12-14). 
 An enemy's beast was to be helped (Ex. xxiii. 4, 5), and some 
 taught that if both an enemy and a friend were in need, the 
 enemy was to be helped first, in order to conquer bad feeling. 
 The Book of the Secrets of Enoch says : " When you might have 
 vengeance, do not repay, either your neighbour or your -enemy " 
 (1. 4). Our Lord enlarged the meaning of ' neighbour,' and 
 narrowed that of 'enemy,' by abolishing the element of race- 
 distinction from both. 'Neighbour' embraces every human 
 being ; ' enemy ' includes no one but those who persecute the 
 followers of Christ for their righteousness (10-12). And the 
 way to treat such enemies as these is to pray for them. 
 "He who can pray for his enemies can do anything for 
 
88 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 17-48 
 
 them."i Thus, as in the other cases, Christ does not set up a 
 new commandment in opposition to the old : He shows that 
 what looks like a new commandment is really contained in the 
 old, when it is rightly understood. ' Thou shalt love thy neigh- 
 bour as thyself covers everything, when 'neighbour' is rightly 
 understood ; for a man does not cease to be a neighbour or a 
 brother because he has become hostile. A true son of God (45) 
 recognizes even the most erring of his fellow-men as still mem- 
 bers of the same family. From this it follows that what is the 
 supreme mark of affection — love and loving prayer, is to be 
 given to the most noxious of opponents — religious persecutors.^ 
 ' Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you.' 
 
 That is a severe test of loyalty ; and Christ at once proceeds 
 to justify it by the example of God Himself (45, 48). He rains 
 His benefits on His worst opponents, who are still His children, 
 although greatly erring ; and they must not be hated by His 
 other children. 'An eye for an eye' is a low principle, but 
 hatred for hatred is diabolical. Good-will must not allow itself 
 to be checked by ill-will ; and the man who regards forgiveness 
 as weakness can hardly be sincere in asking God to forgive him. 
 It is the birthright of God's children to be peacemakers (9), 
 and peacemakers do not feel enmity. "They sAow their parentage 
 by their moral resemblance to the God who is Love (ottws 
 yevrj(r6c vIol).^ 
 
 From this follows the law of perfection (48) with which this 
 section of the Sermon ends. 'Ye therefore shall be perfect.' 
 There is strong emphasis on the ' Ve ' {ta-eaOe ovv i/xeis riXuoi), 
 as compared with the toll-collectors and the heathen, on whom 
 the claims of love are less. The future tense is equivalent to 
 a command, but implies perhaps that, as true sons of such a 
 Father, they are sure to imitate Him ; and to imitate Him in 
 loving enemies, for the majority of mankind are His enemies. 
 Yes, ' perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.' The ideal 
 is stupendous, and it allows for continual progress both in time 
 and in eternity. Life both in this world and in the other is 
 growth, and this law of perfection provides for infinite moral 
 
 ' Resch quotes from Didasc. v. 15, p. 315, ed. Lagarde : 5ia toOto Kal in 
 T(J ei^a77tfXf(f) TrpoeiptjKa' TpoiTeiJX^<J'S£ vir^p rivv Ix^P^^ i>^C>v Kal fxa.K6.ptOL oi 
 ■n-€v6ouvT€s Trepi rrjs tuiv diriiTTcop aTrcuXetas [Agrapha^ p. 137). Contrast the 
 definition of justice given by Polemarchus in Plat. Repub. i. 332 D. 
 
 - This was what the first martyr, Stephen, did ; Acts vii. 60. Comp. 
 " If any one seeketh to do evil unto you, do you in well-doing pray for him" 
 (Joseph xviii. 2). The words ' bless them that curse you, do good to them 
 that hate you' (AV. ) are here an interpolation from Lk. vi. 27, 28. See 
 small print below. 
 
 ' For this sense of yivecrffat, 'prove yourselves to be,' comp. x.. 16, xxiv. 
 44 ; Lk. vi. 36, xii. 40; Jn. xx. 27. For the moral likeness between parent 
 and child comp. Jn. viii. 39-44 ; i Cor. iv. 14-17. 
 
V. 17-48] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 89 
 
 growth. The context seems to show that perfection in love is 
 specially meant ; but that is much the same as saying that the 
 perfection of the Divine nature is meant (i Jn. iv. 8, 16). To 
 return evil for good is devilish ; to return good for good is 
 human ; to return good for evil is divine. To love as God loves 
 is moral perfection, and this perfection Christ tells us to aim at. 
 How serenely He gives us this overwhelming command ! He 
 knows that He can help us to obey it. Comp. Gen. xvii. i ; 
 Lev. xix. 2; Deut. xviii. 13; Wisd. xii. 19. 
 
 For evidence that Mt. has here (39, 40, 42, 44, 48) preserved the original 
 wording better than Lk. (vi. 29, 30, 27, 28, 35, 32, 33, 36) see Harnack, The 
 Sayings of Jesus, pp. 5S-63. A couple of instances may serve as evidence ; 
 (l) Lk.'s hterary improvement of 'love your enemies and pray for your 
 persecutors ' into a climax of four gradations, and (2) his changing ' tax- 
 collectors ' and 'heathen,' which would hardly be intelligible to Gentile 
 readers, into the more general ' sinners.' 
 
 In the AV. the text of ver. 44 has been enlarged from Lk. The RV. gives 
 the true text (K B some cursives, some Old Latin texts, Syr-Sin. Syr-Cur. 
 Boh., Athenag. Orig. Cypr.). So also in ver. 47 ' the Gentiles' (K B DZ) is 
 to be preferred to ' the toll-collectors ' (E K L M etc. ). 
 
 This (ver. 46) is the first use in Mt. of the word reXucai, which is un- 
 fortunately rendered ' publican ' even in the RV. The publicani were those 
 who farmed the Roman taxes, i.e. paid the Roman Government a large sum 
 for the right to whatever such and such taxes might yield. But the reXupai 
 of the Synoptists are the portitores, the people who collected the taxes for 
 the publicani. Moreover, ' publican ' in English suggests the keeper of a 
 public-house. See Hastings' DB. , Extra vol. pp. 394-6. 
 
 Both Syr-Sin. and k (Bobiensis, one of the most important of the Old 
 Latin texts) omit ver. 47, possibly because it seemed to be out of harmony 
 with xxiii. 7 and Lk. x. 4. The substitution of 'friends' (EKLM etc.) for 
 ' brethren ' (N B D Z) is less easy to understand. Possibly ' friends ' seemed 
 to be a better antithesis to ' enemies ' (44). 
 
 In ch. V. we find these characteristic expressions : Trpo(r^px«^Sai ( i ), 6 
 TUTTjp iv TOis oipavois (16, 45), ippiBy) (21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43), irpodipipeiv 
 (23, 24), T6Te (24), dfivieiv (34, 35). Of phrases which are peculiar to 
 Mt. we have rj ^aaiKeia rwv ovpavwv (3, 10, 19, 20), and 6 irarT^p 6 oiipdvcot 
 (48), which occurs 7 times in this Gospel, and on which see Dalman, T/ie 
 Words of Jesus, p. 189. The latter phrase is closely akin to 6 tt. 6 iv tois 
 oipavois, which occurs 13 times in Mt. and elsewhere only Mk. xi. 25. In 
 ver. 48, 6 oipdvtos is the right reading (X B E L U Z, a f Vulg. Syr-Cur. Arm. 
 Aeth. Clem. Orig. Cypr.). While almost all N.T. writers use ovpavds more 
 often than oipavoi (Hebrews and 2 Peter being exceptions), Mt. uses the 
 plural more than twice as often as the singular (55 to 27 times), and he uses 
 the word much more often than any other writer. "The plural is not 
 frequent in the LXX : it only occurs about 50 times against more than 600 
 occurrences of the singular. It is most common in the Psalms, where it is 
 used about 30 times" (Hawkins, Horce .Synoptica, p. 41). The following are 
 found nowhere else in the N.T. : elprivoiroLds (9), icDra (18), SmXXdcro-eii' (24), 
 evvoelv (25), iTTLopK^lv (33), ^liKiov (41), pairi^eLv (39 and xxvi. 67). 
 
 The AV. is inaccurate and inconsistent in translating \vxvos ' candle ' 
 (ver. 15) and 'light' (vi. 22) ; the RV. has 'lamp' in both places. 
 
90 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VI. 1-18 
 
 "VI. 1-18. The Christian Life contrasted with faulty Jewish 
 Practice. 
 
 Having compared the Jewish ideal, as taught by the Scribes, 
 with the Christian ideal, as sketched in the Beatitudes, our Lord 
 now goes on to contrast the ordinary Jewish practice, as exhibited 
 in the conduct of the Pharisees, with the conduct which He 
 requires. The Pharisees claimed to be, and were commonly 
 allowed to be, patterns for all who desired to be strict observers 
 of the Law. Christ does not mention them by name, but speaks 
 only of ' the hypocrites.' From chapter xxiii. it is evident who 
 are meant, and even without that chapter the meaning would not 
 be doubtful (xv. 7, xxii. 18). The 'righteousness' here (1) looks 
 back to 'the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees' (v. 20), 
 and signifies external conduct, deeds in observance of the Law. 
 To do these in order to be seen of men is fatal i they at once 
 lose their goodness, and the doer of them loses all merit and all 
 reward from God. This principle is stated quite simply, and is 
 then illustrated by three things which are regarded as among the 
 chief elements of religion, ah7is, prayer, and fasting (Tob. xii. 8), 
 and which, in their wider sense, do cover a large sphere of duty. 
 Alms may represent our relations to men, prayer our relations to 
 God, and fasting our discipline of ourselves. And, if we omit 
 the special directions about prayer (7-15), which perhaps are no 
 part of the original Sermon, for they spoil the balance of the 
 parts, these three illustrations are set forth in the same way. In 
 each case we have : ' Do not be hypocritical, but,' etc. 
 
 The opening warning, ' Take heed ' {-n-poaix^Te), shows how 
 great the danger is. Hypocrisy is one of the most common and 
 the most subtle of foes. The motives, even for our best deeds, 
 are apt to be mixed, and the thought of men's admiration is 
 often one of them. A very little of this may spoil everything. 
 In this advertising age, in which a man hardly needs to sound 
 his own trumpet, because there are so many who are ready to 
 sound it for him, the danger is greatly increased. In this respect. 
 Parish Magazines have a great deal to answer for. Christians, 
 who never would yield to the glaring hypocrisy of pretending to 
 be benevolent when they are not, have the sincerity of their 
 benevolence marred by the knowledge that it is sure to be pub- 
 lished. The light of a Christian character will shine before men 
 and win glory for God without the artificial aid of public advertise- 
 ment. Ostentatious religion may have its reward here, but it 
 receives none from God. 
 
 Ought the thought of God's reward to come in? In the 
 highest characters at their best it will not. They will act 
 righteously for righteousness' sake, as loyal members of the 
 
VI. 1-18] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 91 
 
 Kingdom, as true children of a heavenly Father. But the highest 
 characters take time to develop ; and, even when they are 
 established, they are not always at their best. During the time 
 of growth, and in moments of w-eakness later, the thought of 
 the rewards which God has promised to those who obey Him 
 may come in as a legitimate support and stimulus. Those are 
 no friends of human nature who tell us that a religion which 
 " bribes " men by the offer of a reward thereby debases morality. 
 Everything depends upon the character of the reward. Men 
 may have degrading ideas of the joys of the righteous in this 
 world and in the next ; but such ideas are no part of the little 
 which God has revealed to us on the subject. There is nothing 
 degrading in working for the reward of a good conscience here, 
 and of increased holiness hereafter, both enriched by God's love 
 and blessing. See on x. 42. 
 
 The first verse is an introduction to the whole triplet, and 
 must not be restricted to the subject of alms. 'Righteousness' 
 covers alms, prayer, and fasting. Each of the separate subjects 
 begins with 'when' (orav, 2, 5, 16). 
 
 The reading, ' do not your righteousness before men ' (RV. ) is right, rather 
 than ' do not your ahns before men ' (AV. ). ' Righteousness ' {hiKo.io<jvvrt) 
 was sometimes used in the sense of almsgiving [i\if]ii,ai!'i)vr]) or any kind of 
 benevolence ; and some copyists, thinking that it had that meaning here, 
 changed the more comprehensive term into the narrower one. ' Righteous- 
 ness' is the reading of K B D, Syr-Sin. Latt., Orig-Lat. Hil. Aug. Hieron., 
 and is adopted by almost all editors. The agreement of K^ [^hsiv) with Syr- 
 Cur, (your gifts) is curious. Zahn suggests that the three readings are 
 different oral translations of the Aramaic (Einleitung, ii. p. 311). 
 
 In all three cases the picture drawn of the ostentation of the 
 Pharisees is very graphic. 'Sound a trumpet' is probably 
 figurative, for no such custom seems to be known.i This verse 
 tells us that almsgiving was part of the service in the synagogue, 
 and there we may believe that our Lord gave what He could out 
 of His slender means. There is a veiled irony in the declaration 
 ' They have received their reward,' and this adds to its impressive 
 severity. ' They receive their pay then and there, and they 
 receive it in full (airi^ova-L tov /ilo-Oov avrZv) : God owes them 
 nothing. They were not giving, but buyitig. They wanted the 
 praise of men, they paid for it, and they have got it. The trans- 
 action is ended and they can claim nothing more.^ But their 
 loss is not the less, because they do not know what they have 
 
 ' Zahn compares Juvenal's bucina fama (xiv. 152), and bucinator e.x- 
 istimatioiiis meie (Cic. Fam. xvi. 21. 2). Some Old Latin texts had debticinare 
 or hucinare here (Tert. Virg. vel. 13 ; Cypr. Test. iii. 40). 
 
 'The meaning may be, "they can sign the receipt for their reward" ; 
 d7roxi} = receipt. T)^\%<ixa2iV\ri, Bible Studies,-^. 229. Lk. has what seems to 
 be an echo of this, vi. 24. 
 
92 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VI. 1-18 
 
 lost.' In all three cases (2, 5, 16) this stern sarcasm is introduced 
 with 'Verily I say unto you,' as something that is specially to be 
 laid to heart. There is a striking parallel to this condemnation 
 of hypocrisy in a saying of Plato preserved by Plutarch ; that it 
 is the extremity of iniquity to seem to be righteous without being 
 so (icrf^aTrj's aSiKia'S elvaL Soxeiv BiKawv fMr/ ovra). S. Basil quotes 
 this in Homily xxii., on the study of pagan literature. It is 
 possible that ' Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand 
 doeth ' was a current proverb.^ 
 
 Of the high and often exaggerated views which Jews had of 
 the duty and advantages of almsgiving we have plenty of examples 
 in Tobit (iv. 7-1 1, xii. 8-10; xiv. 9-12) and in Ecclesiasticus 
 (iii. 14, 30, iv. 3, 4, vii. 10, xvi. 14, xxix. 12, xl. 24). Our 
 Lord leaves unnoticed the doctrine that alms can remove the 
 consequences of sin, and even purge men from the stain of sin. 
 He is content to insist that almsgiving must be done in God's 
 sight, without thought of man's praise. Purity of motive was the 
 essential thing, and, if that was secured, the idea of buying 
 pardon for sin would lose its hold.^ Christ had other ways of 
 teaching how sin and its effects could be removed. 
 
 The problem in our day is of a different character. The 
 peril of ostentatious giving may be as great as ever ; but, while 
 the heresy that alms can cancel sin is less common, the rigid 
 orthodoxy of the economist is very prevalent, and there is 
 danger lest, through fear of pauperizing the recipients, there may 
 at last be no givers. Christ has not cancelled the blessing 
 promised to the man that ' considereth the poor,' nor the 
 principle that 'he that hath pity upon the poor lendeth to the 
 Lord' (Ps. xli. i ; Pr. xix. 17). He declared that treasure may 
 be laid up in heaven by a benevolent use of wealth on earth 
 (20), and He told the rich young man that he could have this 
 treasure by distributing his wealth to the poor (xix. 21). 'It is 
 more blessed to give than to receive ' (Acts xx. 35) ; and what 
 is given is given to Him (xxv. 40). 
 
 'Openly' {ii> rep (pavepif) is wanting in K B D, Vulg. Boh. Cypr., and is 
 omitted as an interpolation by almost all editors. But it is ancient, for it is 
 in the Old Latin and Old Syriac. If it is omitted, 4v rifi Kpinrri} may be 
 taken with diroSiierei : ' and thy Father who seeth will recompense thee in 
 secret ' ; i.e. thy reward will be as unknown to the world as thy benevolence. 
 
 ' The Talmud says that Rabbi Jannai, seeing a man giving alms in public, 
 said ; "Thou hadst better not have given at all, than to have bestowed alms 
 so openly and put the poor man to shame." Rabbi Eliasar said : " He who 
 gives alms in secret is greater than Moses." 
 
 ^ Yet even Leo the Great seems to be held by it : "By prayer we seek to 
 propitiate God, by fasting we extinguish the lusts of the flesh, by alms we 
 redeem our sins " (Sermon xv. 4). 
 
VI. 1-18] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 93 
 
 Zahn contends for this, and Bengel seems to imply it, but the RV. does not 
 admit it to the margin. ' Thou shall be recompensed in the resurrection of 
 the just' (Lk. xiv. 14) seems to imply in the sight of the saints of all ages, 
 and this may have suggested ' openly.' 
 
 The same, principle is given with regard to prayer. We need 
 not suppose that the Pharisees went out into the streets to say 
 their prayers, but that, when they were in a public place at the 
 hour of prayer, they were ostentatious in performing their 
 devotions. They were glad to be seen praying, and chose a 
 conspicuous place. As in almsgiving, it is not the being seen, 
 but the wish to be seen, and to be seen in order to be admired, 
 that is condemned. Of all hypocrisies, that of pretending to 
 have intercourse with God, and of making a parade of such 
 intercourse, is one of the worst. Christ of course does not 
 condemn public worship : it is saying private prayers in needless 
 publicity, in order to gain a reputation for special sanctity, that 
 is denounced. 1 
 
 What follows (7-15) is manifestly no part of the original 
 sermon. It is not in harmony with the context, which treats of 
 the contrast between Pharisaic hypocrisy and Christian sincerity, 
 and it spoils the symmetry of the three paragraphs on alms, 
 prayer, and fasting, extending the one on prayer out of all 
 proportion to the other two. Here we may be sure that Mt. has 
 inserted sayings on prayer which were uttered on a different 
 occasion, or on several different occasions. It was quite natural 
 to do so. The Evangelist would feel that a discourse which was 
 to serve as a summary of the Messiah's teaching ought to include 
 the Messiah's pattern Prayer. 
 
 These special directions about prayer begin with an error, 
 not of the Pharisees, but of the heathen. The exact meaning 
 of the word translated ' use vain repetitions ' (/3aTTaXoy»;o-j?Te) is 
 uncertain, but it is probably intended to imitate unintelligible 
 sounds, and to refer to the repetition of forms of prayer without 
 attending to what one is saying. 'Much speaking' \-KoXv\oyia) 
 is not necessarily synonymous with 'vain repetitions.' There 
 may be lengthy petitions which are not unintelligent rehearsals 
 of forms of words. What is condemned is the idea that God 
 needs to be worried, and can be worried, into granting prayers, 
 and that petitions, if repeated many times, are more likely to be 
 answered than a petition said only once.^ We are not to suppose 
 
 ^ The figurative meaning of t6 ra,ij,€ibv aov need not be excluded. Praying 
 in the privacy of one's own heart, and closing the door against disturbing 
 thoughts, may be part of the lesson derived from ver. 6 ; but there is perhaps 
 a reference to 2 Kings iv. 33. 
 
 ^ Contrast the short prayer of Elijah (I Kings xviii. 36, 37) with Baal's 
 prophets crying ' O Baal, hear us ' from morning until noon. Cornelius a 
 Lapide compares those who use a futile profusion of words in prayer, "as 
 
94 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VI. 1-18 
 
 that prayers are incantations and act upon God like a charm, 
 compelling Him to do what He is unwilling to do. And just as 
 Christ does not condemn public prayer, but praying in public in 
 order to win esteem, so here He does not condemn all repetition 
 in prayer, — for He Himself used the same words . again and 
 again in Gethsemane (xxvi. 44 ; Mk. xiv. 39), — but superstitious 
 and profane repetition. We repeat supplications, not in order to 
 secure God's attention, as if He might grant at the third 
 supplication what He refused at the first ; but in order to secure 
 our own attention. God is always ready to listen to His children's 
 needs ; but they are not always attending to what they say when 
 they bring their needs before Him. Moreover, they have not 
 always prepared their hearts for the reception of the blessings 
 for which they ask. For the remedying of these two defects the 
 repetition of the same words may be useful. Prayer, and the 
 repetition of prayers, make it possible for us to receive what we 
 pray for. We are not moving God towards us ; for that there is 
 no need : we are raising ourselves towards Him. "Prayer calms 
 and purifies the heart, and makes it more capacious for receiving 
 the Divine gifts. God is always ready to give us His light, but 
 we are not always ready to receive " (Aug. De Serm. Dom. 11. 
 iii. 14). By prayer we open channels • through which blessings, 
 which are always ready, may flow. 
 
 In order to teach His disciples how much may be prayed 
 for in a few simple words, the Messiah gives them the model 
 Prayer, which shows all mankind why, and for what, and in 
 what spirit, they ought to pray.^ It translates into human 
 language the ' groanings which cannot be uttered ' in which the 
 Spirit makes intercession for us. Even if it were true that for 
 each of the petitions in the Prayer parallels can be found in 
 Jewish prayers, the Prayer as a whole would still remain with- 
 out a rival. But it is not true. Real parallels to ' Thy will be 
 done ' and to ' Give us day by day our daily bread ' have yet to 
 be found ; and some of the parallels to the other petitions are 
 perhaps later than the Prayer and may be taken from it. Yet 
 it would have been surprising if all the petitions in the Prayer 
 had been new; if in the prayers that had been in use among 
 
 if by this their rhetoric they would give God information concerning His own 
 affairs, and would bend Him to concede what they ask." See Augustine's 
 letter to Anicia Faltonia Proba on the subject of prayer {Ep. 130) : Aliud 
 est sermo miiltus^ aliud diutunius affecttts. Absit ab oraiione ijiulta locutio ; 
 sed non desit midta precatio. Comp. Eccles. v. 2. 
 
 ■ For the abundant literature on the Lord's Prayer, and for the discussion 
 of literary and critical questions respecting the two forms which have come 
 down to us, see commentaries on Matthew and Luke, and articles in Diction- 
 aries of the Bible ; also Chase, The Lord's Prayer in the Early Church 
 (1891). 
 
VI. 1-18] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 95 
 
 God's people there had been nothing that God's Son could use 
 again for the edification of His Church. The Prayer is the 
 outcome of the religious experience of mankind, culminating in 
 the experience of the Son of Man. Such a Prayer would be 
 likely to contain things both new and old. 
 
 The form given here and that given by Lk. (xi. 1-4) can 
 hardly both be original, and it is probable that both were 
 modified by tradition before they were written down. Forms of 
 prayer almost invariably undergo change. And Christ's charge 
 in giving the Prayer does not forbid this. He says : ' Thus ' 
 (ouro)?), 'after this manner' (not, 'in these words ' ), 'therefore, 
 pmy ye.' The emphasis is on 'thus' and on 'ye.' In this simple, 
 trustful, comprehensive manner, so different from the useless 
 repetitions of the heathen, the children of the true God are to 
 pray. 
 
 But, although we cannot be sure that the form here is nearer 
 to the original Prayer than the shorter form in Lk., the judgment 
 and experience of Christendom (from the first century onwards) 
 has decided that the form in Mt. best answers to the needs of 
 Christians, whether for public or for private use. 
 
 TAe Lord's Prayer. 
 
 The Prayer is not only an authoritative form of devotion, 
 it is also a summary and a pattern. 
 
 It is a form, stamped with Christ's authority,^ which any one 
 can use and know that he is expressing his needs in a becoming 
 manner. There is nothing in it that is either distinctly Jewish 
 or distinctly Christian. Any Theist, of any race, or age, or 
 condition, can employ it, just in proportion to his belief. A 
 Christian's knowledge of its meaning grows with his spiritual 
 experience. In giving this Prayer, Christ has sanctioned the 
 principle of forms of prayer, and has also supplied a form which 
 is always safe. 
 
 It is a summary of all other prayers, although it does not 
 supersede them.^ It covers all earthly and spiritual needs, and 
 gives expression to all heavenly aspirations. 
 
 And it is a pattern for all prayers. It shows what supplica- 
 tions may be made, and in what spirit they ought to be made. 
 We may pray for all that tends to the glory of God or the good 
 of man, and the glory of God comes first; and our aim must be 
 
 ^ But it is not a form which Christ ever used, or could use. He never 
 asked for, or could need, forgiveness (Steinbeck, Das gbttliche Selbstbewusst- 
 sein Jesu, p. 26). 
 
 ^ Tertullian calls it breviarium totiiis evafigelii (De Oral. 1) ; Augustine 
 says that there is no lawful petition that is not covered by it {Ep. 130). 
 
96 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VI. 1-18 
 
 that His will may be done in us, not that it may be changed 
 in accordance with ours. 
 
 Just as there is want of agreement as to the number of the 
 Beatitudes, so there is want of agreement as to the number of 
 petitions in the Prayer. Some make five, some six, and some 
 seven. Seven is an attractive number, and it is obtained by 
 counting ' Lead us not into temptation but deliver us ' as two 
 separate petitions. The six petitions are reduced to five by 
 regarding ' Hallowed be Thy Name ' as an expression of praise 
 or reverence rather than a petition, like ' Blessed be the Lord 
 God of Israel.' But the prayer is best regarded as consisting of 
 two equal parts, each containing three petitions. It will then be 
 found that the two triplets correspond.^ 
 
 Our Father which art in heaven, 
 Hallowed be Thy Name, 
 Thy Kingdom come. 
 Thy Will be done, 
 
 as in heaven, so on earth. 
 Our daily bread 
 
 give us this day ; 
 And forgive us our debts, 
 
 as we also have forgiven our debtors : 
 And lead us not into temptation, 
 
 but deliver us from the evil one. 
 
 As in the case of the Decalogue and of the Two Great 
 Commandments (xxii. 40), the first part refers to God, the 
 second to man. In the first three petitions we seek the glory 
 of our heavenly Father, in the last three the advantage of 
 ourselves and our fellows. But there is no sharp line of separa- 
 tion between these two. The glory of God is a blessing to His 
 children, and what benefits them is a glory to their heavenly 
 Father. Thus, while the first three petitions show the end 
 which we should have in view — the accomplishment of God's 
 Glory, Kingdom, and Will, the last three show the means — 
 provision, pardon, and protection. 
 
 The two triplets correspond thus. The first petition is 
 addressed to God as our Father, the second as our King, the 
 third as our Master. We ask our Father for sustenance, our 
 King for pardon, our Master for guidance and guardianship. 
 The transition from the one triplet to the other, from man's 
 regard for God to God's care for man, is made in the third 
 
 ^ Mt. is fond of arrangements in sevens, and still more fond of arrange- 
 ments in threes. It is as probable that he thought of two triplets as that he 
 thought of one sevenfold prayer. In Lk. xi. 2-4 there are five petitions, 
 according to the true text. See Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, p. 53. 
 
VI. 9, 10] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 97 
 
 petition, which would raise earth to heaven by securing that 
 God's rule should be equally complete in both. And in each 
 triplet there is progression. In the first, the hallowing of God's 
 Name leads to the coming of the Kingdom, and the coming of 
 the Kingdom to the perfect fulfilment of God's Will. In the 
 second, the obtaining of good is followed by the removal of evil, 
 past, present, and future. This marvellous proportion and 
 development cannot be accidental ; and, to whatever extent 
 old material has been used in this Prayer, it was composed in 
 the spirit of Him who said, ' Behold I make all things new ' 
 (Rev. xxi. 5). 
 
 Our Father which art in heaven. In the Old Testament God 
 is the Father of the Jewish nation (Deut. xxxii. 6 ; Is. Ixiii. 16 ; 
 Jer. iii. 4, 19, xxxi. 9; Mai. i. 6, ii. 10). In the Apocrypha He 
 is spoken of as the Father of individuals (Wis. ii. 16, xiv. 3 ; 
 Ecclus. xxiii. i, 4, Ii. 10; Tob. xiii. 4). They are His offspring, 
 made in His image, and are the objects of His loving care. But 
 the New Testament carries us further than this, to a Fatherhood 
 which, however, as yet is not universal. 'As many as receive 
 the Son, to them gave He the right to become children of God, 
 even to them that believe on His Name' (Jn. i. 12). The 
 address, 'Our Father,' expresses our confidence that we shall be 
 heard, and heard for others as well as for ourselves. We belong 
 to a great family, and there must be no selfishness in our 
 prayers ; the blessings for which we ask are blessings to be 
 shared by others.^ 
 
 'Which art in heaven.' We need constantly to remind 
 ourselves that heaven is not a place. We are obUged to think 
 under conditions of space and time, yet we ought to remember 
 that there is no portion of space in which God dwells more than 
 in other portions. When we speak of heaven as His dwelling- 
 place, ' heaven ' is a symbol to express His remoteness from all 
 the limitations to which human beings, and the universe in which 
 He has placed them, are subject. ' Which art in heaven ' 
 reminds us that between His infinite perfections and our 
 miserable imperfections there is an immeasurable gulf, although, 
 at the same time. He is in us and we are in Him. 
 
 Hallowed be Thy Name. That this petition stands first 
 warns us against self-seeking in prayer. We are not to begin 
 with our own wants, not even our spiritual wants ; not with 
 ourselves at all, but with God. It is His claims which are to be 
 thought of first. His Name represents His nature. His character, 
 Himself, so far as all this can be known. ' Hallow ' may mean 
 'make holy,' which is impossible with regard to God or His 
 
 ' Oratio fraterna est ; non dicit. Pater vietis sect, Pater nosier, omnes 
 videlicet und oratione complectens (Aug. ), 
 
98 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VI. 10 
 
 Name. But ' hallow ' may also mean ' make known as holy,' 
 which is what God does when He hallows His Name. And it 
 may also mean ' regard as holy,' which is what man does when 
 he hallows God's Name. It is for both these that we pray in 
 this first petition. We pray that God will reveal to us more and 
 more of the holiness of His character ; and we also pray that He 
 will enable us to recognize His holiness, to understand more and 
 more of the elements of which it consists, and to pay to it all the 
 reverence that is possible, especially that most sincere form of 
 reverence, — conscious and humble imitation. Thus while the 
 address, ' Our Father,' encourages us to approach God with 
 confidence, the first petition acts as a check upon any irreverent 
 familiarity. 1 
 
 Thy Kingdom cotne. The petition is the most Jewish of all 
 the petitions. The Talmud says: " That prayer in which there 
 is no mention of the Kingdom of God is not a prayer." But the 
 petition is equally Christian. It asks that God's rule may 
 everywhere prevail over all hearts and wills. It sums up the 
 Messianic hopes of the Hebrews and the still more comprehensive 
 hopes of the disciples of Christ, who began His Ministry on 
 earth with the proclamation that this Kingdom was about to 
 begin. He founded it, and it has been developing ever since. 
 This petition asks that its progress may be hastened by increased 
 knowledge of God's commands and increased obedience to them. 
 It asks that the principles of God's government may be victorious 
 over the principles of the world and of the evil one ; victorious 
 in the individual heart, and also in the workings of society. It 
 is a missionary prayer ; but we unduly limit its meaning if we 
 interpret it merely as a petition for the spread of Christianity. If 
 the whole human race had accepted the Gospel, this petition 
 would still stand. 'The Kingdom of God is within you,' and 
 there is no limit to the progress which it may make in each loyal 
 soul. There is always the Divine perfection to be realized more 
 and more (v. 48). 
 
 Thy Will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. 'We must know 
 God's character before we know what He wills ; and hence the 
 petition, ' Hallowed be Thy Name ' precedes ' Thy Will be done.' 
 We could not pray that any one's will might be done while we 
 were in ignorance of what the will was likely to be. But when 
 God's character has been in some degree revealed to us, and 
 revered by us, we can with sure trust go on to ask that His Will 
 may be done, and done in this world with all the fulness and 
 perfection with which it is done in that spiritual region in which 
 
 '"As in the Lord's Prayer, so in the ancient liturgies, the aorist 
 imperative is almost exclusively used. It is the true tense for 'instant' 
 prayer" (J. H. Moulton, Gram, of N. T. Cr. p. 173). 
 
VI. 10] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 99 
 
 God's rule absolutely prevails. This petition reminds us of the 
 part which we have to play in the realization of the Divine ideal. 
 God has not reserved everything for Himself and made every- 
 thing to depend upon His absolute decree. His Will is not the 
 only will in the universe. He has created other wills, and left 
 them free even to rebel against Himself. God's Name will not 
 be rightly hallowed, His Kingdom will not fully come, until all 
 wills are united to His in entire sympathy. Over this each one 
 of us has his share of control ; it rests with him whether, so far 
 as he is concerned, God's Will is done, and done with loving 
 cheerfulness.^ 
 
 'As in heaven, so on earth.' Therefore, ' in heaven ' also 
 there are wills that conform to the Will of God : the petition 
 would scarcely have meaning, if this were not so. So that this 
 petition is a revelation respecting the unseen world : it is 
 tenanted by spiritual beings who are obedient to the Divine 
 Will. To interpret ' in heaven ' of the heavenly bodies is not 
 wrong, but it is inadequate. The sun, moon, and stars are 
 symbols of perfect obedience to God's decrees, but they are not 
 examples of obedience, for there is no willing response to 
 authority, no reasonable service. ^ This petition does not mean 
 that men are to be reduced to the condition of perfect machines, 
 knowing nothing of the mind which designed them. The 
 reference is not to creatures who are lower than man, being not 
 made in the image of God, but to those who are higher in the 
 order of creation, or higher in the conditions of their present life. 
 We can hardly doubt that the reference is to the Angels, and 
 perhaps also to ' the spirits of just men made perfect ' (Heb. 
 xii. 23). And this leads to a further revelation. These spiritual 
 beings do God's Will, for it is in this that we are to be like them.^ 
 Therefore life in the unseen world is not idleness but activity ; 
 and the end to which this petition looks is the working of all 
 created wills in absolute unison with the Will of their Creator. 
 
 It is possible to take 'as in heaven, so on earth' with the 
 first two petitions, as well as with the third, and this makes 
 excellent sense. 
 
 ^ Voluntas tua corrigatur advoluntatem Dei, non voluntas Deidetorqueatur 
 ad tttam (Aug.). " Be bold as a leopard, and swift as an eagle, and strong 
 as a lion, to do the will of thy Father which is in Heaven" {Pirqe Aboth, 
 V. 30). 
 
 ^ " The sun, moon, and stars change not their order ; so do ye also change 
 not the Law of God by the disorderliness of your doings" (Naphtali iii. 2). 
 
 '^ Mt. gives us more of Christ's sayings respecting Angels than any other 
 Evangelist: xiii. 39, 41, 49, xvi. 27, xviii. 10, xxii. 30, xxiv. 31, 36, 
 XXV. 31, 41, xxvi. 53. Of these Mk. gives us four: viii. 38, xii. 25, 
 xiii. 27, 32, and Lk. two : ix. 26, xx. 36. But Lk. adds others : xii. 8, 9, 
 XV. 10, xvi. 22. We have therefore more than a dozen utterances of our 
 Lord on the subject, and His belief and doctrine can hardly be doubted. 
 
lOO GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VI. 11 
 
 Our daily bread give its this day. We pass now from the 
 Divine to the human, although (as we have seen in considering 
 the petitions which have special reference to the former) the 
 two are closely interwoven. After such a petition as the third, 
 there is no bathos in coming to this request for the supply of 
 man's temporal needs. After praying that we may be able to 
 serve God on earth as perfectly as He is served in heaven, we 
 may pray that He will give us all that is necessary for our 
 continued life on earth in His service. And this petition, which 
 is in both forms of the Prayer, is sufficient answer to the theory 
 that the benefits to be won by prayer are purely subjective, viz. 
 the quickening of our own spiritual life by communion with God. 
 This petition is strangely misleading, if it does not mean that 
 there are temporal blessings which we may obtain from God by 
 asking for them. Granted that many of these blessings come 
 to those who never pray : that does not prove that they are not 
 won by the supplications of those who do pray, nor that those 
 who do pray are not more richly endowed with them. A man 
 really possesses only that which he enjoys; and the enjoyment 
 of temporal goods is always enhanced by the recognition that 
 they are God's gifts. There is no surer way of making this 
 recognition constant and real than by often thanking God for 
 His gifts and asking Him to continue them. And this petition 
 not only allows, but commands us to pray for bodily sustenance 
 and the supply of temporal needs. Prayer against temporal 
 calamities is also enjoined (xxiv. 20; Mk. xiii. 18); and the 
 prayer of the disciples for help in the storm was heard (viii. 26 ; 
 Mk. iv. 39 ; Lk. viii. 24). 
 
 God has given us a nature capable of desiring external things, 
 and He has placed us in a world in which such desires can be 
 gratified. In this petition Christ teaches us that it is lawful to 
 pray for the gratification of such desires, — always in submission 
 to the Divine Will. We may pray for them, both for ourselves 
 and for others. And it is a great test of the rightness of our 
 desires that we can turn them into prayers. Desire for .what 
 cannot be in accordance with the Will of God is not one that 
 we can ask Him to grant. We cannot ask God to bless fraud 
 and lust ; but we can ask Him to bless honest work as a means 
 of obtaining food, and raiment, and healthful enjoyment. All 
 which is to be shared with others : 'Give us.' Therefore he who 
 has received more than his share is bound to consider the 
 needs of those who have received less. 'Give us'' becomes a 
 mockery when those who have been entrusted with a large 
 portion of God's bounty do nothing for the fulfilment of their 
 own prayer in reference to others. S. James has spoken 
 severely of all such in the famous passage on faith and works 
 
VI. 11, 12] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE lOI 
 
 (ii. 14-17); and his words are perhaps an echo of those of his 
 Brother (xxv. 41-45). 'Give»ze' is a prayer which may easily 
 end in selfishness : 'give us,' once realized, is a safeguard against 
 self-seeking. Publica est nobis et communis oratio, et quando 
 oramus, non pro una sed pro populo toto oramus, quia totus populus 
 unum sumus (Cyprian, De Dom. Oral. 7). 
 
 The extremely perplexing word which is translated ' daily ' 
 (eTTtovVio; : see below) perhaps means ' needful,' just what 
 is required for health and strength. If so, the petition is 
 similar to that in the prayer of Agur : ' Give me neither poverty 
 nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me' 
 (Prov. XXX. 8). 
 
 We are not to ask for superfluities. The petition will cover 
 what is needed for culture and refinement, but it will not cover 
 luxury and extravagance. What we need must not be interpreted 
 to mean all that we desire ; sufficiency and contentment will 
 never be reached by that method. Contentment is reached by 
 moderating wants, not by multiplying possessions. 
 
 It is remarkable that iTnoiaios is in both forms of the Prayer, and the 
 word is found nowhere else in Greek Hteratiire. It seems to have been 
 coined for the occasion. It is part of the strong evidence that our Lord 
 habitually spoke Aramaic rather than Greek, for He would not have put into 
 the pattern Prayer, otherwise so simple in its language, a word that had 
 never been used before. It is possible that some one invented the word in 
 order to translate an Aramaic adjective used by Christ. It is also possible 
 that there was no adjective (elsewhere in the Prayer there is none), but that 
 this was inserted at an early period after the Prayer had come into common 
 use. If 'needful' is not the meaning, 'daily,' or 'for the coming day,' 
 or ' continual ' may be right. See Lightfoot, On a Fresh Revision of the 
 New Testament, App. i. ; M'Clellan, 1 he New Testament, i. pp. 632-647 ; 
 Cremer, Lexicon, sub voc. Recently discovered papyri have thrown much 
 light on Biblical language, but not on this word : Origen's remark, that it 
 is not found elsewhere in Greek, is still true. Jerome's statement, that in 
 the Gospel of the Hebrews the word used was inahar, would confirm the 
 rendering ' for the coming day,' if we could be sure that evriowios is a trans- 
 lation of it. ' Give us to-day our bread for to-raorrow ' is not excluded by 
 ' Be not anxious for to-morrow ' (34) : the petition in that case would be a 
 means of avoiding anxiety. Nevertheless, the daily asking for to-morrow's 
 bread does not seem quite natural. But ' to-day,' even without the rendering 
 ' daily,' necessarily led to the conclusion that the prayer was to be used 
 daily. 
 
 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 
 ' Give ' is followed by ' forgive.' External needs for the present 
 moment are the most obvious and pressing ; but spiritual needs 
 at once assert themselves, and these are thought of in reference 
 to the past and the future. There are past sins and future 
 temptations to be reckoned with. The more we are conscious 
 that the good things which we enjoy are the free gifts of our 
 Father, the more conscious we are likely to be of the miserable 
 
102 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VI. 12, 13 
 
 return which we have made to Him. Benefits received and 
 recognized quicken the sense of injuries done to the benefactor. 
 And this sense of injuries cannot be removed by resolutions of 
 better conduct towards the injured benefactor in the future. 
 His forgiveness of the injuries must be obtained, and therefore 
 must be asked. This is what we owe to him ; it is a duty, a 
 debt : and in reference to our heavenly Father there has been 
 a heavy accumulation of debts, which is constantly increasing. 
 We are accustomed to distinguish three spheres of duty — to God, 
 to our fellows, and to ourselves, and the distinction is useful. 
 But, in reality, all transgressions of duty to ourselves and to 
 our neighbours are transgressions of our duty to God. All 
 transgressions of duty are debts to Him, and we need His 
 forgiveness for them, not in order to escape the penalties of our 
 wrong-doing, but in order that the loving relation between 
 Father and child may be restored. The sense of sin is perhaps 
 as general as the sense of bodily need, but it is not as frequently 
 felt. The one cannot long be forgotten or ignored, but the 
 other may be ; and the constant use of this petition helps to 
 keep alive in our hearts the sense of sin and consequent need 
 of forgiveness. 
 
 ' As we also have forgiven our debtors.' The ' as ' must 
 not be pressed to mean that the fulness of the Father's forgive- 
 ness is to be measured by the extent to which we forgive our 
 fellow-men. No such hard bargaining is to be understood. 
 What is meant is, that we ourselves must cultivate a spirit of 
 forgiveness towards those who seem to have wronged us, before 
 we venture to claim forgiveness for ourselves. God has more 
 to forgive to each individual than any human being can have ; 
 and He is more ready to forgive : it is impossible for men to 
 equal Him in this. But men can try to imitate Him (Eph. v. l), 
 and only so far as they imitate Him have they the right to use 
 this petition. The Talmud says : " He who is indulgent towards 
 others' faults will be mercifully dealt with by the Supreme Judge." 
 
 Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. 
 The sixth petition, like the fifth, is concerned with spiritual 
 rather than physical needs, but it deals with the future and not 
 with the present or the past. Alike in his spiritual and in his 
 physical life the Christian is dependent upon God. It is God 
 who supplies his daily need of food, and it is God who can pro- 
 tect him from his constant temptations. Life is full of trials, 
 not all of which are temptations to do what God forbids. But 
 all trials are opportunities of doing what is wrong, for we may 
 take them in a rebellious spirit. Yet every kind of trial is to be 
 accepted as a necessary means of strengthening our characters, 
 for there can be no virtue without temptations to vice, tempta- 
 
VI. 13] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE IO3 
 
 tions which come from the evil one. In few things is God's 
 power of bringing good out of evil seen more clearly than when 
 He turns what the devil intends as ' occasions of falling ' into 
 opportunities that may be ' for our wealth ' ; for every tempta- 
 tion vanquished adds to the strength and richness of the soul. 
 But the humble child of God is aware of his own weakness, and 
 he therefore prays that his heavenly Father will not allow him 
 to be too often or too sorely tried, but will in all cases deliver 
 him when he is tried, either by strengthening his powers of 
 resistance or by lessening the attractiveness of sin. In short, 
 he prays for that shield of faith, wherewith he may ' quench all 
 the fiery darts of the evil one' (Eph. vi. 16). 
 
 It cannot be determined with certainty whether ' dehver us 
 from evil ' or ' deliver us from the evil one ' is right : the Greek 
 (pva-aL Tj/iSs aTTo tov -irovrjpov) will bear either meaning, and both 
 are found in the New Testament. We certainly have ' evil ' in 
 the neuter sense Lk. vi. 45, Rom. xii. 9, and we certainly have 
 'the evil one' of Satan Mt. xiii. 19, 38; i Jn. ii. 13, 14, iii. 12, 
 V. r8, and probably elsewhere. Here the 'but' suggests the 
 masculine : ' Lead us not into temptation, iut deliver us from 
 the tempter.' If evil in general were meant, we should expect 
 'and deliver from evil.' The evidence of the Greek Fathers, 
 who in such a matter have great weight, of the earliest Latin 
 Fathers, and of various Liturgies, is strongly in favour of the 
 masculine. But modern scholars are much divided on the 
 subject. See Lightfoot, On a Fresh Revision, App. ii., and 
 Canon Cook's reply in the Guardian, Sept. i88r. 
 
 On the other hand, there is no doubt that the doxology, ' P'or Thine is the 
 Kingdom,' etc., is no part of the Prayer. It is not found in Lk. , and it is an 
 interpolation (due to liturgical use) in the authorities which have it here. 
 Those which have it vary in the wording and as to the addition or omission 
 of 'Amen' : some have 'Amen' without the doxology. It is absent from 
 X B D Z, five cursives, Latt. Boh., Orig. Ten. Cypr. Aug. ; and not until 
 Chrys. does its wording become fixed. But doxologies of some kind were 
 added to the Prayer as early as the second century (k Syr-Cur. Sah.). In the 
 Didache (viii. 2) we have " for Thine is the power and the glory for ever" ; 
 and in the newly discovered uncial MS., now in the possession of Mr. C. L. 
 Freer of Detroit, U.S.A., the full form is found, with the exception of tQiv 
 aiilipoiv after els Tois al&fas, but with the Amen : " For Thine is the kingdom 
 and the power and the glory for ever. Amen." This perplexing uncial, 
 which is believed to be of the fifth, or possibly of the fourth century, also 
 contains the interpolation about the weather, xvi. 2, 3. See C- R. Gregory, 
 Das Freer-Logion, Leipzig, 190S ; E. Jacquier, Histoire des Livres du N. T, 
 iii. pp. 338-344, Paris, 1908. 
 
 It does not follow, because the doxology is no part of the original Prayer, 
 that it ought not to be used. It has evidently supplied a felt want. Perhaps 
 Christians have not liked ending the prayer with * evil ' or * the evil one.' 
 See Nestle, Textual Criticising pp. 250, 251 ; and {for a halting defence of 
 the interpolation) Scrivener (Miller), ii. pp. 323, 324. The source may be 
 I Chron. xxix. II. 
 
I04 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VI. 13-16 
 
 It is worth while comparing the Mourner's Kaddish as it is still used in 
 the Morning Service of the Synagogue. 
 
 " Magnified and sanctified be His great Name in the world which He hath 
 created according to His will. May He establish His Kingdom during your 
 life and during your days, and during the life of all the house of Israel, even 
 speedily and at a near time, and say ye. Amen. 
 
 Let His great Name be blessed for ever and to all eternity. 
 
 Blessed, praised and glorified, exalted, extolled and honoured, magnified 
 and lauded be the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He ; though He be 
 high above all the blessings and hymns, praises and consolations, which are 
 uttered in the world ; and say ye, Amen" [The Authorised Daily Prayer 
 Book of the United Hebrew Congregations, p. 77). 
 
 A common response in the Temple-service is said to have been : " Blessed 
 be the Name of the Glory of His Kingdom for ever and ever." 
 
 The two verses (14, 15) which follow the Prayer are inserted 
 as a comment on 'Forgive as we have forgiven.' A similar 
 saying is recorded Mk. xi. 25 : ' And whenever ye stand praying, 
 forgive, if ye have aught against any one ; that your Father also 
 which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses'; where 
 ' your Father which is in heaven ' looks like a reference to the 
 Prayer. Nowhere else does Mk. use this phrase. But our 
 forgiveness of others is only part of what is necessary in order to 
 obtain forgiveness for ourselves from God. By itself, our refusal 
 to forgive Q'Ca&x's, prevents o\xx obtaining forgiveness from Him; 
 but our forgiving others will not, by itself, secure forgiveness from 
 Him. There is a close parallel in Ecclus. xxviii. 2 ; and also in 
 the Testaments : " Do you also, my children, have compassion 
 on every man in mercy, that the Lord also may have compassion 
 and mercy on you" (Zebulon viii. i). 
 
 These two verses, which are possibly derived from Mk. xi. 25, are 
 additional evidence that the doxology is no part of the original text. As it 
 is, they come in somewhat awkwardly ; but after the doxology a return to a 
 petition in the Prayer would be still more strange. And it is worth noting 
 that Mk. xi. 25 is more suitable than Mt. v. 23, 24, which resembles it, to 
 an audience in Galilee. The case of ' offering thy gift at the altar ' would 
 come home to an audience in Jerusalem, accustomed to make offerings in the 
 Temple ; but ' whensoever ye stand praying ' would suit any Jewish audience. 
 It is not improbable that some of the material of which the Sermon as we 
 have it in Mt. is composed comes from teaching which was originally given 
 at Jerusalem. 
 
 The third illustration of the contrast between Pharisaic 
 practice and the Christian ideal \% fasting. As in the two other 
 cases, the illustration is introduced with a ' when ' or ' whenever ' 
 {oTdv), not with an 'if (eai/). It is assumed that the truly 
 religious man will fast, as it is assumed that he will give alms 
 and pray. The Pharisees made a parade of fasting twice a week, 
 Monday and Thursday, in addition to the annual fast prescribed 
 for all; hence the boast in the parable (Lk. xviii. 12). And they 
 let the world know that they were fasting by their sanctimonious 
 
VI. 16-19] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 105 
 
 behaviour. The unusual expression about their ' disfiguring their 
 faces ' has a parallel in the Testaments : tovto (this evil temper) 
 TO TTpoa-ioirov a(j>avi^eL {Zebulon viii. 6). I«oisy thinks that there 
 is wt jeii de mots between a.(^avitpv(jiv and <j)av<i>(nv, ' they dis- 
 figure . . . that they may figure.' If it is intentional, it is the 
 Evangelist's ; or his Greek source may have contrived it. It 
 would not be likely to exist in the original Aramaic : comp. 
 xxi. 41, xxiv. 30. 
 
 In ver. 18 Wellhausen would omit the tw before the first iv 
 T(3 Kpv(f>aLia and connect these three words with vrjfTTevwv — ' but 
 as fasting in secret.' This is arbitrary and without advantage. 
 
 There is no real difficulty in the fact that at this time our 
 Lord's disciples did not fast (ix. 14; Mk. ii. 18). Our Lord 
 knew that they would fast after His departure, and He here 
 provides principles for this form of discipline. Moreover, He is 
 here addressing a mixed multitude, most of whom were in 
 religion purely Jewish, and therefore needed instruction for their 
 daily lives. They were bound by law and custom to fast some- 
 times, and they might be quite right in adding voluntary fasts 
 sometimes to the fasts of obligation. Christ nowhere blames 
 the Pharisees for fasting ; it is fasting ostentatiously that is 
 condemned. 
 
 VI. 19-VII. 12. The Christian Life in its own working. 
 
 It is possible that the Evangelist has made one of his favourite 
 triplets in having three prohibitions in succession : ' Lay not up,' 
 etc. (19-34), 'Judge not' (vii. T-5), 'Give not,' etc. (vii. 6). 
 But the passages differ so greatly in length, that the arrangement 
 may be independent of the Evangelist's predilections. The first 
 passage (19-34) has no parallel in Lk.'s report of the Sermon; 
 the parallel material is found in four different places in his 
 Gospel (xii. 33, 34, xi. 34-36, xvi. 13, xii. 22-31). We are 
 therefore in doubt whether these sixteen verses are part of the 
 original Sermon. They fit in very well with the main theme, — 
 the requirements for those who enter the Kingdom, or the 
 elements of the ideal Christian character : to know where true 
 riches can be found is essential to true holiness. On the other 
 hand, the transition from fasting to treasures in heaven is abrupt, 
 and something may be missed out. But the only thing that is 
 of importance is secure ; we are here dealing with what at some 
 time or other was uttered by our Lord. 
 
 Two links of connexion with what precedes have been 
 suggested. The warning against the worldly-mindedness of 
 hypocritical almsgiving, prayer, and fasting is followed by a 
 warning against the worldly-mindedness of heaping up riches ; 
 
Io6 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VI. 19-23 
 
 and in the history of the Church avarice and empty religious 
 profession have often gone together from the days of Hophni 
 and Phinehas onwards. Again, the promise of a reward from 
 the Father which seeth in secret leads to a discussion of the 
 acquiring and storing such reward. There is yet another pos- 
 sible connexion. Christ has been warning His hearers against 
 Pharisaic hypocrisy. He now warns them against another vice 
 which was common among the Pharisees, that of avarice (Lk. 
 xvi. 14). The Pharisees were often wealthy, and believed their 
 wealth to be a reward for their zeal in keeping the Law. They 
 regarded themselves as conspicuous evidence of the connexion 
 between righteousness and riches ; and Christ, having shown 
 that their righteousness was no true righteousness, here goes on 
 to show that their wealth is no true riches. A Christian must 
 look elsewhere for his treasure. 
 
 The passage has three marked divisions : the heavenly 
 treasure (19-21), the single eye (22, 23), the banishment of 
 anxiety (24-34). 
 
 The warning supposes a. simple state of society, in which 
 wealth is hoarded in the house and consists partly of rich apparel. 
 The house also has mud walls, which can be dug through by 
 thieves. The contrast with heavenly treasure is obvious, and 
 this is one reason for preferring heavenly treasure.^ But there 
 is another reason, introduced by an important ' for ' : ' For where 
 thy treasure is, there will thy heart be also.' We must store our 
 wealth above, in order that our hearts may be drawn upwards. 
 The two act and react upon one another ; where our treasure is, 
 there will our hearts be ; and where our hearts are, there is our 
 treasure. In the Psalms of Solomon we have o iroiuiv Sikqioo-wt/v 
 Orjaavpc^ei, ^(07jv iavTui napa Kvpiui (ix. 9).^ 
 
 The metaphor of the eye in a moral sense (22) was common 
 among the Jews, a good eye signifying a generous soul, and an 
 evil eye a grasping and grudging one (Deut. xv. 9 ; Prov. xxiii. 6, 
 xxviii. 22). The way to keep the eye of the soul healthy is 
 generous almsgiving (Tob. iv. 7). To be miserly is to distort, 
 and at last to blind, the eye of the soul, so that it can no longer 
 see the true value of things (Hatch, JSssays in Bibl. Grk. p. 80). 
 
 ^ "Truly a good man, say the Rabbis, was King Munhaz. During a 
 famine he gave to the poor the treasury of his father. His relations upbraided 
 him : What thy father saved, tliou hast thrown away. Munhaz answered : 
 My father laid up treasure on earth ; I gather it in the heavens. My father 
 hoarded it where hands might steal ; I have placed it beyond the reach of 
 human hands. My father saved money ; I have saved life. My father saved 
 for others ; I save for myself My father saved for this world ; I save for 
 the next" (Talmud), Comp. Tob. iv. 7-9. 
 
 ^ In the Testaments we again have a parallel : iroiiJiraTe StKatocriii'riv iwl 
 TTjS 7^s, 'iva fSpijTe ev toIs ovpavoU [Levi xiii. 5). 
 
VI. 23, 24] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE IO7 
 
 Here, 'single' (a^XoSs) means 'free from distortion,' and hence 
 'liberal' (comp. 2 Cor. viii. 2, ix. 11, 13; Rom. xii. 8; Eph. 
 vi. 5 ; Col. ili. 22).! But the spiritual eye may be distorted and 
 darkened in other ways than by avarice, — by prejudice, or super- 
 stition. Jamais on ne fait le mal si pleine»ient que quand on le 
 fait par conscience (Pascal). 
 
 ' How great is the darkness ! ' i^o (tkoto^ ttoijov) possibly refers 
 to the original condition of the soul before that which ought to 
 have illuminated came. Some Latin texts have ipsm tenebrce 
 quantce, which seems to imply this meaning, while others have 
 simply tenebrcE quanta. If the opportunity for illumination has 
 been without effect, how hopeless must the darkness become ! 
 If that which ought to convey light is darkened, that which is by 
 nature dark must be dark indeed. 
 
 The next verse (24) connects the subject of the single eye 
 with that freedom from anxiety by pointing out the absorbing 
 character of the vice of avarice. ' No man can be a slave 
 (SowA.cueti') to two masters.' One or other will be his owner and 
 have absolute control over him, and all other claims on his 
 service will be entirely excluded.^ Avarice is the most exacting 
 of all vices ; it is never off its guard, and it never relaxes its hold. 
 Sights which make even the hardened sinner compassionate for 
 a brief space, make the miser draw his purse-strings the tighter. 
 The claims, not only of relations, friends, and country, but even 
 of honour, comfort, and health, are disregarded, when money is 
 at stake. Mammon ^ is here personified as the rival of God, and 
 all experience shows that he who has allowed himself to become 
 its slave can serve no one else ; least of all can he devote himself 
 to the service of Him who claims exclusive service. Devotion to 
 the service of money is the ' covetousness which is idolatry' 
 (Col. iii. 5). But neither here nor elsewhere is \k\e. possession of 
 wealth condemned : it is being enslaved to riches that is fatal, 
 and to possess great riches without being enslaved is not easy. 
 
 ^ Comp. Trope ('(iyitei'os iv aTr\6T7}TL dcpdaX^Cjv : and wope^^TaL 4v aTrXirT/rt 
 ypvxv^ . . ■ f^T] eiridexdfjiei^o^ d(f)6a\fio^s irovqpois {Issachar iii. 4, iv. 6) ; also 
 6 7ap 6.ya.Qh^ &vdpo}7ro^ ouk ex^^ ffKoreLvhv 6(pdaKfj.6v , ^Xeel 'yap irAvras, Khv 
 d/uaprwXoi Sxtlv [Benjamin iv. 2). 
 
 - Comp. hval yap Trddeaiv ivavriots SouXetJcf, Kal BetJj inraKouaaL oi) SOvarai 
 (Judah xviii. 6) ; and, for the use of di'T^x^"'^'" ™ a similar antithesis, "the 
 devil"will flee from you and the Angels will cleave to you" — avBi^ovrai 
 vuCjv (Naphlali viii. 4). 
 
 ' /na/iwi'Ss seems to be the correct spelling and accentuation, but the 
 derivation is uncertain. Augustine says : lucrum Pmiice mavunon diciiur : 
 sed qui servit mamiiionce, illi utique scrvit, qui magistratus hnjus seculi a 
 Domino dicitur [De Serm. Dom. II. xiv. 47) ; where the translation of 6 toC 
 Kda-/xoii TovToO &PX01V should be noticed. The Vulgate has princeps hujui 
 mundi. Comp, injustiticB cnim autoreni et dominatorem totius seculi num- 
 mum scimus omnes (Tert. Adv. Marc. iv. 33). 
 
Io8 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VI. 25-34 
 
 Wealth is a trust, not an absolute property, an instrument, not 
 an end. It is to be used, not for selfish enjoyment, but for the 
 well-being of ourselves and others. 
 
 The verses which follow (2 5-34) teach the duty of trust in 
 God's providential care, and the folly of over-anxiety about 
 bodily needs in the future. Covetousness and hoarding spring 
 from want of trust in God (Heb. xiii. 5) and end in the servile 
 worship of mammon. ' Therefore'' (8ia toEto Acyto iyuiv), seeing 
 that you must choose between the two, cease to be anxious 
 about worldly riches, and devote your affections and energies to 
 your heavenly Father. The threefold ' Be not anxious ' (/^^ 
 ficpi/jivaT€, jxy) /ji(pifi.vrj(TrjTe, 25, 31, 34) does not forbid foresight 
 and provision, but the anxiety (ncpi/xva) which distracts and 
 distresses.! The question, ' Is not the life more than the food, 
 etc.,' means that we are obliged to leave these more important 
 things to God ; then why can we not trust Him respecting the 
 less important ? AVe had nothing to do with the gift of life, or 
 with the formation of our bodies ; God determined all that. 
 Can we not believe that His interest in us will continue ? ^ui ciedit 
 animam multo facilius escam esse daturuni ?, as Augustine puts it ; 
 and he might have put it more strongly. Again, we cannot deter- 
 mine the length of the lives which have been given to us. We can 
 end them prematurely, but which of us, no matter how anxious 
 he is, can add a span to the age allotted to him ? ^ Let us trust 
 God for food and clothing, as we are obliged to trust Him for 
 body and life. We are the children of God; we believe that. 
 Then do let us believe that He loves us and cares for us, and 
 will bless the reasonable provision which we make in order not 
 to presume on His bounty. Reasonable, not unreasonable. 
 Anxiety about storing up great provision for the future is a subtle 
 form of the worship of mammon. It begins with prudent fore- 
 sight ; but it too often passes into regarding money as an end in 
 itself, and ends in making it a god, and a most tyrannical god. 
 It is perhaps right to say that we have three gradations 
 
 ' ' Be not careful ' in the earlier English Versions was better than ' take 
 no thought ' in the AV. But ' thought ' meant anxious care in the seventeenth 
 century ; i Sam. ix. 5. See Wright, The Bible Word-Book, p. 598; Davies, 
 Bible English, p. 100. 
 
 ''That riXiicla here means 'age' (Jn. ix. 21, 23 ; Heb. xi. 11) and not 
 'stature' (Lk. xix. 3) seems to be clear from the context, and still more so 
 from the context of Lk. xii. 25. No one thinks of adding a cubit to his 
 stature, although some try to add an inch. Many are anxious to add as 
 much as possible to the length of their lives. ' Age ' is advocated by Alford, 
 De Wette, Meyer, Olshausen, Stier, Tholuck, B. Weiss, Loisy, etc. On 
 the other side see Field (Otium Norvic. iii. p. 4), Bengel, Fritzsche. If 
 ' stature ' be adopted, the thought may be that God's care makes the infant 
 grow several cubits, but no human anxiety can make it grow one cubit. See 
 DCG., art. 'Age.' 
 
VI. 33, 34] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 109 
 
 {comme trois echelons successifs, P. Girodon, S. Luc, p. 342) : a 
 lesson for all, 'Beware of avarice' (24); a rule for disciples, 
 'Seek first the Kingdom' (33); and a counsel for some, 
 'Sell all and give to the poor' (xix. 21). And Chrysostom may 
 be right when he says that greed for riches destroys more souls 
 than the pursuit of pleasures. The former, unlike the latter, 
 tightens its grip with increasing years. While the one is often 
 recognized as folly, even by those who succumb to it, the other 
 is likely to be regarded as wisdom, even by some who are not 
 among its victims. The Talmud says : " Man is born with his 
 hands clenched ; he dies with them wide open. Entering life, he 
 desires to grasp everything ; leaving the world, all that he 
 possessed has slipped away" (Polano, p. 263). Then what folly 
 it is to be distracted with anxiety about amassing what must be 
 left behind ! 
 
 Here once more we seem to have an arrangement into a 
 group of seven. We can count seven arguments against over- 
 anxiety about providing for the future, i. There are more 
 important things to think about.i 2. Look at the birds, whom 
 God feeds. 3. Life cannot be prolonged beyond the allotted 
 time. 4. Look at the flowers, whom God clothes. 5. This over- 
 anxiety is heathenish. 6. God knows what your needs are. 
 7. Sufficient to each day is its evil. Sufficient, but not excessive. 
 Each day as it passes, proves that the previous anxiety about it 
 was unnecessary, for by God's help we have got through it. 
 Reasonable foresight is of course not forbidden ; Christ Himself 
 made provision for the future by means of the bag which Judas 
 kept. But trust in God must rule our foresight. ' Cast thy 
 burden {ttjv fxcpLfj-vdv aov) upon the Lord, and He will nourish 
 thee' (Ps. Iv. 22). 
 
 In ver. 33 we may suspect that both ' first ' and ' righteousness ' are additions 
 made by Mt. Neither is found in Lk. xii. 31 ; and throughout the Sermon 
 'righteousness' is emphasised in Mt. (v. 6, 10, 20, vi, i). In Lk. the 
 word is not found, excepting i. 75. And there are considerable variations of 
 reading here. E G K L M etc. , Syr-Cur. Vulg. have ' the Kingdom 0/ Cod 
 and His righteousness ' while K has ' the Kingdom and righteousness 0/ 
 God-^ B has Tr\v diKaL0(rvv7)v Kal ^aixiKsiav ai^roO, which may mean either 
 ' His righteousness and Kingdom ' or ' righteousness and His Kingdom ' ; 
 but the reading is not likely to be original. It looks like a correction to 
 place 'righteousness,' which is the means of entering the Kingdom, in a 
 more logical position. 
 
 Several Fathers quote a saying which maj- be an adaptation of this verse, 
 but which Resch (Agrapha, pp. ill, 112) believes to be unquestionably a 
 genuine utterance of Christ. It is given in its fullest form by Origen (De 
 Orat. 2; Op. i. p. 197) and by Ambrose (Ep. i. t,6 Ad Horont. 3 ; Op. viii. 
 445) : " Ask for the great things, and the small shall be added to you. Ask 
 
 ^ The introductory 5id rovra X^7w hylv (25) is found in Lk. (xii. 22) also, 
 but it refers to quite different premises (Wellhausen). 
 
I lO GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VI. 34 
 
 for the heavenly things, and the earthly shall be added to you." Origen 
 expressly attributes the saying to ' the Saviour,' and he quotes it several 
 times. Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius quote the first half, but Clement 
 seems to regard it as derived from Mt. vi. 33 [Strom. IV. vi. p. 579). 
 Eusebius, like Origen, expressly attributes it to 'the Saviour.' Their both 
 using this expression looks as if they were quoting from a collection of the 
 Saviour's utterances : A^7a 6 2wT)}p. Clement says simply i/>i;(ri, and 
 Ambrose says Scriptum est. 
 
 The Oxyrhynchus Logion ii. is possibly an adaptation of ver. 33. The 
 Greek is unusual, but the general sense seems to be clear. Kiyei 'Ii)<rous, ^a;' 
 ju^ vTjaTeucTjTe t6v K6a/j.ov oi) /xtj eOptjre tt]v (BacriKeiav toG QeoO ' Kal eav fxi) aap^a- 
 Tto-Tjre t6 (rdjS^aroi^ ovk b\pecrde rhv IlaT^pa. *' Jesus saith. Except ye fast to 
 the world, ye shall in no wise find the Kingdom of God ; and except ye keep 
 the sabbath, ye shall not see the Father." In the Septuagint we have <ra(3;8a- 
 rl^eiv rk a-d/S/Sara (Lev. xxiii. 32 ; 2 Chron. xxvi. 21), but nowhere has such 
 a construction as vriirreieiv rbv k6itij,ov been found. Grenfell and Hunt, A6710 
 'IijaoO, 1897, pp. 10, 1 1 ; Lock and Sanday, Two Lectures on the ' Sayings of 
 Jesus,^ 1897, pp. 19, 20; Resch, Agrapha, p. 68. 
 
 The concluding verse (34) has no parallel in Lk. It may be the Evan- 
 gelist's own comment, either as a summary of the preceding teaching, or an 
 addition to make a seventh argument. The paragraph would end more 
 forcibly at ver. 33, and the addition does not rise much higher than strong 
 common sense. That does not make it unworthy of Christ, but it makes it 
 within reach of the Evangelist's production. It amounts to this. Why 
 double your cares by anticipating them ? Each day brings its own cares ; 
 and it is foolish to add the cares of to-morrow to those of to-day. To-day's 
 burden is increased, without to-morrow's being made lighter. Allen quotes 
 from Sanhedrin 100b: "Trouble not thyself about the trouble of the 
 morrow, for thou knowest not what a day brings forth. Perhaps on the 
 morrow thou wilt not exist, and so thou wilt have troubled about that 
 which does not exist for thee." 
 
 Characteristic expressions in ch. vi. : iiTro/cpiTijs (2, 5, 16), (palvtaBai 
 (5, 16, 17), TraTTjp 6 iv rots ovpavoit (9), yevTjdriTU} (lo), 0Tj(Tavp6s (19, 20, 21), 
 ^vdufia {25, 28), avfdycLv (26). Peculiar to Mt. : d iraTTjp 6 oOpdpoLS (14, 26, 
 32) ; peculiar to this chapter : fiaTToKoyeti' (7), TrohvKoyla (7), Kpvcpalos {18), 
 Kara/xavBdveiv (28). The word rafieiov is peculiar to Mt. (6, xxiv. 26) and Lk. 
 (xii. 3, 24). The AV. varies between 'closet,' 'secret chamber,' and 'store- 
 house'; the RV. has 'store-chamber,' Lk. xii. 24, but elsewhere 'inner 
 chamber.' The Latin renderings vary greatly : cubictdiim, cubile, cellariiiiit, 
 prontptuarium. promptalia^ peneti-alia^ penetrabilia, hospituon^ domus. See 
 Ronsch, Itala itnd Viilgata, pp. 32 and 48; DCG., art. 'Closet.' 
 
 VII. 1-5. The warning against heaping up riches is followed 
 by a warning against criticizing others. It is possible that here 
 again, as perhaps in vi. 19-34, Christ is selecting a fault for 
 condemnation, because it was common among Pharisaic pro- 
 fessors of righteousness, and that this is one of the links of 
 connexion. 1 Btit in neither case is the condemnation to be 
 restricted to any particular class. The love of money is perilous 
 to all, and not merely to Pharisees ; and so also is the love of 
 
 ^ But the warning of Maldonatus [ad loc. ) is constantly to be kept in 
 mind : Ego jam momii non esse anxie qiicerendam in Evangelistis senten- 
 tiar-um connexioneni, quia res non eo ordine scribere votuerunt quo factce a 
 dtristo vel dicta sunt. See the whole passage. 
 
VII. 1-5] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 1 1 
 
 passing judgment upon our neighbours.' It is possible that our 
 Lord is here quoting or alluding to current sayings, similar to 
 our proverb about "those who live in glass houses." The 
 Sermon abounds in sayings which have passed into proverbs, 
 and which may have been such before Christ uttered them. 'A 
 city set on a hill' (v. 14). ' Let not thy left hand know' (vi. 3). 
 'Where thy treasure is' (vi. 21). 'No man can serve two 
 masters' (vi. 24). 'Is not life more than food?' (vi. 25). 
 ' Sufficient unto the day ' (vi. 34). ' With what measure ye mete ' 
 (vii. 2). 'Cast not your pearls' (vii. 6). The broad and the 
 narrow way (vii. 13, 14). 'By their fruits ye shall know them' 
 (vii. 16, 20). The mote and the beam may easily have been 
 current. The avoidance of criticisms on oneself is neither 
 the only nor the highest motive for abstaining from criticizing 
 others. Christ's warning rises higher than this. Just as the 
 forgiveness of others prepares us to receive the forgiveness of 
 God, so our condemnation of others prepares the way for His 
 condemnation of us.^ We are using a severe standard, which 
 will be disastrous when applied to ourselves. That people are 
 paid back in their own measure is a saying which is given in 
 different contexts (Mk. iv. 24 ; Lk. vi. 38) with different meanings. 
 Its meaning here is clear : criticism provokes criticism similar 
 to itself. 
 
 The parable of the mote and the beam carries us further. 
 The censorious temper is unchristian ; it is a violation of the law 
 of love. It means that we pay an amount of attention to the 
 faults of others which ought to be paid to our own, and that of 
 our own faults we have a very inadequate appreciation.^ If we 
 knew how worthy of blame we ourselves are, we should be much 
 less ready to blame others. No one likes adverse criticism, and 
 he who loves his neighbour as himself will be loath, rather than 
 eager, to criticize others adversely. And every one who is in 
 earnest knows how faulty his own life is, and for this reason will 
 be less ready to judge others. Censoriousness reverses all this. 
 The man who habitually busies himself with the supposed 
 delinquencies of others is not likely to investigate or to realize 
 his own grievous offences. And we are all of us prone to 
 
 ^ Hence the present imperative, fii] Kplvere, ' Cease to pass judgment ' ; as 
 if every one transgressed in this way. Contrast the aorist imperatives in 
 ver. 6. The mote and the beam are examples of Oriental hyperbole. 
 
 ^ We have the same thought in the Testaments : ef ti av 7ro«j<ri) tiJ wX-q^iov 
 a^ov, oijTCi} KijpLos TroLTjcrei fier' avrou {Zed. v. 3). As Loisy points out {Le 
 Discours sur la Montague, p. 114), ' Judge not, and ye shall not be judged ' 
 is a kind of inversion of the Le.x talionis. 
 
 ^ In illustration of d0ES ix^aXti}, J. H. Moulton quotes from a papyrus of 
 the Roman period {O.P. 413), (S0es i-fii a\nr[v 9pr\vii<!v {Gram, of N.T. Gr. 
 P- 175). 
 
1 1 2 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VII. 1-5 
 
 suspect in the conduct of others precisely those faults of which 
 we are frequently guilty ourselves. S. James carries us a step 
 further, and shows that the self-constituted censor invades the 
 judgment-seat of God (iv. ii, i2).i 
 
 But, although we can refrain from expressing unfavourable 
 judgments of others, and although we can be charitable in our 
 unexpressed judgments, yet there are cases in which the 
 judgment, whether expressed or not, must be unfavourable. 
 In dealing with others we must take into account what we know 
 of their conduct and character. This prudent circumspection 
 is specially necessary in the Christian minister. The Gospel has 
 to be preached to all, but not to all at the same time or in the 
 same way. In many cases an opportunity must be waited for; 
 and the hoary sinner will need different treatment from the 
 ignorant lad. The preciousness of the preacher's message makes 
 it all the more necessary that he should deliver it with discretion. 
 Many are repelled by the tactless way in which they are 
 approached, and behave themselves towards holy things as dogs 
 or swine, when they might have been won over as sheep. We 
 have similar counsel in Proverbs : ' He who corrects a scoffer 
 gets insult. And he who reproves a wicked man, reviling. 
 Reprove not a scoffer, lest he hate thee ; Reprove a wise man, 
 and he will love thee ' (ix. 7,8). ' Speak not in the ears of a fool ; 
 For he will despise the wisdom of thy words ' (xxiii. 9 ; see Toy, 
 ad loc). The verse (6) has no parallel in Lk., and though it 
 may be connected with what precedes, yet it seems to have little 
 in common with what follows. It has many adaptations, and is 
 a basis for the principle of 'economy' in the communication of 
 religious truth,^ and for the protection of sacred rites from 
 profanation. " Let no one eat or drink of your eucharist, except 
 those baptized into the name of the Lord ; for as regards this 
 the Lord has said. Give not that which is holy to the dogs " 
 {Didacke ix. 5). Of heretics who admitted all sorts, even heathen, 
 to their services, Tertullian says : " That which is holy they will 
 cast to the dogs, and pearls (although, to be sure, they are not 
 real ones) to swine " {De Prcescr. xli). Similar applications are 
 frequent in the Fathers, in Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Basil, 
 
 ' See the Expositor's Bible, ad. loc. pp. 251-260. Here the change from 
 ' see ' i^X^-reis) to ' perceive ' or ' notice ' (/caraKOfis) is required by the figure. 
 A man cannot see what is in his own eye, though he may be aware of it and 
 consider it. David's anger against the rich man who had taken the poor 
 man's lamb illustrates the parable of the mote and the beam. He pronounced 
 judgment on himself in what he thought was righteous indignation against 
 another. 
 
 The Oxyrhynchus Legion is closer to Lk. vi. 42 than to Mt. vii. 5. See 
 Grenfell and Hunt, p. 10. 
 
 ^ See DCG., art. ' Accomrnodation,' 
 
VII. 7-12] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE II 3 
 
 Gregory Nazianzen, Jerome, etc.i It is possible that to aytoi/ 
 means that which has been offered in sacrifice. 
 
 The exhortation to earnest prayer (7-1 1) is found in Lk. 
 immediately after the parable of the Friend at Midnight 
 (xi. 5-13). In both we have present imperatives (aireiTe, ^ijTcire, 
 Kpou'ere) : ' Continue to ask, seek, knock.' We are not to cease 
 praying, because there is no apparent answer to our prayers. 
 The threefold expression gives emphasis to the command, and 
 was evidently in the source used by both Evangelists. On the 
 other hand, we are not to suppose that the object of persevering 
 prayer is to overcome the Father's unwillingness. His desire 
 to help is always there : by perseverance in asking we appropriate 
 it. Of the parent's incredible conduct Lk. has three illustrations, 
 adding ' egg and scorpion ' to ' bread and stone ' and ' fish and 
 serpent ' ; but the text there is confused. In each case there is 
 a rough resemblance between what the child asks for and the 
 parent is supposed to offer. The parent may possibly refuse, 
 but will he mock his child with what is useless or harmful P^ 
 
 ' If ye then, being evil ' (tt ovv vjxw, Trovrjpol ovres). The 
 serene, but emphatic manner in which Christ separates Himself 
 from His hearers in this particular is very impressive. Lk. is 
 still stronger : ' If ye, being evil from the first, being by nature 
 evil ' {TTovrjpoi vTrdp^ovTes). We are perhaps not to understand 
 wickedness in general as included in ' evil,' but rather the special 
 vice of niggardliness, as in the 'evil eye' (vi. 23). Those who 
 are commonly disposed to be grudging nevertheless make an 
 exception in the case of their own children. They do not 
 always give exactly what is asked for, for children often ask for 
 what is not good for them, but they give, and give what is good. 
 Will the heavenly Father do less ? ^ But we must ask for what 
 we believe to be in accordance with His will, and we must ask 
 in submission to His will (Jas. iv. 3). 
 
 In the Golden Rule (i2)-the Sermon reaches its climax; it is 
 "the capstone of the whole discourse." The 'therefore' with 
 which it is introduced does not fit on very well to the preceding 
 
 ^ It is pvobable that both ' dogs ' and ' swine ' are the nominatives of 
 'trample,' 'turn' and 'rend.' But some would make ' dogs ' the subject of 
 'turn and rend,' and 'swine' the subject of 'trample.' To the Jew both 
 swine and dogs were unclean. See Tristram, A'at. Hist, of the Bible, p. 79. 
 
 2 It is suggested that 'serpent' (if0is) means an eel, which might not be 
 eaten : ' Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that is an abomina- 
 tion unto you' (Lev. xi. 12). We cannot safely infer from this passage or 
 xix. 29 that several of the Apostles were married and had children ; but it 
 is not improbable. Comp. I Cor. ix. 5. We know that Peter was married 
 (viii. 14). 
 
 •* " Even when the gates of prayer are shut in heaven, those of tears are 
 open'' (Talmud): note the contrast between drffpairos (9) and ec rocs 
 ovpcLfoh (11). 
 
114 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VII. 12, 13 
 
 verse : perhaps it looks back to vii. i, 2. In Lk. it follows what 
 is parallel to v. 42, which makes a very suitable conjunction. 
 The negative form of the precept, ' Do that to no man which thou 
 hatest' (Tob. iv. 15), seems to have been common among the 
 Rabbis. It is found in Isocrates, in Philo, and in the Stoics. ^ It 
 need not rise much above calculating prudence, which avoids 
 provoking retaliation ; and it cannot rise above mere abstention 
 from inflicting pain. At its best, it falls immeasurably short 
 of the positive rule given by Christ. The rule has the widest 
 possible sweep : ' All things whatsoever ye would that men should 
 do unto you ' ; which in Lk. is expressed by ' exactly as ' (xa^cos). 
 It is of course assumed that men wish to have done to them what 
 is really good for them : wishes for what is pleasant but harmful 
 are not included. The concluding words, ' For this is the Law 
 and the Prophets,' look back to v. 17. So far from destroying 
 the Law and the Prophets, Christ preaches a doctrine which sums 
 up all their teaching respecting the duty of man to man. What 
 we desire from our neighbours is love, — true, constant, discerning 
 love : and it is from our experience of our own needs in this 
 respect that we can discern how much love of the same kind 
 we owe to others. See Hort, Judaistic Christianity, p. 20. The 
 omission of ' all ' or ' the whole ' before ' the Law ' here, and its 
 insertion xxii. 40 {o\o% 6 v6fj.o<;), is very intelligible. Here only 
 the love of man to his neighbour is under consideration, while 
 there both the love of man to God and the love of man to 
 man are prescribed. 
 
 It was probably a new thing to Christ's hearers that the 
 Prophets should be placed on a level with the Law, and this was 
 frequently done by Him: v. 17, xi. 13, xxii. 40; Lk. xvi. 16, 
 xxiv. 44. The combination is not found in Mk. or Jn., and 
 Mk. does not mention the Law, which to his readers had little 
 interest. 
 
 "VII. 13-23. Exhortation to enter the Christian Life, 
 avoiding False Guides and False Professions. 
 
 The Epilogue to the Sermon, which begins here, contains 
 three pairs of contrasts, the broad and the narrow ways, the 
 good and the bad trees, the well-built and the ill-built houses. 
 The two first pairs belong to this section. 
 
 We may connect the charge to enter the narrow way with 
 the Golden Rule by the thought that to carry the rule into effect 
 
 ' It is also found in some texts of Acts xv. 2S, as to what was to be 
 required of Gentile converts : ijuiccunqtie voUs fieri non vultis, alii ne feceritis 
 {Iran. in. xii. 14; Cypr. Test. iii. 119). 6<ra fiij B^Xere iavrois yelpecyeai iripif 
 ix^ Troieli' {Cod. D). 
 
VII. 13-23] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE IIS 
 
 is indeed a hard matter. But in Lk. (xiii. 23, 24) this charge is 
 given in a very different connexion, viz. in answer to the question 
 whether those who are in the way of salvation (ot o-wfd/xevot) are 
 few. The gate (Mt.) or door (Lk.) is that which leads to the 
 Kingdom, and we have thus returned to the thought with which 
 the Sermon began, — admission to the Kingdom (v. 3).i_ The ■ 
 way to it is the righteousness which is sketched in the Beatitudes. 
 We might turn this charge into a Beatitude. Blessed are they 
 that seek the way of righteousness, for they shall escape destruc- 
 tion, or they shall find the Kingdom. Many enter the broad 
 way, because it requires no self-discipline, and therefore seems 
 to promise greater freedom. And its popularity makes it easy 
 enough to find. The way that leads to life is so little trodden, 
 on account of its apparent difficulty, that it is not easy to find.^ 
 This fact has often impressed thinkers in their classifications of 
 mankind ; knaves and fools are many, while good and wise men 
 are few. 'There be many created, but few shall be saved' 
 (2 Esdr. viii. 3 ; comp. vii. 3-9). But for the ignorance and 
 folly of the majority, the proportions would be reversed. The 
 restrictions of the narrow way are not infringements of hberty 
 but protections against evil : they result in a service which is 
 perfect freedom. Indeed Christ Himself is the Way, the 
 Messiah who is the bringer of freedom. In this world there 
 must be restrictions, there must be a yoke and a burden ; but 
 the yoke is easy, and the burden light, — far lighter than that 
 which accumulates on the broad way. By ' life ' we are to 
 understand 'eternal life,' 'the life that is life indeed,' which 
 later Jewish literature commonly described as the ' life of the 
 age to come.'^ But the difference between Jewish teaching 
 and Christ's is this, that eternal life is to be won in no other 
 way than by righteousness in this life : descent from Abraham 
 is of no value. See Dalman, Words of Jesus, pp. 156-162. 
 
 In the Book of the Secrets of Enoch (xxx. 15) God is repre- 
 sented as placing the two ways before Adam. " And I gave 
 him his will, and I showed him the two ways, the light and the 
 darkness. And I said to him, ' This is good, and this is evil ' ; 
 that I should know whether he has love for Me or hate ; that 
 
 ' Lk. omits ' the way' (t) obb$), and his entrance is the door of a house ; 
 while that in Mt. is the gate of a city. But ^ iriXri here may be an insertion 
 (ii, Old Latin and many Fathers omit), and we should read : ' for wide and 
 broad is the way.' 
 
 ^ In the Jllva^ or Tabula of Cebes (xvi.), who was a disciple of Socrates, 
 it is said : " Dost thou not see a little door, and a way in front of the door, 
 which is not much crowded, but the travellers are few ? That is the way 
 that leadeth to the true instruction." But the Jewish two ways may be found 
 Jer. xxi. 8 ; Ps. i. 6 ; Deut. xxx. 19. 
 
 ^ Comp. xix. 16. This use of ' life ' (fuij) is not common in the Synoptics, 
 but is very frequent in Jn. (iii. 36, v. 24, 29, 40, vi. 33, 35, 51, etc.). 
 
Il6 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VII. 15-20 
 
 he should appear in his race as loving Me." Comp. 'Your God 
 proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God ' 
 (Deut. xiii. 3). It is man's love that is desired by God. It is 
 by man's fault that the good way now seems hard, and the evil 
 way easy. See Polano, The Talmud, p. 281. 
 
 If we want to find the right way, we must beware of untrust- 
 worthy guides (15-20). In this context, 'false prophets' can 
 hardly refer to any but Scribes and Pharisees ; but the saying 
 is of far wider application. By the 'sheep's clothing' we are 
 not to understand the usual dress of a Prophet, which does not 
 seem to have been of wool but of hair (Zech. xiii. 4). It is a 
 symbol for an innocent, lamb-like appearance, craftily assumed 
 for an evil purpose. ' Wolves ' for the enemies of God's flock 
 is an Old Testament metaphor (Ezek. xxii. 27; Zeph. iii. 3), 
 and they are called 'ravening' {apTrayes:), because they are greedy 
 of gain and of power. Their hypocrisy is so consummate, that 
 they are difficult to detect. Nevertheless, their conduct is sure 
 to betray them. 
 
 The illustration from good and worthless trees is found again 
 in Jas. iii. 11, 12, where we probably have echoes of Christ's 
 teaching as remembered by the Lord's brother. Christ Himself 
 seems to have used the illustration more than once (xii. 33), 
 and He was perhaps using one that was current (comp. Gal. v. 
 22). Arrian, the pupil of Epictetus, writing about a century 
 later, asks, "How can a vine grow, not vinewise, but olivewise, 
 or an olive, on the other hand, not olivewise, but vinewise ? It 
 is impossible" (ii. 20). And Seneca says that evil is not derived 
 from good, any more than a fig-tree from an olive. " Like root, 
 like fruit " is the teaching of common experience (comp. Gal. 
 vi. 7), and the false teacher will in time reveal his root.^ In any 
 case his doom is certain (19, iii. 10). 
 
 Verse 15 has no parallel in Lk., and it is manifest that the test of fruit- 
 bearing is one which is applicable to all persons and is not confined to 
 prophets. That there will be false prophets is among the predictions 
 included in the apocalyptical discourse in Mk. (xiii. 22). As we know 
 from the Didache (xi. 3-12) and other sources, abuses in connexion with 
 the itinerant prophets began very early in the primitive Church : see Schaff's 
 edition, p. 69. Wellhausen remarks: Die fahrenden Propheten miissen fiir 
 die christliclie Gemeinde eine walire Lavdplage getvesen sczii (p. 33). It is 
 possible that Mt. knew from experience that our Lord's test needed to be 
 employed in the case of such people, and the test is in marked contrast to 
 that which is suggested in the Didache. 
 
 But we have not only to beware of the misleading which 
 comes from others, we must be still more on our guard against 
 
 ' The illustration does not tell us hov) character is formed. Man forms 
 his own character, a tree does not. But the character, however it be formed, 
 shows itself in the fruit. 
 
VII. Sl-23] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 117 
 
 the misleading wiiich comes from ourselves: false professions 
 may be worse than false prophets (21-23). We may deceive 
 ourselves as to the sincerity of our expressions of devotion to 
 Christ. They may be frequent, and even fervent, and yet be 
 quite worthless. They may have been so fervent that they have 
 influenced others for good, have cast out demons, and produced 
 wonderful results. In spite of all that, they may be worthless, 
 because they have lacked reality : they have not been done in 
 the spirit of that love, without which all profession, even if it be 
 made 'with the tongues of Angels,' is no better than 'sounding 
 brass' (i Cor. xiii. i). The outward ascription of honour to 
 Christ is worth little, unless there is also inward loyalty to His 
 will. The threefold repetition of ' in Thy Name,' which in the 
 Greek is in all three cases placed first with emphasis, shows that 
 they could claim to have paid outward homage to Jesus as the 
 Messiah. 1 And this of course was not wrong. The saying of 
 ' Lord, Lord ' is not condemned ; but the mere saying of it will 
 not secure entrance into the Kingdom. Orthodoxy without love, 
 without the will to do the Father's will, is of no avail. 
 
 ' Then will I profess unto them ' is said with manifest reference 
 to their profession, although the word is not used of their claim. 
 They have professed the closest intimacy with Him, and have 
 made free and frequent use of His Name : but He disclaims all 
 acquaintance with them. They do not possess the character- 
 istics which He can recognize. ' Depart from Me, (all) ye 
 workers of iniquity ' is from Ps. vi. 9 ; and it is worth noting 
 that Mt. retains the word used in the Septuagint, 'lawlessness' 
 (dfo^ia), which represents the Jewish point of view, while Lk. 
 (xiii. 27) has 'iniquity' or 'injustice' {c&iKia), which represents 
 the Greek point of view.^ Wickedness in general is what is 
 meant. Separation from Christ is the penalty, and the sentence 
 of banishment is pronounced by Christ Himself. Once more 
 we must remark with what royal assurance Jesus speaks of His 
 own authority as the final Judge of mankind, and implies that 
 banishment from His presence is a punishment of the utmost 
 gravity. And it is also to be noted what it is that He here 
 condemns as 'iniquity.' Not acts of fraud, or violence, or 
 
 ^ Lk. (xiii. 26) has 'we did eat and drink in Thy presence^ {^vibirtSv (rov). 
 Justin Martyr (Apol. i. 16; Try. 76) mixes the two passages: 'Did we not 
 eat and drink z« Thy natnel' Origen (Cels. ii. 49) does the same. It is 
 clear that this passage cannot refer to the beginning of Christ's Ministry. 
 There were then no people who hypocritically professed to be devoted to 
 Him. Bengel adds to these professions, "We have written commentaries on 
 the Old and New Testaments ; we have preached splendid sermons." 
 
 ^ No other Evangelist uses dpo/^ia : Mt. has it again xiii. 41, xxiii. 28, 
 xxiv. 12 ; and in xiii. 41, as here, it is in connexion with the Day of Judgment. 
 This revelation of Himself as Judge cannot belong to His early teaching. 
 
I 1 8 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VII. 24-37 
 
 sensuality; but the religious professions of those who know 
 and do not practise ; who can see, and perhaps feel, the beauty 
 of His teaching and character, and can inspire others with a 
 love for it which has no place in themselves. It is " the piety 
 of sentiment" that is thus condemned (P. Girodon, S. Luc, 
 P- 237)- 
 
 VII. 24-29. The Judgments which await the Members 
 of the Kingdom. 
 
 In both reports of the Sermon the parable of the Wise and 
 Foolish Builders forms the impressive conclusion, and the most 
 impressive phrase in it is the repeated and very comprehensive 
 introduction to each half of it: ^ Every one which heareth these 
 words of Mine.' 1 The well-being or ruin of every one of those 
 who hear what has just been spoken is to depend upon whether 
 they obey or not. The claim is tremendous, and it is made, as 
 before, with such serene confidence, as of a Teacher who has no 
 shade of doubt as to His own authority, or as to the supreme 
 importance to His hearers of the message which He brings. 
 And this enormous claim is made without argument or 
 production of credentials : quiet assertion is the only instrument 
 that is used : ' I say to you.' The Carpenter of Nazareth stands 
 before the whole race of mankind and tells them that He has 
 laid down principles of conduct for the guidance of every one of 
 them, and that they will neglect His precepts at their peril. He 
 "stood forth as a Legislator, not as a commentator, and 
 commanded and prohibited, and repealed, and promised, on 
 His own bare word." And it is a remarkable thing that so many 
 of those who would regard Him ais only the best of human 
 teachers, nevertheless admit the majestic authority of His 
 teaching (see Maclaren, ad loc). 
 
 Throughout this epilogue to the Sermon (13-27), as else- 
 where, Jesus divides mankind into two classes and no more ; 
 either on the narrow or on the broad way ; either a good tree or 
 a corrupt one ; either a wise or a foolish builder ; ^ in a word, 
 either for Christ or against Him. It may be very hard, in most 
 
 ' The parable is an expansion of Prov. x. 25 : ' When the whirlwind 
 passeth, the wicked is no more : But the righteous is an everlasting founda- 
 tion.' Comp. Prov. i. 26-33, ""• 7i xiv. 11 ; and see Toy in each place. 
 
 ^ As in the parable of the Ten Virgins, it is the wisdom and folly of the 
 agents that is insisted upon, rather than their religious character. This is 
 frequent in Christ's teaching and in Scripture generally. It is often more 
 easy to judge of wisdom and folly ; and by many people this point of view is 
 more readily appreciated than the moral one. In Lk. there are no adjectives 
 applied to the builders, neither <pp6vifio9 nor /xupds, which are the epithets 
 used of the Wise and Foolish Virgins. Both words are more common in 
 Mt. than elsewhere in the N.T. 
 
VII. S4-28] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE II9 
 
 cases, for us to decide to which class ofher people belong ; there 
 seem to be endless gradations, without a decisive line anywhere. 
 And it is our wisdom to assume that all, about whom any doubt 
 is possible (that is, the enormous majority), are on the right side 
 of the line, wherever the line may be. God knows, and we 
 leave all that flows from that knowledge to Him. But about 
 ourselves, each one of us knows, not indeed as well as He does 
 (far from it), but sufificiently well to form a judgment on which to 
 act. Do we know that we are trying to live according to the 
 Sermon on the Mount ? If not, the warning about the Foolish 
 Builder is for us. 
 
 The metaphor of building is specially appropriate. The man 
 is not pitching a tent for a few hours, or at most for a few days, 
 with the probability of being able to move it in case of danger, 
 but building a house to dwell in permanently, with the certainty 
 that danger must arise sometimes. And that is what we are 
 employed upon here : each one is building up his character, — 
 that character which is the one thing which he can take with 
 him, which he must take with him, into the other world. And 
 the choice which he has is not between building and not building 
 (he must build some kind of character), but between building 
 well and building foolishly. And the only way to build well is 
 to build upon a rock, the rock of Christ's teaching and Christ's 
 example. But Divine instruction, intended for building up, 
 must, if neglected, result in disastrous ruin.^ ' Great was the 
 fall thereof does not mean that the building was a large one, 
 but that the whole edifice fell (or 'fell in,' o-vi/eTreaev, as Lk. says), 
 so that the ruin was complete. The warning applies to small 
 characters as well as great, to the humblest disciples as well as 
 to Apostles; and the whole audience is left with the crash of 
 the unreal disciple's house sounding in their ears. 'When Jesus 
 ended these words ' it was ' l/ie multitudes ' who ' were astonished 
 at His teaching ' ; ^ and, according to both reports, the last word 
 which fell upon their ears was ' great ' : ' the fall thereof was 
 great.' 
 
 The formula, ' It came to pass when Jesus ended ' (^v^s'eTo St€ iriXeacv 6 
 'Iijaovs), occurs after all the five great discourses in Mt. (vii. 28, xi. I, xiii. 53, 
 xix. I, xxvi. i). This produces the impression that the Evangelist intends us 
 to understand that, in each case, all the words in the preceding discourse 
 were uttered at one and the same time ; whereas it is almost certain that in 
 each case the discourse is a compilation. With regard to this difficulty we 
 may choose one of these three alternatives, (i) Mt. thought that the time at 
 
 ' " Rabba said : Holy Writ does not tell us that to sititfy God's commands 
 shows a good understanding, but to do them. We must learn, however, 
 before we can perform ; and he who acts contrary through life to the teaching 
 of the Most High had iDetter never have been born " (Talmud). 
 
 ^ For the meaning of e^oxjcrla see Abbott, fohannine Vocabulary, 1562 ff. 
 
I20 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VII. S8, 29 
 
 which the sayings were delivered was of no importance, and that he was quite 
 free to assign any time that he pleased to them. They were the words of the 
 Messiah ; that was all that was important : an EvangeUst might arrange them 
 as he found convenient, or thought most effective for his purpose. (2) Mt. 
 had no intention of fixing any times for these five collections of sayings ; in 
 using this formula he was merely marking the conclusion of a particular 
 section of the Gospel. (3) The sayings had already been collected into set 
 discourses in the sources which he used, and he himself believed that each 
 had been uttered as -^ whole at the time indicated. In the last case, the 
 formula, ' It came to pass when Jesus ended,' may not be the Evangelist's 
 own remark, but may have come from the source. It is in favour of this that 
 the expression 'it came to pass when ' (i-^ivtro Ste) occurs nowhere else in 
 Mt., but only in these five passages (see Hawkins, Hora Syn. pp. 132 f.). 
 
 For the great impression which Christ's teaching made upon His hearers 
 comp. xiii. 54, xxii. 22, 33 ; Mk. i. 22, vi. 2, xi. 18 ; Lk. iv. 22, 32 ; 
 Jn. vii. 15, 46. 
 
 With the vcords, 'were astonished at His teaching,' ^ Mt. 
 returns to the narrative of Mk. (i. 22), into which he has 
 inserted three chapters. He follows Mk. in saying that it was 
 the authoritative manner of teaching that so amazed them. The 
 Rabbis were accustomed to quote some authority for what they 
 said, either Scripture, or tradition, or the utterance of some 
 teacher of repute. Christ spoke on His own authority, an 
 authority which He sometimes said that He had received from 
 the Father (xxviii. 18; Jn. v. 27, x. 18, xvii. 2), but which He 
 seems, as a rule, to have allowed to make itself felt without 
 support or justification. He habitually taught i^v SiSolctkoiv) in 
 this unusual manner ; and, while it was often resented by those 
 who taught in the traditional way, it made the people very 
 attentive to hear Him, they 'hung upon Him, listening' (Lk. 
 xix. 48). But neither this nor His miracles caused Him to be 
 commonly recognized as the Messiah. The Baptist's witness to 
 His Messiahship had not been heard by very many, and had 
 been perhaps forgotten. The multitudes regarded Him rather 
 as a great Prophet, either a new one or one of the old ones risen 
 again. 
 
 Justin M. {Try, 35) gives as sayings of Christ two different quotations of 
 ver. 15, in the first case mixing it with xxiv. 5, and between these quotations 
 he gives as a saying of Christ what seems to be a reminiscence of i Cor. 
 xi. 18, 19. "For He said: Many shall come in My name, outwardly clad 
 in skins of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. And : There shall 
 be schisms and heresies. And : Beware of false prophets, who shall come to 
 you, outwardly clad in skins of sheep, but within they are ravening wolves." 
 In the Clementine Homilies (xvi, 21) we have a similar mixture of Matthew 
 and Corinthians quoted as a saying of Christ. "For there will be, as the 
 Lord said, false apostles (2 Cor. xi. 13), false prophets, heresies (i Cor. 
 xi. 19), lustings for rule " (^iXapxitti, frequent in Plutarch). See small print 
 at the end of ch. xxiv. 
 
 ^ The force of the imperfect, e^eirXljcraoyTo, is that they were more and 
 more amazed, their astonishment went on and on. 
 
VIII. 1] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 121 
 
 ' Ravening wolves in sheep's clothing ' is the first of the stern 
 metaphors directed against the Pharisees which have been 
 preserved by Mt. alone. Conip. 'blind guides' (xv. 14, xxiii. 
 16, 24), and ' whited sepulchres, outwardly beautiful, but full 
 of all uncleanness ' (xxiii. 27). Other graphic traits of these 
 hypocrites are their ' sounding a trumpet before them ' when 
 they give alms (vi. 2), their 'laying heavy burdens' on others and 
 not stirring a finger to remove them (xxiii. 4), and their ' straining 
 out a gnat,' while they 'swallow a camel' (xxiii. 24): and all 
 these are given by Mt. alone. 
 
 Ch. vii. is not very full of expressions which are characteristic of Mt. 
 We have Kai Idoij {4), UTroKptrrfS (5), 6 -jrarTjp 6 iv rois oufiavoU (ll, 21), 
 iv5vij.a (15), <rairp6s (17, 18), <pp6iitfios (24), fiupds (26). Peculiar to Mt. : i] 
 ^atnXeia tGiv oipavGiv ; peculiar to this chapter: TrXarus {13), eOpvx^^pos (13), 
 ^poxv (25, 27)- 
 
 VIII. 1-IX. 34. Illustrations of the Messiah's Work. 
 Typical Miracles. 
 
 Mt. omits the healing of the demoniac in the synagogue at 
 Capernaum (Mk. i. 23-28; Lk. iv. 33-36), and transfers to the 
 first place the healing of a leper, which Mk. places later, but 
 without saying when it took place (i. 40-45; Lk. v. 12-16). 
 No doubt Mt. had reasons for this change, but they are not 
 obvious. The leper's act of worship, and extraordinary strength 
 of faith may have seemed to the Evangelist more suitable for 
 a first detailed account of one of Christ's works of mercy. More- 
 over, Christ's charge to the healed leper, to go and show himself 
 to the priest and offer what Moses commanded, is an example 
 of His fulfilling and not destroying the Law (v. 17). But it is 
 clear that the leper was not cleansed in the presence of 'great 
 multitudes' (viii. i). In- that case, the charge to him to 'tell 
 no man ' would have been out of place. But before examining 
 any of these illustrations of Christ's miracles the following 
 weighty words are worthy of consideration. 
 
 "The historian who tries to construct a reasoned picture 
 of the Life of Christ finds that he cannot dispense with miracles. 
 He is confronted with the fact that no sooner had the life of 
 Jesus ended in apparent failure and shame, than the great body 
 of Christians passed over at once to the fixed belief that He 
 was God. By what conceivable process could the men of that 
 day have arrived at such a conclusion, if there had been nothing 
 in His life to distinguish it from that of ordinary men ? He 
 did not work the kind of miracles which they expected. But 
 this makes it all the more necessary that there must have 
 been something about the life which they could recognize as 
 
122 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VIII. 1-4 
 
 supernatural and divine. Eliminate miracles from the career 
 of Jesus, and the belief of Christians, from the first moment 
 that we have undoubted contemporary evidence of it (say 
 A.D. 50), becomes an insoluble enigma" (Sanday, Outlines, 
 pp. 113, 114). 
 
 "We cannot separate the wonderful life, or the wonderful 
 teaching, from the wonderful works. They involve and inter- 
 penetrate and presuppose each other, and form in their insoluble 
 combination one harmonious picture " (Illingworth, Divine 
 Immanence, p. 90). 
 
 To those who believe that Jesus Christ was what He claimed 
 to be, that is, to those who believe in the Incarnation, there is 
 no difficulty about miracles. They are the natural works of 
 a supernatural Person. If He was not supernatural, then 
 difficulty arises. But in that case we tear up the New 
 Testament, and the history of the Christian Church becomes 
 inexplicable. 
 
 In the summary of Christ's wonderful works of healing 
 given as an introduction to the account of His ministry (iv. 24) 
 no mention is made of cleansing lepers, and we are probably to 
 understand that this narrative (viii. 2-4) refers to the. first instance 
 of Christ cleansing a leper. In that case the man's faith was 
 all the more remarkable. Leprosy was believed to be incurable 
 by human means ; ^ and, if the man had never heard of a cure, 
 his 'Thou canst make me clean' exhibits marvellous trust in 
 Christ's /07£/?r. 'If Thou wilt' looks as if he had less trust in 
 Christ's goodness; but it perhaps means no more than that he 
 thought himself unworthy of such a boon. His 'worshipping' 
 Him perhaps meant no more than special reverence to a Prophet, 
 or was preparatory to asking a great boon, but it may have 
 indicated something more. All three Evangelists mention the 
 prostration, but each in a different way. ' Worship ' (-Tr/Doo-K-ui'ai') 
 is a favourite word with Mt., who first uses it of the adoration 
 of the Magi (ii. 2, 8, 11, iv. g, 10, viii. 2, ix. 18, xiv. 33, etc.). 
 It is rare in Mk. and Lk., but common in Jn., who perhaps 
 always uses it of the worship of a Divine Person. It well 
 expresses the attitude which befits all who come to the Messiah 
 for the blessings of His healing power ; and this act of worship 
 — so different from the behaviour of the demoniac in the 
 synagogue — may have been another reason for Mt.'s placing this 
 
 ' It has been contended (Wright, St. Luke, p. 148) that "Biblical leprosy 
 was a mild skin disease, never fatal," quite different from modern leprosy. 
 But what we call leprosy was known then. Other diseases of the skin did 
 not make a man ceremonially unclean ; and how could a mild skin disease be 
 regarded as (in a very special way) a Divine visitation? Ps. li. 7 points to 
 leprosy as symbolical in its ravages to sin. See Hastings' VB., art. 
 ' Leprosy. ' 
 
VIII. 1-4] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 23 
 
 miracle first in his three triplets of specimens of the Messiah's 
 mighty works. 1 
 
 Mk. mentions that Christ was ' moved by compassion ' 
 {cnrXayxvia-OeL':), which implies that the man's sufferings were 
 great, and ' the beloved physician ' tells us that the man was 
 ' full of leprosy.' All three have the Hebraistic amplification 
 that Christ 'stretched out His hand' to touch him, which Weiss 
 strangely explains as " in order to prevent the contact with the 
 unclean and contagious disease." Is it credible that Jesus 
 was afraid of being infected ? Would any one keep the man 
 at arm's length for fear of infection, and yet touch him ? The 
 outstretched hand isthe expression of the compassion (xiv. 31), 
 and is the answer to the leper's timid 'if Thou wilt.' It confirms 
 his faith in Christ's power and assures him of His goodness, and 
 thus completes the preparation of the sufferer's mind for the 
 cleansing. The healing touch follows, and ^straightway his 
 leprosy was cleansed.' All three preserve the 'straightway,' for 
 the sudden cure of such a malady was one of the astounding 
 features of the miracle. All three also mention that Christ 
 touched the leper, which involved becoming ceremonially 
 unclean. But this result is not certain. Lk. says that the 
 man was ' full of leprosy ' ; and, by a curious provision of the 
 Law, if ' the leprosy cover all the skin of him that hath the 
 plague, then the priest shall pronounce him clean ' (Lev. xiii. 
 12, 13). Yet what follows indicates that this leper was not thus 
 exempt. We may conclude, therefore, that Jesus touched the 
 leper on the same principle as that on which He healed on the 
 Sabbath. The law of charity is above the ceremonial law, and 
 the touch was necessary to assure the sufferer of Christ's absolute 
 sympathy and readiness to help. 
 
 Perhaps the touch was also necessary for the sake of the 
 millions who were to read of this cleansing. No moral pollution 
 can be so great as to make Christ shrink from contact with 
 a sinner, who comes to Him with a desire to be freed from his 
 plague, and with the belief that He has the power to free him. 
 Christ's miracles are parables. That was part of their purpose 
 when they were wrought, and it is their chief meaning to us. 
 There seems to be nothing unreasonable in the thought that 
 some of the details were selected, not because they were 
 essential to the wonderful works, but because of their spiritual 
 significance. 
 
 Christ's charge to the cleansed leper : ' see thou tell no man ; 
 but go thy way, show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that 
 
 ' Mk. (i. 41) has no ' Lord' (KiJpte) in the leper's address; but both Mt. 
 and Lk. (v. 12) insert it. It is common in the Egyptian papyri, in the sense 
 of ' my lord,' or ' sir ' (Abbott, [ohannine Grammar, 2680). 
 
1 24 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VIII. 4 
 
 Moses commanded,' has been variously explained. Mk. tells us 
 that it was given with great strictness (e/t/Jpt/x.ijo-a/iei'os), as 
 something that Christ regarded as urgent.^ Perhaps the 
 principal reason was to ensure that the man did not assume 
 that his miraculous cleansing dispensed him from obedience to 
 the law. But Christ may also have wished to preserve the man 
 from unhealthy boasting about the wonderful cure, and the 
 people from being excited to religious or political fanaticism 
 (Jn. vi. 15); and both these motives were probably present in 
 other cases in which Christ enjoined silence on those whom He 
 healed (xii. 16; Mk. v. 43, vii. 36, comp. ix. 9 = Mt. xvii. 9). 
 The danger of popular fanaticism is perhaps part of the reason 
 for His silencing the demons when they would have revealed 
 who He was (Mk. i, 25, 34). The time had not yet come for 
 such a revelation to be made publicly, and demons were not 
 proper apostles of it at any time. Comp. xii. 19, 39, xvii. 9. 
 
 It has been urged that these injunctions to silence are proof 
 that Jesus, during His lifetime, never claimed to be the Messiah. 
 If He had, He would not have forbidden people to say that He 
 was the Messiah. If He wrought mighty works as evidence that 
 He was the Messiah, He would not have told those on whom 
 He wrought them to say nothing about it. From this apparent 
 inconsistency we are asked to draw the conclusion that most of 
 the miracles and all of the injunctions to silence are fictions. 
 After His death, His followers believed Jesus to have been God. 
 Then of course He must have done great wonders. But (un- 
 believers might ask) why did not the wonders cause Him to 
 be recognized as Divine at the time? To which His followers 
 invented the reply, that He had forbidden people to make 
 known His wonderful works. 
 
 This explanation is much less easy to believe than the plain 
 statements of the Gospels, which are too nearly contemporaneous 
 with the facts to be set aside in this peremptory way. The 
 seeming inconsistency is a strong guarantee for the truth of the 
 narratives, and invention is here very improbable. We seriously 
 misstate the case when we say, Jesus wrought miracles to prove 
 that He was the Messiah, and then forbade people to proclaim 
 Him as such. Miracles did not prove that He was the Messiah ; 
 at most they only proved that He was a Prophet : and He had 
 other reasons for working them. Among these reasons we may 
 securely place His desire to relieve suffering, to benefit men's 
 
 ' Mk. also says that Christ ' turned him out ' (el^/SaXev) or ' dismissed him 
 with urgency,' as if the man were not sufficiently docile. Salmon thinks that 
 Mk. does not entirely approve of the leper's conduct ( The Human Element, 
 p. 149). In any case, we see how anxious Jesus was not to overthrow the 
 existing ecclesiastical system prematurely. Where it was blameless, He 
 strongly supported it ; comp. xxiii. 2. 
 
VIII. 4-13] T?IE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 25 
 
 souls by first healing their bodies, to attract attention to His 
 teaching. Many came to be healed, or to see mighty works, 
 and then stayed to listen. The reasons suggested above for the 
 injunctions to silence are adequate; but there may easily have 
 been others of a deeper nature which lie beyond our ken. See 
 a helpful paper by Sanday in the Journal of Theological Studies, 
 April 1904. 
 
 Tor a testimony to them' is in all three. 'Them' is 
 primarily the priests, but it may include the people ; and it is 
 the gift which the cleansed leper must offer that is the ' testi- 
 mony.' It would show that Christ did not disregard the Law, 
 as some had supposed that He did (v. 17), if it was known that 
 He had ordered one whom He had healed to do all that Moses 
 commanded (Lev. xiv.). Thus this incident illustrates in both 
 directions Christ's treatment of the ceremonial law. When it 
 came into collision with the moral law, He disregarded it ; the 
 lower law must give way. He did not allow ceremonial defile- 
 ment to stand in the way of showing sympathy with the leper by 
 touching him. But, when there was no such collision. He 
 upheld the ceremonial law. " He condemned neither the wash- 
 ings nor the differences of meats, but He did strenuously 
 condemn the confusion of such mere rules with principles of 
 religion and morality, i.e. with the substance of the Law and the 
 Prophets, and He defended the violation of such rules, not as a 
 habit but when the cause was adequate " (Hort, Jiidaistic Christi- 
 anity, p. 29). 
 
 ^\iQ healitig of the Centimoris Servant {^-i^) a.t a distance 
 is not recorded by Mk. and is placed by Lk. (vii. 2-10) immedi- 
 ately after the Sermon. The utterances are given in almost 
 exactly the same words by Mt. and Lk., but the narrative portion 
 differs.' In Lk. the centurion sends first elders and then friends 
 to intercede for his servant ; here he comes himself. The details 
 of the story had got changed in transmission, and each Evangelist 
 received a different version of it. Jn. iv. 46-54 probably refers 
 to a different incident. 
 
 It has been remarked that centurions have a good character 
 in the New Testament (xxvii. 54; Acts x. 22, xxii. 26, xxiii. 17, 
 23, 24, xxiv. 23, xxvii. 43). Roman organization was one of the 
 chief instruments of good order in the world, and it produced, 
 and was maintained by, excellent individuals, such as this 
 
 ' By placing /iov before inrd ttjv areyiiiy, Mt. throws the emphasis on the 
 substantive; 'enter under my roof.' Tlie centurion asks a great boon, but 
 not such a sacrifice on Christ's part as that. This nicety is lost in Lk. vii. 6. 
 Abbott, Johan. Gr. 2559. In Syr-Sin. the man is called a ' chiliarch ' or 
 tribune. Wellhausen and Zahn make ver. 7 interrogative : ' Shall I come 
 and heal him ? ' Fritzsche would make it a question of surprise ; ' Am I to 
 come and heal him ? ' 
 
126 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VIII. 10 
 
 centurion, who had built a synagogue at Capernaum — 'our 
 synagogue' as the elders call it (Lk. vii. 5). His saying that 
 he was 'not worthy' that Christ should enter his house 
 perhaps indicates that he was not a proselyte : he does not 
 ask that the famous Rabbi should pollute Himself by entering 
 the house of a Gentile. He knows from personal experience 
 what a word from a person in authority can do without per- 
 sonal presence. He obeys orders sent to him, and he issues 
 orders which are obeyed. Christ has authority over unseen 
 powers, and He has only to speak the word, and the servant 
 will be healed. 
 
 Both narratives record that 'Jesus marvelled' {kOav^aa-fv) 
 at the centurion's faith. Those who attribute omniscience to 
 the incarnate Word must explain how He could ' marvel ' at any- 
 thing. 'He marvelled because of their unbelief (Mk. vi. 6). 
 " The surprises of life, especially those which belong to its 
 ethical and spiritual side, created genuine astonishment in the 
 human mind of Christ" (Swete). Comp. xxvi. 40; Mk. viii. 12. 
 He tells us Himself that He was ignorant of the date of the Day 
 of Judgment (Mk. xiii. 32). Therefore ignorance was possible 
 for Him, and the only question is as to its extent. This we 
 must reverently consider with the aid of Scripture. He could 
 grow in wisdom (Lk. ii. 52); and He sometimes asked for in- 
 formation : 'How many loaves have ye? go and see.' 'How 
 long time is it since this hath come to him ? ' ' Where have ye 
 laid him ? ' Till He reached it, He expected that the barren 
 fig-tree would have fruit. When He taught in the synagogue. 
 He exhibited no knowledge of the whole of the Scriptures : ' He 
 opened the book and found the place' (Lk. iv. 17) and read. 
 On the other hand. He could read men's hearts, and He could 
 know what was taking place at a distance. The principle which 
 can be traced seems to be this : that, where knowledge which 
 was necessary for His work could be obtained by ordinary 
 means, then He used ordinary means ; but that, where it could 
 not thus be obtained, He obtained the knowledge supernaturally, 
 — perhaps we may say by revelation from His Father. It was 
 not necessary for His work that He should know all about the 
 authorship and date of the books of the Old Testament; and it 
 is no true reverence to claim such knowledge for Him. In such 
 matters He probably accepted what He had been taught, and to 
 have known more might have hindered His work rather than 
 helped it ; therefore " He condescended not to know." Scripture 
 seems to show that " He was truly limited in knowledge within 
 the sphere of His humanity," and that " He withdrew from 
 operation (ab opere retraxit) His power and majesty." But the 
 subject is a deep mystery, and reverent caution in drawing 
 
VIII. 11-14] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 12/ 
 
 inferences is necessary. See Gore, Dissertations, pp. 7 1 ff. ; 
 Hastings' DB. and DCG., art. 'Kenosis.' 
 
 The declaration, ' With no one have I found such faith in 
 Israel,' suggests the thought that there are others outside Israel 
 who are like this centurion.^ Without having the spiritual 
 advantages of Jews, they exceed the righteousness of Jews. 
 Then ought they not to be admitted to the Kingdom ? ' Yes,' 
 says our Lord, ' and not only so, but many Jews will be excluded 
 from it.' The verses (11, 12) in which this reversal of human 
 judgments is declared are given by Lk. in quite another con- 
 nexion (xiii. 28-30) and in somewhat different words. In this 
 Jewish-Christian Gospel there are clear indications that the 
 Gentiles are to be admitted to the Kingdom, and this is one of 
 them : comp. xxi. 43, xxii. 9, xxiv. 14, xxv. 32, xxviii. 19. The 
 other Hebrew Gospel has the same (Jn. x. 16, xii. 20). The 
 words come partly from Is. xlv. 6 and xlix. 12 ; comp. lix. 19; 
 Jer. iii. 18; Mai. i. 11. What they foretell is the exact opposite 
 of Jewish expectations. The Jew expected that the Gentiles 
 would be put to shame by the sight of the Jews in bliss. Here 
 it is the Gentiles who sit down to the banquet with the Patriarchs, 
 while the excluded Jews gnash their teeth. A banquet is so 
 often the expression of great joy in human life that it is natural 
 to use it as a symbol of the joys of a future life (xxvi. 29 ; 
 Lk, xiv. 15, xxii. 30 ; Rev. iii. 20, xix. 9). The Jews seem to 
 have understood the banquet literally. In the Apocalypse of 
 Baruch (xxix. 4) Leviathan and Behemoth are to be given as 
 food to the faithful remnant. On 'the sons of the Kingdom' 
 see Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 162. It is strange irony that 
 the sons of the Kingdom are excluded from the Kingdom. 
 
 The narratives of the healing of the Jewish leper, who is told 
 to observe the Law, and of the servant of the heathen centurion, 
 who is shown to be worthy of the Kingdom, are well placed by 
 Mt. immediately after the Sermon in which Christ sets forth the 
 Christian's relation to the Jewish Law ; just as the Magi come 
 after the shepherds, and sick from all Syria are healed after many 
 healings of Jews in Galilee (iv. 23, 24). 
 
 There now follows the third instance in Mt.'s first triplet of 
 miraculous healings (14, 15). We have had leprosy and palsy, 
 and we now have fever, — the healing of Petet^s mother-in-law 
 (TTivO^pd.), which is recorded by all three. And all three mention 
 that, directly she was healed, she ministered to Jesus and those 
 
 ' Origen points out that Jairus, who was not only ' in Israel ' but a 
 synagogue-ruler, did not ask for a mere word, but said ' Come quickly,' and 
 that Martha and Mary said that, if Christ had been there, their brother would 
 not have died. And yet Wellhausen suggests that this centurion is a Doppel- 
 ganger of Jairus ! 
 
128 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VIII. 15-22 
 
 with Him. This showed the completeness of the cure, and it 
 may imply that she was healed near the time of the mid-day 
 meal. As it was not until evening that demoniacs and sick were 
 brought to Him, we may conclude that the day was a Sabbath. 
 
 It is clear from i Cor. ix. 5 that Peter was married, and Clement of 
 Alexandria (Strom, iii. 6) says that his wife helped the Apostle in ministering 
 to women. Here Mt. says that her mother ministered to Jesus ; aiirifJ is the 
 true reading. Mt. has not mentioned the presence of disciples, and therefore 
 does not write aiiToh, as Mk. does. Note the change of tense : she rose once 
 for all and continued ministering (riyipd-r) Ktd dirjKdveL). 
 
 In what follows (16) we have instructive examples of the way in which 
 Mt. treats the narrative of Mk. (l) He omits 'when the sun did set,' which 
 is not needed after ' when even was come,' and he also omits the second 
 mention of ' those that were sick.' (2) He emphasizes the miraculous 
 character of the cures by saying that the evil spirits were cast out ' with a 
 word,' and that 'all' of 'many' were healed, not 'many' of 'all.' (3) He 
 omits Christ's silencing the demons, who would have proclaimed who He 
 was in defiance of His will. (4) He adds a fulfilment of Scripture. Besides 
 these notable alterations he makes characteristic changes of wording ; e.^. he 
 substitutes, as often, an aorist for an imperfect and at the same time adopts a 
 verb which he prefers instead of the one used by Mk. {-wpoiT-qvcyKav for 
 t<j>epov). See small print at the end of the chapter. 
 
 Mt. concludes his first triplet of miracles with a summary of 
 many more and a quotation from the Hebrew of Is. liii. 4, the 
 Septuagint being different and less suitable for his purpose. The 
 original passage refers to one of the Prophet's own contempor- 
 aries, who in a special sense was the Lord's Servant, and who 
 had endured sufferings which should have fallen on his fellows, 
 and had thereby won a great deliverance. It is impossible, and 
 also unnecessary, to determine what the Evangelist understood 
 by 'took' (tXa/Sei/) and 'bare' (t^Sao-TaJci/).! It at least must 
 mean that Christ removed their sufferings from the sufferers. 
 He can hardly have meant that the diseases were transferred to 
 Christ. But we may understand him as meaning that Christ's 
 sympathy with the sufferers was so intense that He really felt 
 their weaknesses and pains ; and perhaps also that the physical 
 exhaustion caused by the frequent exertion of healing power 
 was very great. 
 
 After three miracles of healing (2-15) we have three miracles 
 of power (23-34, ix. 1-8), over the forces of nature, over evil 
 spirits, and over sin and its consequences. But first we have 
 the warnings to two aspirants to discipleship (18-22). Lk. places 
 
 ' See Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 102, 103. Origen quotes as a saying 
 of Christ : ' On account of the weak I was weak, and on account of the 
 hungry I was hungry, and on account of the thirsty I was thirsty ' (Resch, 
 Agrapha, 2nded. , p. 132). In the Testaments we have something similar, 
 where Joseph speaks of his care for his brethren after Jacob's death : "all 
 their suffering was my suffering, and all their sickness (uaXa/cia) was my 
 infirmity {ajdhem)," xvii. 7. 
 
VIII. 19-22] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 29 
 
 these two incidents later in the ministry (ix. 57-60), with a third 
 case which Mt. omits ; and it is not obvious why Mt. puts be- 
 tween two triplets of miracles material which seems to have little 
 connexion with either. The replies given to these two aspirants 
 are impressive in their sternness, and would serve to sift out the 
 worthless and confirm the weak ; and they do not stand alone. 
 Compare the sayings about putting the hand to the plough and 
 looking back (Lk. ix. 62) ; taking up the cross (x. 38) ; hating 
 one's own father, mother, and wife (Lk. xiv. 26); selling all that 
 one has and giving to the poor (xix. 21). Such words as these 
 are a warning that those who would become the disciples of the 
 Messiah must count the cost before joining Him, and that those 
 who have joined Him must constantly remember what they have 
 undertaken. They must remember the conditions of His service. 
 
 The two men who are here brought before us (19-22) are of 
 different, and almost opposite types. The one is too forward, the 
 other is inclined to shirk, and Christ treats each of them in accord- 
 ance with their special weakness. He reminds both of them of 
 the conditions of discipleship. But in the case of the Scribe He 
 does this in a way calculated to check weak impulsiveness ; in the 
 case of the other He checks a weak disposition to hang back. 
 
 The Scribe had apparently been a hearer of Christ's teaching ; 
 and now, carried away by a sincere, but not very deep feeling of 
 enthusiasm, he proposes to become a permanent disciple. With 
 easy self-confidence, he makes a promise of following Christ for 
 better, for worse, without stopping to consider what such a 
 promise involves. Christ takes no advantage of the enthusiast's 
 rashness ; He will have no unreal disciples. But He does not 
 repel the man. He gently reminds him what becoming a follower 
 of the Son of Man involves. ^ Is this Scribe, who had been 
 accustomed to a comfortable life, prepared for such a Hfe as His, 
 which began in a borrowed stable, and ended in a borrowed 
 tomb ? For other checks on inconsiderate impulse comp. Lk. 
 xi. 27, xxii. 33. 
 
 The second is already a disciple, and he thinks that what 
 seems to be a pressing duty may excuse him for a time from 
 Christ's service. He is as sincere as the Scribe. He means to 
 go away and perform this duty, and when he has performed it to 
 return. But Christ knew the man better than he knew himself. 
 We may believe that He saw, at the bottom of the very reason- 
 able request, a wish to escape from duties which were quite as 
 imperative, but not so interesting, as the funeral ceremonies ; 
 and that He also saw that the return home would be fatal : he 
 
 ' For the title ' Son of Man,' here used for the first time, see the Introduc- 
 tion (p. xxv) ; and for the Scribe's 'Master' (AiSdaKaXe), the Greek equiva- 
 lent of ' Rabbi,' see Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 338. 
 
130 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VIII. 22-27 
 
 would never come back.^ Christ's reply to him is obscure to 
 us ; but its figurative language would be perfectly intelligible to 
 the disciple. 'Follow Me ' is a refusal of his request : that much 
 is quite plain. ' Leave the dead to bury their own dead ' seems 
 to mean that the spiritually dead, those who have never felt the 
 call to a higher life, are always numerous enough to perform 
 such ordinary duties as burying the dead ; and such occupations 
 are suitable to them; they are 'their own dead.' But perhaps 
 the chief meaning of this perplexing saying is to remind the man 
 of the lofty claims which the discipleship that he has chosen has 
 on him. Like the high priest (Lev. xxi. ii) and the Nazirite 
 (Num. vi. 6, 7), his life is a consecrated one, and he must not 
 'make himself unclean for his father or for his mother.' 'He 
 that loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me ' 
 (x. 37). Who is it that with such quiet assurance makes such 
 claims upon men ? 
 
 The second triplet of miracles consists of miracles of power 
 over natural, supernatural, and spiritual forces, — storm, demons, 
 and sin. Or we may say that in them Christ brings peace to 
 nature, to those afflicted by evil spirits, and to the stricken 
 conscience. The triplet begins with the stilling of the tempest on 
 the lake (23-27), and the first two miracles occur in the same 
 order in all three Gospels. 
 
 Apparently it was great fatigue, produced by the demands 
 which the crowds made upon Him, which caused Jesus to take 
 refuge in the boat ; and this is the only case in which we read of 
 Him as being asleep. His sleep is in marked contrast to the 
 noise of the storm and the panic of the disciples. The reality 
 of His human nature appears not only in His weariness and 
 slumber, but also in His unconsciousness to His surroundings. 
 He needs to be awakened. And then He who had rebuked 
 both the impetuous Scribe and the half-hearted disciple (20, 22), 
 now rebukes both the tempestuous elements and the timid crew.^ 
 The tempest was no ordinary one, and the disciples, accustomed 
 as they were to the violence of this mountain lake, were terrified. 
 
 ' It is probable that the father was still alive. At the present day, an 
 Oriental , with his father sitting by his side, has been known to say respecting his 
 future projects ; ' But I must first bury my father.' In any case this disciple 
 was not indispensable for the funeral rites ; the father was sure of burial, and 
 (as Chrysostom and Gregory the Great point out), if it is a good deed to bury 
 the dead, it is still belter to preach the Gospel and rescue others from death. 
 
 ^ Mk. and Lk. place the calming of the waves before the calming of the 
 disciples' fears, which is the probable order. The disciples would profit by 
 His rebuke far better after their terror was removed. Mt. pointedly reverses 
 the order, inserting his favourite tAte after the rebuke to the men and before 
 the rebuke to the winds and waves. He also inserts 6\i.y6Tn.<TTOL into Mk.'s 
 narrative both here and xvi. 8. In each place it seems to represent that part 
 of Christ's rebuke which Mt. oniitg. 
 
VIII. 23-27] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 131 
 
 Christ's ' Why are ye so fearful ? ' may be a rhetorical question 
 to emphasize the rebuke. But, if it is an expression of surprise, 
 it is a counterpart to ver. 10. There He marvelled at the great 
 faith of a heathen soldier ; here He marvels at the little faith 
 of His own disciples. The question reminds us of ' How is it 
 that ye sought Me ?' Just as His parents ought to have known 
 where to find Him, so the disciples ought to have known that 
 with Him they were sure of protection. That they should pray 
 ' Save, Lord ' was well ; it was ' we perish ' (which is in all three 
 accounts) that was amiss, for it showed that they put litde trust 
 in His presence. But the way in which their prayer was granted 
 greatly impressed them. It was contrary to all their experience 
 of the lake that there should be ' a great calm ' immediately 
 after the wind ceased, and they recognize the presence of super- 
 natural power which is new to them. They had witnessed 
 wonderful cures ; but this was a miracle on their own element, 
 and their amazement and fear (Mk.) were in proportion. And 
 we should remember that this thrice-told narrative comes from 
 those who were experts in the matter, and that the suggestion 
 of a mere coincidence between Christ's waking and the cessation 
 of the storm is out of court. A sudden drop in the wind is 
 possible, but that would not at once calm the sea. Comp. Ps. 
 Ixxxix. 9, cvii. 29 ; 2 Mac. ix. 8. 
 
 Some of the peculiarities in Mt.'s account are of special 
 interest. Instead of saying, as the others do, that a ' storm of 
 wind ' (XaiXatj/ 6.v4jx.ov) came down on the lake, he says that 
 there was a ' great quaking in the sea ' (creto-yuos /^eyas iyevero iv 
 T7J dakaa-a-rj), which may refer merely to the disturbance caused 
 by the wind. But it may also mean that there was an earthquake 
 under the lake (Gen. vii. 11). ^ Again, Mt. alone makes the 
 disciples address Christ as 'Lord' (Krjpie). Mk. has 'Teacher' 
 (AiSaa-KaXe) and Lk. has his favourite 'ETrio-Tara ('Master'), both 
 of which probably represent ' Rabbi.' Side by side with this 
 change from ' Rabbi ' to ' Lord,' Mt. attributes the wondering 
 exclamation about the obedience of the winds and the sea to 
 'the Men' {ol Si avOpwwoi iOav/xairav Aeyovrts k.t.X.). This is 
 
 a very unusual expression to be applied to the disciples, and it 
 looks as if Mt. had chosen it as a contrast to ' Lord,' which is 
 also a word of his own choosing. Mt. perhaps desires to point 
 out how much this miracle revealed of the supernatural character 
 of the Messiah, and the way in which it emphasized the difference 
 between Him and His followers. Some would refer ' the men ' 
 to the hired servants (Mk. i. 20) who may have been with the 
 
 ' Everywhere else in Mt., and indeed in the N.T., aeia-fios means an 
 earthquake. See notes on xxvii. 51 and xxviii. 2 ; and comp. Jer. xxiii. 19 ; 
 Nah. i. 3. . , 
 
132 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VIII. 27, 28 
 
 Apostles, or to fishermen in other boats near at hand, or to 
 spectators on the shore, or to the people who heard of the miracle 
 afterwards. But of all this, not one word is said; and would 
 Mt. mean by ' the men ' people whom he had not mentioned ? 
 Moreover, Mk. and Lk. attribute the exclamation to the disciples ; 
 and if ' the men ' means the disciples, we can see why Mt. omits 
 their 'great fear' and substitutes 'wonder,' for he often spares 
 the Twelve. Comp. xiii. 16-17, xiv. 33, xvi. 9, xvii. 9, 23, 
 xviii. I, xxvi. 43 ; in all these places Mt. omits details in the 
 narrative of Mk. which are unfavourable to the disciples. Lk. 
 gives both the fear and the wonder. 
 
 The account of the storm hi the Testaments should he compared ; but the 
 wording is closer to Mk. and Lk. than to Mt. The following expressions 
 are remarkable : yiverai x^'-f^'^" iri/ioSpi!, Ka.1 \ai\a\p av^ixov fx.€yd\r}, Kal 
 ^irXTjpiodr} r6 ttXolov uddnvv. iv rpiKv^lais Tr€pipij(ra6^€vov, &(rT€ Kal awTpl^etj- 
 dai aur6. ujs 5^ iTTa.6aa.T0 6 xet/xti^, ^ipdaae rb ffKdtpos €Trl ryjs yrjs iv elprivr] 
 (Naphtali ^\. 4-9 ; comp. Jn. vi. 21). 
 
 As the second miracle of the second triplet we have the much 
 discussed narrative about The Gerasenes and the swine. The 
 Messiah, who has just asserted His authority over the forces of 
 nature, now asserts the same over the supernatural forces of the 
 unseen world. In both Mk. and Lk. the miracle takes place at 
 Gerasa, which probably means the place near the lake that is 
 still called Gersa or Khersa. Mt. seems to have supposed that 
 the much better known Gerasa in Gilead was meant. This 
 is some 36 miles from the lake and is impossible. He there- 
 fore substituted Gadara, which is less improbable but not at all 
 probable. The conjecture of Gergesa is due to Origen ; and by 
 it he means the place which is now called Khersa, Local pro- 
 nunciation might easily be understood as Gerasa or Gergesa, and 
 either might produce Khersa. Various travellers have pointed 
 out that there is only one steep place where the rush of the 
 swine could have occurred, and that is near Khersa. 
 
 All three readings, 'Gadarenes,' 'Gerasenes,' and ' Gergesenes,' are 
 found in different authorities in all three Gospels ; but there is little doubt 
 that 'Gadarenes' is right in Mt., and 'Gerasenes' in Mk. and Lk., while 
 ' Gergesenes' is right nowhere. In all cases where ' Gergesenes' is found it 
 is a correction of the original reading. .See DCG., art. ' Gerasenes.' 
 
 Mk. and Lk. mention only one demoniac. It is impossible 
 to determine how Mt. came to mention two. In xx. 30 he has 
 two blind men, where Mk. and Lk. have only one.^ The in- 
 
 1 In xxi. 7 he mentions the ass and the colt, where the other three mention 
 only the colt. To the healing of two blind men in ix. 27 there is no parallel 
 passage. That Mt. adds a demoniac here, because he has omitted the de- 
 moniac in the synagogue at Capernaum, is all the less probable, because in 
 both iv. 24 and viii. 16 he has mentioned a number of cases. (For various 
 solutions of the difficulty see S. J. Andrews, Life of our Lord, pp. 300-302.) 
 
Vni. 38-34] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 133 
 
 accuracy is of no moment. Nor is there any serious difficulty 
 about the influence of evil spirits upon brutes. We know too 
 little of what is possible with regard to the influence of mind 
 upon matter (a fact about which there is no doubt) to be safe in 
 asserting that spirits could not influence creatures that have no 
 spiritual nature. And if there is "no a /wr/ objection " on the 
 part of science to the demoniacal possession of swine, still less 
 can there be any to the demoniacal possession of men, who have 
 a spiritual nature. The question is simply one of evidence, 
 which is estimated differently by different minds. 
 
 The real difficulty is the moral one. What right had Christ 
 to sanction the destruction of animals which did not belong to 
 Him ? The answer to which may be this : that a visible effect 
 of the departure of the demons was necessary to convince the 
 demoniacs and their neighbours of the completeness of the cure ; 
 and that brutes and private property may be sacrificed, where the 
 sanity and safety of human beings is concerned.^ To this may 
 be added the possibility that the keepers of the swine were Jews, 
 and if they were, they had no right to keep swine. But it is 
 perhaps more probable that the swine were owned by pagans, 
 who on that side of the lake would be more numerous than 
 Jews. It is obvious that the demons cannot have intended or 
 expected the destruction of the swine. Knowing that they were 
 to be driven out of their human home, they begged to be allowed 
 to enter a home that would be less precious in the eyes of Him 
 whom they recognized as the Son of God. The destruction of 
 the swine left them homeless once more (xii. 43). We have 
 seen already that surprise was possible for the Son of Man 
 (10, 26). It is possible that the destruction of the swine was 
 unforeseen by Him ; and in that case He cannot be made re- 
 sponsible for the results of the permission which He gave.^ In 
 none of the three reports is there any mention of complaint 
 
 '"In any case it was justified by complete success. Tlie man was 
 completely satisfied that the demons had left him ; he became quite rational, 
 and was willing to dress and comport himself like ordinary people. In all 
 this I discover nothing incredible, or unworthy of the character of Jesus " 
 (Salmon, The Human Element, p. 277). 
 
 ^ Dr. Salmon shows the inconsequence of those who regard Jesus as a. 
 mere man, and yet blame Him for the destruction of the swine ( The Human 
 Element, p. 278). 
 
 The change which Mt. makes in the cry of the demoniac is to be noted. 
 In Mk. it is, ' I adjure Thee by God, torment me not.' In Mt., ' Art Thou 
 come hither to torment us before the time ? ' The latter seems to refer to 
 the doctrine that the demons will not be punished till the Day of Judgment ; 
 comp. Book of Enoch, xvi. i ; Book of Jubilees, x. 8, 9. ' Before the time ' 
 is peculiar to Mt. Klostevmann quotes Philoslrat. Vita Apollonii iv. 25 : 
 5a/cpi5oP7i ^oj/cet Th 0tl(T/ia /cat eSetro fii] ^aaavi^Hv dvrd, firid^ dvayKci^dv ofioiko- 
 yetif 6 Tt £L7], 
 
1 34 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VIII. 28-34 
 
 made against Him by the owners. It was the people of the 
 country, not the owners in particular, who requested Him to 
 depart from their borders ; and, although it is hkely that the loss 
 of property had something to do with the request, yet it was 
 dread of so powerful a Wonder-worker that chiefly moved them. 
 Mk. (v. 15) expressly states that 'they were afraid,' and 
 Lk. (viii. 37) says that the Gerasenes 'asked Him to depart from 
 them, for they were holden with great fear.' Fear in the presence 
 of the supernatural is common in man; and dislike of the 
 presence of great holiness is specially natural in those who know 
 that their own lives are quite out of harmony with heaven. 
 This request of the inhabitants is a guarantee for the general 
 trustworthiness of the narrative. Fiction would have made the 
 inhabitants anxious to detain Him that He might work other 
 wonderful cures, as was commonly the case in Galilee and 
 Judsea, where He was regarded, not as a dangerous magician, 
 but as a great Prophet. The name 'Legion' (Mk., Lk.) is 
 another strong mark of reality.^ While it is reasonable to admit 
 the possibility of some distortion of the facts in the process of 
 'transmission, it is uncritical and arbitrary to dismiss an incident, 
 so strongly attested, as a myth. 
 
 The difficult subject of diabolical possession cannot be dis- 
 missed as an empty superstition. Not only the Evangelists, 
 including the beloved physician, distinguish clearly between 
 possession and disease, but (according to their frequent testimony) 
 Christ did so also. It is not untrue, but it is misleading, to say 
 that their reports are coloured by the ideas prevalent in their 
 age. It is equally true to say that their reports are very different 
 from the ideas of later Judaism on the subject of demonology, 
 — all the difference between what is silly superstition and what is 
 sober and credible. Christ did not treat possession either as 
 disease or as sin. He seems never to have blamed the possessed, 
 or to have suggested that they had brought the affliction on 
 themselves. They were great sufferers, and in His compassion 
 He freed them from suffering. But, if the reports of His method 
 in dealing with this special kind of suffering are to be trusted, 
 He went through the form of casting out demons ; He told the 
 evil spirits to depart. If there were no evil spirits there. He 
 either knew this or He did not ; and one is involved in grave 
 
 ' On Mt.'s omission of the question, 'What is thy name?,' and of other 
 questions which seem to imply ignorance on the part of Christ, see Introduc- 
 tion, p. XV. Mt. seems also to have felt the difficulty of the statement that 
 Christ gave the demons leave (iiriTpt^iv aiirois) to enter the swine. His 
 'Go' (uTrd-yfre) is not 'Go into the swine,' but 'Depart, leave the place.' 
 It ignores their request rather than grants it; comp. iv. 10; i Cor. vii. 15. 
 J. H. Moulton, Gram, of N.T. Gr. p. 172. Mt. also, as before the choosing 
 of the Twelve, omits ' the mountain ' which both Mk. and Lk. mention. 
 
IX. 1-8] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 35 
 
 difficulty, whichever alternative one takes. It is rash to assume 
 that there cannot have been any demons to be expelled. The 
 hypothesis that they were there, and that they were expelled, is 
 not antecedently incredible, and it is supported by evidence 
 which cannot easily be explained away. That demoniacal 
 possession never occurs now is another rash assumption. A 
 medical man once told the present writer that he was confident 
 that he had known of a case in his practice : the terrible pheno- 
 mena seemed to admit of no other explanation. But physical 
 maladies sometimes become extinct, and psychical maladies 
 may do so also. Even if it be true that demoniacal possession 
 is not found now, that is not conclusive against its taking place 
 in other ages when the spiritual condition of society was very 
 different. We must be content to leave the question open ; but 
 the uniform evidence of the Synoptists is much easier to explain, 
 if demoniacal possession was a fact.^ 
 
 Expressions characteristic of Mt. in ch. viii. : koL iSoi (2, 24, 29, 32, 34), 
 Trpou^pX^Tda.L (2, 5» 19) 25), irpoaKvveiv {2), Trporr^epeiif (4), iropeijeffdai (9 his), 
 6 (ipvy/j.bs tQ>v dddvTuv (12), yevTj&TjTu: {13), (opa ^Kelvrj (13), ottws Tr\-qptj)6^ 
 (17), 6\Ly6TrL(XTos (26), T{5re (26), picra.^aiP€Lv {34), Spia (34). Peculiar: 7] 
 ^affiXela rdv oipafuiv (11), t6 pTjSiv (17), ^Iwrepos (12, xxii. 13, xxv. 30), 
 Saifj-ojv {31 only). 
 
 It is in this chapter that we have the first instances of what in the second 
 half of the Gospel becomes common, — Mt.'s substitution of aorists for the 
 imperfects in Mk. We have irpocr-fiveyKav, aTridavov (16, 32) for l<pcpov, 
 iirvlyovTO (Mk. i. 32, v. 13). 
 
 On the possibility that Mt. has arranged the paragraphs in this chapter 
 to correspond with paragraphs in xxvii. and xxviii., see T. Milne in the Jour, 
 of Th. St., July 1904, p. 602. 
 
 The third miracle of the second triplet is the healing of the 
 paralytic {yf.. 1-8). Mt. is again more brief than Mk. (ii. 1-12) 
 and Lk. (v. 17-26). 'His own city' means Capernaum, which 
 is now His chief centre of activity (iv. 13). None of the Evan- 
 gelists give any date, and Mk. alone mentions that the paralytic 
 had four bearers. ' Seeing their faith ' is in all three narratives, 
 and it is commonly interpreted as meaning the faith of the 
 bearers, whose persistence in breaking through the roof, in order 
 to place the sufferer near Jesus, is omitted by Mt. But we may 
 allow some faith to the sick man himself, although it was prob- 
 ably not so strong as that of his friends. He knew, as they did 
 not, that his physical weakness had been produced by previous 
 sin ; and he perhaps doubted whether the sin would not interfere 
 with his cure. Hence Christ deals with the man's uneasy con- 
 science first. The healing of that must precede the healing of 
 
 ' W. Menzies Alexander, Demonic Possession in the N. T. pp. 12, 200-212, 
 249. 
 
136 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [IX. 1-8 
 
 his body. If he had faith to believe in the forgiveness (and that 
 sometimes requires a great deal), he would have faith to be 
 healed.' The affectionate address, ' My child ' (reKvov) is in 
 both Mt. and Mk. The gracious exhortation, 'Be of good 
 cheer ' {ddpaei), is in Mt. alone, who on two other occasions 
 records it as uttered by Christ (ix. 22, xiv. 27). Mk. has it 
 once of Christ (vi. 50); Jn. once (xvi. 33); and Luke once 
 (Acts xxiii. 11). As used by Christ, it is never a mere ex- 
 hortation ; it is followed by an act or assurance which is sure 
 to cheer those to whom it is addressed ; so, in a very marked 
 way, here. 
 
 The present tense (Mt., Mk.) is remarkable. 'Thy sins are 
 receiving forgiveness' {acf>UvTai, dimittuntur) here and now. 
 This was just the assurance for which the man was yearning ; ^ 
 but the words have a very different effect on others. The Scribes 
 are here mentioned for the first time as coming in contact with 
 the Messiah, and their critical hostility continues to develope 
 until it ends in compassing His death. These are local Scribes, 
 reinforced, however, as Lk. tells us, by Pharisees and emissaries 
 from Jerusalem. This is the first collision in Galilee between 
 Jesus and the hierarchy. All three narratives seem to imply 
 that the hostile criticism was not uttered, and Mk. expressly 
 states that it was 'in His spirit' that Christ perceived their 
 reasoning. His reply to it is almost verbally the same in all 
 three, including the break caused by the parenthesis. The 
 Reader-of-hearts could tell how far their questionings were the 
 result of jealousy for God's honour, how far of enmity to a 
 Teacher, whom they regarded as dangerous to their authority. 
 This they hardly knew themselves, and He gives them a practical 
 challenge, by which they can test both themselves and Him. 
 It is easier to say, ' Thy sins are forgiven,' because no one can 
 prove that they are not forgiven. But the claim to heal with 
 a word can be proved true or false at once. The proof that 
 He had received power to heal with a word was a guarantee 
 that He had also received authority to forgive. He respects 
 the jealousy for God's honour and claims no authority apart 
 from Him (Jn. v. 27, 30). Once more (viii. 20) He calls 
 Himself the Son of Man, the Son of Man on earth. He is no 
 blasphemer assuming Divine prerogatives. What God does in 
 
 • On the meaning of ' Faith ' in the N.T. see the detached note on Rom. 
 i. 17 in the Int. Crit. Cotntn. ; also the note on Lk. v. 20 ; Hastings' DCG., 
 art. ' Faith ' ; Illingworlh, Christian Character, pp. 63 ff. ; Knowling, St. 
 James, pp. xlii, 53 ; Parry, St. James, pp. 43 ff. 
 
 '^ The belief that sickness was caused by sin was very common : " Rabbi 
 Ami said, No death without sin, and no pains without some transgression" ; 
 and " Rabbi Alexander said, The sick ariseth not from his sickness until his 
 sins be forgiven " (Talmud). 
 
IX. 8-13] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 37 
 
 heaven the Son of Man has authority to do on earth, ^ theatrum 
 operum Christi (Bengel). 
 
 As in the case of Simon's wife's mother, the person healed 
 shows the completeness of the cure by immediate activity. His 
 ' bed ' would be little more than a rug or mattress, easily carried. 
 The crowd, through which he has to make his way, are, as usual, 
 much more sympathetic than the Scribes and Pharisees. All 
 three mention that they 'glorified God.' Mk. and Lk., who 
 think chiefly of the miracle of healing, say that the people 
 were 'amazed' (^iiia-Tacrdai, eKO-raaL'; IXa/Jei/) ; but Mt., who 
 thinks chiefly of the forgiveness of sins, says that they were 
 ' afraid ' {i4>ojST^6rja-av is the right reading). Mt. says that they 
 glorified God for giving such authority, — the authority to forgive 
 sins, to men. Mk. and Lk. represent them as impressed by the 
 strange things which they had seen, viz. the healing. Mt. has 
 already given us a triplet of wonderful cures (viii. 2-15). This 
 second triplet is not to illustrate healings, but the Messiah's 
 power over the invisible forces of nature, demons, and sin. 
 But, whether it was the power to heal with a word or the 
 forgiveness of sins that chiefly moved them, the multitudes 
 are convinced that the charge of blasphemy has been disproved, 
 and that Jesus is acting in the power of God. What effect the 
 result had on the hierarchy we are not told, but we gather from 
 their continued hostility on subsequent occasions that they were 
 baffled rather than convinced. 
 
 Between the second and the third triplet of wonderful works 
 Mt. places the call of the person whom Mk. calls 'Levi, the son 
 of Alphaeus ' and Lk. ' Levi,' while our Evangehst says that he 
 was 'a man called Matthew.' There can be no doubt that Mt. 
 means us to understand that Levi the publican or toll-gatherer, 
 and Matthew the toll-gatherer, and Matthew the Apostle (x. 3) 
 are one and the same person ; and there is no great difficulty 
 in the double name. Simon was called Peter, and Thomas was 
 called Didymus, and probably Bartholomew was also called 
 Nathanael.2 What strikes us chiefly in this narrative is the call 
 of an Apostle, and especially the call of such a man to be an 
 Apostle. That humble and ignorant fishermen should be chosen 
 for such an office was surprising enough ; but here Christ chooses 
 a man from the class which was most despised and detested 
 
 ^ Here, as in xii. 8, it is possible that the Aramaic original of ' son of man ' 
 was used in the sense of mankind in general, men. But such passages are 
 few, and in them it is more probable that the meaning which prevails else- 
 where is the right one. It is the title of Jesus Himself, partly veiling, partly 
 revealing, His claim to be the Messiah. See Introduction (p. xxv) ; Dalman, 
 Words of Jesus, p. 261 ; Drummond, _/««-. of Th. St., April and July 1901. 
 
 ^ The difference here is that both Matthew and Levi are Semitic, and 
 neither name is a patronymic. 
 
138 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [IX. 9-11 
 
 among the Jews, the toll-gatherers. And we are right in being 
 struck with this. But perhaps the point which led the Evan- 
 gelists to preserve this narrative was not the call of the toll- 
 gatherer so much as the banquet which followed it, and the 
 second conflict with the hierarchy which took place at the' 
 banquet. That is the connexion between the cure of the 
 paralytic and the call of Matthew. Jesus is once more brought 
 into collision with the Pharisees and the Scribes. Except in 
 the lists of the Apostles, Matthew is not mentioned again by 
 the Evatngelists. 
 
 Matthew's instantaneous response to the call to be a disciple 
 proves two things : that our Lord knew his character, and that 
 Matthew already knew something of Christ's teaching. Mk. tells 
 us that Jesus had been teaching by the side of the sea just before 
 the call of Levi ; and Matthew may have been among the many 
 toll-gatherers who had listened to the Baptist, and had been told 
 not to exact more than they had a right to. Matthew probably 
 collected tolls for Herod Antipas, much of whose income came 
 from this source of revenue. In one sense the response of 
 Matthew to the call of Christ was a greater act of faith than that 
 of Peter and Andrew or James and John. The fishermen could 
 always return to their fishing: they did not "burn their ships " 
 by following Christ. When the death of Jesus seemed to ex- 
 tinguish their hopes, they did return to their fishing. But for 
 Matthew no such return would be possible. His lucrative post 
 would be at once filled up, and an ex-toll-gatherer would find 
 it hard indeed to get any other employment. He risked every- 
 thing by following Jesus. 
 
 But, so far from being depressed by the risk, he regards the 
 crisis as a matter for much rejoicing. He makes a great feast 
 and invites many of his old colleagues, in the hope, perhaps, 
 that other toll-gatherers may be led to follow his new Master. 
 But it is not likely that the feast took place on the day of the 
 call : the preparations for such an entertainment would take 
 time. Mk. and Mt. are not clear as to who gives the banquet, 
 or at whose house it takes place ; but Lk. is no doubt right in 
 making Levi the entertainer, with Jesus as the chief guest. And 
 here at once there was a proceeding which the Pharisees could 
 denounce as an outrageous scandal. This popular Rabbi not 
 only mixed with the worst classes of society, but He ate and 
 drank with them, — with excommunicate persons. This was a 
 public violation of common decency which could not fail to 
 cause great offence. Whether the Evangelists mean us to under- 
 stand that there were notorious sinners present, or they are 
 merely adopting the Pharisaic point of view, is not quite certain. 
 At Capernaum there were not only heathen, but also not a few 
 
IX. 11-13] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 39 
 
 who, through constant intercourse with heathen, had become 
 paganized in their manner of life. These would be the class 
 that would accept a toll-gatherer's invitation. 
 
 In the Mosaic Law the eating with Gentiles was not 
 forbidden, but the Rabbis forbade it as dangerous, and the 
 prohibition was commonly observed. The Pharisees insisted 
 upon it (Lk. xv. 2), and violation of it was resented (Acts x. 28, 
 xi. 2; Gal. ii. 11). There was a great difference between 
 entertaining heathen and being entertained by them. In the 
 latter case food that was ceremonially unclean was almost 
 certain to be provided, and the Jewish guest had no means of 
 discriminating. Comp. Josephus, Con. Apion. ii. 29 ; Tac. 
 Hist. V. 5. There was probably less strictness respecting inter- 
 course with Gentiles in Galilee and the neighbourhood, where 
 Gentiles abounded, than in Jerusalem, where they were rare ; 
 and it was in and around Galilee that most of our Lord's public 
 life was spent. He taught and healed those who came to Him 
 from heathen districts, and He exhibited no aversion to such 
 people, any more than to Samaritans or excommunicate Jews. 
 He cancelled His apparent rejection of the Syrophoenician 
 woman (xv. 24) as soon as she showed herself worthy of His 
 grace ; and He cancelled the limitation of the Apostles' com- 
 mission (x. 5, 6), as soon as the necessity for any such limitation 
 ceased (xxviii. 19). As to intercourse with heathen, He went 
 back to the freedom of the Mosaic Law. 
 
 The Pharisees, fresh from their discomfiture about the 
 paralytic, do not attack our Lord directly, but address His 
 disciples, whom they could accost as soon as the party broke 
 up. We are expressly told by all three that the feast was in the 
 house, and the Pharisees would not enter a toll-gatherer's house, 
 although, according to Eastern custom, they could have entered 
 a house during a meal without an invitation. Jesus hears their 
 criticism, and at once takes His disciples under His protection 
 by answering for Himself. And we have once more to notice 
 the position which He assumes as a matter of course, as if 
 nothing else was conceivable. He is the Physician of souls ; and 
 He is come, come into the world, come from God, to heal 
 sinners. There is no argument, no assertion of claims ; nothing 
 but the quiet statement of fact. He has to heal sinners, and 
 must associate with sinners. Who is it who is so conscious of 
 this supreme mission 1 
 
 Christ pronounces no judgment upon the assumption of the 
 Pharisees that they are in sound spiritual health, with a righteous 
 abhorrence of sin. Granted that it is so, then they are in no 
 need of the Physician, and ought not to complain that He 
 gives His help to those who claim it, and (as the Pharisees them- 
 
HO GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [IX. 13, 14 
 
 selves admit) greatly need it. The quotation from Hos. vi. 6, 
 ' Mercy I desire, and not sacrifice,' is not in either Mk. or Lk., 
 but Mt. gives it again (xii. 7). It is in harmony with the text in 
 both places, and may have been spoken on both occasions ; or 
 Mt. may have known it as a saying of Christ, and may have 
 inserted it where it appeared to be appropriate. Here the 
 ' sacrifice ' is the external righteousness of keeping aloof from 
 sinners. Of course the saying does not mean that sacrifice is 
 worthless, but that mercy is worth a great deal more. Comp. 
 Lk. X. 20, xiv. 1 2, xxiii. 28 : in all such forms of speech, what 
 seems to be forbidden is not really prohibited, but shown to be 
 very inferior to something else. The introductory formula, ' Go 
 ye and learn' {■n-opivdivTt'i fidOere) was common with the Rabbis. 
 It is perhaps putting too much meaning into it to say that with 
 it Christ dismisses them, as persons whose self-righteousness 
 rendered their case hopeless. They were in far worse con- 
 dition than the toll - gatherers, because they did not know 
 their own sinfulness. See Du Bose, TAe Gospel ace. to St. 
 Paul, p. 71. 
 
 It is of no moment whether the question about fasting was 
 raised in consequence of the feast at Matthew's house (which 
 may have coincided with one of the two weekly fasts), as Mt. 
 seems to think, or independently. Nor does it matter who put 
 the question. Mt. and Mk. are here not quite in harmony, and 
 Lk. is indefinite. The difference between the freedom of Jesus 
 and His disciples on the one hand and the strictness of John's 
 disciples and the Pharisees on the other, was noticed, and Jesus 
 was asked to explain it. John's disciples had lost their master, 
 who was in prison. That fact gives additional point to Christ's 
 answer. He who had before identified Himself with the Divine 
 Physician here identifies Himself with the Divine Bridegroom 
 of the Old Testament (Is. Ixii. 5 ; Hos. ii. 20), now present with 
 His disciples, who constitute the wedding-party.i People who, 
 like the Pharisees, kept additional fasts, of course avoided 
 sabbaths and feast-days ; these must not be turned into fasts. 
 Christ points out another exception. It is impossible to make a 
 wedding-party fast while the festivities are going on. But days 
 will come, when the Bridegroom will be taken away ; then, in 
 their sorrow, they will fast. By saying ' be taken away ' rather 
 than ' go away ' He points (for the first time) to His violent 
 death : but this could not be understood at the time. The 
 parable of the Bridegroom, however, would be specially 
 intelligible to John's disciples, for John himself had used 
 
 ' For the expression ' sons of the bride-chamber ' see Deissmann, Bible 
 Studies, p. 162. In ver. 14, D, Syr-Sin. and Latt. insert TroXXci [frequenter) 
 after v-qareijoiiev. 
 
IX. 14-18] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE I4I 
 
 this figure respecting the Christ and His Forerunner (Jn. 
 iii. 29). 1 
 
 It was perhaps the parable of the Wedding- Feast which 
 suggested the two additional parables about garments and wine. 
 This pair of parables teaches that a new spirit in religion 
 requires a new form. John's system is right from his point of 
 view. Christ's system is right from a better point of view. But 
 it would be fatal to mix the two systems. In the one case 
 fasting, in the other case exemption from fasting, was the 
 natural outcome of the conditions. To deprive the disciples of 
 Christ of their freedom from fasting, would spoil the system in 
 which He was training them ; to deprive the disciples of John of 
 their freedom to fast, would spoil the system in which he had 
 trained them. The second .parable puts this still more strongly. 
 The piece of new cloth is only a fragment of the new system ; 
 the new wine is the whole of it. If it is an error to take the 
 natural outcome of one system and force it on an alien system, 
 still more fatal will it be to force the whole of a new and growing 
 system into the worn forms of an old one. The new must find 
 its own expression in new forms ; and it needs young and fresh 
 natures, not yet wedded to cramping traditions, but open to new 
 ideas and new methods, to develop the new forms. ' New wine 
 into fresh wine-skins ' is the only safe principle.^ The rottenness 
 of old wine-skins seems to have been proverbial : 6 i:a.\a.iov7a.i 
 icra aaK<2, rj Sicrirep IfiaTLov (j-qrofipuiTov (Job xiii. 28). 
 
 Mt. now returns to his illustrations of the Messiah's mighty 
 works, of which he gives a third triplet (18-33), if we count the 
 narrative respecting _/az>«j' daughter and the woman with the issue 
 as one. It is possible that, instead of three triplets, Mt. means 
 to make a total of ten, but this is less likely ; the other two 
 triplets are clearly marked. Here again, Mt. is much more 
 brief than the other two, but it is strange that he omits the 
 ruler's name;* and, while they connect the incident with the 
 return from the Gerasenes, Mt. expressly joins it to the parables 
 
 ' ' In that day ' is superfluous after ' then shall they fast,' and as such is 
 omitted by Mt. 
 
 "This is one of the passages in which Mt. and Lk. agree against Mk. 
 They both say that the wine will be spilled, while Mk. merely says that it 
 perishes as well as the skins ; comp. ver. 20, and see Burkitt, Gosp. Hist, and 
 its Transmission, p. 42; Hawkins, Horn Synoptiice, p. 174. 
 
 * Jairus was ruler of the synagogue : see Schiirer, Jewish People, II. ii. 
 p. 63. For the characteristic way in which Mt. here deals with ^lk., see 
 Allen, ad loc. For the 'hem' or 'border' which the woman touched, see 
 Hastings' DB., art. ' Fringes' and DCG., art. ' Border.' Mt. and Lk. agree 
 against Mk. in mentioning 'the border' (toO Kpacnridov), which Mk. omits ; 
 also in saying that the woman ' came up ' {irpojeXdoOira), while Mk. says that 
 she 'came' {i\8ov(Ta). See Burkitt, p. 44; and comp. xiv. i, xvi. 16, 
 xvii. 5, 17, xxi. 17, 23, xxvi. 67, 68, xxvii. 54, 57-60. 
 
142 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [IX. 18-26 
 
 just recorded. All three record, in different ways, the ruler's 
 falling at Jesus' feet, Mt. using his favourite word ' worshipped ' 
 (7rpoo-€KW£i). In Mk. the ruler says that his daughter is very ill 
 {icrxa-TOii «X") > ^^■' ™ abbreviating, makes him say that she has 
 just died (apn iTeXevTrja-ev) : she was dead when Jesus got to the 
 house. It augments the ruler's faith, that he should believe 
 that Jesus could not only heal a dying girl, but restore her to 
 life. In spite of his many abbreviations, Mt. gives the Hebrew 
 periphrasis, ' He arose and followed,' which merely means that 
 He began to move : it does not necessarily imply that He had 
 been sitting. 
 
 The incident of the woman with the issue is another instance 
 of great faith, tinged, it may be, with superstition, which, 
 however, Christ does not reprove. . Mt. treats it as a healing 
 wrought by the woman's faith, without Christ's action. This is 
 an additional reason for supposing that he does not reckon this 
 as one of his illustrations of Christ's mighty works. He must 
 include the raising of the dead among his examples, and in 
 telling the story he could hardly omit all mention of the woman ; 
 but her cure is not counted. The affectionate ' Daughter ' (comp. 
 ver. 2) is in all three : the encouraging, ' Be of good cheer,' is 
 given by Mt. alone (see on ver. 2). He utters no healing word, 
 for He knows that she is already cured. That she was ' made whole 
 from that hour ' is also peculiar to Mt. Comp. xv. 28, xvii. i8. 
 
 Mt. alone mentions the flute-players among the mourners, 
 real and professional. As a Jew he knows that they must have 
 been there, though Mk. does not say so, for even the poorest 
 Jews had at least two flute-players for mourning the death of a 
 wife (comp. Jer. xlviii. 36; Jos. jB./. hi. ix. 5). The custom 
 was wide-spread. Flute-players at Roman funerals were so 
 fashionable that the tenth law of the Twelve Tables restricted 
 the number to ten. Seneca says that they made such a noise at 
 the funeral of the Emperor Claudius that Claudius himself 
 might have heard them. See Wetstein, ad /oc, and art ' Music ' 
 in Hastings' D£. The peremptory ' Depart ' {'AvaxiDpeire) is 
 given by Mt. alone, but the declaration that she is not dead but 
 is sleeping is in all three. The beloved physician says that they 
 knew that she was dead, and Christ is probably using ' sleep ' in 
 the sense that she is about to be awakened, and therefore cannot 
 be regarded as dead.^ All three mention that He laid hold of 
 
 ' in the familiar phrase ' he slept with his fathers,' a different verb is used 
 (^Koi/i-ridri). In the Septuagint xaBevS^iv is not used in this metaphorical 
 sense, excepting Dan. xii. 2. 
 
 Mt. omits the presence of Peter, James, and John ; — the first instance of 
 their being taken apart from the other Apostles. He also omits the command 
 to be silent about the miracle, perhaps because of its difficulty. In such a 
 case, the miracle must become known. 
 
IX. S7-33] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 43 
 
 her hand, which would involve ceremonial uncleanness, if she 
 were dead, as did touching the leper (viii. 3). Mt. omits 
 Talitha cumi, perhaps simply for brevity ; but the words might 
 confirm the idea that she was only asleep, and thus lower the 
 power of the miracle. Mt. alone adds that 'the fame hereof 
 went forth into all that land.' He repeats this after the 
 next miracle (31), and has an equivalent remark after the 
 third (33). 
 
 The healing of two blind men (27-31) may come from some 
 unknown source, but it is also possible that the narrative is made 
 up of material from Mk. Mk. twice records the healing of one 
 blind man (viii. 22, x. 46). Mt. twice records the healing of two 
 blind men (here and xx. 30). The latter certainly comes from 
 Mk. x. 46. Is this narrative influenced by Mk. viii. 22 ?i The 
 appeal to Jesus as the ' Son of David ' indicates that the idea that 
 He may be the Messiah is increasing (see Dalman, Words of 
 Jesus, pp. 316 ff., and comp. Mk. x. 47, 48, xii. 35, 36, 37). It 
 would seem as if this appeal was unwelcome ; the popular idea 
 of the Messiah was so faulty. ^ Christ waits till He is free from 
 pubhcity before making any response ; and, though He then 
 responds to their faith, He yet strictly charges them to keep the 
 matter secret, a charge which they entirely disregard. This is 
 exactly what Mk. tells us about the leper (i. 43-45), a detail 
 which Mt. omits in reference to that incident (viii. 4). Has Mt., 
 perhaps by lapse of memorj', transferred the disobedience of the 
 leper to the blind men ? But such disobedience would be likely 
 to be common, and after the result of the raising of Jairus' 
 daughter (26) Mt. may have assumed a similar result here : the 
 men healed would be sure to talk about it. 
 
 After the restoration of life to the dead, and of sight to the 
 blind, we have, as the third miracle of the third triplet, the 
 restoration of speech to the dumb (32, 33). This, rather than the 
 casting out of a demon (of which we have already had an 
 illustration), is the special feature of this mighty work. But there 
 are other reasons for introducing it here: (i) it still further 
 increased the fame of the Messiah, and thus helped to lead to 
 the expansion of His Ministry by the sending out of the Twelve ; 
 (2) it marked another stage in the increasing hostility of the 
 Pharisees. They now go the length of saying that the mighty 
 
 ' Zahn rejects these and similar suggestions as foolish, and it is no doubt 
 simpler to treat this narrative as independent of Mk. But Mt. is so free in 
 his treatment of materials, that the theory mentioned in the text cannot be set 
 aside as mere Torheit. 
 
 ^ This is the first time that Christ is addressed as the ' Son of David ' ; 
 comp. xii. 23, XV. 22, xx. 30, 31, xxi. 9, 15. This is in harmony with the 
 title of the Gospel (i. i). Throughout, it is the Evangelist's aim to portray 
 Jesus as the Messiah and the legitimate heir of the royal house of David. 
 
144 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [IX. 34-38 
 
 works of the Messiah are done by the aid of the evil one (34). 
 See below. 
 
 The dumbness of the man is mentioned first, as being the 
 special feature ; the possession by a demon is secondary. The 
 people had had experience of exorcisms by Christ and by others 
 (xii. 27) ; and it was the restoration of the man's power of speech 
 which so astonished them ; especially as the cure from both the 
 demon and the dumbness was done with such authority and 
 immediate effect, whereas Jewish exorcisms were elaborate 
 proceedings of doubtful result (See Hastings' DB., art. 
 ' Exorcism '). And, if the verse be genuine, it was the extra- 
 ordinary character of the cure which provoked the malignant 
 comment of the Pharisees. 
 
 But it is doubtful whether the comment of the Pharisees is part of the 
 original text. Syr-Sin. and important Old Latin witnesses (D a d k, Juv. Hil. ) 
 omit, and those which contain the verse differ in wording. It looks like a 
 doublet of xii. 24, introduced here by early copyists. A more certain doviblet 
 is found in xx. 16, where 'many are called but few chosen' has been intro- 
 duced in many texts from xxii. 14. The comment of the multitudes recalls 
 Judg. xix. 30 : ' There was no such deed done nor seen from the day that the 
 children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt.' 
 
 IX. 35-XI. 1. The Mission of the Twelve. 
 
 After the nine acts of Messianic sovereignty, the EvangeHst 
 shows how the fame excited by these and similar mighty works 
 led to the expansion of the Ministry of the Messiah. He no 
 longer works single-handed, but selects twelve disciples to help 
 Him. 
 
 Before giving us illustrations of the Messiah's teaching and 
 healing, Mt. gave us a summary of the work as a whole (iv. 23- 
 25). He here gives us a similar summary (35), expanding half 
 of Mk. vi. 6 (which he has already used iv. 23) for this pur- 
 pose. In both summaries he dwells upon the great multitudes 
 which came to Christ's teaching and healing ; but here he goes 
 on to point out that there were multitudes whom it was impossible 
 for Him to reach : more labourers must be found. The Messiah 
 had compassion for these masses of people, and it is compassion 
 which moves to action. Indifference, and even repugnance, 
 may pass into interest, but not until compassion begins is any 
 serious remedy taken in hand. Hence the frequency with which 
 the moving cause of Christ's miracles is said to be compassion 
 (ix. 36, xiv. 14, XV. 32, XX. 34; Mk. i. 41, ix. 22 ; Lk. vii. 13); 
 and, excepting in parables (xviii. 27; Lk. x. 33, xv. 20), the 
 word {<jirkay\vile.(T6ai) is used of no one but Christ. He was 
 filled with compassion for these multitudes^ groping after the 
 truth and bewildered by the formalism of the Scribes, suffering 
 
IX. 36-38] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE I45 
 
 from many diseases and getting no help from the remedies of 
 the day. A strong word (eo-KvA/ieVot) is used to express their 
 distress. 1 And when the harassed people are compared to 
 'sheep that have no shepherd' (Num. xxvii. 17; i Kings 
 xxii. 17 ; Ezek. xxxiv. 5), we think of them e^s exhausted in the 
 vain search for pasture.- They have vague cravings, and do not 
 know whither to go to satisfy them. At last they are being 
 directed to the Kingdom which is at hand. The Baptist had 
 been the first to proclaim this (iii. 2). Then the Messiah 
 Himself had delivered the same message (iv. 17). And now the 
 Twelve are to be sent out to make more widely known the 
 same great saving truth. 
 
 The words which follow (37, 38) are given by Lk. at the 
 sending out of the Seventy (x. 2). They are not in Mk. ; but 
 comp. Jn. iv. 35. The change from sheep lacking a shepherd 
 to harvest lacking reapers is abrupt, but natural. The 'few' 
 need have no reference to the small number sent out on either 
 occasion. The proverb-like saying is of general application, 
 for the supply of workers is always deficient. The available 
 material is sometimes very scanty, and there is always unwilling- 
 ness to be overcome. Possibly the strong word used for ' send 
 forth ' (ck/JciAtj : comp. cK/SaAXeii/ in the next verse) has reference 
 to the urgency of the need.^ In any case, the command in 
 ver. 38 is always binding, for the deficiency is always there. 
 
 It should be remarked that Mk. puts a considerable interval 
 between the selection of the Twelve, with a view to sending 
 them out to preach (iii. 13-15), and the actual sending of them 
 out two and two (vi. 7) ; and we may believe that there was 
 such a time of special training, although Mt. does not mark it. 
 Yet he writes of ' the Twelve ' as a body already existing when 
 the commission to minister was given. 
 
 Expressions characteristic of Mt. in ch. ix. : kolIBov (2, 3, 10, 
 20),^ TrpodcjiiptiV (2,^ 32), ToVe (6, 14, 29, 37), iKeWiv (9, 27), 
 Xiyofxevos (9), Tropevca6ai (13), Trpoa-€pxea6ai (14, 20), l8ov (18, 
 32), TTpoa-KvviLV (18), wpa iK€tvT] (22), avaxoipeiv (24), wos AaueiS 
 (27), yivq&rfui (29), <f>aLve<j6ai (33). Peculiar: iv6vp.e'La6ai 
 (4), TO evayycAtov t^s /SacriAetas (35), p-aXaKta (35) ; peculiar 
 
 ^Originally it meant ' flayed ' or 'mangled,' but became equivalent to 
 'harassed' or 'vexed' with weariness or worry (Lk. vii. 6, viii. 49; Mk 
 V- 35)- 
 
 ■^ ' Scattered ' seems to suit shepherdless sheep, but it may be doubted 
 whether this is the exact meaning of epLHixivoi.. In the O.T. it is used of 
 dead or helpless men prostrate on the ground : I Judg. iv. 22 ; i Kings xiii, 
 24, 25, 28 ; Jer. xiv. 16, xxxvi. 30 ; Tob. i. 17 ; Judith vi. 13, xiv. 15 ; Ep. 
 Jer. 71. ' Prostrated ' seems to be the meaning here : the Vulg. hasjacentes. 
 At xiv. 14 Mt. omits this saying, although it is there found in Mk. (vi. 34). 
 
 ^ But the verb is used in quite a weakened sense elsewhere : xii. 20, 35. 
 10 
 
146 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [X. 1-4 
 
 to this chapter : alixoppoeiv (ix. 20). Not one of the above 
 examples is found in the parallels in Mt. and Lk. This again 
 shows that, to a considerable extent, Mt. uses his own vocabu- 
 lary in reproducing the material of his sources. We can see 
 this with regard to what he takes from Mk. ; and it probably 
 holds good with regard to the source which both he and Lk. 
 frequently use, but which is no longer extant. 
 
 Barnabas (v. 9) makes a curious use of ver. 13: "He then 
 manifested Himself to be the Son of God when He chose His 
 own Apostles who were to proclaim His Gospel, for, in order 
 that He might show that He came not to call the righteous but 
 sinners, they were sinners above every sin " (virep wacrav a/xapTtav 
 avofjiuiTepov^). Comp. the apparent quotation of Mt. xxii. 14 as 
 Scripture (us yeypairrai) in Bam. iv. 14. 
 
 In X. I the Evangelist returns to the narrative of Mk. (vi. 7).' 
 He has told us of the call of the two pairs of brothers (iv. 1 8-22) 
 and of Matthew (ix. 9) to be disciples in a closer relation than 
 Christ's ordinary followers ; but as yet nothing has been said of 
 their working with Him or for Him. No formal commission 
 has been recorded. These closer disciples had now received 
 some training from Him, and some had been previously trained 
 by the Baptist. The time is come when they are to be sent to 
 work away from the Master, so that there may be more centres 
 than one. There are now to be seven centres, — Himself, and 
 six pairs of Apostles. Mt. omits that they were sent out in pairs, 
 but he arranges them in pairs in the list. 
 
 It is remarkable how little we know of the work of these men 
 who have been distinguished by the great name of Apostle. We 
 know something, but not very much, about Peter, James, and 
 John : a very little about one or two more ; but the rest are 
 mere names. We know neither where they worked, nor in what 
 way they did their work ; neither how long they lived, nor how 
 they died. The traditions about them are very untrustworthy, 
 and perhaps are mere conjectures, framed to mask unwelcome 
 ignorance. Yet great work in various parts there must have 
 been. We see this from the rapidity with which the Roman 
 world was converted, a result which implies much strenuous 
 labour in the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic age. But in the 
 New Testament it is the work and not the workers that is 
 glorified. The Gospel is everything; who preached it is of little 
 importance. ' It is no longer I that live,' says S. Paul, ' but 
 Christ liveth in me' (Gal. ii. 20). The individual worker may or 
 may not be remembered here ; it is He who works in him and 
 
 ' Here, as in the case of the Gerasene swine, Mt. says nothing about 'the 
 mountain ' which both Mk. and Lk. mention. It illustrates his habit of 
 omilling unimportant details. 
 
X. 1-4] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 47 
 
 inspires him that Scripture glorifies, — He who originates and 
 sustains all that His human instruments effect. He Himself 
 has told them to rejoice, not at the things, however great, which 
 they accomplish, still less at the things which men have written 
 about their achievements, but rather because their names are 
 written in heaven, in the Lamb's Book of Life (Lk. x. 20; Rev. 
 xxi. 27). History tells us little about the doings of the Apostles. 
 It is more than enough to know that in the heavenly city the 
 wall has ' twelve foundations, and on them twelve names of the 
 twelve Apostles of the Lamb ' (Rev. xxi. 1 4). 
 
 This is the only place in which Mt. uses the word 'Apostle,' 
 Before giving the names of the Twelve he tells how the Messiah 
 equipped them : He gave them authority to cast out unclean 
 spirits,^ and to heal all manner of disease, as He Himself had 
 been doing (iv. 23, 24, ix. 35). This was without a precedent 
 in Jewish history. Not even Moses ,or Elijah had given mir- 
 aculous powers to their disciples. Elijah had been allowed to 
 transmit his powers to Elisha, but only when he himself was 
 removed from the earth. In his list of the Apostles, Mt. some- 
 what changes the order as given in Mk. iii. 16-19. In the first 
 group of four he puts the brothers in pairs, instead of placing 
 Andrew after the three chief Apostles. He might have done 
 both ; but that would have involved placing Peter third, which 
 Mt, who exhibits a special interest in S. Peter, would not do. 
 He not only put Peter first, as all do, but he specially calls him 
 ' first ' (■n-pioTo?), which would be superfluous, if it did not mean 
 more than first on the list. It indicates the pre-eminence of 
 Peter. In the second group, Mt. places Matthew after, instead 
 of before, Thomas, and adds that he was 'the toll-gatherer' 
 (ix. 9). In each of the first two groups there is one Greek 
 name, Andrew in the one and Philip in the other. In the 
 third group the Thaddseus of Mt. and Mk. may be safely identi- 
 fied with the ' Judas (son) of James ' of Lk. and the ' Judas not 
 Iscariot' of Jn. The origin of the name Thaddaeus, and also 
 of that of Lebbaeus, which has got into Western texts here and 
 in Mk., is an unsolved problem. For conjectures see Hastings' 
 DB. art. 'Thaddseus.' For ' Cananfean ' = ' Zealot ' 5&e DCG., 
 art. 'Canansean,' and Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 50.2 That 
 ' Iscariot ' means ' man of Kerioth ' or ' a Kariothite ' is probable, 
 but not certain ; and the situation of Kerioth is uncertain. See 
 DCG., art. 'Judas Iscariot,' and Expository Times, Dec. 1897, 
 ' In the Testaments we have, " If ye do well, even the unclean spirits will 
 flee from you" ; kdX to. aKiBajiTo. irveiixaTa (pev^ovrai. d0' ifiuv {Benjamin, 2 ; 
 comp. Issachar, vii. 7). 
 
 "^ In the Apostolic band, both the toll-collectors, who worked for the 
 Roman Government, and the Zealots, who endeavoured to overthrow it, were 
 represented. 
 
148 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [X. 4-8 
 
 p. 140, and Jan. 1898, p. 189. If Judas was the only one of 
 the Twelve who was not of Galilee, this may have placed him 
 out of sympathy with the others from the first. 
 
 Like the reproach, 'who made Israel to sin,' which clings to 
 the memory of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, so "the terrible 
 indictment," ' who also betrayed Him,' clings in some form or 
 other to the memory of Judas Iscariot. Lk.'s form of it here 
 is ' who turned traitor ' (Ss cye'i/ero TrpoSdrjjs). That was the 
 amazing fact (which is stated again and again and left to speak 
 for itself without comment) ; that one whom Jesus chose to be 
 an Apostle — 'one of the Twelve,' delivered Him up to His 
 enemies (comp. iv. 12). We cannot doubt that our Lord saw 
 in Judas the qualities necessary for the office of an Apostle, the 
 material out of which Apostles are made. It is evident also 
 that Judas responded to Christ's call and followed Him with 
 knowledge of what the call involved. When the Twelve returned 
 from their first mission and gave an account of their work, 
 there is no hint that any one of them had proved a failure. 
 Christ's call left all the Twelve free to be faithless, if they so 
 willed ; and in time Judas came to will this. His treachery is 
 proof that no office in the Church, however exalted, gives 
 security : disastrous downfall is possible even for those who 
 have been nearest to Christ. 
 
 Some find seven divisions in the sayings which are here put 
 together as one discourse ; but the sayings, when thus separated, 
 are of very unequal length, varying from half a verse to eighteen 
 verses. A division into five paragraphs, as in the RV., is more 
 illuminating. The same is true of the eschatological discourse 
 (xxiv. S-xxv. 45). 
 
 The charge to the Twelve (5-42) is much longer in Mt. than 
 in Mk. or Lk., and a good deal of it is the same as Lk.'s report 
 of the charge to the Seventy. Like the Sermon on the Mount, 
 it is evidently made up of utterances which were spoken on 
 different occasions. Some portions are suitable to this first 
 mission ; others clearly refer to the period after the Ascension. 
 Mt. has combined the report in Mk., which is our best guide as 
 to what was said on this occasion, with material which belongs 
 to other occasions. 
 
 The prohibition to go to Gentiles ^ or Samaritans was tem- 
 porary, and perhaps confined to this first missionary journey. 
 The Jew had the first claim, and as yet the Twelve were not 
 competent to deal with any but Jews. After the Apostles had 
 gained experience in this narrower field, and after the Jews had 
 refused to avail themselves of their privileges, the Apostles turned 
 
 ' For the Hellenistic towns in the east and north-east districts of Palestine, 
 see Schiirer, Jewish People, II. i. pp. 57 ff. 
 
X. 8-10] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 149 
 
 to the Gentiles and became missionaries to all the world. Both 
 by word and example Christ showed that Samaritans Qn. iv. 
 4-42 ; Lk. ix. 52) and Gentiles (xv. 28) were not to be per- 
 manently excluded. But ' the lost sheep of the House of Israel ' 
 are the first objects of Christ's compassion ; lost, because they 
 had no shepherds, no competent teachers ; for those who pro- 
 fessed to lead them were 'blind guides' (xv. 14, xxiii. 16, 24), 
 guiding them, not to pastures, but to pits. The charge, ' as ye 
 go, preach,' is another indication of the temporary character of 
 these directions. They are to be "field-preachers" moving on 
 from place to place. No permanent organization is to be 
 attempted. The sheep are all scattered, and the first thing 
 is to awaken in them the desire for a shepherd and a fold. 
 The Messiah and the Kingdom are ready when they are ready. 
 
 The commission to ' raise the dead ' is startling. No such 
 commission is mentioned by Mk. or Lk., and the words are 
 wanting in numerous authorities here. But those which omit 
 are mosdy late, and the words are so strongly attested by the 
 best witnesses that they cannot be rejected. It is more probable 
 that they were omitted by later copyists, because no instance of 
 raising the dead by a disciple is mentioned in the Gospels, and 
 because no charge to do so is recorded by Mk. or Lk., than that 
 a very early copyist inserted the words. Assuming them to be 
 genuine is, however, not the same as assuming that they were 
 spoken. The Evangelist may have wished to show that the 
 Messiah conferred upon His Apostles the full measure of bene- 
 ficent power which He exercised Himself^ 
 
 The words are found in N B C D, Latt. Syrr. Copt. Aeth. They are 
 omitted in L, etc. , Sah. Arm. In a few texts they come after ' cleanse the 
 lepers,' in a few after ' cast out demons.' 
 
 ' Freely ye received ' does not mean that any of the Twelve 
 had been miraculously healed. It means that the power to heal 
 was given them for nothing, and that they must not take pay- 
 ment for healing. This is not at variance with the principle 
 that 'the labourer is worthy of his food' (10). To accept 
 support from those to whom they ministered was allowable, and 
 it was the duty of those who accepted the ministry to give the 
 support ; but to make a trade of their miraculous powers was 
 not permitted.^ Mt. has ' Get (^KTyja-rja-Oe) no gold, nor yet 
 
 ' It should be noticed that Christ here clearly distinguishes between heal- 
 ing the sick and casting out demons, as also does Mk. (vi. 13) in narrating 
 what the disciples did after receiving this charge; comp. Lk. vi. 17, 18, 
 ix. I. 
 
 ^ Rabbi Jehudah interpreted Deut. iv. 5 as meaning that God had taught 
 without fee, and therefore teachers must give instruction free (Talmud). The 
 Talmud orders that "no one is to go to the Temple-mount with staff, shoes, 
 
150 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [X. 10-14 
 
 silver, nor yet brass ' : they are not to take the smallest pecuniary 
 remuneration. Mk. has that they are to take none with them 
 as provision for the way ; they are to take nothing ' save a staff 
 only.' In Mt. the staff is prohibited. There is a similar differ- 
 ence with regard to sandals : in Mk. they are ordered, in Mt. 
 they are forbidden, unless we are to suppose that cravSdAia differ 
 from viroSrjfjLaTa. These discrepancies need not disturb us : the 
 general meaning in all three Gospels is the same : ' make no 
 elaborate preparations, but go as you are.' They are not to be 
 like persons travelling for trade or pleasure, but are to go about in 
 all simplicity. It is not that they are purposely to augment the 
 hardships of the journey (as forbidding staff and sandals might 
 seem to imply), but that they are not to be anxious about 
 equipment.! Freedom from care rather than from comfort is the 
 aim. Their care is to be for their work, not for their personal 
 wants. Hence they are to be careful what house they make 
 their headquarters in each place. A disreputable house might 
 seriously prejudice their usefulness. But having found a 
 suitable resting-place they are not to leave it for the sake of 
 variety or greater comfort. That again might injure their 
 reputation, besides paining their first entertainer. Moreover 
 they are to be courteous : ' as ye enter into the house, salute 
 it.' Courtesy is never thrown away ; it enriches the giver, even 
 when it meets with no response. 
 
 " Talk not of wasted affection, affection never was wasted ; 
 If it enrich not the heart of another, its waters, returning 
 Back to their springs, like the rain, shall fill ihem full of refreshment ; 
 That which the fountain sends forth returns again to the fountain." " 
 
 But time was very precious ; and none must be wasted on 
 ground that made no sign of becoming fruitful. Where prejudice 
 or the calumnies of Christ's enemies made people so hostile as 
 to refuse even a hearing, the Twelve were to leave them and 
 seek more hopeful soil, of which there was plenty. This again 
 clearly refers to the early missionary work of the Apostles, and 
 is not meant as a principle of action for all time. It is not to 
 be supposed that ministers of the word are at once to abandon 
 as hopeless those who decline their first approaches. What the 
 
 girdle of money, or dusty feet " ; and Edershcim says that Christ's charge 
 means, ' Go in the same spirit as you would go to the Temple services ' 
 ( Temple, p. 42). 
 
 ' On the strength of a Greek inscription of the Roman period, discovered 
 at Kefr-Hauar in Syria, Deissmann would explain Tnjpa as " a beggar's collect- 
 ing bag," so that the charge would mean, ' You are not to make money by 
 healing, and you are not to beg.' But the common explanation of ' travelling- 
 bag,' or ' knapsack ' is better, as iri^pav els 6S6v shows (New Light on the N. T. 
 from Records of the Grizco- Roman Period, p. 43). 
 
 ^ Longfellow, Evangeline, 11. i. 
 
X. 14-16] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 151 
 
 Twelve had to do was to give to as many people as possible 
 some kind of preparation for the teaching of Christ, and they 
 had a very Hmited time in which to do this. It was, therefore, 
 not allowable to expend much of this precious time upon 
 unpromising material, when promising material could easily be 
 found. But a solemn warning was to be given to those who 
 rejected them. The dust of the place where they dwelt was to 
 be shaken off, as if it were the polluting dust of a heathen road, 
 or perhaps to intimate complete separation : the Apostles were 
 not even to share dust with such people (see Edersheim, Life 
 and Tmes, i. p. 643). Both in the Old and in the New Testa- 
 ment the cities of the plain are typical of abominable wickedness 
 provoking severe judgments.^ The allusion is all the more 
 suitable here because, just before the overthrow of these cities, 
 the inhabitants committed a gross violation of the rights of 
 hospitality. 
 
 What follows (16-23) evidently does not refer to this first 
 mission, but to a later time, when, instead of mere refusal to 
 listen to their teaching, the Apostles will have to face active 
 persecution. Occasional unreceptive listeners in Jewish towns 
 and villages have developed into systematic prosecutions before 
 the councils (v. 22) of the synagogues and the Sanhedrin, and 
 even before governors and kings among the Gentiles. Christ 
 would not be likely to foretell this until the Apostles had had 
 some experience of missionary work. It would not guide them 
 in their first efforts. In what precedes this (5-15), the emphasis 
 is on the beneficent character of the Gospel which they have to 
 carry to the lost sheep of Israel, and they are not told to prepare 
 for anything worse than a rejection of their message. Here the 
 chief emphasis is on their own sufferings.^ Christ wishes them 
 to be under no illusions; after He is gone, they will have to 
 suffer cruel persecutions, even at the hands of their own kindred 
 (21), and hostile kindreds are sometimes specially implacable. 
 
 And it is the Messiah's own doing that they have to endure 
 all this ; it is the Shepherd Himself who sends them forth ' as 
 sheep in the midst of wolves.' There is a notable emphasis on 
 the Sender: 'Behold, / send you forth' ('l8ov, iyia dTroa-Tc'AXto 
 i/xas).^ And it is for His sake (18, 22) that they will have to 
 
 ' See also the Book of Jubilees xvi. 5, 6, xx. 5, 6, xxii. 22. 
 
 In the Gospels, the expression, ' Day of Judgment ' {iit^^pa Kplaeas), is 
 peculiar to Mt. (x. 15, xi. 22, 24, xii. 36). \Ve find it in the Testaments : 
 Levi iii. 2, 3 ; also in the Book of Enoch, c. 4. There it has many names. 
 
 ^ With yiveade oSv (ppovt^oc comp. yipeade odi> trotpol iv Bei^, t^kvo. fxov^ Kal 
 (pp6vi.ij.oi (Naphtali viii. 9). 
 
 ^ With this emphatic 6701 comp. xii. 27, 28, xx. 22, xxviii. 20 ; Lk. xxi. 15, 
 xxiv. 49 ; iyii 6.Tro(TTiXKu is peculiar to Mt. . a. 16, xi. 10, xxiii. 34. Jn. 
 has iyfjj a.ir^(TTei\a, iv. 38, xvii. 18. 
 
152 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [X. 16-23 
 
 suffer. It is precisely this fact, as He knows, that will give them 
 courage, and will even make them welcome suffering. It is in 
 obedience to His command, and for His Name's sake. But 
 who is this who dares to issue such commands, and to make 
 such claims upon His followers ? He puts before His Apostles, 
 not the promise of rapid success, not popularity or the praise of 
 men, but peril and persecution. ' Ye shall be hated of all men 
 for My Name's sake.' That is not the world's way of winning 
 adherents, and it must have been a great surprise to men who 
 were expecting the speedy triumph of the Messiah and their own 
 share in the glories of the Kingdom. . 
 
 It might well alarm the bravest of these simple fishermen to 
 be told that they would have to answer for their doings on 
 Christ's behalf before Jewish councils ^ and heathen courts. 
 They were ready to submit to severe sentences of scourging or 
 imprisonment, or death ; but they might easily injure the sacred 
 cause which they represented by their unskilfulness in replying to 
 the questions of their judges. The Master tells them not to be 
 anxious (vi. 25) about that: 'the Spirit of their Father' will be 
 in them and teach them what to say. The very form of expres- 
 sion, 'the Spirit of your Father,' is full of encouragement; and 
 this is the first mention in this Gospel of a promise of the 
 assistance of the Spirit. Comp. the promise to Moses : ' I will 
 be with thy mouth and teach thee what thou shalt say ' (Exod. 
 iv. 12). As Bede puts it, Vos ad certamen acceditis, sed ego 
 prxlior. Vos verba editis, sed ego sum qui loquor (on Lk. xxi. 15). 
 The fanaticism of those who needlessly courted a martyr's 
 death is condemned beforehand. Those who, through no fault 
 of their own, are persecuted must endure to the end, even unto 
 death, and they shall be saved, ' shall win their souls ' (Lk. xxi. 
 19). But Christ's ministers have no right to provoke destruc- 
 tion : they must be harmless as doves. There is so much work 
 to be done that the life of every missionary is precious. When 
 they are persecuted in one sphere of work, they must seek 
 another : that is the wisdom of the serpent. Christ Himself 
 avoided His enemies, until He knew that His hour was come. 
 There must be no wanton waste of Christian lives. It some- 
 times happens that there is more real heroism in daring to fly 
 from danger than in stopping to meet it. To stop and meet 
 useless risks, because one is afraid of being called a coward, is 
 one of the subtlest forms of cowardice ; and the desire to be 
 thought brave is not a high motive for courageous action. 
 
 ' SchUrer, /«£>«/; People, n. ii. pp. 59-67. Derenbourg, Hist, de la Pal. 
 pp. 86 ff. 
 
 For vTroiiovT) (22) as the link between persecution and victory see Hort on 
 Rev. i. 9. 
 
X. 16-23] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 153 
 
 Persecution is a temptation to deny Christ, and those who meet 
 persecution in a spirit of bravado have no right to expect to be 
 delivered from succumbing to that temptation. The martyr's 
 crown is not to be won, unless a man ' has contended lawfully ' 
 (2 Tim. ii. s)- . . 
 
 This paragraph, like the preceding one (5-15), closes with a 
 ' Verily I say unto you.' A comparison of it with Mk. xiii. 9-13 
 will show that it cannot have been spoken in connexion with the 
 first mission of the Twelve. But the concluding words are not 
 easy to explain. The persecuted disciples are to flee, '■for ye 
 shall not have gone through the cities of Israel, till the Son of 
 Man be come' (23). At least four things are open to question. 
 What is the meaning of 'gone through' (reAeo-TyTc), of 'the cities 
 of Israel,' of ' the Son of Man,' of ' come ' ? ' Gone through ' is 
 often understood as meaning ' gone through in your missionary 
 efforts ' : you will not have preached in all the cities of Israel. 
 No lives must be needlessly sacrificed, for even all will not 
 suffice to visit every town in Palestine in the short time at your 
 disposal. Or again, ' gone through ' may mean ' thoroughly won 
 over ' : you will not have completely C07iverted all these cities. 
 There is not very much difference between these two explana- 
 tions ; but there is a third which is quite different. ' Gone 
 through ' may mean ' exhausted in your frequent flights ' : you 
 will not have used as places of refuge all these cities. You need 
 not be afraid to fly as often as you are persecuted, for there are 
 enough cities to last you till the Son of Man comes. This 
 makes intelligible sense, but the solemn language used seems to 
 require one of the other interpretations. It need not be doubted, 
 however, that ' the cities of Israel ' means the towns of Palestine. 
 The proposal to understand by it all the cities in which there were 
 any Jews would hardly have been made, except for the purpose 
 of avoiding the difficulty caused by the delay of Christ's coming. 
 In the many centuries which have elapsed since the words were 
 spoken it would have been quite easy to have preached in all 
 the cities of Palestine. The remaining two points may be taken 
 together. " In this Gospel the coming of the Son of Man is 
 always a final coming after His death to inaugurate the King- 
 dom " (Allen). It is evident that in some way Christ's words 
 produced the impression that He would return soon. When 
 that impression had been produced, the words themselves 
 would be likely to undergo modification. Moreover, the 
 coming to establish the Kingdom may have been confused with 
 the coming to judgment. The nearness of the Kingdom may 
 have been transferred to the other coming. We may suspect 
 that the reports of His utterances respecting the Second Advent 
 have become blurred in transmission. 
 
1 54 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [X. 24-26 
 
 Some important witnesses (D L, Syr-Sin. a b k Arm.) after 'flee into the 
 next' insert 'and if they persecute you in the other flee ye to another.' If 
 this is genuine, the third interpretation of reX^ffTjTe becomes more probable. 
 
 The general topic of persecution connects the utterances 
 which follow (24-33) ^"^''th those just recorded. There is nothing 
 to show the occasion on which they were uttered.^ The first 
 (24, 25) seems to have been spoken several times and with 
 different meanings. Here the point is that the disciple must 
 not expect better treatment than his master; so also Jn. xv. 20, 
 which was a different occasion. In Lk. vi. 40 the meaning 
 appears to be that disciples are not likely to get nearer to the 
 truth than their teachers do, and consequently teachers must 
 seek knowledge, especially knowledge of self. In Lk. xxii. 27 
 and Jn. xiii. 16 the meaning is that disciples must not set them- 
 selves above their master. It is difficult to believe that these 
 different applications could have been constructed, if the saying 
 had been uttered only once ; and the theory of repetition has no 
 difficulty. Was it not likely that Christ would have His favourite 
 sayings, — favourite, because fruitful and capable of various 
 adaptations ? The thought here fits on well to what precedes. 
 The disciples will be hated by all for Christ's sake, and they will 
 not wonder at this ; they will even glory in it, because Christ 
 Himself received similar treatment. Hence His claim to call 
 upon them to suffer. ' Beelzebul ' or ' Beelzebub ' is evidently 
 used here as a term of bitter reproach or abuse, but how it 
 came to be so, and indeed the derivation of the word, are still 
 unsolved problems.^ Our knowledge of the ideas of New Testa- 
 ment times is still sadly meagre. See Nestle in DCG., art. 
 ' Beelzebub.' 
 
 Next we have sayings which contain ' Fear not ' thrice (26, 
 28, 31). Lk. has similar sayings (xii. 2-9); but the differences 
 are so considerable that the Evangelists can hardly have used 
 the same source. Once more we have a saying which Christ 
 seems to have uttered more than once, and with different 
 applications. Perhaps it was already proverbial before He made 
 use of it. Comp. Mk. iv. 22 ; Lk. viii. 17, xii. 2. In Mk. the 
 reference seems to be to teaching in parables ; the Gospel is at 
 first a mystery, but a mystery to be made known to all the world. 
 So also perhaps in Lk. viii. 17. In Lk. xii. 2 the meaning is 
 that hypocrisy is foolish as well as wicked, for the truth is sure 
 to become known. Here the application seems to be that the 
 
 'See Briggs, The Messiah of the Gospels, pp. 196-200. He gives what he 
 considers to be the original of both Mt. and Lk. , giving the preference, on 
 the whole, to Mt. 
 
 ^"The Syriac Versions and the Latin Vulgate stand alone in ending 
 the word with 3.b" (Burkitt). 
 
X. S6-29] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE ISS 
 
 Apostles are to preach publicly what Christ teaches them in 
 private. But both the ' therefore ' and the ' for ' are somewhat 
 obscure. The ' therefore ' refers to what precedes. Fear is 
 caused by uncertainty. ' Fear not, therefore, for it is certain 
 that they will persecute you as they persecute Me. You are 
 fore-warned and fore-armed.' The 'for' refers to what follows. 
 ' Dehver your message without reserve, for, like every other 
 mystery, the Gospel is sure to be revealed.'^ 
 
 The second ' Fear not ' (28) tells the disciples not to fear 
 men who can but kill the body, but to fear Him who can 
 sentence both body and soul to destruction in Gehenna.^ That 
 the latter means God need not be doubted. Olshausen, who 
 interpreted it of the devil, retracted this view in later editions. 
 The change of construction (from /xrj (^o/Sij^ijrt awb twv olttokt. to 
 4>ol3(7a-9i Tov 8vv., which is the regular construction for fearing 
 God) indicates this. We are nowhere told to fear the devil. 
 ' Fear God and resist the devil ' is the doctrine of Scripture 
 (Jas. iv. 7 ; i Pet. v. 9). The devil tries to bring us to Gehenna, 
 but he has no authority to send us there. It is the fear of God, 
 not of the devil, that is to enable the disciple to overcome the 
 fear of men. Comp. Eph. vi. 10-12 ; also Hermas, Mand. xii. 
 vi. 3 ; Ascension of Isaiah, v. 10. 
 
 What follows (29-31) confirms the view that it is God 
 who is to be feared with a fear that conquers the fear of men. 
 Men cannot harm even our bodies without God's consent ; and 
 if God consents, there is good reason, viz. a Father's love, for our 
 being allowed to suffer. The smallest animal does not perish, 
 the smallest portion of matins body (emphasis on vfLwv) does not 
 fall away, without the will of God. Here again, therefore, there 
 is room for another ' Fear not.' 
 
 The contrast in what follows (32, 33) is between the 
 judgment-seat of human persecutors and the judgment-seat of 
 God. Sometimes Christ is the final Judge of mankind (Jn. v. 
 22, ix. 39; 2 Cor. V. 10); here the Father is the Judge, and 
 the Son pleads before Him. Only those whom the Son recog- 
 
 ^ Another possible interpretation is : ' Deliver your message without fear, 
 for the lies and plots of your opponents will all be exposed at the last day.' 
 Qjiidquid latet afparebit. Nil inuUicm renianebil, as we have in the Dies 
 iros of Thomas de Celano, the friend and biographer of S. Francis of 
 Assisi. Comp. xii. 36 ; I Cor. iv. 5. 
 
 ^ The teaching of Epictetus constantly insisted on the philosopher's 
 freedom from fear of those who can only torture or kill the body. The 
 tyrant says, " I will put you in chains." " Me in chains? You may fetter 
 my leg, but ray will not even Zeus can overpower." " I will throw you into 
 prison." "My poor body, you mean." "I will cut your head off." 
 " When have I said that my head cannot be cut off?" These are the things 
 on which philosophers should meditate, and in which they should exercise 
 themselves (ZJiVfoarj^j-, l. i.). Comp. Eur. .Sac. 492-499. 
 
156 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [X. 29-38 
 
 nizes as His are safe.'' For ' deny ' Mk. (ix. 38) has ' be ashamed 
 of : comp. Rev. iii. 8. 
 
 The prediction that, in the bitterness of religious hate, the 
 nearest of kin will persecute one another (21), is now illustrated 
 by other sayings of Christ respecting the dissensions which the 
 Gospel will produce in society. 'Think not,' as in v. 17, implies 
 that some were likely to think this.^ It was the general ex- 
 pectation of the Jews that the Messiah would establish a reign 
 of peace. But peace cannot be enforced. Open hostility can 
 be put down by force ; but good will can come only by voluntary 
 consent. So long as men's wills are opposed to the Gospel, there 
 can be no peace. Sometimes the only way to peace is through 
 war. Once more Christ guards His disciples against being under 
 any illusions. They have entered the narrow way, and it leads 
 to tribulation before leading to eternal life. The parallels in Lk. 
 (xii. 51-53, xiv. 26, 27) seem to come from a different source: 
 Lk. has no parallel to ver. 36.^ 
 
 Does ' take his cross and follow after Me ' {38) imply that 
 He who leads the way carries His cross ? It is a strange picture 
 of the procession to the Messianic Kingdom. This is the first 
 mention in Mt. of the cross, and it must have startled Christ's 
 hearers ; for Jews, especially in Galilee, knew well what the cross 
 meant. The supporters of Judas and Simon had been crucified 
 by hundreds (Jos. Ant. xvii. x. 10). The person to be crucified 
 carried his own cross, or at least the cross-beam, to the place of 
 execution. It is as an instrument of death that it is used here, 
 as ver. 39 shows. The saying is given by Mt. again xvi. 24, 25 = 
 Mk. viii. 34, 3S = Lk. ix. 23, 24. Lk. xiv. 27 seems to be 
 different from both : so that we have three variations of the 
 saying, which may have been uttered more than once. Such 
 a saying would be remembered, and might be transmitted in 
 more than one form. In all five passages we have 'his cross' 
 (in Lk. xiv. 27, 'his own cross'), which implies that every one 
 has a cross to take ; no one can carry it for him. And, as 
 the next verse shows, to refuse to take one's cross does not 
 secure one from suffering. 
 
 It is impossible to reproduce the phrases for ' findeth his 
 life' and 'loseth his life' in Engljsh, owing to the different 
 meanings, or rather the combination of meanings, in the Greek 
 word {fvxij)- It includes the meanings of ' life ' and ' soul,' and 
 
 ' On the remarkable construction oiMoKoyelv Iv rivi, which is in both Mt. 
 and Lk., see J. H. Moulton, Grammar of N.T. Greek, vol. i. p. 104; with 
 the meaning comp. Rev. iii. 5. These verses (32, 33) show plainly who is 
 lo be feared in ver. 28. 
 
 ^ With ' I came,' as implying the pre-existence of the Messiah, comp, v. 17 
 and see xi. 27. 
 
 ^ On vvix^-q see Kennedy, Sources of N.T, Greek, p. 123. 
 
X. 39-42] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 157 
 
 in varying shades. The context here shows that the primary 
 meaning of the saying is that the confessor who suffers death is 
 far happier than the apostate who escapes ; but the words have 
 many other appHcations. In general, those whose sole airri 
 is to win material prosperity, lose the only life which is worth 
 living; and those who sacrifice material prosperity in Christ's 
 service, secure this higher life. Even as regards pleasure, to 
 make it one's constant aim is to fail to obtain it ; devotion to 
 something else may win it. 
 
 ' For My sake ' is in all four passages (no parallel in Lk. xiv.), 
 though some Western texts omit in Mk. viii. 35. Again we 
 have a claim which is monstrous if He who makes it is not 
 conscious of being Divine. Who is it that is going to own us 
 or renounce us before God's judgment-seat (32, 33)? Who is 
 it that promises with such confidence that the man who loses 
 his life for His sake shall find it ? And these momentous utter- 
 ances are spoken as if the Speaker had no shadow of doubt as 
 to their truth, and as if He expected that His hearers would at 
 once accept them.^ What is more, thousands of Christians, 
 generation after generation, have shaped their lives by them 
 and have proved their truth by repeated experience. Without 
 'for My sake ' the saying occurs Lk. xvii. 33 and Jn. xii. 25. 
 
 The idea of persecution passes out of sight in the three 
 sayings (40-42) which Mt. places at the close of the charge to 
 the Twelve. These sayings treat of those who receive the 
 Gospel, not of those who oppose it. The first of them is found 
 Mk. ix. 37 of receiving little children in Christ's Name : in both 
 there is the identification of Christ with Him who sent Him. 
 There is also the identification of Christ with His disciples, a 
 mystic unity which is still further developed in xxv. 31-45. It 
 has already been stated that Christ 'came' (v. 17, x. 34); here 
 He says that He ' was sent.' The idea of a mission runs through- 
 out, from the Father to the Son, from the Son to the disciples. 
 And every messenger represents him who sent him, so that the 
 disciples represent the Son, and therefore the Father. It will 
 be observed that these three verses would fit on very well to 
 vv. 14, 15. It is possible that we have now got back to words 
 which were spoken at the first mission of the Twelve.^ 
 
 Missionaries are 'prophets,' for they speak for God and 
 carry His message; and they are 'righteous,' for they preach 
 the righteousness which is set forth in the Sermon on the 
 Mount, and it is assumed that they practise it. Those who 
 
 ' See Steinbeck, Das gottliche Selbslbewusstsein. Jesu, p. 32. 
 
 ^ See Briggs, The Messiah of the Gospels, pp. 182-186, where he re- 
 constructs what may be supposed to have been the original charge to the 
 Twelve ; also pp. 238-249, where he reconstructs the charge to the Seventy. 
 
158 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [X. 43, XI. 1 
 
 receive them, because they possess this sacred character, will 
 receive the same reward as the missionaries themselves. To 
 recognize and reverence noble traits in the characters of others 
 is going a long way towards imitating them. To place oneself 
 at their service, because of their noble characters, may be to 
 equal them in merit. Or again, to support the missionaries 
 with sympathy, prayer, and alms, is to enter into their labours 
 and share their reward. 
 
 The concluding verse (42) does not come in very well here. 
 Mk. (ix. 41) gives the saying in a very different connexion and 
 with two notable differences ; ' you ' for ' one of these little ones,' 
 and ' in name that ye are Christ's ' for ' in the name of a disciple.' 
 Here ' you ' would have been more suitable : ' one of these 
 little ones' comes from Mk. ix. 42.1 Mt. is perhaps quoting 
 from memory and has mixed Mk. ix. 41 and 42. But taking 
 the saying in the form, and with the context, which Mt. gives 
 us, the meaning will be that even the smallest service done to 
 one of the disciples, because he is a disciple, is certain of a 
 reward from Him whose disciple he is. 
 
 Here again (see on vi. i) we have the promise of rewards 
 for righteousness. The reward is not offered as a motive for 
 action ; the motive in each case is love and reverence for the 
 Prophet, or righteous man, or disciple, and therefore for Him 
 whose servant he is. The reward is a support to this motive, 
 an encouragement and stimulus. It assures those to whom it 
 is promised, that those who honour God in His servants will 
 not be forgotten by God. A person whose sole object was to 
 get the reward would not be acting 'in the name of a Prophet, 
 or righteous man, or disciple ; his action would be purely 
 selfish. 
 
 If we take vv. 40-42 immediately after vv. 14, 15, then the 
 charge to the Twelve ends in a manner very similar to the 
 Sermon on the Mount. There the consequences of acting and 
 of not acting in accordance with Christ's teaching are pointed 
 out. Here the consequences of not receiving and of receiving 
 Christ's messengers are pointed out. Moreover, in each case 
 the transition to what follows is made with the formula, 'And 
 it came to pass when Jesus ended': comp. vii. 28, xiii. 53, 
 xix. I, xxvi. I. The Greek is the same in all five places; yet 
 
 ' That ' little one ' was a Rabbinical expression for a disciple, is doubtful. 
 Here it seems to mean that the disciples were people of whom the world 
 would not take much account. In comparison with the Prophets and saints 
 of the Old Testament, they would seem to be very insignificant. And their 
 mission was to be short, probably only a few weeks ; so they would have no 
 great opportunity of making a name for themselves. It is possible that every- 
 where (xviii. 6, 10, 14; Mk. ix. 42 ; Lk. xvii. 2) 'one of these little ones' 
 means ' one of My disciples' ■- DCG., art. ' Little Ones.' 
 
XI. 2, 3] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 59 
 
 even the RV. gives three different translations of iriX^a-iv : 
 'ended,' 'had made an end,' 'had finished.' See on vii. 28. 
 
 Characteristic expressions in ch. x. : \ey6iievoi (2), TropeueaBai (6, 7), 
 illiipa. Kplffeus (15), ISov (16), (pp6vt/xos (16), r]y€/xuiv (18), upa iKeirq (19), 
 olKode<nr6Tijs (25), yicpva (28), iraTijp 6 iv tols ovpavoh (32, 33), e'k tQv 
 fiiKpQiv TovTiov (42). Pecviliar : pLoKaKia (l), rj ^aaiKeia twv oupavwv (7), 
 iyui d-rroaTiWa (16) ; peculiar to this chapter : okia/cis (25, 36), Sixdfeic (35). 
 Excepting to w. 1-5 and a few scattered sayings between w. 5 and 15, there 
 are no parallels in Mk. or Lk. ; but, where there arc parallels, these ex- 
 pressions do not appear in them. In the first 'Fear not' {26) there is no 
 dispute as to the tense of the verb, 0o^i70^re, and, although there is difference 
 of reading, almost all editors agree that in the last ' Fear not ' (31) we should 
 read ^o/Sficrfle. In the intermediate 'Fear not' and 'Fear' (28) editors are 
 not unanimous : perhaps (po^eTcrde is right in both places. * Cease to fear ' 
 and ' continually fear ' make excellent sense. 
 
 XI. 2-XII. 50. Illustrations of the Misunderstanding and 
 Opposition provoked by the Ministry. 
 
 The eleventh chapter has no parallel in Mk.i The substance 
 of it comes from the Logia, and a good deal of it has parallels 
 in Lk. But the relation of Mt. to Lk. is here a difficult problem : 
 for possible solutions see Allen. Mt., as usual, is the more 
 brief. In narrating the message of the Baptist to the Messiah, 
 the two agree as regards the words spoken by John and by Christ, 
 but in the narrative portion almost every word in Mt. differs 
 from the wording of Lk. 
 
 In his prison at Machserus, near the north-east end of the 
 Dead Sea, John had heard of the works of the Messiah, — those 
 works of which Mt. has given striking illustrations. Antipas 
 had put him in prison, partly for political reasons, because of the 
 excitement which he produced among the people (Jos. Ant. 
 xviii. V. 2), and partly because of the animosity with which 
 Herodias regarded him. But having secured his person, Antipas 
 did not ill-treat him. He sometimes conversed with him, and 
 he allowed his disciples to visit him. It was easy for John to 
 hear what Jesus was doing. 
 
 'Art Thoic He that cometh, or must we look for another?' 
 There is a strong emphasis on ' Thou ' in contrast to the quite 
 different Coming One, who perhaps must be waited for. ' The 
 Coming One' (0 ip^ofj^evo';) is the Messiah (Mk. xi. 9; Lk. 
 xiii. 35, xix. 38; Heb. x. 37; Ps. cxviii. 26; Dan. vii. 13). 
 John's question was not asked for the sake of his disciples. 
 
 ' Salmon, however, is inclined to believe that Mk. knew of the message 
 of the Baptist and deliberately omitted it ( T/ie Human Element in the Gospels, 
 pp. 41, 42). Mt. alone tells us that John was in prison at this time, and he 
 alone uses the remarkable expression, 'the works of the Christ.' Mt. thus 
 shows at the outset that the Baptist is in error. 
 
l6o GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XI. 3-6 
 
 Christ's answer is not addressed to them, but to John. It is 
 not clear that they understood the meaning of the message which 
 they carried. Then is TertuUian {Marcion, iv. i8) right in think- 
 ing that John's own faith was failing, because the career of Jesus 
 did not seem to correspond with what he himself had foretold P^ 
 Possibly, but not probably. John had had such convincing 
 evidence that Jesus was the Messiah, that he could hardly doubt 
 now. And if he did doubt, what use to send to Jesus ? A false 
 Messiah would not own that he was an impostor. More probably 
 it was John's patience that was failing, not his faith. He wished 
 Jesus to come forward more publicly'and decidedly as the Messiah. 
 ' If Thou do these things, manifest Thyself to the world.' To do 
 Messianic works and not claim the position of the Messiah seemed 
 to be futile inconsistency. 
 
 The reply of Christ is like that of Tarquinius Superbus to his 
 son Sextus at Gabii : the messengers are to report what they have 
 seen the person, to whom they were sent, doing. It is a sym- 
 bolical message, which their master is to interpret. No care is 
 taken that the messengers themselves understand it ; it is for 
 John to do that. In this message, all the clauses are to be 
 understood literally, and they are arranged in three pairs, in 
 which the more mighty work is placed first. It is to be remarked 
 that all of them are works of mercy : none are works of mere 
 power and display, such as the Jews expected the Messiah to 
 give as 'signs.' It is also to be remarked that the preaching of 
 the good tidings to the poor is coupled with the raising of the 
 dead as the most convincing evidence of all. John had heard 
 in prison of the works of healing; but they did not prove more 
 than that Jesus was a great Prophet. The preaching to the poor, 
 however, was clearly Messianic (Is. Ixi. i), as He Himself declared 
 at Nazareth (Lk. iv. 18-21). It was a new thing that the poor, 
 who were commonly neglected and despised as worthless and 
 ignorant, should be invited into the Kingdom. John is to be 
 assured that Jesus is still carrying on the message that the 
 Kingdom is at hand and is open to all. This is sufficient, and 
 John is told nothing further about the Messiahship of Jesus.^ 
 But note the warning which follows. 
 
 ' Blessed is he ' (6) shows plainly enough that it is John who 
 is under consideration. Had the reference been to his disciples, 
 we should have had, 'Blessed are they' (v. 3-10). What a 
 strange revelation respecting the Messiah, that not to take offence 
 at His conduct is accounted a blessed thing. Character Messix 
 id ipsum, quod multi in eo scandalizentur (Bengel) ; so certain was 
 
 ' John had heralded a Messiah who would be severe in judging sinners, 
 and Jesus had not shoNvn Himself as such. 
 
 ^ See Sanday, The Life of Christ in Recent Research, p. 57. 
 
XI. 6-U] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE l6l 
 
 He to be misunderstood. Rtre meconnu, meme par ceux gu'on 
 aime, c'est la coupe d'amertume et la croix de la vie ; c'est ce qui a 
 du server le plus souvent le cceur du Fils de l'ho>?ime. Dieu aussi, 
 lui surtout, est le grand meconnu, le souverainement incompris 
 (Amiel). In some way even the Baptist had found some occasion 
 of stumbling in Jesus. 
 
 What follows confirms this. It is about John, not about his 
 disciples, that our Lord at once begins to speak (7), and He 
 speaks in terms of high praise. In society men are commonly 
 praised to their face, or the faces of their friends, and blamed 
 behind their backs. Jesus does the opposite in the case of 
 John. As soon as his messengers are gone, Christ proceeds to 
 remove from the minds of the multitudes the thought that, 
 because He has sent a rebuke to the Baptist, therefore the latter 
 has fallen from his high estate. On the contrary, he is one of 
 the greatest of men. Such testimony from such lips is unique, 
 and it may almost be called the funeral oration of the Baptist, 
 for not long afterwards Herodias compassed his death. 
 
 The first question might be punctuated thus : ' Why went ye out into 
 the wilderness ? to behold a reed shaken by the wind ? ' And so Jerome 
 takes it. Quid, inquit. existis in desertuni ? nuviqiiid ad hoc ut, etc. 
 Nevertheless, this is less probable than the usual division of the clauses. 
 And in either case we may understand the words either literally or meta- 
 phorically. ' Did you go out merely to see waving rushes ? ' ' Did you 
 make a pilgrimage to see a man whom you thought feeble and fickle ? Your 
 taking all that trouble shows that you thought very differently of him.' The 
 second question must be taken literally, and this is a reason for taking the 
 first literally. ' Did you go all that way to see a luxurious worldling like 
 Herod Antipas, who put John in prison ? ' In Jos. B. J. I. xxiv. 3 ' royal 
 robes ' are contrasted with those ' made of hair.' 
 
 In the third question authorities are again divided as to the punctuation 
 of the words and the meaning of the Ti. ' But what went ye out for to see ? 
 a Prophet?' (AV.). ' But wherefore went ye out ? To see a Prophet ? ' (RV.). 
 The AV. is probably right. It is reasonable to translate the 'Ti in the same 
 way in all three questions, not ' what ' in two and ' wherefore ' or ' why ' in 
 one, or vice versa. 
 
 Certainly the multitudes made the pilgrimage into the 
 wilderness because they believed that Jehovah had once more 
 granted a Prophet to His people. And Jesus declares- that 
 John was not only that, but the Forerunner of the Messiah. He 
 applies to him Mai. iii. i, which was one of the commonplaces 
 of Messianic prophecy, and which seems to have been current 
 in a form differing from both the Hebrew and the Septuagint. 
 
 Neither the Hebrew nor the Septuagint has 'before Thy face,' which all 
 three insert after ' My messenger.' All three have awocrTiWa for ^^airoaT^XKoi, 
 OS for Kai, and KaTaaKGvdaet for iin^\4^eTaL. 
 
 'Among them that are born of wornen' (11) is a solemn 
 
 IT 
 
1 62 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XI. 11-14 
 
 periphrasis for the whole race of mankind. ^ John's office and 
 mission was higher than that of any of his predecessors. He not 
 only prophesied of the Messiah, he was His Herald, and pointed 
 Him out as come.^ But he was not within the Kingdom which 
 he announced ; and, in the Kingdom, the humblest members 
 are higher than the greatest of those who are not members. In 
 spiritual privileges and knowledge Christians are above John. 
 He is the friend of the Bridegroom ; they are His spouse. 
 
 It is not quite certain whether, in what follows (12-15), ^^ 
 have a continuation of Christ's words, or a comment of the 
 Evangelist's. ' From the days of John the Baptist until now ' 
 looks like comment. On the other hand, Mt. seems to give 
 them as spoken by Christ. If so, they were probably spoken on 
 some other occasion. Lk. (xvi. 16) has part of the utterance 
 differently arranged, but he has no parallel to ver. 14. He has 
 ' the Law and the Prophets ' in the usual order. Why does Mt. 
 write ' the Prophets and the Law ' ? But it is not easy to see 
 the connexion between the violent pressing into the Kingdom 
 and the statement about the Prophets and the Law; yet 'for' 
 implies close connexion. "Whatever else these difficult words 
 contain, at least they express that a new period, that of the 
 kingdom of heaven, had set in after what are called the days of 
 John the Baptist, and that his preaching had led to a violent and 
 impetuous thronging to gather round Jesus and His disciples, a 
 thronging in which our Lord apparently saw as much unhealthy 
 excitement as true conviction" (Hort, Judaistic Christianity, p. 
 26). But the strength of the movement, however faulty it might 
 be in individual cases, was evidence of John's influence : his 
 inspiration must be from above. Yet even he had something 
 of the spirit of violence ; in his impatience, he wanted the 
 Messiah to hurry the work, just as Elijah wanted Jehovah to be 
 more rigorous with idolaters.^ 
 
 ' If ye are willing to receive it' (14) indicates that there was 
 much unwillingness. With all their enthusiasm for a new 
 
 ' Comp. Job xiv. I, XV. 14, XXV. 4. 
 
 ° " The principle on which John's superiority to the whole prophetic order 
 is based is that nearness to Jesus makes greatness. In that long procession 
 the King conies last, and the highest is he who walks in front of the Sovereign " 
 ( Maclaren ). On the other hand, John's inferiority to the humblest in the 
 Kingdom lies in the fact that they know, as he did not, how Christ's character 
 reveals God's mercy and love no less than His justice. Cyril of Jerusalem 
 says John was the end of the Prophets and the tirstfruits of the Gospel-state, 
 the connecting link between the two Dispensations ; but Cyril insists more 
 on John's superiority to Enoch, Moses, Elijah, and Jeremiah than on his 
 inferiority to all Christians [Cat. iii. 6). 
 
 ^ See Deissmann, Bible Sludies, p. 258. Zahn contends that here 
 ^idffrai, as in Lk., is middle, not passive: 'the Kingdom forces its way,' 
 like a rushing, mighty wind. 
 
XI. 15-19] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 63 
 
 Prophet, the people had not appreciated John (Mk. ix. 13). 
 His stern demand for repentance, and for conduct worthy of a 
 penitent, was not liked by many ; and his declaration that descent 
 from Abraham gave no claim to admission into the Kingdom was 
 disliked by nearly all. To recognize John as the Elijah predicted 
 by Malachi would mean that his authority to proclaim these un- 
 welcome truths was admitted. ' If ye are willing ' (d OeXere) must 
 not be supposed to mean that it does not much matter. That 
 it matters very much indeed is shown by the concluding refrain, 
 ' He that hath ears to hear, let him hear ' (xiii. 9, 43). They 
 are a warning against neglect of the fulfilment of prophecy. ^ 
 
 The parable which follows is given by Lk. (vii. 31-35) with 
 a different introduction. It is aimed at the formalists among 
 the Jews, and the Pharisees in particular. These are the children 
 sitting in the market-place and finding fault. The Baptist comes 
 in his sternness, and they want him to play at festivals. Jesus 
 comes, taking part in social joy, and they want Him to play at 
 funerals. Nothing that varies from their own narrow rules meets 
 with their approbation. They doubt whether John is a Prophet, 
 and they are convinced that Jesus is not the Messiah, because 
 neither conforms to their preconceived ideas. They said that 
 John was possessed by a demon of moroseness; and later they 
 said much the same of Christ (Jn. vii. zo, viii. 48, x. 20; comp. 
 Mt. xii. 24). They disliked the message of both. 
 
 'And yet Wisdom was justified at the hands of her children,' 
 or ' by her works.' If ' children ' be the right reading here, as 
 it certainly is in Lk. vii. 35, we must not translate '■against her 
 children ' (diro tw tekj'cov a{iT^s). The difficult sentence should 
 not be interpreted to mean that Wisdom is vindicated from the 
 attacks of her children. If ' works ' is right, such an interpreta- 
 tion is impossible. Assuming 'children' as correct, the children 
 of the Divine Wisdom are the righteous few who welcomed both 
 the Forerunner and the Messiah, recognizing that each of them 
 had been sent by the Divine Wisdom, and were under its guidance 
 in adopting different manners of life and of action. The as- 
 ceticism of John, and the absence of asceticism in Jesus, were 
 equally right in the several cases. But, if ' works ' is correct, the 
 meaning is that in both cases the method of operation has been 
 justified by results ; i.e. it is certain to be justified.^ 
 
 ' It is clear from this passage and Mk. ix. 13 that it was our Lord who 
 called the Baptist ' Elijah.' John himself did not know that he was Elijah 
 (Jn. i. 21). It is also clear that Christ had an esoteric element in His 
 teaching, which all had not ears to hear. Sanday, The Life of Christ in Recent 
 Research, p. 82. 
 
 ^ Comp. ' I have overcome the world ' (Jn. xvi. 33), where the event is 
 regarded as so sure to happen that it is spoken of as past, ' Justified ' means 
 'declared to be right' : Kennedy, Sources of N,T. Greek, p. 104. 
 
1 64 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XI. 19-21 
 
 Although '4fiywv is powerfully supported (K B, texts known to Jerome, 
 later Syriac), and the assimilation to riKvuiv in Lk. is probable, yet riKvwv 
 has the support of older authorities (D, Syr-Sin. Syr-Cur. Lat-Vet. Vulg.). 
 But most editors regard Spyuv as original. See Zahn, ad loc, footnote on 
 p. 432, and Einleiiung, ii. 312. 
 
 Some think that the variation between TiKva. and ipya. may have arisen 
 through the confusion of two similar Aramaic words, one of which means 
 'servant ' (irais) and the other 'work.' In 2 Esdr. vii. 64 there is a some- 
 what similar case : ' Longsuffering, for that He long suffereth those that have 
 sinned, as His creatures.' Here the Latin text \\zs, quasi sicis operibus ; but 
 the Ethiopic, 'as to His sons,' and the Syriac, 'because we are His servants' 
 Nestle, 'J extiial Criliiism^ p. 251 ; Salmon, Some 71ioiights on Text. Crit, 
 p. 121 ; Scrivener (Miller), ii. p. 325. It is more probable, however, that 
 the substitution of ipya. for riKva, is due to the mention of Christ's ' mighty 
 works' (5wd/xeis) in vv. 20-24. 
 
 It seems probable that, in the preceding paragraphs {2-19), Mt. has put 
 together three Logia, which are quite distinct, but are all connected with tlie 
 Baptist (2-1 1, 12-15, l6-l9). Lk. places the first and third in juxtaposition 
 (vii. 18-28, 29-35), t>"' ^^ P"'^ '^"^ intermediate one much later (xvi. 16). 
 The refrain, 'He that hath ears, let him hear,' occurs thrice in Mt. (xi. 15, 
 xiii. 9, 43), twice in Mk. (iv. 9, 23, not vii. 16), and twice in Lk. (viii. 8, 
 xiv. 35), not at all in Jn. 
 
 For further suggestions respecting ver. 19 see t\ieJour. of Th. St., April 
 1904, p. 455; Bruce, The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, pp. 414-426; 
 
 The verses (20-27) which follow the parable of the children in the market- 
 place, when compared with the parallels in Lk. (x. 13-15, 21, 22), show us 
 once more that Mt. groups his material according to subject, and not accord- 
 ing to time and place. In Lk. the reproach to the cities that had rejected 
 Him is appended to the charge to the Seventy, and the exultation over God's 
 preference of the disciples is placed after the return of the Seventy. These 
 two sections come in here as illustrations of the different effects which the 
 Ministry of the Messiah had upon those who came in contact with it. We 
 have had its effects on John (2), and on those who criticized both Him and 
 John (16), and now we have its effect on the arrogant cities and on the humble 
 disciples. The 'Then' in 'Then began He' is not a note of time: there- 
 mark is inserted by Mt. to form a means of transition from one saying of 
 Christ to another. And the translation 'wherein most of His mighty works 
 were done,' is probably an exaggeration of the Greek [oX TrXetcrrat Sypd^ets 
 aiiTov], which need not mean more than ' His many miracles' (Blass, § 44, 4), 
 and this also is all that pliirima: virtutes ejus (Vulg. ) need mean. Mt. would 
 be unlikely to say that most of the mighty works wrought by the Messiah 
 resulted in the impenitence of those who witnessed them. 
 
 We know nothing about Chorazin, except what is told us here 
 and in the parallel in Lk.^ The precise form of the name and 
 its derivation, as in the case of ' Beelzebub,' are uncertain. 
 Another illustration of the meagreness of our knowledge of 
 Judaism in the time of Christ. And yet He was very active in 
 Chorazin ; showing how much, not only of His life, but even of 
 the few years of the Ministry, is unrecorded (Jn. xxi. 25). For 
 
 ' The reason why we are told nothing about our Lord's work in Chorazin 
 may be that it took place before the call of S. Peter, which is the starting- 
 point of the Gospel narrative of Christ's Ministry in Galilee (Salmon, The 
 Human Element, p. 297). 
 
XI. 21-S5] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 165 
 
 the probable sites of Chorazin and Bethsaida see Sanday, Sacred 
 Sites of the Gospels, pp. 24, 41. Of these two cities the paradox 
 was true, that though the Kingdom of God had come nigh to 
 them, yet they were far from the Kingdom of God. Tyre and 
 Sidon are often denounced for their wickedness (Is. xxiii. ; 
 Jer. XXV. 22, xlvii. 4; Ezek. x.wi. 3-7, xxviii. 12-22). In the 
 denunciation of Capernaum, where Christ had not only done 
 many works, but lived and taught, ' Heaven ' and ' Hades ' (not 
 Gehenna) symbolize the height of glory and the depth of shame 
 (Is. xiv. 13-15). The very site of Capernaum is still a matter of 
 dispute, and all three towns have long since been in ruins (Jos. 
 B.J. III. X. 10; Renan, L' Antechrist, p. 277; Tristram, Bible 
 Places, p. 267 ; Sanday, Sacred Sites, p. 37). The sin of these 
 flourishing places was not violence or sensuality, but indifference. 
 There is no evidence that they opposed or ridiculed Christ ; but 
 His work made no impression on them. They perhaps took a 
 languid interest in His miracles and teaching ; but His beneficence 
 never touched their hearts, and His doctrine produced no change 
 in their lives. Self-satisfied complacency, whether in the form of 
 Pharisaic self-righteousness or in that of popular indifference, is 
 condemned by Christ more severely than grosser sins. A life 
 that externally is eminently respectable may be more fatally 
 antichristian than one that is manifestly scandalous. For the 
 comparison with Sodom comp. x. 15. The confidence with 
 which Jesus utters His judgments as being identical with the 
 Divine judgments is all the more impressive from its being 
 implied and not asserted. 
 
 The evidence for 'shall thou be exalted unto heaven' (KBCDL, Lat- 
 Vet. Vulg. Syr-Cur. Arm. Aeth. ) is decisive; so also in Lk. But both 
 readings make good sense. It is not quite so certain that ' thou shalt go 
 down ' is right : ' thou shalt be brought down ' is well supported. 
 
 The exultation of Jesus over the Divine Preference shown to 
 the disciples is placed by Lk. (x. 21, 22) after the return of the 
 Seventy. 1 The introductory formula, ' Jesus answered and said,' 
 does not indicate that the words which follow are a reply to 
 anything. ' Answered and said ' is common in Hebrew narrative 
 as an enlarged equivalent for ' said ' (xvii. 4, xxviii. 5). Like 
 'He opened His mouth and taught,' it prepares the way for a 
 solemn utterance (Deut. xxi. 7 ; Job iii. 2 ; Is. xxi. 9). Dalman, 
 Words, p. 24. 
 
 ' I thank Thee ' (iiofioXoyovfiaL o-oi) is literally ' I acknowledge 
 openly to Thy honour' (Gen. xxix. 35; 2 Sam. xxii. 50; Ps. 
 XXX. 4 ; and especially Ecclus. li. i, 10). See Kennedy, Sources 
 
 ' Lk. expressly states that there was exultation : riya\\(.(x<TaTO t(} Uv. rif 
 ■Ay. 
 
1 66 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [xl. HS-Qt 
 
 of N.T. Greek, p. ii8. On various occasions Christ recognized 
 publicly God as His Father: xv. 13, xviii. 35; Jn. v. 17, xi. 41, 
 xii. 27; Lk. xxiii. 34, 46. Here He thanks His Father that 
 intellectual power is not necessary for the recognition of the work 
 of the Divine Wisdom. He does not mean that intellectual power 
 is a barrier to the reception of the Gospel ; but it is immaterial : 
 all that is required is childlike simplicity. Ignorance is no 
 quaUfication, intellect is no disqualification ; for the qualifications 
 are not mental, but moral. The heart, not the head, is the 
 home of the Gospel, and the condition of receiving it is lowliness 
 of spirit, not strength of brain. Not all clever people are shut 
 out from the Kingdom, although some shut themselves out ; for 
 it is not intelligence, but the pride of intellectual people, that 
 excludes. And not all simple folk are admitted ; for it is not 
 stupidity, but the humility of simple-hearted people, that qualifies. 
 The psychological laws which God has established manifest the 
 very different results of intellectual pride and of intellectual 
 humility, and for this Jesus gives thanks. He is not proclaiming 
 any necessary connexion between ignorance and religious faith. ^ 
 How does Jesus know that this law, which shuts out such 
 ' wise and understanding ' people as the Scribes and Pharisees, while 
 it admits such ' babes ' as the disciples, is in accordance with the 
 Divine decrees? The passage (27) in which the answer to this 
 question is given is unique in the Synoptic Gospels, although 
 such utterances are common in the Fourth Gospel. The verse 
 is in both Mt. and Lk., and the reckless scepticism which would 
 question its authenticity is based, not upon critical principles, but 
 upon prejudice. Such evidence is very unwelcome in some 
 quarters, and it is therefore discredited. In his excellent notes 
 on the passage Mr. Allen says : "The occurrence of this verse in 
 both Mt. and Lk. even if the two Evangelists borrow from a 
 single source, proves that this saying reaches back to an early 
 stage of the Gospel tradition. If, as is probable, the two writers 
 drew from different sources, this tradition was widespread. If 
 we add the fact that a similar use of ' the Son ' — ' the Father ' 
 occurs in Mk. xiii. 32, this usage as a traditional saying of Christ 
 is as strongly supported as any saying in the Gospels." Hase 
 calls the passage " an aerolite from the Johannean heaven," but 
 adds that it is "within the range of the vision of S. Paul" 
 {Geschichte Jesu,%()\. See also Nosgen, Geschichte Jesu Christi, 
 p. 475). Even Schmiedel regards this as an original utterance 
 of Jesus, and interprets the aorist as meaning that there was a 
 particular moment when Jesus discovered that God was His 
 Father, a thought which was new to Him, because the idea of 
 
 ' On the translation of the aorists ^Kpvipas and aTrcxaXu^as see J. H. 
 Moulton, Cram, of N.T. Gr. i. p. 136. 
 
XI. 27] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 167 
 
 God as a Father had become extinct among His contemporaries 
 {Enc. Bibl. iv. 4697). The importance of this is the admission, 
 from such a quarter, that we have here an original utterance of 
 Jesus. See Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat, vii. 5, x. i, 9, xvi. 24. 
 
 Keim speaks of the whole utterance as " this pearl of the 
 sayings of Jesus," points out how frequently and with what 
 variations it is quoted, and thinks that the original form of 
 ver. 27 probably stood thus: 'Everything has been delivered 
 to Me by My Father. And no one has known the Father except 
 the Son, and no one has known the Son except the Father, and 
 he to whom He (the Father) is willing to reveal Him.' ^ The 
 desire to make 'He' refer to the Son led to various changes. 
 But, whatever view may be taken of this minor point, Keim 
 remarks on the importance of the evidence which the passage, in 
 its simplest form, supplies. " Everything is given over to Him 
 by His Father, i.e. by the God whom He here for the first time 
 calls His Father in a peculiar sense, thereby distinguishing 
 between Himself and all other men. . . . He is the first and the 
 only one who through Himself and through God has attained to 
 the knowledge of God the Father, which no Abraham, no Moses, 
 no David and Solomon, no Isaiah and Daniel, — to say nothing 
 of the wisdom of that day, had found. In the second place, just 
 as He knows God, God on the other hand knows Him ; He 
 knows God as Father, as Father of men, and yet more as His 
 own Father, and God knows Him as Son, as Son among many, 
 and yet more as the One among many : and exclusively related 
 to one another, each being to the other a holy, unveiled secret, 
 worth knowing and discovered by effort ; they mutually approach 
 with love in order to discover and to enjoy one another in the 
 self-satisfaction of the enjoyment which is based upon the 
 similarity of spiritual activity, upon the likeness of essence, of 
 nature (Ps. i. 6, cxxxix. i ; Gal. iv. 9 ; 1 Cor. viii. 3 ; 2 Tim. ii. 
 19). In the third place, this self-enclosed world of the Father 
 and the Son opens itself to the lower world, to men, only by its 
 own free act, because it wills to open itself and to admit to 
 companionship whom it will." ^ 
 
 Harnack {The Sayings of Jesus, ^•^. 272-310) has subjected 
 the passages, Mt. xi. 25-27 = Lk. x. 21, 22, and Mt. 28, 29, to a 
 very thorough critical investigation, and is convinced that, with 
 certain reservations about Mt. xi. 27 = Lk. x. 22, they must be 
 
 ' Justin, Try. 100 ; Apol. i. 63 ; Iren. I. xiii. 2, iv. vi. i ; Tert. Adv. 
 Marcion. ii. 27, iv, 25; Clem, Horn, xvii, 4, xviii. 4, 11, 13, 15, 20; Recog. 
 ii. 47 ; Clem, Strom, vii, 18, 
 
 - Keim, Jesus of Nazara, iv. pp. 54-64. He protests that "there is no 
 more violent criticism than that which, since Baur's time, Strauss has intro- 
 duced " of repudiating this passage, because of its testimony to the Divine 
 Sonship of Christ. 
 
1 68 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XI. 27-30 
 
 accepted as genuine utterances of our Lord. "Both sayings 
 (xi. 25-27 and 28, 29) — the second in higher degree — have a 
 poetical rhythm, and in their construction remind us of the 
 poetical form of sayings in the Psalms and Prophets ; but from 
 this point of view they are not unique among the sayings of our 
 Lord ; indeed, not a few have a similar form." The form in 
 which the second saying (28, 29) and the first half of the first 
 saying (25, 26) have come down to us may be accepted as the 
 most ancient attainable form ; but doubts arise as to the second 
 half of the first saying (27). We have many early quotations 
 with important variations, i. Some have TrapaSt'Sorai instead of 
 ■n-apfSodrj. 2. Some have eyvM icognovii) instead of iTriyivwcrKei 
 {cognoscit). 3. Some place the clause about the Son knowing 
 the Father before the clause about the Father knowing the Son. 
 4. Some have ' to whomsoever the Son may reveal Him ' instead 
 of ' to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal Him.' There need 
 be no doubt that irapeSoOr) is the original reading (comp. xxviii. 
 1 8). Harnack contends that lyi/w is right in Lk., and that in Lk. 
 the words koI tis Io-tlv 6 vlos ei /x^ 6 irarij/o were wanting, and 
 therefore were wanting in the authority which both Mt. and Lk. 
 used. Yet he admits that the interpolation must be " very 
 ancient ; for all our authorities for S. Matthew and all our 
 authorities, except one, for S. Luke have it." Indeed this inter- 
 polation into the Lukan text " must have taken place almost at 
 once." He also admits the probability that during, this later 
 period of Christ's Ministry He spoke of Himself as ' the Son ' ; 
 " because it is absolutely impossible to imagine how He could 
 have arrived at the conviction that He was the future Messiah 
 without first knowing Himself as standing in an unique relation- 
 ship to God." Harnack thinks that aTroKaXvij/rj is more likely to 
 be original than PovX.-qTai. awoK. 
 
 O. Holtzmann would limit ' all things have been delivered to 
 Me' (TravTtt /xot irapi^od-q) to "the handing over of the doctrine, 
 and not the delivering over of a vicegerency in the world- 
 sovereignty of God " {Life of Jesus, p. 284).^ But the aorist 
 points back to a moment in eternity, and implies the pre- 
 existence of the Messiah (see on 'I came,' v. 17, x. 34). The 
 common Jewish idea seems to have been that the Name of the 
 Messiah was present to God from all eternity, but that the 
 Messiah Himself was a human Sovereign endowed by God with 
 supernatural powers. Sometimes, however, Jewish thought went 
 beyond this, and the pre-existence of the Messiah was clearly 
 stated, as in the Book of Enoch, where we read that the Son of 
 
 ' So also Wellhausen, who regards ' and no one knoweth the Son but 
 the Father ' as an early interpolation. It must be very early to have got into 
 all MSS. and Versions. 
 
XI. 27-30] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 169 
 
 Man "has been chosen and hidden before Him (God) before 
 the creation of the world and for evermore " (xlviii. 5) ; " the 
 Elect One standeth before the Lord of Spirits, and His glory 
 is for ever and ever" (xlix. 2) ; and Enoch's "name was carried 
 aloft daring his lifetime to the Son of Man and to the Lord of 
 Spirits from amongst those who dwell on the earth " (Ixx. i). So 
 also in the Fourth Book of Esdras : "This is the Anointed One, 
 whom the most High hath kept unto the end" (xii. 32); "the 
 same is He whom the Most High hath kept a great season" 
 (xiii. 26); and "no man upon earth can see My Son" 
 (xiii. 52). _ 
 
 The gracious words which follow (28-30) are not in Lk. ; 
 they are among the special treasures of the First Gospel. Their 
 want of other attestation and their resemblance to Ecclus. li. 23, 
 26, 27 have caused some to conjecture that Mt. has invented 
 them, with Sirach as a basis. But could Mt. have invented 
 them, even with that help ? " It is not so easy to make new 
 Sayings and new Parables like those in the Gospels of Matthew 
 and Luke ; at least, that kind of speech does not make itself 
 heard in the extant remains of what the first four generations of 
 Christians wrote " (Burkitt, The Gosp. Hist, and its Transmission, 
 p. 199). "The important thing is to recognise that this is the 
 kind of teaching which the Evangelist thought worthy to put in 
 his Lord's mouth, and which the Church accepted as worthy. 
 . . . Again and again we find ourselves in the presence of some- 
 thing which may or may not be authentic historical reminiscence, 
 but is in any case totally unlike the other remains of early 
 Christian literature . . . and we take knowledge of the 
 Evangelists that they have been with Jesus " {iiid. pp. 
 206, 207). 
 
 When we ask what connexion these gracious words have 
 with the context, we must remember that this question need 
 mean no more than that the Evangelist must have had some 
 reason for placing the words here. We cannot be certain that 
 vv. 21-30, or even vv. 25-30, were spoken as one continuous 
 utterance. Lk's omission of 28-30 points to this being a 
 separate saying.^ If it was such, why did Mt. insert it at this 
 point? The last words of ver. 27 give a good connexion. 
 Although the Son alone knows the Father, yet He is willing to 
 impart some of His knowledge to those who are worthy ; and 
 forthwith He invites those who are in need of guidance to come 
 and learn of Him. A more general connexion lies in the 
 
 ^ The words which Lk. places immediately after ' the Son willeth to 
 reveal Him' are a beUer sequence than ' Come unto Me,', etc. Lk. has: 
 ' Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see,' etc. {k. 23, 24), 
 while Mt. has xiii. 16. 
 
I70 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XI. 28-30 
 
 contrast between the wise and understanding Scribes and 
 Pharisees who rejected Christ's teaching, and the childlike 
 disciples who accepted it, and thus proved themselves children 
 of the Divine Wisdom. The Scribes professed to expound the 
 Law as the expression of the will of God; but Christ has 
 received authority to reveal God Himself to those who feel their 
 need of Him. The Scribes could not give the rest to souls 
 which He can promise (note the emphatic Kayia). 'They bind 
 heavy burdens {<f>opTia) and grievous to be borne, and lay them 
 on men's shoulders ' (xxiii. 4) ; but His burden is light. This 
 shows that ' heavy laden ' {Tretf>opTiTiJ.evoi) does not refer primarily 
 to the load of sin, but to the burdens which Pharisaic interpre- 
 tations of the Law imposed, and which, after all, gave no relief 
 to men's consciences. From Christ's teaching and life men 
 could learn the nature of the righteousness which is in accord- 
 ance with God's will. It is the righteousness of a meek and 
 lowly heart, not of external observances. Exalted as Christ is 
 through His relation to the Father, He is also related to us 
 through His perfect humanity, and from His human life and 
 character we can learn by imitation.^ And it is the possibility 
 of imitating Him that makes His yoke easy and His burden Ught, 
 for He has borne both Himself. Moreover, He has not only set 
 us an example of bearing, He helps us to follow it. There must 
 be a yoke and a burden, for a lofty ideal, such as He sets before 
 us, is exacting ; but a lofty ideal is also inspiring, and that makes 
 the yoke easy and the burden light. 
 
 There are two pairs of expressions in this invitation which 
 seem to balance one another : ' all ye that labour and are heavy 
 laden,' and ' Come unto Me ; take My yoke upon you.' 
 ' labouring ' (KOTrtuJvTEs) is not the same as being ' heavy laden 
 {Tre<f>opTLCTfiivoL). The one implies toil, the other endurance. 
 The one refers to the weary search for truth and for relief for 
 a troubled conscience ; the other refers to the heavy load of 
 observances that give no rehef, and perhaps also to the sorrows 
 of life, which, apart from the consolations of a true faith, are so 
 crushing.^ To those who are worn out with resultless seeking 
 Christ says : 'Come unto Me, and /will refresh you.' To those 
 
 ' We ought probably to translate ' and learn from Me tAa/ I am meek ' 
 (/aaflere ciTr' i/j-ou Sti Tpais ei/tii). In the Testaments we have a similar combina- 
 tion of terms : i<TTl yap dXij^Tjs /cai /xaKpidv/^os, rpfot Kal Ta-rreivdi {Dan vi. 
 9) ; but the passage looks like a Christian interpolation, of which there are 
 many. 
 
 ^ The word for 'easy' (x/")<t6s) is applied to God (Lk. vi. 35 ; Rom. ii. 
 4 ; I Pet. ii. 3) to express His gracious goodness and longsufiering. Here 
 the Latin Versions have suavis, but in other places they vary between 
 benignus, suavis, and dulcis. 'My yoke is good to bear,' is the meaning; 
 it brings a blessing to those who accept it. 
 
XI. 29, 30] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 71 
 
 who are weighed down with unprofitable burdens He says : 
 'Take My yoke upon you.' 
 
 In using the metaphor of a yoke, Christ was probably employ- 
 ing an expression which was already proverbial. In the Psalms 
 of Solomon, which are a little earlier than the time of Christ, we 
 have : " We are beneath Thy yoke for evermore, and beneath 
 the rod of Thy chastening " (vii. 8) ; and " He shall possess the 
 peoples of the heathen to serve Him beneath His yoke " (xvii. 32). 
 " The yoke " was a common Jewish metaphor for discipline or 
 obligation, especially in reference to the service of the Law. 
 Thus, in the Apocalypse of Baruch : " For lo ! I see many of 
 Thy people who have withdrawn from Thy covenant, and cast 
 from them the yoke of Thy Law" (xli. 3). Comp. Lam. iii. 27 ; 
 Ecclus. li. 26 ; Acts xv. 10 ; Gal. v. i ; Pirqe Aboth, iii. 8. In 
 the Didache (vi. 2) we have "the whole yoke of the Lord," which 
 probably means the Law in addition to the Gospel. Mackinlay 
 thinks that the easy yoke and light burden point to a sabbath 
 year as the time of utterance. At that time there would be no 
 tilling, and the oxen would have little to do. This may have 
 suggested the metaphor {The Magi, p. 113). But so obvious a 
 metaphor hardly needs such suggestion. 
 
 This triplet of sayings (25, 26; 27; 28-30) is beyond the 
 invention of any Evangelist. The words are their own authentica- 
 tion. At what time and in whose presence they were uttered, 
 are questions of little moment. They are addressed to the 
 whole human race throughout all time, and he who understands 
 them " has found his way to the heart of Christianity " (Sanday). 
 Coming immediately after the Woes on the unrepenting cities, 
 they are all the more impressive. Within the compass of eleven 
 verses we have striking examples of both the severity and the 
 gentleness of Christ in His dealings with men. And side by 
 side with these we have a revelation of that which explains this 
 strange combination of sternness and compassion in the Son of 
 Man — His unique relation to the God who is both Judge of all 
 and Father of all. 
 
 The third saying (28, 29) has various points of contact with the O.T., especi- 
 ally with Isaiah and Jeremiah: comp. Is. xiv. 3, 25, xxviii. 12, xxxii. 17, 
 xlii. 2, 3 ; Iv. I ; Jer. vi. i6, xxxi. 25. In Jer. vi. 16 we have nal evprjcreTe 
 ayifia^dv Tats ypux^ls v^iiav. If avawavaiv is not an independent translation 
 from the Hebrew of Jer. vi. 16, and if we are to seek a source for it in 
 previous writings, then Ecclus. li. 27 may have suggested it. Comp. the 
 Homily attributed to Clement of Rome (2 Clem. 5) : " The promise of Christ is 
 great and marvellous, even the rest (ava-n-amis) of the Kingdom that shall be." 
 
 In ch. xi. we have the following expressions, which are characteristic of 
 Mt. and are not found in the parallels in Lk. : fifra^alveiv (l), iKeWev (r), 
 iropeieffQaL (7), IB06 (19), Tbre (20), 7]fjApa Kpiaews (22, 24), SeOre (28). 
 Peculiar to Mt. : ri ^aaCKcla twv oipavuiv (11, 12), if iKelvif T<f Kaipf (25), 
 eralpos (16) ; ^locn-^s (12) is not found elsewhere in the N.T. 
 
172 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XII. 1 
 
 In the twelfth chapter the Evangehst continues his illustra- 
 tions of the misconceptions and hostility to which the Ministry 
 of the Messiah was exposed. We have had the Baptist's mis- 
 understanding of the Messiah's work, and the persistent disregard 
 and indifference with which it was treated in Chorazin, Bethsaida, 
 and Capernaum. Here we have three illustrations of Pharisaic 
 antagonism, exhibited with increasing vehemence, and culmin- 
 ating in a charge of working in league with Beelzebub. The 
 two first illustrations have reference to Christ's attitude towards 
 the sabbath. 
 
 We now return to the Gospel of Mk. (ii. 23). Thrice just 
 in this part of his work does Mt. exchange his characteristic 
 ' Then ' at the beginning of a narrative for ' At that season ' 
 (xi. 25, xii. I, \iv. i), a phrase not found in any other Gospel. 1 
 The ' season ' in this case must have been shortly before harvest, 
 and about a year before the last Passover. Our Lord was 
 walking in front of His disciples, who plucked and ate the corn 
 as they followed. This was allowed (Deut. xxiii. 25), and the 
 Pharisees do not accuse the disciples of stealing. But plucking 
 and rubbing the ears was accounted by the Scribes as reaping, 
 threshing, and winnowing, and thus was of the nature of work 
 or business such as was forbidden on the sabbath (Edersheim, 
 Life and Times, ii. pp. 56, 780; Klostermann on Mk. ii. 23; 
 Driver on Deut. xxiii. 25). On this the Pharisees fasten. In 
 Mt. and Mk. they attack the disciples through the Master, just 
 as in ix. 11 ( = Mk. ii. 26) they attacked the Master through the 
 disciples.^ 
 
 Our Lord does not deny that rest on the sabbath is com- 
 manded, and He does not stay to protest against the rigour 
 which would make plucking and eating corn a violation of the 
 command. He points out that every rule has its limitations, 
 and that ceremonial regulations must yield to the higher claims 
 of charity and necessity. This the Old Testament itself showed, 
 by the analogous case of David and the shewbread," and the 
 still stronger case of the Priests and the sabbatical sacrifices. 
 In the latter case violation of the rule of resting on the sabbath 
 was not merely allowed but commanded ; indeed on the sabbath 
 the sacrifices and consequent labour were increased. See Gray, 
 Numbers, p. 406. In the incident about David, Mt. corrects 
 
 ' 'Then,' however, remains frequent : vv. 13, 22, 38, 44, 45, xiii. 36. 
 
 ^ In both places Lk. (v. 30, vi. 2) represents them as attacking the 
 disciples only. Here all three have ' and they that were with him,' which 
 has special point in reference to the disciples. 
 
 ' The analogy was closer than they could see, — the analogy between 
 David and his fiillowers in need of food and the Son of David and His 
 followers in need of food. Christ could have fed His disciples miraculously, 
 but He does not use supernatural means, when natural means are available. 
 
XII. 1-8] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 73 
 
 the slip of Mk. by omitting 'When Abiathar was high priest'; 
 for Ahimelech was high priest when it took place (i Sam. xxi. i). 
 See Gould, ad loc. p. 49. The second argument about the 
 priests in the Temple is not in Mk. or Lk., and it may be a 
 saying that was uttered on a different occasion, but which Mt. 
 introduces here because it has reference to the sabbath.^ Its 
 point here is that, if the sabbath-rest may every week give way 
 to the ceremonial requirements of sacrifices, still more may it 
 in exceptional cases give way to the moral requirements of 
 charity. People need not faint for want of food in order to 
 abstain from working on the sabbath. The quotation of 
 Hos. vi. 6, ' I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' has already been 
 made, ix. 13, and it is very suitable in both places. We may 
 believe that such words were often cited by our Lord. 
 
 ' The Son of Man is lord of the sabbath ' is in all three. 
 The sequence of thought is plainest in Mk. The sabbath was 
 made for man, and therefore is subject to the ideal Man, who 
 represents the race and has authority to determine the way in 
 which the principle of the sabbath can best be carried out for 
 man's benefit. Christ is not claiming authority to abolish the 
 sabbath. The sabbath was the ordinance of God for the good, 
 not merely of Israel, but of all mankind. But the traditional 
 methods of observing it were of man's devising, and these must 
 yield to circumstances. By connecting the sabbath with bene- 
 volence, Christ was fulfilling its fundamental purpose. See 
 Hort, Jiidaistic Christianity, p. 33 ; also Gould, p. 50. The 
 Pharisees had made the sabbath an institution so burdensome 
 that its Divine character was lost sight of: this could best be 
 restored by showing that it was a blessing and not a burden. 
 The Son of Man vindicates man's freedom. 
 
 In ver. 6 the neuter, 'a greater thiiig,^ '"something greater,' ' more than 
 the Temple is here ' is certainly the true reading ; not the masculhie, ' one 
 greater than the Temple.' Perhaps the meaning is the same, viz. the 
 Messiah. Bnt the masculine would have revealed Jesus as the Messiah in a 
 more definite way than He is likely to have employed. The neuter might 
 mean the Ministry of proclaiming the Kingdom of God. The work of Christ 
 and His disciples was of more account than the Temple. For ^el^ov (comp. 
 xi. 9) N B D, etc., for ixeV^uv (an obvious correction) L A, Vulg. 
 
 This passage (1-8) is one of those in which Mt. and Lk. agree in notable 
 particulars against Mk. (see on ix. 17, 20). Here both omit the ambiguous 
 6h6v TToteiv and the inaccurate iirl 'A^tddap apxi-ep^ws, and both insert that the 
 
 ' Both arguments are introduced with the question, ' Did ye not read? ' 
 or, ' Have ye not read ? ' When Christ addressed illiterate multitudes, He said, 
 ' Ve have heard' (v. 21, 27, 33, 38, 43). When He addresses the Pharisees 
 or other educated persons who made a study of the Law, He speaks of their 
 reading : xix. 4, xxi. 16, 42, .xxii. 31. On oi &pToi Tr]'i wpoSeaeui see Deiss- 
 mann, Btite Studies, p. 157. For the rigour of the rules about the sabbath 
 see the Book of Jubilees, 1. 9-13 ; Edersheim, Life and Times, ii. pp. 777 ff. 
 
174 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XII. 9-14 
 
 disciples ate the grain, an addition which is remarkable in Mt., who often 
 omits redundant statements. Both omit ' the sabbath was made for man, and 
 not man for the Sabbath.' 
 
 Mt. seems to regard the second incident (9-14) as taking 
 place on the same sabbath. Jesus leaves His critics, goes into 
 their synagogue, and finds them there ready to oppose Him 
 again. Lk. makes it another sabbath and perhaps a different 
 place ; he also says that Christ taught before healing.^ Mk. 
 and Lk. say that they watched Him whether He would heal 
 on the sabbath, and that He asked them whether it was lawful 
 to do ^ood on the sabbath. Mt. omits the watching, and says 
 that they asked Him whether it is lawful to heal on the 
 sabbath, to which He replied that it is lawful to do good on the 
 sabbath. The argument about the animal in a pit is not in 
 Mk., and is given in Lk. in a different connexion (xiv. 1-6), the 
 healing of a dropsical man. Mt. and Lk. agree against Mk. 
 in omitting Christ's anger and His grief at the hardening of 
 their hearts ; also in omitting that the Herodians took part 
 in the conspiracy against Jesus.^ The former omission is 
 characteristic of Mt., who avoids attributing human emotions to 
 the Messiah. Comp. viii. 2, 4 with Mk. i. 41, 43, and xiii. 58 
 with Mk. vi. 6. 
 
 Mt. certainly weakens Christ's argument by substituting 
 ' It is lawful to do good on the sabbath ' for ' Is it lawful to do 
 good or to do harm ? to save a life or to kill ? ' To refuse to 
 do good is to do evil ; and that cannot be right on the sabbath 
 or any other day. And while they condemn Him for restoring, 
 without any labour, a man's hand on the sabbath, they have 
 no scruple about plotting on the sabbath to kill Him. All this 
 is lost in Mt. The whole incident is a striking example of the 
 power which formalism has to blind men to the proportion of 
 things. Because Christ disregarded, not the Divine Law about 
 the sabbath, but their unreasonable regulations as to the method 
 of observing the law, they thought it right to try to destroy 
 Him. Christ's method of meeting their casuistry is to be noted. 
 He might have urged that there was no breach of sabbatical 
 rest in telling a man to stretch out his hand, or in the man's 
 trying to do so. But He puts the matter on the broad principle 
 that to heal is to do good, and doing good is a very proper way 
 of observing the sabbath. Yet this has no good effect upon 
 
 ' In the Gospels the man with the withered hand does not speak. Jerome 
 says that in the Gospel which was used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites the 
 man took the initiative saying : " I was a mason, earning my bread with my 
 hands. I pray Thee, Jesu, restore my health, that I may not in shame beg 
 for food." 
 
 ^ In xxii. 16 = Mk. xii. 13, Mt. retains the mention of the Herodians. 
 Lk. omits in both places. This miracle took place in Herod's country. 
 
XII. 17-Sl] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1/5 
 
 the prejudiced formalists. They cannot refute Him ; but they 
 are sure that one who teaches men to disregard their traditions 
 must be a dangerous heretic, and they resolve to destroy Him.^ 
 
 His hour was not yet come, and therefore Jesus withdrew 
 from the dangerous neighbourhood, and continued His bene- 
 ficent works of healing elsewhere (15). The charge that 'they 
 should not make Him known' (16) is given by Mk. (iii. 12) in 
 reference to the unclean spirits who proclaimed Him as the 
 Son of God. The time was not yet ripe for a general announce- 
 ment that He was the Messiah, and demons were not suitable 
 preachers. Here Mt. mentions the charge in order to introduce 
 a fulfilment of Is. xlii. 1-4, where the Servant of Jehovah is 
 spoken of as the special object of the Divine love, and as 
 anointed with the Spirit to judge the heathen. Yet this servant 
 does not enter into controversies, nor promote public excitement. 
 He is careful not to extinguish any spark of good in men's hearts, 
 but endeavours to lead them on to better things, till truth shall 
 prevail ; so that even the heathen may be brought to trust in 
 Him. This prophecy of the second Isaiah has a very different 
 meaning in reference to Cyrus, who is to conquer without 
 warlike threatenings, and will not trample on the weak in the 
 hour of victory. But the Evangelist sees how much of it is 
 true of the Messiah in His bloodless conquest of mankind, and 
 he quotes it accordingly.^ It is perhaps specially for the sake 
 of the concluding words about the Gentiles that Mt. quotes the 
 prophecy. For the details of the wording in reference to the 
 Hebrew and the Septuagint, see Allen's note ; also for the 
 details of the relation of what follows (22-50) to Mk. iii. 22-35 
 and to Lk. xi. 14 ff. 
 
 The malignity of the Pharisees is now exhibited in the charge 
 that Jesus casts out demons with the aid of Beelzebub the chief 
 of the demons. Both Mt. and Lk. make the introduction to 
 this charge to be Christ's casting out the demon from a dumb 
 demoniac, Mt. adding that he was blind also.^ All the sufferer's 
 
 ' The phrase ' to take counsel ' {avn§oi\i.ov Xan^amv) is peculiar to Mt. 
 (xii. 14, xxii. 15, xxvii. I, 7, xxviii. 12). It does not occur elsewhere in the 
 N.T. nor in the Septuagint, and in Greek literature the word o-u/i^ouXiov is 
 rare ; Deissmann, Btdk Studies, p. 238. The phrase means to come to a 
 conclusion, rather than to deliberate whether or not. 
 
 ^ Zahn shows in detail how the prophecy fits the narrative of the Evange- 
 list. This is one of many places in which the A.V. mistranslates e\Trii;eii/ 
 'trust' : xii. 21 ; Lk. xxiv. 21 ; Jn. v. 45 ; Rom. xv. 12, 24, etc. 
 
 * Mt. has already recorded the healing of a dumb-demoniac (ix. 32, 33) 
 in words rather similar to those used in Lk. xi. 14 of this miracle. ' Dumb' 
 (KW(p6s) probably means deaf and dumb. Some Old Syriac and Old Latin 
 authorities have 'so that the dumb man spake and saw and heard.'' Note 
 how Mt., as compared with Lk. xi. 14, heightens both the miracle and its 
 effect on the multitudes. 
 
176 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XII. S5-27 
 
 maladies were healed at once, so that the multitudes were 
 amazed. In order to counteract the effect of the miracle on 
 the people the Pharisees suggested diabolical agency as the 
 explanation. In Mk. iii. 20, 21 the introduction is quite different. 
 The enthusiasm for Jesus has become so great that He has no 
 leisure for a meal, and His friends say that He is beside Himself. 
 Then scribes from Jerusalem make the charge of His having 
 Beelzebub. The charge is of great interest and importance. 
 It is well attested, for it is in Jn. vii. 20 and viii. 48, 52, as well 
 as in the Synoptic Gospels ; and it is not at all Ukely to have 
 been invented. It shows to what desperate shifts His exasper- 
 ated foes were driven. Was it likely that the powers of evil 
 would be parties to widespread acts of beneficence ? Above all, 
 was it likely that they would help Him to vanquish themselves P^ 
 So far from discrediting Him with the people by such an ex- 
 planation, the Pharisees merely discredited themselves, both as 
 regards intelligence and honesty. All this was patent at the 
 time. But what is important for us is that this charge of Christ's 
 being in league with Satan proves that there was something 
 extraordinary to explain. If there had not been mighty works 
 too remarkable to ignore and too notorious to deny. His enemies 
 would never have taken refuge in so extravagant an hypothesis. 
 This charge must be set side by side with the Jewish tradition 
 that Jesus had brought charms out of Egypt, or had learnt magic 
 from Egyptian sorcerers. In both cases we have evidence, uninten- 
 tionally given, in support of the miracles wrought by Christ. 
 
 In introducing Christ's reply to the charge, both Mt. and Lk. 
 say that ' He knew their thoughts,' without having heard their 
 words. Mk. implies that He was too far off to hear what the 
 Pharisees said, for ' He called them unto Him.' Comp. Mk. ii. 8 
 = Mt. ix. 4 = Lk. V. 22. All three represent Him as substituting 
 'Satan' for their 'Beelzebub.' In the N.T. Satan is always the 
 prince of the demons ; in the Book of Enoch the Satans are 
 numerous, but are under a chief (xl. 7, where see Charles's note ; 
 Edersheim, Life and Times, ii. 755). 'If Satan casteth out 
 Satan ' does not mean if one Satan casts out another, as is clear 
 from what follows. The challenge, ' If I by Beelzebub cast out 
 devils, by whom do your sons cast them out ? ' is word for word 
 the same in Mt. and Lk., but has no parallel in Mk. By 'your 
 sons ' is certainly not meant the disciples of Christ, who of 
 course were the sons of Jewish parents, and had been com- 
 
 ' This strange idea, however, was not pecuHar to the Pharisees : Eusebius 
 {Cotiira Hieroclem, xxx. I, p. 530 A) says: Sainovas -yap aireXavvei. dWcj) 
 {LWov 17 tpajl Salfiovi. Healing the deaf and dumb seems to have inspired 
 the multitude with special admiration for the Healer (Mk. vii. 37) ; £>CG. i, 
 p. 427. 
 
Xn. 27-29] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 77 
 
 missioned by Christ to cast out demons. 'Your sons' may 
 mean the disciples of the Pharisees, for great Rabbis sometimes 
 called their pupils their ' sons ' (Ecclus. vii. 3 ; Prov. i. 8, where 
 see Toy's note, p. 13). But more probably it is to be taken 
 literally. See Acts xix. 13 and Jos. Ant. viii. ii. 5 for instances 
 of Jewish exorcisms, and comp. Tob. viii. 1-3. The argument 
 is ad hotninem. There were Jewish exorcists, and the Pharisees 
 did not accuse them of employing diabolical agency. Why then 
 did they accuse Christ of this ? There is no need to raise the 
 question whether the exorcists were successful : it is enough 
 that they were allowed to work unmolested. This they could 
 not deny, and thereby they would convict the Pharisees of 
 prejudice and injustice, in bringing a charge against Christ 
 which they did not bring against their own people. 
 
 The charge of diabolical agency having been proved to be 
 both absurd and unjust, the alternative of Divine agency is 
 adopted (28) ; and here again there is no parallel in Mk., and 
 Mt. and Lk. agree verbatim, except that for ' by the Spirit of 
 God ' Lk. has the Old Testament expression ' by the finger of 
 God.' But if God is the cause of the marvellous healing of 
 mind and body, then is the Kingdom of God come upon them. 
 The Pharisees are in the same case as Chorazin and Bethsaida 
 and Capernaum. The Kingdom of God is come near them, and 
 yet they are far from the Kingdom of God.^ Indeed they are 
 worse than those impenitent cities, the inhabitants of which 
 treated Christ's mighty works with indifference. The Pharisees 
 treat His miracles with something worse than indifference : they 
 blasphemously attribute them to the evil one. See W. M. 
 Alexander, Demonic Possession in the N.T. pp. 177-190. 
 
 In the saying about spoiling the strong man of his goods, 
 Mt., Mk., and Lk. differ considerably as regards the wording, 
 Lk. being much more elaborate than the other two. The saying 
 was probably proverbial. In Is. xlix. 24-26 the Chaldean asks, 
 ' Shall prey be taken from a mighty one ? ' and Jehovah replies, 
 ' The captives of the strong one shall be taken away, for the 
 stronger than he has come.' This passage is apparently repro- 
 duced in the Psalms of Solomon v. 4 : " No man shall take prey 
 from a mighty man," unless he has first conquered him. The 
 Messiah had taken prey from Satan by freeing demoniacs from 
 his power ; which is evidence that, so far from being the ally of 
 Satan, He has begun to conquer him.^ Perhaps there is here a 
 
 ^ This is one of the places in which Mt. has ' Kingdom of God ' instead of 
 his usual ' Kingdom of the Heavens' (xix. 24, xxi. 31, 43). The latter with 
 him means the Kingdom which the Son of Man will come in the heavens to 
 inaugurate, and that meaning would not be fitting here. 
 
 ^ With the almost superfluous 'and then he will spoil his house' comp. 
 V. 24, vii. 5. Comp. also the Ascension of Isaiah, ix. 16. 
 
1/8 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XII. 30, 31 
 
 reference to the Temptation. 'Get thee hence, Satan' (iv. lo) 
 was repeated every time that a demon was driven out ; and 
 every time that a demon was driven out the Kingdom of God 
 was brought nearer. In reference to the sovereignty of God 
 therjB are only two sides, for and against. By refusing to talce 
 part in the work of Christ for the promotion of that sovereignty 
 the Pharisees had joined the forces of the enemy. They were 
 not on God's side ; therefore they were against Him. It was 
 not Jesus, but they, who had entered into alUance with Satan. 
 
 i'his saying about the impossibility of neutrality (30) is 
 worded exactly the same in Mt. and Lk., and has no parallel in 
 Mk. The 'gathering' and 'scattering' probably refer to a flock 
 or followers rather than to fruit or seeds : comp. Jn, x. 12. This 
 is the test which each man is to apply to himself: if he cannot 
 see that he is on Christ's side, he is against Him. The other 
 saying about the impossibility of neutrality, ' He that is not 
 against us is for us ' (Mk. ix. 40 ; Lk. ix. 50), is the test by which 
 to judge others; if we cannot see that they are against Christ, we 
 must give them credit for being on His side. Both Mk. and 
 Lk. have both forms of the saying 
 
 Because the Pharisees had placed themselves on the side of 
 Satan, Christ gives them a solemn warning : 'Therefore I say to 
 you' (31). By accusing Him of being in league with Satan 
 when He was acting in the power of the Holy Spirit, they had 
 blasphemed the Holy Spirit, hardening their hearts against the 
 Spirit's influence. This is an unpardonable sin. " To identify 
 the Source of good with the impersonation of evil implies a 
 moral disease for which the Incarnation itself provides no 
 remedy" (Swete). The repetition of this solemn warning in 
 ver. 32 is given in a form which is not easy to explain. 1 That 
 any sin may be forgiven, except blasphemy against the Spirit, is 
 simple. That speaking against the Son of Man may be forgiven, 
 but speaking against the Holy Spirit shall never be forgiven, is 
 not simple. Let us take the first form (31) and apply it to the 
 Pharisees. Freeing men from the dominion of evil spirits must 
 be good work ; it is the work of God's Holy Spirit. The Pharisees 
 had said that it was Satan's work. This is blasphemy against 
 the Spirit, and it will not be forgiven. This is a terrible thought, 
 but it is intelligible. In order to discredit beneficent work which 
 told against their cherished prejudices, they had maliciously and 
 deliberately attributed the Spirit's action to Satan. This revealed 
 a determined opposition to Divine influence which was hopeless. 
 Now let us take the second form (32) and apply it in a similar 
 way. How was it possible for the Pharisees to distinguish 
 
 ' Lk. (xii. 10) gives only the more difficult form, and that in a different 
 setting. 
 
XII. 31, 32] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 79 
 
 between speaking against the Son of Man and speaking against 
 the Holy Spirit ? It was in speaking against the Son of Man 
 that they had been proved guilty of speaking against the 
 Spirit. 
 
 It is worth considering whether Mt. xii. 32 and Lk. xii. 10 
 are not less accurate reproductions of the saying which is given 
 in Mk. iii. 28, 29 and Mt. .xii. 31 ; and whether there is not some 
 confusion between 'the sons of men' in Mk. iii. 28 and 'the Son 
 of Man' in Mt. xii. 32 and Lk. xii. 10: see Allen's note. But 
 we must endeavour to explain ver. 32 as it stands. 'The Son of 
 Man ' means Christ in His life on earth, ministering to the 
 physical and spiritual needs of mankind. In that Ministry there 
 was much that was open to misconstruction. He, like other 
 teachers and philanthropists, could be misunderstood and 
 misjudged. There were gross misconceptions of His words and 
 work. All this was deplorable, and by no means always 
 innocent; but it was pardonable (Lk. xxiii. 34). Men could 
 repent of their careless neglect of His work or their mistaken 
 opposition to it, and they did repent, and were forgiven. But 
 there is such a thing as opposition to Divine influence, so 
 persistent and deliberate, because of constant preference of 
 darkness to light, that repentance, and therefore forgiveness, 
 becomes impossible. The efificacy of Divine grace remains 
 undiminished, but the sinner has brought himself to such a 
 condition that its operation on himself is excluded. Grace, like 
 bodily food, may be rejected until the power to receive it is lost. 
 Christ warns the Pharisees that they are perilously near to this 
 condition. Against the dictates of reason and justice, they had 
 deliberately treated as diabolical a work of the most surprising 
 mercy and goodness.^ 
 
 But we must not infer from this that 'speaking against the 
 Holy Spirit' is necessarily a sin of the tongue. Blasphemy, like 
 lying, may be all the worse for being acted and not spoken. The 
 sin of the Pharisees was not confined to the words ' He cast out 
 demons by Beelzebub ' or ' He has an unclean spirit.' The 
 mere utterance of an atrocious calumny, perhaps hastily, does 
 not constitute an ' eternal sin ' (Mk. iii. 29). It would be more 
 in harmony with legalism than with the Spirit of Christ to attach 
 terrific penalties to a single external act. It was the character 
 revealed by the Pharisees' calumny that was deserving of such 
 condemnation. Their disposition must be ' desperately wicked ' 
 
 ' See on i Jn. v. 16 in the Camb. Grk. Test. , and Westcott on Heb. vi. 1-8, 
 p. 165 ; DCG., art. ' Blasphemy' ; Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 255. So long 
 as the Pharisees maintained their theory, their condition was beyond recovery. 
 Every manifestation of Divine power and love could be f xplairied away as 
 Satanic. 
 
l8o GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XII. 31, 32 
 
 to make it possible for them to bring such a charge in order 
 to explain such a deed as the liberation of a human being 
 from the dominion of an evil power which rendered him blind 
 and deaf and dumb. Moreover they had previously shown their 
 evil disposition on various occasions. They had witnessed some 
 of His works of mercy and had heard of many more ; and yet 
 they persistently opposed and blamed Him. 
 
 ' Neither in this age, nor in that which is to come ' is an 
 emphatic periphrasis for ' never.' It is perhaps an enlargement 
 by Mt. of Mk.'s ovk . . . eU rbv aiwva. The Jews divided time 
 into two ages, the Messianic age and that which preceded it. 
 Therefore what would take place in neither of these would never 
 take place. Seeing that it is not certain that Christ used this 
 precise phrase, it would be rash to draw inferences from the 
 wording of it.^ Even if we could be sure that He spoke in the 
 words of Mt. rather than in those of Mk., it would not follow 
 that He meant more than that of this sin there is no forgiveness, 
 because there is no repentance. We cannot safely argue that, 
 because it is said that tAt's sin will not be forgiven in the age to 
 come, therefore there are sins which wi7/ be forgiven in the age 
 to come. That may or may not be true, but it cannot be 
 deduced from the form of expression used here. Yet we are free 
 to hope that it is true that repentance may be reached and 
 forgiveness won in the other world. Scripture affirms that ' now 
 is the acceptable time ' ; but it neither affirms nor denies that 
 repentance and forgiveness may be found after death. "Two 
 thoughts bearing on the future find clear expression in the New 
 Testament. We read of an ' eternal sin,' of ' a sin which has no 
 forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come,' of ' the worm 
 that dieth not and the fire that is not quenched.' And on the 
 other side we read of the good pleasure of God ' to sum up all 
 things in Christ,' and ' through Him to reconcile all things unto 
 Himself.' If we approach the subject from the side of man, we 
 see that in themselves the consequences of actions appear to be 
 for the doer like the deed indelible ; and also that the finite 
 freedom of the individual appears to include the possibility of 
 final resistance to God. If we approach it from the Divine side, 
 it seems to be an inadmissible limitation of the infinite love of 
 God that a human will should ever refuse to yield to it in complete 
 self-surrender when it is known as love. If we are called upon 
 to decide which of these two thoughts of Scripture must be held 
 to prevail, we can hardly doubt that that which is most compre- 
 hensive, that which reaches farthest, contains the ruling idea ; 
 and that is the idea of a final divine unity " (Westcott, Historic 
 Faith, pp. 150, 151 ; comp. Salmon, Gnosticism and Agnosticism, 
 ' Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 147 ; Gould, S. Mark, p. 196. 
 
Xn. 33-37] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE l8l 
 
 p. 373 ; Langton Clarke, The Eternal Saviour Judge, pp. 71-115 i 
 Agar Beet, The Last Things, pp. 246-251). 
 
 The paragraph which follows (33-37) is similar to one in the 
 Sermon on the Mount (vii. 17-19), and the parallel verses in 
 Lk. vi. 43-45 are closer to this paragraph than to vii. 17-19. The 
 connexion here is that the character of Jesus may be known from 
 His conduct.i He appeals to the general experience of mankind. 
 How are distinctions between good and bad men made? By 
 the kind of words and acts they produce. It is possible that Mt. 
 has inserted the sayings in vv. 33-37 from some occasion of 
 which the context had been lost; but the connexion just 
 suggested is quite intelligible. The sayings fit this context. 
 The Pharisees shrank from declaring that casting out demons 
 and healing the dumb and blind were evil deeds; yet they 
 declare that Christ did them by the power of the evil one. 
 They must either treat both deeds and doer as good, or both 
 deeds and doer as evil.^ On the other hand, the character of the 
 Pharisees may be known by their conduct. Their venomous 
 slanders were evidence of a corrupt heart, and theirs was so 
 corrupt that it was morally impossible for them to utter good 
 things. The Baptist had said much the same of them long 
 before (iii. 7). Every man's heart is a store-house, and his 
 words show what he keeps there. Even lightly spoken words do 
 that, and what is said on the spur of the moment is sometimes 
 better evidence of a man's disposition than what he says 
 deliberately, for the latter may be calculated hypocrisy. But the 
 Pharisees cannot escape on the plea that the charge of diabolical 
 agency was made hastily without serious meaning. No good 
 man would think of such a charge in connexion with such a 
 miracle. And to say, " I did not mean it," does not free one 
 from responsibility. Even for a purposeless^ word we shall 
 have to give account. ' For it is out of thy sayings that thou 
 shalt be justified (Ps. li. 6), and out of thy sayings that thou 
 shalt be condemned.' 
 
 ' There is a similar passage in the Testaments. It is the soul that takes 
 pleasure in good that produces righteousness, and the soul that takes pleasure 
 in evil that produces wickedness. AU depends on the treasure of the inclina- 
 tion {6riffavp&s toS 5ia;8oi/Xteu) ; Asher i. 6-9. 
 
 ^ This use of iroi-elv is common in the writings of S. John : v. 18, viii. 53, 
 X. 33 ; I Jn. i. 10. The primary meaning of crairpis is 'rotten,' the secondary 
 is 'worthless,' which is the meaning here : a rotten tree would not bear any 
 fruit. Comp. Lk. vi. 43 ; but Lk. has no parallel to vv.. 34a, 36, 37. With 
 36 comp. Eccles. xii. 14. 
 
 ^ Jerome's verhum otiosiim, which he explains as that which does no good 
 to either speaker or hearer, is better than Cyprian's verbum vacuum for p^/na 
 apy6v. But Cyprian distinguishes between pij/na, verbum, and X6701, sermones 
 (Test. iii. 13), while Jerome has verbum for both (Vulg. ). English Versions 
 do not distinguish. 
 
1 82 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XII. 38, 39 
 
 We are perhaps to understand (38) that the Pharisees with- 
 drew to deliberate about their reply to Christ's warning and 
 challenge, and that some of them returned with a challenge on 
 their side. They speak in a formally respectful tone, but with 
 an air of being fully justified in the demand which they make : 
 'Master, we desire to see a sign from Thee.' 'Jews ask for 
 signs' (i Cor. i. 22), says the Apostle, as if it were characteristic 
 of the race ; and it was a demand which was refused for the same 
 reason that the request of Dives was refused (Lk. xvi. 29-31), 
 because there were signs enough already. Those to whom 
 Moses and the Prophets were insufficient would never be con- 
 vinced by supernatural signs.i 
 
 It may be thought surprising that Jesus does not refer the 
 Pharisees, as He referred the Baptist (xi. 4, 5), to His own 
 miracles. But it was His miracles of healing which they had 
 questioned, as being the work of Beelzebub. Moreover, He 
 had always declared that His leaching, without His mighty works, 
 was sufficient evidence of His mission. It was never His way 
 to violate men's freedom by forcing them, against their wills, to 
 believe on Him. He worked miracles for the good of mankind, 
 and He was willing to use them as credentials of His authority. 
 But this was a secondary use ; primarily they were acts of 
 beneficence. He wrought nothing that was a mere wonder, a 
 mere exhibition of power; and this was what the Scribes and 
 Pharisees wanted— His Name written in flaming letters across 
 the sky. They detested His teaching as revolutionary, and they 
 refused to accept His acts of healing as wrought by Divine 
 agency. Yet some of them, no doubt, had misgivings, and all 
 of them wished to justify themselves with the multitude. They 
 ask to be miraculously convinced, and this He refuses. He calls 
 those who make such a demand ' an evil and adulterous genera- 
 tion,' where 'adulterous' (ynotxaXis, which is not in Lk. xi. 29) 
 means that they have been faithless to the marriage-tie which 
 binds them to Jehovah. ' Faithless Judah hath not returned to 
 Me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the Lord ' (Jer. iii. 
 10). The same idea appears in Hos. vii. 13-16. The formahsts 
 who rejected Christ had abandoned idolatry, but they had been 
 faithless to Jehovah in other ways that were more deadly because 
 
 ' It is evident that the Pharisees were not asking for such signs as Jeremiah 
 was told to empio)', the marred Hnen girdle, the marred potter's vessel, and 
 the like. They desired such miracles as Moses, Elijah, and Elisha had 
 wrought, or something still more stupendous. 11 ny a pas de limite aux 
 exigences des sceptiijues en fait de surnatural (Girodon, 5. Liu, p. 327). 
 
 The mention of the Pharisees here by Mt. again shows his aversion : they 
 are not named in this connexion by Lk. See notes on Mt. iii. 7, xxvii. 62. 
 The phrase 7evc(i |UOixaA"S occurs again xvi. 4. Comp. Mk. viii. 38, where 
 Mt. (xvi, 27) omits it. See Knowling on Jas. iv. 4. 
 
XII. 40, 41] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 83 
 
 more subtle. A little later Josephus says that " no age did ever 
 breed a generation more fruitful in wickedness than this was, from 
 the beginning of the world" {B.J. v. x. 5, xiii. 6; vii. viii. i). 
 
 There is no doubt that ver. 40 is part of the original text of this Gospel ; 
 it is absent from no MS. or version. But there is good reason for believing 
 that it was no part of Christ's reply on this occasion, i. It is not in Lk. xi. 
 29-32. 2. It does not fit the context, which speaks of preaching producing 
 repentance and is in no way concerned with the Resurrection. 3. It would 
 not be intelligible to Christ's hearers, who knew nothing of His future Resur- 
 rection. 4. The parallel drawn between Jonah and Christ is not^true. Jesus 
 was in the grave one whole day and part of two others ; i.e. He rose on the 
 next day but one after His death, and this is expressed in Greek, in both 
 sacred and profane writers, by * on the third day ' [ttj Tpirri, with or without 
 Tjixfpq,). Comp. xvi. 21, xx. 19. The less accurate expression, ' after three 
 days' (/xeT-ii rpeis iiixipai) means the same thing (Mk. viii. 31, x. 34). In 
 Gen. xlii. 17, 18, Joseph put his brethren 'into ward three days. And 
 Joseph said unto them the third day.' But the facts will not justify the 
 statement that Christ's body was ' three days and ihree nights ' in the grave. 
 Comp. Lk. xiii. 32; Acts xxvii. 18, 19; Exod. xix.- 10, 11 ; passages which 
 make it quite clear that ' on the third day ' means ' on the next day but one,' 
 and not 'on the next day but two.' See Field, Gtium Norvic. iii. p. 8. 
 The saying is repeated without explanation x^-i. 4, and probably our Lord 
 gave no explanation here. 
 
 The verse may be a gloss which has got into the authority which Mt. 
 used ; or it may be an insertion made by Mt. himself on the supposition that 
 Christ's mention of Jonah referred to him as a type of the Resurrection. The 
 latter is more probable, and in that case we have a parallel to i. 22, 23, 
 where Mt.'s reflexion about the fulfilment of prophecy is given as part of the 
 message of the Angel. Justin Martyr (Try. 107) says that Jonah was "cast 
 up from the belly of the fish on the third day " [t% TpiTy i}ixipq,), thereby 
 making the correspondence exact. See Sanday, Bampton Lectures, 1893, p. 
 432; Salmon, The Human Element, p. 217; DCG. ii. p. 269; Moulton, 
 Modern Reader's Bible, p. 1696 ; Allen on Mt. xii. 40. 
 
 Our Lord's mention of Jonah as preaching to the Ninevites 
 does not require us to believe that the story of Jonah is history. 
 In His own parables He made use of fiction for instruction. 
 Why should He not use an O.T. parable for the same purpose ? 
 If He were on earth now, might He not quote Dante ? If our 
 Lord had said, ' As the rich man killed the poor man's ewe- 
 lamb, so ye rob the fatherless and the widow,' would that have 
 proved that Nathan's parable was literally true ? S. Paul's 
 mention of Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim. iii. 8), and S. Jude's 
 mention of Michael's dispute with Satan for the body of Moses, 
 are similar cases. See Briggs, The Messiah of the Gospels, p. 189 
 note; Gore, Bampton Lectures, 1891, pp. 195-200; Sanday, 
 Bampton Lectures, pp. 414-419 ; with the literature there quoted. 
 
 If we regard the saying about the three days and three nights 
 as part of our Lord's reply to the demand for a sign, the meaning 
 will be that the only sign which will be given is the sign of His 
 Resurrection. When they have carried into effect their plans to 
 
1 84 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XII. 41-43 
 
 destroy Him (14), God will deliver Him from the grave as He 
 delivered Jonah from the belly of the sea-monster, and that sign 
 may possibly convince them. If not, they will be more im- 
 penitent than the Ninevites. But here the reference to Jonah's 
 deliverance from the fish seems to be superfluous. The argument 
 runs smoothly when the preaching of Jonah is compared with 
 the preaching of Christ, and the penitence of the Ninevites 
 is contrasted with the impenitence of the unbelieving Jews. 
 But, in order to bring in Jonah's miraculous deliverance, we 
 must assume that he told the Ninevites of this (as to which 
 nothing is said in the O.T.), and that it was this wonderful sign, 
 rather than the threat of Divine judgment, which converted 
 them. 
 
 With improved chronology, and also with better rhetorical 
 effect, Lk. places the case of the Ninevites after that of the 
 Queen of the South.^ In the day of judgment both she and the 
 Ninevites will be able to condemn the unbelieving Jews, for they 
 made a much better use of smaller opportunities than the Jews 
 did of greater ones. What was Solomon as a teacher of wisdom, 
 and what was Jonah as a denouncer of wickedness, compared 
 with Him whose wisdom and warnings were alike rejected by 
 those who said that He was in league with the evil one ? What 
 painful egotism there is in these sayings if He who uttered them 
 was merely a human teacher ! And yet, with what quiet serenity, 
 as being beyond question, they are uttered ! ^ 
 
 The parable about the demoniac who is cured and then 
 allows himself to be repossessed by demons (43-45) is placed by 
 Lk. (xi. 24-26) immediately after the saying that he who is not 
 with Christ is against Him. Such a demoniac illustrates the 
 impossibility of being neutral. He flees from the evil one 
 without seeking Christ, and thus falls more hopelessly into the 
 power of the evil one again. Here the parable illustrates the 
 condition of the Jewish nation, which had gone through a 
 temporary repentance, and then had fallen into far worse sins 
 than before. The worship of idols had been given up, but had 
 been followed by a worship of the letter, which had been fatal to 
 the spirit of religion. The temporary repentance may refer to 
 this abandonment of idolatry, or possibly to the religious excite- 
 ment produced by the preaching of the Baptist. That revival 
 had in many cases been very superficial; few of those who 
 experienced it had become followers of the Messiah, and 
 
 ' This is the earliest example of ' Jemen ' = ' South ' being used for South- 
 West Arabia. 
 
 ^ " He declares Himself possessed of virtues which, if a man said he had 
 them, it would be the best proof that he did not possess them and did not 
 know himself. It is either the most insane arrogance of self-assertion, or it is 
 sober truth " (Maclaren). 
 
XII. 44, 45] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 85 
 
 they who had not done so would end in putting Him to 
 death.i 
 
 The ' waterless places ' mean the wilderness, in which evil 
 spirits are supposed to dwell. Azazel lives in the wilderness 
 (Lev. xvi. 10). Comp. Bar. iv. 35 ; the Septuagint of Is. xiii. 
 2 1 ; the Vulgate of Tob. viii. 3 ; Rev. xviii. 2. Allen quotes a 
 remarkable incantation illustrating the same thought. The 
 demon is exorcised with the words : " O evil spirit — to the 
 desert. O evil demon — to the desert, etc." But this does not 
 seem to be a case of exorcism ; the demon says : ' I will return 
 to my house whence I came out.' He does not say : ' whence I 
 was driven out,' and he still calls it ' my house,' for no one else 
 has taken it. God has not been asked to occupy it. It is 
 'standing idle' (o-xoXd^ovra) — placed first as the chief error.^ It 
 is 'swept, and garnished' — with sham virtues and hypocritical 
 graces, the " darling sins " of the evil one, and therefore likely to 
 attract any of his ministers. It is garnished, as whited sepulchres 
 are garnished ; but it is not guarded by the presence of God's 
 Holy Spirit, and hence the fatal result. The former demon 
 returns with seven others worse than himself, and ' they enter in 
 and settle there (kwtolk^I eKei), making it their permanent abode ' 
 (xxiii. 2i).8 'So shall it be also to this evil generation.' They 
 have not reached this desperate condition yet, but they are in 
 danger of it, and some of them will reach it. The warning is 
 similar to that about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which 
 He does not say that they have committed, although they are 
 near it. ' Worse than the first ' is a proverbial expression (xxvii. 
 64; comp. 2 Pet. ii. 20; Heb. x. 29; Jn. v. 14); but the 
 Speaker does not, like the writer to the Hebrews (x. 26), include 
 Himself as possibly within its sweep. 
 
 The visit of Christ's Mother and brethren (46-50) is by Mt. 
 expressly connected with the previous utterance : ' While He was 
 still speaking to the multitudes.' Neither Mk. (iii. 31) nor Lk. 
 (viii. 19) give any note of time; comp. ix. 18: also xvii. 5, 
 where Lk. agrees with Mt., and xxvi. 47, where all three agree. 
 In Mt. and Lk. ' without ' (?^<d) means outside the crowd : in 
 
 ' In Mk. ix. 25 Christ commands a demon to come out from a man and 
 enter no more into him^ which seems to imply that the return sometimes took 
 place. Here Siipxerai perhaps means ' wanders about ' ; comp. Acts viii. 4, 
 40, X. 38, XX. 25 ; 2 Chron. xvii: 9. See also the enlargement in the LXX. 
 of Prov. xxviii. 10. 
 
 ^ There is no (rxoXcifoKTa in Lk. ; and Mt. may have added it to make a 
 triplet. 
 
 ^ With the seven demons here comp. the seven cast out of Mary Magdalen 
 (' Mk.' xvi. 9) and the 'seven spirits of seduction' (eTrra irvev/iara ttjs 
 irXavTis) in the Testaments {Reuben ii. I, 2), and what is said of the man that 
 refuses to do good : 6 5ta/3oXos oiKuovrai airiiv ws ISwv (r/ceOos, " dwells in him, 
 as his own peculiar vessel " (Naihtali viii. 6). 
 
1 86 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XII. 46-50 
 
 Mk. .it seems to mean outside the house (iii. 19). On the 
 'Brethren of the Lord' see on i. 25 and the literature there 
 quoted; to which add Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 253-291; 
 Encyclopmdia Biblica, artt. ' Clopas ' and ' James ' ; J. B. Mayor, 
 Expositor, July and August 1908 (a thorough reinvestigation of 
 the question). There is nothing in Scripture to forbid the 
 antecedently natural view that these ' brethren ' are the children 
 of Joseph and Mary, born after the birth of Jesus, and (apart 
 from prejudgments as to what seems to be fitting) i. 25 may be 
 regarded as decisive. 
 
 Our Lord's reply here is not a censure on His relatives for 
 seeking Him, nor does He deny the claim of family ties. He 
 uses their appeal as an opportunity for pointing out that there 
 are ties which are far stronger and claims that are far higher 
 (x. 35, xix. 29). The closest blood-relationship to the Messiah 
 does not, any more than descent from Abraham, constitute 
 any right to admission to the Kingdom, and human parentage 
 does not make any one a child of God (Jn. i. 13). It is 
 spiritual conditions which avail. But Christ does not say that 
 any disciple, however loyal, is His father. In the spiritual 
 sphere His Father is God. Mt. alone specially mentions that 
 it was the disciples who were pointed out by Christ as His 
 nearest relations, and he alone inserts ' which is in heaven ' 
 after 'My Father.' The mention of 'sister' (Mt., Mk.) with 
 'brother' and 'mother' (50) is no proof that His sisters were 
 present on this occasion, although many authorities insert 'and 
 Thy sisters' in Mk. iii. 32. It is possible that Mt. regarded 
 the incident as a fit conclusion to this section, which treats of 
 misunderstanding of the Messiah's teaching and opposition to 
 His work. His devotion to His mission involved separation 
 from even His Mother and His brethren. Of the latter we 
 know that they did not believe on Him (Jn. vii. 5), a fact 
 which is conclusive against any of them having been among 
 the Twelve Apostles. 
 
 The whole of ver. 47 is probably an interpolation from Mk. and Lk. It 
 is wanting in our best and oldest authorities (N B L r, Syr-Sin. Syr-Cur. and 
 some Old Latin texts). Mt. has rendered the statement unnecessary by 
 ' seeking to speak to Him ' in ver. 46 ; and he much more often reduces the 
 redundant statements of Mk. than enlarges what Mk. gives. With vv. 48-50 
 comp. Horn. //. vi. 429 : "Ekto/j, drdp uv fioi ^trai Trarr^p Kal Trbrvia ^I'qr'qp 
 H5^ KaalyvTiTos. " The silence of the Synoptists respecting her (the Mother 
 of our Lord) throughout His ministry is astounding, and it is continued in 
 Acts, where she is named (i. 14) and then disappears from history. Nor do 
 the epistles give any information" (Wright, Synopsis, p. 35). 
 
 Characteristic expressions in ch. xii. : rdre (13, 22, 38, 44), fiera^ali/eiv 
 (9), TropeiJec^at (l), Kal ISoO (10), birois TrXT/pti^j; (17), Trpoix<p€p€iv (22), ycvvri- 
 l^ara ixi-Svii)i/ (34), 67}sTavpbs (35)) rj/x^pa Kpltr^ws (36), 6 TraT7]p 6 4v Toh oitpavots 
 (50). None of these occur in the parallel passages. Peculiar : if 4Kelvif 
 
XIII. 1-9] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 87 
 
 TiJ) Kaip(ji (i), a-vfi^odXcov \afipdvei.v {14), t& p-r)8iv (17). None of the follow- 
 ing are found elsewhere in the N.T. : dyairto! (5, 7), alperlt^eii' (18), ipl^eiv 
 (19), Tvcpetv (20). 
 
 The insertion 'of the heart' (rijs rapSias) after 'the good treasure' (L, 
 Syr-Sin. Syr-Cur. some Old Latin texts, Arm. Aeth.) is followed in AV. 
 but abandoned in RV. It comes from Lk. vi. 45, where it is genuine. 
 
 XIII. 1-52. Illustrations of the Messiah's Use of 
 Parables. 
 
 'On that day' and ' went out of the house' (i) are additions 
 made by Mt. to the narrative of Mk., and the reason for them 
 is not obvious : no house has been mentioned. As regards the 
 rest he follows Mk. ; but he omits 'in the sea' after 'sat,' 
 probably because he saw that it was ambiguous. In xxii. 23 
 there is a similar insertion of ' on that day.' 
 
 The central idea of the parable of the Sower (3-8) is that, 
 the seed being uniformly good, the difference of crop depends 
 upon the character of the soil which receives the seed. Soil 
 may be bad in a variety of ways, and there may be various 
 degrees of goodness in the crop. Lk. is much more brief than 
 Mt. or Mk. in describing the seed on the rocky ground, and 
 he gives only the hundredfold crop. Mk. alone has the intro- 
 ductory ' Hearken ' : all three have the concluding ' let him hear ' ; 
 comp. xi. 15, xiii. 43. As it is the same Greek verb in both 
 places, we desiderate the same English verb in both : but ' He that 
 hath ears to hear, let him hear' is too familiar now to be changed. 
 
 We have had various parables already in the examples of 
 Christ's teaching which have thus far been recorded ; the salt 
 and the light (v. 13-16), the fowls and the lilies (vi. 26-30), 
 the two gates (vii. 13, 14), the wise and the foolish builders 
 (vii. 24-27), the garments and the wine-skins (ix. 16, 17), the 
 children in the market-places (xi. 16, 17); but they have been 
 short and incidental. Henceforward they become more elaborate, 
 and they form a large proportion of Christ's teaching. This 
 was probably caused by the decreasing enthusiasm in many of 
 Christ's followers and the increasing animosity of His opponents. 
 Parables would instruct- disciples whose minds were still in 
 harmony with the Teacher and yet would give little opening 
 to His enemies. Parables, while they revealed the truth to 
 those who could profit by it, concealed the mysteries of the 
 Kingdom from the unworthy, who could not understand them, 
 or would be injured by them if they did understand. ^ This 
 
 ' It is rash to say that Christ neither did nor could adopt a policy of con- 
 cealment, and that the Evangelists have confounded intention with result, 
 and have thus imputed an " inhuman purpose " to Christ. The quotation in 
 ver. 13 is in all four Gospels (Mk. iv. 12 ; Lk. viii. 10 ; Jn. xii. 40). 
 
1 88 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XIII. 3-10 
 
 concealment of the truth was a judgment on the unworthy, but 
 a judgment full of mercy. They were saved from the guilt of 
 rejecting the truth, for they were not allowed to recognize it. 
 And they were also saved from profaning it, for by parabolic 
 teaching Christ carried out His own maxim of not casting 
 pearls before swine (vii. 6). And the parable was a mercy to 
 the unworthy in yet another way. A parable not only arrests 
 attention at the time, it impresses the memory ; and, if the 
 hearer's heart afterwards becomes receptive, he understands 
 the lesson which he missed when he heard. Christ's parables 
 were taken from familiar objects, and His hearers, when they 
 saw the objects afterwards, would be reminded of His words. 
 And although they were primarily intended for Jews of Palestine 
 in His own time — a fact which must be borne in mind in 
 interpreting them, yet there is little that is specially Jewish or 
 Palestinian in them. Only one or two have Jewish features, 
 and hardly one has anything which is decidedly Palestinian 
 (Stanley, Sin. and Pal. p. 432). They were intended for the 
 Jew first, but also for the Gentile ; and all sorts and conditions of 
 men of all races and generations have been instructed by them. 
 
 The parable of the Sower is a leading and testing parable 
 (Mk. iv. 13). It is one of the three (all dealing with vegetation) 
 which are in all three Gospels, the other two being the Mustard- 
 seed and the Wicked Husbandmen. ^ And it is one of which 
 we have Christ's own interpretation. In that interpretation it 
 is specially remarkable that the ' birds,' which we should 
 probably have explained as impersonal temptations, are ex- 
 pressly, in spite of the plural number, said to mean ' Satan ' 
 (Mk.), 'the evil one' (Mt.), 'the devil' (Lk.). Among the 
 things which choke the word Mk. alone mentions ' the lusts of 
 other things,' and Lk. alone has ' pleasures of this life.' Mt. by 
 having neither spoils a triplet, which is unusual with him. 
 
 The disciples' question is given differently by the Evan- 
 gelists. Mk. says that they 'asked Him the parables.' Lk. 
 understands this as signifying that they asked the meaning 
 of this particular parable. Mt. gives it the much wider significa- 
 tion of a question as to the purpose of parables generally. ^ 
 
 ' In this chapter we have two of these, together with a third on a similar 
 subject, viz. the Tares. Mackinlay thinks that these repeated references to 
 sowing were made at the time of the first sowing after the year of Sabbath, 
 which he dates a.d. 26-27. ' Upon the thorns,' iirX ras draj/ffas (7) means 
 upon places where the roots of these plants were concealed. In ver. 8 note 
 the change from aorist to imperfect. 
 
 ^ This involves a change in Christ's reply from Iva. p,-r\ to 6V1 oi. Christ 
 could not be said to aim at preventing all His hearers from understanding. 
 Mt. inserts ver. 12 before the explanation of the parable ; both Mk. (iv. 25) 
 and Lk. (viii. 18) place it after the explanation. 
 
XIII. 14] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 89 
 
 Christ replies that the purpose is educational to disciples, and 
 disciplinary to those who refuse to become disciples. Instruc- 
 tion is given in a form which the unreceptive, through their 
 own fault, cannot understand. It is easy to see how this 
 illustrates the law that to him that hath more shall be given ; 
 the hearer that has sympathy with the truth is instructed. It 
 is less easy to see how he that hath not loses even that which 
 he hath, or thinketh he hath (Lk. viii. 18). Perhaps the 
 meaning is that the unworthy hearers become less and less 
 able to receive the truth, the more often they listen to parables 
 without understanding them. For ' understanding ' in Scripture 
 is a matter of the heart rather than of the head, and the organ 
 which is never used at last loses its power ; the ears that never 
 hear become deaf. Comp. xxv. 29 and Lk. xix. 26. The quota- 
 tion from Is. vi. 9, 10, which Mk. gives in an indirect form 
 (iv. 12), is given by Mt. in the words of the Septuagint directly. 
 And the way in which Mt. introduces the quotation (14) is 
 remarkable. He does not use the phrases, ' that it might be 
 fulfilled ' (tj'a or oiros Tr\rjp<ji6fj), or ' then was fulfilled ' (roVe 
 eirXripwOr]), which he usually employs when he himself points 
 out that something is a fulfilment of prophecy. Here it is 
 Christ who points out the fulfilment, and Mt. reports Him as 
 doing so with the very unusual formula, 'there is being filled 
 up to them ' (avaTrXrjpovTon avTois), i.e. in their case the prophecy 
 is being fully satisfied.^ 
 
 It is also to be remarked that this is one of the passages 
 in which Mt. omits what is unfavourable to the disciples. Mk. 
 iv. 13 has : ' Know ye not this parable? and how shall ye know 
 all the parables?' For this rebuke Mt. substitutes, 'Do you, 
 therefore, hear the parable of the sower.' Comp. xiv. ^;^ with 
 Mk. vi. 52 ; xvi. 9 with Mk. viii. 17 ; xvii. 23 with Mk. ix. 32 ; 
 and see Allen, pp. xxxiii f. Both here and elsewhere Lk. 
 exhibits a similar tenderness for the Twelve. It is in harmony 
 with this feehng that Mt. and Lk. give the special Beatitude of 
 the disciples, ' Blessed are your eyes,' etc. which Mk. omits. Lk. 
 has this Beatitude after the return of the Seventy (x. 23, 24) 
 and words it differently. And his arrangement is to be pre- 
 ferred, if the Beatitude was uttered only once ; but it may have 
 been spoken both to the Twelve and to the Seventy. Prophets, 
 such as Balaam, Moses, Isaiah, Micah, and righteous men, such 
 as the Psalmists, had desired to see what the Twelve had seen. 
 
 ' The compound dva-irXijpdtii is found nowhere else in the Gospels, and 
 it is used nowhere else in the Bible of the fulfilment of prophecy. Here it 
 seems to imply that there has been partial fulfilment in the past, and that 
 this is now made complete. The word ij.wriipiov also, frequent in the Pauline 
 Epistles, occurs nowhere in the Gospels, excepting ver. ll = iV[k. iv. ii=Lk. 
 viii. 10. In the LXX. it is frequent in Daniel and the Apocrypha. 
 
I go GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XIII. 18 
 
 In the Psalms of Solomon we have similar utterances : " Blessed 
 are they that shall be born in those days, to behold the blessing 
 of Israel" (xvii. 50; comp. xviii. 7). Here there is a strong 
 emphasis on the pronoun : ' Blessed are your eyes.' But this 
 blessing will be realized, only if they understand what they see 
 and hear. Christ therefore explains the parable to them, and 
 once more there is great emphasis on the pronoun, 'Tio you, 
 therefore, hear the parable of the sower.' Beware of indifference, 
 of shallowness, and of worldliness, which is trying to serve God 
 and mammon. It is the good and single heart that understands 
 and bears fruit. 
 
 This interpretation of the parable has been criticized as being 
 allegorical and going too much into detail, so that the main 
 lesson is lost. If this were true, we should have to assign the 
 interpretation to the Evangelists, who have put their ideas into 
 Christ's mouth. But it is not true. The interpretation is 
 beautiful in its simplicity, although part answers to part, and 
 not merely whole to whole. There is apparent confusion of 
 language, because of the double meaning of ' sown ' : the seed 
 may be said to be ' sown ' and the ground may be said to be 
 ' sown,' and in the interpretation these two meanings are mixed. 
 But this apparent confusion may be due- to the Evangelists, and 
 it causes no difficulty. The interpretation remains perfectly 
 clear, that though Christ is the Sower, and sows the word of 
 truth, yet the result depends upon the character of the soil. 
 
 It by no means follows that because every parable has one 
 main lesson, therefore no parable has more than one lesson. 
 The interpretations which have been given of the parables of 
 the Sower and of the Tares indicate that it is lawful to seek a 
 meaning for some of the details. In the Sower, nearly every- 
 thing is interpreted ; in the Tares, some things are interpreted 
 (the sower, the good seed, the enemy, the tares, the field, the 
 harvest, and the reapers), and some are not (the people's 
 sleeping, the enemy's going away, the servants of the house- 
 holder, and the binding of the bundles). It requires much 
 judgment to decide whether any of the details of a parable are 
 significant, and, if so, which. Very early in the history of the 
 Church imagination began to run riot in this respect, for 
 Tertullian protests against it. In the parable of the Lost Coin 
 are we to find a meaning for the number ten, for the lamp, for 
 the broom ? " Curious niceties of this kind not only render 
 some things suspected, but by the subtlety of forced explanations 
 generally lead away from the truth" {De Pudic. ix.). And 
 Chrysostom goes the length of saying that when we have found 
 out the main lesson, we need not trouble ourselves further (in 
 Mi, Horn. Ixiv. 3). That is too narrow a view. But the 
 
XIII. 18] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE I9I 
 
 endless difficulties about the Unrighteous Steward are the result 
 of making the details mean something. The aptitude of details 
 for allegorical interpretation is no proof that these meanings 
 were intended by Christ. See Trench, Parables, oh. iii. ; Sanday, 
 Outlines, pp. 68-74; Hastings' DB., art. 'Parable.' 
 
 Nor is it any objection to the value of a parable that it 
 teaches only one lesson, or only a very few, while it leaves 
 important questions connected with the main subject untouched. 
 No parable could be equal to the complexity of human life or 
 of religious problems. In the Sower, neither in the parable, 
 nor in the interpretation, is anything said as to the causes of the 
 differences between the classes of hearers. AVhat made some 
 to be indifferent, others shallow, others worldly, and others again 
 receptive in varying degrees? We are told elsewhere that there 
 are whole and there are sick (ix, 12), that some will receive the 
 Messiah's messengers and some not (x. 11-13), th^' there are 
 those who are too wise to be childlike, and those who are 
 childlike without being wise (xi. 25), and that some trees are 
 good, while others are worthless (xii. 33); but in all these places 
 the hearers are supposed to know from the experience of their 
 own hearts how these momentous differences arise. Their 
 business is to see to which class they themselves belong, and 
 to act accordingly. We should perhaps see this more clearly if 
 we called this searching story, not the parable of the Sower, but 
 the parable of the Soils ; and we have to see to it that the soil 
 of our own hearts is soft, and deep, and clean. 1 
 
 There is yet another point on which the parable gives us 
 no information, — the proportion between the different kinds of 
 soils, and especially between the good and the bad soils. Is 
 indifference more often fatal than shallowness or worldliness ? 
 Is thirtyfold more common than a hundredfold ? Is bad soil 
 more common than good, so that most of the Sower's seed is 
 wasted? Are those who are in the way of salvation many or 
 few? The answer to these questions is the same as before. 
 To which class do you belong? Strain every nerve to belong 
 to the best (Lk. xiii. 23, 24) ; and this will be all the more 
 imperative, if you find that you are producing, not thirtyfold 
 instead of sixty or a hundred, but nothing at all ; if you find 
 that you are not for Christ, and therefore against Him. It is 
 your business to strive to enter the Kingdom, and to help others 
 to enter ; how many succeed and how many fail — ' what is that 
 to thee ? ' 
 
 Mt. omits the parable of the Seed growing secretly 
 (Mk. iv. 26-29) ^nd substitutes that of the Tares. The 
 
 ' Comp. Jer. iv. 3 : ' Break up your fallow ground, and sow not upon 
 thorns,' /t?; (nreipTjTe en-' aKOLfOai^. 
 
192 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XIII. 24-30 
 
 Evangelist's reasons for arranging the six parables which follow 
 the Sower as he does are not clear ; for a possible explanation 
 see Allen. The arrangement itself is clear enough. Four 
 parables were spoken from the boat to a mixed multitude on 
 the shore, and then, in the house, Christ explained the Tares 
 to the disciples and delivered three more parables. The 
 explanation of the Sower was not given at once, although it is 
 placed immediately after the parable. The explanation of the 
 Tares was not given at once, and it is not placed immediately 
 after the parable. In the one case Mt. has followed Mk.'s 
 order, in the other he cannot do so, for Mk. omits the Tares. 
 Mt. either follows the order of the source from which he got 
 these parables, or he adopts an order of his own. Mt. may 
 have placed the Tares next to the Sower because of the 
 similarity of subject ; but it is quite as possible that this 
 similarity led to the two parables being spoken at the same 
 time. The one treats of different soils producing from the 
 same seed crops varying from zero to a hundredfold ; the other 
 treats of the same soil producing a mixed crop from mixed seed. 
 But both are addressed to the multitudes ; not one to the laity 
 and the other to the clergy, not one to subjects and the other 
 to rulers. 
 
 The traditional rendering ' tares ' for tf,t,a.via is unfortunate, 
 but cannot be changed. 'Tares' in the parabohc sense has 
 become a household word in English literature. But the plant 
 in the parable is not the common vetch, which has no 
 resemblance to wheat, and is useful enough in its way, but the 
 bearded darnel (lolium temulentum), which in its earlier stages 
 is indistinguishable from wheat, and which often breeds a 
 poisonous fungus. Modern farming in the East has improved 
 upon the methods mentioned in the parable. After the ears 
 are developed, but before the harvest, the darnel and other 
 tall weeds are pulled up and destroyed, so that at the harvest 
 the crop is quite clean. Both in Palestine and in Cheshire the 
 peasants believe that darnel is degenerated wheat, and that in 
 bad seasons wheat will turn into darnel ; the truth being that 
 much wet rots the wheat and stimulates the darnel. It is said 
 that in France the malicious sowing of fields with weeds is not 
 unknown. See Groser, Scripture Natural History ; Henslow, 
 T/ie Plants of the Bible ; Tristram, Natural History oj the Bible ; 
 Shakespeare, King Lear, Act. iv. sc. 4.^ 
 
 In the Tares, as in the preceding parable, the Sower is 
 clearly indicated, and in both cases the seed is good. But in 
 
 ' In likening the Kingdom to various things, three expressions are used : 
 — 6fj.oiu97i {xiii. 24, xviii. 23, xxii. 2), o/u-oiuB-ricreTai (xxv. l), and o/xola 
 iiXTiv (xiii. 31, 33, 44, 45. 47)- 
 
XIII. 24-31] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 93 
 
 the Tares the soil is all good, and the crop would be all good, 
 but for the malice of the enemy, 'while men slept' The 
 sleeping is not blamed ; after honest toil it was right that they 
 should sleep ; but it was then that the enemy had his 
 opportunity. It would have been easy to represent the weeds 
 as sown by the wind ; but just as in the Sower our Lord makes 
 the birds represent, not impersonal temptations, but Satan, so 
 here He makes the noxious plants to be sown by a personal 
 evil agent, who scatters false apostles and false doctrine broad- 
 cast through God's world. The field is the world (38), not the 
 Church, which gives too narrow a meaning to the parable, and 
 leaves out of account the multitudes of good and bad who are 
 not Christians. And, once more, men are divided into just two 
 classes, tares and wheat, sons of the Kingdom and sons of the 
 evil one. He that is not with Christ is against Him. Christ 
 gives no explanation of the servants who propose to weed out 
 the tares, and we need not seek one. There are always persons 
 who are ready to propose drastic remedies for real or supposed 
 evils, and it is with regard to them that the main lesson of the 
 parable is given. Men are not to anticipate the judgment of 
 God, for they will do much more harm than good by attempting 
 to do so. They have not sufficient knowledge. They do not 
 always know how to distinguish the bad from the good, nor do 
 they know how the removal of the bad may affect the good. 
 A plant that will turn out very well may easily be mistaken for 
 a weed ; and the lives of good and bad are often so closely 
 intertwined that the violent removal of the one is sure to cause 
 injury to the other. That the bad may become good is not 
 taught by the parable, but it is provided for in the absolute 
 prohibition to root up any. It is not for man to call down fire 
 from heaven upon those whom he regards as the enemies of 
 Christ. 
 
 The parable may have a reference to the teaching of the 
 Baptist and his message to Christ. In his preaching he had 
 laid his chief emphasis upon the judgments that await the 
 impenitent, — the axe, the winnowing fan, and the unquenchable 
 fire. He had said little about the Messiah's mercy and love. 
 He had been impatient with Jesus for not being sufficiently 
 prompt in carrying out John's conception of His mission. The 
 Messiah here repeats the lesson : ' Judgment is Mine,' not man's. 
 And, though the Divine judgment never fails, yet it does tarry ; 
 and it is the Divine patience that man must strive to imitate. 
 Man is shortlived and is often hasty. He who is from ever- 
 lasting to everlasting can afford to wait. 
 
 Both Mt. and Mk. group together three parables that are 
 taken from the vegetable world, the first and the third being the 
 
194 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XIII. 31-35 
 
 same in each, — the Sower and the Mustard-seed. Both Mt, and 
 Lk. group together two parables respecting the spread of the 
 Gospel, — the Mustard-seed and the Leaven; but Lk. places 
 this pair later in the Ministry, just after the healing of a woman 
 in a synagogue on the sabbath (xiii. 18-21). In this pair Christ 
 points out some of the characteristics of the Kingdom which 
 He so often mentioned in His teaching, its small beginning, its 
 gradual increase, and its immense development. It will embrace 
 all peoples and nations, and it will penetrate and transform 
 their entire life'(3i-33). 
 
 It is not quite certain what plant is meant by the mustard, 
 but sinapis nigra is probable. It is some plant which grows to 
 a large size from a very small seed (xvii. 20) ; but ' tree ' (SeVSpov) 
 does not necessarily mean a timber-tree. We speak of a rose- 
 tree and a gooseberry-tree. Whether any other characteristics 
 of the mustard-plant are alluded to, such as its medicinal qualities, 
 is doubtful. " Small as a mustard seed " was a Jewish proverb 
 to indicate a very minute particle : and " so that the birds of the 
 heaven can lodge in it " was a phrase for a great Kingdom giving 
 protection to many (Dan. iv. 9, 18 ; Ezek. xxxi. 6). 
 
 Leaven (33) is commonly used as a metaphor for evil influ- 
 ence, which disturbs, puffs up, sours, and corrupts. " It is born 
 of corruption " says Plutarch, •ycyorci' ek <j>Oopa<; : and leaven was 
 forbidden during the Passover. Comp. i Cor, v. 6 ; Gal. v. 9. 
 But our Lord is not deterred by these associations from using 
 it to symbolize the sure and subtle influence, of the Gospel. 
 Comp. Ignatius, Magnes. x. There was a common expectation 
 that the Messianic Kingdom would come ' with observation,' 
 suddenly, with much show of power and glory. These two 
 parables teach a different lesson. The tiny seed was buried in 
 the earth ; the leaven was hidden in the meal. The beginnings 
 of the Kingdom were unnoticed, and the ignorance of its character 
 was worldwide. But, whether noticed or not, the plant grew, 
 and the leaven conquered the meal. 
 
 How does it conquer the meal? By the influence of the 
 small piece of leaven upon the particles nearest to it, and of 
 those particles upon others that are nearest to them, ' till it is 
 all leavened.' That Kingdom in which the will of God is 
 acknowledged until it becomes supreme is to spread from soul 
 to soul until all are brought within His sovereignty. It spreads 
 from Christ to the Twelve, and from the Twelve to the infant 
 Church, and so on until the whole mass is reached and trans- 
 formed. Each Christian soul is to be a missionary, passing on 
 the subtle influence to others, for he must not receive and refuse 
 to give. This implies that the Christian must live in the world, 
 for the leaven cannot work without contact. Human life must 
 
XIII. 33-39] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 95 
 
 be touched at all points, in order that its work and its play, its 
 religion and its relaxation, its politics and its commerce, its 
 science and its arts, may be raised and warmed by the penetrating 
 action of Christian morality and Christian ideals. He is no true 
 Christian who either shuns society for fear of contamination, or, 
 when he goes into society, leaves his Christianity behind him. 
 He who does not pass on the influence of the saving leaven is 
 working against it. 
 
 There is no need to seek a meaning for the number three. 
 The ' three measures ' may be suggested by Gen. xviii. 6. Nor 
 is there any significance in the change from a man (31) to a 
 woman (33). Baking is a woman's work, as sowing seed is a 
 man's. Comp. the change from the sheep-owner to the woman 
 in Lk. XV. The important point is the marvellous development, 
 external and internal, of Christianity. 
 
 Having concluded the group of four parables spoken to the 
 multitudes from the boat (2-33), Mt. now adopts Mk. iv. 33, 34 
 as a suitable conclusion, and adds a fulfilment of prophecy 
 (34, 35). In adopting Mk. he omits 'but privately to His own 
 disciples He expounded all things.' The omission may be 
 another instance of sparing the Twelve. Perhaps Mt. was un- 
 willing to state that they needed to have all things expounded 
 to them. The prophecy is from Ps. l.xxviii. 2, mainly from the 
 Hebrew, but perhaps influenced by recollection of the Septuagint. 
 ' I will open my mouth with a parable, I will utter riddles con- 
 cerning times of old ' ; i.e. the Psalmist will expound the lessons 
 which the history of Israel contains. The Psalmist was not 
 directly predicting anything respecting the Messiah's manner of 
 teaching ; but his own method was an anticipation of Christ's. 
 As he used Israel's past to point a moral, so Christ used the 
 facts of nature and of human life to teach the truths of the 
 Gospel. On the reading 'Isaiah' see Nestle, p. 251. 
 
 We are not told when our Lord left the boat, but that is 
 probably included in ' He left the multitudes and went into the 
 house' (36). The disciples' coming to Him (10) is perhaps 
 mentioned by anticipation, and we may suppose that the ex- 
 planations both of the Sower and of the Tares were given after 
 the house had been reached. 
 
 'The end of the world' or 'consummation of the age' 
 (crui'TtAeia alu>vo<i or 17 trvi'TeXeta toC aiiuvos) is frequent in Mt. 
 (39, 49, xxiv. 3, xxviii. 20) and in apocalyptic literature (Dalman, 
 Words of Jesus, p. 155), and 'consummation' {trwri'kf.La) is 
 frequent in the Septuagint.^ Comp. Heb. ix. 26 and Westcott's 
 
 ' In the Testaments we have avvrkX^io. tG>v aiuvuv (Levi x. 2) and avvr. 
 ToO aMi'OS (BenjamiH xi. 3); but in both places texts vary between t. 
 fj.iu)v(i)v and r. (liwcos. 
 
196 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XIII. 42-44 
 
 note. The world is not the Kingdom, although it contains 
 'the sons of the Kingdom.' But the Son of Man brings the 
 Kingdom with Him, and at that consummation ' the sons of the 
 evil one ' may be said for the moment to be i7i the Kingdom ; 
 but they are immediately expelled, as having no right to be in it 
 (41). That is the meaning of 'gather out of His Kingdom.' 
 There are two kinds of evil that are expelled, all that ^ cause 
 stumbling,' and all that ' do iniquity.' The former class indicates, 
 what is not stated in the parable, that the tares may cause the 
 wheat to degenerate. Iniquity or ' lawlessness ' (dvo/xta) is in- 
 fectious and poisonous, like the fungus on the darnel.^ 'The 
 furnace of fire ' occurs only here and ver. 50. Excepting Lk. 
 xiii. 28, 'the weeping and the gnashing of teeth' is peculiar to 
 this Gospel (viii. 12, xiii. 42, 50, xxii. 13, xxiv. 51, xxv. 30): in 
 none of the passages is anything said about the duration of the 
 misery. Compare the Ascension of Isaiah, iv. 18. 
 
 'Shine forth as the sun' (43) is a common simile (xvii. 2 ; 
 Rev. i. 16; Judges v. 31 ; Ecclus. 1. 7 ; Ep. of Jer. 67). It is 
 especially appropriate here, for they will be in the light of Him 
 who is the Sun of righteousness (Dan. xii. 3). The interpretation 
 of the Tares closes with the same refrain as the parable of the 
 Sower (9) and the praise of John the Baptist (xi. 15). It is 
 sometimes misunderstood as referring to a favoured minority, 
 gifted with special intelligence as to spiritual truth, or as referring 
 to those who are ivilling to hear. All have ears ; and therefore 
 all are responsible for refusing to listen. A man cannot plead 
 that he was unable to hear. The word was brought to him, and 
 he rejected it. 
 
 The Evangelist represents the remaining three parables 
 (44-50), which complete the total of seven, as spoken to the 
 disciples in the house. The first two, like the Mustard-seed and 
 the Leaven, are a pair, based on the truth that a man will sacrifice 
 all his goods to obtain that which he is convinced is far more 
 valuable. That is how every one who knows about it ought 
 to feel respecting the Kingdom. No earthly possessions are 
 too precious to be given in exchange for it. While the Mustard- 
 seed and the Leaven illustrate the progress of the Kingdom in 
 society, the Hid Treasure and the Pearl show the Kingdom as 
 a personal discovery and acquisition. The two men in the 
 parables are ahke in two respects : they know a very valuable 
 thing when they see it, and they are willing to pay the highest 
 price in order to secure it. But they differ in the fact that the 
 one finds a great treasure without looking for it, while the other 
 has been carefully seeking. This difference is true to life. One 
 man suddenly finds himself face to face with a great truth or a 
 ' See on vii. 23, p. 117. 
 
XIII. 44-50] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 197 
 
 noble ideal, in the Bible, in some other book, in the life of an 
 acquaintance, in some personal crisis ; and he has to make up 
 his mind whether to grasp it or let it pass. Another man pain- 
 fully seeks and collects all that can give value to life and elevation 
 to conduct, and he at last finds something in comparison with 
 which everything else is of small account ; and there is not much 
 doubt what he will determine to do. Both have found 
 
 "the great world's altar-stairs, 
 That slope through darkness up to God." 
 
 There is no need to raise questions as to the morality of the 
 man, who hid the treasure before going to buy the field.' He 
 may have hid it to prevent it from being stolen, or to prevent 
 himself from being anticipated in buying the field. V\'e are not 
 told that he concealed from the owner his reason for being willing 
 to give all that he possessed for the field. But even if he was 
 guilty of sharp practice, that ought to afford no difficulty. This 
 detail, (fit is in the parable, is in the framework, and has nothing 
 to do with the intended lesson. It is like the alterations in the 
 bonds suggested by the Unrighteous Steward (Lk. xvi. 6, 7), and 
 has no meaning. It is the man's readiness to part with all that 
 he had, in order to secure the treasure, that counts. ^ 
 
 'AH that he had.' It was a heavy price; but in each case 
 it was joyfully paid, and Christ's followers must be ready to do 
 the same. ' He that loveth father or mother more than Me, is 
 not worthy of Me ' ; but ' He that loseth his life for My sake, 
 shall find it' (x. 37, 39). Who is it that makes these enormous 
 claims upon all mankind ? Who is it that offers, to those who 
 respond to the claims, such enormous rewards ? 
 
 The parable of the Net is a pair to that of the Tares. It 
 teaches the same lesson, and has a similar ending. As in the 
 field there are both wheat and tares, so in the draw-net there are 
 fishes both good and bad ; and here there is room for the thought, 
 though it is not suggested, that there may be degrees of goodness, 
 and also of badness, in the fishes in the net. ' Every kind ' tells 
 us nothing as to moral worth, but indicates, in a way that the 
 wheat and the tares could not do, that there are all sorts and 
 conditions of men in the world. If it were not for the partial 
 explanation in ver. 49, the Net might seem to be at variance 
 
 ' Origen makes this represent the economy of hiding the secret meanings 
 of Scripture from those who are not able to appreciate them. 
 
 '' The change of tense from TiwpuKev ((iruiXyjffef, D) to ■ijy6pa<rev can hardly 
 have any point. The aorist of irnrpda-KU seems to be found only in Epic, and 
 in late Greek the difference between aor. and perf. became less sharp ; comp. 
 Jas. i. 24. See Blass, § 59, 5 ; J. H. Moulton, Gram, of N.T. Gr. p. 142. 
 The beginning of ver. 45 should resemble that of ver. 44. The Kingdom is 
 like the pearl, not like the merchant. 
 
198 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XIII. 47-52 
 
 with the Tares, for the fishermen in the former parable seem to 
 be analogous to the servants in the latter, and the fishermen do 
 separate the bad fish from the good. But the explanation shows 
 that those who cast the net into the sea are not the same as 
 those who separate the fish. The one is the work of the Apostles 
 (iv. 19), the other of the Angels. Till the net is brought to shore 
 at the I3ay of Judgment the bad are free to mix with the good.' 
 
 This second group of parables being ended (44-50), Mt. 
 gives another conclusion, which might have served as an ending 
 to the whole seven. The two longest parables have been 
 interpreted in detail, and a partial interpretation has been given 
 of the last parable. The intermediate parables are simpler in 
 character, and with the key to the more elaborate ones the 
 disciples might be expected to see the meaning of all. Christ 
 asks them whether this is so (51), and they reply that they 
 have understood. This would convince them that the method 
 of teaching by parables, the purpose of which they had 
 questioned (10), was a good one : it had instructed themselves, 
 and would enable them to instruct others. In a higher and 
 better way, they were to be to the Gospel what the Scribes 
 were to the Law.^ They were to produce, for the benefit of 
 their hearers, not merely old things in the old form, but things 
 both new and old in a new form ; and they were to use old 
 things as a vehicle for truths that were new to that generation. 
 They were to take the familiar phenomena of- nature, and the 
 experiences of everyday life, and make them the instruments 
 of a spiritual revelation. 
 
 With the formula of transition, 'when Jesus finished' (53) 
 comp. vii. 28, xi. i, xiii. 53, xix. i, xxvi. i. It makes a break 
 preparatory to an incident which illustrates, by an extreme 
 case, the rejection of the Messiah by the Jewish people. ' He 
 came unto His own inheritance, and His own people received 
 Him not' (Jn. i. 11). See on vii. 28, p. 119. 
 
 This was perhaps the first visit to ' His own country ' 
 Nazareth since the beginning of His public Ministry. They 
 were astonished at the wisdom of His teaching in their 
 synagogue, and at the report of His mighty works, but they 
 were offended that one whom they had known all their lives as 
 of humble origin and life, and with whose brothers and sisters 
 
 ' It is difficult to believe that Christ could have given these interpretations 
 of the parables of the Tares and of the Net (39, 41, 49), if there are no such 
 beings as Angels. They do not look like accommodations to current beliefs. 
 And it is not likely that the Angels were no parts of His interpretation, but 
 have been imported into it by tradition : comp. xvi. 27, xviii. 10, xxii. 30, 
 xxiv. 31, 36, XXV. 31, 41, xxvi. 53. 
 
 " Aia rouTo means ' Because ye have been made to understand by means 
 of parables' ; it is almost equivalent to ' Weil, then.' 
 
XUI. 53-55] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 99 
 
 they were intimate, should have attained to such eminence. 
 Instead of being proud of Him, and glorifying God for Him, 
 they were jealous of Him and belittled Him. He was nothing 
 but the member of a very ordinary family, and what right had 
 He to teach them new ways of life? Chtist's explanation of 
 their conduct is a proverb, parallels to which exist in various 
 languages. Pindar tells Ergoteles, the runner, that his fame 
 would have faded away at the family hearth, if fortune had not 
 driven him from home (Olytn. xii. 13). Seneca says: Vile 
 hahetur, quod domi est {De Bene/, iii. 3). 
 
 The changes which Mt. makes in the narrative of Mk. are 
 of great interest. For ' Is not this the carpenter, the Son of 
 Mary?' he has, 'Is not this the carpenter's Son? is not His 
 mother Mary?' He shrinks from calling Jesus Himself a 
 carpenter, and he separates the two kinds of sonship. Legally, 
 as shown by the genealogy in ch. i., Jesus was the Son of 
 Joseph ; actually, as shown by the narrative in ch. i., He was 
 the Son of Mary. That Mk. does not say ' the Son of Joseph 
 and Mary ' is remarkable. This may imply no more than that 
 Joseph was dead ; but it may imply that there was no human 
 father.i It cannot imply that Mk. believed that Joseph was 
 actually His father. VVith a similar feeling of reverence, Mt. 
 changes 'He could do no mighty work, save that He laid His 
 hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them : And He marvelled 
 because of their unbelief ' into 'He did not many mighty works 
 there because of their unbelief.' He shrinks from the ' could 
 not,' and also from the ' marvelled,' although he has admitted 
 this previously (viii. 10) with regard to the centurion's great 
 faith. Mk. has ' marvelled ' in both places. The Evangelist 
 probably regarded the rejection of Jesus by His own people at 
 Nazareth as a prophetic intimation of His rejection by the whole 
 nation at Jerusalem ; and he may also have regarded the murder 
 of the Baptist, which now follows, as a prophetic type of the 
 murder of the Messiah. So detailed a narrative of John's 
 death would not have been given merely to explain the craven 
 fear of Antipas that Jesus was the murdered Baptist risen from 
 the dead. The story of John's end is required to complete the 
 account of his message to the Messiah and to illustrate the 
 Messiah's eulogy of him (xi. 2-19); and, as the one narrative 
 begins with a message carried by John's disciples from Machaerus 
 (xi. 3), so the other narrative ends with one (xiv. 12). 
 
 ^ The former is more probable : it explains how Jesus Himself came to 
 be called 'the carpenter.' The relationships are tersely stated in the Acta 
 ThofHtz, 143, Bonnet, p. 250 : iKK-qd-q ulos Mapt'as irapdevov, Kal TjKoOadr} vibs 
 T^KToi'os'lunr'fi^. The Trpos ^/iSs of the sisters means 'in constant intercourse 
 with us' • Mk. ix. 19 = Lk. ix. 41 ; Mk. xiv. 49. 
 
200 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XIV. 1 
 
 Characteristic expressions in ch. xiii. ; avij.4>4peiv (2), Idoi (3), wpoaip- 
 Xe(TSai (10), otKoSe<nr6Trj$ (27, 52), avvayuv (30, 47), rbre (36), ^pvy/^is 
 Twii dddvTujv (42, 50), dria-avpS! (44, 52), a-awp6s (48), fiaeriTevfiv (52), 
 eKeiBev (53). Peculiar: t; ^airiXela tQiv oipavdv (11, 24, 31, 33, 44, 45, 47, 
 52), rb p-qBii' (35), ffuj-T-Aeia [toD] aiui/os (39, 40, 48), 5ia.ira<t>ilv (36 and xviii. 
 31 only). Owing to thfe subject-matter of the chapter, the number of expres- 
 sions in it which occur nowhere else in the N.T. is large : Trapa/SoX-ijy -wapa- 
 Ti.diva^ (24, 31), 4Tritnrelpfi.v (25), ivKpinrreiv (33), ipevyendai (35), 6epia-T-qs 
 (30, 39), iKkiiJ-TTciv (43), a-ayTjvri (47), wa/Si/Sdfeiy (48), (S77[)s (48), jxeralpeiv 
 (53), (rwaulai'eii' (30), fifdpia (25-30). 
 
 In the translation of the phrase 6 K\av8ixbs Kal 6 ^p. r. dSbvriiiv the AV. 
 again exhibits caprice. In this chapter (42, 50) it is rendered ' wailing and 
 gnashing of teeth,' elsewhere ' weeping and gnashing of teeth,' which the RV. 
 adopts everywhere. 
 
 XIV. 1-XVIII. 35. THE MINISTRY OF THE MESSIAH 
 IN OR NEAR GALILEE. 
 
 This section, like preceding sections, is grouped round a 
 prophecy of Isaiah, which is quoted xv. 8, 9 ; and it ends with 
 the discourses on offences and forgiveness. Ch. xviii., like 
 v.-vii., X., and xiii., seems to be meant as the conclusion of a 
 section of the Gospel, and it consists, as they do, almost entirely 
 of discourses. In this and the following sections, Mt. keeps 
 closely to the order of Mk., not breaking it, as he often does 
 in the first half of the Gospel, in order to group the materials 
 according to similarity of subject. 
 
 XIV. 1-14. The Murder of the Baptist and the Retirement 
 of the Messiah. 
 
 All three Gospels mention that Herod Antipas heard the 
 report of Christ's mighty works. This cannot refer to the few 
 healings at Nazareth just mentioned, but rather to those at 
 Capernaum, and the various towns in which He had laboured 
 since the plots of the Pharisees had led to His leaving His 
 usual centre. It is surprising that Antipas had not heard of 
 the fame of Jesus sooner. At Tiberias, where he often had 
 his court, the marvellous works done in Chorazin, Bethsaida, 
 and Capernaum must have been well known. But Antipas was 
 often away from home, and sometimes out of his dominions, 
 and princes often know much less than their subjects of what 
 goes on close to their doors. The extension of the movement, 
 inaugurated by John and carried on by Jesus, would cause it 
 to be more noticed by Herod. Now that Christ was moving 
 from place to place, while six pairs of Apostles were also 
 itinerating in Herod's dominions, he would be much more 
 
XIV. 1-3] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 201 
 
 likely to hear about Christ and His mighty works. But it was 
 the report that John whom he had beheaded was risen from 
 the dead that specially excited Herod's interest and fears.^ 
 That a risen John should work miracles seemed to him probable 
 enough, and his guilty conscience was uneasy as to what John's 
 return from the grave might mean for himself. Of all the con- 
 jectures that were current respecting Jesus, the belief that He 
 was John come to life again seemed to him to be only too 
 probable. If we had only Mt., we might think that Antipas 
 himself originated this idea, and no other conjectures are 
 mentioned. But Lk., who had special information respecting 
 Herod's surroundings, says that Herod was told this first by 
 others, and apparently tried to disbelieve it.^ He had tried to 
 bury the thought of the murder, but the memory of it had 
 risen again and again to torment him, and now the murdered 
 man himself seemed to have risen again to rebuke him. Origen 
 mentions a tradition that Jesus and John resembled one another ; 
 and, if that were true, the theory of John's resurrection would 
 be all the more likely to arise. 
 
 In this indirect way, because Antipas heard of Christ's 
 miracles and thought that He might be the Baptist restored to 
 life, the murder of the Baptist comes to be mentioned. No 
 doubt it was of great interest to the first body of Christians, 
 and hence was preserved in their traditions ; but in the Gospels 
 it comes to be recorded because of the interest excited in 
 Antipas by Christ. Lk. mentions John's imprisonment and 
 death (iii. 20, ix. 9) but gives no details, and Mt. abbreviates 
 the narrative of Mk. It is only in connexion with the Messiah 
 that the Baptist is of importance to the Evangelist. John had 
 been His Forerunner in the Ministry, and he was to be the 
 same in suffering an unjust execution. John preceded the 
 Messiah in birth and in mission ; and he now precedes Him in 
 a violent death. 
 
 Mt. corrects Mk.'s inaccurate '■ kijig Herod' by calling him 
 'Herod the tetrarch' (i), as also does Lk. Very possibly it was 
 customary to call these petty potentates ' kings,' and Mt. himself 
 does so later (9) ; but Herodias ruined Antipas by urging him to 
 try to get himself recognised as a king by Caligula (Josephus, 
 Ani. xviii. vii. 2). The 'servants' (tok Traialv avrov) are his 
 
 ' Comp. "Then did the ghosts of Alexander and Aristobuhis go round 
 all the palace, and became the inquisitors and discoverers of what could not 
 otherwise be found out" (Josephus, B. J. I. xxx. 7). 
 
 2 The reading in Mk. is doubtful, but ' they ssaA' (B D and Old Latin) 
 is more probable than 'he said' (N A C L etc.) in vi. 14. 'They were 
 saying . . . Others were saying . . . Others were saying ' is the probable 
 connexion. It should be noticed that all these conjectures about Jesus are 
 indirect evidence of the reality of His miracles. 
 
202 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XIV. 3-9 
 
 courtiers, who are called ' servants ' in Oriental fashion.^ We 
 need not suppose that he gossiped with his slaves (BovXoi) 
 about such things. It was not lawful for him to have Herodias 
 as a wife, for her first husband was alive ; and even if he had 
 been dead, marriage with a sister-in-law was forbidden (Lev. 
 xviii. 1 6). Antipas had put away his own lawful wife, the 
 daughter of King Aretas, in order to form the incestuous union 
 with Herodias ; and this brought him into disastrous collision 
 with Aretas. See Schiirer, y^zwM/^ People, i. ii. 17-30; notes on 
 2 Cor. xi. 32, 33 in Cam. Grk. Test.; DCG. i. p. 722. The 
 enmity of Herodias to John for striving to induce Antipas to 
 put her away was implacable. It was mainly her doing that 
 Antipas imprisoned John, and she would have persuaded 
 Antipas to kill John, if his fear of the people (5) had not 
 counterbalanced her urgency. Hence there is no contradiction 
 between 'he would have put him to death' (5) and 'the king 
 was grieved' (9). He would have killed John to please 
 Herodias ; but on all other grounds he was sorry to put him to 
 death, for he not only feared the people, but stood in awe of 
 John himself (Mk. vi. 20).^ 
 
 That the daughter of Herodias was not the daughter of 
 Antipas need not be doubted ; a daughter of both of them would 
 have been only about two years old, while a daughter of 
 Herodias by her first husband might be about seventeen. Bad 
 as Herod was, he cannot justly be accused of allowing his own 
 daughter to degrade herself by dancing to please revellers at a 
 banquet. He promised her ' whatever she should ask,' to which 
 Mk. adds 'unto the half of my kingdom' (Esther v. 3, 6, vii. 2). 
 This promise 'with an oath' he was ashamed to break, especially 
 as it had been made in public. Like many weak, bad men, he 
 thought more of what people would say of him than of what was 
 really sinful ; and there are many to whom a breach of the 
 decalogue is less dreadful than a breach of etiquette. In such a 
 case as his, to have broken the rash oath, into which he had 
 been entrapped, would not have been sin, but repentance. But 
 the pressure of Herodias, of his oath, and of those who heard it, 
 was now too strong for his vacillating conscience, even when 
 backed by the fear of the people ; and he gave the fatal order.^ 
 
 ^ Amici priiicipuiit, pknnnqiie jtivenes, says Bengel. Saul talks to his 
 'servants' in a similar way (I Sam. xviii. 22-26) ; David also. 
 
 On the omission of 'Philip' (3) in D and Latt. see Nestle, Text Crit. 
 p. 252. 
 
 ^ Origen oddly enough suggests that birthday celebrations are wrong ; 
 "we find in no Scripture that a birthday was kept by a righteous man." 
 Pharaoh (Gen. xl. 20) and Herod Antipas are the two examples. 
 
 •* The striking parallel between Ahab, Jezebel, Elijah, and Antipas, 
 Herodias, John, has often been pointed out. 
 
XIV. 13] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 203 
 
 There was a palace as well as a fortress and a prison at 
 Machaerus, and we may accept the impression produced by the 
 narratives, that the banquet was close to John's prison, and that 
 he was beheaded the same day. Herod's grief is shown in his 
 allowing John's disciples to take away the corpse and give it 
 decent burial. It was a courageous thing for them to attempt. 
 That 'they went and told Jesus' (12) was natural enough, and 
 perhaps indicates that they now became His disciples. Their 
 telling Him shows that Christ's rebuke to the Baptist (xi. 6) had 
 caused no estrangement between Him and John's disciples, and 
 this last message carried by them from Machaerus forms a 
 remarkable counterpart to the first. Then they had carried the 
 message of John's impatience respecting the Messiah ; now they 
 carry the news of his cruel death. 
 
 Mt. regards the news of the murder of the Baptist as the 
 cause of Christ's withdrawal to a desert place apart' ^ But Mk. 
 and Lk, make the withdrawal a consequence of the return of the 
 Twelve, who had attracted an embarrassing number of followers. 
 Both views may be right ; but the withdrawal gives only 
 temporary relief from the pressure of the multitudes. While 
 Jesus and His disciples take ship and cross the lake (13), the 
 people go round by land and find Him once more. As the 
 Twelve have returned, there is no counter-attraction anywhere, 
 and Christ is again the sole centre of teaching and healing.^ 
 ' He came forth and saw a great multitude ' probably means that 
 He left the boat and found a crowd awaiting Him : the people 
 had got there first. It means that He came out of His 
 retirement. 
 
 XIV. 15-36. The Feeding of Five Thousand and the 
 Walking on the Sea. 
 
 The feeding of this multitude is the one miracle which is 
 recorded by all four Evangelists, and each makes it the chmax of 
 the Ministry. Henceforward attention is directed more and 
 more to Christ's predictions of His death, and to the hostility 
 which was to bring about their fulfilment. It is Jn. who tells 
 us that the miracle took place a little before the Passover, and 
 therefore just a year before the Passion. It may be doubted 
 whether Mt. Jiad any information other than Mk., whom he 
 abbreviates.^ The difficulty of feeding such a multitude became 
 
 ^ Comp. iv. 12, where Jesus withdraws when He hears that John had 
 been delivered up to Herod. 
 
 ^ Here, as at xi.x. 2, Mt. substitutes ' healing ' for the ' teaching ' in Mk. 
 
 ' Nevertheless, Mt. alone has : ' They have no need to go away,' and 
 ' Bring them hither to Me.' 
 
204 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XIV. 15-SO 
 
 more pressing as the evening approached, and then (as the 
 Synoptists relate) the disciples point it out to Christ : in Jn. He 
 talces the initiative in questioning Philip as to what is to be done. 
 In reply to His charge, ' Give _ve them to eat,' Mk. has a 
 question, which might sound like sarcasm, 'Shall we go and buy 
 two hundred pennyworth of bread, and give them to eat?' Mt. 
 omits this, and Lk. turns it differently. Jn. alone mentions that 
 it was a lad who had the five loaves, that they were of barley- 
 bread, and that it was Andrew who pointed the lad out.^ The 
 orderly manner in which the multitudes are fed is more clearly 
 brought out in Mk. and Lk. than in Mt., but Mt. retains their 
 being made to sit down before receiving any food. This was 
 security against crowding round the distributors, and all had an 
 equal chance of being satisfied : it was also some security against 
 waste. The food was given to the Twelve to distribute, and 
 perhaps we are to understand that their hunger was satisfied 
 first ; otherwise they might have been unequal to the work of 
 feeding so vast a multitude. In any case, when the miracle is 
 understood as a figure of Christ's methods in supplying the 
 spiritual needs of mankind, it is to be noted that it is through 
 the Apostles that the human race is fed. The Lord is not tied 
 to any one method ; but, as a rule. He works through His 
 Church. Not, ' /will give them,' but 'Givej'i? them to eat' are 
 His words, although ' I will give them ' would have been true. 
 It is through the Christian body as an organized society that the 
 Gospel is made known to the world. And it is those who have 
 themselves been fed by the Word and know its value, that can 
 best pass it on to others. 
 
 Another point to be noted is the narrow limits within which 
 the supernatural element in the feeding is restrained. It is 
 confined to what was absolutely necessary, and goes no further. 
 If an exhibition of power had been the main purpose, something 
 much more striking might have been wrought. The food might 
 have come down visibly from heaven. It might have been 
 not only multiplied, but distributed, miraculously. Ten times 
 the amount that was required might have been provided, and it 
 might have been of a much richer quality. But there was no 
 creation of food. A very small store of existing food was made 
 to suffice — ^we know not how. But all four accounts show 
 that in Christ's hands, and perhaps also in the hands of the 
 disciples, the food increased as long as increase was needed. 
 That the miracle did not consist in hunger being removed 
 without food is shown by the twelve baskets of fragments, an 
 amount far exceeding the original store. 
 
 ^ "As residents of Bethsaida, Philip and Andrew would know how food 
 could be procured in that region " (S. J. Andrews, Life of Our Lord, p. 326). 
 
XIV. 19-21] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 205 
 
 This gathering up of the fragments for future use is a remark- 
 able feature in all four narratives, and Jn. tells us that it was 
 done by Christ's command. It is an emphatic protest against 
 waste, which cannot be justified even when God's gifts are 
 superabundantly supplied. And it is a strong guarantee for the 
 trustworthiness of the accounts. A writer of fiction would not 
 have represented a wonder-worker who could multiply food at 
 pleasure as careful about fragments of barley-bread and fish. 
 And in the narratives of both the miraculous feedings of 
 multitudes we have this detail of gathering up the fragments 
 carefully preserved (xv. 37 ; jMk. viii. 8) ; and again when 
 Christ refers to the two miracles (xvi. 9, 10). In fictions about 
 an inexhaustible purse, the possessor is not represented as being 
 careful against extravagance ; e.g. in Chamisso's Peter Schlemihl. 
 This argument stands, even if we accept the view that the 
 feeding of the 4000 is only a divergent account of the feeding of 
 the 5000. In that case, although discrepancies have crept in 
 with regard to unimportant details, yet the remarkable provision 
 against waste of the superfluous food is preserved intact. It is 
 impossible, on critical principles, to eliminate this miracle from 
 the Gospel story, or to explain it away. See Sanday, Outlines 
 of the Life of Christ., pp. 121-123 ; B. 'Weiss, Life of Christ, ii. pp. 
 381-385 ; "The story is a fact supported by the testimony of all 
 four evangelists, not a baseless legend, or a religious allegory " 
 (A. B. Bruce, ad loc.) ; II n'y a pas dans Uhistoire evangelique 
 d'evenement niieux atteste que celui-ci ; fnais il n'y a pas nonplus 
 dont la caracthre franchement surnaturel soit plus evident ni plus 
 incontestable (P. Girodon on Lk. ix. 10-17) ! Zahn, ad loc. p. 511. 
 
 The blessing or thanksgiving is in all four accounts, as also 
 in both accounts of the 4000. It is the usual grace before meals 
 said by the host or the head of the house, and we are perhaps 
 to understand that it was the means of the miracle. The 
 thanksgiving and breaking of bread at the institution of the 
 Eucharist is naturally compared with this. And the complete- 
 ness of the result is noted by all four ; the multitude not only 
 ate, but were all filled, and there was food to spare. But Mt. 
 alone, in the account of both miracles, adds, after the estimate of 
 the numbers, 'beside women and children' (xv. 38).. He loves 
 to emphasize the wonderful character of the Messiah's mighty 
 works ; and perhaps he regarded as certain that only the men 
 would be counted in a Jewish estimate of the number. See 
 on viii. 16, p. 128. 
 
 ' And straightway He constrained the disciples to enter into 
 the boat, and to go before Him unto the other side ' (Mt. xiv. 22, 
 Mk. vi. 45) is a statement which does not explain itself. Evidently 
 there is much urgency on the Lord's part, and apparently there is 
 
2o6 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XIV. 22, 23 
 
 some unwillingness on theirs. They desire to remain with Him, 
 but He desires to be free from them and to be alone for the 
 work of dismissing the multitudes. Lk. is silent : we get the 
 explanation incidentally from Jn. He tells us that Jesus perceived 
 that the people ' were about to come and take Him by force, to 
 make Him king,' so great was the effect which the miracle had 
 had on them.i Here (they were convinced) was the Messiah for 
 whom they had been looking; and He must be made to play the 
 part which they had always expected from the Messiah, He 
 must be a great popular leader, deliver the nation from the 
 Roman yoke, and reign as a still more glorious Solomon. This 
 sincere but wrong-headed enthusiasm might easily have infected 
 the disciples, and perhaps had already begun to do so, when our 
 Lord delivered them from it by quickly sending them away. 
 He then freed Himself from the people and retired up the 
 mountain-side to pray.^ 
 
 This attempt to make Jesus a national king marks the climax 
 of the popular enthusiasm for Him. Since the beginning of the 
 Ministry this has been on the increase. For some time past 
 the hostility of the hierarchy has been on the increase also ; and 
 henceforward that hostility becomes more and more pronounced, 
 while the popular feeling in His favour, although it is by no means 
 extinguished, steadily declines. His refusal to be declared a 
 king was fatal to His position from the point of view of the Zealots 
 and those who sympathized with them. The discourse on the 
 Bread of Life put before them a Messiah altogether different 
 from the one for whom they were hoping, and perhaps was 
 hardly intelligible to many of them. Not only occasional fol- 
 lowers, but regular hearers were offended. ' Upon this many of 
 His disciples went back and walked no more with Him ' 
 (Jn. vi. 66). Such passages as xvi. 20 and xvii. 9 (comp. Mk. 
 vii. 24, 36) acquire a new significance, when we remember the 
 outburst of political feeling after the feeling of the multitudes. 
 
 Christ's retirement to a ' mountain ' for stillness and devotion 
 (ver. 23) is mentioned several times (Lk. vi. 12, ix. 28). Mt., 
 Mk., and Jn. all record it here. 
 
 ' There was a tradition that the Messiah would feed the people with 
 bread from Heaven as Moses had done in the wilderness. Jesus had fed the 
 people in the wilderness with bread that came in a miraculous way. The 
 inference was easy. 
 
 ^ Jn. and the Synoptists differ considerably as to the details of what 
 followed the feeding of the 5000. According to Jn., Jesus escapes from the 
 multitudes without dismissing them ; according to the others He dismisses, 
 first the Twelve, and then the multitudes. As so many of the people had 
 come on foot from Capernaum and elsewhere, there was nothing surprising 
 in Jesus being left behind to return to Capernaum on foot. 
 
 On Mt.'s favourite 'there' (^/cei), where Mk. has nothing of the kind, see 
 on .\xvii. 47, 
 
XIV. 24-27] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 207 
 
 The miracle of Christ walking upon the sea is often spoken 
 of as a legend. Goethe said it was one of the most beautiful 
 of legends and a special favourite of his. The episode respecting 
 Peter teaches so clearly that faith and courage will triumph over 
 the greatest obstacles, while doubting timidity is sure to fail. 
 But the miracle is reported by two of the Synoptists and sup- 
 ported by John ; and the addition about Peter, although reported 
 by Mt. only, is so exactly in harmony with his character, that 
 invention is unlikely. The lesson of the miracle is part of the 
 education of the Apostles, and supplements the lesson already 
 given by the calming of the storm (viii. 26). Christ is never 
 forgetful of His followers, and with Him they have nothing to 
 fear. Nor have they anything to fear when they are obeying 
 His orders. It was He who had compelled them to enter the 
 boat and had sent them across the water, and He would not 
 allow them to perish. The criticism that the times given are 
 incredible is not very strong. It is urged that Jesus must have 
 sent away the multitudes long before 11 p.m. The lake is only 
 seven or eight miles broad, and the disciples were near the 
 middle of it when Jesus approached them about the fourth 
 watch of the night, which begins at 3 a.m. They cannot have 
 been five or six hours in rowing three or four miles. But there 
 is no real difficulty here. They may have lingered near the 
 shore for an hour or two watching the dispersion of the crowds, 
 and wondering whether, after all, Christ would not' require to be 
 taken over in the boat.^ When they did begin to cross, 'the 
 wind was contrary,' and they may often have been driven back. 
 They were ' tormented ' (/Sacravt^o/xeVous) by the laborious rowing, 
 and it was part of their lesson that they should be disheartened 
 and worn out by fruitless exertions before He came to their aid.^ 
 
 They would no doubt remember the time when Jesus had 
 calmed the storm on the lake and freed them from danger ; but 
 that thought would increase their distress. Then it was daylight, 
 and Jesus was with them ; now it is night, and He is away. 
 Why had He sent them out into the storm without Him? But, 
 though they could not see Him, He was watching them from 
 the shore (Mk. vi. 47, 48). His delay in going to help them is 
 Hke His delay in going to Lazarus. ' Now Jesus loved Martha, 
 and her sister, and Lazarus. When therefore He heard that he 
 was sick ' (not. He went to them at once, but) ' He abode at 
 that time two days in the place where He was ' (Jn. xi. 5, 6). 
 It was just because He loved His disciples so well that He let 
 
 ' Jn. says : ' It was now darlc, and Jesus had not vet come to them ' 
 (vi. I?)- 
 
 2 Mk. says that the disciples were ' tormented ' ; Mt. applies this expres- 
 sion to the boat (comp. viii. 6, 29, and see Gould on Mk. vi. 48). 
 
2o8 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XIV. 25-31 
 
 their trouble do its work before He relieved them. Not until 
 the last watch of the night does He come to them, and then 
 they do not know Him ! It often happens that the means 
 which He uses to help His servants are not recognized as His, 
 and are not recognized as help. Possibly they thought that 
 this apparition was a messeriger of death to them, or that Jesus 
 Himself had perished, and that this was His ghost. 'They 
 cried out for fear.' And then He answered them with cheering, 
 assuring, encouraging words, and, like the Magdalen at the 
 tomb, they knew Him by His voice. They knew that He who 
 before had said to the winds 'Peace, be still,' was He who, with 
 still stranger power, ' treadeth upon the waves of the sea ' (Job 
 ix. 8).^ Their fear of Him and their distress at the storm were 
 both dispelled. ' Then are they glad, because they are at rest ; 
 and so He bringeth them unto the haven where they would be ' 
 (Ps. cvii. 30). 
 
 Both Mt. and Mk. report the ' walking upon the sea,' and 
 Mk. relates that ' they all saw Him ' : there was no delusion. 
 Mk. also says that ' He wished to pass by them ' {y^Oikiv irapeXd^iv 
 avTovs), which Mt. omits, perhaps disliking the expression of an 
 apparent change of mind on His part. He was passing them, 
 and of course they supposed that He purposed to do so. 
 Perhaps we may say that He would have gone by, if they had 
 not cried out : some expression of their need was required. He 
 is ready to give help, but it must be asked for. How many 
 blessings are lost, because men do not pray for them ! And 
 here there was no definite prayer ; merely a cry of distress, and 
 it sufficed. The disciples had faith to believe in Him, when 
 He spoke. With 'Be of good cheer' comp. ix. 2, 22, and with 
 'Fear not' comp. i. 20, x. 26, 28, 31, xvii. 7, xxviii. 5, 10. 
 
 We have no means of knowing how the Evangelist became 
 acquainted with the incident respecting Peter ; but it was prob- 
 ably current among the circle of first Christians who had known 
 Peter. Mt. evidently had a special interest in the Apostle whom 
 he expressly calls 'first' of the Twelve (x. 2, comp. viii. 14, 
 XV. 15, xvi. 16-23, '^v''- 24, xviii. 21). His ' if it be Thou' 
 indicates that Peter's doubts are not quite dispelled ; but the 
 Lord's ' Come ' is as sufficient for him, as His command to let 
 down the nets on a previous occasion (Lk. v. 5). It was simply 
 a question of faith, whether the disciple could do what the 
 Master could do (xvii. 20, xxi. 2i).2 But the boisterous weather 
 
 ^ ' Eyw elfXL carmot mean 'I am the Christ' (Mk. xiii. 6 = Mt. .xxiv. 5). 
 If Jesus revealed Himself as the Christ on this occasion, xvi. 17 could hardly 
 have been spoken. 
 
 '^ Salmon points out how the way in whicli Peter acts in Jn. xxi. confirms 
 the narrative here. In both we seem to have the report of an eye-witness 
 ( The Httman Element, p. 322), 
 
XIV. 28-31] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 20g 
 
 made him afraid, and fear shook his faith ; yet not entirely. 
 Even while he is sinking, he believes that Jesus can save him ; 
 he has not lost all confidence, either in His power or in His 
 readiness to save. Comp. viii. 25, 26. 
 
 The more we study this narrative respecting S. Peter, the 
 more assured we may be that it cannot be invention ; and thus 
 this addition which JVIt. makes to the miracle of Christ walking 
 upon the sea increases our belief in the reality of that miracle. 
 What is told us in these four verses (28-31) is so in harmony 
 with Peter's character, is such an anticipation of his conduct a 
 year later, and is so beautiful in itself as an illustration of Christ's 
 way of dealing with His Apostles, that we may safely regard it 
 as beyond the power of any early Christian to invent. There is, 
 on Peter's side, the combination (so strange and yet so natural) 
 of confidence in the Master and confidence in himself. There 
 is the usual impulsiveness (partly good and partly evil) to join 
 the Lord at once and to be before the others in doing so. 
 There is perhaps also the wish to do something dangerous, if not 
 for its own sake, at least to prove his trust in Jesus. Yet he 
 asks leave before acting. Then come, first fear, then a loss of 
 trust, and then failure. Just a year later there was the same 
 impulsiveness : ' I will lay down my life for Thee ' ; the same 
 self-confidence in entering the palace of the high priest and 
 warming himself at the public fire ; and the same result of 
 sinking before a blast of adverse criticism. On both occasions 
 it was because trust in himself had taken the place of faith in 
 Christ, that Christ's support was withdrawn, and he sank. But 
 only for a time. In each case the greatness of the failure works 
 its own cure, — on the lake, in a few seconds, at Jerusalem, in 
 a few days. And Peter is not blamed for desiring to walk on 
 the water to come to Christ, nor yet for professing a willingness 
 to die for Him. It is not demonstrative affection that causes 
 Christ to leave him to himself, that he may find out his own 
 weakness. The affection was genuine, and forwardness in 
 showing it would have been welcome, had it not been a sign of 
 impetuosity rather than of depth. Neither he nor Mary Magda- 
 len (Jn. XX. 15) was rebuked for undertaking what was beyond 
 their strength ; love does not always stop to measure possibilities. 
 But there was something of presumption in the eager approach 
 of both of them ; and in his case there was forthwith a lack of 
 trust. And it is for this that Peter was rebuked. ' O thou of 
 little faith ' (not. Wherefore didst thou attempt to come ?, but) 
 ' Wherefore didst thou doubt ? ' 
 
 But, seeing that the incident is so full of spiritual meaning, 
 may it not all be a parable, constructed for the sake of the 
 lessons which it conveys ? Possibly ; but constructed by whom ? 
 
 14 
 
2lO GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XIV. 33-36 
 
 If we could suppose that it had the same author as the Good 
 Samaritan or the Prodigal Son, this theory of its origin would 
 be credible. But such a supposition is not admissible. If the 
 incident never took place, then it has been imagined by some 
 early disciple ; and we know of no one who could imagine such 
 things. 
 
 A\'hen the Lord and Peter had entered the boat, ' the wind 
 (that had hindered the progress of the disciples and had shaken 
 Peter's faith) ceased.' Jn. gives a different account ; as soon as 
 the disciples were willing to receive Him into the boat, ' the boat 
 was at the land whither they were going ' (vi. 21). Mt., as often, 
 spares the Twelve ; instead of Mk.'s ' they were sore amazed, for 
 they understood not concerning the loaves, but their heart was 
 hardened,' Mt. has ' they worshipped Him, saying, Of a truth 
 Thou art God's Son' {'A\rj6u>'; ©tov dios J). His use of his 
 favourite verb ' worship ' is again to be noticed, and also the 
 expression ' God's Son,' instead of ' the Son of God ' (6 vlos tov 
 ®€ov). They are sure that He is more than human ; but perhaps 
 even yet they are not sure that He is the Messiah. The miracle 
 of the loaves had impressed them less than it had impressed the 
 multitude. 
 
 In what follows, Mt. abbreviates Mk. considerably, but he 
 omits nothing of great importance. He seems to regard 
 Gennesaret as a town rather than a district or plain. Josephus 
 describes it {B.J. ill. x. 8). See DCG. i. 640. It would seem 
 as if the Lord's purpose was to teach, and especially to educate 
 His disciples, rather than to heal. He does not refuse to heal 
 when the sick are brought to Him, but He does not seek them 
 out. They are allowed to touch His garments (ix. 20), when 
 they beg to do so, and their faith is rewarded in all cases ; but it 
 appears as if this was something forced upon Him, rather than 
 an opportunity which He sought. It is as if He had other 
 work to do, and yet was too full of compassion to let this pass.^ 
 
 Characteristic expressions in ch. xiv. : irpocripx^crdai. (12, 15), avaxi^pe'iv 
 (13), ^Keidev {13), ^K€L (23), dXiydirKTTos (31), Trpocr/fuyeii' (33). Peculiar: iv 
 iKelf^j! Ty Kaipi^ (l), KaTawovTl^ecrffai (30 and xviii. 6 only), irpo^i.^d^d.v 
 (8 only). Some inferior texts (H LP) read irpoc^l^aaav for KarefiipaiTav in 
 Acts xix. 33. The verb is used in Deut. vi. 7 of teaching beforehand, 
 impressing on the memory ; comp. Exod. xxxv. 34. Only here and xxviii. 
 17 does Surrdfeii' occur in the N.T. In ver. 13 it is neither easy nor 
 important to decide between ire^ji (B C D E etc.) and irefoi (N I L Z etc.) ; 
 the former occurs Mk. vi. 33, the latter nowhere else in the N.T. 
 
 ' Mt. again makes a change in the wording of Mk. in order to enhance 
 the miracles. Mk. says that those who touched 2vere being made whole 
 {iaui^ovTo). Mt. says that they were made (there and then) thoroiighly whole 
 (iitaMriaav) ; and he inserts 'only' before 'touch,' and 'all' before 'that 
 were sick. 
 
XV. 1-5] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 211 
 
 The insertion of Trdiras in ver. 35 before rois kukus ^x""'''"-^ (comp. Mk. 
 vi. 55) is similar to that in viii. 16 (comp. Mk. i. 34) and that in xii. 15 
 (comp. Mk. iii. 10). In each case the wish to emphasize the completeness of 
 the Messiah's beneficence is conspicuous. What did the Jews mean when 
 they contended that Jesus had never given a sign of His Messiahship ? And 
 Mt.'s insertion of fiSpov in ver. 36 is similar to tliat in viii. 8(comp. Lk. vii. 7) 
 and that in ix. 21 (comp. Mk. v. 28). 
 
 XV. 1-20. Conflict with Pharisees and Scribes from 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 Our Evangelist continues to follow Mk. and to abbreviate 
 considerably. Both tell us that the hierarchy at Jerusalem are 
 on the alert, and that emissaries are sent to watch and question 
 the now notorious Rabbi from Nazareth ; but Mt. makes His 
 rejoinder to their criticisms more pointed than Mk. does. They 
 ask, ' Why do Thy disciples transgress the tradition of the 
 elders ? ' To which He replies with the question, ' Why do ye 
 also transgress the commandment of God for the sake of (not 
 ' by,' AV.) your tradition ? ' There is no question, and no ' ye 
 also ' in Mk. Moreover, Mt. changes ' For Moses said ' into 
 ' For God said,' which makes the contrast with ' But ye say ' 
 much stronger ; and he brings in the quotation from Isaiah at 
 the close of the rebuke. 
 
 Seldom has tradition had such power as among the Pharisees 
 at the time of Christ. The Talmud says that Moses received 
 the oral Law at Sinai, and handed it on (through Joshua, the 
 elders, and the Prophets) to the men of the Great Synagogue, 
 who enjoined three things: "Be deliberate in judgment; raise 
 up many disciples ; and make a fence for the Law." This fence 
 consisted of a vast number of precepts and prohibitions to 
 supplement and protect the written Law. Some teachers went 
 the length of maintaining that this oral or traditional Law was of 
 greater authority than the written Law. The written Law had 
 originally been oral, which showed that the oral Law had 
 precedence. Hastings' DB., art. 'Law,' iii. 66; DCG., art. 
 'Tradition.' 
 
 It is not certain what was the exact practice which Christ 
 condemned in the matter of Corban=' g\-vtn to God' (5); 
 whether it was a mere evasion by which the son pretended to 
 dedicate his possessions by a vow to God, and thus escaped the 
 duty of supporting his parents without actually surrendering his 
 property ; or whether it was a real dedication, perhaps made in 
 haste or in anger, but which the Scribes held to be binding 
 (Wright, Synopsis, p. 69). The latter alternative seems to agree 
 better with ' He shall not honour his father ' (Mt.) and ' Ye no 
 longer suffer him to do aught for his father or his mother ' (Mk.). 
 
212 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XV. 5-11 
 
 If a son, no matter how heedlessly or mahciously, had once 
 uttered a vow that his property, was dedicated to God, the Scribes 
 maintained that at all costs the vow must stand : his parents 
 must starve rather than his vow be left unfulfilled. Thus their 
 tradition respecting the irrevocable character of a vow was 
 preferred to the Fifth Commandment. See Driver on Deut. 
 wiii. 24; Toy on Prov. xx. 25, xxviii. 24; Barton on Eccles. 
 V. 4; in the Int. Crit. Conim. Josephus {B.J. 11. xv. i) describes 
 the vow taken by Berenice, but it throws little light on Corban. 
 
 The vow might have been kept without the parents being 
 left to starve. A reasonable solution might have been that the 
 Temple, in taking over the son's property, took over also his 
 obligations to his parents ; but the guardians of the treasury 
 would probably have objected to that. Christ does not contend 
 that the tradition about washing before meals is worthless, but 
 He intimates that the condemnation of the disciples' transgression 
 was excessive, and that it came with ill grace from these Scribes. 
 He, moreover, points out the danger of excessive devotion to 
 traditions, which may lead to violation of the plainest moral 
 obligations. Rigid scrupulosity about things of little moment 
 may be accompanied with utterly unscrupulous conduct in 
 matters that are vital. Hence the charge of hypocrisy. These 
 Scribes professed to be jealous defenders of God's Law ; but 
 what they really cared about was their own traditions about the 
 Law, and these were often foolish, if not positively immoral. * 
 
 We may suppose that the Scribes were unable to answer 
 Christ (10) ; but, while He had been defending the disciples from 
 their Pharisaical criticisms, a crowd had gathered. Having 
 concluded His condemnation of the fault-finders, Jesus bids the 
 multitude approach and listen to the practical outcome of the 
 question which had been raised. The Pharisees held that it was 
 necessary to wash the hands before a meal. But why? Lest 
 one had become ceremonially unclean, and this uncleanness 
 should be communicated to the food, which would then make 
 every one who partook of it unclean. ' But,' says Christ, ' there 
 is no real defilement in that. Nothing that goes into a man 
 from the outside can defile a man j it is the things which proceed 
 from him that may defile him.'^ 
 
 The verses which follow (12, 13) are peculiar to Mt. It was 
 inevitable that the Pharisees should be scandalized : if a man 
 could not be defiled by the food which he ate, what became of 
 
 ' On the quotation in vv. 8, 9, which differs from the LXX. in an 
 exceptional manner, see Swete, Int. to the 0. T. in Greek, p. 393. 
 
 2 Did neither S. Luke nor S. Paul know this saying ? Lk. does not 
 report it, and the Apostle makes no allusion to it when he discusses the 
 eating of meats offered to idols. 
 
XV. 12-14] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 21 3 
 
 the Mosaic prohibition of certaih meats as being unclean ? Mk. 
 (vii. 19) remarks that, in saying this, Christ did make all meats 
 clean. Yes, He did, in the sense that He made all food morally 
 indifferent : with ceremonial distinctions about food He did not 
 interfere. But the Scribes were constantly guilty of the fatal 
 mistake of confusing ceremonial and moral, and of making mere 
 externals to be of the essence of religion. It was out of their 
 uncharitable hearts that this attack on the disciples proceeded, 
 'and it implied that the omission of the usual ablutions was a 
 grievous sin. Granted that the ablutions ought not to be left 
 undone, charitable action ought certainly to be done. Those 
 who could place ablutions before charity were not plants of the 
 Divine planting, but weeds that would be rooted up.^ 
 
 The saying about the blind guides (14) is not in Mk. and is 
 given in Lk. (vi. 39) in quite a different connexion ; comp. 
 xxiii. 16, 24. The saying would seem to have been known to 
 S. Paul (Rom. ii, 19), but perhaps as a proverb, rather than as 
 an utterance of Christ. Sanday and Headlam quote as said by 
 a Galilean peasant to R. Chasda, Baba Xcmia; (o\. 52a : "When 
 the Shepherd is angry with the sheep. He blinds their leader," 
 which is analogous to Quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat by 
 giving them bad rulers. There is a blindness which excuses 
 (Jn. ix. 41), but that was not the blindness of the Pharisees.^ 
 
 Mt. again shows his special interest in S. Peter by recording 
 that it was he who asked for an explanation (15*) : see on xiv. 28. 
 As in the case of the Sower, Jesus is surprised that the disciples 
 require an explanation ; ^ but in each case He gives one. By 
 substituting ' out of the mouth ' for ' out of the man,' Mt. makes 
 the parable less easy of interpretation ; for the disciples would 
 understand ' out of the mouth,' like 'into the mouth,' to refer to 
 the food. And the substitution of ' mouth ' for ' man ' somewhat 
 mars the interpretation, for murders, adulteries, and thefts can 
 hardly be said to proceed from the mouth. Allen quotes a 
 remarkable parallel from Edmunds, Buddhist and Christian 
 Gospels, p. 95 : " Destroying life, killing, cutting, binding, 
 stealing, speaking lies, fraud and deceptions, worthless reading, 
 intercourse with another's wife — this is defilement, but not the 
 eating of flesh." The inclusion of "worthless reading" is very 
 
 ' This perhaps refers to the parable of the Tares. The meaning may be 
 that God planted the Commandments, and that the Pharisees sowed their 
 noxious traditions among them. The writer of the Ascension of Isaiah (iv. 3) 
 shows acquaintance with Mt. x\'. 13. 
 
 - Note the pres. subj., ^di' 6S1777J, 'if he be leading,' and comp. \. 23. 
 
 ' The adverbial accusative aK/j-rjn is found nowhere else in the N.T. or LXX. 
 It is very rare in Attic, The meaning appears to be ' up to this point,' ' still ' ; 
 Mk. has oCrws. Mk. nowhere uses ardfia, which is frequent in Mt. and Lk., 
 but occurs only once in Jn. 
 
214 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XV. 14-81 
 
 striking. On ver. 20 Origen remarks that it is eating with un- 
 washed heart that defiles the man, and he applies this specially 
 to intellectual food. 
 
 The contrast between the treatment of the involuntary dull- 
 ness of the disciples, and the self-satisfied blindness of the 
 Scribes is here very marked. The disciples were aware of their 
 dullness, and asked to have it removed. The Scribes were con- 
 fident that they had sight (Jn. ix. 41), and were competent to 
 censure all who differed from them ; it was a case of the mote 
 and the beam. Jesus rebukes, but removes the dullness. The 
 blindness is condemned, but, until it is confessed it cannot be 
 removed; and there is little hope that it will be confessed. 
 Those who claim to lead are not likely to admit that they are 
 blind. Therefore on them is pronounced one of the sternest of 
 Christ's judgments : ' Let them alone.' 
 
 Perhaps (with B D L Z) we ought in ver. 14 to omit rv-pXCiv and read 
 bStiyol elain Tvtfkoi, 'they are blind guides.' In Ll<. vi. 39 the connexion 
 seems to be that, before judging others, we ought to judge ourselves ; other- 
 wise we shall be blind guides. The saying was probably already a proverb, 
 and may have been uttered by Christ more than once. The specially grievous 
 thing about the blindness of the Pharisees was that it caused others also to 
 fall into a pit. These others Christ was even willing to help, and hence His 
 address to the people (10, 11). In the Testaments, the last of the seven 
 spirits given to man at his creation is said to be " filled with ignorance, and 
 it leadeth the young man as a blind man to a pit" (Reuben ii. 9). 
 
 Mt. greatly abbreviates Mk.'s list of sins (comp. ver. 19 with Mk. vii. 21, 
 22). He omits TrXeoceJi'ai, 5(iXos, a.acK'^da,, d(p6a\tibs Trovrjpdi, virep'i]<f>avla,, and 
 arjipoavvT) — six out of thirteen. But he adds one, fevSofiapTvpiai. The 
 reason for this is obvious. The sins in Mk. are in no particular order, but 
 Mt. arranges them according to the decalogue : ' murders, adulteries, 
 fornications, thefts' represent the sixth, seventh, and eighth commandments, 
 and ' false witness ' is added to represent the ninth. ' ' This would greatly 
 assist the learner who had a lesson to repeat" (Wright, p. 71). 
 
 XV. 21-S8. T/ie Great Faith of the Canaanitish Woman. 
 
 The hostility of the religious leaders, as manifested in the 
 censures of the emissaries from Jerusalem, causes Christ to 
 move northward to the frontier of Galilee and beyond it.i The 
 delegates of the hierarchy would not be likely to follow Him into 
 heathen territory. He was perhaps also anxious to escape from 
 the mistaken enthusiasm of the multitudes. One of the chief 
 features of this last year of the Ministry is the instruction of the 
 disciples, especially respecting His approaching Passion and 
 Resurrection ; and quiet, both from insidious opposition and 
 from noisy popularity, was required for this, but it could not 
 
 ' Mk. vii. 24 and Mt. xv. 21 can hardly mean less than that He crossed 
 the border. 
 
XV. 22-24] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 21 5 
 
 always be obtained. Mt., as in ver. 12, omits Mk.'s vague state- 
 ment that 'He entered into a house,' and, as in xiii. 58, he omits 
 that Christ was unable to do what He wished : ' He would have 
 no man know it; and He could not be hid' (Mk. vii. 24). 
 
 This woman (22) was a Greek-speaking descendant of the old 
 inhabitants of Syrian Phoenicia. The Clementine Homilies call 
 her Justa, and her daughter Bernice (ii. 19, iii. 73). ^ The contrast 
 between this incident and the narrative which immediately follows 
 it is very great. In the one case we have a solitary healing, 
 obtained with apparent difficulty by the persistent clamour of the 
 sufferer's mother; in the other we have the healing and feeding 
 of multitudes, who have only to place themselves before Him to 
 find ready compassion and help. It is the difference between 
 heathendom and Israel, between 'dogs' and 'children.' The 
 whole is an object-lesson to the disciples of the prior claim of the 
 Jews to His and their ministrations. The childen must first be 
 filled. 
 
 The narrative in Mt. is more dramatic than that of Mk. It 
 moves from point to point, each marked by ' He answered.' 
 The woman's first appeal He met by silence : ' He answered her 
 not a word.' The disciples' appeal ' He answered ' with the 
 claims of ' the lost sheep of the house of Israel.' The woman's 
 second appeal ' He answered ' with the contrast between the 
 children and the dogs. Her third appeal ' He answered ' with 
 high praise and immediate granting of her request. Of these 
 four appeals and answers, Mk. gives only the last two, and we 
 are in ignorance as to the source of the other two. The wording 
 of the two which Mt. has in common with Mk. differs so con- 
 siderably from his that it is probable that he is using some other 
 authority than Mk.^ This takes us back a long way, if each 
 Evangelist is using an authority earlier than Mk., and if differences 
 have already arisen between these two early sources. Mk.'s 
 narrative seems to imply that the whole incident took place in a 
 house. Mt.'s implies that, as Jesus and His company were on 
 their way, the woman came and cried after them. Perhaps Mt. 
 was unwilling to record that Jesus had entered a house in a 
 heathen land. 
 
 We have twice had the expression ' Son of David ' used in 
 
 ^Josephus [Con. Apion. i. 13) says that these Phcenicians "bore the 
 greatest ill-will " towards the Jews ; and this hostility helps to explain our 
 Lord's attitude towards one of these hereditary foes of Israel. 
 
 ^ Note Mk's imperfects {ripJira, V^eyo'), implying that more was said on 
 both sides than is actually recorded. Mt. also has imperfects (^^'pafec, 
 TjpihTovv, TrpoaiKvvei) in what is peculiar to his narrative, although he so often 
 turns Mk.'s imperfects into aorists. And whereas he usually abbreviates, 
 here he enlarges. This heathen woman, like the heathen centurion, has a 
 special interest for him. 
 
2l6 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XV. 23-26 
 
 addressing or speaking of Christ (ix. 27, xii. 23), but in both 
 cases it is in the mouth of Jews. If Mt. is right in attributing it 
 to this heathen woman, we must suppose that when she heard 
 of Christ's miraculous powers she also heard something of His 
 royal descent. There is nothing incredible in this ; indeed, she 
 may have come in contact with a disciple. Mk. does not re- 
 present any one as addressing Jesus as the Son of David until 
 near the close of the Ministry (x. 47, 48); and Mt. may have 
 thought that a heathen who in the end was accepted by Jesus 
 must at least have recognized Him as the Messiah. 
 
 Evidently the disciples' ' Send her away ' means ' Do what she 
 asks and get rid of her.' Christ's reply to them requires this 
 meaning ; He explains why He does not do what is asked. But 
 there is more real compassion in His refusal than in their manner 
 of supporting her request. They care for themselves, not for her. 
 He recalls His own charge to them when He sent them forth 
 (x. 6) ; it is the lost sheep of the house of Israel that have the 
 prior claim, and for the present they fully occupy Him and the 
 Twelve. He must act in accordance with His Father's mission. 
 It is through the Jews that the Kingdom is to be opened to the 
 whole world. If they are neglected, the revelation will be 
 stopped at its source. He must not begin a ministry of healing 
 among the heathen, for this would absorb time and energy which 
 is already too little for the work of winning and educating Jews 
 to be missionaries to Jew and Gentile alike. Comp. Jn. x. 16-18, 
 xi. 52, xii. 32, xvii. 20. 
 
 The woman's next appeal is made with the ' shamelessness ' 
 (Lk. xi. 8) of the Friend at Midnight and the pertinacity of the 
 Importunate Widow (Lk. xviii. 2-5). She makes it still more 
 imploringly, and in describing her attitude Mt. uses his favourite 
 'worshipped.' She does not repeat her trouble ; He knows this 
 already ; she merely persists in her supplication : ' Lord, help 
 me.' The third ' He answered' is the most surprising of all, and 
 we may feel sure that it could not have been invented. It is not 
 merely a refusal, but a harsh refusal. It repeats the reason for 
 refusing which He had already given to the disciples, and repeats 
 it in a way which seems to be intentionally offensive. But there 
 are two things in the reply which mitigate the harshness, one of 
 which is lost in Mt.'s account. Mk. has : ' Let the children 7?;^^^ 
 be filled ; for it is not meet,' etc. This implies that later there 
 will be food for those who are not children; but Mt. omits it, 
 perhaps as seeming to be superfluous. The other mitigating item 
 is that the word for ' dogs ' is a diminutive, ' doggies ' (Kvva.pia). 
 Mt. is not so fond of diminutives as Mk., and here (22) he changes 
 Mk.'s OvydTpiov to dvyarrip. But he does not change the ' doggies ' 
 into 'dogs.' Among various nations 'dog' is an opprobrious 
 
XV. 27, 28] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 21 7 
 
 name for one of a different religion. This is specially common 
 in the East, where large dogs, act as scavengers in the city, are 
 generally fierce and noisy, and often diseased. ' Dog of an 
 infidel,' 'dog of a Jew,' ' dog of a Christian.' But Christ's saying 
 refers to domesticated animals, household pets and companions ; 
 and the diminutive, which in late Greek often loses its force, is 
 here very appropriate. 
 
 The diminutive, while it makes Christ's refusal more gentle, 
 gives the woman an opening, which she sees and uses. Love for 
 her child sharpens her wit and strengthens her persistency. She 
 does not claim to be one of the children, and has no thought of 
 depriving them of their bread. She accepts the position of one 
 of the family dogs. , But such animals are members of the 
 household, and they get what the children do not want. 'With- 
 out confusing the difference between Jews and heathen, and 
 without depriving the Jews of anything that is theirs, He may 
 grant her request. The metaphor which Christ had used as a 
 reason for rejecting her petition she turns into a reason for 
 granting it. And He joyfully (if we may venture to say so) 
 allows Himself to be worsted in argument, for He at once 
 accepts her interpretation of the metaphor as proof of her insight 
 and faith. 1 With doglike perseverance, she had excelled even 
 the children in trust, and assuredly she might receive what the 
 children would never miss. Comp. Job xxiii. 4-6. 
 
 The faith of this heathen Canaanite, like that of the heathen 
 centurion (viii. 10), excites Christ's admiration. Both of them 
 believed that Jesus could heal at a distance, and both of them 
 trusted to His compassion to do so. But the woman's trust was 
 more sorely tried, and she had not had the centurion's advantage 
 of living among Jews and of being under the influence of the 
 Jews' religion. These special commendations of the faith of a 
 heathen woman and of a heathen man in the First Gospel should 
 be compared with the special revelations of His Messiahship to a 
 schismatical woman and an excommunicated man in the Fourth 
 Gospel (iv. 26, ix. 37). 
 
 In ' Yea, Lord ; for even ' B and Syr-Sin. omit the ' for ' (which is 
 wanting in the true text of Mk. vii. 28) ; Nct(, Kvpte, Kal rd Kvv&pta, instead 
 of kolI yap rd KvvdpLa. The omission of the yap considerably influences the 
 meaning. If there is no ' for,' then the woman's reply may mean, ' Quite so, 
 Lord ; and the doggies under the table eat of the children's crumbs ' ; i. e. 
 
 ' In Mk. it is the woman's ready wit {Sia tovtov rhv X67o>') that is com- 
 mended ; in Mt. , her faith. She had both. That her daughter was cured 
 immediately, a detail which enhances the miracle, is in Mt. only. Comp. 
 viii. 13, ix. 22, xvii. i8. In a similar way, when the disciples asked why 
 they could not cast out the demon from the epileptic boy, Mk. gives as the 
 reply, 'This kind cannot go out save by prayer' (ix. 29), while Mt. has, 
 ' Because of your \\\.t\e faith ' (xvii. 20). 
 
21 8 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XV. 29-39 
 
 ' Vou have stated my position correctly ; I am only a dog under the table ; 
 in that case I may hope for the children's leavings.' But, if we read koX -yip 
 with the immense preponderance of authorities, then ' Yea, Lord ' must refer, 
 not to Christ's utterance, but to the woman's own request. ' Yea, help me, 
 for You may do so without wronging the children.' In Mk. there is a 
 Western reading (D and Old Lat. ) aWb. Kai instead of nalydp. Thistles 
 the ' Yea ' to Christ's utterance, and Kal is not ' and ' but ' even ' ; ' Ju§t so ; 
 iui even the dogs,' etc. 
 
 XV. 29-39. Numerous Miracles of Healing and the Feeding 
 of Four Thousand. 
 
 Mt. at once shows that the children did not suffer through 
 the granting of a crust to a Canaanite. Mk. gives only one 
 miracle before the feeding, that of the deaf stammerer being 
 healed by touch, and spittle, and 'Ephphatha' uttered with a 
 sigh. Mt. omits this altogether, perhaps because he dislikes the 
 means used ; for he prefers that Christ should heal with a word 
 only (ix. 5, viii. 16). He also dislikes recording that Christ was 
 sometimes flagrantly disobeyed, as Mk. (vii. 36) says that He 
 was on this occasion. See Allen, p. 170. But Mt. may have 
 substituted a group of miracles spontaneously wrought on Jews 
 in Jewish territory for the Ephphatha miracle, in order to make 
 a greater contrast to the one miracle, tardily wrought after much 
 entreaty, on a heathen in heathen territory. The Messiah is 
 once more among His own people and in His own domain,^ 
 and works of healing are the natural outcome of His royal 
 bounty and power. The people are amazed at His varied 
 power,^ which is recognized as being for the exclusive benefit of 
 the privileged nation ; for ' they glorified the God of Israel.' 
 'The God of Israel' is a rare expression in the N.T. (Lk. i. 68 ; 
 Acts xiii. 17). In the O.T. it distinguishes Jehovah from the 
 gods of other nations (Exod. v. i ; i Kings xi. 9) and is very 
 frequent. These two verses (30, 31) are peculiar to Mt., but 
 comp. Mk. vii. 37. 
 
 It must remain doubtful whether the narrative of the feeding 
 of 4000 people is merely a variant of the feeding of the 5000, or 
 represents a different miracle. In favour of there being only 
 one miraculous feeding are the similar details, the fact that 
 numbers frequently get changed in tradition, and the improba- 
 bility that the disciples would express a difficulty about feeding 
 a multitude, when Jesus had fed a still larger one only a few 
 weeks before. But, if there were two miraculous feedings, many 
 
 ' The imperfect (iKAB-riTo) implies that He rested there some time, as 
 feeling at home there. 
 
 ^ 'The fact that Mt. puts ' the dumb speaking 'yf^/ among the works which 
 excited wonder shows that he knew the Ephphatha incident. 
 
XV. 30-39] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 219 
 
 of the details would be sure to be similar, and the differences in 
 the numbers occur not only as to the crowd, but as to the 
 loaves and the baskets. Besides these differences, the attend- 
 ance on Christ for ' three days ' is peculiar to the 4000, meaning 
 that they had been with Him ' since the day before yesterday ' ; 
 so also is the diminutive ix^wSia for the fishes, and it evidently 
 means 'small fishes' (RV.). Above all there is the different 
 word for 'baskets.' All four Evangelists use ko^ivol of the 
 5000, and both Mt. and Mk. use cr^vp&K of the 4000 ; and 
 this distinction is observed in referring to the two miracles 
 afterwards (xvi. 9, 10; Mk. viii. 19, 20). The koc^ivos was a 
 wallet, the (r^vpU a hamper, capable of holding a man (Acts ix. 
 25). But S. Paul himself uses a-apydvij of the basket in which 
 he was let down (2 Cor. xi. 33), and we cannot be sure that a 
 a-^vpi's was generally larger than a ko'c^ivos. See Hastings' DB. 
 a.a&DCG., art. 'Basket.' 
 
 As to the perplexity of the disciples, it must be noted that it 
 is not they but our Lord who calls attention to the necessity for 
 help ; and it is possible that both in His words and in their 
 reply there is a reference to the earlier miracle. He says : ' If I 
 send them away fasting to their home, they will faint in the 
 way' (Mk.); 'I do not wish to send them away fasting, lest 
 haply they faint in the way' (Mt.). This may mean, 'On the 
 former occasion you asked Me to send them away (xiv. 1 5 ; 
 Mk. vi. 35; Lk. ix. 12); do not make a similar proposal now.' 
 The disciples reply : ' Whence shall one be able to fill these men 
 with bread here in a desert place?' (Mk.) ; 'Whence should 
 we have so many loaves in a desert place, as to fill so great a 
 multitude?' (Mt.). The pronoun {qp-lv) is emphatic, and the 
 meaning may be, ' We cannot do it, but we know that Thou 
 canst.' See Swete on Mk. and the Westtninster Commentary on 
 Mt. On the whole, it appears to be better to retain the tradition 
 of two separate miracles. 
 
 Both Mt. and Mk. seem to place this second feeding on the 
 east side of the lake, whence Christ and the disciples afterwards 
 cross to the west side. Mk. says that in order to reach the lake 
 from ' the borders of Tyre and Sidon ' (vii. 24) Jesus passed 
 ' through the midst of the borders of Decapohs ' (vii. 31), which 
 was on the east side. In this eastern part the majority of the 
 population were Gentiles ; and perhaps Mt. is intimating that 
 there were many Gentiles among the large multitudes who 
 brought people to be healed (30), when he says that 'they 
 glorified the God of Israel.''^ The wonder of the crowd at these 
 mighty works would be greater on the east side of the lake, for 
 the population there had had little experience of Christ's 
 ^ Comp. irdvTei ol \aol 5o|a(rou(ri Tbv Kipiov eis al&vas {Judah xxv. 5). 
 
220 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XV. 31-39 
 
 miracles. Mk. represents them as being astonished at a single 
 miracle (vii. 37). Both Evangelists mention Christ's statement 
 that the multitude ' continue with Me now three days and have 
 nothing to eat.' Mk. with his single miracle gives no explanation 
 as to why the people remained with Christ for three days ; but 
 the numerous healings mentioned by Mt. are a complete ex- 
 planation. Neither Gospel says anything about His teaching 
 the people ; the numbers of sick and infirm folk occupied all 
 His time. The people of Decapolis had long since known of 
 His fame (iv. 25, viii. 28-34), and both Jews and heathen 
 would flock to the great Healer. We may notice how Mt. once 
 more insists, more than Mk. does, on the greatness of the 
 miracle. Mk. has : ' they did eat and were filled . . . seven 
 baskets . . . about four thousand.' Mt. has : ' they did all eat 
 and were filled . . . seven baskets /«// . . . four thousand men, 
 beside women and children.''^ 
 
 Both as regards ' Magadan ' (39) and ' Dalmanutha' (Mk. viii. 10) there 
 is uncertainty of reading. Here ' iVIagadan ' (K B D supported by Syrr. and 
 Latt. ) is the older reading ; but no such place is known, for which reason 
 ' Magdala' may have been substituted in later texts. ' Dalmanutha ' is also 
 unknown ; and, although it is the best attested reading, it is probably corrupt. 
 ' Magdalutha ' may be the original reading in Mk. Unfamiliar names are 
 specially liable to become changed inadvertently in oral tradition, and to be 
 corrected by copyists. If ' Magdalutha ' were the original name, this might 
 be corrupted into ' Dalmanutha " or corrected to the more familiar ' Magdala ' ; 
 this again might by accident be corrupted into ' Magadan,' and ' Magadan' 
 be corrected once more to ' Magdala.' See Hastings' DB., art. ' Magadan ' ; 
 Encyc. Bibl. 985, 1635, 2894; Dalman, Words, p. 66. 
 
 Characteristic expressions in ch. xv. : T6re(i, 12, 28), irpoaipx^o'Sai 
 (l, 12, 23, 30), viroKpiT7]S (7), ^KeWev (21, 29), dvaxfopeiv (21), Ka.1 ISou {22), 
 bpLa (22, 39), vibs Aauei5 (22), TpoaKvveXv (25), yeuTjdTjTW {28), uipa eKelvTj (28). 
 Peculiar: 6 Trar-r^p 6 ovpdvios (13), \(/evSoixa.pTvpla (19 and xxvi. 59 only), 
 6,Kp,r\v (16 only) ; none of these are found in the LXX. : (pvreia (13) occurs in 
 the LXX., but nowhere else in the N.T. 
 
 Note that in ver. 32 Mt. does not improve Mk.'s difficult 
 construction, ij/icpai Tptis Trpoafxivovcriv /not kcu ovk i)(OvcrLf rt' 
 (j>a.y<j>cnv. No two writers would independently express them- 
 selves in this way, and it is not certain how we are intended 
 to construe it. The reading rjfj.dpa'i (n) is a manifest correc- 
 tion. Perhaps the best way is to regard irpoa/jiivovo-iv and 
 e)(ovcn.v as participles in the dat. plur. with etVtV understood ; 
 ' they have three days in their waiting on Me and having 
 no food.' 'D has rj/xepai y eicrov koI Trpoaixivovcriv fioi k.t.\., 
 which again is a correction, and it differs from the correction in 
 Mk. viii. 2. 
 
 ^ Comp. the insertion oi dproi touovtoi. and Ht-xJ^ov roaoiTov in ver. 33. 
 
XVI. 1-4] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALII-EE 221 
 
 XVI. 1-12. Renewed Conflict with the Pharisees. 
 
 The appearance of Pharisees and Sadducees is conclusive 
 against Magadan and Dalmanutha being on the east side of the 
 lake, a semi-heathen territory into which they would not have 
 cared to enter. The conjunction of Pharisees with their detested 
 opponents, the Sadducees, is even more significant than their 
 conjunction with Herodians (see on xii. 14) : a common enmity 
 has united traditional foes.^ It was Scribes and Pharisees who 
 on a previous occasion (xii. 38) asked for a sign. Lk. xi. 16, 29, 
 30 is less definite and in a different connexion, but in the main 
 is parallel with this and Mk. viii. 11-13. Mk. does not mention 
 the Sadducees, and Lk. does not mention the Pharisees. The 
 demand in all three is said to have been made with a sinister aim, 
 'tempting Him,' and to have been for 'a sign from heaven.'^ 
 This would mean a voice from the sky, or some of those signs 
 which He Himself a little later said would precede the Coming 
 of the Son of Man (xxiv. 29-31). The special point here is that 
 Christ's healings were signs on earth and not decisive : comp. 
 Lk. xxi. II ; Acts ii. 19. They professed to wish to be convinced 
 of His Messiahship ; they hoped that He would be unable to 
 give the required sign, and- would thus be discredited with the 
 people. Mk. says that in answering them ' He sighed deeply in 
 His Spirit,' an indication of human emotion which Mt., as usual, 
 omits : comp. xv. 29, 30 with Mk. vii. 33, 34. Mk. has no 
 parallel to the words about the weather (2, 3). Lk. omits them 
 also, but has a similar saying xii. 54-56. There, as here, the 
 word for 'time' is not xp6vo<s, but Koupo';, 'right time' or 
 'season.' 
 
 The saying cannot be genuine here, for it is absent from N B V X T and 
 most MSS. known to Jerome, from Syr-Sin. Syr-Cur. Arm. and from Origen. 
 No reason for omitting it is evident. But it must have been inserted here 
 early (CDGL, I.att. Syr-Pesh. Boh.) and may preserve a true saying of 
 Christ's. See small print at the end of this chapter. 
 
 In Christ's refusing any sign other than Jonah, the wording 
 differs from Mk. and is exactly the same as in xii. 39, excepting 
 that Jonah is not here called 'the Prophet.' By ' He left them 
 and departed ' Mt. and Mk. indicate that these Pharisees were 
 incorrigible ; the Lord did not stay to argue further with them. 
 
 But Mt. (5-12) and Mk. (viii. 14-21) differ as to the place 
 in which what follows was spoken. Mk. represents the discovery 
 
 ' Mt. alone couples Pharisees with Sadducees, and he does so six times. 
 Mk, and Lk. mention the Sadducees only once, Jn. not at all. The Pharisees 
 were influential with the people, the Sadducees with the upper classes : ui 
 hodie tttrba in superstitionem, prudentes in atheisrnuni procliviores. 
 
 ^ Mk. has ' from' (diri), Mt. and Lk. have ' out of {in.) heaven. 
 
222 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XVI. IQ 
 
 of the want of bread as being made during the crossing of the 
 lake. Mt. places it after they had crossed, and apparently the 
 forgetfulness was not exhibited till they had crossed. Again, 
 they differ as to Christ's warning. In Mk. it is against 'the 
 leaven of the Pharisees and ike leaven of Herod.' In Mt. it is 
 against 'the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.' Mt. tells 
 us that this 'leaven' meant 'doctrine' (i2).i That can hardly 
 be the meaning in Mk., for Herod had no doctrine. Lk. tells 
 us that the leaven of the Pharisees was 'hypocrisy' (xii. i). We 
 may suppose that our Lord's metaphor was, from the first, 
 differently interpreted. In each case it meant an evil influence, 
 whether by teaching or example. Both Mt. and Mk. state that 
 Christ ' became aware ' (yfou's) of His disciples' reasoning respect- 
 ing their forgetfulness, and Mt. again (viii. 26) inserts ' O ye of 
 little faith ' as equivalent to the part of Christ's rebuke which he 
 omits : ' have ye your heart hardened ? Having eyes, see ye 
 not? and having ears, hear ye not?' In omitting these severe 
 words, which are similar to those in which He condemns the 
 callous hearers (xiii. 13), and also in omitting the repeated x€ov!&s. 
 (Mk. viii. 21), Mt. once more spares the Twelve. He does so 
 again in mentioning (12), as Mk. does not, that at last the 
 disciples did understand that Christ's warning about 'leaven ' was 
 a parable, and had nothing to do with their being short of bread.^ 
 He was not telling them to treat the bread of Pharisees and 
 Sadducees as if it was heathen bread, which would pollute them. 
 But their spiritual blindness was not confined to this miscompre- 
 hension. After the miraculous feeding of the multitudes, the 
 Twelve ought to have had no anxiety about bread so long as He 
 was with them. Comp. Oxyrhynchus Logia, 3. 
 
 The extraordinary dullness of the Twelve, which seems to 
 have surprised Christ Himself (' Do ye not yet perceive ? . . . 
 How is it that ye do not perceive?') shows how slowly the 
 education of even the most intimate disciples was progressing. 
 It shows also how natural it was that Christ should desire to be 
 freed from both the persecution of His enemies and the pursuit 
 of the multitudes clamouring to be healed. He had made one 
 excursion to the north, into the parts of Tyre and Sidon, with a 
 view to obtaining more quiet and freedom for the training of the 
 Twelve ; but the great faith and persistent entreaty of the 
 Canaanitish woman had obtained from Him a work of healing 
 which, as soon as it became known, would have produced a 
 
 ' The doctrine of the Sadducees was very different from that of the 
 Pharisees, and yet there is no repetition of 'the leaven.' The wording in 
 Ml{. is more lilcely to be original. 
 
 ^ Mt. has a similar statement, not found in the other Gospels, xvii. 13. 
 Here he smooths Mk.'s unusual construction, ' I broke the 5 loaves unto [eh] 
 the 5000,' into ' the S loaves o/the 5000.' 
 
XVI. 13j THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 223 
 
 crowd of similar applicants, had He remained in the neighbour- 
 hood. He had returned to the less populous side of the lake 
 of Gennesaret, and there again He had been interrupted. For 
 three days He could do nothing but heal. He crossed to the 
 west shore, and there His enemies again assailed Him. By 
 crossing once more He avoids being followed; and now He 
 again leaves the lake and moves northward, not as before to the 
 heathen territory of the Phoenician sea-coast, but to the northern 
 extremity of Palestine by the sources of the Jordan near the foot 
 of Mount Hermon ; and at last He and His disciples are in 
 retirement for a while. 
 
 XVI. 13-22. The Confession of Peter and the 
 Promise to Peter. 
 
 We are not told where our Lord and the Twelve landed, but 
 it was probably on the east side of the mouth of the Jordan, for 
 immediately afterwards Mk. narrates the healing of a blind man 
 at Bethsaida Julias (viii. 22-26). Mt. omits this cure, as he 
 omits that of the deaf stammerer (Mk. vii. 32-35), possibly 
 because of the means used, and because in this case the cure 
 was at first incomplete. Mt. prefers miracles in which the 
 Messiah heals instantly with a word. The two miracles thus 
 omitted by Mt. are recorded by Mk. alone, and they have 
 common characteristics. In both our Lord uses spittle and 
 touch, in order to aid the man's faith. Both miracles were 
 wrought when Christ was seeking retirement,^ and in both cases 
 He takes the man aside from the people, and the cure is 
 wrought privately, so as to avoid notoriety and subsequent inter- 
 ruption. See Gould, pp. 138, 149-iST. In moving north, 
 places where He had previously been seem to have been avoided. 
 The distance from the lake to Caesarea Philippi is about 
 25 miles, and involves an ascent of 1700 feet. The population 
 would be mainly Gentile, and it is manifest that Jesus was not 
 seeking a field for preaching, but a quiet opportunity for private 
 instruction of the Apostles, especially with a view to His 
 approaching sufferings and death. 
 
 Peter's great confession is in all three Gospels, for Lk. now 
 once more comes into line; but the promise to Peter is in Mt. 
 alone, who here again shows his special interest in the first of the 
 
 ' He was probably seeking seclusion in preparation for His Passion and 
 Death. But He seems also to have been avoiding His foes, because His 
 hour was not yet come. " The parts that are avoided are the dominions of 
 Antipas" (Burkitt, The Gospel History and its Transmission, p. 93). The 
 indications of locality in this and subsequent sections should be noted : 
 Caesarea Philippi (xvi. 13) ; Galilee (xvii. 22, 24) ; the borders of Judjea 
 beyond Jordan {xi.f. i) ; on the way to Jerusalem (xx. 17). 
 
224 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XVI. 13 
 
 Apostles. Mt. probably regarded Peter's confession and its 
 reward as a contrast to the Pharisees' demand for a sign and 
 Christ's stern refusal. The one was as strong a mark of belief 
 as the other of unbelief, and the wish to place the two side by 
 side may have had something to do with Mt.'s omission of the 
 healing of the blind man. 
 
 In Lk. the definiteness of locality is blurred,^ but both Mt. 
 and Mk. take us to the ' parts ' or ' villages ' of Ceesarea Philippi, 
 and the mention of a place so far away from Christ's usual 
 centres of work is a strong authenticating fact. No baseless 
 tradition or deliberate invention would have placed the scene of 
 what follows in so distant a region. Since the attempt to make 
 Him king, Jesus has been changing His method from one of 
 public teaching, and public activity in works of mercy, to a more 
 secluded course of instruction concentrated on the Twelve. The 
 incident at Cfesarea Philippi marks a crisis in the new method, 
 but only a preparatory one. The leading thought in the training 
 of the Apostles is not Peter's confession that Jesus is the Messiah, 
 nor Christ's promise of the keys to him, but Christ's prediction 
 of the death which awaits Himself and of His subsequent 
 triumph over death. 
 
 It was at the northern extremity of the tetrarchy of Philip, 
 close to the frontier which separated Judaism from heathendom, 
 and where the Gentile was already more common than the Jew, 
 that Jesus questioned the Twelve as to what men thought of 
 Him and what their own convictions were.^ As Bethsaida had 
 been renamed Julias after the infamous and only child of 
 Augustus, so Paneas had been renamed Cssarea after Augustus 
 himself. The name Paneas came from the grotto of Pan, which 
 represented the elemental worship of the old inhabitants, close 
 to which Herod the Great had built a temple in honour of the 
 Emperor (Jos. Ant. xv. x. 3 ; B.J. 1. xxi. 3) ; and this represented 
 the most modern of heathen cults. Thus, just where Judaism 
 touched both the worship of nature and the worship of man, 
 Jesus called upon His disciples to answer for mankind and for 
 themselves as to what His claims upon the conscience were as 
 against the claims of these conflicting worships. See Liddon, 
 Bampton Lectures, i. sub init. ; Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, 
 p. 397 ; DCG. i. 246. 
 
 The wording of the first question varies in the three Gospels, 
 and in Mt. the reading is not quite certain. Mk. has : " Who 
 
 ' Lk. substitutes another important fact, that it was just after He had 
 been praying alone that He put these questions to the disciples and then 
 revealed to them the approach of His Passion. As He had prayed before He 
 chose them, so He prayed l)efore subjecting them to this trial (Lk. vi. if., ix. 
 18). To Lk. the prayer might seem more important than the place. 
 ^ The imperfect (13) implies repeated questioning. 
 
XVI. 13-15] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 225 
 
 do men say that I am ? ' Lk. has : "Who do the multitudes say 
 that I am?' Mt. has either: 'Who do men say that the Son of 
 Man is ? ' (n B and most versions), or : " Who do men say that 
 I, the Son of Man, am ? ' (D G L etc.). The latter reading is not 
 likely to be right, for nowhere in the Synoptic Gospels does ' Son 
 of Man ' occur in apposition to the personal pronoun. It seems 
 probable that the expression ' Son of Man ' was not used on this 
 occasion, but that Mt. put it instead of the ' I ' in Mk., in order 
 to make an antithesis between 'men' and 'the Son of Man.' 
 See Dalman, Words, pp. 252, 259. Perhaps also Mt. wished to 
 anticipate by contrast Peter's declaration that He was ' the Son 
 of God '(16). 
 
 It is possible that this first question was educational in order 
 to lead on to the crucial question which follows. But it is also 
 possible that our Lord was asking for information. His disciples 
 would hear what was said of Him much more often than He 
 Himself did, and they would not be likely to repeat to Him 
 views about Himself which they regarded as inadequate or 
 absurd. This was a case in which He could obtain the informa- 
 tion in the ordinary way by asking for it, and therefore would 
 not use supernatural means of knowing. 
 
 That the people said He was Jeremiah is stated by Mt. 
 alone. Jeremiah, though not much esteemed during his life, 
 came to be regarded as one of the greatest of Prophets. He 
 was spoken of as ' the Prophet,' and may be ' the Prophet ' of 
 Jn. i. 21.1 Judas Maccabeeus, before his battle with Nicanor, 
 sees in a vision a man ' of exceeding glory, and wonderful and 
 most majestic was the dignity around him,' and this was ' he 
 who prayeth much for the people and the holy city, Jeremiah 
 the Prophet of God' (2 Mac. xv. 13, 14). And Jeremiah gives 
 him a sword of gold, wherewith to smite down the adversaries. 
 Comp. ' Fear not, saith the Lord, For thy help will I send 
 My servants Isaiah and Jeremiah' (2 Esdr. ii. 17, 18). 
 Evidently there was a belief that Jeremiah was to come again. 
 See Plumptre in Smith's DB., ist ed., i. p. 971; Streane, 
 Jeremiah in Canib. Bible, Appendix. 
 
 The second question is identical in all three Gospels : ' But 
 ye, who say ye that I am ? ' There is strong emphasis on the 
 first ' ye,' as meaning those who had been His intimate disciples 
 and knew Him so much better than the outside crowd. Had 
 they no better or more certain ideas respecting Him than these 
 wild and fluctuating guesses ? ' Have I been so long time with 
 
 ' In Hebrew tradition and in many Hebrew MSS. the order of the great 
 Prophets is Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah (Ryle, Canon of the O.T. p. 226). 
 Mt. is the only N.T. writer who mentions Jeremiah (ii. 17, xvi. 14, 
 xxvii. 9), once by mistake. 
 
 15 
 
226 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XVI. 16 
 
 you, and dost thou not know Me?' (Jn. xiv. g). Here again 
 Christ may be asliing for information. He could read their 
 hearts, but He prefers to learn their convictions from their own 
 mouth. The joy with which He welcomes Peter's answer is to 
 be noted. While the rest of His hearers had ceased to think of 
 Him as the Messiah, the Twelve were strengthened in their 
 belief that He was the Christ. This was the crisis. 
 
 The wording of the answer differs in each Gospel. ' Thou 
 art the Christ' (Mk.). 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the 
 living God'(Mt.).i 'The Christ of God'(Lk.). Mt. expands 
 Peter's momentous answer, as he expands Christ's first question, 
 and the two expansions correspond. ' I ' is expanded into ' the 
 Son of Man ' in the one case, and ' the Christ ' into ' the Son of 
 the living God' in the other. But there is no difference in 
 meaning between the three reports of the reply ; and in all it 
 is the impulsive Peter who gives it as the belief of all the Twelve. 
 See Dalman, JVords, p. 28S. 
 
 It was not the first time that Peter had expressed this belief. 
 He had accepted it when his brother Andrew said to him, ' We 
 have found the Messiah ' ; and Philip had repeated this con- 
 viction to Nathanael (Jn. i. 41, 45). Peter himself had more 
 recently declared : ' We have believed and know that Thou art 
 the Holy One of God' (Jn. vi. 69). In the first instance he 
 did no more than assent to the belief that Jesus would prove 
 to be the Messiah for whom all were longing. Months of living 
 with Jesus, listening to His teaching and seeing His mighty 
 works, and then- consciousness of the power, derived from Him, 
 of doing mighty works himself, had enlarged his knowledge of 
 Him and deepened his love for Him, although He was not 
 proving to be the kind of Messiah that they had expected. 
 Finally, the feeding of the multitudes and the walking on the 
 sea — miracles of a different kind from the numerous works of 
 healing — had strengthened still further the early impression and 
 the later conviction. Jesus might shun popular enthusiasm and 
 refuse to be made a king, but Peter knew that he could say 
 from the bottom of his heart, for himself and for them all, 
 ' Thou art the Christ.' Even now, however, Peter's conception 
 of the Christ is very defective, as what follows proves. The 
 truth was to be gradually learned by the Twelve, by further 
 teaching from Christ, by strange experiences of their own, and 
 above all by the gift of the Holy Spirit who was to ' lead them 
 into all the truth.' 
 
 Mt. here inserts a passage (17-19) which is peculiar to this 
 Gospel, and which has provoked volumes of controversy. 
 Perhaps it will always continue to be discussed, but those who 
 ' D has (TwfofTos (salvatoris) instead of ^C>vtos, 
 
XVI. 18] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 227 
 
 endeavour to determine its meaning can at least resolve not to 
 be influenced by the use which a controversialist may make of 
 the conclusion which they eventually reach. Like the other 
 passages in which S. Peter is conspicuous (xiv. 2S-31, xv. 15), 
 it probably belongs to traditions which were current in the 
 Church of Jerusalem. But it is possible that there is an 
 element, especially as regards the arrangement of the clauses, 
 which comes from the Evangelist himself. Perhaps not all of 
 the sayings here attributed to Christ were uttered on this 
 occasion ; and it is possible that what may have been uttered 
 by Him in a different connexion has not only been transferred 
 to this occasion by the Evangelist, but has been expanded by 
 him. Where we have the other Gospels to compare with his 
 we can see that Mt. has expanded Christ's first question by 
 adding ' the Son of Man,' and the disciples' answer by adding 
 'Jeremiah,' and Peter's answer to the second question by adding 
 ' the Son of the living God.' Here we have no other report to 
 compare with his, and we are left to conjecture what is possible 
 or probable. That the whole of vv. 17-19 is an invention is 
 utterly improbable. Christ's joyous response to Peter's con- 
 fession bears the stamp of originality in every phrase ; and it is 
 so entirely in harmony with the context that we may feel 
 confident that it was spoken on this occasion. The other two 
 verses (18, ig) may have been spoken at some other time or 
 times, and the saying about ' binding ' and ' loosing ' may be 
 Mt.'s enlargement of the saying about 'the keys.' Moreover, 
 both these verses may have been spoken in reference to the 
 Twelve,! and Mt. (or the tradition which he is quoting) may 
 have adopted the sayings with special reference to S. Peter, 
 thinking that, as he made the first glorious confession, so these 
 glorious promises, in the first instance, were made to him. See • 
 Allen's careful notes, pp. 176-180; Salmon, The Human 
 Element^ p. 351. 
 
 The comment of Origen [On Mt., Bk. xii. § 11) runs thus : " But if you 
 suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole Church is built by God, 
 what would you say about John, the son of thunder, or each one of the 
 Apostles? Shall we dare to say that against Peter in particular the gates of 
 Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other 
 Apostles? Does not the previous saying, 'The gates of Hades shall not 
 prevail against it,' hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them ? And 
 also the saying, 'Upon this rock I will build My Church'? Are the keys 
 of the Kingdom given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the 
 blessed receive them ? But if this promise, ' I will give unto thee the keys 
 of the Kingdom of Heaven ' be common to all the others, how shall not all 
 
 ^ The saying about binding and loosing was afterwards made to the 
 Twelve (xviii. i8), and may have been transferred to S. Peter in par- 
 ticular. 
 
228 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XVI. 17, 18 
 
 the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as 
 having been addressed to Peter, be common to them ?" 
 
 In a later passage (Bk. xiii. § 31) Origen reserves a superiority for Peter 
 by pointing out that, while what the Apostles bind and loose on earth is 
 bound and loosed 'in heaven' (^f ovpavif, xviii. 18), what Peter binds and 
 looses on earth is bound and loosed ' in the heavens ' (iv tois oupavoi^, xvi. 
 19) ; " for it is no small dift'erence that Peter received the keys not of one 
 heaven but of more." It is not likely that there was any difference in the 
 words used by Christ. 
 
 But, whatever may be the origin of the passage, we must 
 endeavour to explain it as it has come down to us with the 
 authority of the First Gospel. 
 
 Nowhere else does Christ call an individual ' blessed ' : 
 'blessed art thou^ (i?)- It would almost seem as if He had 
 asked His searching question with some anxiety, and as if S. 
 Peter's immediate and decisive reply was a joy that contained 
 in it something of relief. Christ's question here is somewhat 
 similar to the earlier and perhaps more wistful question, ' Will 
 ye also go away ? ' Here the full address, giving Peter's original 
 name with that of his father, ' Simon Bar-Jonah,' adds solemnity 
 to the utterance (comp. Jn. xxi. 15-17); and the Lord 
 emphatically declares that this confession of faith in His 
 Messiahship is not the outcome of human instruction, but must 
 be a revelation from God Himself. This is the first step; the 
 Father has revealed to the Apostle that Jesus is the Messiah. ^ 
 
 The next step is taken by the Messiah Himself. He also 
 makes a revelation : ' And I also say to thee ' (Kayw Sc o-oi Aeyw). 
 This revelation is not respecting His own person, but 
 respecting His future work and the relation of the Apostle to 
 it (18). The Messiah is going to build His Church, a new 
 Israel, for which Peter is to supply the foundation. It is quite 
 clear that here Christ Himself is not the foundation-rock or 
 foundation-stone. He is the Builder of the edifice, determining 
 when, where, and how it shall be raised. He is the source of 
 all activity in framing the building. No stress whatever can 
 be laid on the change of gender in the Greek : ' Thou art 
 Peter (n«Tpos), and on this rock {-n-eTpa) will I build My Church.' 
 Our Lord would speak in Aramaic, as 'Bar-Jonah' tends to 
 show ; and in Aramaic Cepha would be used in both places. 
 In Greek it was impossible to have ircTpa in both cases, because 
 Peter was a man, and his name must have a masculine termina- 
 tion. And 7reTpo9 would not do in both places, because the 
 
 1 Already we have three expressions which point to the Jewish centre in 
 which this tradition has been preserved: 'Simon Bar -Jonah,' 'flesh and 
 blood,' and 'My Father which is in heaven.' Others of a similar kind 
 follow: 'gates of Hades,' 'the keys," 'the Kingdom of the Heavens,' and 
 ' binding and loosing.' Perhaps even iKKK-riaia is more Jewish than 
 Christian, and means the new Israel.. 
 
XVI. 18] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 229 
 
 meaning ' rock ' was required rather than ' stone.' Cepha means 
 either ' rock ' or ' stone.' 
 
 The fact that Christ Himself is elsewhere, by a different 
 metaphor, called the 'corner-stone' (Eph. ii. 20; i Pet. ii. 4-8), 
 must not lead us to deny that Peter is here the foundation-rock 
 or stone. In Eph. ii. 20 the Apostles and Christian Prophets 
 are the foundation (^tyneAios), as Peter is said to be here. The 
 first ten chapters of Acts show us in what sense Peter was the 
 foundation on which the first stones of the Christian Israel were 
 laid. He was the acknowledged Head of the Apostolic body, 
 and he took the lead in admitting both Jews and Gentiles into 
 the Christian Church. "All attempts to explain the 'rock' 
 in any other way than as referring to Peter have ignomini- 
 ously failed" (Briggs, North Amer. Rev., Feb. igo7, p. 348). 
 Neither the confession of Peter nor the faith of Peter is an 
 adequate explanation. But at the same time it is clear that 
 the promise is made to Peter as confessing his faith, and also as 
 confessing it on behalf of the Twelve?- The Baptist himself 
 had had his misgivings about the Messiah. Other disciples 
 had ' gone back and walked no more with Him ' (Jn. vi. 66). 
 But here was one who, in spite of his Master's being so unlike 
 the Jewish idea of the Messiah, had enthusiastically recognized 
 Him as the Christ, and had acknowledged Him as such on 
 behalf of himself and his brother-Apostles. Such a Confessor 
 might well be regarded as a foundation. Others confessing the 
 same faith would be added (Rev. xxi. 14), and on these the 
 superstructure would be raised ; but Peter was the first. It is 
 with him that the erection of the Christian Church begins. 
 See Chase in Hastings' DB. iii. p. 759 ; Hort, The Christian 
 Ecclesia, pp. 16, 17; Lightfoot, Clement, ii. pp. 481-490; 
 J. Arm. 'Ko\yms,ox\, Ephesians, pp. 68, 69, 163; Sanday, Outlines, 
 p. 125; B. Weiss, Life of Christ, iii. p. 58. Only here and 
 xviii. 1 7 does the word ' Church ' (iKKXrja-ia) occur in the 
 Gospels ; elsewhere in the N.T. it is very frequent. It means 
 a body of men, united by common convictions and aims. 
 See Hastings' Z)J?. and DCG.,a.Tt. 'Church.' In this organic 
 body, considered under the figure of a building, nothing must 
 be attributed to S. Peter or to the Twelve which would contra- 
 dict I Cor. iii. II. 
 
 In the second part of the saying (18) it may be doubted 
 whether the rendering, 'the gates of Hades shall not prevail 
 against it' gives the exact meaning. Evidently, in contrast to 
 
 ^ If the promise had been absokitely personal and individual, we should 
 have had eVt txoL rather than eirl ravTrj rrj ir^rpq, (which seems to mean 'on 
 the sureness of thy faithful heart, to which thy name bears witness,' rather 
 than ' on thee'). 
 
230 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XVI. 18, 19 
 
 the Church as a temple built on a rock, Hades or Death 
 is thought of as a fortress with strong gates. The common 
 rendering implies that there will be conflicts between the two, 
 and that whenever they occur, the Church will always in the 
 end prevail. However true this may be, it is not a probable 
 meaning of the passage. If aggressiveness were the prominent 
 idea, we should hardly have the metaphor of a building with 
 gates. Gates keep people in and keep people out, and are 
 necessary for the strength of a citadel, but they do not fight 
 Here the leading thought is the strength and stability of the 
 Church, not its aggressiveness. Death is often regarded as 
 one of the strongest of powers ; as, ' Love is as strong as death ' 
 {Cant. viii. 6). And here the Church is said to be still stronger 
 than death ; not even the gates of Hades shall surpass it in 
 strength. Comp. Ps. ix. 13, cvii. 18; Job xxxviii. 17; 
 Is. xxxviii. 10; also Horn. //. v. 646. On the picturesque 
 rendering in some Syriac texts, 'the gate-bars of Sheol,' see 
 Burkitt, Evan. da-Mepharreske, ii, pp. 119, 156. 
 
 The metaphor abruptly changes (19), but there is clear 
 connexion between the one and the other. The figure of two 
 buildings, one of which has strong gates, suggests the idea of 
 keys. In the O.T. we often have the 'gates of Hades' or 
 'gates of death' (Ps. ix. 13, cvii. 18; Job xxxviii. 17 ; 3 Mac. v. 
 51 ; Wisd. xvi. 13), and in Revelation the risen Lord has 'the 
 keys of Death and of Hades' (i. 18), i.e. He is supreme over 
 their citadel, and can admit or release whom Ha will (iii. 7). 
 And if the kingdom of death can be likened to a citadel with 
 gates, so also can the Kingdom of Heaven. And here again 
 we have a prerogative which might seem to belong to the 
 Messiah conferred upon the Apostle. S. Peter was the rock 
 on which Christ builds His Church ; and now he is the steward 
 to whom Christ entrusts the keys of the Kingdom : comp. 
 Is. xxii. 22. The precise relation of the Church to the Kingdom 
 is not easy to determine ; but they are not the same. In this 
 Gospel, the Kingdom seems always to mean that which the 
 Son of Man is to begin at the Second Advent, which is regarded 
 as near. In that case, the Church carries on the work of the 
 Forerunner and proclaims that the Kingdom is at hand. In 
 this Kingdom the Apostles are to ' sit on twelve thrones, 
 judging the twelve tribes of Israel' (xix. 28), but of those 
 thrones that of S. Peter is to be first. He has been first in 
 the confession of the true faith, and he is to be first in holding 
 authority in the Kingdom. It is possible that ' the keys ' 
 have special reference to S. Peter's function in admitting so 
 many of the first converts to the Christian Church, but this 
 would be only preliminary to admission to the Kingdom. 
 
XVI. 19,20] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 23 1 
 
 S. Peter is not only the rock to support the Church, and 
 the steward to hold the keys of the Kingdom, he is also the 
 teacher who can give an authoritative decision. The metaphor 
 of ' binding ' and ' loosing ' does not here refer to the forgiveness 
 of sins. I'he two words are technical expressions, the meaning 
 of which was well understood. ^ To 'bind' is to forbid, to 
 'loose' is to permit. Just as a Rabbi of great knowledge 
 would decide what, according to the provisions of the oral 
 Law, was allowed or prohibited, so Peter would decide what, 
 according to the teaching of Christ, was permitted or not. In 
 this authority the other Apostles were to share (xviii. 18), but 
 Peter once more comes first. It is important to notice that it 
 is '7v/iaisoever thou shalt bind,' not ' w/iomsoevet thou shalt 
 bind ' ; and the addition of ' on earth ' and ' in heaven ' perhaps 
 means no more than that the decision has authority. See 
 Dalman, Words, p. 213, for a different view. But, in any case, 
 the meaning of Jn. xx. 23 must not be read into this passage, 
 as has often been done from Cyprian onwards.^ Nor can we 
 assume that what Peter decides for the visible Church is binding 
 on the Church invisible ; or that what he decides for the visible 
 Church of his day holds good for ever, however much the 
 conditions may change ; or that his power of prohibiting and 
 permitting has passed to his successors. 
 
 XVI. 20-S8. Announcement of the Passion and the Rebuke 
 to Peter. 
 
 We now return (20) to what is in all three Gospels. All 
 three mention that Jesus charged the Twelve not to tell any 
 one that He was the Christ; but Mt. alone, as in vv. 12 and 24, 
 has his favourite ' Then ' (rore). The charge is a strong 
 guarantee for the historical character. It is thoroughly intellig- 
 ible ; but, at the same time, a writer of fiction would hardly 
 have thought that Jesus, after exhibiting such joy when Peter 
 confessed that the Twelve believed in Him as the Messiah, 
 would insist upon secrecy. The reason for the command to 
 keep silence was the erroneous idea about the Messiah which 
 prevailed among the people. They might again try to make 
 Him a king, and thus might precipitate a collision with the 
 Roman government. As yet, even the Twelve knew too little 
 about the Messiahship to be able to talk about it with profit 
 
 ' Comp. xviii. 18. Like 'the Kingdom of the Heavens,' they are 
 thoroughly Jewish expressions, and are found only in Mt. among the 
 Gospels. 
 
 ^ Dc Ecdes. Unit. 4, with the famous interpolations. See also Ep. 
 Ixxv. 16 (Firmilian to Cyprian). Zahn remarks that this is one of the most 
 frequently misunderstood passages in Mt. 
 
233 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XVI. 21-23 
 
 to the multitude. And so we are told that 'from that time 
 Jesus began to show unto His disciples,' or 'began to teach 
 them' (Mk.), that the Messiah must suffer before entering 
 upon His Kingdom. The ' began ' is important. We have 
 here a summary of what went on for some time, and neither 
 Mt. nor Mk. tell us at what point Peter drew upon himself 
 Christ's terrible rebuke. It is commonly assumed that, the 
 very first time that our Lord foretold His sufferings and death, 
 Peter uttered an emphatic protest, and then ' Get thee behind 
 Me, Satan,' was uttered. The Gospels neither say nor imply 
 this (Lk. is silent about the whole incident) ; nor is it probable 
 in itself. Had the impulsive Peter been surprised into making 
 his characteristic protest, he would perhaps have been less 
 severely rebuked. The rebuke is much more intelligible, if we 
 suppose that Peter had had plenty of time to think over this 
 new and amazing teaching respecting the Messiah, and had 
 deliberately tried to turn Jesus from His purpose. Mk. tells 
 us that Jesus 'used to speak the saying (about the Passion) 
 without reserve ' to all the Twelve (Trapprjo-ia tov \6yov eXaX^i). 
 Peter thinks this a great mistake. With something of officious- 
 ness, and perhaps as if his age gave him some kind of authority 
 even over the Master, he ' took Him ' as if to save Him from 
 Himself (jrpo<r\a/36fxevo^), and began to rebuke Him.^ 
 
 ' Be it far from Thee, Lord,' or ' God be gracious to Thee, 
 Lord,' means 'Heaven grant Thee something much better than 
 that,' or 'Heaven forbid that': comp. 2 Sam. xx. 20, xxiii. 17. 
 What follows is very strongly put : ' This shall never be unto 
 Thee.' 2 Mk. gives no words. Something may have been pre- 
 served by tradition; but perhaps Mt. is merely putting Peter's 
 rebuke into words. Yet, while he is more full than Mk. about 
 Peter's protest, he is less full about the Lord's turning to reply. 
 Mt. omits ' and seeing His disciples He rebuked.' The ' seeing 
 His disciples ' seems to imply that Peter was again expressing 
 the convictions of the Twelve, and that for the sake of the 
 whole body a strong condemnation of this mistaken view re- 
 specting His sufferings and death must be uttered. The 'first' 
 (x. 2) of the Apostles had grievously abused his position in 
 rebuking his Master, and all of them must hear how the rebuke 
 was reproved. 
 
 ' Thou art a stumbling-block to Me ' is not in Mk., and is 
 
 'The Sinaidc Syriac has 'as though he pitied Him,' or 'as if to spare 
 Him,' which perhaps imphes that' Peter took Jesus aside from the others 
 before remonstrating with Him. The Arabic Tatian has compatieiis. 
 
 2 According to the popular view of the Messiah (which Peter shared), 
 rejection and death, so far from being necessary for the Messiah, were 
 absolutely impossible ; He was to be welcon^ed as the Saviour of His people, 
 and was to reign over them. 
 
XVI. S3] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 233 
 
 perhaps Mt.'s interpretation of the startling identification of 
 Peter with the evil one ; but, even without this addition, ' Get 
 thee behind Me, Satan,' is indeed severe. It recalls the dismissal 
 of the devil at the close of the temptations in the wilderness 
 (iv. 10) ; and it recalls it, because Peter has renewed those 
 temptations. Those assaults of the evil one largely consisted 
 in trying to induce Jesus to take a short and easy road to the 
 Messiah's throne ; to obtain the power and glory without trouble 
 or suffering. Peter is again trying to induce the Messiah to 
 evade rejection by the hierarchy ^ and an ignominious death. 
 This conduct shows how necessary was the charge that the 
 Apostles should be silent respecting the Messiahship of Jesus. 
 If the first of the Apostles could commit so disastrous an error 
 as was involved in his rebuke to Christ, what might not the 
 ignorant multitude do? Comp. xii. 16, xvii. 9; and see Sanday, 
 Jour, of Th. St., April 1904, p. 321. 
 
 Origen {On Mt., Bk. xii. §§ 21, 22) regards 'Get thee behind 
 Me ' (vTraye ottlctoi jjlov) as a gentle rebuke to Peter's ignorance. 
 Peter meant well, but he made a grave mistake. He ought to 
 have known that He whom he had recognized as ' the Son of 
 the living God' (16} can neither say nor do what merits rebuke, 
 and that it was presumptuous of one of His followers to rebuke 
 Him. Peter had been attempting to lead, and to lead his Leader. 
 ' Get thee behind Me ' means that Peter is to go back to his posi- 
 tion as a follower. In support of this Origen quotes : ' Come ye 
 behind Me (owia-u) /xoii), and I will make you fishers of men ' 
 (iv. 19); and 'He that doth not take up his cross and follow 
 behind Me (oTrt'o-o) fnov), is not worthy of Me ' (x. 38) ; and he 
 compares Tropev^arOe oiria-m avTov (i Kings xviii. 21). He also 
 remarks that at the Temptation, when the evil one is dismissed, 
 there is no ' behind Me.' ^ The devil cannot become Christ's 
 follower. 
 
 This explanation is rendered improbable by the viraye, and 
 is excluded by the SaravS. Had our Lord meant that Peter 
 was to resume his place as a disciple, He would have said 
 ' Come ' (Seupo) rather than ' Go ' (iWye) ; and in urging any 
 one to follow Him He would not call him 'Satan.' 
 
 But we have not fully explained either Christ's charge to the 
 Twelve to be silent or the severity of His rebuke to Peter, when 
 we have shown that Peter's grievous mistake (which was perhaps 
 
 'The unusual order, 'elders, chief priests, and scribes' is in Mk. , and 
 is preserved by both Mt. and Lk. But Mt. and Lk. correct Mk.'s 'after 
 three days' to 'on the third day.' Mt. alone has the going \o Jerusalem to 
 suffer all this. 
 
 - In the true text of Mt. iv. 10 there is no <57r(iru fiov after vira-ya, and 
 Origen does not seem to know of the insertion, which is found in D and 
 some later texts, from xvi. iS. 
 
234 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XVI. 23 
 
 shared by the other Apostles) is a proof that a general proclama- 
 tion of Jesus as the Messiah would have been fatal. There is 
 also to be considered the effect of Peter's remonstrance upon 
 Christ Himself. In Peter the banished Satan had once more 
 returned, and by him the dire temptations to which Jesus had 
 been subjected in the wilderness had been renewed. The 
 victory over evil which He had won there had to be won over 
 again ; and He alone knows what the victory in each case cost 
 Him. His prayer in Gethsemane, that even then the cup might 
 pass from Him, shows what an awful power of attraction the 
 suggestion that the end might be gained without suffering, had 
 for His human soul. It was this which caused Him to insist 
 upon the Twelve being silent to outsiders respecting the fact of 
 His being the Messiah, and it was this which caused Him to 
 insist upon Peter's being silent to Him respecting the possibility 
 of His obtaining the Crown without any experience of the Cross. 
 Neither the multitude by their misdirected enthusiasm, nor the 
 Apostle by his misdirected affection, must seduce Him from 
 what was decreed by the Divine Will. ' He must go to Jerusalem 
 and suffer many things.' ^ Peter's love for his Master was real, 
 but it was exhibited 'not wisely'; in accordance, not with the 
 mind of God, but with the sordid calculations of human affection ; 
 and it was therefore a snare rather than a support. 
 
 Peter's primacy is of a strangely varied character, and it is 
 sometimes a primacy of evil rather than of good. If he is first 
 in rank, and first in confession of faith, he is also first in tempting, 
 and first in denying, his Master. The rock of foundation almost 
 at once becomes a rock of offence, and that, not to the Church, 
 but to its very Builder. 
 
 Like the time when He became conscious that He was the 
 Messiah, the time when Jesus became conscious that He must 
 suffer many things and be killed, is hidden from us. We have 
 no right to assume (see Jn. iii. 14) that He had only just become 
 aware of it, when He revealed the fact to His disciples. On the 
 other hand, we need not suppose that He had known it from 
 His childhood. We may reverently believe that even He re- 
 quired to be trained for such a future, and that perhaps not 
 until His Baptism, and then only gradually, was the will of God, 
 in this respect, revealed to Him. A childhood overshadowed 
 by the prospect of sufferings from which even His ripe manhood 
 shrank, would indeed be a mystery. 
 
 ' For the first time this 'must' (Set) of the Divine decrees respecting the 
 Messiah is used in this Gospel, in which it is not frequent ; comp. xxvi. 54. 
 It is specially common in Ll<. (ii. 49, iv. 43, ix. 22, xiii. 33, xvii. 25, xix. 5, 
 xxii. 37, xxiv. 7, 26, 44 : comp. Acts iii. 21, xvii. 3 ; i Cor. xv. 25). And, 
 before this, Christ had intimated that death, and even death by crucifixion, 
 was included in the 'must' (Jn. ii. 19, iii. 14). 
 
XVI. 24, S5] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 235 
 
 According to Mt, the exhortation which follows the rebuke 
 to Peter (24-27) was a continuation of the training of the 
 Twelve; but Mk. (viii. 34) lets us know that even in this 
 remote region Jesus was sufficiently known for a multitude 
 to be collected round Him, and that He called them to Him 
 and addressed them along with His disciples. Although the 
 multitude might not be told that He was the Messiah, and 
 although even the Twelve could scarcely bear to be told that 
 the Messiah, the Author of their salvation, must be made 
 perfect by sufferings (Heb. ii. 10), yet all needed to be taught 
 that they themselves require suffering for their perfecting, and 
 must be prepared for it and willing to endure it. He who 
 would 'Come after' Christ, i.e. become His disciple, must 
 be ready for three things, self-denial,i cross- bearing, and loyal 
 obedience. The startling metaphor of bearing the cross has 
 been mentioned before (x. 38), but to many of Christ's hearers 
 it would be new. It shows once more that He desired no half- 
 hearted disciples, and that He did not wish candidates for the 
 Kingdom to be under any illusions as to the kind of life that 
 was required. If Peter had known more of what was necessary 
 for himself he would not have had so violent a repugnance to 
 the thought of the Messiah being required to suffer. 
 
 It is the common belief of mankind that he is happiest who 
 possesses most; and apparently no amount of experience can 
 uproot this delusion. But (25) he is happiest who is himself a 
 possession, possessed by Christ, and ready to sacrifice every- 
 thing, even life itself, /or His sakeP' The greatest of all earthly 
 possessions is nothing, unless there is some one to enjoy it. 
 When the possessor perishes, what is the worth of the possession ? 
 And what is there that he could give to place himself in pos- 
 session again ? Christianity and the highest forms of moral 
 philosophy are agreed that the claims of self-interest are best 
 met by self-sacrifice, and that consciously to make one's own 
 happiness one's aim is a sure way to lose it. 
 
 Sayings such as these (24-26) were evidently uttered more 
 
 ' 'To deny himself is more than what we mean by 'self-denial'; it 
 means to refuse to make one's own pleasure the aim of life, and one's own 
 will the law of life. For these are substituted the well-being of others and 
 the Will of God. 
 
 ^ This is crucial ;, to lose one's life, and sacrifice all its powers and possi- 
 bilities, for a wrong reason, is to lose it indeed. Comp. "For what then 
 have men lost their life, or for what have those who were on the earth ex- 
 changed their soul?" (Apocalypse of Baruch, li. 15). Here the a.vT6XKa.yf>.a 
 is given, not received ; so the meaning may be, ' What shall a man pay to get 
 back his life, after he has forfeited it by sinning to make gain ? ' So Tyndale, 
 Cranmer, and the Genevan Version : ' What shall a man give to redeem his 
 soul again?' Comp. Horn. //. ix. 401-409. Lk. has karnhv (for t. i/'i^x')" 
 
236 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XVI. 27, 28 
 
 than once by our Lord, and perhaps were frequently repeated 
 by Him. Mt. gives them twice, at the mission of the Twelve 
 (x. 37-39) and here. Lk. gives them thrice; here (ix. 23), 
 xiv. 25-27, and xvii. 33, the last being very different in wording; 
 Mk. (viii. 34-37) and Jn. (xii. 25) each of them once. Here 
 in all three Gospels a reason is given for the declaration of 
 these severe conditions of discipleship ; ' For the Son of Man 
 shall come in the glory of His Father with His Angels.'^ Here 
 Mt. omits that at the Coming the Son of Man will be ashamed 
 of whoever has been ashamed of Him, for he has already re- 
 corded similar words at x. 32, 33 ; but he adds here : 'and then 
 shall He render to each man according to his conduct ' (/caTo. i-iji' 
 irpa^iv avTov), a phrase which does not occur elsewhere in the 
 N.T. We may perhaps assume that the words which Mt. omits 
 were spoken twice; and S. Paul perhaps alludes to them in 
 'If we shall deny Him, He also will deny us' (2 Tim. ii. 12). 
 
 We are not quite sure whether the concluding verse (28) was 
 spoken at the same time as what precedes. Neither Mt. nor 
 Lk. indicate any interval. Mk. introduces the words with a 
 fresh 'And He was saying to them' (koI, eXeyev avrois), which 
 may or may not intimate that there was an interval. It cannot, 
 however, have been long, and the question is not of importance. 
 The important point is the very marked difference between Mt. 
 and the other two as to the last clause of this saying. Mk. and 
 Lk. have : ' till they see the Kingdom of God,' which may refer to 
 the Transfiguration regarded as a foretaste of Christ's glory in 
 the future Kingdom. Mt. has: 'till they see the Son of Man 
 coming in His Kingdom,' which hardly admits of any other 
 interpretation than the Second Advent. And yet none of those 
 present lived to witness the Second Advent. No difference of 
 translation of the same Aramaic original will help us here. If 
 Christ uttered what Mk. reports, then Mt. misrepresents the 
 saying, and vice versa. There can be little doubt that Mk.'s is 
 the earliest report, and the closest to what was actually said. 
 Mt. and Lk. have both of them used Mk., Lk. following him 
 almost exactly, while Mt. substitutes a phrase which he believed 
 to be equivalent in meaning. At the time when Mt. wrote, it 
 was commonly believed that most of those who were then alive 
 would live to see the Second Advent (i Thes. iv. 15), and some 
 of the Twelve were then alive. Mt. believed that ' till they see 
 the Kingdom of God come with power ' meant ' till they see the 
 
 ' All ihree here have 'the Father' of God, a usage which is far more 
 common (45 times) in Mt. than in Lk. (17 times) or Mk. (5 times). All 
 three also add 'the Angels' to 'the glory of the Father.' We can hardly 
 doubt that Christ mentioned them in this connexion. Would He have done 
 so, if they do not exist ? It would have sufficed to say ' in the glory of the 
 Father.' See on xiii. 49 and xxviii. 2. 
 
XVI. 28] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 237 
 
 Son of Man coming in His Kingdom,' and he therefore 
 substituted a dear expression for the less clear phrase in Mk.^ 
 Comp. X. 23 and xxiv. 34. These three passages show that the 
 First Gospel was written before the belief that Christ would 
 return soon had been extinguished. They would not have been 
 left standing as they are, after experience had proved that the 
 predictions had not been fulfilled. It is, however, a rash 
 inference to draw from them that Christ uttered predictions 
 which were untrue. The comparison which has just been made 
 between Mk.'s wording and that of Mt. shows what the right 
 inference is. Christ's words were from the first misunderstood. 
 An interpretation which was perhaps verbally possible, but which 
 was erroneous, was put upon them ; and then His words were 
 altered so as to express this misinterpretation. All this was done 
 quite innocently. The Evangelists, or the sources which they 
 used, simply endeavoured to give in plain language the meaning 
 of what Jesus was believed to have said. The theory that in the 
 Gospels we have a literal translation into Greek of the very 
 words which our Lord used cannot be maintained in the face of 
 the facts which confront us again and again. Yet another 
 possibility must be borne in mind, — that these passages are 
 highly metaphorical, and that we misinterpret them in applying 
 them to the Second Advent.^ 
 
 Characteristic expressions in ch. xvi. : irpoa-4pxe(T$ai (i), '^aSdovKoioi 
 (1, 6, II, 12), 6 waTTjp 6 iv roi^ oupavoh {17), diro rdre (21), rdre (24). 
 Peculiar: 'Ie/)e,a(as (14), ri ^aaCkeia tSiv oipavdv (19). In the interpolation 
 (2, 3) we have evSla. and irvpp&iuv. The latter word is late Greek, but 
 irvppi^etv is found in the LXX. 
 
 The interpolation about the weather is found in the newly discovered 
 uncial which lias been acquired by Mr. Freer of Detroit, and is pronounced 
 by experts to be of the fifth, or possibly of the fourth century. See above on 
 the interpolated doxology after the Lord's Prayer (vi. 13), which is also 
 contained in this MS. It also contains the insertion at Lk. vi. 5, hitherto 
 known only from Codex BezEe. On the other hand, it omits Lk. xxii. 43, 
 44, xxiii. 34; Jn. v. 4, vii. 53, viii. u. See Burkitt, Evmigelion da-Me- 
 pharreshe, ii. p. 192. 
 
 ' Zahn's suggestion that Mt. preserves the original form of the saying, 
 and that Mk. and Lk. have altered it, is much less probable. Mk. must 
 have been written while the belief in Christ's speedy return ' was still 
 prevalent ; and in that case there would have been no temptation to alter 
 Mt.'s wording of the saying. Moreover, all the way through we can see that 
 it is Mt. who uses Mk., not Mk. who uses Mt. 
 
 ^ " His words are generally so interpreted (of His personal visible return), 
 and this seems at first their obvious meaning. Yet it is doubtful whether all 
 the language which is so interpreted is not better understood as oriental 
 imagery describing the accompaniments of His coming in the conversion of 
 multitudes to faith in Him, and in the downfall of Judaism as the representa- 
 tive of true religion " (Burton and Mathews). 
 
238 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XVII. 1-13 
 
 XVII. 1-13. The Transfiguration. 
 
 The historical character of this mysterious event is guaranteed 
 (i) by the improbability of invention, for there had been nothing 
 in Christ's previous Hfe to make an appearance of Moses and 
 Elijah probable, and there is nothing like it in the O.T., the 
 glorification of Moses at Sinai being very different; (2) by its 
 intrinsic suitability to the crisis in the Ministry which has just 
 been reached ; (3) by the testimony of all three Synoptists ; and 
 (4) by the remarkable injunction to silence (see above on xvi. 20). 
 Whatever date we assign to 2 Peter, the allusion to the Trans- 
 figuration (2 Pet. i. 16-18) is evidence of what was believed at 
 that date respecting the incident, and is so far a confirmation of 
 it. 
 
 The three accounts are harmonious as to main facts, although 
 each narrative contains details which are not in the others. 
 Both Mt. and Lk. used Mk., and it is possible that Mt. had no 
 other authority. But it is also possible that he had information 
 which was not used by Mk., and it is probable that Lk. had 
 some other source or sources. Lk. is much more independent 
 of Mk. than Mt. is. The changes which Mt. makes in Mk.'s 
 narrative may be purely editorial. He alone mentions that the 
 disciples fell on their faces when they heard the voice from 
 heaven, and that Jesus came and touched them and said, ' Arise, 
 and be not afraid.' Mt.'s omissions may be safely regarded as 
 editorial. With his usual tenderness for the Twelve, he omits 
 that Peter ' wist not what to answer,' and that all three 
 ' questioned what the rising again from the dead should mean.' 
 In a similar spirit he adds, ' Then understood the disciples that 
 He spake unto them of John the Baptist' (13). The addition, 
 ' in whom I am well pleased ' (5), brings the wording of the voice 
 into harmony with that at the Baptism. But Lk.'s wording, 
 except of Peter's exclamation and of the voice from heaven, is 
 mainly his own; and his great additions to the narrative are {a) 
 that Christ ' was praying ' when He was glorified in appearance, 
 ib) that Moses and Elijah ' spoke of His exodus which He was 
 about to accomplish at Jerusalem,' and (c) that the disciples 
 were ' hfeavy with sleep.' Lk. may be dating from a different 
 point when he says 'about eight days' instead of 'six days,' or 
 both expressions may mean a week. The mention of a week's 
 interval, which has no special point, is a mark of historical truth. 
 Nearly all modern travellers and commentators are agreed that 
 the ' high mountain ' is Hermon, not Tabor.^ 
 
 1 In the Greek Church the Feast of the Transfiguration is still sometimes 
 called t6 Qa^dipi-op : Hauck, Real-Encyd. xix. p. 580 ; Herzog and Plitt, 
 XV. p. 362; Schaff- Herzog, iv. p. 2382. 
 
XVII. 1-8] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 239 
 
 It is impossible for us to determine what the experiences of 
 the three disciples were. The manner of the manifestation 
 eludes us. Christ Himself calls it a ' vision ' (opa//,a, ver. 9), 
 which does not mean that it was unreal (Acts vii. 31, ix. 10, 
 xvi. g, 10, xviii. 9). It was no optical delusion, but an appear- 
 ance granted to three persons simultaneously. They were 
 convinced that they had seen the glorified representatives of the 
 Law and the Prophets conversing with the glorified Christ ; and, 
 although it is lawful to conjecture how this conviction was 
 produced, no conjecture can be affirmed with certainty. Their 
 fear is in all three accounts ; in Mk. after the appearance of 
 Moses and Elijah ; in Lk. after the cloud and before the voice ; 
 in Mt. after both cloud and voice. Mt. alone calls the cloud 
 'bright' {(jxoTeiv-^), which Origen explains as the glory of the 
 Trinity: comp. 2 Pet. i. 17. 
 
 It is wiser to seek for the meaning of the event than to frame 
 guesses as to the manner of it. It must have had a meaning for 
 the disciples, and perhaps we may venture to say that it must 
 have had a meaning for Christ Plimself. To the disciples, who 
 had been so amazed at the doctrine that the Messiah must suffer 
 and die, it would be a great consolation. Peter's exclamation 
 seems to imply deep contentment, which he wishes to prolong ; 
 and there may have been a desire to continue a time of peace 
 and beauty, and to postpone indefinitely the return to danger 
 and work. The Transfiguration taught all three that the Passion 
 of the Messiah did not mean that the glory of the Kingdom 
 would be lost ; but the glory would be, not of earth, but of 
 heaven. Although the Messiah was to be rejected by His own 
 people, He was not rejected by God : He was still the Divine 
 Son, in whom the Father declared Himself to be well pleased. 
 The Law and the Prophets had spoken of Him and prepared 
 the way for Him, even as regards His humiliation and brief 
 acquaintance with the grave ; but they were now superseded by 
 Him. Moses and Elijah disappear, ' Jesus alone ' abides, and 
 they are to listen to Him. ' Hear ye Him,' which distinguishes 
 this voice from that at the Baptism, is in all three Gospels. See 
 on iii. 17, and Hastings' i?^. iv., art. 'Transfiguration'; Bruce, 
 TAe Training of the Twelve, pp. 188-191. 
 
 Jesus Himself would rejoice at this confirmation of the 
 disciples' belief in Him. They now knew on additional authority 
 of the highest order that the Messiah must pass through death 
 to glory, and hereafter this lesson would come home to them.^ 
 But at this crisis in His ministry He Himself may have been in 
 
 1 Yet it is to be noted that His ' exodus ' or ' departure ' is spoken of as 
 an achievement which He is 'about to accomplish,' rather than as a fate 
 which He cannot escape (Lk. ix. 31). 
 
240 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XVII. 9-13 
 
 need of comfort. The grievous temptations of the devil in the 
 wilderness had just been renewed by His own Apostle. During 
 these last months of His earthly career the shadow of the Cross 
 was falling on Him more and more, and He may have needed 
 this foretaste of His glory to help Him to endure the foretaste 
 of His sufferings. He accepted the strengthening of an Angel 
 in the garden ; and He may have accepted similar strengthening 
 on the mount. 
 
 Lk. tells us that the descent from the mountain took place 
 ' on the next day,' which probably means that the Transfiguration 
 took place at night.^ He omits the question about Elijah, which 
 would not interest Gentile readers. It perhaps implies that the 
 Scribes had used this argument against the suggestion that Jesus 
 might be the Messiah : " How can He be the Messiah, when 
 Elijah, who is to precede the Messiah, is not yet come ? " Mt. 
 alone states that John was not recognized as the Elijah of 
 prophecy: 'they knew him not'; but this is implied in Mk.'s 
 rather confused report of Christ's words, which Mt. improves. 
 ' Even so shall the Son of Man also suffer of them ' is much 
 clearer than the words in Mk. A suffering Forerunner is to be 
 followed by a suffering Messiah. Such a renewal of the prediction 
 of His Passion, immediately after the glory of the Transfiguration, 
 is remarkable. 
 
 We cannot safely infer from the vagwe ^Troi'ijirar avT<} S<ra (12) that "our 
 Lord attributed the Baptist's murder to the Jewish rulers rather than to Herod 
 and Herodias." The nominative to ^iroLrjaap may be Herod and Herodias, 
 or it may be those who actually captured the Baptist and those who actually 
 slew him. The addition in Mk. ix. 13, KadCjs y^ypairraL ctf' aOrdp, seems 
 to show that Herod and Herodias are meant. In what sense did it 'stand 
 written ' that the Baptist was to suffer as he did, if not in the treatment of 
 Elijah by Ahab and Jezebel, who were the prototypes of Herod and Herodias ? 
 
 Both Mt. and Mk. have iroiijaav, which the AV. renders 'have done.' 
 The RV. changes ' have done ' to ' did ' in Mt. but leaves it unchanged in 
 Mk. The difference between Sera ijBiX-quav (Mt.) and 6Va iJScXoc (Mk.) can 
 hardly be made in English without clumsiness of e.xpression. Mt. frequently 
 changes Mk.'s imperfects into aorists. In ver. 10 we have fJnjpuTTjffaj/ for 
 irqpuTtiiv. Comp. ^0o/37)Sij, iSuKev, Sietni6r)(jav (xiv. 5, 19, 36) for e^o/SciTO, 
 idlSov, iffii^oi'To (Mk. vi. 20, 41, 56), etc. etc. 
 
 The time of year at which the Transfiguration took place is not mentioned 
 in any of the narratives ; but Colonel Mackinlay makes the attractive hypo- 
 thesis that it was at the Feast of Tabernacles. The proposal of Teter 10 
 ' make three tabernacles ' may have been suggested to him by the fact that this 
 was the season for making such things. " Some train of thought must have 
 been running through his mind, and if the Feast of Tabernacles were at hand 
 he might naturally have thought of honouring each by making a tabernacle 
 for each" {7/ie Magi, p. 222). Mackinlay, as already noted, makes the 
 Feast of Tabernacles the time of the Nativity and also of the beginning of 
 
 J The difference between ' six days ' and ' about eight days ' might arise 
 in that way, according as the night was counted with the preceding day or 
 pot. 
 
XVII. 14-19] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 24 1 
 
 Christ's Ministry ; and he places four Feasts of Tabernacles in the Lord's 
 Ministry as well as four Passovers, making the nameless feast of Jn. v. i to 
 be a Passover. The time at which the Feast of the Transfiguration is cele- 
 brated (6 August in most calendars, 14 July in the Armenian) is no guide as 
 to the actual date of the event, any more than to QajSJipiov, as one of the 
 names for the festival, is any guide as to the place. For speculations as to 
 the purposes of the Transfiguration see papers in the/TS. , Jan. and July 1903 
 and Jan. 1904. 
 
 XVII. 14-21. T/ie Healing of an Epileptic Boy. 
 
 Mk. and Lk. say that the boy was possessed by a demon or 
 unclean spirit, and Mt. falls into this mode of expressing the 
 phenomena when he says that 'the demon came out' (18), and 
 thereby shows his acquaintance with Mk. His own expression, 
 ' epileptic ' or ' moon-struck ' (aeXrjvLa^ea-OaL), is found only here 
 and in iv. 24. He greatly shortens Mk.'s narrative, perhaps 
 because, with his tenderness for the Apostles, he did not like 
 to dwell upon their failure, which, however, had to be mentioned, 
 unless the miracle was to be stripped of its most characteristic 
 features. The details which he omits are Just those which he is 
 wont to omit in other cases. He omits the conversation with 
 the father of the afflicted boy, in which Jesus asks for information, 
 and thereby seems to imply ignorance ; and he omits the fact 
 that the convulsions caused by Christ's healing word appeared 
 to have killed the lad, until Christ ' took him by the hand and 
 raised him up.' So that, as in the case of the blind man at 
 Bethsaida (Mk. viii. 22-26), which Mt. omits altogether, the 
 cure seemed to be at first incomplete. Mt. corrects this im- 
 pression by stating that 'the boy was cured from that hour' (18). 
 While Mk. represents our Lord as taking the initiative with a 
 question, Mt. and Lk. begin with the father's appeal, and Mt. 
 alone states that the father knelt to Christ.^ The introductory 
 rebuke, ' O unbelieving generation,' is in all three, and may or 
 may not include the disciples who had failed to heal the boy. 
 It appears to be addressed to the multitude as representing the 
 nation, and it prepares the way for the more definite rebuke to 
 the disciples after the miracle. Mt. and Lk. both add 'and 
 perverse ' to ' unbelieving.' The exclamation is one of weariness, 
 and perhaps disappointment ; and the ' how long ' suggests that 
 the end which is drawing near will be welcome. 
 
 'Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why 
 could not we cast it out?' Here again Mt. shows his acquaint- 
 ance with Mk. In ver. 16, he turned Mk.'s 'they were not able 
 
 ' Comp. ii. 2, II, viii. 2, ix. 18, xiv. 33, xv. 25, xx. 20; but here he 
 has yovvTrerwv, instead of his usual TrpofTKVvelv : and he alone gives the Ki/pie, 
 eXeijcroj'. 
 
 16 
 
i4- GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XVII. 19, 30 
 
 to cast it out' into 'they could not cure him,' and in ver. 18 he 
 said that the boy ' was cured from that hour ' ; but here Mk.'s 
 expression, 'cast it out,' prevails, just as his 'came out ' prevailed 
 in ver. 18. Had Mt. never seen Mk. he would no doubt have 
 written, ' Why could not we cure him ? ' The disciples who ask 
 the question are, of course, those who had not been with Him 
 on the mount.i The whole narrative is written from the point 
 of view of those who had been with Him there, and we can 
 hardly doubt that Peter is the chief authority for the three 
 accounts. In this concluding portion, however, respecting the 
 rebuke to the defeated disciples, Lk. is silent, although he has 
 a similar saying, in a different context, xvii. 6. For ' this 
 mountain,' which means the mount of the Transfiguration, Lk. 
 has ' this sycamine tree.' ' Mountain ' was a common Jewish 
 metaphor for ' difificulty,' and the whole saying is coloured with 
 Oriental imagery. Forgetfulness of this has led to strange mis- 
 interpretations of what can be done by those who have faith. 
 Comp. ix. 22, 29, xviii. 19. 
 
 Mt.'s report of Christ's reply to the unsuccessful disciples is 
 much less obscure than that of Mk. Mk. has : ' This kind can 
 come out by nothing, save by prayer.' What does 'This kind' 
 mean ? Evil spirits in general ? or dumb and deaf spirits in 
 particular ? And who is to pray ? The possessed person ? or 
 his friends ? or the exorcist ? The reply in Mt. is clear enough : 
 ' Because of your little faith.' It was not because of His absence : 
 when He sent them out two and two to cast out demons and to 
 heal diseases, there is no report of failure. It was not the taunts 
 of the Scribes : their questioning had followed the failure, not 
 caused it. The fault lay in themselves. His power to heal was 
 with them as before, but they had lost the power of making use 
 of it. Unconsciously they had fallen away into a condition of 
 mind in which they trusted either too much in themselves, as if 
 the power were their own ; or too little in Christ, as if in this 
 difficult case He might fail them. It is so easy for faith to 
 dwindle, without the loss of it being observed. ^ It was not their 
 faith in Jesus as the Messiah that had failed them, but their faith 
 in the commission to heal which He had given them. It endued 
 them with power, but the power was not their own. 
 
 '' Mt. says that they came to Him 'apart' ; as usual he omits that it was 
 in a house ; comp. ix. i with Mk. ii. I ; xii. 22-24 with Mk. iii. 20-22 ; xv. 
 15, 21 with Mk. vii. 17, 24; xvii. 19 with Mlc. ix. 28; xix. 6 with Mk. x. 
 8-10. 
 
 ^ Hence Christ says, 'as a grain of mustard-seed,' not, 'as a grain of 
 sand' ; small, but capable of growth, and very large growth. Comp. xv. 28, 
 where Mt. gives the presence of faith as the cause of healing, but Mk. gives 
 a different explanation. See W. W. Alexander, Demonic Possession, pp. 
 193, 278. 
 
XVII. 22, 23] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 243 
 
 Authorities are divided between 'little faith' (<}Xi7oiritrria) and 'unbelief 
 {aTTKTTia). It is more likely that the rare word iXiyowMTla (K B) would be 
 changed into the common word airiarla (C D etc.) than vice versa, especially 
 as u 761/6(1 (jTriffT-o! might suggest the latter. Four times Mt. has 6\iy6-wi.(!Tos 
 as a term of reproach to the disciples (vi. 30, viii. 26, xiv. 31, xvi. 8). 
 
 We may safely regard, ' But this kind goeth not out save by prayer and 
 fasting' as an interpolation from Mk. ix. 29, made after ' and fasting ' had 
 been added to that verse. Here i*t B and other important witnesses omit 
 the whole verse ; and in those authorities which contain it the wording differs. 
 
 In the next verse {22) there is a various reading of some interest : 
 <TV(TTf>e4>o/j.4vo!i> (K B), 'as they were gathering together,' is to be preferred 
 to dpa(rTp((j>ofi4pui' (C D etc.), 'as they abode.' The former is rare in the 
 N.T. Comp. Acts xxviii. 3. 
 
 XVII. 22, 23. Another Announcement of the Passion. 
 
 What follows the curing of the epileptic boy (22, 23) is often 
 called "the second announcement of the Passion." But, even as 
 regards what is recorded, it is the third : for we have already had 
 two (xvi. 21, xvii. 12); and it is improbable that all the occasions 
 on which our Lord spoke of this subject have been recorded. 
 The words which are common to all three narratives of this new 
 announcement are ; ' The Son of Man is about to be delivered 
 up (fjLeWei TTopaStSoo-^at) into the hands of men'; but Mk. uses 
 the present tense, as of a process which is already begun: '« 
 ie/ng delivered up ' (irapaScSorai). The Glory of the Transfigura- 
 tion and the voice proclaiming Him as the Divine Son do not 
 interfere with our Lord's continuing to speak of Himself as the 
 Son of Man. What is meant by ' delivered up ' is not certain. 
 It is often understood of the act of the traitor (6 koI TrapaSovs 
 avTov, X. 4). (Comp. XX. 19, xxvi. 21-25, 46, 48.) But it may 
 also, as Origen has pointed out, refer to the delivering up of the 
 Son by the Father for the redemption of all men. In this way 
 the addition ' into the hands of man ' has real point ; God 
 delivers up His Son to me?z. Otherwise the addition is almost 
 superfluous.! 
 
 The changes which Mt. makes in Mk.'s record are again very 
 interesting. He corrects 'after three days 'to 'on the third day,' 
 and substitutes ' be raised up ' for ' rise again ' (comp. xvi. 2 1 
 with Mk. viii. 31); and he again spares the Twelve by omitting 
 'But they understood not the saying, and were afraid to ask 
 Him.' For this he substitutes, 'And they were exceeding 
 sorry,' which comes strangely after ' the third day He shall be 
 ' Abbott strongly contends for this meaning, and he suggests that the 
 original saying was 'delivered up /or men,' and that it was this which the 
 disciples did not understand, for as yet they knew little about the mediatory 
 nature of Christ's death (Paradosis, pp. 53 ff. ). But was it not the raising 
 again which they could not understand? Mk. ix. 10, 32. Lk. ix. 44, 45 is 
 different. 
 
244 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEAV [XVII. 24-27 
 
 raised up.' But it illustrates the fact that Christ's predictions of 
 the Resurrection were not understood until after He had risen. 
 Lk., who here omits the prediction of Christ's death and rising 
 again, says that the meaning of the saying was concealed from 
 them purposely (ix. 45). Comp. Lk. xviii. 34, xxiv. 16. Their 
 being afraid to ask Him was very natural, both because He was so 
 reserved respecting Himself, and because they feared to learn 
 something still more trying. The severe rebuke to Peter would 
 also be fresh in their minds. They neither remonstrate nor 
 question, but maintain a mournful and perplexed silence. 
 Comp. xxvi. 22. 
 
 XVII. 24-27. The Temple-Tax and the Stater in the Fish's 
 
 Motcth. 
 
 Excepting the introductory words about a return to 
 Capernaum, this narrative is peculiar to Mt. In reference 
 to the return, he characteristically omits Christ's entrance into 
 a house and the fact that on the way the disciples had 
 disputed which of them was greatest. It was before the disciples 
 entered the house that the tax-collectors had applied to Peter for 
 the usual contribution, and it may have been their recognizing 
 him as leader and spokesman that started the discussion as to 
 who was first in the company. Half a shekel was payable 
 annually to the Temple by every Jew over twenty years of age 
 (Exod. XXX. 13). The .f/^^W equalled four Attic Drachma. (Jos. 
 Ant. III. viii. 2), and hence this tax came to be known as '■the 
 two drachma: ' (to ViZpirfQi-ov or to. StSpaxfjio). ' Does your Master 
 not pay the usual tax?' The collectors, who were quite different 
 from the 'publicans' or collectors of toll for the Romans or the 
 Herods, perhaps knew that Jesus did not always conform to 
 traditional regulations ; and, as Jesus had only recently returned 
 to Capernaum, the tax may have become due while He was 
 absent.! Peter, who knew what Christ's previous practice had 
 been, at once says that He does pay ; and Mt.'s special interest 
 in Peter seems to have led to the preservation of this narrative. 
 Our Lord does not wait for Peter to consult Him as to whether 
 he has answered rightly or not, about which he perhaps had 
 misgivings : He anticipates Peter, and thus disposes of the 
 question of the tribute before rebuking the Twelve for their 
 dispute about precedence. 
 
 The exact meaning of Christ's argumentative parable is 
 
 ' But the tax was like a voluntary church-rate ; no one could be compelled 
 to pay. Peter may have suspected that the collectors' question was an 
 insinuation that Jesus would not pay, and hence his prompt affirmative : 
 " Of course." 
 
XVII. S5-27] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 24S 
 
 debated, but the old explanation is probably the right one : that 
 Jesus, as the Son of God, is free from an impost for the mainten- 
 ance of His Father's Temple. The objections to this are not 
 conclusive. It is urged that such an argument would reveal just 
 what He had forbidden the Twelve to divulge, that He was the 
 Messiah. But the argument would not have gone beyond the 
 disciples. To the collectors it would have sufficed to reply : "I 
 do not wish to pay." Again, it is urged that in the parable we 
 have ' from their sons,' not ' from their son,' and the plural does 
 not commonly represent an individual. But the form of the 
 parable requires the plural ; ' aliens ' or ' strangers ' is plural, 
 and it needs a plural contrast. The contrast is between those 
 who are members of the royal family and those who are not ; 
 the former being exempt from taxation. Whether the royal 
 family is represented by one son or by several is not of the 
 essence of the argument. This interpretation of the argument is 
 so simple, and fits the context so well, that it is likely to be the 
 right one. 
 
 Relying upon the plural, some would interpret the ' sons ' as 
 meaning the whole Jewish nation, or, at any rate, all religious 
 Jews.i If this is correct, then our Lord is teaching that this is 
 not a tax which ought to be collected from Jews at all, but 
 perhaps might be imposed upon Gentiles. Yet would He have 
 suggested getting money from heathen to support Jewish 
 worship? And would He have treated in this way an impost 
 which was believed to be enjoined by the written Law ? His 
 treatment of the rule of not eating without washing is not 
 parallel ; that was human tradition. 
 
 Others would make 'their sons' refer, neither to Christ 
 exclusively, nor to the whole Jewish nation, but to Christ and 
 His disciples. In that case ' their sons ' does not mean the 
 royal family, but the royal household. Christ would not have 
 counted Himself as a son in the sense in which the disciples 
 were 'sons of God' (comp. v. 9). His Sonship is unique. ' I 
 ascend unto My Father and your Father' (Jn. xx. 17) marks this 
 clearly; and here also Fie says : 'That take and give for Me and 
 thee.' But Christ and His disciples, though not in the same 
 sense members of the royal family, were in the same sense 
 members of the royal household. In so far as the Kingdom had 
 already come, they were in it ; and in so far as it was future, 
 they were fellow-workers for it. This Kingdom was to supersede 
 all Jewish worship, and the promoters of the new Kingdom were 
 
 ■■ It is not likely that ' their sons ' means their fellow-countrymen. A Jew, 
 with experience of taxation under the Herods, would not think it true that 
 Jewish Idngs do not tax Jews. See Schiirer, Jewish People, 11. i. pp. 250, 
 
246 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XVII. 25-S7 
 
 not bound to support a dispensation which it was their duty to 
 render obsolete. In this way Jesus might claim for Himself and 
 His disciples an exemption which could not be claimed for all 
 Jews. ' That we may not cause them to stumble ' is in favour 
 of including the disciples in the claim. 
 
 Nevertheless, the question which called forth this argument 
 was whether Jesus Himself would pay. No question is raised 
 about the Twelve. It seems to be assumed throughout that 
 Peter, and therefore his companions, will pay.^ And perhaps it 
 is safer to confine the reference to the Divine Sonship of Jesus, 
 the bearing of which upon the question, Peter, in his eagerness 
 to place his Master in a favourable light with the collectors, had 
 overlooked. But in any case we have an instance of the humility 
 of Christ, who, although He was greater than the Temple, yet 
 submitted to be taxed for the continuance of sacrifices, which for 
 a few months longer would still have a meaning in foreshadowing 
 the one Sacrifice to be offered by Himself. Moreover, " Jesus 
 here illustrates a fixed principle of all reforms, viz. the avoidance 
 of actions which are not absolutely essential for the success of 
 the reform, and which, because easily misunderstood, and so 
 arousing prejudice, would make it more difficult for others to 
 join in the good movement" (Burton and Mathews, p. 163). 
 Some, who might otherwise have listened to Him, would have 
 turned away had He seemed by His example to teach that the 
 Temple-services were not worth maintaining. His willingness to 
 pay may remind us of His willingness to submit to baptism in 
 order to fulfil all righteousness, and also of His zeal for the 
 honour of His Father's House, when the hierarchy had turned it 
 into a place of traffic. Neither His right to exemption, on the 
 one hand, nor the fact that the Temple would soon be over- 
 thrown, on the other, allowed Him to spare Himself cost or 
 trouble. He submits rather than risk causing others to offend. 
 And, as if to confirm Peter in the conviction that as the Son 
 of God He is free, He manifests to him a miracle of fore- 
 knowledge.^ 
 
 The miracle is not without its difficulties, of which the silence 
 of the other Evangelists is only a small part. It seems to violate 
 the principle, that miracles are never wrought where ordinary 
 means would suffice. The small sum required could have been 
 obtained in some other way. It brings no healing or comfort to 
 any one. It seems to be wrought for a very trifling purpose ; for, 
 
 ' Peter seems to be recognized as the head disciple : and neither he nor 
 his Master has any money ; comp. xxii. 19. 
 
 ^ "All the attempts have been in vain which were made by the older 
 Rationalism to put a non-miraculous meaning into these words" (B. Weiss, 
 Life of Christ, ii. p. 337). 
 
XVII. 25-S7] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 247 
 
 poor as Christ and His disciples were, the raising of three or four 
 shillings does not appear to be a matter that calls for a miracle. 
 Moreover, in the advantage gained by the finding of the coin, 
 Jesus Himself shared. Indeed the chief use of the money was 
 to pay His tax for Him. 
 
 These objections would have more force, if our Lord had 
 turned a stone into a stater^ or had created the money required. 
 The miracle lies solely in His knowing beforehand that there 
 would be no need to dip into the bag which Judas carried, but 
 that God would provide exacdy what was required. This super- 
 natural knowledge was a lesson to Peter, and through him to 
 Christendom, respecting the character and the freedom of the 
 Christ. The Father was about to enable the Son to avoid 
 violating either His own freedom or the consciences of those 
 who could not understand that freedom. Jesus knows this, and 
 He allows Peter to know it. 
 
 There is nothing incredible in the manner in which the money 
 is found. Such things have happened, and our Lord may have 
 foretold that it would happen to Peter. But we may allow the 
 possibility of metaphor, or of the exact words used by Christ 
 being either misunderstood or modified in tradition. ' In the 
 fish that thou shalt catch thou shalt find what will pay for Me 
 and for thee ' might mean that the fish would sell for as much ; 
 and this would easily take the form which Mt. records. We are 
 not told that Peter did find a coin in the mouth of a fish, and 
 thus the confirmation of the exact terms of the prediction is 
 lacking. The case is not like that of the colt tied (Mk. xi. 2, 4), 
 or that of the man bearing a pitcher of water (Mk. xiv. 13, 16), 
 in both of which cases both the prediction and the fulfilment 
 are recorded. 
 
 In Cod. Algerinas Peckover (Evan. 561, Gregory 713, which is one of the 
 Ferrar group and of about the eleventh century) there is an insertion between 
 vv. 26 and 27. ** Simon said, Yea. Jesus saith, Give therefore thou also 
 as their stranger " ; ^(^-q Si/iwf " vo.i. X^7et 'I-jytroDs' 56s ol>v koX av ojs dXX^rpios 
 airCiv. In vv. 25, 26 there are small deviations from the true text, and in 
 ver. 27 tyKtifxivov is added after aTarripa and e\'ei before it : evprjo'eit ^k€i 
 aTarijpa e-yKclfi^fov. There is no reason to suppose that the interpolated say- 
 ings are anything more than a paraphrasing parallel of the true text. See 
 Resch, Agrapha, No. 14, p. 37, 2nd ed. ; C. R. Gregory, Das /■'reer-Logion, 
 p. 25. The interpolation about the tribute is found also in the Arabic 
 
 ' A stater was equal to four drachince or to one shekel, and therefore would 
 pay for two persons. As the didrachm was very rarely coined at this period, 
 it must have been a common thing for two persons to pay the tax with one 
 coin ; and this is some confirmation of the tradition that a coin, and the right 
 amount for two payments, was found. It is a further confirmation of it that 
 the tradition must have arisen at a time when the Temple was still standing 
 (Wellhausen, p. 90). See F. W. Madden, Hist, of Jewish Coinage, pp. 
 235-242. 
 
248 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XVIII. 1-35 
 
 Diatessaron (xxv. 6) ; see Burkitt, Evangdion da-Mepharreshe, ii. pp. ig2, 
 274. In Ihe Ac/a Thotnce, 143, Bonnet, p. 250, Christ is said to " have given 
 head-money for Himself and His disciples " — eVi/ee^dXata SeSw/cws virkp aurou 
 Kal tGiv avTOv fxad-qruiv. 
 
 Characteristic expressions in ch. xvii. : /cai ISov (3, 5), Iboi (5), aipbbpa 
 (6, 23), irpoaipxecrdai (7, 14, 19, 24), rire {13, 19), ■n-poa<pipeiv (16), ll>pa 
 eKelvT) (18), nera^aivelP {20 6is), (KeT (20), tI sol SokcI ; {25), iropeieadai (27). 
 The following are not found elsewhere in the N.T. : ffe\T;iiidi^€ir$aL {1^ and 
 iv. 24), 6\iyoTri(TTia (20), rd StSpax/J-a (24 its), Trporl>$i.vuv (25), dyKKTTpof 
 (27), a-Tar-fip (27). 
 
 The derivation of araT-tip is from 'iaT-qiii. in the sense of ' weigh,' a sense 
 which it has in xxvi. 15 (RV.), where D reads (rrarijpas instead of apyiipia. 
 A stater, therefore, is a standard weight or coin, and the tetradrachni was so 
 used. This was convenient in Palestine, where the Phoenician tetradrachm 
 or stater— \hft Hebrew shekel. 'For Me and thee' (not, 'for both of us') 
 separates the Lord from Peter (comp. Jn. xx. 17). Perhaps the meaning is 
 that the reasons for which each of them paid were different. 
 
 XVIII. 1-35. Discourses at Capernaum. 
 
 The first of these is on the childlike temper, a subject which 
 arises out of the question of precedence which had been raised 
 by the disciples. According to Mk. this question had been 
 disputed by the disciples ' in the way ' (ix. 33), which would 
 mean on the journey from the neighbourhood of Csesarea 
 Philippi to Capernaum. Possibly the preference shown to Peter, 
 James and John at the Transfiguration had led to this dispute ; 
 or Peter's forwardness on that occasion may have led the three 
 to dispute whether he had any right to precedence. Jesus sits 
 down, summons all the Twelve, and charges them to become 
 like children. Mt. once more spares the Twelve by omitting 
 the dispute, and he represents the disciples as coming to Jesus 
 to ask Him about precedence, and He then calls a child. By 
 saying that the disciples' qiiestion was asked 'in that hour,' and 
 that it was in the form ' Who then (ri'; apa) is greatest in the 
 Kingdom ?,' he closely connects it with the prominence given 
 to Peter by the collectors and by Christ Himself, in the matter 
 of the Temple-tax. It is clear that throughout this chapter Mt. 
 has another authority besides Mk. 
 
 Christ Himself had just given an example of humility in 
 submitting to be taxed for the Temple-services. He now gives 
 a striking object-lesson on the subject. That the child whom 
 He took for this purpose was Ignatius is a very late tradition of 
 the ninth century, and needs no more than a passing mention 
 (Lightfoot, Ignatius, i. p. 27, ii. p. 22). The child was probably 
 one belonging to the house in which Christ was staying, and 
 was well known to Him. The words with which the discourse 
 opens (3) may have been transferred from Mk. x. 14, 15 ( = Mt. 
 xix. 14), but they are quite suitable in both contexts. ' Except 
 
XVni. 1-7] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 249 
 
 ye turn and become ' is peculiar to this context, and the meaning 
 seems to be that by raising this question of precedence the 
 disciples had gone in the wrong direction. They evidently did 
 not know where true greatness was to be found ; and, if they 
 desire to enter the Kingdom, they must remember the first 
 Beatitude and return to the childlike attitude, which does not 
 seek prominence but shrinks from it. In the Kingdom it is 
 these childlike souls that are greatest (4). 
 
 In what follows (5), the important quahfication, 'in My 
 Name,' which is in all three reports, must not be overlooked ; 
 comp. 'for My sake' (xvi. 25). The disciple who wins the high 
 honour of receiving Christ is he who welcomes little children, not 
 because he is fond of children, but because they represent 
 Christ.1 The full meaning is ' on the basis of My Name ' (cVi rfi 
 dvo/xari /xov). His name is the symbol of His character, and the 
 childlike character is a Christlike character — meek and lowly 
 in heart, with a sense of dependence for everything upon a 
 parent's wisdom and love. The attractiveness of such a char- 
 acter, whether in children or in adults, ought to be felt by every 
 Christian. 
 
 The beauty of the childlike temper suggests another subject, 
 — the heinousness of marring such beauty, and indeed, generally, 
 the grievous sin involved in causing others to sin (6-10). Lk. 
 has words similar to vv. 6, 7 at xvii. i, 2, but without connexion 
 with any incident. They are part of the training of the Twelve. 
 Here the mention of ' little ones ' connects the two verses with 
 what precedes, and the thought of ' causing to stumble ' with 
 what follows. The misery of having ruined a beautiful character 
 by seducing it into evil is so intense, that a man had better be 
 thrown into the sea, hke a dog with a stone round its neck, 
 rather than incur it. Drowning was not a Jewish punishment, 
 and in Palestine the scarcity of water would be against any such 
 mode of execution. But here there is no thought of punishment. 
 The thought is that it is better to suffer a dreadful and igno- 
 minious death before being guilty of any such sin. It was in 
 order to avoid all risk of causing others to offend that Jesus 
 submitted to be taxed for the Temple services. But, in the case 
 before us, there is no mere risk, but certainty. And let no one 
 think that he cannot Ae/p sometimes causing little ones to 
 stumble. It is true that, the world being so full of temptations, 
 and human nature being so weak, occasions of stumbling are 
 sure to come and at times to prove fatal; but that does not 
 prove that those who cause them are irresponsible. It is a 
 
 ' There is something which reminds us of the Fourth Gospel in the ex- 
 pression : Jn. xii. 44, 45, xiii. 20, xiv. 9, 24, xv. 23. Comp. ]\It. a. 40, 
 which anticipates this saying ; also Pirqs Aboth, v. 24. 
 
250 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XVIII. 8-10 
 
 grievous thing for the world that some men consent to be 
 seducers, and it is a still more grievous thing for the seducers 
 that they consent to become such.^ 
 
 And there is such a thing as seducing oneself (8, 9), i.e. 
 letting the lower part of one's nature lead the higher part astray, 
 for it is the higher part that is one's true self. We have had 
 teaching of this kind already in the Sermon on the Mount 
 (v. 29, 30); and the solemnity and stringency of the wording 
 ought to convince us of its importance. The language, of course, 
 is metaphorical, but there is no doubt as to its meaning. If the 
 choice has to be made, it is better to sacrifice most precious 
 elements of our being, rather than be guilty of conduct that 
 would incur total and irreparable loss of the whole. We sacrifice 
 even the most valuable of our limbs, in order to avoid the death 
 of the body by incurable disease. We ought to be ready to 
 sacrifice things of still greater value, in order to avoid the 
 death of the soul in ' the eternal fire.' Mk. here has ' the un- 
 quenchable fire,' which Mt. has in iii. 12. In both these verses 
 the 'fire' is opposed to 'life,' and therefore seems to mean 
 ' destruction.' ^ It can hardly mean endless life in torment. The 
 Jews of that age perhaps thought of endless torment as the 
 portion of the wicked, as they also thought that the righteous in 
 bliss would behold the torments of the wicked, while the wicked 
 in their agony beheld the happiness of the righteous. Christ 
 left those ideas undisturbed, but that is no proof that they are 
 true. And in some respects, although He did not contradict 
 current beliefs. He left teaching which has undermined them. 
 See Gould on Mk. ix. 43, and Charles on Enoch xxvii. i. 
 
 Two points must be kept in view in considering the solemn 
 warnings. They are hypothetical, depending upon an 'if; ' Jf 
 hand, foot, or eye cause thee to stumble.' And the decision 
 whether they do so or not, and therefore the adoption of the 
 necessary remedy, rests with the person himself. 
 
 Hand, foot, and eye are excellent things, capable of doing 
 God and man good service as well as of being means of innocent 
 delight to the possessor of them. They are God's gifts, and 
 they were not given simply to be sacrificed and thrown away. 
 
 ' In Clem. How. xii. 29 Peter is represented as saying: "The prophet 
 of the truth said, Good things must (Sei) come, and blessed is he through 
 whom they come ; in like manner evil things also must needs [av^r^Kf}) come, 
 but woe to him through whom they come." The 5ct, as often in the Gospels, 
 may mean 'by God's decree' (xxiv. 6, xxvi. 54)> which is true of the good, 
 but not of the evil. Comp. Firqe Aboth, v. 26. 
 
 ^ The expressions, ih wup rh alihvtov, 17 K6.ixivos rod Trvp6$ (xiii. 42), and 
 KiXaiTis aliivios (xxv. 46), arc peculiar (o Mt. It is remarkable that /ciXacris 
 and /foXdffif, both frequent in the LXX., occur only twice each in the N.T. 
 And ^d\e dird (toC is peculiar to Mt. 
 
XVIII. 8-10] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 251 
 
 No doubt they can be abused; but so can life itself, and we 
 may as well part with it at once, if everything that is capable of 
 abuse must be sacrificed. Nevertheless, experience may prove 
 to us that some of the blessings which God has placed within 
 our reach are so perilous to us, and so often lead us into evil, 
 that there is only one course open to us, if we are to be 
 faithful to our calling, and that is, to give up such things 
 altogether. But the decision must rest with ourselves, and 
 be confined to ourselves. No one else can decide for us ; 
 and we have no right to impose the restrictions which we find 
 necessary for ourselves upon others, or judge others for not 
 adopting them. 
 
 From these sayings respecting the subtle dangers of self- 
 seduction the discourse returns to the leading thought of little 
 children, and especially to that of the great guilt of leading 
 children into sin. The ' Take heed ' or ' See ' (opare) indicates 
 the importance of the charge (comp. viii. 4, ix. 30, xvi. 6). We 
 must not for a moment suppose that the misleading of an 
 innocent child cannot be a very serious thing, — that a little 
 child does not count. Every single child counts, and it is well 
 worth while to endeavour to keep even one such from being 
 led astray. This teaching is further enforced with a reason, 
 which is introduced with solemnity : ' For I say to you, that in 
 heaven their Angels do always behold the face of My Father 
 which is in heaven.' That shows how precious each one of 
 them is in God's sight ; and what God values so highly man 
 must not despise. 
 
 Although it is certain that this is the tenour of the argument, 
 it is not quite certain what the details of it mean. It appears to 
 mean that the Angels which represent children are the Angels 
 of the presence, i.e. the highest of all (Lk. i. 19 ; Tob. xii. 15). 
 God has commissioned the most glorious of all His creatures to 
 be sponsors for little children. It is not so clear that the saying 
 implies that each child has a Guardian-Angel. The story of 
 Tobit and Acts xii. 15 seem to show that a belief in a Guardian- 
 Angel for each individual was current among the Jews, and here 
 Christ may be sanctioning such a belief. But the purport of the 
 saying is sufficiently intelligible, if we interpret it as meaning that 
 the Angels which are the heavenly counterparts of children 
 always have ready access to God's presence.^ It is 'the little 
 ones who believe in Me ' (6) that are specially under considera- 
 tion. In them the qualities are most likely to be found which 
 every Christian ought to reverence as reflexions of Christ Himself. 
 
 ' The saying, however, becomes unintelligible on the hypothesis that 
 Christ knew that there are no such beings as Angels ; see on xiii. 49 and 
 xvi. 27. 
 
252 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XVIII. 10-13 
 
 There is possibly an intimation that the Angels which protect children, or 
 which represent them before God (if each human soul has a representative 
 Angel), never lose the presence of God through the children's misconduct. 
 The emphasis may be on 5ta Travrds. These innocent little ones never do 
 anything that would put their representatives to shame before God. If this 
 is so, then we may compare the Angels of the Churches in the Apocalypse ; 
 for they seem to be beings who represent the Churches and are in some way 
 responsible for the conduct of each Church (Rev. ii., iii.). In the Book of 
 Jubilees (xxxv. 17) there appears to be a reference to the belief in representa- 
 tive or guardian Angels ; and, if so, it is a very early reference. Isaac says 
 to Rebecca : " Fear thou not on account of Jacob ; for the guardian of Jacob 
 is great and powerful and honoured, and praised more than the guardian of 
 Esau." See J. H. Moulton on 'It is his Angel' in \h& Jour, of Th. Si., 
 July 1902, p. 514. D. B. Warfield holds that 'little ones' means 'My 
 disciples,' not children ; DCG., art. ' Little Ones.' 
 
 The whole of ver. 11, ' For the Son of Man came to save that which was 
 lost ' is rightly omitted as an interpolation from Lk. xix. 10. It is wanting 
 in N B L and other important authorities, and is rejected by all editors. It 
 was probably inserted to make an introduction to the parable of the Lost 
 Sheep, which follows somewhat abruptly. But the insertion spoils rather 
 than helps the connexion between ver. 10 and ver. 12. Christ has just been 
 teaching how precious one child is in God's sight ; and on that doctrine the 
 parable follows very naturally. The saying about the Son of Man has some 
 affinity with search for the lost sheep, but it does not help to connect this idea 
 with that about little children. 
 
 The connexion of the parable of the Lost Sheep (12, 13) 
 with what precedes is that God cares for children and for child- 
 like believers as a shepherd cares for his sheep. If one of them 
 is lost, He will make every effort to recover it, and will rejoice 
 greatly if He succeeds. If God takes so much trouble to recover 
 a little one that has strayed, how grievous it must be to cause it 
 to stray. Rather, every effort should be made to prevent it from 
 straying. The parable is more beautifully drawn out in Lk. xv. 
 3-7 than here, and the context there is more suitable. It is 
 probable that in this chapter we have a number of Christ's 
 sayings which Mt. has grouped together in a way of his own. 
 The connecting thought in the first fourteen verses is that of 
 little children. For the remainder of the chapter the connectina; 
 thought is the forgiveness of sins, a subject which is suggested 
 by the parable of the Lost Sheep. The Evangelist sees that, 
 while the owner's diligence in seeking for the one sheep that has 
 strayed illustrates God's love for a single child, yet that is not 
 the only lesson. The sheep that has so foolishly and wilfully 
 strayed is not only recovered and restored to the flock, but 
 rejoiced over, as if the recovery were a great gain ; and that 
 illustrates God's great love in the forgiveness of sinners. We 
 pass on, therefore, to a collection of sayings connected with this 
 subject. The way in which God deals with His erring sheep 
 leads on to the way in which a man should deal with his erring 
 brother. He should endeavour to seek and recover him who 
 
XVIII. 15-17] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 253 
 
 has gone astray (15). But, as there was a possibihty that even 
 the Divine Owner might fail in recovering His sheep, — '//so be 
 that He find it,' — much more is there a possibility that a man 
 may fail in regaining his offending brother. The will is left free 
 in each case ; there is no compulsion, and the erring one may 
 refuse to be won back. We are not told of the various methods 
 which God tries, when the wanderer refuses to return ; they do 
 not so much concern us ; but we know that there is a Divine 
 perseverance in such things.^ ' Until He find it ' is the expres- 
 sion in Lk., without thought of ultimate failure. But we are 
 told of the various methods to be adopted by a Christian, when 
 a brother has sinned against him. First, private remonstrance 
 and entreaty, with no one present but the offender and the 
 offended. Then one or two more are to be present, who with 
 the offended person will make up the two or three witnesses 
 required by Deut. xix. 15. Yet these are not witnesses of the 
 original wrong-doing, but of the wronged person's attempts at 
 reconciliation, and of the response which the wrong-doer makes 
 to them. They will be able to certify that the one has honestly 
 tried to bring the other to a better mind, and that the other has 
 or has not yielded to his efforts.^ If this fails, the wronged 
 person is to ' tell it to the Church ' {iKKX-qa-ia). Evidently ' the 
 Church' here cannot mean the Christian Church which Christ 
 intends to build (xvi. 18).^ It means the Jewish assembly, and 
 probably the local assembly, the elders and congregation of the 
 synagogue in the place where the parties live (Hort, The 
 Christian Ecdesia, p. 10). The directions here given are applic- 
 able to the Christian community, but, at the time, they must 
 have been spoken of a community of Jews. 
 
 It is assumed throughout that the injured person is making 
 a genuine endeavour to reclaim his erring brother.^ But, while 
 it is one against one, the erring brother may suspect unfairness. 
 He has far less reason for this when one or two more have heard 
 the case. He has still less excuse for suspicion when the whole 
 congregation are judges. All that is required is that he should 
 own that he has done wrong and should ask forgiveness. 
 Nothing is said about punishment. But it is now clear that he 
 
 ^ The change from the future (d^ijtrei, ' will leave') to the present (f-vrei, 
 ' goes on seeking ') suggests the continuance of the effort (12). 
 
 ^ Moreover they may help to persuade the erring brother to yield. Just as 
 the expelled demon took other demons to help a work of ruin (xii. 45), so 
 the injured person takes other members of the community to help a work of 
 restoration (TrapaXa/xjSdi'eij' in both places). 
 
 ^ In Syr-Sin. iKKKT)<!la. is translated 'synagogue.' Comp. the remarkable 
 parallel to this in the Testaments: " If a man sin against thee, speak 
 peaceably to him, and in thy soul hold no guile ; and if he repent and con- 
 fess, forgive him" (Garfvi. 3). 
 
254 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XVIII. 17, 18 
 
 does not wish to be reconciled. ^ He will not do what every one 
 else sees to be reasonable ; and he is now to be regarded as no 
 true member of the congregation. The toll-collectors were 
 regarded as virtually heathen and excommunicate, and this 
 obstinately impenitent brother is henceforth to be treated as one 
 of them (B. Weiss, Life of Christ, ii. p. 122). Intercourse with 
 him would be contaminating, for he might lead others to be as 
 impenitent and rebellious as himself; and as long as he maintains 
 this attitude, he cannot be forgiven and restored. 
 
 In what follows (18) we perhaps have the original form of 
 xvi. 19. What was spoken to the Twelve collectively may have 
 been adapted afterwards to Peter as their leader. The meaning 
 here seems to be that the decisions of the congregation, whether 
 Jewish or Christian, are final. They have the authority to forbid 
 and to allow, to refuse or to grant forgiveness. But it may be 
 doubted whether the saying was originally spoken in its present 
 context. Possibly it ought to be kept apart from what precedes 
 (15-17), and perhaps also from what follows (19, 20).^ The 
 Evangelist appears to be putting together, as one discourse, a 
 number of utterances which have no connexion beyond a certain 
 community of thought. But we may follow his grouping without 
 assuming that it is historically correct. 
 
 By his ' Again ' (7raA.1v) Mt. couples the second 'I say unto 
 you' (19) with the former one (18), and some texts (B I X U) 
 read ' Again, verily I say unto you.' The connexion is that God 
 is sure to ratify the decision of the congregation, for He hears 
 the prayer of any two members of it. But, out of the connexion 
 in which Mt. has placed it, the lesson is that the smallest 
 possible congregation is certain to be heard when it unites in 
 prayer. Probably the contrast between 'on earth' and 'in 
 heaven' has caused Mt. to group vv. 19, 20 with ver. 18. But 
 the connexion between »w. 19 and 20 is original and close. The 
 prayers of two will be granted, because Christ is with them when 
 they unite in prayer.^ In the Oxyrhynchus Logia there is a 
 saying which seems to be an echo of this passage : " Jesus saith, 
 Wherever there are [two], they are not without God (aScoi), and 
 
 ' For TrapaKoiciv of ' refusing to comply ' conip. Is. Ixv. 12 ; Esth. iii. 3, 
 8 ; Tob. iii. 4. In MU. v. 36 Jesus ' refuses to attend ' to the message that 
 the daughter of Jairus is dead. In the Testaments, the angry man ' refuses 
 to attend' to a Prophet of the Lord {Dan ii. 3). As to appeahng to the 
 congregation comp. "Judge not alone, for none may judge alone save One " 
 (Pirqe Abotk, iv. 12). 
 
 "^ We must keep it apart from both, if we regard it as conferring special 
 powers upon the Apostles, for ver. 17 refers to a congregation, Jewish or 
 Christian, and ver. 19 refers to any two who unite in prayer. 
 
 ^ D and Syr-Sin. give the saying negatively : ou/c elaiv yap . . , Trap' oh 
 oiK ei/j,l if ixiaifi avrdv. Comp. "When ten sit and are occupied in words 
 of Thorah, the Shekinah is among them" (Pirqe Aboth, iii. 9). 
 
XVin. 21, 22] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 255 
 
 wherever there is one alone, I say I am with him"; comp. Eph. 
 i. 23. Of course, the saying in Mt. does not mean that God is 
 pledged to grant whatever any two persons agree to ask. His 
 will is to grant what is best for them, and what two agree about 
 is likely to be good, especially if Christ is with them. 
 
 The Evangelist's interest in Peter is again conspicuous (x. 2, 
 xiv. 28, 29, XV. 15, xvi. 18, 22, xvii. 4, 24). Peter's question 
 goes back to ver. 15. The injured man who endeavours to 
 reclaim his injurer must of course have forgiven him in his 
 heart : otherwise it would be hopeless to seek reconciliation. 
 He goes, not for his own sake, to seek for reparation, but for 
 the wrong-doer's sake, to win him back from evil. To the 
 impetuous Peter that seems to be a difficult saying, and he 
 desires explanation. Surely there are limits to this kind of 
 forbearance. Is one to go on forgiving for ever? Will not seven 
 times be a generous allowance ? 
 
 The man who asks such a question does not really know 
 what forgiveness means. When an injury is forgiven, it is 
 absolutely cancelled so far as the injured person is concerned. 
 It is not to be kept in abeyance, to be reckoned against the 
 offender, if he offends again. Christ's reply is to the effect that 
 there must be no counting at all. Ten times the limit suggested 
 by Peter will be far too little. Multiply that again by seven, and 
 it will not be too much. The meaning is that there must be 
 no limit.i The coincidence with Lamech's song in Gen. iv. 24 
 is remarkable : ' If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly 
 Lamech seventy and sevenfold.' Indeed, " a definite allusion to 
 the Genesis story is highly probable : Jesus pointedly sets 
 against the natural man's craving for seventy-sevenfold revenge 
 the spiritual man's ambition to exercise the privilege of seventy- 
 sevenfold [RV. marg.] forgiveness " (J. H. Moulton, Gr. of 
 N.T. Grk. i. p. 98). Comp. 'Forgive thy neighbour the hurt 
 that he hath done thee; and then thy sins shall be pardoned 
 when thou prayest' (Ecclus. xxviii. 2). "When you might have 
 vengeance do not repay either your neighbour or your enemy " 
 (Secrets of Enoch, 1. 4). But Jewish tradition limited forgive- 
 ness to three times. Amos i. 3, 6, 9, etc., and Job xxxiii. 29 
 were supposed to justify this limit. If three transgressions filled 
 up the measure that God might forgive, ought man to be more 
 placable ? 
 
 ' In Lk. xvii. 4 this is expressed by ' seven times in a day.' Jerome (Adv. 
 Pelag. iii. 2) preserves a fragment of the Gospel according' to the Hebrews: 
 " He saith, If thy brother hath sinned in word and hath made thee amends, 
 seven times in a day receive him. Simon His disciple said to Him, Seven 
 times in a day? The Lord answered and said to him, I tell thee also, unto 
 seventy times seven : for in the prophets also, after they were anointed by the 
 Holy Spirit, a sinful word was found." 
 
256 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XVIII. S3-27 
 
 It matters little whether the parable of the Unmerciful 
 Servant was spoken immediately after the saying about ' seventy 
 times seven,' or has been placed here by the Evangelist to 
 illustrate that saying. The ' Therefore ' (8ia toCto) marks a close 
 connexion with the saying. Because in the Kingdom the duty 
 of forgiving is unlimited, therefore the Kingdom is like an 
 earthly king, whose astounding generosity to a debtor laid that 
 debtor under an obligation to show all possible consideration to 
 others.^ The requirements of the Kingdom and the requirements 
 of this king are similar. The disciples do not ask for any 
 explanation, and the lesson to be drawn is manifest. The 
 offences of any man against us are utterly trivial compared with 
 our offences against God. He has forgiven us these, and He 
 requires us to forgive our fellows. If we fail to show forgiveness, 
 His forgiveness of us cannot continue. ' For judgment is with- 
 out mercy to him that hath showed no mercy ' (Jas. ii. 13).^ 
 
 The ' pence ' should be shillings or florins to represent the 
 sum rightly. A denarius contained less silver than a shilling, 
 but it would buy as much as two shillings will buy now. There- 
 fore 100 denarii may represent p^io. But a talent was equal to 
 6000 denarii; and the debt to God is represented as 10,000 
 talents, a sum which in human life could hardly be owed to any 
 one but a king, and to him only by a financial minister. We are 
 perhaps to think of some great man who has farmed one of the 
 taxes and become bankrupt. The king's order respecting him 
 is not very different from what was sanctioned by the Mosaic 
 Law (Lev. xxv. 39, 47 ; 2 Kings iv. 1). A man's wife and 
 children were his property. The order is also in accordance 
 with the idea that the whole of a man's family is responsible for 
 his acts (Josh. vii.). The king's response to the debtor's entreaty 
 is of the most munificent kind. The man merely asked to be 
 left free to work off the debt. The king not only does not sell 
 him into slavery, he cancels the whole debt, which could never 
 have been discharged in full. 
 
 Why is the debt to God represented as so enormous ? Partly 
 as a true contrast to offences between man and man, and partly 
 because every sin is an act of rebellion, and thus small acts, 
 which attract little or no attention, may be great sins. Moreover, 
 they accumulate ; and no one can tell what the total amount in 
 his own case may be. And it is here that the analogy of the 
 
 ' With /liT) 'ixovTO'i S^ avToO diroSovvai. comp. Mk. xiv. 8 ; Lk. xii. 4, xiv. 
 14 ; Acts iv. 14 ; Heb. vi. 13. In such expressions Ix^ hardly dififers from 
 Siivaiiai, and this use is specially common in connexion with payment of 
 money. Field, Oliitm Norvic. iii. p. 10. 
 
 ^ Comp. Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice, Act IV. so. I. Portia : 
 " Therefore, Jew, 
 Though justice be thy plea," etc. 
 
XVIII. 28-35] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 257 
 
 whole family being threatened with slavery to pay the father's 
 debt comes in. A man cannot confine the consequences of his 
 sin to himself Even those who have had no share in his guilt 
 will be involved in the misery which it produces : besides which, 
 there is the evil effect which his vitiated character will insensibly 
 have upon others. 
 
 In his passionate appeal for forbearance, the king's debtor 
 promises to pay all in time, a promise unlikely to be fulfilled. 
 The fellow-servant merely promises to pay. In his fury, the 
 creditor injures himself in order to take vengeance. By im- 
 prisoning his debtor he made it almost impossible for him to 
 pay. And now, for the first time, we are told that the king was 
 angry, and this is the main lesson of the parable.^ An unfor- 
 giving spirit is sure to provoke the anger of God ; so much so, 
 that His free forgiveness of sinners ceases to flow to them, when 
 in this way they offend. So to speak, it revives the guilt of their 
 otherwise forgiven sins. This is a truth of tremendous import, 
 and we may be thankful that this Evangelist has preserved for us 
 a parable which teaches the truth so plainly. For we are not 
 apt to think of what seems to be a merely negative quality, — the 
 absence of a forgiving temper, as a fatal sin. There are many 
 sins which we rightly regard as heinous, — breaches of the sixth, 
 or seventh, or eighth commandment. But we are not accustomed 
 to think that to treasure up the recollection of injuries which 
 we think that we have received from others may be a sin that is 
 greater than any of these. It is those that are most conscious 
 of the incalculable amount that God has forgiven them, who are 
 readiest to forgive all, and more than all the injuries that any 
 man can inflict upon them. ' Let all bitterness and wrath and 
 anger be put away from you, with all malice ; and be ye kind 
 one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as 
 God in Christ hath forgiven you' (Eph. iv. 31, 32). 
 
 We do not know whether it was the feeling which had 
 been generated in some of the Twelve by the dispute as to 
 which was the greatest that called forth this impressive parable. 
 But the teaching which it embodies was not new to them. 
 We gather that it had already been set forth to the multitudes, 
 for it appears in two places in the material which forms the 
 Sermon on the Mount (v. 23-26, vi. 14, 15). And in Mk. 
 we have it among the last instructions during the Holy Week 
 (xi. 25). The love that forgives is as necessary as the faith that 
 prays. 
 
 ' ' The tormentors ' is part of the literary detail in the story, and we must 
 not interpret the detail and draw conclusions from it. A king of flesh and 
 blood [dvOponros jSairiXeiis) might act in this way ; but we should not attribute 
 parallel action to God. Comp. the interpolation Ecclus. xxxiii. 26. 
 
 17 
 
258 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XIX. 1 
 
 The statement that 6<pciXii, 'debt,' is a word found "onlyinN.T. Greek" 
 (Mt. xviii. 32 ; Rom. xiii. 7 ; i Cor. vii. 3) has been disproved by the papyri. 
 Deissmann gives instances, Biblical Studies, p. 221. He has also given good 
 reasons for abandoning such an expression as " N.T. Greek " : The Philology 
 of the Greek Bible, pp. 65, 134, 135; New Light on the New Testament, 
 pp. 30 ff. 
 
 Characteristic expressions in ch. xviii. . ^mlvi\ wpa { i ), Trpoir^px*'''^"' ( ' 1 21), 
 6 7raT7)p 6 iv rots ovpavoit (lO, 14, 19), tI v/mv SokcI ; (12), iropeiieueai. (12), 
 crwdyeiv (20), rdre (21), wpoiT(pipei.v (24), (rivSovKos (28, 29, 31, 33). Pecuhar : 
 ri §a<n\eia. twv ovpavGiv (l, 3, 4, 23), riXavTov (24), 6 iraTrip oiipdvios (35), 
 avvalpeif (23, 24), KaTairovTi^eaOai (6 and xiv. 30 only), t6 vvp rb aliiviov 
 (8 and xv. 41 only), 7) yievva tov Trvp6s (lO and v. 22 only) ; peculiar to this 
 chapter: e^SopiriKoi'TiiKLi {22), Bdvioi' (27), ^aaaviarii^ (34). The verb 
 dwo5iS6va,i is frequent in the N.T., but it is specially common in Mt. as 
 compared with other Gospels ; in Mt. 18 times, in Mk. once, in Lk. 8 times, 
 in Jn. never. In this chapter it is frequent (25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 34). The 
 phrase amaipuv 'Kbyov (23, xxv. 19) has been thought to be a Latinism, 
 rationem conferre, 'compare accounts.' Zahn quotes a Fayum papyrus 
 (Grenfell, Hunt, Hogarth, p. 261, No. 109, 6), a-vvfjpiJ.ai \6yoii rip Trarpl. 
 
 XIX. 1-XX. 34. THE JOURNEY OF THE MESSIAH 
 THROUGH PER^A TO JERUSALEM. 
 
 For a moment the three Synoptists are once more together. 
 Mt. xix. I, 2 = Mk. X. I, and side by side with these we may 
 place Lk. xvii. ii. The Third and Fourth Gospels give a great 
 deal of material which belongs to this period of Christ's Ministry. 
 But the so-called "Persean section" in Lk. (ix. 51-xix. 28) 
 contains a good deal of material which evidently belongs to an 
 earlier period, and we do not know enough about the details to 
 say how his narrative is to be fitted into that of Jn., who, with 
 great vividness, in chs. vii.-xi., tells a great deal that illuminates 
 the whole situation, especially with regard to the circumstances 
 which made the rejection of Jesus by the nation, and His death 
 at the hands of the hierarchy, certain. Even without supernatural 
 foresight, it might have been possible to see that, so far as 
 immediate success was concerned, the mission of Jesus to His 
 countrymen would fail, and that the only thing which could save 
 Him from a. violent catastrophe was flight. But it was impossible 
 for Him to fly. He knew the Scriptures, especially those con- 
 cerning Himself (Lk. xxiv. 27), as no one else knew them. He 
 knew that the Messiah must suffer in order to reign, and must 
 conquer by dying. The Scriptures must be fulfilled, which was 
 only another way of saying that the will of God must be done. 
 
 The opening words of this chapter are peculiar to Mt. (see 
 on vii. 28). After concluding a group of Christ's sayings, he 
 commonly passes on to the next subject with the formula ' when 
 He finished these words' (vii. 28, xi. i, xiii. 53, xxvi. i), and 
 here he alone expressly states that Jesus ' departed from Galilee, 
 
XIX. 1-12] THROUGH PER^A TO JERUSALEM 2S9 
 
 although it is implied in the other narratives.^ It is His last 
 departure from Galilee. Until after the Resurrection Christ does 
 not visit it again. He crosses the Jordan, and in this more remote 
 region, where He was less well known, He resumed His work of 
 teaching and healing. Mk. says that He taught, Mt. that He 
 healed.^ The multitudes had reassembled, and He did not send 
 them empty away. Mt. perhaps thought that it was more neces- 
 sary to record that Jesus healed than that He taught ; the latter 
 might be assumed. What follows in these two chapters (xix., xx.) 
 is evidence of the teaching, especially of the training of the 
 Twelve. 
 
 XIX. 3-12. The Question of Divorce. 
 
 The Pharisees are now Christ's determined enemies, bent 
 upon His destruction : and they come to Him once more to 
 endeavour to make Him commit Himself in some fatal way. It 
 was known that He condemned divorce (v. 31, 32), and thus 
 seemed to put Himself into opposition with the Mosaic Law, 
 which allowed it (Deut. xxiv. i); here, therefore, was a field in 
 which it was likely that they might obtain material for fruitful 
 charges against Him. We must study Mk. x. 2-12, if we wish 
 for a clear and consistent account of Christ's teaching respecting 
 divorce. All Jews held that divorce was allowable ; the only 
 question was, for what ' unseemly thing ' ? The stricter Jews 
 said that unchastity on the wife's part justified divorce ; the less 
 strict said that mere dislike sufficed. According to Mk. and Lk., 
 Christ forbade divorce altogether. The permission to divorce a 
 wife for grave misconduct was conceded by Moses because of 
 the low condition of society in his time ; but now m^n ought to 
 return to the primeval principle that marriage is indissoluble.^ 
 According to Mt., both here and in v. 31, 32, Christ agreed 
 with the stricter Jews ; an unchaste wife might be divorced, and 
 the husband might marry again. It has been shown in the 
 comments on v. 31, 32 that it is improbable that Jesus taught 
 this ; and we may suspect that both ' for every cause ' (3) and 
 'except for fornication' (9) are insertions made either by the 
 Evangelist or in the authority which he is using in addition to 
 
 ^ 'Judaea ' here seems to be used in the wider sense of Palestine, the land 
 of the Jews ; comp. xxiv. 16. 
 
 ^ In xiv. i4 = Mk. vi. 34 Mt. makes this charge in Mk.'s narrative; and 
 in xxi. 15 he does much the same, for there ' the wonderful things that He 
 did ' takes the place of ' His teaching ' (Mk. xi. 18). On the insertion ' there ' 
 (t'/cei) see on xxvii. 47. 
 
 ■* "The word {aK\T]poKapdia) denotes the rude nature which belongs to a 
 primitive civilization. This principle of accommodation to the time in Scrip- 
 ture is of inestimable importance, and of course limits finally the absoluteness 
 of its authority. We find that the writers were subject to this limitation, 
 ^s well as their readers" (Gould on Mk. x. 5). 
 
26o GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XIX. 1-12 
 
 Mk. Whoever inserted the words would think that they must 
 have been meant, and that therefore it was right to make the 
 .meaning perfectly clear. The remark of the disciples (lo) con- 
 firms the view that Christ forbade divorce, even in the case of the 
 wife's unchastity. If that was His decision, their remark is 
 intelligible. It would then mean that marriage is a dangerous 
 condition, if a man cannot free himself from an adulterous wife. 
 But, if He taught that the divorce of an adulterous wife was 
 allowable, then their remark would mean that marriage is a hard 
 lot, if a man may not get rid of a wife whom he dislikes ; and it 
 is hardly likely that they can have meant this. After being 
 Christ's disciples so long, they would not hold that what even 
 Jews of the stricter school of Shammai maintained respecting the 
 marriage-tie was an intolerable obligation. See Allen, p. 205 ; 
 Salmon, p. 394. 
 
 Christ's argument for the indissoluble character of the original 
 institution of marriage is that at the Creation God made one man 
 and one woman, each for the other. He did not make more 
 women than men, so as to provide for divorce. On the contrary, 
 He created a relation between man and wife more intimate and 
 binding than even that between parent and child. The 'and 
 said' which Mt. (5) introduces between the two quotations from 
 Genesis is not in Mk. (x. 6, 7), and is incorrect. In Gen. ii. 24, 
 'For this cause shall a man leave,' etc., are the words of Adam, 
 not of the Almighty. With the conclusion, 'What therefore God 
 hath joined together, let not man put asunder,' the discussion 
 with the Pharisees is closed. Christ then retired into ' the house,' 
 and there the disciples renewed the discussion. This break in 
 the conversation is obscured in Mt, who, as usual (ix. i, xv. 15, 
 21, xvii. 19), omits the detail about going indoors, and here 
 makes ver. 9 part of the address to the Pharisees, whereas in 
 Mk. it is said privately to the disciples.^ 
 
 There is no parallel in Mk. or Lk. to the remarkable passage 
 respecting celibacy (10-12), and we have no means of knowing 
 the source of it. It does not seem to belong to the context in 
 which Mt. has placed it; for it appears strange that our Lord, 
 after pointing out that marriage was ordained by God for the 
 human race from the very first, and that man ought not to sever 
 a tie ordained by God, should at once go on to admit that, after 
 
 ' Instead of, 'And if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry 
 another, she committeth adultery,' Mt. has, 'And he that marrieth her when 
 she is put away committeth adultery.' Mt. may have made this change be- 
 cause there was no provision in the Jewish law for a wife to divorce her 
 husband (Josephus, Ant. xv. vii. 10). But koI b a.TroKe\vfiivT]v yaij.ritras 
 /loixS-Tai. is omitted in J* D L and other important witnesses ; it may come 
 from V. 32. See Wright, Synopsis, p. 99; E. Ly ttelton, / T'i'. , July, 1904, 
 p. 621. 
 
XIX. 13-15] THROUGH PER^A TO JERUSALEM 261 
 
 all, those who can do without it should avoid marriage. Never- 
 theless, it may be that He thought it well to justify His own 
 example and that of the Baptist. Marriage was instituted by 
 God for the good of mankind, and is open to all. But no one 
 is obliged to marry, and there are some who believe that they 
 can live more spiritual lives by remaining single. 
 
 If we may assume that vv. 11,12 were uttered in reply to the 
 disciples' remark in ver. 10, then 'All do not receive this saying' 
 probably means that it is not given to every one to see that it is 
 not good to marry, 'this saying' referring to the remark of the 
 disciples. This is more probable than a reference to Christ's 
 saying that marriage ought to be regarded as indissoluble. The 
 passage must be compared with our Lord's declaration that His 
 disciples must be ready, if the call should come, to part with 
 everything that they possess, even with life itself, for His sake. 
 
 XIX. 13-15. The Blessing of the Little Children. 
 
 Mt. follows Mk. in placing this incident between the 
 discussion about marriage and the story of the rich young man, 
 and Lk. so far agrees with Mk. in placing the incident 
 immediately before that of the rich young man. It took place 
 in the house, for it was ' as He was going forth into the way ' 
 (Mk. X. 17) that the rich young man came to Him. As Salmon 
 conjectures (p. 395), the children brought to Him may have 
 been the children of the house. On the previous occasion 
 (xviii. 2), when He took a child as an object-lesson, this took 
 place ' in the house ' at Capernaum ; and it is unlikely that a 
 child had to be sent for from the outside. Here also we may 
 imagine that the children of the house "were brought to Him to 
 say good-night, and receive His blessing before being sent to 
 bed." But Lk. (xviii. 15) seems to have understood the matter 
 otherwise : ' And they brought unto Him also their babes.' 
 Both Mk. and Lk. say that the children were brought ' that He 
 should touch them.' ^ Mt. is much more full : ' that He should 
 lay His hands on them and pray ' ; and this is a reasonable 
 inference from the fact that He did lay His hands on them and 
 bless them (Mk. x. 16). 
 
 Jesus so frequently laid His hands on those whom He 
 healed, that the parents naturally thought that it would be an 
 advantage to their children to have them touched by the great 
 Healer. To the disciples this seemed intolerable. They knew 
 how His time was invaded and His physical strength taxed by 
 the numbers that were brought to Him to be cured of their 
 
 ' The verb Trpo(r(p4peiv is frequent of bringing the sick to Christ : iv. 24, 
 viii. 16, ix. 2, etc. Mk. has it here (x. 13). 
 
262 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XIX. 13-15 
 
 ailments. And here people were bringing to Him children that 
 were perfectly well, and asking Him to touch them. Such 
 demands upon Him were quite unreasonable. Moreover, how 
 was He to continue His instructions to themselves, if He was 
 interrupted in this way ? ^ 
 
 Mk. says that our Lord 'was mdignant' (^yavaKTr;(T£i') at 
 this remonstrance on the part of His disciples. The expression 
 is nowhere else used of Him, and it is evidence of the depth 
 of His displeasure at seeing His own disciples trying to keep 
 little children from Him. Mt., as usual (xii. 13, xiii. 58, 
 xvi. 4), omits the record of human emotion on the part of 
 Christ. ' Cease to forbid them ' (/x,^ KwAuere) is in all three. 
 So also is ' of such ' {tolovtwv, not tovtujv). Not those particular 
 children, nor all children, but those who are childlike in 
 character, are possessors of the Kingdom : ^ it specially belongs 
 to them. The genitive is possessive, as in 'theirs is the 
 Kingdom of Heaven' (v. 3, 10), a point which is inadequately 
 expressed by ' of such.' ' To such belongs the Kingdom ' would 
 be better. How shocking, therefore, to try to prevent them 
 from approaching the King ! Mt. has already (xviii. 3) inserted 
 the equivalent of ' Whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of 
 God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein,' and he 
 therefore omits the words here ; and having just stated that the 
 children were brought to Christ that He might J>ray over them 
 (13), he omits (what Mk. alone records) that 'He took them 
 in His arms and blessed them.' "This beautiful scene calls for 
 reflection and imagination rather than for discussion" (Burton 
 and Mathews, p. 209). The whole incident is another illustration 
 of the candour of the Evangelists in recording what is to the 
 discredit of the disciples. Our confidence in the general trust- 
 worthiness of their evidence is thus confirmed. The practical 
 importance of this exquisite enforcement of the principle that the 
 Kingdom has little children among its worthiest possessors is 
 incalculable. See Tertullian, De Bapt. 18, with Lupton's notes. 
 
 XIX. 16-30. The Rich Voting Man. 
 
 It is possible that the order of the three subjects. Marriage, 
 Little Children, and Wealth, is chronologically correct : the 
 three incidents were connected in time and place, and they 
 followed one another in the way in which they have been 
 recorded. But the grouping may be artificial. In that case 
 
 ' This remonstrance of the disciples is against the view that it was only 
 the children of the house coming to say good-night. 
 
 ^ As Jerome says: ^ taliuin^^ ut osteiideret non (Btatem rcgnare sed mores , 
 'Turn and become' [crTpaipijTE Kal yiv-qaBe) is in Ml. only. 
 
XIX. 16] THROUGH PER^A TO JERUSALEM 263 
 
 it was natural to take the teaching about children after the 
 teaching about marriage, and that leaves the subject of riches 
 to come last, which is also its right place in logical order. 
 There is, however, yet another point of connexion between the 
 teaching respecting children and the teaching respecting wealth. 
 They supplement one another. The children, like the toll- 
 collector in the parable, were nearer the Kingdom than they 
 could suppose themselves to be. The rich man, like the 
 Pharisee, was farther from it than he supposed himself to be. 
 In the preference shown to the children, those who could not 
 be harmed by being exalted were exalted ; in the humiliation of 
 the rich man, one who could be benefited by being abased was 
 abased. 
 
 The subject of this narrative is often called "the rich young 
 ruler." Lk. alone says that he was a 'ruler' (ap^uiv) ; Mt. alone 
 suggests that he was ' young ' (vean'o-Kos). We do not know 
 what Lk. means by S.p)(wv. It may be an inference from his 
 great wealth, that he was a leading man in society. Mt., who 
 omits ' from my youth ' after ' All these things have I observed,' 
 may merely have substituted ' the young man ' (6 viavla-KO'i) for 
 ' from my youth ' {Ik viOT-qros jxov) : for it is in this verse (20), 
 and not at the outset, that he calls him 'the young man.'i 
 But the man's action in running up and kneeling to Jesus (Mk.) 
 indicates youthful eagerness, and his behaviour throughout 
 harmonizes well with the common view that he was young. 
 
 In this narrative we have for the first time the expression 
 'eternal life' ({w^ atcoVios), which is far more frequent in Jn. 
 than in the Synoptists. See Dalman, Words, p. 156. 
 
 As Mt. omitted Christ's entering into the house after the 
 discussion on divorce with the Pharisees, he here omits that 
 ' He was going forth into the way ' when the rich man came to 
 Him. This is of small moment ; but in what follows we have 
 one of the most remarkable of Mt.'s divergences from the 
 narrative of Mk. The fact that Mk. is here supported by Lk. 
 may mean no more than that Lk. copied Mk., but even that 
 shows that, at any rate, Lk. knew of no reason for differing from 
 Mk. And, judged on its own merits, the narrative of Mk. has 
 the appearance of being original, while the differences in Mt. 
 look like deliberate alterations. On the one hand we have : 
 ' Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life ? 
 And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou Me good ? None is 
 good save one, even God' (Mk., Lk.). This is quite simple and 
 intelUgible. We have a natural form of address, a naturally 
 
 ^ It is, however, to be noted that veavlaKos is not necessarily a lad ; a. 
 man of 30 or 35 might be so called. Therefore a veavicrKos might say ' from 
 my youth ' without absurdity. 
 
264 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XIX. 17 
 
 worded question, and an answer which exactly fits the form of 
 address. On the other hand we have : ' Master, what good 
 thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And He said 
 to him, Why askest thou Me concerning that which is good? 
 One there is who is good' (Mt.). Here the epithet 'good' has 
 been transferred from the address, where it is in place, to the 
 question, where it is superfluous. Of course, any action that 
 could win eternal life must be a good action. Moreover, the 
 reply does not fit the question, although ' good ' has been 
 inserted into the question in order to prepare for the reply. 
 The rich man had not asked about good in the abstract, and 
 ' One there is who is good ' is irrelevant. To say that God 
 alone is good is much to the point, when some one else has 
 been called good ; but the statement is out of place, when this 
 has not been done, but merely a question has been asked about 
 the good conduct which wins eternal life. 
 
 Justin Martyr twice quotes the passage, with variations from both 
 Gospels and from himself. "When one came to Him and said, Good 
 Master, He answered saying, None is good but God alone who made all 
 things" (Apol. i. 16); and again; "When one was saying to Him, Good 
 Master, He answered, Why callest thou Me good? One is good, even My 
 Father which is in heaven" {Try. loi). In the Clementine Hotnilies we 
 have : " Do not call Me good, for one is good, even the Father in heaven " 
 (xviii. 3). And this addition of 'the Father in heaven' is found also in 
 Irenjeus, of the Marcosians (I. xx. 2). But the form of question, ' Master, 
 what good thing shall I do ? ' is found in a fragment of the Gospel according 
 to the Hebrews quoted by a Latin translator of Origen's Commentary on 
 Matthew. The opening words of the fragment would lead one to suppose 
 that in this Gospel two rich men approached our Lord on this occasion. 
 " The c/Ai;?- of the rich men said to Him, Master what good thing shall I 
 do and live? (Dixit ad eum alter divitiiiii, Magister, quid bonum faciens 
 vivam}) He said to him, Man, perform the Law and the Prophets (comp. 
 Mt. vii. 12, xxii. 40). He answered Him, I have performed them. He 
 said to him, Go, sell all that thou hast and distribute to the poor, and come, 
 follow Me. But the rich man began to scratch his head, and it pleased him 
 not. And the Lord said to him, How sayest thou, I have performed the 
 Law and the Prophets, seeing that it is written in the Law, Thou shalt love 
 thy neighbour as thyself, and behold many of thy brethren, sons of Abraham, 
 are clad with dung, dying of hunger, and thy house is full of many good 
 things, and there goeth not out at all anything from it to them. And He 
 turned and said to Simon His disciple, sitting by Him, Simon son of John, 
 it is easier for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle than for a rich 
 man into the Kingdom of heaven." 
 
 These are not the only reasons for believing that Mk., who 
 is certainly prior to Mt, has here got the original narrative, 
 from which Mt. has intentionally diverged.^ It is quite easy to 
 see why Mt. has made these alterations. He could not bring 
 himself to record that Jesus said, ' Why callest thou Me good ? 
 
 ' Somewhat illogically he has left eh and ayaBdi unchanged ; it should 
 be iv and 6,ya66v : ' one thing is good.' 
 
XIX. 17, 18] THROUGH PER^A TO JERUSALEM 265 
 
 None is good save one, even God.' We have seen how readily 
 he omits anything which seems to detract from the Divine 
 nature of the Messiah, such as His asliing for information or 
 exhibiting human emotion, and how he loves to emphasize the 
 wonderful features in His mighty works. Such a writer would 
 feel that our Lord's reply, as recorded by Mk., was likely to 
 mislead, and was not likely to be correctly worded ; he therefore 
 substitutes what seems to him to be more probable. It is less 
 easy to see why Mt. has dropped the common expression 
 ' inherit eternal life ' for the less figurative ' have eternal life.' 
 
 The divergencies of Mt. from Mk. have caused much confusion in the 
 text. In later authorities the text of Mt. has been in various ways 
 assimilated to that of Mk. See WH. ii. App. pp. 14, 15 ; Salmon, The 
 Human Element, pp. 398-403. 
 
 The explanation of ' Why callest thou Me good ? None is 
 good save one, even God ' belongs to the commentator on Mk. 
 (see Swete). Suffice to say here that Jesus was neither 
 questioning His own sinlessness, nor intimating that the rich 
 man ought not to call Him good unless he recognized Him as 
 Divine. The rich man could not have appreciated either of 
 these points. Rather, He turns his thoughts from his own 
 inadequate standard of what may win eternal life to the standard 
 of the Divine Goodness. Not any one act, however supremely 
 excellent, can secure eternal life, but only excellence of 
 character.! As the most generally known summary of what that 
 character should be, Jesus refers him to the commandments, in 
 which God has revealed His will. This last point is more 
 clearly brought out in Mt. than in Mk. ' If thou wilt enter into 
 life, keep the commandments.' Mt. alone represents the man 
 as needing to ask, 'What kind (Troi'a?) of commandments? ' ^ 
 And he alone makes him ask, 'What lack I yet?' It almost 
 looks as if Mt. had formed an unfavourable opinion of the rich 
 man, and that this colours his narrative. 
 
 Mt. agrees with Mk. as to the order of the commandments, 
 which is that familiar to ourselves : ' Thou shalt not kill. Thou 
 shalt not commit adultery.' But Lk., in agreement with Cod. 
 B in Deut. v. 17, reverses this order, as also does S. Paul in 
 Rom. xlii. 9 (also the Nash Papyrus) ; and both Philo {De 
 
 ^ The rich man is at the old legal standpoint, that he has to do some- 
 thing, not that he has to be something. Yet it is a step in advance that he 
 recognizes that mere abstention from transgression is not enough. 
 
 ^ Perhaps he expected some new commandments of special requirements. 
 But it is not certain that irofas here has its full force : it perhaps means no 
 more than 'Which?' See Blass, p. 172. In 'What lack I yet?' (ti ?ti 
 {uTTepw ;) Mt. transfers to the rich man Christ's 'One thing thou lackest' 
 {^v (re ij(TTepeZ). 
 
266 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XIX. 19, 20 
 
 Decalogo, 24 and 32) and Tertullian (^De Pudic. 5) base an 
 argument on the fact that adultery is forbidden before murder 
 is forbidden. S. James (ii. 11) seems also to have had this 
 order.i That Lk. should agree with S. Paul in such a matter 
 is not surprising. All three accounts represent our Lord as 
 placing the fifth commandment last. This may be for the 
 sake of emphasis, because it had been so habitually evaded by 
 the device of Corban (xv. 4, 5). This rich man had no doubt 
 previously consulted the official teachers upon the question 
 which he put to Jesus, and had evidently not been satisfied 
 with their answers. Of course, they would insist on the ten 
 commandments as the rule of hfe, and Jesus in doing the same 
 reminds him of the paramount importance of the duty to parents. 
 
 Mt. here makes a surprising addition to the quotations 
 from the decalogue : 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; 
 an addition which is wanting both in Mk. and Lk. Mt. has it 
 again, xxii. 39 = Mk. xii. 31 = Lk. x. 27, where Christ gives 
 it as a summary of the second table of the commandments. 
 It comes from Lev. xix. 18; comp. Mt. vii. 12. It is not 
 likely that it was spoken on this occasion. The rich man, 
 though superficial and self-seeking in his desire to obtain 
 eternal life, is really in earnest about himself; and if Christ 
 had added, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,' he 
 would hardly have replied so readily, ' All these have I 
 observed.' He could say that quite honestly with regard to 
 the letter of the five commandments which Jesus had quoted. 
 
 Was he relieved that Christ required no more from him 
 than these familiar duties? Or was he disappointed that 
 Jesus had nothing more inspiring to give him than what he 
 had often heard from the Scribes ? Perhaps he expected, and 
 even hoped, to be told of some difficult task which his great 
 wealth would enable him to accomplish. Even if he never 
 said, 'What lack I yet?,'^ his statement about his past amounts 
 to an invitation to Christ to say something more. Is one who 
 keeps the commandments sure of eternal life ? And our Lord 
 at once responds to the invitation. He neither confirms nor 
 contradicts the man's estimate of his past life. Granting that 
 it is all true, there is still something wanting, — freedom from the 
 fascinations of 'the deceitfulness of riches' (xiii. 22). Can he 
 liberate himself from these toils ? 
 
 Both Mt. (see above on ver. 14) and Lk. omit the intensely 
 
 ' As to the form of the prohibitions, Lk. agrees with Mk. in having ^1.7] 
 
 <f)oi'Cv(Tris, /f.r.X., while Mt. follows the Septuagint in Exod. xx. and Dent. v. 
 
 in having ov (poveiiaeis, k.t.X. Mt. commonly assimilates the quotations in 
 
 Mk. to the Septuagint. See Swete, Introduction to the Septuagint, p. 234. 
 
 - In Mk. X. 21 it is Christ who says to him, 'One thing thou lackest ' 
 {iv ae varepd) ; in Lk. xviii. 22, In iv (roi XelTrei. 
 
XIX. 21,22] THROUGH PER^A TO JERUSALEM 267 
 
 interesting statement of Mk. that 'Jesus looking upon him 
 loved him.'i The look was a penetrating look, recognizing in 
 the man much that was good and lovable along with much 
 that was otherwise, and the record of it is the touch of an 
 eye-witness. It comes from one who knew from personal 
 experience how penetrating a look from Christ could be 
 (Lk. xxii. 61); and the same compound verb (e/x/3AeVeiv) is 
 used both there and here. Jesus sees enough in the rich 
 man's character to make Him yearn to have him as a per- 
 manent disciple. Here was a conscientious observer of the 
 Law, who, nevertheless, was not quite satisfied with himself, 
 and who at times had misgivings that he was not doing all 
 that God required of him. Would he be equal to doing what 
 would be necessary, if he was to become a follower of Christ? 
 
 Mt., having anticipated, ' One thing thou lackest,' substitutes 
 for it 'If thou wouldest be perfect'; but in what follows the 
 three reports agree (21). There are two parts in the reply 
 given to the man : one to sell and give to the poor, the other 
 to follow Christ ; and the one is preparatory to the other. The 
 first is the direct answer to the man's question, ' What must I 
 do to inherit eternal life ? ' This is manifest from the promise, 
 ' and thou shalt have treasure in heaven,' which evidently refers 
 to inheriting eternal life. When the man has freed himself from 
 the ties which bind him to earth, he will have entered the 
 narrow gate and the straitened way which lead unto life (vii. 14), 
 and will be ready to follow the ' Good Master.' 
 
 How are we to regard this charge to sell everything and 
 give to the poor? Was it a mere test for that particular 
 questioner, to see whether he was equal to the good report 
 which he had given of himself? Was it a rule for him and for 
 all who would live the highest life? a so-called 'counsel of 
 perfection ' ? Was it simply a condescension to the man's own 
 point of view? He wanted to do some heroic act to secure 
 eternal life : let him give all his riches to the poor. It is quite 
 certain that our Lord could not have meant that either he or 
 any one else can win eternal life by any such act. Our Lord 
 does not promise him that. He tells him that in heaven he 
 shall have treasure to compensate for what he has sacrificed in 
 this world, but He does not say that the sacrifice will secure 
 admission to heaven. 2 The charge to make the sacrifice was 
 the medicine which the man's soul required. He had too 
 
 '■ Other points in which Mt. and Lk. agree against Mk. are in the 
 omission of ' Do not defraud,' and in the substitution of 'heard' {a.Kovaa.%) 
 for ' his countenance fell ' [aTvyvaaa-i). 
 
 ^ Comp. ' Bestow thy treasure according to the commandments of the 
 Most High, and it shall profit thee more than gold' (Ecclus. xxix. 11). 
 
268 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XIX. 22 
 
 much attachment to wealth and the things which wealth can 
 buy, and he had too little sympathy with the poor. The hard, 
 self-denying life of a follower of Jesus was the bracing that 
 was needed to make a really noble character. Hitherto his 
 virtues had been negative rather than positive. He had been 
 free from gross sins, but he had had no lofty ideal. To live 
 with Jesus Christ, and learn of Him, would be the best cure 
 for that, and would lead to eternal life. 
 
 We must not overlook the fact, however, that the Lord's 
 last word to him was not a charge, but an invitation : ' Come, 
 Follow Me.' We may reverently believe that the man's own 
 good was not the sole motive for Christ's treatment of him. 
 Jesus really wanted him. He saw in him the making of another 
 Apostle, a Barnabas, if not a Paul ; and He longed to have 
 the strengthening of this lovable, but weak character. For 
 His own sake, as well as for the man's. He gave him that 
 affectionate look and asked him to come. 
 
 ' He went away sorrowful ' (XuTroiJ/itvos),'- because of the 
 greatness of the demand, perhaps also because of the weakness 
 of his own will. He had not expected so stern a reply, and 
 he had not expected to be unequal to anything that the Good 
 Teacher would require. But we are not told that he was 
 indignant, or made any angry reply. He went back to the 
 wealth which had not satisfied him before, and which would 
 satisfy him still less now ; and perhaps the good seed was in 
 the end not wholly choked by the deceitfulness of riches. 
 
 " The self-sacrifice which the Lord imposed on this wealthy 
 enquirer asserts in principle the duty of the rich to minister 
 to the poor ; the particular form which this ministry must take 
 varies with the social conditions of the age " (Swete). In this 
 age experience has taught us that giving money or food or 
 clothing to the poor often does more harm than good ; but 
 that fact does not justify the comfortable doctrine that those 
 who have wealth may keep it to spend upon themselves. It 
 is still as true as ever it was that the way to eternal life is self- 
 sacrifice, and that readiness for complete surrender is the one 
 condition of true discipleship. Disciples who may come upon 
 their own terms (viii. 21) are easily won, and easily lost. If 
 Christ had lowered the terms for the sake of gaining this man 
 and his wealth, He might for a time have had one more 
 enthusiastic follower, with the risk of having later a second Judas.^ 
 
 ^ Comp. dKoucras raOra iXvirrjdTj [Sijueon ii. 10). 
 
 ' The treatise known as Who is the Rich Man that is saved? (t/s 6 
 (Twfii/xei'os TrXoiJtrio! ;), by Clement of Alexandria, is commended as an excel- 
 lent patristic exposition of the teaching conveyed by this incident in reference 
 to the problems of modern life. It is "simple, eloquent, and just" 
 (Westcott). See Swete, Patristic Study, p. 49. 
 
XIX. 83-25] THROUGH PER^A TO JERUSALEM 269 
 
 All three Evangelists record certain comments which our 
 Lord made upon the rich man's refusal to comply with His 
 counsel : and here again the deviations of Mt. (23-30) from 
 Mk. (x. 23-31) are of great interest. Mt. both abbreviates and 
 augments Mk. In his chief omission he is followed by Lk., 
 but not in his chief insertion (28). The chief omission is the 
 disciples' amazement at Christ's words (about the difficulty for 
 a rich man to enter the Kingdom) and His reply to their 
 amazement : ' Children, how hard is it [for them that trust in 
 riches] to enter into the Kingdom of God' (Mk. x. 24). The 
 words in brackets are probably an early insertion, as the evidence 
 of N B and other witnesses shows, and it is not probable that 
 our Lord uttered them. They do not give the right kind of 
 explanation of the hard sayings. What is needed, if trusting 
 in riches is to be mentioned, is of this kind : ' How hard is it 
 for those who have riches not to trust in their riches ; and ye 
 cannot trust in God and in Mammon.' It is impossible for 
 those who trust in riches to enter the Kingdom. The saying 
 without the words in brackets gives a much more probable 
 explanation. It is hard for any one to enter the Kingdom 
 (vii. 13, 14), and therefore specially hard for the rich. That 
 Mt. knew of this second statement of the case is shown by the 
 ' again,' which comes from Mk. 
 
 Both the 'camel' and the 'needle's eye' are to be under- 
 stood literally. "To contrast the largest beast of burden known 
 in Palestine with the smallest of artificial apertures is quite in 
 the manner of Christ's proverbial sayings " (Swete). Comp. 
 'Strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.' It is not necessary 
 to suggest that ' camel ' may mean a rope, or that the ' needle's 
 eye ' was a name sometimes given to a small side-gate for foot- 
 passengers.i Shakespeare combines the two ideas : — 
 
 "It is as hard to come, as for a camel 
 To thread the postern of a small needle's eye." 
 
 Richard ir., v. v. 16, 17. 
 
 But he is taking the needle's eye literally, as we may believe 
 that Christ did. 
 
 Here Mt. follows Mk. in recording the astonishment of the 
 disciples (25). 'Who then can be saved,' if rich men cannot? 
 Possibly the Twelve still had the belief that earthly' prosperity 
 is a sign of piety, for God has promised to bless the substance 
 of the religious man. But, in any case, experience had taught 
 them that nearly all men either possess wealth or strive to possess 
 it. If, therefore, to be wealthy is to be excluded from the 
 Kingdom, who can be saved? 
 
 ■^ No ancient expositor adopts this method of explanation, 
 
270 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XIX. 26, 27 
 
 Once more we have Christ's penetrating look (t/x/3A.€'t//as), 
 which this time Mt. does not omit (25). Man cannot, but 
 God can, break the spell which wealth exercises over the 
 wealthy. He had done it in Matthew's case ; He would do 
 it in that of Zacchasus (Lk. xix. i-io). May we believe that 
 the rich young man was lingering near enough to hear this, — 
 that though he could not free himself, yet God might still free 
 him ? It is possible that these comments of Christ were partly 
 meant for him. His great mistake had been in supposing that 
 he could with his own powers do what was required to gain 
 eternal life. Peter characteristically takes up the conversation 
 on behalf of the Twelve. He would like to be sure that what 
 God alone can do has been done in their case. They left all 
 that they possessed, and followed Him; are they on the road 
 to the Kingdom? He asks no question, but his statement 
 evidently invites a reply, and Mt. interprets it as asking, ' What 
 then shall we get ? ' ^ 
 
 In the reply to this Mt. makes his chief addition to the 
 report in Mk. ' Ye which have followed Me, in the regeneration 
 when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of His glory, ye 
 also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of 
 Israel.' Lk. has no such words here, but has a similar saying 
 xxii. 30.2 The meaning in both places seems to be the same. 
 The disciples had shared the privations of the Messiah, and 
 they would share the glories of His Kingdom. They had joined 
 with Him in proclaiming this Kingdom to Israel, and they will 
 join with Him in having royal power in Israel, sharing His rule 
 over all those who have received the good tidings respecting the 
 Kingdom; comp. x. 6, xii. 41, 42. And the generous return 
 for all that has been sacrificed in this world for Christ's sake 
 (x. 39, xvi. 25) is not confined to the Twelve. '■Every one' 
 who for His Name's sake has given up what is most dear to 
 him, shall receive a hundredfold in return. In Mk. and Lk. 
 it is expressly stated that this hundredfold compensation will 
 be made in this world {iv tu Kaip^ touVo)) in addition to eternal 
 life in the world to come. But in Mt. nothing is said about 
 this world ; the whole reward is regarded as taking place ' in the 
 
 ^ ' What then shall be our reward ? ' is the exact force of the question. 
 
 ^ Very possibly Lk. has the historical context, and Mt. , as often, has put 
 together sayings on the same subject, independently of the time of utterance. 
 'Judging' does not mean sentencing the wicked, which would be painful 
 work, and no reward, but ruling the good. Comp. Judg. iii. 10, x. 2, 3, 
 xii. 9, II, 13, 14, etc.; also Book of Enoch: "When they see that Son 
 of Man sitting on the throne of His glory" (Ixii. 5); "I will bring forth 
 clad in shining light those who have loved My holy Name, and I will seat 
 each on the throne of his honour" (cviii. 12). Comp. the Testament of 
 Judah XXV. I . 
 
XIX. 29, 30] THROUGH PER^A TO JERUSALEM 27 1 
 
 regeneration.' Consequently Mt. omits 'with persecutions,' for 
 if the manifold recompense is transferred to a future life, there 
 can be no thought of persecutions. 'The regeneration' means 
 the new Genesis, the creating of a new heaven and a new earth, 
 as was expected by the Jews. As ' of the dead ' is commonly 
 to be understood after 'the resurrection,' so 'of all things' or 
 'of the universe' is to be understood after 'the regeneration' 
 (rj TraAivyfi/ccna). Comp. Is. Ixvi. 22; Rev. xxi. i, 5. But 
 even in Mt. the ' hundredfold ' (or ' manyfold,' B L and other 
 witnesses) is not identified with 'eternal life.'^ The latter 
 refers to the man himself, the former to his environment. 
 
 After 'or father, or mother,' X C K X and Syr-Cur. add 'or wife,' which 
 is found in Lk. xviii. 29, but not in Mk. x. 29. It is probably not genuine 
 here, but might have been omitted in B D, Syr-Sin. and Old Lat. because 
 of the childish idea, mentioned by Jerome, that it seemed to imply that the 
 man was to have a hundred wives in the regeneration. As if the preceding 
 words implied that he was to have a hundred fathers and a hundred mothers ! 
 He has sacrificed joys of kinship in this world ; he will be repaid a hundred- 
 fold in the next. Mt.'s omission of iv T<f /caipc^ to6to> (Mk., Lk.) is re- 
 markable. 
 
 The saying ' first being last and last being first ' (30) is 
 found here in Mt. and Mk. But Lk. omits it here and has 
 it in a different context in xiii. 30, while Mt. repeats it in 
 
 XX. 16. We infer that it was a saying which our Lord uttered 
 more than once. Like so many of His sayings, it is capable 
 of various applications. ^ In this place we may interpret it in 
 two ways. We may refer back to the rich man who had such 
 a leading position and say, that many who in this world are 
 ranked among the first will hereafter be among the last, because 
 they were unwilling to sacrifice temporal advantages to gain 
 eternal life ; while many, who by surrendering everything here 
 have placed themselves among the last, will hereafter be found 
 among the first. Or, we may refer to the more immediate 
 context of Peter's remark (27) and regard the saying as a 
 rebuke to his self-complacency. Self-sacrifice is excellent, but 
 it must be accompanied by humility. To plume oneself upon 
 having surrendered everything is to vitiate everything. Spiritual 
 pride is fatal, and even Apostles must remember that there will 
 
 ' There is a similar difference of reading in the Testaments: " He that 
 shareth with his neighbour {fieraSidovs, as in Lk. iii. 11) receiveth manyfold 
 more from the Lord" (Zebulon vi. 6); where some texts read eirTa,iT\auiov 
 for Tr6KKaT\a.(rlova. See Dalman, ll'ords, p. 67. Here, as in xvi. 25, Mt. 
 omits 'and for the Gospel's sake,' probably as being superfluous. All three 
 are different here, and perhaps 'for My sake' {Ivckiv i/xov) was the original 
 of all. 
 
 ^ It laay be applied to Jews and Gentiles having their positions reversed ; 
 but that is not the meaning here. 
 
272 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XX. 1 
 
 be many who will equal them in self-sacrifice and in devotion 
 to Christ. The parable which follows seems to fit the second 
 of these interpretations. " St. Peter had attempted to stipulate 
 for a reward for the sacrifices which he and his brethren had 
 made ; and he is taught by this parable that, while every promise 
 made would be amply fulfilled, yet they who had made no 
 stipulation might receive a greater reward" (Salmon, The Human 
 Element, p. 417). The reward is open to all true workers for 
 Christ without distinction. To have been earliest in the field 
 confers no exclusive right to special blessings. 
 
 If there is this close connexion between these verses (27-30) 
 and the parable which follows them, then the division of the 
 chapters here is singularly unfortunate. But the evil has been 
 remedied in our present Lectionary, for these verses and the 
 parable are read in Church as one lesson (4 Feb. and 6 Aug.). 
 
 Characteristic expressions in ch. xix. : &pi.a(\), iKet(2), irponipxeuSaii'^, 16), 
 Tvpo(r(pipei.v (13), iropeueaffM (15), iKfWtv (15), Kai l5ov (16), $7]cravp6s (2l), 
 iT(p6Spa (25), rdre (13, 27), ISoii (27). Peculiar: r/ fiacriXcla twv ovpavuv (12, 
 14, 23) ; peculiar to this chapter : fxeralpeiv (i), evvovx^t^tv (12 dzs). 
 
 Again we have instances of Mt. having the aorist where Mk. has the 
 imperfect: TpoaiivixSriaav, iTreTlfiyjaav (13), for Trpo(ri<pepov, iTreTi/j,wi> (Mk. 
 X. 13). Comp. iirtTlixriaev, iKpa^av, -qKoKovBrjcrav (xx. 31, 34) for ^Trerlfuiiy, 
 ^Kpa^ev, 7}Ko\ov6eL (Mk. x. 48, 52). 
 
 XX. 1-16. T/te Labourers in the Vineyard. 
 
 This parable almost rivals that of the Unrighteous Steward 
 in the number of difficulties which have been found in it, and 
 in the number of interpretations which have been suggested for 
 it.i In both cases difficulties have been imported into the 
 parable by insisting upon making the details mean something. 
 In each case there is one main lesson conveyed by the story, 
 and everything else is mere background and frame for the 
 picture. It may be lawful to suggest meanings for the features 
 in the background and the frame ; but we must not insist on 
 these as being intended as lessons, and we need not be surprised 
 if these interpretations of details lead us into perplexity. The 
 lesson of the Unrighteous Steward is that we must use temporal 
 blessings to win eternal life. If an unrighteous steward was 
 commended by his earthly master for his prudence in providing 
 for his future by a fraudulent use of what had been committed 
 to him, how much more will a righteous servant be rewarded 
 by his heavenly Master for providing for eternity by a good use 
 of what has been committed to him ? In this parable the 
 meaning is equally simple. God keeps His promises to those 
 who serve Him, but He remains Master in His own world, 
 
 ' See Sanday, Expositor, 1st series, iii. pp. 82-101, 
 
XX. 1-16] THROUGH PER.'EA TO JERUSALEM 273 
 
 He is the sole judge of what each servant ought to receive. 
 No one receives less than has been promised, but many 
 receive more ; and in these uncovenanted awards there is much 
 that, in man's eyes, seems to be unfair. But 'God sees not 
 as man seeth'; and 'shall not the Judge of all the earth do 
 right ? ' 
 
 There is no need to find a separate meaning for those who 
 were called at the different hours of the day. An agreement 
 was made with those who were hired early ; the others trusted 
 to the householder's fairness. And at the time of payment only 
 those with whom an agreement had been made, and kept, found 
 fault. It is implied that the others were well satisfied with re- 
 ceiving full pay. We have, therefore, only two classes to 
 consider : those who came early, and those who came later ; 
 or, those who grumbled, and those who did not. 
 
 As to the householder's fairness, there can be no question. 
 He kept faith with those who made an agreement with him, and 
 he was the sole Judge of what the work of the others was worth 
 to him. Time was precious, and labour became increasingly 
 valuable as the day went on. Fresh and vigorous workers would 
 be specially valuable. But the best of those who came late could 
 not claim more that a full day's wage, and the householder did 
 not think it fair to pay less. It is quite possible that considera- 
 tions of this kind may enter into the distribution of spiritual 
 rewards ; but all that the parable teaches is that to have entered 
 God's service early gives no claim to more than He has promised, 
 and that it ill becomes a servant of His to question His justice. 
 The parable takes no account of those who deliberately postpone 
 entering God's service in order to shorten the work to be done 
 for Him. All the labourers came as soon as they were called ; 
 and of those who came last it is expressly stated that they had 
 had no previous opportunity of working, 
 
 There is no difficulty in the thought that some, who are really 
 God's servants and work for Him, at times murmur against Him. 
 The argument, if they were members of the Kmgdom, they would 
 not murmur, and if they murmured, they could not have been 
 members of the Kingdom, is not valid. Even Apostles murmured 
 at times. 
 
 There is more difficulty as to the way in which the words 
 which precede the parable as a text, and conclude it like a moral, 
 are to be fitted to it. How does the parable illustrate the saying 
 about the last being first, and the first last? It is quite in- 
 adequate to say that those who began to work last were paid 
 first. That trifling advantage has no meaning in the parable. 
 It was necessary for the development of the story that those with 
 whom an agreement had been made should be paid after the 
 18 
 
274 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XX. 15, 16 
 
 Others. If they had been paid first and sent away, there could 
 have been no murmuring ; and the murmuring is needed to bring 
 out the lesson. Neander maintains that " the words, ' The last 
 shall be first, and the first last' cannot possibly be Xho. punctum 
 saliefis of the parable ; in it the last are not preferred to the first " 
 {Life of Christ, § 240, p. 385). But the words say nothing about 
 the last htmg preferred to the first; they say that the one shall 
 be as the other. We are not to understand that the first and the 
 last are to change places, but that they are to be on an equality, 
 the one being treated as the other is treated. In the distribution 
 of rewards no distinction will be made between first and last. 
 The devoted servant in the twentieth century may equal the 
 devoted servant in the first. The devoted servant of half a 
 lifetime may equal the devoted servant of a whole lifetime. 
 
 No parable can teach all the details of the truth with 
 which it is primarily concerned. It has been objected that the 
 murmurers are not punished for their murmuring ; they receive 
 only a gentle remonstrance, and get their pay just as the others 
 do. But is a rebuke from Him nothing? And, although He 
 inflicts no punishment, yet there is the punishment which they 
 inflict upon themselves. They get the reward that was promised 
 them ; but they have lost the power of enjoying it. The dis- 
 contented are never happy, and jealousy is one of the worst of 
 torments. Heaven is no heaven to those who lack the heavenly 
 temper ; and these murmurers will have no pleasure in their 
 reward, until they can accept it with thankfulness. From this 
 point of view the first and the last may be said to have changed 
 places. Those who came first to the vineyard had the least joy, and 
 those who came last had the most joy, in the reward given to all. 
 
 The parable is instructive in another way in telling us that at that time a 
 denarius was the common wage of a day labourer. The equivalent coin was 
 offered by Tobit as a daily wage (Tob. v. 15), and was evidently meant as a 
 good wage. Therefore (see on xviii. 28), although a denarius contained less 
 silver than a shilling, it must have been equal to two shillings of our money, 
 or even more. For ordinary purposes the denarius and the drachm (Lk. 
 XV. 8) were treated as equivalent, and both were in circulation along; with 
 the tetradrachiii=sliekel (xvii. 24, 27). But the official coin of the Roman 
 Empire was the denarius, and in government business the drachm was only 
 three-quarters of a denarius. See Hastings, DB., art. 'Money,' pp. 427, 
 428 ; Madden, Hist, of Jewish Coinage, pp. 245-247. While the day was 
 divided into hours, the night was divided into watches. We do not read of 
 definite hours of the night. 
 
 'For many are called, but few chosen' (i5) may safely be treated as an 
 interpolation from xxii. 14. The words are an early insertion (C D N, Latt. 
 Syrr. Arm. Aeth., Orig. ); but they are omitted in the best texts (X B L Z, 
 ^-gyP"-' ^"'^ editors). They have no point here with reference either to the 
 parable or to what follows. It illustrates the caprice of the AV. that the 
 saying is translated here, ' For many be called, but few chosen,' and in xxii. 
 14, 'For many are called, but few are chosen.' 
 
XX. 13-18] THROUGH PER^EA TO JERUSALEM 275 
 
 In ver. 13 there are two differences of reading which are not often noticed. 
 For oiiK aSiKu ue Syr-Cur. has /htj dSUeL fie, ' Do me no wrong,' or perhaps 
 'Trouble me not' (Lk. xi. 7); and for am€(l>iii>-r)(Ti.s 11.01 (N BCDN etc.) 
 various authorities have avv^fnivriad croi (L Z 33, Syr-Sin. Sah. Copt.). 
 Comp. Jn. viii. 57, where for 'hast Thou seen Abraham' (A B C D etc.) a 
 few ancient authorities read 'hath Abraham seen Thee' [H, Syr-Sin. Sah.). 
 Nestle, Textual Criticism, p. 254. 
 
 With ver. 15 comp. Prov. xxiii. 6, 7, with Toy's notes ; Pirqe Aboth, 
 ii. 13, 15, with Taylor's notes; and with the parable as a whole comp. 
 "Faithful is the Master of thy work, who will pay thee the reward of thy 
 work ; and know that the recompense of the reward of the righteous is for 
 the time to come" {Pirqe Aboth, ii. 19). 
 
 XX. 17-19. Repeated Announcement of the Passion. 
 
 This is commonly called the third announcement, but it is 
 the fourth of those which are recorded (xvi. 21, xvii. 12, 22), and 
 there may have been others. As usual (viii. 27 = Mk. iv. 41 ; 
 xvii. 4 = Mk. ix. 5, 6 ; xvii. 23 = Mk. ix. 32 ; xix. 23 = Mk. x. 
 23, 24), Mt. spares the Twelve by omitting their astonishment 
 and fear. Mk. here says : ' Jesus was going before them : and 
 they were amazed ; and they that followed were afraid. ' Lk. 
 follows Mt. in omitting this, and probably for the same reason ; 
 but in Mk. we have Peter's recollection of his personal 
 experience. ' They that followed ' perhaps includes more than 
 the Apostles, and this would explain Christ's taking the Twelve 
 apart (xar iSt'av) ; the others who were following were not to 
 hear this last prediction of what was to befall Him at Jerusalem. 
 In Mt. the taking apart is not explained, for we are not told that 
 any but the Twelve were present. Nowhere is the amazement 
 (ida/jiPovvTo) of the Twelve or the fear of those who followed 
 explained : we may suppose that there was something in our 
 Lord's manner, as He walked on in front of them, which inspired 
 these feelings. 
 
 Previously Christ had merely said that He ' must ' ( Su, xvi. 
 ji) or 'is about to' (/xe'AAct, xvii. 12, 22) suffer; but now He 
 says that He is actually on His way to the city where this is 
 to take place, and in this sorrowful journey He includes the 
 disciples with Himself: 'we are going up to Jerusalem.' And 
 here He expressly states that, although it is the Sanhedrin who 
 will condemn Him to death, yet it is the Gentiles who will 
 execute the sentence, and thus intimates that He will be 
 crucified and not stoned (Jn. xviii. 31, 32). Consequently, Mt. 
 thinks himself justified in substituting ' crucify ' for ' kill ' ; and 
 he again corrects ' after three days ' into the more accurate ' on 
 the third day'; but contrast xii. 40 and xxvii. 63. Lk. follows 
 Mt. in making this correction. 
 
 All three Evangelists mention that Christ spoke of His going 
 
2/6 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XX. 18-20 
 
 up to Jerusalem for His suffering and death ; and it is possible 
 that He now for the first time mentioned where these amazing 
 things were to take place. Mt. indeed inserts ' go unto 
 Jerusalem' in the first announcement (xvi. 21), but neither Mk. 
 nor Lk. have any mention of the place until now. Yet the 
 statement that He was to suffer in the Holy City would hardly 
 come as a surprise to the Twelve, for they knew that there His 
 chief opponents had their headquarters. ^ It was perhaps the 
 fact that they knew Jerusalem to be so dangerous for Him that 
 caused their amazement when they saw that He was bent upon 
 going thither ; and it was perhaps this same fact which made the 
 sons of Zebedee anxious about their own prospects in the 
 Kingdom, which they believed to be at hand, but the nature of 
 which they still strangely misunderstood. By his favourite 
 ' Then ' {rore) Mt. closely connects their request with the 
 preceding announcement. 
 
 The AV. transfates the same verb (TrapadoSTj<r€Tat, TrapaSiliffouini') 
 differently in vv. 18, 19: 'shall be betrayed unto ' and 'shall deliver Him 
 to'; the RV. has 'shall be delivered unto' and 'shall deliver Him unto.' 
 Similarly, in Mk. ix. 31 the AV. has 'is delivered into the hands,' while in 
 Mt. xvii. 22, which is parallel, it has ' shall be betrayed into the hands ' ; 
 comp. xxvi. 2. ' Deliver up ' is the better translation, the question as to 
 God's delivering Him up as a sacrifice, or Judas's delivering Him up to His 
 foes, being open. 
 
 XX. 20-28. T/ie Request of the Sons of Zebedee. 
 
 It seems strange that soon after the sad announcement which 
 Jesus had just made once more (and this time with more detail 
 as to His approaching sufferings than had been given in the 
 earlier predictions), two of His most intimate disciples should 
 trouble Him with a petition for their own advancement in the 
 Kingdom which He is about to inaugurate. It is impossible 
 that, after Peter's remonstrance and Christ's stern rebuke of him 
 for it (xvi. 22, 23), two of those who had been with Him on the 
 Mount and had received a special announcement of the Passion 
 (xvii. 12), should still be in ignorance as to what that prediction, 
 which had just been repeated, meant. But they had recently 
 been confirmed in their ideas about the Kingdom by the 
 declaration that they were to sit on thrones and rule the tribes of 
 Israel (xix. 28), and they had not forgotten that. Once more 
 the question arises as to who are to be greatest among these 
 
 ■ In xvi. 21 and xvii. 22, 23 there is less detail than here. Here Mt. omits 
 the spitting, though he records it as having taken place (xxvi. 67, xxvii. 30), 
 while Lk., who does not record it, mentions it here (xviii. 32). In xvii. 22 
 the betrayal is added, and here other details are added : it is probable that 
 the prediction became more definite as His hour drew nearer. 
 
XX. 20-22] THROUGH PER^A TO JERUSALEM 277 
 
 rulers, and James and John believe that their prospects are good. 
 They are nearly related to the Messiah, for their mother Salome 
 was the sister of His Mother (comp. xxvii. 56 with Mk. xv. 40 
 and Jn. xix. 25). This, combined with their special intimacy 
 with Him, ought to give them some preference. 
 
 It must remain doubtful whether Mk. is more exact in saying 
 that the two brothers made the petition in person, or Mt. in 
 saying that they acted through their mother. Mt. may have 
 believed that it was their mother's doing, and that it would be 
 more creditable to the two Apostles to express this belief, in 
 spite of Mk.'s silence respecting her share of the transaction : ^ 
 or he may have had independent information. His story is the 
 more credible of the two. It is more likely that a mother's 
 ambition would take the lead in such a matter than that the two 
 brothers should do so. But we may believe that all three were 
 in unison about it. Our Lord's question about the cup assumes 
 that the brothers know what their mother has been asking. If, 
 for obvious reasons, they let His Mother's sister plead their 
 cause, He makes His appeal to them, not through her, but 
 direct. 
 
 Neither mother nor sons had considered that the sufferings 
 and death which the Messiah predicted for Himself were the 
 road to the Kingdom. He must suffer in order to reign. Still 
 less had they considered that those who desired to reign with 
 Him must be ready to suffer with Him. Hence they did not 
 know what they were asking, when they begged to have their 
 thrones nearest to His. This He proceeds to bring home to 
 them. In language which recalls the ' cup of God's fury ' (Is. li. 
 17, 22; comp. Jer. xlix. 12), He asks whether they are able to 
 drink of the cup which He is about to drink ; and they at once 
 reply that they are able (22).^ As in the case of the rich man's 
 profession of obedience to the commandments (xix. 20), our 
 Lord does not question the brothers' confident profession of 
 courage (comp. xxvi. 35), nor does He blame it ; nor again does 
 He deny that there will be differences of rank in the Kingdom. 
 
 ' "There is the possibility that at the time when S. Matthew's Gospel 
 was published, the consideration in the Church of James and John was so 
 high that there was a desire to throw some of the responsibility for this 
 demand from the Apostles on their mother" (Salmon, p. 420). Possibly this 
 feeling caused Lk. to omit the incident altogether. On the change from 
 active (a^roO<ro, 20) to middle {aiTeTirBe, 22) see J. H. IMoulton, Gram, of 
 N. T. Gr. p. 160. 
 
 ^ The true text of Mt. omits the parallel about ' the baptism that I am 
 baptized with,' either as being mere repetition, or possibly as being some- 
 what obscure. But the picture of suffering as an overwhelming flood is 
 common (Ps. Ixi.'c. i, 2, cxxiv. 3, 4), and Christ had used the metaphor 
 of l^aptism before (Lk. xii. 50). Mt. inserts niWo: to make the cup refer 
 to Gethsemane. 
 
278 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XX. 23, 24 
 
 With regard to the former, He tells them that their profession 
 will be realized ; and, with regard to the latter, that it rests with 
 the Father to dispose of the honours of the Kingdom. 
 
 The prediction with regard to their sharing His cup was 
 fulfilled respecting James, when he was put to death by Herod 
 Agrippa i., a.d. 44 (Acts xii. 2). Respecting John, it was fulfilled 
 in various ways: imprisonment (Acts iv. 3, v. 18), beating 
 (v. 40), and exile (Rev. i. 9). That John, like James, was put 
 to death by the Jews, was perhaps stated by Papias (Georgius 
 Hamartolus and the De Boor fragment), but this looks like an 
 invention to make the fulfilment of Christ's prediction similar in 
 the case of both brothers.^ The stories that he drank poison 
 and was immersed in boiling oil without being harmed cannot be 
 relied upon, though they go back to the second century. 
 
 The reservation respecting the right-hand and left-hand 
 places is rightly rendered in the AV. : ' is not Mine to give, but 
 (it shall be given to those) for whom it has been prepared.' The 
 'but' (aXka) does not mean 'except' (ei yJ)). Christ does not 
 mean that He can only give it to those for whom it is ordained ; 
 but that the assignment is not in His hands, but in those of His 
 Father. To make this quite clear, Mt. adds after ' for whom it 
 has been prepared ' the words ' by My Father,' which is quite in 
 his manner (vii. 21, x. 32, xi. 27, xii. 50, xvi. 17, xviii. 10, 19). 
 On the use of ' prepare ' respecting the Divine counsels see 
 Dalman, IVords, p. 128; Hatch, Biblical Greek, pp. 51-55. 
 With regard to the limitation which our Lord here puts upon 
 His own power we may compare the similar limitations stated 
 Mk. xiii. 32 and Acts i. 7. Here, as there, He makes no 
 revelation as to what the Divine decree is. 
 
 Perhaps the Ten had expected that Christ would reprove 
 the ambition of the sons of Zebedee more severely ; but the 
 attempt to gain an advantage by private solicitation was enough 
 to provoke their indignation against James and John.^ 
 Emulation and jealousy, which had been already rebuked 
 (xviii. I ff.), and perhaps more than once, are still rife among the 
 Apostles. Lk., who omits this incident, transfers Christ's rebuke 
 to one of the discourses which preceded the arrest in Gethsemane 
 (xxii. 24-27). It is not likely that this contrast with Gentile 
 methods of government (25) was made more than once, and the 
 
 1 " There is no sufficient evidence to cast serious doubt on the universal 
 tradition that S. John died peacefully at Ephesus in extreme old age. The 
 attribution to Papias of the statement that John and James were killed by 
 the Jews rests on very slender authority" (J. Arm. Robinson, The Historical 
 Character of Si. John s Gospel, p. 79). 
 
 2 Both at ver. 20 and at ver. 24 Mt. omits the names of the brothers, 
 whereas Mk. gives the names in both places. Mt. alone uses the strange 
 expression ' mother of the sons of Zebedee' ; comp. xxvii. 56. 
 
XX. 25-S8] THROUGH PER^A TO JERUSALEM 279 
 
 occasion given by Mt. and Mk. is more likeiy to be historical 
 than that chosen by Lk. The rebuke to the Ten is as gentle as 
 that to the two brothers, and in substance it resembles that 
 already given (xviii. 2-5). The road to promotion is the road 
 of humility, and he who desires to rule must first learn to serve. 
 This is a complete reversal of the common idea of the relations 
 between ruler and subject ; it is the ruler who has to serve his 
 subjects rather than they him. 
 
 The Gentiles are probably chosen in order to make the 
 contrast between the disciples and other organizations as great 
 as possible. There was not so much difference between Jewish 
 and Gentile potentates as regards the matter in question. In 
 both there was a tendency to despotism. The details of the 
 saying are not quite clear. The meaning seems to be that the 
 Gentiles are tyraijnized over by rulers and their underlings, and 
 that the tyranny of the underlings is worse than that of those 
 who are supreme, the ' them ' in both cases being the Gentiles. 
 The despotism of Emperors and Kings is great, but that of 
 proconsuls and satraps is worse. Yet the second ' them ' might 
 refer to 'the rulers.' Emperors and Kings lord it over the 
 people ; but the proconsuls and satraps manage to control the 
 Emperors and Kings. The former interpretation, however, is 
 more probable. In any case, the extremely rare word used for 
 'exercise authority' (Kartfovcriafeiv) is evidence that Mt. and 
 Mk. cannot be independent of one another. 
 
 'Not so is it among you' (26). Both here and in Mk. 'is' (BDZ) is 
 more probable than ' shall be ' (K C L X). At the moment when Christ spoke, 
 the disciples' frame of mind was that of the Gentiles, and hence there was a 
 temptation to change the present into the future : ' they would learn better 
 in time.' But Christ is speaking of their ideal, of that which He has set 
 before them by His own example ; for He is their Master, yet He serves. 
 The ' is' was quite true of that ideal ; but copyists have altered it into 'shall 
 be ' in order to harmonize with the ' shall be,' twice repeated, which follows. 
 And here again there is confusion of reading in both Gospels between ' shall 
 be ' (i< C D K L M, Latt. ) and ' let him be ' (B E G H S V) ; so in ver. 27. 
 But the evidence is differently distributed in the two Gospels, and also in the 
 two places (26, 27) in this Gospel. 
 
 There is a right kind of emulation in the Kingdom, viz. as 
 to who can be of more service to others. There may be a noble 
 rivalry as to who can most completely devote himself for the 
 benefit of all. And there is no other way of being great or of 
 becoming first. If proof of this is needed, there is the example 
 of the Messiah Himself. On a previous occasion He took a 
 little child as a pattern of temper and spirit ; here He takes His 
 own life as a pattern of action. ' He came not to be ministered 
 unto, but to minister.' Christ does not here speak of Himself 
 as having been sent by His Father to undertake this position 
 
28o GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XX. 26-28 
 
 of ministering to others, although that would have been true. 
 He says, what is equally true, that He came, of His own free 
 will, to do this. The example is in this way made all the 
 stronger. Although unique among the sons of men, yet He 
 came not to profit by their service but to render service to them, 
 even to the full extreme of giving His life as a ransom for them. 
 Here, as in v. 17 and x. 34, the negative description of His 
 aim is not absolute. He allowed Himself to be ministered to 
 both by Angels (iv. 11) and human beings (viii. 15, xxvii. 55); 
 and His disciples often acted towards Him as His servants. 
 Nevertheless, this was not the object of His coming into the 
 world. The hundreds whom He had healed and the thousands 
 whom He had instructed made the number of those who had 
 ministered to Him look small indeed. And if those who 
 profited by His brief public life were to be counted by thousands, 
 what was to be said of the millions who profited by His death ? 
 This was His "supreme act of service to humanity" (Swete). 
 There is a climax in this statement of the Christian ideal. To 
 be great is to be the servant (StaKovos) of many ; to be first is 
 to be the bond-servant (SoCAos) of many ; to be supreme is to 
 give one's life for many. The word 'ransom' (AvVpov), though 
 not rare in the O.T., is used in the N.T. only in this context ; 
 and the EngUsh phrase, ' a ransom for many,' is not likely to 
 be misunderstood. It means a ransom by means of which 
 many are set free — from bondage, or captivity, or penalties, or 
 sentence of death. But the Greek phrase might be misunder- 
 stood ; ' a ransom instead of many ' (dvTi, TroKkSiv) might be 
 thought to mean that many ought to have paid ransom, but 
 that He paid it instead of them ; which is not the meaning. 
 And the indefinite ' many ' does not mean that there were some 
 whom He did not intend to redeem ; that He did not die for 
 «//. ' Many ' is in opposition to one ; it was not for His own 
 personal advantage that He sacrificed His life, but one life was 
 a ransom for many lives. Here, where Christ for the first time 
 reveals that His death is to benefit mankind. He does not 
 reveal the whole truth. Comp. i Tim. ii. 6 and i Jn. ii. 2, where 
 the more comprehensive truth is stated. The ransom is paid 
 to God, into whose hands the dying Messiah surrenders His 
 life (Lk. xxiii. 46). The way in which this ransom sets men 
 free is beyond our comprehension. ^ 
 
 ' The Son of Man came ' implies the pre-existence of the 
 Son ; it is not a mere synonym for being born (xviii. 11 ; Lk. ix. 
 56, xix. 10). Only once does Christ speak of being born, and 
 
 ^ See Sanday, Outlines, § 57, pp. 134-137, and the literature there quoted. 
 Only here and Mk. x. 45 in the N.T. does \\)Tfov occur. Comp. Josephus, 
 Ant. XIV, vii. 1. 
 
XX. 28] THROUGH PER^A TO JERUSALEM 281 
 
 then He immediately adds the more full expression : ' To this 
 end have I been born, and to this end am I come into the 
 world, that I should bear witness unto the truth' (Jn. xviii. 37). 
 And this Ministry of teaching and bearing witness continued to 
 the very end : on the Cross He ministered to the robber. And 
 ' to give His life ' imphes that His death was the act of His own 
 free will. ' No one taketh it away from Me, but I lay it down 
 of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to 
 take it again' (Jn. x. 18). Just those two things which seem to 
 be beyond our own control, being born and dying, are said by 
 Christ to be His own free acts ; ' the Son of Man came ... to 
 give His life a ransom for many ' (Maclaren).i 
 
 Is not the combination of humility and majesty which is 
 found in this saying a guarantee for its genuineness ? Could it 
 have been invented ? Who is this, who in the same utterance, 
 and in the most simple and natural way, declares that He is 
 the servant of everybody, and that His single life is able to 
 ransom many ? There is no boasting and no manifest exaggera- 
 tion in either declaration ; nothing but a calm statement of fact, 
 made by One who is confident that He is saying the simple 
 truth. This is God's ' Righteous Servant,' who is able to ' justify 
 many; and He shall bear their iniquities' (Is. liii. 11). And 
 His followers are to take His life as their pattern ; their lives 
 are to be shaped in accordance with His as lives of self-sacrifice 
 and service. Comp. 2 Mac. vii. 37. 
 
 D and $ (Codex Beralinus) with some Old Latin and Syriac authorities 
 have a long interpolation after 'a ransom for many' (28). Syr-Sin. is 
 defective, but there is not room for it in what is missing. Until the discovery 
 of $ in 1868, D was the only Greek authority for the passage which runs 
 thus : " But ye seek from littleness to increase and [not] from greatness to 
 be little. But when ye are bidden to a supper, sit not down in the superior 
 places, lest a more honourable man than thou come up, and the giver of the 
 supper come to thee and say, Go down lower, and thou be greatly ashamed : 
 but if thou sit down in the lower place, and there come one less than thou, 
 and the giver of the supper shall say to thee, Go up higher, then shall this be 
 profitable to thee." The wording is somewhat different in the different 
 authorities, especially in the Latin ; but the chief difference is the insertion 
 in the Syriac of the ' not ' in the second clause. A similar result is reached 
 in some Latin texts by changing "from greatness to be little" {de magna 
 viinui^ ox de maxima ininui^ or de majori viinores esse) into "from less to 
 become greater " (de minore majores fieri). D has koX eV /ieffovos i\aTTOv 
 eXva.1^ $ fK6.rTii3v. Both D and ^ have the rare word Senrj^oKXrjTwp [cenrz 
 invitator, or is quite invitabit) for 'the giver of the supper.' The fTjTeiTe 
 may be either indicative {quceritis) or imperative (Syriac). Wordsworth and 
 White, Vulgate, i. p. 124; Smith's DB. iii. p. 1712; Scrivener, Bezce Codex, 
 p. 59 ; Resch, Agrapha, p. 39 ; Nestle, Textual Criticism, pp. 255-258. 
 
 ^ On the frequency of the construction ' not this hut that ' (oi)(c . . . dXXd) 
 in our Lord's sayings (28) see Abbott, _/o/2a«. Gr. 2593. Comp. x. 20, xix. 6, 
 XX. 23, etc. It is specially frequent in Mk. 
 
282 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XX. 29-34 
 
 XX. 29-34. The Ttvo Blind Men at Jericho. 
 
 Here we again have all three narratives ; and, although both 
 Mt. and Lk. seem to be dependent on Mk., yet no two narratives 
 agree. Mk. and Lk. have only one blind man ; Mt. has two. 
 Mt. and Mk. represent the miracle as being wrought when Christ 
 was leaving Jericho ; Lk. as being wrought when He was enter- 
 ing it. Mt. says that He healed with a touch ; Mk. and Lk. say 
 that He healed with a word, but they differ somewhat as to the 
 word. 
 
 It is possible that Lk. had other authority besides Mk. 
 Besides his differences, he adds that the blind man, when healed, 
 glorified God, and that all the people, when they saw it, gave 
 praise to God. It is possible also that in Mt. there is some 
 confusion between this healing of Bartimaeus and the healing of 
 two blind men in a house (ix. 27-31). In both cases the blind 
 men greet Jesus as the ' Son of David,' and in both cases Mt. 
 mentions that in healing them Christ touched their eyes. This 
 is all the more remarkable in this case, because Mk. says nothing 
 about touching, and elsewhere Mt. omits the Ephphatha miracle 
 with the touching of the ears and the tongue. This confusion 
 with another miracle might account for Mt.'s two blind men ; 
 but in any case we must compare his two demoniacs among the 
 Gadarenes, where Mk. and Lk. mention only one. As he did 
 not know the name of the second blind man, he omits the name 
 of Bartimseus. But he is given to omitting names. He twice 
 omits the names of the sons of Zebedee (xx. 20, 2^), and he 
 omits the name of Jairus (ix. 18). 
 
 These differences between the three accounts are of little 
 moment, except for the instruction of those who think that they 
 are bound to believe that every statement in Scripture must be 
 historically true. What clearly emerges from the narrative is 
 that in the neighbourhood of Jericho a blind man called to 
 Jesus for help, as He was on His way to Jerusalem for the last 
 Passover; that the crowd would have kept him from Christ, but 
 Christ would not allow this ; and that his sight was restored by 
 Jesus. The graphic details in Mk., which are ignored by Mt. and 
 Lk. as unimportant, are such as an eye-witness would remember 
 and record.! 
 
 The expression 'Son of David' is common in Mt. (i. i, 20, 
 ix. 27, xii. 23, XV. 22, xxi. 9, 15, xxii. 42), but here it is in all 
 three, and it may be regarded as historical. It implies a belief 
 
 ' But Mf. alone records the touching of the eye.s of the blind. The 
 touching does not enhance the miracle, and the addition is remarkable. 
 Comp. ix. 29. And Mt. alone mentions the compassion (<r7rXa7x>'i<r^e(!). 
 Conip. Mk. i. 41. 
 
XXI. 1] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 283 
 
 that Jesus was the Messiah. May we not believe that the man 
 who repeatedly used it on this occasion, and who afterwards 
 followed Jesus, glorifying God, was among those who very 
 shortly afterwards shouted ' Hosanna to the Son of David ' at the 
 triumphal entry into Jesusalem ? It is possible that the crowd's 
 attempt to silence the cries to the ' Son of David ' was dictated 
 by the thought that this proclamation of Jesus as the Messiah 
 was premature. They had not yet made up their minds how to 
 act in the matter. But they may merely have wished to prevent 
 Him from being disturbed by importunate cries. ' Lord, that 
 our eyes may be opened ' shows that the necessary faith was 
 there; comp. ix. 28, 29. 
 
 Chaiacteribtic expressions in ch. xx. : oiKoSe<nr6Tr)s (i, 12), iSov (18), 
 t6t€ (20), ■7rpoff^pxe(^Sat (20), TrpoaKuvelv (20), Kal ISou (30), vlbs Aaueid 
 (30, 31). Peculiar: ij jSaaL^ela tCjv oiipav(ov {\), eralpos (13), ^iffdovv {1, 7 
 only). 
 
 In ver. 20 we have another instance of capricioii.s rendering in the AV. 
 ' Then came to Him the mother of Zebedee's children [vlSiv] with her 
 sons (uiwc).' 
 
 XXI. l.-XXV. 46. THE MESSIAH'S LAST WORK 
 IN THE HOLY CITY. 
 
 This is sometimes called "the Messianic Crisis." Jesus is 
 publicly proclaimed as the Messiah, and in consequence is put 
 to death ; He rises again, appears to His disciples, and promises 
 to be with them ' all the days, unto the consummation of the 
 age.' The narrative of these momentous events constitutes the 
 fifth and concluding portion of the First Gospel. The chronology 
 of these last days, as of the whole of our Lord's life, is uncertain ; 
 but the best authorities are disposed to assume that the year is 
 A.D. 29. But, when that is determined, the assignment of the 
 events recorded to the right day of the week and month still 
 remains (in various particulars) a difficult problem. It is evident 
 that the Evangelists, as a rule, did not regard chronology as of 
 great importance. And Mt. does not care to record details of 
 journeys. He tells us nothing as to the route from GaUlee into 
 Peraea (xix. i), or as to the scenes of the events there, or as to 
 the route towards Jerusalem (xx. 17), or where the Jordan was 
 crossed to reach Jericho (xx. 29) ; and now nothing is said about 
 the journey from Jericho to Jerusalem. The one place men- 
 tioned is no help, for we know nothing respecting Bethphage, 
 not even whether it was a village or a district, for it is not 
 mentioned either in the O.T., or in the Apocrypha, or in 
 Josephus. In the N.T. it occurs in the Synoptists only, and 
 
284 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXI. 1-3 
 
 they do not tell its position, which, however, must have been on 
 or near the Mount of Olives.^ See DCG. i. p. 197. 
 
 XXI. 1-11. The Messiah's Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem. 
 
 The Passover was at hand, and there would be immense 
 numbers of pilgrims that had come to Jerusalem for the Feast. 
 Of these, some would know a good deal about Jesus, especially 
 those who had come from Galilee. Many more had seen and 
 perhaps heard Him occasionally. But the large majority of 
 those who took part in the triumphal entry must have known 
 very little about Him, and perhaps had never seen Him before. 
 The great enthusiasm, therefore, cannot have had any strong 
 foundation, and must have been, in many cases, merely 
 emotional sympathy of an unreasoning and evanescent character. 
 It is probable that not a few who cried ' Hosanna ' at the entry 
 took part in crying ' Crucify ' a few days later. This would be 
 all the more likely to happen, because those who had shouted 
 in the Messiah's honour believed that they were escorting Him 
 to a throne which would restore the ancient glories of Israel. 
 When they saw that nothing of the kind was going to take place, 
 they would visit their disappointment upon the object of their 
 previous enthusiasm. If this proclamation of His Messiahship 
 (to which He consented now that His hour was come) was more 
 general and more loudly voiced than the attempt to make Him 
 king just a year before (Jn. vi. 15), it was for that reason all the 
 more dangerous in provoking deadly hostility, without being 
 substantial enough to make any resistance to those who were 
 determined to put Him to death. They might sympathize with 
 Him when He defeated His opponents in argument, but they 
 made no attempt to dehver Him after His arrest, or to save Him 
 from Crucifixion. (For the Mount of Olives see DCG. ii. 
 p. 206; Deissmann, Bible Studies.,^. 211. For S. Ephraim's 
 quotation of ver. 3, 'for their Lord they are required,' see 
 Burkitt mJTS., July 1900, p. 569.) 
 
 We are free to suppose that our Lord had already spoken to 
 the owner of the colt when He sent the two disciples, for nothing 
 in the narrative contradicts this ; but the impression produced 
 by all three accounts is that Jesus had supernatural knowledge, 
 by virtue of which He predicted what would happen. All three 
 call attention to the exact correspondence (xa^cos = ' even as ') 
 between what He had said and what took place. Mt. implies 
 this : ' they did even as He appointed,' which they could not 
 
 ' One may suppose that, when Mt. wrote, Bethphage was as well known 
 as Bethany, or better ; for he prefers it to Bethany as a means of marking the 
 scene. 
 
XXI. 3-7] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 285 
 
 have done, if what they found had not agreed with what He had 
 foretold. The owner seems to have known Jesus, and perhaps 
 was a disciple ; otherwise he would not have known who was 
 meant by 'the Lord,' and would not so readily have obeyed. 
 The two disciples are not named, but the details which Mk. 
 alone gives suggest that one of them was Peter (comp. Lk. xxii. 8). 
 Mt., who alone mentions two animals, omits that the colt was 
 one 'on which no one of men ever yet sat' (Mk., Lk.). This 
 probably indicates a royal progress (Deut. xxi. 3 ; Num. xix. 2 ; 
 I Sam. vi. 7). All four Gospels mention that the animal on 
 which Christ rode was a colt (vwXos), and the word occurs 
 nowhere else in the N.T. The birth of a virgin and the burial 
 in a tomb that had never before been used may be compared. 
 We are not to regard Christ's riding on an ass as a special act of 
 humility: "The ass was highly esteemed as a riding beast, and 
 was used by men and women of rank, as it has always been in 
 the EsLst" (Moore, /udges, p. 274). Comp. Judg. i. 14, v. 10, 
 X. 4 ; I Sam. xxv. 20; 2 Sam. xvii. 23, xix. 26. What the ass 
 signified was, that the entry was a peaceful one. This was no 
 conqueror with chariots and horsemen, but a King coming to 
 His people with a farewell message of peace. 
 
 Mt. mentions both the foal and its mother, because he 
 regards this as a more exact fulfilment of Zech. ix. 9.1 This is 
 an error, for in the prophecy ' a colt the foal of an ass ' (or ' of 
 she-asses ') is mere repetition of 'an ass': 'riding upon an ass, 
 even upon a colt the foal of an ass' (RV.). It is worth noting 
 that Mt. inserts the prophecy (which Jn. also quotes) immediately 
 after Christ's prediction of what the two disciples will find, not 
 (as we might have expected) after the procession had taken place. 
 He intimates that Christ was consciously fulfilling the prophecy.^ 
 ' Tell ye the daughter of Zion ' looks like a recollection of Is. 
 Ixii. II, prefixed to the passage in Zechariah, either by a slip of 
 memory, or perhaps deliberately, in order to give more point to 
 the prophecy.^ 
 
 But we need not suppose that Mt. overlooked the fact that 
 Christ could not ride upon both animals at once, and was not 
 likely to ride first on one and then on the other. Mk. says : 
 ' they bring the colt to Jesus, and cast on him their garments ; 
 and He sat upon him,' which is plain enough. There is no 
 
 ' Comp. Justin Martyr, who says that the colt was tied to a vine, in order 
 to make the incident a fulfilment of Gen. xlix. 11, 'Binding his foal unto the 
 vine' (Apol. i. 32). 
 
 ^ In this case (comp. i. 22, xxvi. 56) the perf. 7^701/61' must be Mt.'s own. 
 See Lightfoot, On Revision, p. loi. 
 
 ' The use of uiroi^vywi', ' beast of burden,' in the special sense of ' ass' is 
 not a "Biblical" peculiarity. It seems to occur in papyri; Deissmann, 
 Biblical Studies, p. 161. 
 
286 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXI. 7-9 
 
 saddle or saddle-cloth, and the disciples take off their outer 
 garments (to, t/xaVta) to supply the deficiency. For this Mt. has : 
 ' they brought the ass and the colt, and put on them their 
 garments ; and He sat upon them ' (iireO-rjKav iir avrSyv to. t/iarta, 
 Kol iTTiKaOio-ev i-rrdi'ii) avTwv, where the change from iirC to i-n-dvui 
 is to be noticed). Mt.'s idea is that the disciples put their 
 clothes on both the animals, not knowing which the Lord would 
 prefer. He took the colt, and sat upon the clothes. The 
 wording is a little clumsy, because, while the first ' them ' must 
 refer to the two animals, the second ' them ' might also refer to 
 the two animals. But the change of preposition is perhaps 
 intended to indicate a change of meaning ; i and in any case the 
 Evangelist credits his readers with common sense. The sarcasm 
 of Strauss is misplaced. 
 
 The example of the disciples in sacrificing their upper 
 garments to do honour to the Messiah is followed by the majority 
 of the crowd, who take off theirs to make a carpet in front of 
 Him. To this day this is a common form of homage ; see 
 instances quoted in Wetstein and Robinson, J?es. in Pal. i. p. 
 473, and comp. 2 Kings ix. 13 of the proclamation of Jehu as 
 king. 
 
 ' Hosanna ' is in Mk. and Jn., but ' Hosanna to the Son of 
 David' is in Mt. alone. The word comes from Ps. cxviii. 25, 
 26, where 'Hosanna' is a prayer, 'Save, we pray,' or 'Give 
 salvation now ' ; and ' Blessed is He who cometh ' is a welcome 
 to the pilgrim who comes to worship at the Feast. It would 
 seem as if what had originally been a prayer had come, through 
 its frequent use in shouts at the Feast of Tabernacles, to be 
 regarded as an exclamation of greeting or congratulation, similar 
 to ' Hail ! ' The original meaning could be made to hold in 
 such an expression as 'Hosanna to the Son of David'; but it is 
 difficult to make that meaning good in ' Hosanna in the highest.' ^ 
 The probability is that the original meaning is lost in both 
 phrases, and that we are to understand some such thought as 
 ' Glory to the Son of David,' ' Glory in the highest,' the latter 
 expression meaning that those who are in heaven join in this cry. 
 Rev. vii. 9 throws some light on the subject, where the great 
 multitude, with palms in their hands, cry ' Salvation unto our 
 God . . . and unto the Lamb.' Indeed the passage may have 
 been written with the thought of the triumphal entry in the Seer's 
 mind. It would seem as if Lk. understood 'Hosanna' in the 
 
 ' There seems to be no example of iitavu being used as riding on an 
 animal ; it would perhaps be as unusual as for us to talk of riding ' on the top 
 of a horse. 
 
 2 Weymouth suggests, ' God save the Son of David, God in the highest 
 heavens save Him ! ' See Wright, Synopsis., p. III. 
 
XXI. 10-lS] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 287 
 
 sense of ' Glory ' rather than of ' Save ' : he has ' Peace in heaven, 
 and glory in the highest.' See the excellent art. on ' Hosanna ' 
 in DCG. ; also Dalman, Words, p. 220. In the post-communion 
 prayer in the Didache (x. 6) we have ' Hosanna to the God of 
 David,' which in some texts has been altered to ' Son of David,' 
 no doubt under the influence of this passage. 
 
 In what follows, Mt. has a verse and a half which are not in 
 Mk. or Lk. : ' all the city was stirred,^ saying, Who is this ? And 
 the multitude said, This is the Prophet Jesus, from Nazareth of 
 Galilee' (10, 11). This shows that to many, perhaps even of the 
 inhabitants of Jerusalem, He was still personally unknown. The 
 answer has the appearance of being exact. In spite of the cries 
 at the triumphal entry, it is not said that He is the Messiah; 
 that is by no means generally recognized ; but in various places, 
 and especially in Galilee, He has had the reputation of being a 
 Prophet (xvi. 14). 
 
 XXI. lS-17. The Cleansing of the Temple. 
 
 As to the cleansing of the Temple there are several doubts. 
 Did it take place more than once? If it did not, is Jn, right in 
 placing it at the beginning of the Ministry, or are the Synoptists 
 in placing it at the end? And are his details to be preferred to 
 theirs ? 
 
 There is nothing incredible in two cleansings. Even if there 
 were two, they probably did not put an end to the evil ; and if 
 Jesus, after an interval of two years, found that the traffic was 
 even worse than before. He would be likely to repeat the remedy. 
 But, in that case, we should expect some reference on the second 
 occasion to what had taken place before. Just as in the case of 
 the feeding of the multitudes, the fact that the disciples are as 
 perplexed about the feeding of the 4000 as about the feeding of 
 the 5000, tells against the otherwise not improbable repetition of 
 the miracle, so the fact that in no Gospel is there any allusion to 
 more than one cleansing of the Temple, is against the otherwise 
 not improbable repetition of that event. But this reasoning is 
 not decisive. 
 
 Assuming that there was only one cleansing, it is more 
 probable that this Messianic act took place at the end of the 
 Ministry than at the beginning of it. At the beginning, Christ 
 was hardly recognized as a Prophet, and it is surprising that He 
 
 ^ The expression is a strong one : icreicrdr} iraaa -rj TrtiXts. Comp. the similar 
 hyperbole at the, arrival of the Magi : 6 jSaaiKeus irapdxOTj, /cat waaa 
 'lepoadXv/xtx f^er' avTov (ii. 3). It was this city multitude which a few days 
 later cried ' Crucify Him.' The multitude which cried ' Hosanna ' consisted 
 largely of Galilean pilgrims. 
 
288 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXI. 12-14 
 
 should thus have proclaimed Himself as the Son of God (Jn. ii. 
 1 6) almost at the outset. But it is too much to say that "it is 
 most improbable that Jesus could have succeeded in cleansing 
 the Temple, if He had appeared there as an utterly unknown 
 youth, with no following but one or two obscure friends." He 
 had the conscience, not only of the bystanders, but of the 
 offenders themselves, on His side, and there is nothing surprising 
 in the impressive manner of the young Reformer carrying all 
 before it. If the Synoptists' date is more probable than that of 
 Jn., there is nothing incredible in the latter. Moreover, there is 
 the certain fact that Jn. knew what the Synoptists had written, 
 and that he deliberately dissented from them. If he is not 
 inserting a cleansing which they had omitted, he is quietly 
 correcting them. A slip of memory on either side is possible, 
 and equally remarkable instances might be quoted. We must 
 be content to leave both questions open. There may have been 
 two cleansings; and, if there was only one, either Mk. or Jn. 
 may be right. Drummond is decidedly for the Synoptists {The 
 Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, ^. 6j) ; Sanday 
 is inclined to prefer S. John {The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, 
 p. 149); so also Wright, Synopsis of the Gospels, p. 113. Salmon 
 thinks that we are at liberty to believe " that our Lord made His 
 first protest against Temple profanation on an earlier visit to the 
 sacred House, and that after an absence of a year or more, 
 coming back with a number of Galilean disciples, He enforced 
 His requirements more vigorously" {Human Element, p. 433). 
 J. Armitage Robinson points out that, " whatever the exact 
 date may have been, the relative position of the incident is the 
 same in S. John as in S. Mark. In either Gospel it forms the 
 first public act of the ministry in Jerusalem. If it does not find 
 an earlier place in S. Mark, it is because that Gospel records but 
 one visit to Jerusalem. And we may further note that in both 
 Gospels this starding action is followed by a challenge to declare 
 by what authority our Lord so acts ; so that in Jerusalem the 
 ultimate issue — His relation to God — is raised at the outset"- 
 ( The Historical Character of St. John's Gospel, p. 21). And the 
 position of the cleansing of the Temple in Mk. determined the 
 position of the incident in Mt. and Lk. In all four Gospels, 
 therefore, it is "the first public act of the ministry in Jerusalem." 
 Mk. tells us that Christ ' would not suffer that any man should 
 carry a vessel through the Temple.' ^ Mt. omits this, but adds that 
 ' the blind and the lame came to Him in the Temple ; and He 
 
 ^ For 'robbers' den' {aTri]\aiav X'^utGiv') comp. Jer. vii. 11. There is no 
 reference to cattle raided by brigands, but simply to extortionate charges. 
 Mt. has iroiarf, Mk. Treiroiij/caTe, Lk. eTroiiJo-are. In ver. 14 there may be a 
 reference to the healing of the man born blind. 
 
XXI. 14-16] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 289 
 
 healed them.' Lk. omits both, but states that 'He was teaching 
 daily in the Temple.' Elsewhere we have seen that Mt. prefers 
 to mention healing rather than teaching : e.g. xiv. 14 = Mk. vi. 34, 
 xix. 2 = Mk. X. I. The case of the man 'lame from his mother's 
 womb ' who was laid daily at the Beautiful door of the Temple 
 (Acts iii. 2), shows that there would be likely to be lame and 
 blind persons in and near the Temple hoping for alms, and on 
 these Jesus would have compassion. The repetition of the phrase 
 'in the Temple' in these verses (12-15) '^ 'o tie noted; the 
 Evangelist seems to wish to emphasize the scene. All these 
 incidents connected with the great crisis in the career of the 
 Messiah took place in the holiest part of the Holy City. 
 
 The incident of the boys (TratSts, not, as in xiv. 21, xviii. 3, 
 xix. 13, TratSia) shouting 'Hosanna' in the Temple, and members 
 of the Sanhedrin appealing to Christ to stop them (15, 16), has 
 no parallel in Mk., but Lk. has something similar respecting the 
 triumphal entry (xix. 39, 40). ^ This seems to show that Mt. 
 and Lk. have som.e source or sources of information not used by 
 Mk. 'Dost Thou hear what these say?' probably means that 
 He ought to feel that the shouting ought to be stopped, and that 
 it is His place to do it. He answers their question with another : 
 have they never in their lives read the eighth Psalm? In the 
 quotation the Septuagint is followed in substituting ' praise ' 
 {aXvov) for the ' strength ' of the Hebrew. For the purpose of 
 defending the boys, 'praise' was more suitable. 'The children 
 of Zion were joyful in their King ' (Ps. cxlix. 2). These TraiSes 
 were no doubt children who had heard the shouts at the triumphal 
 entry, and at the sight of Jesus in the Temple began to repeat 
 what they had heard. The whole is exceedingly natural. That 
 the hierarchy, who had for so long tolerated, or indeed encouraged, 
 as profitable to themselves, the traffic in the Temple, should 
 profess to be shocked at the shouting of the children, is as 
 characteristic of them as the repetition of the Hosannas of the 
 multitude is of the boys. The Evangelist treats their protest as 
 genuine; it was not hypocritical assumption of anger. 'They 
 were moved with indignation ' at what they regarded as a desecra- 
 tion of the sacred precincts. Although they did not mention it 
 in their protest, they seem to have resented Christ's healing in 
 the Temple. Mt. says : ' When the chief priests and Scribes saw 
 the wofiderful things that He did, and the children that were 
 crying in the Temple . . . they were moved with indignation ' 
 (^yavaKTrjaav, as XX. 24, xxvi. 8). Our Lord does not stay to 
 
 ' But here, as in xii. 23, Mt. is the only Evangelist who records the use of 
 the expression, ' Son of David,' which occurs nine times in this Gospel 
 against six times in the rest of the N.T. It is not found in Jn. It is a 
 Messianic title, and Jesus will not condemn its application to Himself, 
 
 19 
 
290 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXI. 18-30 
 
 argue with them. He has defended the children from their 
 unjust censure, and that done He leaves the murmurers and goes 
 out of the Temple. 
 
 A comparison of the two Gospels shows that Mt. puts into 
 two days what Mk. distributes over three days. See Allen. Mt. 
 and Lk. both put the cleansing of the Temple on the same day 
 as the triumphal entry. Mk. puts the cleansing on the second 
 day, after the cursing of the fig-tree. Mt. makes the withering 
 of the fig-tree follow immediately. In Mk. the withering is not 
 noticed till the third day. Then follows teaching, which Mt. 
 places on the second day. 
 
 XXI. 18-22. The cursing of the Braggart Fig- Tree. 
 
 Jesus had left the city as well as the Temple and went out to 
 Bethany and passed the night there {-qikia-Or))} The expression 
 perhaps means no more than that He spent the night outside 
 the city ; that He spent it in the open air need not be intended. 
 At the Passover, multitudes had to pass the night outside the 
 walls. Mk. says that at this time ' every evening He went forth 
 out of the city' (xi. 19). 
 
 Mt. greatly condenses Mk.'s narrative of the cursing of the 
 fig-tree. He gives just what is necessary for the drawing of 
 the lesson from Christ's action and nothing more. He does not 
 even exhibit his usual interest in Peter. The expression of 
 surprise at the speedy withering of the tree is attributed to the 
 disciples generally, not to Peter in particular. Both EvangeUsts 
 tell us that our Lord hungered : we are not to think that He 
 expressed a desire to eat in order to teach by means of an acted 
 parable. And He came to the tree expecting, on account of the 
 profusion of leaves, to find fruit, although 'it was not the season 
 of figs.'^ Evidently there was no employment of supernatural 
 knowledge ; it was not till He came to the tree that ' He found 
 nothing thereon, but leaves only.' Then, as Mk. puts it, ' He 
 answered and. said unto it, No man eat fruit from thee henceforward 
 for ever.' It was no hasty, impatient utterance, but a sentence 
 deliberately pronounced, and immediately executed.^ There is 
 no contradiction here between the two narratives ; but in Mt. 
 the withering is noticed by the disciples (apparently) at once, in 
 Mk. not till the next day. Mt. states, though Mk. does not, that 
 the withering took place immediately. 
 
 ' On the insertion of iKei see on xxvii. 47. Mt., who omits the mention 
 of Bethany, xxi. i, is alone in mentioning it here (17). 
 
 -'Fig-season' seems to have been a common expression for summer. 
 See Wetstein on Mlt. xi. 13. 
 
 ' For ' immediately ' Mt. uses a word [wapaxpfiixa) which is a favourite 
 one with Lk., and is found nowhere else in the N.T. but in these two versqs. 
 
XXI. 20, 21] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 29I 
 
 Thus Mt., as elsewhere, enhances the marvellous character of 
 the miracle, and that in two ways. He insists that the withering 
 took place at once, and so rapidly that the disciples noticed that 
 it followed immediately upon the uttering of the curse ; whereas, 
 so far as the narrative in Mk. informs us, the withering might be 
 a process that occupied some hours, and was not noticed by any 
 one until the next morning. Secondly, instead of one disciple 
 calling attention next morning to the condition of the tree, Mt. 
 says that the immediate withering of the tree excited the astonish- 
 ment of the whole company of the disciples, who collectively 
 expressed their amazement. In both narratives the fig-tree is 
 condemned, not for being fruitless, but for being false. In the 
 fig-tree, the fruit precedes the leaves. At that early season (April) 
 the fig-tree would usually have neither ; but this tree, by putting 
 forth a profusion of leaves, professed to have fruit ; and it had 
 none. There was 'nothing thereon, but leaves only.' As a 
 symbol of moral and religious character, the tree was a deceiver 
 and a hypocrite ; and for this the Lord pronounces a symbolical 
 judgment upon it. See Hastings' Z'.S., art. 'Figs.' Holtzmann 
 on Mk. xi. 13 treats the narrative as historical; on Mt. xxi. 19 
 he says that " we have here the transformation of Lk. xiii. 6-9 into 
 history, under the influence of Hos. ix. 10." 
 
 The fig-tree represents the Holy City, rather than the nation 
 as a whole.i It is its profuse profession of zeal for God, and 
 perhaps its enthusiastic welcome of the Messiah, which is con- 
 demned as worthless, and worse than worthless, because it gives 
 a promise of fruit which is not there : and its speedy destruc- 
 tion will be the immediate consequence of these barren 
 professions. 
 
 But this is not the lesson which Christ Himself draws from 
 the speedy death of the tree and the disciples' amazement at it. 
 The application of the fate of the hypocritical fruit-tree to the 
 fate of the hypocritical city was not of immediate importance, and 
 time itself would make it plain to the disciples when Jerusalem 
 was overthrown. There was a lesson that was far more urgent, 
 and this was — faith in the efficacy of prayer. The disciples had 
 been astonished at the quickness with which Christ's prayer (that 
 there might be no fruit from that tree henceforward for ever) had 
 been answered ; and He assures them that, if they have the neces- 
 sary trust in God's power and goodness, they will be able to do 
 things still more astonishing, always provided that the things to 
 be done are worthy of such means of accomplishment. The 
 
 1 Zahn, Einleitung in d. N.T. ii. pp. 443, 445. We are reminded of 
 Christ's parable of the fig-tree (Lk. xiii. 6-9). The time of respite for 
 Jerusalem is now past : ' Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward for 
 ever,' The unfruitful tree, spared for a while, is now to be cut down. 
 
292 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXI. 21-23 
 
 execution of the sentence on the fig-tree was thus worthy, and 
 hence its speedy fulfilment. Comp. xvii. 20, 21, xviii. 19. 
 
 ' Rooting up mountains ' was a metaphor for something that 
 is very difficult, and our Lord may be using a figure of speech 
 that was familiar to the disciples. But as He says ' this mountain,' 
 which would mean the Mount of Olives, He may be thinking of 
 Zech. xiv. 4: 'The Mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst 
 thereof . and half of the mountain shall remove toward the 
 north, and half of it toward the south.' From this and other 
 instances, as the camel and the eye of the needle, the mote and 
 the beam, plucking out the right eye and cutting off the right 
 hand, we see that, in His popular teaching, our Lord was accus- 
 tomed to use forcible, and what we might call extreme language. 
 Comp. Lk. xvii. 6, where a tree takes the place of the mountain.^ 
 In all three Gospels the marvellous transfer is from the land to 
 the ' sea,' and the charge given in connexion with it is to ' have 
 faith.' St. Paul points out that this faith, by itself, will not make 
 a Christian; there must be love also (i Cor. xiii. 2), And the 
 addition which Mk. makes here (xi. 25) to some extent provides 
 for this; whoever prays for forgiveness must himself 'forgive, if 
 he have aught against any one.' This additional saying need not 
 be regarded as an afterthought or an early gloss. It is quite in 
 place as a warning against the supposition that curses on our 
 fellow-men will be ratified by God. Christ's symbolical impreca- 
 tion on the fig-tree does not sanction our uttering vindictive 
 imprecations on one another. Only if our prayers are for good 
 objects will faith secure their fulfilment. No justification for the 
 damnatory clauses in the Quicunque vult can be found here. 
 
 XXI. 23-27. The Question of the Messiah's Authority. 
 
 Mk. tells us that Christ was walking in the Temple when 
 His authority was challenged by members of the Sanhedrin;^ 
 Mt. and Lk. state that He was teaching there. It is possible 
 that His protest against the profanation of the Temple was 
 not confined to a single occasion ; on subsequent days He 
 may have had to interfere in a less conspicuous manner. Both 
 Mk. and Lk. say that ' He l>egaft to cast out ' the buyers and 
 sellers, and Mk. continues to use imperfects : ' He would not 
 allow,' 'He used to say' (xi. 15-17). But, even if our Lord's 
 protest was made on one occasion only, the Sanhedrin would 
 
 ' See Sanday, The Life of Christ in Recent Research, p. 27. 
 
 ^ Mk. and Lk. give the three components of the Sanhedrin, chief priests, 
 scribes, and elders ; Mt. omits the scribes and says ' the elders of the people.^ 
 All three have ' by what kind of authority [iv trolq. i^ovulq,).' Was it ecclesi- 
 S.stical or civil, human or Divine? On 'elders' see Deissmann, p. 154, 
 
XXI. 23-27] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 293 
 
 be likely to challenge it. His followers had proclaimed Him 
 to be a King. Did He claim to have royal authority for His 
 peremptory interference with the Temple usages ? ^ If so, that 
 might provoke the Roman procurator to take rigorous measures 
 against the whole populace. But anxiety for the people, and 
 for themselves as the responsible rulers, was probably not the 
 main reason for the challenge. Like the question about 
 tribute, it was intended to entrap Jesus. If He disclaimed 
 royal authority, He would be discredited with His followers ; 
 if He claimed it. He could be handed over to Pilate. 
 
 But, whether or no it was their object to place Jesus in a 
 dilemma, it is clear that His reply placed them in one. Yet 
 it was not a mere device on His part to elude their challenge. 
 The answer to His question would lead to an answer to their 
 question ; and, as the teachers of Israel, it was their place to 
 speak first. John's repentance-baptism represented his whole 
 position as a reformer ; he had insisted upon it as a preparation 
 for the Messianic Kingdom ; and he had proclaimed Jesus as 
 the Messiah. The people had hailed John with enthusiasm 
 as a Prophet, and perhaps his violent death at the hands of 
 Antipas had intensified this enthusiasm. All this was known 
 to the Sanhedrin ; and as the official leaders of the Jews they 
 ought long ago to have decided whether John was a Prophet 
 or not. If he was a Prophet (and they did not dare to say 
 that he was not), then there was no doubt as to the authority 
 which Jesus had, for a Prophet had declared Him to be the 
 Messiah. 2 But sooner than admit this they made the shameful 
 avowal that they had not yet been able to decide whether 
 John was a Prophet or not. What use, therefore, would it 
 have been to tell them whether Jesus was the Messiah or not ? 
 If John's proclamation of Him did not convince them, what 
 effect would His own assertion have ? They had publicly 
 declared that they were unable to settle such questions, thus 
 abdicating their authority in religious questions of the highest 
 moment, and they do not venture to press Him further. But 
 
 ' ' Doest these things ' shows that it was His action that was primarily 
 challenged; but the plural, 'these things,' perhaps includes His teaching 
 as well as His cleansing of the Temple. ' One question' Q^ayov '^vo,) perhaps 
 means one decisive question. To answer one question with another was 
 specially common with the Rabbis. 
 
 - The way in which Mt. gets rid of the broken construction in Mk. is 
 somewhat naive. Mk. has : ' But should we say, From men — they feared 
 the people.' Mt. has : ' But if we shall say, From men ; we fear the 
 multitude.' The hierarchy would think this, but they would not confess it 
 even to one another. Lk. more reasonably substitutes : ' all the people will 
 stone us.' With similar improbability Mt. makes the rulers answer the 
 question : ' What will the lord of the vineyard do unto those husbandmen ? ' 
 (40, 41). 
 
294 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXI. 28-32 
 
 they had gained thus much advantage, — He had refused to 
 disavow all claim to the authority of a King, just as He had 
 previously refused to silence those who had hailed Him as 
 King. The case against Him with regard to the Romans was 
 so far strengthened. And in both cases He had refused to 
 disavow all claim to the authority of the Messiah. That 
 strengthened the case against Him with regard to the San- 
 hedrin. The incident shows how strong the influence of the 
 Baptist still was among the people ; and it continued (Acts 
 xix. 1-7). 
 
 XXI. 28-32. The Parable of the Two Sons. 
 
 Mk. says that ' He began to speak to them in parables,' 
 but he gives only one parable, that of the Wicked Husbandmen.' 
 Mt., as so often, gives us a triplet, — three parables tending to 
 enforce the moral of the withered fig-tree, that the empty pro- 
 fessions of the Jews, and especially of the hierarchy at Jerusalem, 
 will provoke severe judgments. Probably all three parables 
 come from the Logia, and they are all three addressed to the 
 members of the Sanhedrin (28, 33, xxii. i). Although silenced, 
 these official opponents have not dispersed. With the intro- 
 ductory 'What think ye?' comp. xvii. 25, xviii. 12, xxii. 42. 
 
 The address, ' Son,' or ' My child ' (tc'kvoi/), is not so much 
 an expression of affection as a claim to obedience : a father 
 has a right to dispose of his child's labour. Comp. Lk. xvi. 25. 
 The first son asserts his own will : ' I don't choose to ' (ou 
 Gk\w). The second son evidently refers to his brother's refusal 
 in his elliptical ' I, sir,' with great emphasis on the pronoun 
 (cyco, Kvpie). ' /, of course, mean to do as you bid me,' the 
 emphatic pronoun expressing a contrast with his brother, and 
 the ' sir ' being an expression of ' submission.' 
 
 The Greek text is very confused. Some important authorities place the 
 son who acquiesced but disobeyed before the son who refused but afterwards 
 obeyed; and this necessitated the change in ver. 31 of 'The first' into 
 'The second' or 'The last.' The change of order is ancient, and was 
 probably caused by an ancient misinterpretation (Origen, Chrj'sostom, 
 Athanasius, Jerome) of the two sons. They were supposed to represent the 
 Jews and the Gentiles ; and, as the Jews (who professed obedience but 
 rejected the Messiah) were called before the Gentiles (who disobeyed the 
 law but accepted the Messiah), the son who acquiesced but disobeyed was 
 placed first. This arrangement (B, Boh. Arm. Aeth.) is less probable than 
 the one in our Bibles (SCDLXZ, Lalt. Syrr. ). It makes the emphatic 
 iyui in iydi, Kvpie, pointless, for the other son has not yet said that he will 
 not go. 
 
 ' Comp. Mt. xiii., where we have several parables that are not in Mk. , 
 although Mk. indicates that he has not recorded all the parables that were 
 spoken then. 
 
XXI. 28-32] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 295 
 
 But D and Syr-Sin., while supporting tine more probable order, make 
 the hierarchy reply, 'The last,' instead of 'The first,' thus approving the 
 conduct of the son who said, ' I go, sir,' but went not. Acc(3rding to this 
 reading, therefore, Christ's opponents, in order to spoil the argument of the 
 parable, gave an absurd answer. As being the more difficult reading, this 
 combination of the right order with the wrong reply has great interest, but 
 it is not likely to have been the original text, although both Merx and 
 Wellhausen adopt it. For further details see Hammond, Textual Criticism 
 of the N.T. pp. 114-116; Allen, pp. 228, 229; Bruce, The Parabolic 
 Teaching of Christ, pp. 438-446; Zahn, p. 618, note. 
 
 It is clear from Christ's concluding words that the members 
 of the Sanhedrin whom He is addressing are the son who pro- 
 fessed obedience and disobeyed, and that flagrant sinners, such 
 as the toll-collectors and harlots, are the son who refused 
 obedience and afterwards obeyed : there is no thought of Jews 
 and Gentiles. Even the most flagrant sinners take the lead of 
 the hypocritical Pharisees in entering the Kingdom of God,i 
 secure as the latter felt themselves to be of their salvation, 
 and great as was their disdain of the sinners. ' Go before you ' 
 or ' take the lead of you ' (Trpodyoucrtv vjxa.%) leaves it doubtful 
 whether the hierarchy will enter the Kingdom or not. If they 
 repent and believe, they will do so ; but the sinners, who 
 have repented, are before them in this. It is a signal example 
 of a reversal of the world's judgments. Not only the Pharisees 
 themselves, but Jewish opinion generally, would have held 
 that their prospects of entering the Kingdom were of the best, 
 while those of toll-gatherers and harlots were infinitesimal. But 
 the first are last, and the last first. 
 
 The reference to the Baptist's preaching (32) looks back to 
 the question about his baptism (25). By his 'coming in the 
 way of righteousness ' is meant, not the rectitude of his own 
 life, but the right path of life which he inaugurated. He pointed 
 out the way of salvation, and invited all to come and enter it. 
 He 'taught the way of God' (xxii. 16), and the Pharisees had 
 come and listened to him (iii. 7), but they had refused to accept 
 his teaching ; whereas the toll-gatherers and harlots, who had 
 made no profession of religion, had accepted it. 
 
 The Greek text of the last clause of ver. 32 is doubtful. Ought we to 
 read 01; (>{CLXAn) or ovU (B, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. .A.eth.) before 
 fi,iTciJ.ehA\8r(Te, or neither (D, Syr-Sin.) ; or ought we to transfer the negative 
 to TTirrT-eCcrai (c e), (pwd non credidistis ? Or shall we omit the whole clause 
 (A), which is hardly necessary after ovk 4Tn<nev(TaTe ain^} The omission of 
 the negative is probably accidental. So also is the omission of the clause 
 
 ' We may suppose that ' Kingdom of God ' was the expression in the 
 source which Mt. used, and for some reason he has not changed it to 
 'Kingdom of Heaven.' Comp. xii. 28, xix. 24. It may be a mere 
 oversight. 
 
296 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXI. 33-36 
 
 (homoeoteleuton). And oud4 is preferable to 01; : ' But ye, after ye saw the 
 repentance and faith of these sinners, did not even repent afterwards.' In 
 any case, we again have evidence of the way in which our Lord confirmed 
 the authority of the Baptist (iii. 15, xi. 9, 10, 14, xxi. 25). John wrought 
 no signs to prove his authority ; but by the character of his message he had 
 convinced the people tliat he was a Prophet, and this conviction our Lord 
 repeatedly approves. 
 
 XXI. 33-46. T/ie Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen. 
 
 The thought of work in the vineyard is common to this and 
 the preceding parable. In the Two Sons Jesus brings before the 
 hierarchy their grievous misconduct in the past ; in spite of John's 
 teaching and His own teaching and mighty works, they have 
 refused to believe in Him. In the Wicked Husbandmen He 
 deals with the present and the future ; He shows that their plots 
 against His life are known to Him, and He warns them as to the 
 consequences of putting Him to death. It is one of the three 
 parables which are found in all three of the Synoptic Gospels, 
 the other two being the Sower and the Mustard Seed, a triplet 
 which has this in common, that all three are taken from agri- 
 culture. The 'Wicked Husbandmen indirectly gives the answer 
 to the question of the Sanhedrin about Christ's authority ; it is 
 the authority of the Father who has sent Him to them, as He 
 sent the Prophets before Him ; and their rejection of Him is 
 the culmination of the rejection of the Prophets by their pre- 
 decessors.-' 
 
 The imagery of the parable would be quite familiar to a 
 Jewish audience. In the O.T. Israel is God's Kingdom, and 
 is often spoken of as a vineyard (Is. v. 1-7 ; comp. Jer. ii. 21 ; 
 Ezek. XV. 1-6, xix. 10-14; Hos. x. i, etc.). God had placed 
 this Kingdom of His in charge of rulers who were responsible 
 to Him for the conduct of His subjects. ^ These rulers, whether 
 kings and priests under the monarchy, or priests and scribes 
 after its downfall, had been unfaithful. He had frequently sent 
 His servants the Prophets to remind the kings and priests of 
 their obligations to Him, but these had been persecuted, and 
 sometimes slain. After the severe judgment of the Captivity 
 the priests and scribes had behaved no better. They had been 
 
 ' In Mt. and Mk. the parable is addressed to the representatives of the 
 Sanhedrin ; in Lk. it is addressed to the people, and seems to refer to the 
 nation as a whole rather than to the rulers exclusively. It was applicable to 
 both in different degrees. 
 
 ^ In all three Gospels the cessation of the Theocracy is expressed in the 
 same way ; the owner ' went into another country ' (dTreSiJ/xo-ei') : ' went into 
 2. far country ' (AV.) is too strong. Jehovah was never far from His people. 
 Mt. alone calls the owner olKode(nr6Trjs, a word of which he is fond (x. 25, 
 xiii. 27, 52, XX. I, II, xxi. 33, xxiv. 43). But he does not use it xxvi. 17-19. 
 
XXI. 37-42] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 297 
 
 left to themselves, with the records of the Prophets' warnings, 
 for a time. But now at last the great Messianic Prophet, God's 
 own Son, is sent. They have rejected Him and mean to kill 
 Him, and the cup is full. 
 
 But the rejection and murder will bring no advantage to the 
 perpetrators; they will but hasten God's judgment upon them. 
 Jesus is that corner-stone which must come to its dominant 
 place in the edifice, however disdainfully it may be treated by 
 the builders. To put Him to death will destroy, not Him, but 
 the dispensation of which they are the representatives and the 
 rulers ; and His Resurrection will inaugurate a new dispensation 
 in which they will have no part.i 
 
 If this parable was in the Logia, iVIk. and Mt. have followed 
 the original source very closely. But, while taking the Two Sons 
 and the iNIarriage of the King's Son from the Logia, Mt. may 
 in the intermediate parable simply have copied Mk. Lk.'s 
 reproduction of the parable is much more free. In Lk., as in 
 Mt., the only messenger who is slain is the son and heir, whose 
 death forms a dramatic climax. In Mk. the third messenger 
 and some of the subsequent messengers are killed, a representa- 
 tion which is nearer to historic fact ; and an extraordinary historic 
 fact it is. " The uniform hostility " of kings, priests, and people 
 to the Prophets is one of the most remarkable features in the 
 history of the Jews. The amount of hostility varied, and it 
 expressed itself in different ways, on the whole increasing in 
 intensity ; but it was always there. Deeply as the Jews lamented 
 the cessation of Prophets after the death of Malachi, they 
 generally opposed them, as long as they were granted to them. 
 Till the gift was withdrawn, they seem to have had little pride 
 in this exceptional grace shown to the nation, and little apprecia- 
 tion of it or thankfulness for it. And, seeing that each generation 
 acted in the same way, the parable is true to fact in representing 
 this uniform hostility as the action of the same set of husband- 
 men. The hearers were 'the sons of them that slew the 
 Prophets,' and were but carrying on the policy of their fathers. 
 
 But Jesus claimed to be much more than a Prophet, and 
 His hearers understood the claim ; He is not a servant but a 
 Son, the beloved,^ the only Son. His hearers regarded the claim 
 as blasphemous, and it was so, if it was unfounded. We cannot 
 regard it as unfounded, and at the same time regard Him as 
 merely the last and best of the Prophets, l^we reject His claim, 
 
 ^ See Briggs, The Messiah of the Gospels, pp. 114-117; Messianic 
 Prophecy, p. 208; Hastings' DB. and DCC, art. 'Corner-stone.' 
 
 ^ In the N.T. a.-^!i.vr\Ti>^ is used only of Christ and of Christians : in the 
 O.T. it sometimes = /xoi'07efT7S {Gen. xxii. 2, 12, 16 ; Amos viii. 10 ; Zech. 
 xii. 10 ; Jer. vi. 26). Here Ml<. and Llv. have it, but Mt. omits, perhaps as 
 superfluous. With SeOre a/noKrtiviay.'iv comp. Gen. xxxvii. 20, 
 
298 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXI. 37-42 
 
 He was a false prophet. That the owner is mistaken as to the 
 effect of sending his son is part of the framework of the parable ; 
 the owner is represented from the first as a human being 
 {avOpwiro's, ver. 33), and he thinks and acts in a human way. 
 His conduct represents, not the exact way in which God acts, 
 but the way in which He often seems to man to act. He appears 
 to miscalculate, and to change His plans. 
 
 But the miscalculation on the part of the husbandmen is 
 real. The rulers expected to be able to retain their position 
 without yielding obedience to Him who claimed to be the 
 Messiah, and yet was so unlike what they supposed that the 
 Messiah must be ; and to a large extent the nation shared this 
 delusion. But they had had full opportunity of learning the 
 truth about Jesus, and they are represented in the parable as 
 knowing that He was the Son and yet slaying Him. This is 
 treated as being so certain that the Son is spoken of as already 
 cast out and killed. ^ But God's judgment upon the murderers 
 is treated as future; and in a rhetorical question Christ asks 
 what the judgment will be.^ Mk. does not expressly state who 
 answers the question, but he implies that Christ answers it Him- 
 self This is clearly indicated in Lk., for he makes the hearers 
 reply with a ' God forbid.' Mt., with less probability, represents 
 the hearers as answering Christ's question, as if they did not see 
 that they were pronouncing their own condemnation. ^ Here 
 the parable becomes " a scarcely veiled prophecy of the Divine 
 visitation of wrath which befell Jerusalem, the call of the Gentiles, 
 and the fruitfulness and permanence of the Catholic Church " 
 (Swete). 
 
 The imagery is suddenly changed ; from the vineyard of 
 Isaiah v. we go to the builders of Ps. cxviii. The husbandmen 
 who reject the messengers are now the builders who reject the 
 stone ; and the one rejection is as wicked and as futile as the 
 other. The slaying of the Son does not prevent ejection from 
 the vineyard, and the refusal to use the stone does not prevent 
 it from being raised to its proper position, to the shame of those 
 who rejected it. The husbandmen destroyed themselves, when 
 they destroyed the heir ; and the builders heaped contempt on 
 
 ' Mk. puts the killing before the casting out. Mt. and Lk. reverse the 
 order, perhaps because Christ was crucified outside the city (Jn. xix. 17, 20 ; 
 Heb. xiii. 12, 13). 
 
 ^ Comp. ver. 31, where, however, there is no doubt as to who gives the 
 answer. 
 
 ' But his way of putting it vividly represents the answer of their own 
 consciences. They could not but admit that a stern sentence would be just : 
 &.KQVTes irpo(f>riT€vov(7L Kal avTol to ix^Wov {Euthym. ). In KaKods KaKws we have 
 a play on words which is against the tradition of a Hebrew original : comp. 
 vi. iC, xxiv. 30. 
 
XXI. 42-46] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 299 
 
 themselves, when they contemptuously set aside the stone. 
 They lost the stone for their own edifice, but it received its due 
 honour in a more noble building. The passage about the stone 
 was evidently very familiar ; ' Did ye never read in the scriptures ? ' 
 (Mt.) ; ' Have ye not read even this scripture? ' (Mk.). 
 
 Up to this point the parable remains a parable, however 
 clear the apphcation may be. But, according to Mt., our Lord 
 now removes the thin veil of imagery, and tells His hearers 
 plainly : ' The Kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, 
 and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof ' 
 (43). This verse is not in Mk., and Mt. cannot have got it 
 from Mk. If Mk. and Mt. have used the same source, that 
 source probably did not contain this verse. Lk. omits it ; and 
 why should both Mk. and Lk. omit it, if it was in the source 
 which they used? It is probably Mt.'s own deduction from the 
 obvious meaning of the parable. For much the same reasons 
 the 'God forbid,' which Lk. pats into the mouth of the audience 
 (xx. 16), is probably his own interpretation of the feelings of the 
 audience. 
 
 But, whatever may be Ml.'s authority for this verse (43), there is no doubt 
 that it is part of the original text of this Gospel. That cannot be asserted of 
 the next verse (44). These words also are not found in Mk., but they are 
 found (with the insertion of his characteristic ttSs) in Lk. , and from Lk. they 
 may have got into the majority of the texts of Mt. It is perhaps possible 
 that they are a very early gloss in Mt. , and thence passed to Lk., but no 
 sure conclusion can be reached. They are wanting in D 33, Syr-Sin. and 
 important Old Latin authorities, and they read more like comment than an 
 original saying. 
 
 In this verse the stone of Is. viii. 14, 15, and that of Dan. 
 ii. 34, 44, 45, seem to have been added to the stone of Ps. cxviii. 
 22. From the idea of the corner-stone we pass to the idea of a 
 stone over which one may stumble, and from that to one which 
 may fall and pulverize that on which it falls. See notes on Lk. 
 XX. 18; Briggs, The Messiah of the Gospels, p. 217; Maclaren 
 on Mt. xxi. 44. It is from- Dan. ii. 44 that 'shatter into frag- 
 ments' or 'scatter as dust' (Aik/xt^o-ci) comes; see Deissmann, 
 Bib. Stud. p. 225. 
 
 In the two concluding verses (45, 46) Mt. makes the narrative 
 of Mk. more clear. He tells us who it was that perceived the 
 • drift of the parable, and consequently would have killed Jesus 
 but for their fear of the multitude ; not the audience generally, 
 but ' the chief priests and the Pharisees ' ; i.e. the two chief 
 parties in the Sanhedrin, for the priests were mostly Sadducees. 
 And here Mt. again shows his feehng against the Pharisees, for 
 he alone names them here (see on iii. 7, p. 28, and xxvii. 62). 
 Lk. also expressly confines this murderous desire to the hierarchy. 
 Mk. is indefinite : ' They sought to lay hold on Him.' Mt. also 
 
300 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXI. 45, 46 
 
 tells us why the hierarchy feared the multitude : ' because they 
 took Him for a Prophet.' Most of them took, much the same view 
 of Jesus as of the Baptist ; He was a revival of the old order of 
 Prophets. And, as there had been no Prophet since Malachi, 
 these new representatives of the order were greatly honoured by 
 those Jews who had listened to their teaching, and were not 
 under the influence of the Pharisees. Antipas had been afraid 
 to put John to death; and now the Sanhedrin is afraid to put 
 Jesus to death, especially as Jerusalem was full of pilgrims from 
 Galilee. As Mt. has already recorded two parables, the Two 
 Sons and the Wicked Husbandmen, he speaks of ' parables ' as 
 exciting the animosity of the rulers, while Mk. and Lk. speak 
 only of the ' parable.' No doubt the Wicked Husbandmen would 
 provoke them much more than the Two Sons ; and the parabolic 
 saying about the stone would increase the provocation. As Mt. 
 has another parable to record, he omits Mk.'s 'They left Him, 
 and went away,' which perhaps means that they returned to 
 consult with the other members of the Sanhedrin as to what was 
 to be done respecting Jesus. 
 
 Characteristic expressions in ch. x.xi. : T<iTe (i), iropevcaOai (2, 6), tfa 
 ■n-Xf!f)ui6ri (4), l5ov (5), d16s AaveiS (9, 15), eKei (17), Trpocj^px^"''^'" (23) tI ifuv 
 SoKet; (2&), lUTTcpov (29, 32, 36), oZ/coSfo-n-drTjs (33), Scvre (38), aTroStSdvfu (41). 
 Peculiar : r6 f>T]div {4), (xvvrd<jaei,v (6), ot Ti-pe(7l^vTepoL rod XaoC (23) ; peculiar 
 lo this chapter : eriKadi^eiv (7), Sau/tdtrios (15). 
 
 On the right rendering of aorists in Mt., respecting which there are some 
 nice points in this chapter, especially in ver. 42, see J. H. Moulton, Gram, 
 of N.T. Gr. pp. 137-140. 
 
 The Book of Jubilees supplies a parallel to the parable of the 
 Wicked Husbandmen : " I will send witnesses unto them, that I 
 may witness against them ; but they will not hear, and will slay 
 the witnesses also ; and they will persecute those who seek the 
 law, and will abrogate and change everything so as to work evil 
 before My eyes. And I will hide My face from them ; and I 
 will deliver them into the hand of the Gentiles for captivity and 
 for a prey, and for devouring; and I will remove them from the 
 midst of the land, and will scatter them amongst the Gentiles " 
 (i. 12, 13). 
 
 XXII. 1-14. 7'he Parable of the Marriage of the 
 King's Son. 
 
 It is not likely that this section and that which is commonly 
 called the Great Supper in Lk. xiv. 16-24 are divergent reports 
 of one and the same parable. The occasions and drift are 
 different ; some of the details are quite different ; and where 
 the details are similar the wording is so different that they can 
 
XXII. 1-10] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 30I 
 
 hardly have come from the same source. It is probable enough 
 that our Lord sometimes used similar material for parables 
 varying in import. The similar material was handled in a new 
 way, and mingled with new material, in order to suit a new 
 audience. Here the new material is that the evil-doers are not 
 merely discourteous people who disregard a pressing invitation, 
 but also rebels who insult and kill their king's messengers, and 
 are destroyed with their city for so doing. This probably has 
 special reference to the murders of Jesus and of some of His 
 disciples, and to the consequent destruction of Jerusalem. This 
 new material gives tremendous import to the parable, and makes 
 it far more severe in tone than the Great Supper. But it inter- 
 feres with the probability of the story. These rude and rebellious 
 rejectors of the royal invitation would not all dwell in one city.i 
 But that is of small moment. A clear indication of the guilt 
 of the Jewish leaders and the people whom they led, and of the 
 judgment that awaited both, was more important than the 
 literary form of the story. Again, the fact that it is a king who 
 sends the invitations, and that the occasion of the banquet is the 
 marriage of his son, is new material, and this also serves to 
 enhance the import of the parable. It shows how grievous was 
 the offence of the Jewish rulers and their followers in rejecting 
 God's message, even before they went the length of slaying His 
 messengers. 2 
 
 But the royal marriage-feast will none the less be supplied 
 with guests. What the self-satisfied and arrogant Pharisees 
 spurn, the neglected multitude both of Jews and Gentiles will 
 accept. Publicans, harlots, and heathen go into the Kingdom 
 of God, while those who refused to make use of the opportunities 
 afforded them are excluded, and are deprived of their religious 
 privileges as well as of their political existence. ' Even that 
 which they think that they have' (Lk. viii. 18) is taken from 
 them. 
 
 In the Wicked Husbandmen we cannot interpret the 
 different messengers, or groups of messengers, as representing 
 any particular Prophets or groups of Prophets ; and it may be 
 doubted whether in this parable each group of servants has a 
 
 ' We must allow for the possibility ihat vv. 6, 7 are an insertion made 
 by the Evangelist. The parable reads more smoothly if they are omitted. 
 
 - There is a climax. At first they are simply unwilling. Then they are 
 frankly rude ; the quiet of country life or the excitement of commerce is 
 openly preferred to the royal entertainment. Then a violent minority abu.se 
 and kill the importunate messengers. This provokes punishment, which falls 
 on all, for all have been guilty of a gross and repeated insult to the king. 
 Among the Arabs, to accept an invitation, and refuse to come when 
 summoned, is a deadly insult. For the use of iSi,ov (5) see J. H. jVIoulton 
 Cr. ofN. T. Gr. i. p. 90. . ' 
 
302 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXII. 3-11 
 
 separate interpretation. i But in each case the last of the 
 missions is clear ; the meaning of the owner's son is obvious ; 
 and the servants who, after the destruction of the guilty city, 
 brought in the outcasts, must be the first Christian preachers. 
 We need not ask who the king's son is ; he is only mentioned 
 to indicate the greatness of the festival. Still less need we ask 
 who it is that he marries ; she is not mentioned at all. It is the 
 self-caused exclusion and destruction of the Pharisees and their 
 followers, and the substitution of outcasts and heathen as guests 
 at the banquet, that are the main lessons of the parable. 
 
 No parable can set forth all sides even of a single truth, and 
 it required more than one parable to set forth the nature of the 
 advantages which the Jewish rulers had so blindly thrown away. 
 The Kingdom of God is a fact with many sides to it. It is work 
 for God (the Two Sons). It is work for one's own profit as well 
 as for God (the Wicked Husbandmen). It is a royal banquet 
 (the Marriage of the King's Son). It is not all work, and it is 
 not all festivity ; it is a wholesome and joyful combination of 
 both. All this the self-righteous Pharisees rejected ; all this 
 others whom they despised would secure. 
 
 Here perhaps the parable, as Christ delivered it, ended. 
 Here the moral, which is placed at the end of the appendix to 
 the parable (14), would have some point. ' Many are called, 
 but few chosen.' All the Jews and all the Gentiles were called; 
 but only a few of the former, and not all of the latter, were 
 chosen. At the end of the appendix the moral is out of place, 
 for in the episode of the wedding-garmertt only one was not 
 chosen. It is possible that the Evangelist has taken the con- 
 clusion of another parable and added it to the Marriage of the 
 King's Son, in order to bring out the fact that, just as not all the 
 Jews are excluded, for some are the servants of the King, so 
 not all the Gentiles are admitted. In each case it is obedience to 
 the Kin^s will which secures a place in the Kingdom. 
 
 That the Wedding Garment was originally part of a distinct 
 parable appears probable from the omission of any mention of 
 the means by which the unworthy guest ought to have provided 
 himself with decent attire. It is commonly assumed that the 
 King provided suitable garments for the guests, and that this 
 man had contemptuously refused to put on what was offered 
 him. But nothing is said about this ; and the king, when he 
 questions the unworthy guest, does not tax him with having 
 ' It should be noted that here the first group of servants do not carry the 
 first invitation ; they go to summon tliose who had already been invited {rois 
 KeKXififiivovs) to the banquet. Presumably they had not definitely refused the 
 original invitation, and therefore might be supposed to have accepted it. At 
 any rate, the king graciously gives them two opportunities of availing them- 
 selves of the invitation. 
 
XXII. 11-14] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 303 
 
 despised a royal gift, but simply with being in unseemly attire. 
 In the Ten Virgins, the bridegroom does not provide oil, which 
 the foolish virgins refuse to accept : in the interval before the 
 arrival of the bridegroom, all ought to have provided oil for 
 themselves. In the original form of this parable we may suspect 
 that, in the interval between the invitation and the banquet, the 
 guests had to dress themselves becomingly and wait until they 
 were summoned. Such a parable is found in the Midrash. 
 Of those invited some are wise and some are foolish. The wise 
 put on festal array and wait in readiness. The foolish do not ; 
 and, when the summons comes, they hurry to the feast in their 
 working-clothes. For this they are beaten, and made to stand 
 hungry and watch the others sit and feast. See Allen, p. 235 ; 
 Wetstein, p. 471 ; Bruce, Parabolic Teaching, p. 463. Zahn, p. 
 626, note. 
 
 This appendix to the parable (11-14) may have been added 
 by Christ Himself; but it is more probable that it is the 
 Evangelist who has united the Wedding Garment to the 
 Marriage of the King's Son.i The addition shows that it is not 
 enough to accept the royal invitation. It is the king's will that 
 the invited should come, and that they should come duly 
 prepared ; and those who come with wanton and open lack of 
 preparation dishonour and disobey him no less than those who 
 refuse to come at all. Indeed the disrespect which is committed 
 under the royal roof and in the royal presence may be regarded 
 as even more flagrant than the disrespect of rejecting the royal 
 invitation. They are treated with no less severity. The Gentile 
 who dares to come before the king, while still defiled with all 
 his pagan godlessness, is condemned as decisively as the Jew 
 who persistently and violently refuses to come at all.^ A loyal 
 desire to conform to the will of God is all that' is demanded in 
 either case, but it is absolutely indispensable, and there can be 
 no excuse for the lack of it. The request for an explanation, 
 made with a gentle address (comp. xx. 13), renders the offender 
 speechless (l.<^iji.iiQ-i]) ; and the sentence to the outer darkness 
 follows. The explanatory words of warning, ' There shall be the 
 weeping and the gnashing of teeth,' are not part of the king's 
 command to the servants, but are addressed by Christ to the 
 audience. They are not to think that the outer darkness means 
 very little (comp. xiii. 42). 
 
 ' If we go from the middle of ver. 3 to ver. 11, we have a complete 
 parable; and 'in parables' (ver. i) seems to imply that more than one 
 parable is to follow (comp. xiii. 3, 10, 13, xxi. 45). 
 
 2 S. Ephraim interprets the wedding-garment as meaning the body, which 
 ought to be clean and free from defilement (Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mephar- 
 reshe, ii. pp. 124, 125). 
 
304 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXII. 15-22 
 
 XXII. 15-22. The Question of Tribute to Ccesar. 
 
 In xxi. 45, Mt. mentions 'the chief priests and the Pharisees' 
 as Christ's hostile audience, indicating that, bitter as was the 
 opposition between Sadducees and Pharisees, yet the two united 
 in the desire to destroy Jesus. Having failed in concert, they now 
 make separate attacks, the Pharisees about the paying of tribute, 
 the Sadducees about the doctrine of the Resurrection. Here 
 Mt. again follows Mk., who says that this time, as on an earlier 
 occasion (Mk. iii. 6), the Pharisees were joined in their plots by 
 the Herodians. In that place, Mt. (xii. 14) omits the Herodians, 
 but here he retains the mention of them, for their co-operation 
 was significant. As a political party, they were interested in the 
 overthrow of a popular teacher whose doctrine seemed to be 
 subversive of the existing Government. (For the Herodians, as 
 political rather than religious in sentiment and policy, see 
 Hastings' DB. and DCG., and Smith's DB., 2nd ed.). For the 
 tribute see Schiirer, i. ii. 80, 107-111. In politics, the Herodians 
 were as detested by the Pharisees as the Sadducees were in 
 religious matters ; but here again two hostile parties combined 
 against Christ. The Herodians of course defended, and probably 
 approved, Herod's arrest and execution of the Baptist, and they 
 would be strenuously opposed to Plim whom the Baptist had 
 supported, and who was carrying on the Baptist's work. During 
 the latter part of His Ministry, Christ had been avoiding Herod's 
 dominions (Mk. vi. 53, vii. 24, 31, viii. 27, x. i), avoiding 
 publicity (vii. 24, viii. 13), and charging people not to make His 
 miracles known (vii. 36,' viii. 26, ix. 9). 
 
 Like the question about authority, the question about tribute 
 was not in itself an unreasonable one. A Rabbi of great repute 
 might fairly be asked to give his opinion on a question of some 
 difficulty. Perhaps not a few of those who paid tribute were not 
 sure of the grounds on which paying for the support of a hostile 
 and heathen Government could be justified. Yet all three 
 Evangelists represent Christ as perceiving that the question was 
 asked, not for instruction, but for a sinister purpose.^ Christ's 
 followers no doubt knew this, and not only ' marvelled,' but were 
 delighted at the justice and skill with which He replied to the 
 question. They would not have been pleased if He had simply 
 said that Caesar must be paid ; but the principle that both 
 
 ' (tTTiii'i TrayiSeiaojcTLV is Mt.'s own expression in anticipation of Christ's ri 
 fie ireipafere; The word is rare in the LXX. (i Sam. xxviii. 9 ; Eccles. ix. 
 12), and occurs nowhere else in the N.T. But it occurs in the Testaments, 
 of the wiles of Potiphar's wife : Trepie^\4ireTo ttoIi/i rpdvifi fie irayiSeCa-aL 
 (Joseph vii. i). As Christ came from Galilee, the home of rebellion, and as 
 He had a Zealot among His disciples, His enemies hoped that He would 
 forbid the payment of tribute. 
 
XXII. 19-23] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 305 
 
 Caesar and God must be paid what was due to them, was 
 unanswerable. 
 
 In one detail both Mt. and Lk. rather spoil the narrative of 
 Mk. They represent Christ as requesting His tempters to show 
 (eTriSeifaxE, Beiiare) Him a denarius, the coin in which the tribute 
 would be paid. Mk. says that He told them to dring ((f>epeTe) 
 Him one. It had to be fetched. Christ's questioners would 
 not be likely to have such a piece of money, with the head of a 
 heathen Emperor upon it, on their persons. (For a representa- 
 tion of such a coin see Hastings' DB., art. 'Money'; Madden, 
 History of Jewish Coinage, pp. 245-248.) This coin represented 
 Roman organization, security of person and property, facilities of 
 transit, and other beneficent elements of stable government. 
 Was it just to accept all these- advantages, and then refuse to pay 
 for their maintenance ? To pay tribute to Caesar was not merely 
 lawful, it was a moral obligation, as the change from 'give' 
 (^ovvai) in their question to 'pay' (dTro'SoTe) in Christ's answer 
 indicates. The tribute to Rome was not a gift ; it was the 
 payment of a debt : and it was no impediment to the discharge 
 of any obligation to God. "Jesus was as far as possible from 
 being a gentle anarchist. It is not often necessary for the 
 members of the Kingdom of God to turn revolutionists. The 
 watchword of the Christian is not, My rights, but My duties " 
 (Burton and Mathews, Life of Christ, p. 228). What God's 
 rights {tIi toC ®€oii) are is not specified, but it is not Hkely that 
 there is any special reference to the Temple-tax (xvii. 25). In 
 concluding the narrative, Mt. uses the words in which Mk. (xii. 12) 
 states the effect of the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen : ' they 
 left Him, and went away.' Such variations illustrate the free 
 manner in which Mt. treats his authorities. The paragraph which 
 follows illustrates the same fact. See both Swete and Gould on 
 the parallel verses in Mk. 
 
 XXII. 23-33. The Question of the Resurrection. 
 
 Mt. is alone in stating that this question was raised by the 
 Sadducees on the same day that the Pharisees and Herodians 
 raised the question of tribute to Caesar. Mk. and Lk. leave the 
 time indefinite. In a similar way Mt. inserts ' on that day ' at 
 xiii. I, where Mk. and Lk. are indefinite. It is possible that here 
 Mt. had some other authority besides Mk. In wording he 
 differs more from Mk. than he usually does ; and, while Lk. 
 agrees with Mt. in some of these differences, in others Mt. is 
 alone. On the other hand, it is possible that Mt. is merely 
 treating Mk. with more freedom than he commonly does, and 
 that he had no other source. 
 20 
 
3o6 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXIl. 23-3:S 
 
 Mt. abbreviates Mk. xii. 21, 22; so also does Lk., but in a different 
 manner. The latter half of ver. 25 is peculiar to Mt., as also is iTnya/x^peiKrei. 
 in ver. 24.^ But Lk. follows Mt. in .substituting iiarepoi', of which Mt. is rather 
 fond, for Iixx^tov, an adverb which is rare in the N.T. , and which is found 
 nowhere else in the Gospels. 
 
 In ver. 23 we ought probably to read 2a55oK/caioi \iyovTes (N B D M S Z, 
 Syr-Sin. .Sj'r-Cur. ) rather than ^aSd. oi X^yovTfs (E F G H K L etc. , Sah. Boh. 
 Vulg. Arm.). The former simply states what they said to Christ on this 
 occasion ; the latter states ttie Sadducean creed. RV. omits the article, but 
 translates as if it were there, ' which say' (with ' saying' in the margin) : in 
 short, oi\iyoi'Tes = o'tTi.vesMyovinv {Mk.). In all three Gospels the Sadducean 
 denial is given as a matter of opinion ; /xi] eTpai, not oi)k eli/ai ; comp. Acts 
 x.xiii. 8 ; I Cor. xv. 12. Mt. has mentioned the Sadducees, iii. 7, xvi. i, 6, 
 1 1 ; but this is the first mention of them by Mk. and Lk. 
 
 Nowhere else does Christ give such clear statements about 
 the risen dead. The resurrection- will not be a reanimation of 
 bodies that have perished, and the new life will not be a re- 
 sumption of this life. The body that shall be is not the body 
 that is sown : i Cor. xv. 36, 37. 
 
 In Christ's answer, Lk. expands the wording of Mk. consider- 
 ably, but he omits the important explanation, ' ye err, not knowing 
 the Scriptures, nor the power of God.' This was the cause of 
 the Sadducean mistake, — ignorance. They showed ignorance of 
 the Scriptures, when they drew inferences from the experiences 
 of this life and applied them to the conditions of a future life ; 
 and they showed ignorance of the power of God when they 
 assumed that, if He granted a future life, it could not be very 
 different from this one. Marriage is necessary for men in this 
 world, because they die, and the race must be preserved ; but in 
 the other world they do not die, and therefore marriage becomes 
 as unnecessary for them as it is for the Angels.^ In the life 
 beyond the grave there are no wives and no husbands, and this 
 disposes of the supposed difficulty. 
 
 This answer might have sufficed; but the Sadducees had 
 appealed to ' Moses,' and therefore Christ gives them a further 
 answer, which not merely disposes of their objection, but shows 
 that in the Books of Moses the doctrine of a future life is plainly 
 implied. In Gen. xxvi. 24 and xxviii. 13 God calls Himself the 
 God of Abraham, after Abraham had died ; and in Exod. iii. 6, 
 15, 16 and iv. 5 God calls Himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, 
 and Jacob, after all three had died. Therefore those who have 
 died in this world are still alive in the other, for God is still their 
 
 ' The very rare word iinya.iJ.§peveiv and the expression ' raise up seed 
 to his brother' come from Gen. xxxviii. 8; comp. i Sam. xviii. 22-27. 
 Kennedy, Sources 0/ N.T. Greek, ^. 118. 
 
 ^ This comparison with the Angels is in all three Gospels, and it had 
 special point against Sadducees, who denied their existence, Would our 
 Lord have used such an argument, if in this matter the Sadducees were right ? 
 See on xiii. 49, xvi. 27, xviii. 10, xxiv. 31, 36 ; and comp. Enoch xv. 4-7. 
 
XXII. 33-35] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 307 
 
 God. What is dead can have a Creator or a Controller; but 
 only living beings can have a God. And this pregnant expression 
 was spoken to the Saddiicees (to prjOev vfu.v vivo tov OeoS) by 
 Almighty God. All these years they have had it before their 
 eyes, and yet they have never seen the force of it. Hence their 
 error about the impossibility of a Resurrection, which (as Mk. 
 adds) is a very grievous one (ttoXv irXavaaOt). No one can have 
 a right estimate of his position and duty in this life who omits 
 all account of a life to come. 
 
 There are differences of reading in ver. 32 and parallels. But it is certain 
 that in all three Gospels 6e(is occurs only once in the last sentence ; and it is 
 probable that in no Gospel should Getis have the article : ot)/c 'iffnv 0e6s peKpwv, 
 aXKa ^ibvTuv, which may be rendered, ' He is not God of dead people, but of 
 living,' or, 'There is no God of dead people, but of living. ' 
 
 Mt. alone adds that, 'when the multitudes heard it, they, 
 were astonished at His teaching ' ; and this was a very safe 
 addition. Even the Pharisees had supposed that there was no 
 direct evidence of a future life in the Pentateuch, and thereby 
 gave a great advantage to their opponents ; and yet Christ had 
 produced evidence which completely silenced (e<^i/i*a)trei') the 
 Sadducees, and at the same time convinced all who heard it of 
 its sufficiency. How came it about that it had been left to this 
 new Rabbi from Galilee to discover so unanswerable a text ? 
 The Pharisees and Herodians had ' marvelled ' (eOav/jLaa-av) 
 before (22); now the multitudes are 'amazed' (tfeTrA.ryo-o-oi'To) at 
 His teaching. But this latter statement comes from Mk. xi. 18, 
 where Mt. in the parallel verse (xxi. 15) omits it. Another 
 instance of Mt.'s free method of working. 
 
 XXII. 34-40. Tke Question of the Great Commandments. 
 
 Mt. here differs considerably from Mk. (xii. 28-34), but we 
 are in doubt as to whether he had any additional source of 
 information. In Mk. the Scribe is so pleased with Christ's 
 reply to the Sadducees that he asks a question which was much 
 debated. Christ answers him, and he expresses his satisfaction 
 with the answer in such a way that our Lord tells him that he 
 is not far from the Kingdom of God. In Mt. the Scribe 
 appears in a much less favourable light. He is a Pharisee (a 
 name of very bad repute in Mt.), and apparently, so far from 
 being pleased with Christ's refutation of the Sadducees, he 
 comes forward to see whether he cannot extract a compromising 
 answer from Jesus. But this is not quite certain. 'Tempting 
 Him' need not mean more than testing or proving Him, to see 
 whether He would give as convincing an answer respecting the 
 question about the chief commandments. Yet Mt., by assigning 
 
308 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXII. 36-38 
 
 this Scribe to the group of plotting Pharisees, and by omitting 
 both his approval of Christ and Christ's approval of him, is 
 evidently disposed to regard him as an enemy.^ 
 
 This is all the more clear if o-wtjx^i?"''"' iir' avrdv, ' were gathered 
 logether ag-aiMst //I'm' {D, Lat-vet. Syr-Sin. Syr-Cur.) is the right reading. 
 It might readily be changed into avvyjx- f^ri rd avro. The Pharisees would 
 not rejoice at Christ's victory over the Sadducees on the crucial question of 
 the Resurrection. At this crisis they desired that Jesus should be vanquished, 
 no matter by whom. Lk. omits the whole incident, unless ' certain of the 
 Scribes answering said, Master, Thou hast well said ' be regarded as a 
 condensation of Mk.'s narrative. Lk. had recorded a similar incident 
 X. 25-28, and perh.aps for that reason omits this one. Corap. also the story 
 of the rich young man, which is in all three ; see on xix. 16-30. 
 
 The rendering of ver. 36, ' Which is the great commandment 
 in the Law?' (AV., RV.) does not give the exact meaning of 
 the question (Trota ivToXr] /xeydXij iv tw v6/xw ;). It should rather 
 be, ' What kind of a commandment (xxi. 23) is great in the 
 Law?' The man is not asking which is the one supreme 
 commandment, but what c/ass of commandments is in the first 
 rank.2 What sort of characteristics must a commandment have 
 in order to be accounted great ? Or is there any one command- 
 ment which has these characteristics in a very marked degree ? 
 That the injunctions of the Law were regarded as differing in 
 importance is seen in v. 19; and on various occasions Christ 
 had come into conflict with the Pharisees as to the relative 
 obligations of certain rules ; e.g. respecting the sabbath (xii. 
 1-14), filial duty (xv. 1-9), divorce (xix. 3-9). What principle 
 ought to guide one in making such distinctions ? 
 
 Such a principle is found in f/ie love of God; and, to make 
 clear what that means, Christ refers His questioner to the text 
 with which every Jew of that time was very familiar, for he had 
 to recite it twice every day. This duty towards God is hinted 
 at in the Second Commandment : ' showing mercy unto 
 thousands, of them that love Me' (Exod. xx. 6; Deut. v. 10); 
 and it " is set forth in Deuteronomy with peculiar emphasis as 
 the fundamental motive of human action" (x. 12, xi. i, 13, 22, 
 xiii. 3, xix. 9, XXX. 6, 16, 20). "It thus appears as the most 
 inward and the most comprehensive of all religious duties, and 
 as the chief commandment of all " ; see Driver on Deut. vi. 5 : 
 prccceptum non inodo maximum, necessitate, amplitudine, diutur- 
 ititate rei ; sed etiam primum, natura, ordine, tempore, evidentia 
 (Bengel). But side by side with it our Lord at once places the 
 
 ^ For the feeling of Mt. against the Pharisees see on iii. 7 and xxvii. 62. 
 The Pharisees were dismissed xxii. 22 ; yet here and ver. 41 Mt. brings them 
 on the scene again. 
 
 ^ The Rabbis counted more than six hundred precepts in the Law, of 
 which some were called ' weighty ' and others ' light ' ; and there was much 
 discussion as to which were which. 
 
XXII. 39, 40] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 309 
 
 similar principle of the love of one's neighbour, i.e. of one's 
 fellow-men. This other duty is placed second, not merely 
 because God, although not recognized so soon as one's neigh- 
 bours are, is yet much nearer to us than they can be, and 
 because our love for Him is the basis of our love for them. It 
 is in Him that we are all brethren. ^ Comp. v. 43, vii. 12, 
 xix. 19; Lev. xix. 18. And lest we should suppose that mere 
 absence of hostility, or mere otiose affection is all that is 
 demanded, we are told that God is to be loved with all the 
 powers, spiritual, moral, and intellectual, which He has bestowed 
 upon us, and that our neighbours' interests must be as dear to 
 us as our own. 
 
 Mt. is alone in adding the words : ' On these two command- 
 ments the whole Law hangeth and the Prophets ' (40). The 
 man had asked respecting the Law, and Christ's reply comes 
 from the Pentateuch. But here He points out that these two 
 great principles cover not only the elementary precepts of the 
 Pentateuch, but the more advanced teaching of the Prophets ; 
 they are the life and soul of all the moral and spiritual teaching 
 of the Old Testament. If any one desires to know whether a 
 particular precept is to be accounted great or not, let him 
 consider how far it embodies one or both of these two cardinal 
 principles. With this use of ' hangeth ' {Kfikjiarai) comp. Judith 
 viii. 24. 
 
 In Mk. xii. 30 and Lk. x. 27 there are four powers with which God is 
 to be loved ; Mt. follows both Hebrew and LXX. in giving three ; but he 
 has both Kapdla and dtavoia, which are equivalents of the same Hebrew, 
 while he omits lcrxi.''St which is the equivalent of dvvafXLs. Mt. also follows 
 the Hebrew in having w throughout, while Mk. has f| throughout. Lk. 
 begins with cj and at once changes to eV. Mt. would of course prefer a 
 triplet to the fourfold division in Mk., but he would have done better to 
 omit Kapdia and retain i(rxvs. In the Testaments we have vfiets Sk (po^eitrde 
 K.vptov rbv Qedv iip.uiu iv Trdtrrj Itx^c vfj.wp {Zebulori x. 5). 
 
 Except in quotations, no Evangelist uses ihe word hmvoia, and (excepting 
 Lk. xxiv. 45) no Evangelist uses vovz. In none (without exception) does 
 v^^a or ^vvoid, (ppriv or ^p6vT)fia, yvihp.-r], or \6yos in the sense of 'reason,' 
 occur ; while yvCxris and (ppoprjcr^s are confined to Lk. and in him are rare. 
 On the other hand, Kapdia, ^vx'^, and xpeO/ia are frequent in the Gospels. 
 With the triplet here comp. Plaut. Captivi, II. iii. 27, 
 
 Ut potissimum, quod in rem recte conducat tuam, 
 
 Id petam, idque persequar corde at aytimo atque viribus. 
 
 ^ The combination of these two great commandments is found in the 
 Testaments: "Love the Lord in all your life, and one another in a true 
 heart" (Dan v. 3). See Charles, pp. Ixxix, 127. Klostermann quotes 
 Philo [De Septen. p. 282), ecTTL . . . hxio ra dptbrara K€(pd\aia, to re irph^ 
 Ofdv St euae^eias Kai 6(Tl6ti]to^, /cat r6 Trp6s dvdpojirous did ^iXavdpuiirias Kal 
 diKaioo-iiytjs. 
 
3IO GOSPEL ACCOKPrNG TO S. MATTHEW [XXII. 41-42 
 
 XXII. 41-46. The Messiah's own Question respecting 
 the Son of David. 
 
 All three Evangelists seem to understand that this question 
 was put by Christ to His opponents immediately after He had 
 silenced them by answering in an unanswerable manner the 
 questions with which they had tried to baffle and entrap Him. 
 There is no intimation that our Lord's enemies had retired, and 
 Mt. asserts that they had not.^ But we need not suppose that 
 our Lord's question was put merely to baffle His foes and shame 
 them still further before the multitude. Mk. says that it was 
 asked, 'as He taught in the Temple,' which seems to mean that 
 it was intended to be instructive. The right answer to this 
 question would solve the still unanswered problem as to the 
 nature of the authority by which He cleansed the Temple and 
 put forward doctrines which traversed the traditional teaching 
 of the elders. He had been called upon to silence those who 
 had hailed Him as the Son of David. That implied that He 
 ought not to accept so honourable a title. He points out that 
 the title gives Him, not too much, but too little. If He is only 
 the Son of David, He has no more right than Solomon or any 
 other descendant of David to the title of Messiah. But in a 
 Psalm, which every one recognized as Messianic and as inspired, 
 the Messiah is represented as altogether superior, not merely 
 to any other son of David, but to David himself. There the 
 Messiah is recognized as having a unique relationship, not to 
 David, but to God, whose sovereignty He shares. Comp. iii. 17, 
 xi. 27, xvi. 16, xxi. 37. 
 
 Christ's argument is seriously misapprehended, when it is 
 supposed that He criticized the assertion that the Messiah is 
 the Son of David as untrue. He criticized it as inadequate. 
 Generation after generation, there had been many who could 
 rightly claim this title ; but hitherto there had been no one 
 who combined the right relationship to David with the right 
 relationship to God. With their knowledge of the Scriptures, 
 the Jewish teachers ought to have been able to see that the 
 claims of Jesus were confirmed by writings which they accepted 
 as inspired by God and as referring to the Messiah. 
 
 So far there is no difficulty in the argument used by Jesus, 
 He assumes, and His hearers by their silence admit, the in- 
 spiration and Messianic meaning of Ps. ex. Criticism can admit 
 both. But He also seems to assume, and His hearers by their 
 silence to admit, that David is the author of the Psalm ; and 
 
 ' Mt. designates them as ' Pharisees ' (which neither Mk. nor Lk. do), 
 and he thus once more shows his attitude towards them ; see on iii. 7, 
 p. 28, and xxvii. 62. 
 
XXII. 42-46] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 3 II 
 
 to this assumption criticism raises serious objections. The 
 discussion of these objections belongs to the commentator on 
 the Psalms. We have to deal with the fact that many competent 
 critics regard the objections as fatal. If, therefore, it is in- 
 credible that Ps. ex. was written by David, what view are we 
 to take of Christ's argument ? There are various suggestions. 
 
 (i) Our Lord is arguing from His opponents' own premises, 
 expressing no opinion as to their correctness. They accepted 
 Ps. ex. as Davidic ; then what was their explanation of it in 
 reference to Himself? This is one of those "sayings in which 
 He takes up ideas and expressions current at the time and uses 
 without really endorsing them" (Sanday, Bampton Lectures on 
 Inspiration, p. 419). 
 
 (z) In the limitations of knowledge to which our Lord 
 submitted in becoming man, He Himself shared the belief, 
 current among all the teachers at that age, that the Psalm 
 was written by David. Criticism was unborn ; a knowledge 
 of its results would have impeded rather than have aided His 
 work; and He "condescended not to know." To Him, as 
 to His hearers, the Psalm was David's, and He argues ac- 
 cordingly. The conclusion which He reached is all that 
 matters ; and the conclusion was true. 
 
 (3) The Psalmist lets David quote an utterance of Jehovah, 
 in which Jehovah places David's Lord at His own right hand. 
 The. argument of Jesus is based upon David being the speaker 
 of the words quoted; and this argument "is justified if the 
 author of the Ps. lets David appear as spokesman. It does 
 not require the Davidic authorship of the Psalm. . . . These 
 words, by whomsoever uttered, have a Messianic reference to 
 the seed of David in accordance with the covenant with David, 
 and they do not lose their Messianic reference even though in 
 the mouth of another" (Briggs, Coiiim. on the Fsaltns, ii. 
 P- 376). 
 
 These considerations are sufficient to show that we are not 
 justified in quoting our Lord's authority as determining the 
 Davidic authorship. We do not know that He accepted the 
 Davidic authorship. If He did, we have no reason to suppose 
 that He was giving a final decision on the subject. The 
 question was not raised. If He had been asked to decide 
 it, He would perhaps have replied, ' Man, who made Me a 
 decider and a judge?' Besides the passages referred to in 
 Sanday and Briggs, see Kirkpatrick on Ps. ex. in the Cambridge 
 Bible; Qoxe., Bampton Lectures, "p. 196; Dalman, Words of Jesus, 
 pp. 285-287 ; Gould on Mk. xii. 35-37 ; Perowne on Ps. ex. 
 (ii. p. 302), with the remarks of Thirlwall there quoted; Weiss 
 on Mt. xxii. 43; Bishop Mylne, Ind. Ch. Qii. Rev., Oct. 1892, 
 
312 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXII. 46 
 
 p. 486; E. G. King \n JTS., April 1903, p. 338; DCG., art. 
 ' Kenosis.' 
 
 It is interesting to notice the different position which the 
 three Evangelists give to the statement that ' no man after that 
 durst ask Him any question.' Lk. places it after Christ had 
 silenced the Sadducees respecting the Resurrection. Mk. places 
 it after the commendation of the Scribe who asked about the 
 great commandment. Mt. places it after Christ's question re- 
 specting the Son of David. Lk. is in substantial agreement 
 with Mk., for Lk. omits the incident with the Scribe. But Mt. 
 has transposed the statement to what seemed to be a more 
 suitable position, — the close of the debate, after the Messiah 
 had proved as victorious in putting questions as in replying 
 to them. We may also note the climax, in three stages : 
 'marvelling' (xxii. 22), 'amazement' (33), 'not daring to ask 
 any more questions' (46). The third stage forms a fit con- 
 clusion to ' that day,' — perhaps the Tuesday before the Cruci- 
 fixion, — which has been called 'the Day of Questions.' It 
 was ' from that day forth ' that His enemies did not venture 
 to give Him any more opportunities of putting them to 
 confusion. There have been five questions ; about authority, 
 tribute, resurrection, great commandments, Psalm ex. 
 
 Characteristic expressions in ch. xxii. : yiiJ.oL = ydij,os (2, 3, 4, 9), iSov 
 (4), devTe (4), rdre (8, 15), (rvvdyeiv (10, 34, 41), IvSu/j-a (11, 12), 6 ^pvy/xhs 
 rCiv ddoi/TOjp (13), iropeieadat. (15), tI doKel ; (17, 42), viroKptTris (18), Trpoa4p- 
 X^nSai. (23), 'S,aSSovKatoi. (23, 34), i^arepov (27). Peculiar: r; fiaaiKela twv 
 oipavdv (2), ^^drrepos (13), (TU/i/SoilXioc \aixfidveiv (15), rb fnjO^v (31), iralpos 
 (12); peculiar to this chapter: o-iriirTos (4), ^fiiropla (i), Sii^odos (g), v6fii.(rfia 
 (18), iiriyaiifipeveiv (24), wayiSeieii' (15). 
 
 Note the aorists, idavfxaaav, eTryjpdjrtjaav, ^T6\fj,7)(T€V (22, 23, 46), where 
 Mk. (xii. 17, 18, 34) has imperfects. 
 
 The much discussed quotation in Barnabas iv. 14 Trpocr^x"/""' MTOTe, ws 
 y^ypatrraL, iroXXol KXrjroi, d\iyoi 5^ ^K\eKTol evpiOCj^^v, may more reasonably 
 be regarded as a quotation of Mt. xxii. 14 than of some unknown writing. 
 It is possible, or even probable, that ' many called and few chosen ' was 
 already a proverb when Christ uttered the saying ; and it is possible that 
 some such saying lies at the back of 2 Esdr. viii. I, 3, x. 57. But proverbs 
 are quoted with 'as it is said' rather than with 'as it stands written,' which 
 necessitates a document ; and a known document which contains the words 
 is a more satisfactory hypothesis than an unknown document. Barnabas may 
 have seen the original Mt. or a very earlv copy. In T/ie N. T. in the Apostolic 
 Fathers, pp. iS, 19, the other hypothesis is preferred. 
 
 XXIII. The Messiah's Denunciation of the Teachers who 
 have misled His People. 
 
 This discourse consists of three main parts : criticisms and 
 exhortations, addressed to the mixed multitude and to the 
 disciples (2-12); seven Woes, addressed to the Rabbis and 
 
XXIII. 1] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 313 
 
 Pharisees (13-33); judgments upon the nation and upon 
 Jerusalem, addressed to the representatives of both (34-39). 
 
 There can be no doubt that, as in the discourses recorded in chapters 
 v.-vii., X., and xiii., Mt. has here collected together, and assigned to one 
 occasion, utterances of Christ against the Pharisees and official teachers which 
 were delivered on various occasions. This is clear from the fact that nearly 
 twenty of the verses are found in Lk. ; chiefly in xi. 39-52, but also in xiii. 
 34, 35, xiv. II, andxviii. 14 ; and that the setting in Lk. is more likely to be 
 the true historical setting than that in Mt. Of the material which is common 
 to both Mt. and Lk., the arrangement is very different in the two Gospels. 
 Even the long utterance in Lk. xi. 39-52 is given in a very different order 
 (46, 43, 52, 42, 39-41, 44, 47, 48, 49-51), and with additional material 
 inserted here and there. Moreover, the language is different. This remark 
 applies also to Lk. xiii. 34, 35 = Mt. xxiii. 37-39. The variations in order 
 and in wording are so considerable that it is unlikely that Mt. and Lk. had 
 a common source. The only passage which is common to all three Gospels 
 is Mt. xxiii. 6, 7 = Mk. xii. 38, 39 = Lk. xx. 46,47; comp. xi. 43. See 
 Allen's table of correspondences. 
 
 The verses which have no parallels in Lk. are 1-3, 5, "jb-io, 15-22, 24, 
 28, 32, 33, — a very large portion of the whole. We may conjecture that the 
 source of the whole is the Logia, and that, for the material which is common 
 to Mt. and Lk. , the latter had a source which differed considerably from that 
 which was used by Mt. As regards the present occasion, Lk. (xx. 45-47) 
 appears to be dependent on Mk. (xii. 38-40). With this exception, none of 
 the denunciations of the Pharisees which are common to Mt. and Lk. are 
 assigned by Lk. to this crisis. 
 
 It is a crisis. Henceforth there is no appearance of peaceful 
 debate between Christ and His opponents ; it is a situation of 
 open hostility. They have determined to destroy Him, and He 
 publicly denounces them. But His triumphant victories over 
 them in argument had made Him still more popular with the 
 pilgrims who have come up for the Passover, and perhaps with 
 not a few of the lower orders in Jerusalem. These enthusiastic 
 supporters of the courageous young Teacher would be quite 
 ready to listen to a condemnation of the defeated Rabbis. We 
 may allow, therefore, that although a good deal of the invective 
 contained in this chapter was probably uttered at other times, 
 yet it gives a true picture of the historical situation ; and it is 
 possible that a good deal more than the fragment which is 
 common to Mt, Mk., and Lk. was really spoken on this occasion. 
 
 XXni. I -1 2. The Warnings to the Multitudes and 
 to the Disciples. 
 
 The Evangelist leads off with his favourite ' Then ' (t6t(), 
 which is probably meant to assign what follows to the time 
 indicated in the previous chapter. All hope of reclaiming the 
 Scribes and Pharisees is now at an end ; and nothing remains 
 but to warn all who have been, or might be, misled by them of 
 
314 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXIII. 2-5 
 
 the disastrous character of their teaching. The opening words 
 of the denunciation, as given by Mt., are not easy, and one 
 suspects an abbreviation which has obscured the sequence of 
 thought. 
 
 ' The Scribes and the Pharisees sat on Moses' seat.' Why 
 ' sat ' (iKadiuav) rather than ' sit ' ? Christ can hardly have 
 meant that the Rabbis were usurpers, — that they found the seat 
 of Moses empty, and (without any authority) occupied it and 
 set up as teachers. Elsewhere we do not find Him challenging 
 their right to teach ; and, if that had been the meaning here, 
 we should expect Him to go on to say : 'therefore pay no atten- 
 tion to what they say.' Perhaps the original saying was to this 
 effect : ' The Scribes and Pharisees sat in Moses' seat, when 
 they taught you to observe the Law ; all things, therefore, 
 whatsoever are contained in the Law, do and observe.' In this 
 way we can explain the past tense, and also make ver. 3 in 
 harmony with vv. 16-22, in which, not only the conduct, but 
 the teaching of the Rabbis is severely condemned. Their state- 
 ment of the Law was to be accepted and obeyed, though they 
 did not obey it themselves, and often gave monstrous misinter- 
 pretations of it. Indeed their misinterpretations were the cause 
 of their disobedience ; for, either through culpable blindness, or 
 through a wish to evade, they had failed to see, or had explained 
 away, the true spirit of the Law. They insisted that, in the 
 most minute details, the letter of the Law must be kept, but 
 they did not 'do or observe' the righteousness at which it 
 aimed. 
 
 It was by their perverse interpretations of the details of the 
 Law that they 'bound heavy burdens upon men's shoulders'; 
 e.g. in the rigour with which they prohibited exertion of any kind 
 on the Sabbath, so that the weekly day of rest, instead of being 
 a welcome blessing, became an intolerable burden. Nevertheless, 
 they never take the smallest amount of trouble to get these 
 exasperating restrictions abolished. They are nbt willing to 
 stir a finger to remove them (xtvijo-at awTa).i 
 
 The denunciation passes at once from the good things which 
 they fail to do to the evil things which they are constantly 
 doing. In act as well as in word, they make great professions 
 (5), but there is no reality to correspond to it. Scrupulosity 
 about such mere externals as ' phylacteries ' and ' fringes ' (see 
 the articles in Hastings' DE. ii. pp. 68 ff, iii. 869 ff.) is a good 
 illustration of the formalism of Judaism. Such things were 
 
 ' For KLViiv in the sense of ' remove' see Rev. ii. 5) vi. 14. This makes 
 better sense than : ' They are not willing to move them with a finger, much 
 less take them on their backs.' Syr-Syn. has: 'But they do not touch 
 them.' 
 
XXIII. 6-10] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 315 
 
 useful as reminders ; they were fatal when they were regarded 
 as charms. The Pharisees fell victims to the peril which is 
 inseparable from all externals in religion : ' all their works they 
 do to be seen of men.' Lk. has the charge against the Pharisees, 
 that they loved salutations in the market-places and chief seats 
 in the synagogues, twice ; in xx. 46, which is parallel to this 
 passage, and in xi. 43. It is not impossible that Christ may 
 have made the charge on two separate occasions, and in both 
 places the context is suitable. Here all three add ' chief places 
 at feasts ' to the ' salutations ' and ' chief seats,' Mk. and Lk. 
 placing this addition after the other two, Mt. placing it before 
 the other two.' Mt. also transposes the ' salutations ' and the 
 ' chief seats,' so that his order is exactly the reverse of the order 
 in Mk. and Lk. There seems, however, to be no reason for 
 this change. 
 
 What follows (8-12), most of which is peculiar to Mt., seems 
 to be addressed specially to the disciples ; it would not have 
 much meaning for the rest. ' But be not ye called Rabbi ' ; 
 with a strong emphasis on the pronoun. ' Do not desire this 
 title (Jn. i. 39), nor allow others to use it to you.' And they are 
 not to give to others unsuitable titles of respect, any more than 
 they are to accept Ihem for themselves. ' And call no one your 
 father upon the earth'; with a strong emphasis on 'father.' 
 'For one is your Father, the heavenly one.' Here, rather than 
 in the earlier place, we might have expected the addition : ' but 
 all ye are brethren.' ^ It is remarkable that the Scribes had 
 reduced the heavenly Father to a sort of glorified Rabbi. 
 According to their conception of Him, He studied the Law 
 three hours each day ; He kept its rules ; and He was deeply 
 interested in external observances. Formalism could hardly go 
 farther than to maintain that God Himself is occupied in such 
 things. S&e DCG. i. p. 582. 
 
 It is possible that vv. 8-12 do not belong to this discourse. They 
 resemble Jn. xiii. 13-15, and may have been part of the farewell discourses 
 which Mt. does not record. And it is possible that ver. 10 is a mere doublet of 
 ver. 8 ; for ' master ' or ' leader ' (KaBriyriT'l]^) and ' teacher ' m.iy be different 
 renderings of one and the .same word : Dalman, Words, p. 340. Some author- 
 ities (N D Lr A) read Kad-qyifnt {doctor) for SiSticritaXos (magister) in ver. 8 : 
 some (U and a few cursives) have ' But all ye are brethren ' after ver. 9 : and 
 
 ' 'The uppermost rooms' (AV. ) is misleading now. Topmost chambers 
 is not the meaning, but chief places in the banqueting-room, the places of 
 distinction at the table. In Elizabethan English, ' Keep your rooms ' meant 
 'keep your places.' Comp. Shakespeare, Tarn, of Shrew, III. ii. 252; 
 J Henry VI., III. ii. 132. 
 
 ^ See small print below. Christ does not say, ' But all ye are My disciples,^ 
 because the point to be insisted upon is their equality among themselves, 
 rather than their relation to Him. 
 
3l6 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXIII. 13 
 
 some (H U V A, Syr-Cur.) insert 6 XpiffrS!, which is genuine in ver. lo, at the 
 end of ver. 8, where it seems to be required (AV.). Assuming, however, that 
 w. 8 and lo are both original, then Mt. once more has a triplet, BiddcKaXos, 
 TraTiJp, KadTjyyjTTjS. 
 
 It was usual to speak of the teachers of a former age as 
 ' Fathers,' but it does not seem to have been customary to 
 address a Hving Rabbi as 'Father'; comp. 2 Kings ii. 12, vi. 21. 
 Hence perhaps the change from ' Be not ye called ' to ' Call no 
 one.' There was no need to charge the disciples to refuse the 
 title of ' Father,' for no one was likely to give it to them. But 
 they were to abandon the practice of appealing to the authority 
 of 'the Fathers,' which had done so much evil in perpetuating 
 misleading traditions. S. Paul, before his conversion, had been 
 'more exceedingly zealous for t/ie traditions of the fathers'' 
 (Gal. i. 14) : after his conversion he saw the mischief which they 
 wrought. The one authority to be appealed to was the God of 
 truth, or He who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. There 
 is only one Source of revelation (xi. 25-27, xvi. 17), and it is the 
 Son who makes Him known to mankind. With ver. 1 1 comp. 
 XX. 26, and with ver. 12 comp. "Who abaseth himself, him 
 exalteth God ; and who exalteth himself, him abaseth God " 
 (Talmud). 
 
 XXIII. 13-33. Seven Woes upon the Scribes and Pharisees. 
 
 There can be no reasonable doubt (see small print below) 
 that ver. 14 is an interpolation from Mk. or Lk. Omitting it, 
 we have seven Woes left. In making his collection of Christ's 
 denunciations of the Pharisees, Mt. would be likely to aim at the 
 number seven on account of its many associations. Elsewhere 
 in this Gospel we have seven demons (xii. 45), seven parables 
 (xiii.), seven times, and seventy times seven, forgiveness (xviii. 
 21, 22), seven brethren (xxii. 25); and some people count seven 
 Beatitudes (v. 3-9), and seven petitions in the Lord's Prayer 
 (vi. 9-12). With the seven Woes we may compare 'the seven 
 thunders ' in Rev. x. 3, 4, which are left without explanation ; 
 and perhaps also the sevenfold 'voice of the Lord' in Ps. xxix., 
 where the Prayer-Book version obscures the first voice in ver. 3. 
 But the closest parallel is the sevenfold Woe in Is. v. These 
 seven Woes are like thunder in their unanswerable severity, and 
 like lightning in their unsparing exposure. They go direct to 
 the mark, and they illuminate while they strike. And yet there 
 is an undertone of sorrow, which makes itself heard when the 
 storm is over; and at the close (37-39) it is the sorrow that is 
 heard alone. Indeed, 'Alas for you ' may represent the mean- 
 ing of each utterance, rather than ' Woe unto you.' Comp. 
 
XXIII. 13-15] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 317 
 
 xxvi. 24. The first three Woes treat of the Pharisaic teaching, 
 the last three of the Pharisaic character ; the fourth is transitional, 
 treating somewhat of both. We have had .previous Woes, one 
 on Chorazinand Bethsaida, because of their impenitence (xi. 21), 
 and one on the world, because of stumbling-blocks (xviii. 7). 
 
 The first Woe (13) has a parallel in Lk. xi. 52, where it is the 
 door of knowledge which the lawyers keep locked both against 
 themselves and against others. It is this door which leads to the 
 Kingdom, so that the meaning is the same as here.^ By their 
 misinterpretations the Scribes had hidden the true meaning of 
 Scripture from themselves and from the people. See Hort, 
 Judaistic Christianity, p. 141. 'Them that are entering' means 
 ' those who are continually trying to enter,' which gives a better 
 picture of the people than we sometimes make. The success of 
 the Baptist's preaching and the enthusiasm of many of the lower 
 orders for Christ are evidence of the continual effort to enter the 
 Kingdom. The Scribes and Pharisees, by their coldness towards 
 John and their opposition to Jesus, hindered this effort from 
 being fruitful. The unwillingness of the leaders to enter the 
 Kingdom has been already indicated in the parable of the Two 
 Sons (xxi. 30). 
 
 Thatver. 14 is no part of the true text is clear from its omission in the best 
 authorities (N B D L Z, Latt. Syr-Syn. Aegyptt. Arm., Grig.), and from the 
 fact that those which insert it liave it in different places, either before ver. 
 13 (G H K M S U V r A, Syr-Pesh. Syr-Hare. Aeth.), or after ver. 13 (4 Old 
 Latin texts Syr-Cur., Chrys. Ilil.). It is an interpolation from Mk. xii. 40 = 
 Lk. XX. 47. 
 
 The second Woe (ver. 15) charges these hypocrites, who 
 hinder the men of their own nation from entering the Kingdom, 
 with being very eager to induce men of other nations to accept 
 the religion, of the Pharisees. Wherever they succeed, the 
 fanaticism which is so common in converts manifests itself, and 
 the proselyte becomes twice as fonnal and hypocritical as those 
 who made him a Pharisee. That converts to Pharisaism are 
 meant, and not converts to Judaism, is probable for two reasons. 
 1. The latter were numerous, while the former were not; and it 
 is implied here that the Pharisees made great efforts with scanty 
 success. 2. There is no evidence that proselytes to Judaism 
 were specially evil in character; what is stated in Acts would 
 lead us to think otherwise. Yet it is easy to believe that 
 converts to Pharisaism would become more exclusive and formal 
 than the Pharisees themselves. But the whole subject is full of 
 
 ' Syr-Sin. has here : ' Ye hold the key of the Kingdom of Heaven before 
 men.' 
 
 The triplet, ' Scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites' is peculiar to Mt. It is an 
 interpolation in Lk. xi. 44 (AV. ). 
 
31 8 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXIII. 16-S4 
 
 uncertainties; see Hastings' DB., urt 'Proselyte'; Schiirer, ii. 
 ii. pp. 2gi ff. The story of Izates (Jos. Ant. xx. ii. 4) does not 
 throw very much hght. There was nothing very Pharisaic in 
 telling one who accepted the Jewish religion that he ought to 
 submit to circumcision. The main point here seems to be that 
 the Pharisees, while professing a great zeal for the spread of the 
 true religion, were chiefly bent on winning another adherent to 
 their party. 
 
 The third Woe (16-22) is still more clearly directed against 
 the Pharisees' teaching, especially against the casuistry with 
 which they decided whether a particular form of oath was 
 binding or not. The distinctions which they drew were sub- 
 versive of morality. Examples of swearing by the gold of the 
 Temple, i.e. the golden ornaments and treasures, seem to be 
 wanting, but there is no reason to doubt that oaths of this kind 
 were taken, or that distinctions such as are here indicated were 
 made. It is grievous enough that people should be encouraged 
 to think that there are two kinds of truth, one of which is 
 important, and the other not; viz. that which is sworn to, and 
 that which is stated without an oath. That leads men to think 
 that, unless they take an oath, they may tell lies with little or no 
 blame. But to tell men that, even when they have sworn, they 
 are not bound to tell the truth or abide by their promise, unless 
 the oath is taken in a particular way, is far worse, and far more 
 destructive of men's sense of honour and love of truthfulness. 
 And our Lord shows that Pharisaic distinctions about oaths were 
 not only wrong in themselves, but perverse in principle. If a 
 distinction was made, an oath by the Temple ought to be re- 
 garded as more serious than an oath by any vessel in the 
 Temple. ' Heaven ' was one of the common substitutes for the 
 Name of God, and therefore to swear by Heaven was to swear 
 by Him. All oaths are binding ; but the best course is not to 
 swear at all. See on v. 33-37. Possibly, Temple and gold, 
 altar and gift, heaven and throne, are meant to form a triplet. 
 
 The fourth Woe (23, 24) is concerned with Pharisaic 
 scrupulosity in the application of the Law to minute details, a 
 scrupulosity which was not wrong in itself, but which became 
 monstrous when it was combined with extreme laxity as to 
 broad principles of morality (xxii. 37-40). Tithe had to be paid 
 upon 'a// the increase of thy seed' (Deut. xiv. 22; Lev. xxvii. 
 30), and therefore upon herbs of trifling value, such as ' mint, 
 dill (not 'anise'), and cummin.' These were useful for flavour- 
 ing food and also as medicine. The two triplets, 'mint, dill, 
 cummin' and 'judgement, mercy, faith' are in emphatic contrast 
 here ; in Lk. xi. 42 there is no contrast of triplets. 
 
 'Strain at a gnat' (AV.) was originally, a misprint for 'strain 
 
XXIII. 24-28] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 319 
 
 out a gnat' (Tyndale, Coverdale, Genevan, RV.), the object 
 bding to avoid drinking what was declared to be unclean 
 (Lev. xi. 20-23). ■'^s in xix. 24, 'camel' is hyperbole for any- 
 thing large. Such hyperbole is Oriental, and our Lord employed 
 it (v. 29, 30, .wii. 20, xxi. 21) not unfrequently. 
 
 The fifth Woe (25, 26) is aimed at a worse kind of scrupu- 
 losity than that of careful tithing of pot-herbs. The latter was in 
 accordance with the Law, and was reprehensible only when it 
 caused more important duties to be neglected. But punctilious 
 observance of lustrations (which were matters of mere tradition, 
 and not of the Law), when accompanied by neglect of the 
 plainest moral obligations (Lk. xi. 39), was still more repre- 
 hensible. These Pharisees were nervously anxious lest their 
 food should be made ceremonially unclean through contact with 
 a cup or platter that might have touched what was ceremonially 
 unclean ; but they were heedless as to whether the food had not 
 been tainted in a more serious way, through being the fruit of 
 extortion and excess (c^ dpiray^s koI dKpacrtas). 
 
 'Fu11/;w7i extorlion and excess' (RV. ) is right, and seems to mean aj- 
 the result of dishonesty and greed ; the food and drink have been bought 
 with ill-gotten gains. C D, Latt. omit the e^. Vulg. has iiivnmditia 
 [aKadapcrlas] for aKpaaias (X B D L A IT), and Syr-Sin. 'and of all unclean- 
 ness,' as in ver. 27. C V etc. read dSiKlas. The change from ' excess ' to 
 ' uncleanness ' was made because this Woe is concerned with the subject of 
 * clean and unclean ' ; and the change to ' unrighteousness ' was made because 
 this seemed to go better with 'extortion.' ' Excess' is doubtless correct ; yet 
 it probably does not refer to excess in eating and drinking, but to insatiable 
 lust of gain. Some Latin texts have ^j/e are full of extortion and unclean- 
 ness,' //««2«riw foe plcni sunt. On the ceremonial cleansing of vessels see 
 Schiirer, II. ii. pp. 106-111. 
 
 The change to the singular, 'Thou bhnd Pharisee' (26), is 
 not made in Lk. xi. 40, 41, which differs greatly from the 
 wording here, the meaning of which is plain. 'Take care that 
 your meat and drink are obtained in an honest way, and then 
 you need not be scrupulous about the washing of the cup and of 
 the platter.' We again have a triplet : tithing trifles, straining 
 out gnats, cleansing cup and platter. 
 
 Perhaps 'and of the platter' (koX ttjs wapoij/idos) should here be omitted 
 as an insertion from ver. 25. D, Syr-Sin., some cursives, and some Old 
 Latin texts omit. 
 
 The sixth Woe (27, 28) again has a parallel in Lk. xi. But 
 the thought differs considerably as to the apphcation of the 
 metaphor. Here the whitened tombs look pure and fair on the 
 outside, but inside are full of foulness ; which was just like the 
 Pharisees. In Lk. the reference is to the whitewashing of graves 
 on the isth of the month Adar, in order that no one might 
 
320 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXIII. 29-32 
 
 touch them unawares and become polluted without knowing it.^ 
 Graves that had not been whitewashed were Uke the Pharisees ; 
 people were contaminated by them, through not being aware of 
 their true characters. Our metaphor of 'whitewashing' moral 
 evil is more in harmony with Mt. than with Lk. ; but in neither 
 Gospel is it quite clear whether we are to think of the Pharisees 
 as conscious or as unconscious hypocrites. The latter are the 
 more dangerous to others. 
 
 The Seventh and Last Woe (29-33) must again be compared 
 with Lk. xi. The Pharisees professed to be shocked at the 
 deeds of their forefathers, who put the Prophets to death. If 
 they had lived in those times, they would never have done such 
 things. They will make such reparation as is possible by 
 erecting beautiful monuments in honour of the Prophets. Here, 
 as in giving tithe of small things, it is not the act which is 
 blamed ; it is the hypocrisy which accompanies the act that is so 
 monstrous. These men, who professed to be so distressed at the 
 murdering of the Prophets, were themselves compassing the 
 death of Him who was far greater than any Prophet. Building 
 tombs for the Prophets was not wrong in itself; but honouring 
 dead Prophets while one was scheming to kill a living Prophet, 
 was the basest hypocrisy. These hypocritical murderers 
 admitted that they were the children of those who killed the 
 Prophets. They were their children morally as well as by 
 physical descent ; with the same hatred of true piety, and the 
 same thirst for the blood of those who rebuked their vices. The 
 law of heredity was at work in their veins. 
 
 If the majority of texts are right in reading the imperative 
 {ir\r)pil)craTi) in ver. 32, then the severely ironical command, 
 ' Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers,' should be 
 compared with 'That thou doest, do quickly' (Jn. xiii. 27). But 
 the future may be right (irXrjpma-eTc) : ' Ye will fill up ' ; i.e. ' In 
 spite of all your hypocritical professions, you are sure to prove 
 yourselves worthy descendants of Prophet-slayers.' Note the 
 emphasis on the pronoun (ijxei^). In any case we have the 
 terrible thought that " there is a certain bound to imprudence 
 and misbehaviour, which being transgressed, there remains no 
 place for repentance in the natural course of things " (Butler, 
 Analogy, i. ii. 10). Then judgment follows, without appeal. 
 There is also the thought that, in the case of nations, this limit 
 is reached through the action of successive generations, the 
 wickedness of each age contributing to the final result. In the 
 case of the Jews, the limit of misbehaviour had been almost 
 reached, and with the murder of the Messiah and His Apostles 
 
 ' If this was spoken a few days before the Passover, the annual whitewash- 
 ing of graves would be quite fresh. 
 
XXIII. 33, 34] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 321 
 
 would be transgressed. The destruction of Jerusalem and the 
 dispersion of the nation was at once the inevitable consequence. 
 
 The reading ■w\-qpiiaaT€ (KB-CLXFAII, Latt.) is probably correct. 
 Unwillingness to believe that such stern words could have been spoken by 
 Jesus might easily cause the variants, either irX-qpiiaert (B, Syr-Sin.) or 
 eVXjjpwffaTe (D H). The last has little to recommend it ; it would perhaps 
 refer to the killing of the Baptist, which, however, was not the work of the 
 Jews. The present tense, 'Ye are filling up,' would make excellent sense. 
 All their machinations against the Messiah were having this result. 
 
 In what follows (33) 'the wrath of the Lamb' is manifested, 
 and it is terrible.'- It is "evident that the Sacred Humanity is 
 capable of a righteous anger which is the worst punishment that 
 the ungodly have to fear, more insupportable even than the 
 vision of the Divine Purity" (Swete on Rev. vi. 16). The 
 resemblance to iii. 7 is conspicuous ; but such severe words 
 surprise us less in the Forerunner, who was the bearer of a message 
 of judgment, than in the mouth of Him who was at once the 
 Bearer of the Good-tidings and the Fulfilment of them. But it is 
 well to be reminded that persistent wickedness must provoke 
 Divine wrath (xii. 34). Comp. Mk. iii. 5, the only place in the 
 Gospels in which anger is attributed to our Lord. ' The 
 judgment of Gehenna ' (77 k/di'o-is t^s yeeVvi^s) is the judgment 
 which condemns to Gehenna. The expression is said to be 
 Rabbinical. Comp. v. 22, 25, x. 28. The question has no 
 answer ; it is implied that they cannot escape this judgment. 
 
 The ' Behold, I send ' (34) must be compared with the 
 identical phrase in x. 16 ; the one looks back to the other. 
 There Christ tells His Apostles that He sends them as sheep in 
 the midst of wolves ; here He tells the wolves what the real 
 significance of their maltreatment of the sheep will be. In 
 both passages the emphatic ' I ' is to be noted (iSov cyw 
 aTToa-TiWti)) ; it is Christ Himself who is the Sender, and it is His 
 Prophets whom they will persecute. The addition of ' wise 
 men and Scribes ' carries on the parallel with Jewish history and 
 also makes another triplet. After Malachi, the nation had been 
 taught by wise men and Scribes. The Messiah is to have, not 
 only His Prophets, but His wise men and Scribes (xiii. 52), to 
 match those of old time ; and they will have no better fate than 
 the Prophets of the Old Covenant. By using Jewish terms to 
 designate the Christian missionaries, Christ continues to indicate 
 the solidarity of His Pharisaic opponents with their murderous 
 
 ' The similarity to the curse in the Talmud is of interest t "Woe to the 
 house of Annas ! Woe to their serpent-like hissings !" Annas and his sons 
 had made themselves abominated for their tyranny and rapacity. The 
 conduct of Annas was a direct contradiction of his name,, which means 
 'merciful.' See Edersheim, Life and Times, i. p. 263, 
 
322 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXIII. 35 
 
 forefathers. In both cases there was bitter persecution of 
 religious teachers for their unwelcome teaching. The title 
 ' Prophets ' passed over to the Christian Church and continued 
 for a time ; the other two titles were never adopted. The 
 slaying and crucifying refer to cases in which the Jews incited 
 Roman officials against the Christians; the scourging in 
 synagogues (x. 17) and chasing from city to city (x. 23) were 
 forms of persecution which the Jews could carry out themselves. 
 
 'That upon you may come all the righteous blood' (35) 
 expresses the Divinely ordered sequence. The 'that' (oirms) has 
 been anticipated by the ' therefore,' ' for this reason ' (Sta 
 TovTo) in ver. 34, and shows that ' that ' depends upon ' I am 
 sending,' not upon ' ye shall kill,' etc. God does not cease to 
 send His messengers, because they are as a rule rejected ; each 
 generation has its opportunity. Christ acts in the same way with 
 Christian missionaries. The Divine will is that all should listen 
 and be saved. But with this desire is combined the just decree 
 that those who refuse to listen shall be condemned ; and 
 therefore the condemnation of the rebellious may be said to be, 
 not only the result, but the purpose, of the sending of the 
 messengers. In Jewish thought, the actual issues of events were 
 often regarded as indistinguishable from Divine purposes, and 
 ' in order that ' (iVa, oVw?) was used where we should rather say 
 'so that' (ajo-Tc).i Here we must once more remark the serene 
 and confident authority with which Christ assumes the 
 prerogatives of Providence. He is doing exactly what God did 
 under the old dispensation, with similar desire and persistence, 
 and with similar result. 
 
 There can be no doubt that the person who was slain 
 ' between the sanctuary and the altar,' was not the son of 
 Barachiah, but the son of Jehoiada (2 Chron. xxiv. 20-22). The 
 son of Barachiah was the Prophet ; and we have no reason for 
 believing that the Prophet was murdered. Moreover, there is 
 an obvious reason for selecting the son of Jehoiada as a limit. 
 In the Jewish Bible, Chronicles comes last, and therefore, as 
 'the blood of Abel' is the first murder in the Bible, so 'the 
 blood of Zachariah' is the last, although in point of time that of 
 Uriah by Jehoiakim (Jer. xxvi. 23) took place later.^ In Lk. xi. 
 51, 'son of Barachiah' is omitted, and there need be no doubt 
 that here the insertion is a mechanical slip, either of the 
 Evangelist or of a very early copyist. We are not to suppose 
 that the words were uttered by our Lord, who probably said 
 'Zachariah,' without mentioning whose son he was. A further 
 
 ' See Moulton's M^iner, pp. 573, 574; J. H. Moulton, Gram, of N.T, 
 Gr. pp. 206-208. 
 
 ' See Ryle, Canoti of the 0. T. p. 141, 
 
XXIII. 35, 36] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 323 
 
 reason for selecting these two murders might be that in both 
 cases it is stated that a reckoning for them would be made : 
 ' The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto Me from the 
 ground ' (Gen. iv. 10) ; ' The Lord look upon it and require it ' 
 (2 Chron. xxiv. 22). Three times blood is mentioned in this 
 verse. 
 
 The omission of 'son of Barachiah' here (X and four cursives) is an 
 attempt to avoid the difficulty; and the insertion of the words in Lk. xi. 51 
 (D, Syr-Cur. and two cursives) is an attempt to bring the two Gospels into 
 harmony. The attempts to find a son of Barachiah different from the 
 Prophet, to whom the words might apply, may be neglected ; also the 
 suggestion that Jehoiada may have had Barachiah as a second name. The 
 simplest explanation is that ' Zachariah Son of Barachiah ' was a familiar 
 expression and was written mechanically. But the Evangelist, or the early 
 scribe, may have believed that the Zachariah who was slain in the Temple 
 was the Prophet. See DCG., art. 'Barachiah.' 
 
 ' Whom ye slew ' {ov l<f}ov€va-aTe) shows that Christ is thinking 
 of the Jewish nation as a whole, guilty of what was done by its 
 representatives in many generations. Our Lord does not mean 
 that the Scribes and Pharisees of His own day were responsible 
 for murders committed by their forefathers centuries before that 
 time. But the guilt of wickedness is increased by the accumula- 
 tion of previous instances and warnings. Each generation that 
 condemns the wickedness of its predecessors, and yet repeats 
 the wickedness, is more guilty than its predecessors and has 
 more to answer for. Moreover, it is one of the penalties of sin, 
 a special penalty to warn us from committing it, that the 
 suffering which it invariably produces spreads to those who are 
 innocent. In this sense, God visits the iniquity of the fathers 
 upon the children, and nations reap the whirlwind from the wind 
 which previous generations have sown. Yet even in such cases 
 the generation which reaps the full consequences of the original 
 wrong-doing is so far guilty, if it has not taken warning and 
 endeavoured to remedy the evil. But, in another and truer 
 sense, ' the soul that sinneth, it shall die : the son shall not bear 
 the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity 
 of the son' (Ezek. xviii. 20). This is only imperfectly realized 
 in this world, but it is rigidly true when the consequences of sin 
 both in this world and in the next are assessed and assigned. 
 The same solemn assurance, 'Verily I say to you,' is found in 
 both Mt. and Lk.^ This generation, which will fill the measure 
 of iniquity full, is the one which will reap the full consequences 
 of centuries of sin. 
 
 The lament over Jerusalem is given by Lk. in quite a 
 different connexion, neither as following on the saying about 
 
 • Lk., as writing for Gentiles, turns the Hebraistic d/j.riv into the more 
 classical vai. 
 
3^4 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXIII. 37 
 
 Abel and Zacharias, nor as an incident in the last days at 
 Jerusalem. He connects it (xiii. 34, 35) with another severe 
 utterance respecting the Holy City, on which it follows quite 
 naturally. But the connexion here is equally natural, and is 
 more probable, inasmuch as on this occasion the Messiah had 
 Jerusalem before His eyes, whereas, according to Lk., He was 
 far away at the time. Both connexions, however, are so suitable 
 that there is no need to conjecture a third. And it is not likely 
 that such words were uttered twice, and in each case with the 
 remarkable transitions from the address in the second person 
 singular (^lepovaaXrjjj. 'lepovcraXi^fj,) to the third singular (avr-i^v), 
 thence back to the second singular (ra reKva a-ov), and finally to 
 the second plural (^^eAiyo-are).! We may be well content to 
 accept, as the true historical setting, the context which is given us 
 here. The thought of how different all might have been had the 
 'nation's leaders taken warning from the sins of their forefathers, 
 and listened to the preaching of the Baptist and the Messiah, 
 leads Christ to close His stern denunciation of the leaders and 
 utter a lamentation over the city that they have misled. What is 
 now her abiding character? She is a murderess and a rebel 
 against Jehovah, the slayer of Prophets and the stoner of those 
 whom He sent to her. 
 
 The doubled address is evidence of emotion and concern ; 
 comp. vii. 22; Lk. x. 41, xxii. 31; Acts ix. 4. It is the 
 inhabitants of Jerusalem (i Mac. i. 38) that are addressed, not 
 the nation as a whole (Is. i. 8, iii. 16, iv. 4, xxxvii. 22 ; Zech. 
 ix. 9; Joel iii. 6; Lk. xix. 44, xxiii. 28; Jn. xii. 15). The 
 'how often' must refer to frequent visits of the Messiah to 
 Jerusalem which are not mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels, and 
 is therefore a strong incidental confirmation of the Fourth 
 Gospel. D. Strauss allows that "all evasions are here in vain," 
 the words must refer to earlier visits of Jesus to the city ; but he 
 denies that Jesus ever uttered the words, which he assigns to 
 some apocryphal source (Z. yesu Krit., 1835, i. p. 444 ; L. Jesu 
 f. das deutsche Volk, 1864, p. 249). This violent criticism is 
 parallel to that which denies that xi. 27 was ever spoken by 
 Jesus. See Zahn, Einkitung, ii. p. 446. The danger from 
 which Christ would have protected Jerusalem, as a hen protects 
 her brood from " the wheeling hawk on high," is the judgment 
 which is about to fall upon it. Comp. Is. xxxi. 5 ; Ps. xci. 4 ; 
 Ruth ii. 12; 2 Esdr. i. 30. 'How often I would' {■woa-a.Ki's 
 
 ' The exactness with which the wording has been preserved in both places 
 extends to the form 'lepomoK-qfi.. Everywhere else in his Gospel Mt. has 
 'lepoiy6\vixa, even in reporting the words of Christ (v. 35, xx. 18), whose 
 Aramaic would be better represented by 'lepov<ra\ri/x. In this solemn address 
 Mt. has kept the older and more sacred form, all the more so as being n:;ore 
 suitable for personification. In xx. l8 he follows Mk. 
 
XXIII. 38, 39] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 325 
 
 ■Y]6iX-q<Ta), and just as often 'ye would not' (ovk rjOiXriaa-Tt). The 
 two verbs are in emphatic and sorrowful opposition. In Jn. i. 5, 
 10, II, a similar effect is produced by repeating the substantive. 
 
 ' Your house is being left to you ' (38) ; it is being abandoned 
 to the consequences of your accumulated misdeeds, 'left' to its 
 fate. ' Your house ' in this context can hardly mean anything 
 but Jerusalem. 'This house' (Jer. xxii. 5, xxvi. 6) is not 
 parallel, and does not warrant our interpreting ' your house ' of 
 the Temple. In Enoch Ixxxix. 50, 51, 56, 66, 72, the 'house' 
 is Jerusalem and the Temple is represented by a ' tower ' (see 
 Charles, ad loc); and in the Testament of Levi x. 5, we have : 
 " For the house which the Lord shall choose shall be called 
 Jerusalem, as is contained in the Book of Enoch the righteous." 
 
 Both here and in Lk., 'desolate' (Iprjiios) is a gloss to explain 'is being 
 left ' ; B L and some old versions omit. In Lk. the evidence for omission is 
 still stronger. The insertion weakens the sad irony of 'is being left to you.' 
 The inhabitants of Jerusalem must now preserve, as best they may, the city 
 which has hitherto been under Divine protection. Comp, x.\iv. 40, xxvi. 56 ; 
 Jn. X. 12; Jer. xii. 7. The v^li^ is (^aL incomiiiodi : ' to your sorrow.' The 
 Book of Enoch describes how God "forsook that their house and their tower, 
 and gave them all into the hands of the lions to tear and devour them " 
 (Ixxxix. 56), a passage which is alluded to in the Epistle of Barnabas {xvi. 4) 
 as 'scripture.' The Apocalypse of Baruch has: "Enter ye enemies, and 
 come ye adversaries ; for He who kept the house has forsaken " (viii. 2). 
 And the Testaments : "The Temple, which the Lord shall choose, shall be 
 desolate {^ptj^os ^arai) through your uncleanness, and ye shall be captives 
 unto all the nations" [Levi xv. I), Can ^p-^/xos have got into Mt. xxiii. 38 
 from this passage ? Comp. xvi. 4. Comp. the famous ^erafiaivu^ev evrevBev 
 (Joseph. B.J. VI. V. 3) and audita major hujnana vox^ excedere deos {^?^z. 
 Hist. V. 13). Contrast Exod. xxix. 45. 
 
 The concluding warning (39) is given with special solemnity 
 (Ae'yo) vfxiv) and great assurance (ov 1x1)). It seems to look back 
 to xxi. 9. When the multitudes and the children welcomed 
 Jesus with Hosannas as the Messiah, the hierarchy were moved 
 with indignation, and wished Jesus to put a stop to the acclama- 
 tions. He assures them here that, until they can themselves 
 take up this welcome to Him, they will never see Him again as 
 their Messiah. His mission to them as their Saviour is closed. 
 If that relation to them is ever to be renewed, the initiative must 
 come from them. What He has said and done for them ought 
 to have sufficed for their conversion, and no more teaching will 
 be granted to them. The little that still remains to be given 
 will be for those who have accepted Him, for the faithful few 
 among His disciples. But opportunity for conversion will always 
 remain open, and it is for them to see if they will avail themselves 
 of it. He will certainly return, and it is possible that He may 
 then find an Israel ready to believe on Him as One who cometh 
 as the representative of God (Iv ovo/xan Kvpiov). 
 
326 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXIII. 
 
 These sorrowful words of warning are the Messiah's farewell 
 to His people. He never again taught in public, and perhaps 
 He never again entered the Temple. That Jn. xvii. was spoken 
 in the Temple-courts is an attractive conjecture, but it is devoid 
 of evidence. It was perhaps only a few hours after the uttering 
 of these Woes upon the teachers, and this lamentation over 
 the inhabitants of Jerusalem, that the Sanhedrin met to consider 
 how they might destroy Him who had uttered them. That was 
 their answer to His condemnation of their past and His warnings 
 respecting their future. 
 
 Characteristic expressions in ch. xxiii. : T-irt (i), inroKpi.Tris {13, 15, 23, 
 25, 27, 29), yievva (15, 33), diJ.vvva.1. (16, 18, 20, 21, 22), Td0o!(27), (paiveadai 
 (28), y€vv-qiji.aTa ^x^^vC^v (33), lSo{j {34, 38). Peculiar ; 6 Trary^p 6 oupdvws (g), 
 7; /SatTiXeta tQi^ oupavwv (13), ^y^ dwoaTeWco (34); peculiar to this chapter : 
 (puXaKTripLOf (5), Kad-qyqTT}^ (10 bis)^ &vri6ov (23), KVfiLvov (23), SivKi^av (24), 
 Kiii/oitp (24), irapoi/'is (25, 26), Trapo/j-Oidt^ciy (27), voaalm (37). 
 
 Mt. omits the narrative of the Widow's Mites (Mk. xii. 41-44 ; Lk. xxl. 
 1-4), and Wrlglit notices that "widows are not once mentioned in S. 
 Matthew, though S. Mark speaks of them in two passages and S. Luke in 
 six. . . In the first Gospel women are as much kept In the background as 
 they are brought to the front in the third " (p. 126). Vet Mt. several times 
 mentions women where the other Evangelists do not ; e.g. the woirren and 
 children at the feeding of the 5000 and of the 4000, the mother of the sons of 
 Zebedee (twice), and Pilate's wife ; he introduces two women into the 
 narrative of Peter's denials, where Mk., Lk., and Jn. have only one ; and he 
 alone records the parable of the Ten X'irgins. About the prominence of 
 women in Lk. there Is no question. 
 
 Hippolytus (Rcf. Hin: v. 3) quotes ver. 27, with an interpretation added, 
 as if it were part of our Lord's words : "This, they say, is that which was 
 spoken : Ye are whlted sepulchres, full, they say, within of dead men's bones, 
 because the living man is not in yoii.^^ 
 
 XXI'V. XX'V. Discourses on the Last Things. 
 
 The hterature of the period which preceded and followed the 
 Birth of Christ shows that the minds of many Jews were deeply 
 interested in events connected with the end of the world, which 
 it was supposed was near at hand. In evidence of this we have 
 the Book of Enoch, the Psalms of Solomon, the Assumption of 
 Moses, the Book of Jubilees, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Fourth 
 Book of Ezra (our 2 Esdras), the Apocalypse of Baruch, and the 
 Book of the Secrets of Enoch. It is evident that this interest in 
 revelations respecting the consummation of all things is reflected 
 in the Gospels, and especially in the Synoptics. It had a twofold 
 source ; on the one hand, the utterances of Psalmists and Prophets, 
 and especially Ezekiel and Daniel; on the other hand, certain 
 elements in heathen religions, and especially the religion of 
 Persia. It was perhaps inevitable that our Lord should make 
 use of these Jewish conceptions and expectations as vehicles for 
 
XXIV.] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 327 
 
 His own teaching. There was much important truth wrapped 
 up in them, and apart from the form in which popular thought 
 had invested it the truth could hardly be made intelligible to 
 the Jews of that day. But, as we might expect, it was the 
 eschatology which was derived from Psalmists and Prophets, 
 rather than that which came from contact with Persia during the 
 Captivity, that Jesus adopted for His own purposes. And "so 
 far as He took over the transcendent supernatural side of the 
 expectation, He transformed and spiritualized while H6 adopted 
 it." In adopting, He "transmuted tjie apocalyptic tradition." 
 (Sanday, Recent Research, pp. 64, 112). 
 
 And there was much need of this transforming and spiritual- 
 izing process ; for there were gross elements in Jewish conceptions 
 of the consummation of the existing age ; there was much that 
 was political and even sensual in the way in which Jews pictured 
 to themselves the details of the approaching crisis. The Messiah, 
 as the agent of Jehovah, was to appear in the clouds at the head 
 of a triumphant host, was to put down Roman rule and all other 
 earthly sovereignty, and on the ruins of all was to establish His 
 own Kingdom, one feature of which would be a perpetual banquet. 
 At this banquet the descendants of Abraham were to sit on 
 thrones of glory, from which they could see the discomfiture of 
 the excluded Gentiles and Samaritans. From these crude and 
 carnal accessories the apocalyptic passages in the Gospels are 
 free. But at the same time it must be admitted that some of the 
 language used, and perhaps a great deal of it, is symbolical, and 
 is not to be understood in a strictly literal sense. Our Lord 
 could not have taught His disciples what He had to reveal to 
 them respecting these last things, unless His language was ac- 
 commodated to these ideas, without which they could hardly 
 have understood anything at all. He had many things to say to 
 them, but they could not bear them then, and He perhaps 
 employed phraseology which was misapprehended at the time, 
 but has been slowly interpreted by the experiences of Christendom. 
 Though not intended to veil, but to reveal, it was to those who 
 heard it elusive ; the significance of it escaped them for the time. 
 And we must make allowance for the possibility that, through 
 misapprehension at the time, some of His sayings have been 
 misreported. 
 
 It is possible that in these discourses on the Last Things we 
 have a sevenfold arrangement; xxiv. 4-14, 15-28, 29-3r, 32-51, 
 XXV. 1-13, 14-30, 31-46. But this is by no means so clear as 
 the seven parables in xiii. and the seven Woes in xxiii. 
 
 We should certainly not gather from these apocalyptic dis- 
 courses that our Lord was predicting the coming of the Kingdom 
 through the gradual perfecting of the human race or of Christen- 
 
328 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXIV. 1-3 
 
 dom. The Jewish idea, that the great change is to be a sudden 
 catastrophe, of which the chief feature is to be the coming of the 
 Messiah on the clouds, is neither condemned nor discarded. 
 The reports of His words show that He taught this Himself to 
 the end. This, in the main, is what He seems to have meant 
 by His Coming, and He left an impresssion that it would take 
 place soon. There were other senses in which He spoke of His 
 coming again, — to the disciples after His Resurrection, to His 
 Church after the Ascension, to His faithful followers throughout 
 all time, to the world in signal acts of judgment ; and it may be 
 that His words were not always distinct enough to show which 
 meaning was intended. But His words about His Coming in 
 the clouds to inaugurate the Kingdom are as well authenticated 
 as anything that He is reported to have said, and it is not 
 impossible that at one time they were preserved as a separate 
 document which formed the substance of Mk. xiii., and therefore 
 of Mt. xxiv. and of Lk. xxi.i Nowhere else in Mk. have we so 
 long a discourse, without break or interruption ; and the easiest 
 way to account for this peculiarity is to suppose that here at any 
 rate Mk. is using written material. Here Mt. is again using Mk., 
 but he has expanded what is reported in Mk. xiii. with utterances 
 on similar subjects which were perhaps spoken at some other 
 time; yet the result is a connected whole, in which the future 
 is sketched, down to the time of Christ's return. For tables 
 showing the correspondences with Mk. see Allen, p. 252. 
 
 XXIV. 1-3. The Desti-uction of the Temple foretold. 
 
 This is the incident which leads to the apocalyptic discourse, 
 and in the introductory verses Mk. is much more definite than 
 either Mt. or Lk. After closing His public teaching, the Messiah 
 leaves the Temple, and then one of the disciples, "himself no 
 doubt a Galilean to whom this great piece of architecture was not 
 too familiar " (Salmon), directs Christ's attention to the magnifi- 
 cence of the structure, and receives the startling announcement that 
 it is to be utterly destroyed. No one makes any comment, but 
 evidently no one doubts the truth of the prediction. A little 
 later, when Christ has sat down on the Mount of Olives opposite 
 the Temple, the three elect disciples with the addition of Andrew ^ 
 
 ' This hypothesis is wholly different from the view that a spurious 
 apocalypse lies buried in the Synoptic report of our Lord's eschatological 
 discourse. " It has long been a favourite idea with some Continental writers, 
 an entirely mislaken one, I believe, that the record of our Lord's apocalyptic 
 discourse in the first three Gospels includes a kernel or core transcribed from 
 a purely Jewish Apocalypse" (Hort, 7'ke Apocalypse of St. John i. -Hi. p. xiii). 
 
 - These arc the four whose call MU. places at the beginning of his Gospel 
 (i. 16-20). 
 
XXIV. 1-3] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 329 
 
 ask when this amazing destruction will take place, and what sign 
 there will be of its being at hand. This is both more definite 
 and more probable than the version of the incident in Mt. One 
 disciple might well make the exclamation recorded, but the 
 company of disciples would hardly ' show Him the buildings of 
 the Temple,' which both He and they had often seen before. 
 Again, it is more probable that a few of the disciples, and those 
 who were most intimate with the Master, should ask the con- 
 fidential question about the date of the great crisis, than that all 
 should do so. It was a matter which could not safely be made 
 generally known, perhaps not even to all the disciples. And, 
 where Mt. adds to the narrative of Mk., the addition looks like a 
 touch from a later age, to make the question about the date a 
 more suitable introduction to the discourse which follows. Mt. 
 represents the disciples as asking for a sign, not of the approaching 
 destruction, but ' of Thy coming, and of the end of the world.' ^ 
 Yet our Lord had said nothing about His going away and 
 coming again, and the end which He had predicted was that of 
 the Temple, not that of the world. All three Evangelists re- 
 present the disciples as asking for ' a sign ' as to the fulfilment of 
 the prediction ; and all three show that Christ did not give them 
 one. He warns them to be on their guard against being misled 
 by what might seem to be signs but were not such, yet He does 
 not Himself give any sure sign. 
 
 It is here (3) that for the first time in the Gospel we meet 
 with the word ' Parousia ' (Trapovala), which in the Gospels is 
 peculiar to Mt. and is in Mt. confined to this chapter (3, 27, 37, 
 39). It occurs in all the groups of the Pauline Epistles, excepting 
 the Pastoral Epistles, being specially frequent in i and 2 Thes. 
 It would seem therefore to have been in common use, almost as 
 a technical term for the Coming of Christ in glory, some time 
 before the First Gospel was written. This is perhaps an additional 
 reason for the view that separate reports of this discourse may 
 have been in circulation before either Mk. or Mt. wrote ; in orie of 
 these the term -rrapovaM may have been used. It intimates that 
 the return of the Messiah in glory will not result, like the First 
 Coming, in a transitory stay, but will inaugurate an abiding 
 presence. The expression ' Second Coming ' is not found in 
 Scripture, but it occurs in Justin {Try. 40; comp. no, 121, and 
 Apol. i. 52); also in the Secrets of Enoch (xxxii. j), not, however, 
 of Christ, but of God. See Hastings' DB. and DCG., art. 
 ' Parousia.' In the Testaments the term -irapova-La is found of 
 God's appearing: "And among men of other race shall My 
 Kingdom be consummated, until the salvation of Israel come, 
 
 ' Mt. may intend this addition to look back to xxiii. 39, where Christ's 
 return is alluded to ; but even there nothing is said about the end of the age. 
 
330 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXIV. 4 
 
 until the appearing (ri^s irapovo-t'as) of the God of righteousness, 
 so that Jacob may rest in peace" {Tudah xxii. 2). For 'con- 
 summation of the age' (o-Di/TeAeta rov atulvos), Or 'end of the 
 world,' comp. xiii. 40, 49. 
 
 XXIV. 4-14. Events which must precede the End. 
 
 A great deal must happen first, and therefore the disciples 
 must not be led astray by rumours that He has already returned. 
 There will be false Christs, wars and tumults, famines and 
 earthquakes, persecutions by the heathen, treachery among 
 Christians, false prophets ; and yet the Gospel shall be preached 
 in all the world. Not till then will the end come, and the 
 disciples must not allow their eager desire for the consummation 
 to betray them into a premature belief that the Coming has 
 taken place, or is very near. 'In My Name,' or 'on the basis 
 of My Name' (hr\ t(3 ovdjuaTi /tou, xviii. 5), means that a claim 
 to the title of Messiah was the ground of their pretensions : it 
 is not meant that they would call themselves 'Jesus.' But 'the 
 Christ ' is an addition made by Mt. In Mk. it is simply ' I am 
 (He),' using eyuj €i/xi in the Messianic sense : see Westcott on 
 Jn. viii. 24. But the main point is not so much their method 
 of deception as their great success : ' they will lead many astray ' 
 (7ro'A,Aous irAai/T^crouo-iv). Is. xix. 2 may be at the back of what 
 follows : ' They shall fight every one against his brother, and 
 every one against his neighbour ; city against city, and kingdom 
 against kingdom.' Comp. 2 Esdr. xv. 14, 15.^ 
 
 The 'beginning of travail' (apx'^ itKvuiv) perhaps includes no 
 thought of these things being the ^/>M-pangs which precede a 
 happier era. The word may mean 'pangs,' without any idea 
 of birth. Indeed it is sometimes used of the pains of death 
 (Ps. xviii. s, cxvi. 3). What is meant here is acute sufferings 
 which are likely to increase. Comp. Book of Jubilees, xxiii. 18, 
 19; Apocalypse of Baruch, xxvii.-xxix., where the travail-pains 
 of the Messiah are described with details that in several respects 
 resemble what is described here ; and Book of Enoch, xcix. 
 4-7, c. 1-9. 
 
 In the prediction of persecutions (9-14) Mt. is not so close 
 to Mk. xiii. 9-13 as the previous verses are to Mk. xiii. 3-8. 
 But Mt. has already (x. 17-22) given a closer parallel to Mk. 
 xiii. g-13, and this reduplication seems to show that there has 
 
 ■ Aei 7ei'^(7tfai (6) from Dan. ii. 28; comp. Rtv. i. I. In Gospels and 
 Acts Sei is frequent of what has been decreed by God. Perhaps fycpSiJcreTai 
 (7), which is in all three, is to be taken as passive, 'will be raised up' by 
 the powers of evil. See small print near the end of ch. vii. for Justin's use 
 of this passage. 
 
XXIV. 9-14] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 33 1 
 
 been some confusion in the accounts. Here Mt omits all 
 mention of being beaten in synagogues^ and for 'ye shall be 
 hated of all men ' he substitutes ' ye shall be hated of all the 
 nations,' thus freeing the Jews from the charge of persecution 
 and confining this prediction to the Gentiles. ^ The mention of 
 false prophets at this point (comp. ver. 24), the mutual hatred, the 
 increase of iniquity, and the cooling of love are all peculiar to 
 Mt. ; and these expansions emphasize the fact that persecution 
 from without is to be accompanied by grievous deterioration 
 among the Christians themselves. They will even betray one 
 another to the persecutors. This evil element has been 
 mentioned before, in a less definite manner, in the parables of 
 the Tares and of the Net (xiii. 38, 39, 48, 49), of the Unmerciful 
 Servant (xviii. 32), and of the Wedding Garment (xxii. 11); but 
 what is intimated here is a gradual corruption in Christian 
 society, and it is to this no less than to the persecution by the 
 heathen that 'he that endureth to the end' (]3) applies; comp. 
 X. 22. Here also there are remarkable parallels in 2 Esdras : 
 ' But iniquity shall be increased above that which thou now 
 seest, or that thou hast heard long ago' (v. 2); 'Whosoever 
 remaineth after all these things that I have told thee of, he shall 
 be saved, and shall see My salvation, and the end of My world ' 
 (vi. 25); 'Every one that shall be saved, and shall be able to 
 escape by his works, or by faith, shall be preserved, and shall 
 see My salvation ' (ix. 7, 8). See Hort on Rev. i. 9. 
 
 Yet, in spite of persecution from without, and unfaithfulness 
 within, the Gospel continues to spread, until the whole inhabited 
 world is reached and it becomes a testimony to all the nations. 
 That is, as in the case of the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts viii. 
 1-4), persecution would help to spread the Gospel. The 
 martyrs would be preachers in councils and courts to audiences 
 that would otherwise not easily be reached ; and the flight of 
 Christians from one city to another would lead to still greater 
 dissemination of the word. 
 
 'And then shall the end come' (14). These words are in 
 neither Mk. nor Lk. Indeed, hardly anything in vv. 10-14 is 
 common to Mt. and Lk., and very little is common to Mt. and 
 Mk. 'The end' of course means the end of the age, and in 
 interpreting that we must remember the subject of this discourse 
 and the persons to whom it is addressed. Our Lord is speaking 
 of the overthrow of Jerusalem and of the Temple to men who 
 would inevitably think of such an overthrow as the end of the 
 
 ' Comp. Justin, Afol. i. 4, where it is said that to confess to being a 
 Christian is regarded as proof of guilt, and Tert. Apol. 2 : illud solum 
 expectattir qitod odio publico iteccssarittm est, confessio iioniinis, noil 
 examinatio criminis. 
 
332 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXIV. 15 
 
 age. It is quite possible that they would regard the destruction 
 of the Holy City and of the Temple-worship as the end of the 
 world. It is quite possible that the Evangelist would so under- 
 stand it, for he could have no expectation of an interval of many 
 centuries between the Ascension and the Return. But the 
 fact, if it be a fact, that the Apostles and the Evangelist under- 
 stood the Messiah's words in this sense is no proof that this 
 was the sense in which He uttered them. What was important 
 for them to know was that the Temple was doomed and its end 
 near. Whether its end would coincide with the end of the world 
 would be taught by experience. 
 
 XXIV. 15-28. Events connected ".vith the Destructioji of 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 Our Lord has answered neither of the questions put to Him 
 by the disciples respecting (as Mk. has it) the destruction of 
 the Temple, or (as Mt. has it) the Second Coming. He has 
 not said when it will come, or what sign will announce its 
 approach. He has merely said that a great deal will happen 
 first. He now, with regard to the end of the Temple and of 
 the city, gives enough information to guide the disciples through 
 a time of great trouble. There are here two remarkable 
 differences between Mt. and Mk., while Lk., writing later, differs 
 very considerably from both. The words, ' which was spoken 
 of by Daniel the Prophet,' are not in Mk. ; and 'standing where 
 //c ought not' in Mk. (eo-Ti/Kora oVou ov Sei) becomes 'standing 
 in [the] holy place ' (eoros Iv tottu) ayi'o)) in Mt. The masculine 
 participle in Mk. shows that the writer thought of 'the abomina- 
 tion of desolation' as personal, — either an idolater or an 
 idolatrous image ; whereas the neuter participle in Mt. leaves 
 the interpretation of ' the abomination of desolation' indefinite. 
 The expression, as Mt. points out, comes from Daniel (xi. 31 ; 
 comp. ix. 17, xii. 11; i Mac. i. 54, 59), and evidently refers 
 to something idolatrous. 'Standing in a holy place' (there is 
 no article) probably means within the Temple-enclosure. In 
 Acts xxi. 28, o ay/OS TOTTO's means the Temple; and comp. Acts 
 vi. 13. But in 2 Mac. ii. 18 it means the Holy Land; and 
 either the Holy Land ( B. Weiss) or the Holy City may be the 
 meaning here. See on i Mac. i. 54 in the Camb. Bible for 
 Schools. 
 
 But of greater interest than either ' the abomination ' or the 
 'holy place' is the significance of the parenthetical 'Let him 
 that readeth understand,' which is in both Mk. and Mt., but is 
 omitted by Lk. Are the words part of our Lord's speech? and 
 do they call attention to the places in Daniel where the 
 
XXIV. 15-20] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 333 
 
 'abomination of desolation' is mentioned? In Mt. it looks as 
 if this was the case, owing to the previous mention of Daniel. 
 But in Mk., where there is no such mention, another interpreta- 
 tion is more probable. It is the Evangelist, or the source from 
 which he drew, that calls attention to the words here spoken by 
 Christ. In the latter case the meaning will be: "All readers 
 of this ought now to be on the alert, for the destruction which 
 the Lord foretold must be near at hand." This would imply 
 that Jerusalem was not yet surrounded, but was in danger of 
 being so, by the heathen, at the time when Mk. wrote. But 
 this argument cannot be used of Mt. (see Introduction ; Date). 
 In Lk. these words of warning are omitted, probably as being 
 no longer of any use. 
 
 If 'holy place' (15) be understood as meaning the Holy 
 Land, then 'Judsa' (16) may mean the Land of the Jews, 
 Palestine as a whole ; comp. xix. i. The meaning would then 
 be that, when the heathen host invades the Holy Land, all the 
 faithful therein are to flee across the Jordan into the hill-country 
 of PerKa. But it is more probable that the province of Judaea 
 is meant, as in ii. i, 5, 22, and that 'the mountains ' are the • 
 mountains of Judfea. It was thither that Mattathias and his 
 sons fled, in order to carry on a guerilla warfare against the 
 officers of Epiphanes. These mountains abounded in caves 
 and recesses difficult of access. Comp. i Mac. ii. 28. The 
 horrors of this heathen invasion will be so great that not a 
 moment is to be lost, when the alarm has once been given. The 
 most necessary equipment must be sacrificed rather than risk 
 being overtaken : and it will be wise to pray that this sudden 
 flight may not have to be made in stormy weather. ^ The words 
 ' nor yet on a sabbath ' (fj-rjii cra^/3dru)), whatever the weather 
 may be, are probably an addition made by Mt., who here again 
 shows his Judaistic sympathies: comp. v. 18, x. 6, 23, xv. 31, 
 xix. 9, xxiii. 3.2 The incident recorded i Mac. ii. 32-38 
 explains how disastrous flight on a sabbath might be. The 
 first believers would almost all be Jewish Christians, who would 
 have scruples about going more than a sabbath-day's journey 
 on the sabbath. In b.c. 320 Ptolemy i. captured Jerusalem on 
 a sabbath (Jos. A/U. xii. i. i; comp. xii. vi. 2; B.J. i. vii. 3). 
 Whatever be the source of these words, they indicate that this 
 
 ^ This, rather than 'in the winter,' seems to be the meaning of xeia'^'J'O!, 
 as in xvi. 3 and Acts xxvii. 20. Biit either makes good sense. 
 
 -It is possible that 'nor yet on a sabbath' was in the original source, 
 and that Mk. omitted it as not of interest to Gentile readers ; but it is 
 equally possible that Mt. inserted it, with or without authority. Palestinian 
 tradition may have contained it. Josephus (Pieface to B. J. 4) says that the 
 calamities of all men from the beginning of the world were less than those 
 of the Jews in his estimate. Comp. the Assumption of Moses, viii. i. 
 
334 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXIV. 22 
 
 Gospel was written at a time when the sabbath was still observed 
 by Jewish Christians. 
 
 ' No flesh would have been saved ' (for the Hebrew idioms 
 see Swete, ad loc.) is commonly and rightly restricted to physical 
 deliverance. The loss of life was enormous, although the siege 
 lasted only four or five months, from April or May to September ; 
 and Titus himself confessed that, if God had not been on the 
 side of the Romans, they could never have succeeded as they 
 did (Jos. B. J. VI. ix. i). Zahn would interpret the words as 
 meaning that every one would have succumbed to the prolonged 
 persecution and would have apostatized. But ver. 13 (x. 22) does 
 not warrant this interpretation. Everywhere being ' saved ' must 
 be explained in accordance with the context. The meaning can 
 hardly be that, if the tribulation had continued, the elect would 
 have abjured the faith. That many others were saved from 
 death for the sake of the elect makes excellent sense. The 
 presence of ten righteous men would have saved Sodom from 
 destruction (Gen. xviii. 32). How much more might the presence 
 of faithful Christians have caused a lessening of the death-roll at 
 the overthrow of Jerusalem ? Comp. the opening words of the 
 Book of Enoch: "The words of the blessing of Enoch, where- 
 with he blessed the elect and righteous, who will be living in the 
 day of tribulation." There, however, it is the time of blessings 
 that shall be shortened, as a judgment on sinners (Ixxx. 2). 
 
 The warning about false Messiahs and false prophets (23-28) 
 is much longer in Mt. than in Mk., but some of the additional 
 matter in Mt. is found in Lk. in a different connexion (xvii. 23, 
 24, 37). As before, our Lord does not give a clear sign of the 
 coming end, but warns the disciples against being misled by false 
 signs. The final event would be sudden and everywhere visible ; 
 there would be no sending of tidings that it was on its way, or 
 had begun in any one place. The Messiah would not lie hidden 
 for a time and become gradually known ; His appearance would 
 at once carry conviction as to who He was, and there would be 
 no need to learn this from others. The report that He was 
 in one particular spot was enough to prove that the report was 
 false. 
 
 The proverbial saying about the carcase (irToi/xa) and the 
 vultures ^ (dcrot) is in a very general form, and is capable of 
 various applications, but here it seems to refer back to the false 
 Christs and false prophets. A time of severe crisis is a great 
 opportunity for impostors. When fanaticism has taken the place 
 
 ' "The Griffon Vulture [Gyps fulvus) is the bird which is often mentioned 
 in the Scriptures under the name of eagle. The well-known passage, 
 ' Wheresoever the carcase is,' refers to the Vulture, and exactly expresses its 
 habits" (J. G. Wood, The Handy Natural History, p. 243). 
 
XXrV. 29] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 335 
 
 of religion, there will always be charlatans ready to turn the 
 corruptio optimi to their own account. There may also be a 
 reference to God's judgments coming upon a corrupt state of 
 society, and (as a special illustration of this principle) the 
 Romans coming on the Jewish Church and nation. A direct 
 reference to the eagles on the Roman standards is less likely. 
 
 XXIV. 29-31. The Close of the Age foretold. 
 
 The correspondence between Mt. and Mk. is here again very 
 close ; but Mt. introduces this part of the discourse with 
 ' immediately ' (ei^ecos), which is so characteristic of Mk., but 
 which Mk. here omits. We may suppose that in the original 
 report there was no 'immediately,' our Lord having given no 
 intimation that the interval would be very brief (wz'. 8, 14 imply 
 the contrary), but that Mt. inserted it, under the impression, 
 which was so general when he wrote, that the Coming would 
 follow very quickly upon the overthrow of Jerusalem. In that 
 case, we may compare ' I come quickly ' (Ip^ojuai To-yy) in 
 Rev. xxii. 20. In all three Gospels, the interval between the 
 tribulation of Jerusalem and the Coming is described as one of 
 great physical disturbance, especially in the heavens.^ But Mt. 
 inserts two predictions which are not in Mk. : that there ' shall 
 appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven ; and then shall all 
 the tribes of the earth mourn ' ; which two predictions are partly 
 reproduced in Lk. : ' There shall be signs . . . and upon the 
 earth distress of nations.' 'The sign of the Son of Man' is 
 ambiguous. It may mean the sign that the Son of Man is about 
 to appear ; in which case the words would be an answer to the 
 disciples' question, 'What shall be the sign of Thy Coming?' (3). 
 Or, possibly, the Son of Man is Himself the sign, — the sign that 
 the consummation of the age has arrived ; in which case there 
 may be a direct reference to Dan. vii. 13: 'Behold there was 
 coming with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man ' 
 (see Driver, ad loc). The second prediction looks like an 
 adaptation of Zech. xii. 12: 'And the land shall mourn, every 
 family apart' (xai Koi/ftrai 17 yy) Kara (^uXas </)DA.as). The idea that 
 ' the sign of the Son of Man ' is the cross, and that the Second 
 Advent will be heralded by the appearance of a cross in the sky, 
 is as old as Cyril of Jerusalem : "Now a sign truly characteristic 
 of Christ is the cross ; a luminous sign of a cross goes before the 
 King" (Cat. xv. 22). The same idea is found in Chrysostom, 
 
 ^ With 6 7;\toy (TKOTKrOrjcreroLL comp. toO tjXIou (tkotl^o^^vov or cjisvvvfx^vov 
 (Leviiv. i). The meaning of 'the powers of the heavens' ( ai Swd^eis t. 
 ovp. ) is uncertain ; either the heavenly bodies, or the forces which control 
 them. Comp. Lezii iii. 3. 
 
336 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXIV. 30, 31 
 
 and apparently in Origen ; i but the Gospels give no support to 
 it : and it is somewhat surprising in writers who are quite ready 
 to interpret the sun, moon, and stars as symbolical. Thus, the 
 moon is the Church, which will then receive no light from Christ 
 who is the Sun, because the earth of carnal desires intervenes ; 
 and the stars are the saints, who will then lose their influence. 
 So that, while really existing, heavenly bodies are treated as 
 symbols, language which is probably symbolical is interpreted 
 very realistically of a visible luminous cross, darkening by its 
 brilliance sun, moon, and stars. 
 
 In the part of the prediction which is common to all three 
 Gospels ('They shall see the Son of Man . . . with power and 
 great glory') we again have Daniel (vii. i.-;) blended with 
 Zechariah (xii. lo). A similar blending is found Rev. i. 7, 
 "a circumstance which increases the probability that the quota- 
 tion came as it stands from a book of excerpts" (Swete), of which 
 both writers made use. Collections of ' testimonies ' taken from 
 the prophetical books were probably common. ' On the clouds 
 of heaven ' is almost synonymous with what follows ; it means in 
 superhuman majesty. The expression varies : ' with the clouds 
 of heaven' (Dan. vii. 13); 'with the clouds' (Rev, i. 7); 'in 
 clouds' (Mk. xiii. 26) j 'in a cloud' (Lk. xxi. 27). Both here 
 and xxvi. 64, Mt. has 'on the clouds of heaven.' 
 
 With the sending forth of the Angels here compare that 
 which is predicted xiii. 41, 49. Christ Himself had again and 
 again tried to gather together a congregation of those who believed 
 on Him (xxiii. 37),^ but had been thwarted by indifference and 
 opposition : under the Christian dispensation a Church of His 
 elect will have been formed throughout the world. ' With a great 
 sound of a trumpet ' is a detail which is not in Mk. It may have 
 been taken from 'the voice of a trumpet exceeding loud,' which 
 accompanied the thunders. and lightnings at the giving of the 
 Law upon Mount Sinai (Exod. xix. 16); or from the 'great 
 trumpet,' which shall be blown when the Jewish nation is to be 
 reunited after the great ordeal (Is. xxvii. 13). This prediction 
 seems to be alluded to by St. Paul, i Thes. iv. 16 and i Cor. 
 XV. 52. Comp. "Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, yea the holy 
 trumpet of Jubilee. Stand up on high, O Jerusalem ; and behold 
 
 ' See the quotations in Isaac Williams' Devotional Commentaiy (77;;! Ho/y 
 Wee/;, pp. 289-293). He accepts this interpretation as correct. There is a 
 passage in the Assumption of Aloses (x. 5-7), which has considerable resem- 
 blance to vv. 29, 30. If K6ipovTat. . . . Kai 6fovTai is a play upon words, 
 this is one more piece of evidence that this Gospel is not a translation from 
 the Hebrew; comp. vi. 16, xxi. 41. 
 
 -Comp. the Testaments: "For through their tribes shall God appear 
 on earth to save Israel, and He shall gather together (iiriavviiu) righteous 
 ones from the Gentiles" {Nafhiali y\\\. 3). Comp. Ashery'xi. 7, 
 
XXIV. 32, 33] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 337 
 
 thy children gathered from the East and the West together by 
 the Lord" (Pss. of Solomon, xi. i, 3). 
 
 In the Testament of Abraham (A. xii.) there is the curious idea of "-t 
 fiery Angel with a trumpet containing iire," who in company with three other 
 Angels " recorded, weighed, and tested souls " ; where the trumpet contain- 
 ing fire seems to be used in the testing of souls, as a blow-pipe is used in 
 testing metals (ed. M. R. James, pp. 39, 125). Here the trumpet is for 
 summoning those at a distance, but ' sound ' {<pl^lyijs] is of doubtful authority 
 (B X r II). ' From one end of heaven to the other ' (Mt.), lit. ' from the ends 
 of the heavens to their ends,' is much more easy to understand than 'from the 
 uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven' (Mk.), and it is 
 probably a deliberate correction of a difficult expression. The meaning in 
 each case is that every region in which there are any of the elect will be 
 reached by the summons. ' From the four winds ' occurs Zech. ii. 6 ; also in 
 a Fayum papyrus of the second century (Deissmann, Bidle Studies, p. 248), 
 
 XXIV. 32-36. TAe Lesson of the Fig- Tree ; the Certainty 
 of the Event and the U?icertainty of the Time. 
 
 The points which have thus far been made known with 
 regard to the disciples' questions are these ; that the End will 
 not come until the Gospel has been preached to all nations, 
 and that the End will be preceded by a variety of religious, 
 political, and physical disturbances. Secondly, that the End 
 will need no heralding sign, but will manifest itself to all in a 
 way that will leave no doubt as to its character. No one will 
 need to be told what it is, or that it has come. These in- 
 timations are now still further enforced by the parable of the 
 budding fig-tree, by the assurance that the existing generation will 
 witness a great crisis, and that the Lord's words will have fulfilment. 
 
 This passage raises two questions, neither of which can be 
 answered with certainty. What is the nominative to ' is nigh ' 
 (eyyvJs ecrrtv) in ver. 33 ? What is the meaning of ' all these 
 things ' {ttomto. TaCra) in ver. 34 ? 
 
 AVe may supply as a nominative to 'is nigh' either 'the 
 Son of Man' from vv. 30, 31, which is the view taken by the 
 Revisers: 'know ye that He is nigh.' Or we may understand 
 some such idea as 'the new dispensation, the Messianic 
 Kingdom,' as is done by Lk., who expresses this: 'know ye 
 that the Kingdom of God is nigh.' Or we may take a 
 nominative from the parable in the preceding verse, as is done 
 by Origen : ' know ye that the summer (to 6epo^) is nigh.' In 
 this case, 'the summer' must be understood as a metaphorical 
 expression for the Kingdom. 1 There is not much difference 
 in sense, whichever of these methods we adopt. 
 
 ' It is worth noting that to depos, which is in all three Gospels in this 
 passage, occurs nowhere else in the N.T. ; also that 'know )e' may be 've 
 know.' 
 
338 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXIV. 33-35 
 
 The meaning of 'all these things' (Lk. has simply 'all 
 things,' iraVra without ravTo.) seems to be determined by the 
 disciples' question in ver. 3, and this in Mt. includes not merely 
 the destruction of Jerusalem, but the Coming and the con- 
 summation of the age. But it does not follow that, because 
 Mt. understood it so, therefore our Lord said and meant this. 
 We saw reason for doubting whether the disciples asked anything 
 about the Coming or the end of the world, neither of which had 
 been mentioned in Christ's prediction of the overthrow of the 
 Temple ; and we need not make ' all these things ' refer to 
 anything beyond the judgment on Jerusalem and the tribulation 
 which preceded the execution of it. If the Day of Judgment 
 is in any way included, it is as being symbolized by the 
 judgment on the guilty city. It is not satisfactory to extend 
 the meaning of ' this generation ' to future generations of either 
 the Jewish or the whole human race. ' This generation ' (17 yei/ta 
 avTrf) is an expression of common and definite meaning ; 1 viz. 
 ' the generation which was alive when the words were spoken,' 
 many of whom did live to see ' the abomination of desolation ' 
 and the subsequent desolation of Jerusalem. Mt.'s whole 
 Gospel is coloured with the conviction that the Second Advent 
 was near and would follow closely upon the fall of the city. 
 This conviction was dominant among the Christians of his 
 day, and it probably influenced the wording of the traditions 
 and documents which he used. We have constantly to re- 
 member that we cannot be sure that we have got the exact 
 words which our Lord employed ; and in no utterance of His 
 that has come down to us is the length of the interval between 
 the destruction of the Temple and the end of the world in- 
 timated. ' Heaven and earth shall pass away ' perhaps looks 
 back to ver. 29, where the beginning of a break-up of the 
 universe seems to be indicated. But, as in ver. 35, the 'passing 
 away of heaven and earth ' may be a figurative expression for 
 the end of the existing dispensation, of all that was regarded 
 as most durable and permanent. Christ's words will be more 
 sure than anything, — His words in general, but especially His 
 words about the coming judgment. That judgment is ex- 
 pressed in symbolical language, but it is no mere image to 
 terrify children ; it represents something very real and very 
 awful, and all who hear of it must take account of it in 
 shaping their lives. Some of those who heard Christ's words 
 would live to see a stupendous example of what God's judg- 
 ments can be ; but all have to remember that there is 
 something still more stupendous to follow, something which 
 
 • Comp. xi. 16, xii. 41-45, xxiii. 36; Lk. xi. 50, 51, xvii. 25; Heb. 
 iii. 10. 
 
XXIV. 36] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 339 
 
 concerns all mankind, but the date of which is known to God 
 alone. 
 
 Our Lord is reported to have used very strong language in 
 order to make it quite clear to His hearers that, in what He 
 has said, He has given no intimation as to the time of the Day 
 of Judgment. ' But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not 
 even the Angels of heaven, nor yet the Son, but the Father 
 only.' ^ Mk. has the same, with the unimportant difference 
 of "■ or hour' for ^ and hour'; and he omits 'only' or 'alone' 
 (ei /x^ 6 Trarijp, without /toVos). The latter difference is signi- 
 ficant. The important question is, whether the words ' nor 
 yet the Son ' (oiSe 6 wos), which are certain in Mk., ought to 
 be retained in Mt. 
 
 They are omitted in AV. in harmony with many witnesses, some of which 
 are ancient, but are retained in RV. in harmony with evidence which WH. 
 regard as ' overwhehiiing ' (N and N"'' B D, Lat-Vet. Aeth. Arm., Orig. 
 Chrys. Hil. ). It is not easy to decide. On the one hand, the words might 
 easily be omitted on account of their difficulty ; on the other, they might be 
 inserted in Mt. to assimilate with Mk. See Alford. But we have seen that 
 Mt. nearly always omits or alters anything in Mk. which seems to encourage 
 a low conception of the Messiah (see Introduction ; Sources, § 9), and it is 
 not likely that he would have retained this explicit limitation of the Messiah's 
 knowledge. He has struck out statements which imply ignorance on His 
 part. Would he have left standing a confession that He was ignorant ? 
 Moreover, the addition of ' alone ' [fi^bvoi) after ' except the Father ' looks 
 like a v/ish to give the sense of Christ's words, without the express admission 
 that the Son, in this matter, shared the ignorance of men and Angels. In 
 a different manner, Lk. , who omits the whole verse, lets us linow that he 
 was aware of this limitation by Christ of Ilis own knowledge, for he records 
 words which imply the limitation : ' It is not for you to know times or seasons, 
 which the Father hath set within His own authority ' (Acts i. 7). But the 
 suggestion that the whole verse was added in Church reading, to explain the 
 fact that ' this generation ' had passed away and yet the end of the world 
 had not come, is not to be adopted. When Mk. and Mt. wrote, no one 
 would have put into the mouth of Christ a confession of ignorance which 
 He had never made. Zahn holds that both external and internal evidence 
 favour the genuineness of ouS^ 6 uids in Mt. (Einleitung, ii. p. 252) ; and 
 Wellhausen retains them, p. 124. 
 
 Whether or no the moinentous words were retained by Mt., 
 we need not doubt that our Lord uttered them, and the meaning 
 would seem to be : ' Do not ask Me to tell you the date of 
 the great crisis. God has not revealed it; not even to Me.'^ 
 What follows teaches the practical consequence of this universal 
 ignorance as to the time of the end. 
 
 ^ Comp. Zech. xiv. 7 ; Psalms of Solomon xvii. 23 : "in the time which 
 Thou, God, knowest." 
 
 ^ The including of the Angels in the ignorance is in Mk. as well as in Mt. 
 So also is the mention of the Angels in connexion with the end of the world 
 (31). Here again our Lord seems to be giving special sanction to the doctrine 
 that these are Angels, and that they have definite functions. Comp. xvi. 27, 
 xviii. 10, xxii. 30, xxv. 31, 41, xxvi. 53. 
 
340 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXIV. 37-42 
 
 XXIV. 37-42. The Necessity for Watchfulness. 
 
 j\It. is here parallel to Lk. xvii. 26-35 '> but each Evangelist 
 would seem to have drawn from a different source. The end 
 is certain, but the time of it is uncertain. What effect will this 
 combination of certainty and uncertainty have upon mankind? 
 The condition of things will be analogous {wcnnp) to that before 
 the Deluge. Mankind generally will be wholly given up to 
 material enjoyment ; and this has always been so. The 
 certainty of death does not give seriousness to life, so long 
 as the time of death is uncertain and possibly distant. Even 
 the prospect of death within a comparatively short time does 
 not always detach people from the cares and pleasures of this 
 world. The special point of the analogy is not that the genera- 
 tion that was swept away by the Flood was exceptionally wicked ; 
 none of the occupations mentioned are sinful ; but that it was 
 so absorbed in its worldly pursuits that it paid no attention to 
 solemn warnings. Instead of saying : " It is certain to come ; 
 therefore we must make preparation and be always on the 
 watch," they said: "No one knows when it will come; therefore 
 there is no need to trouble oneself about it yet. Other matters 
 are much more urgent." 
 
 In the Gospels, the Flood is referred to only here = Lk. 
 xvii. 27. It is rash to usesuch references (comp. Lk. xvii. 32) 
 as proof that the incidents referred to are historical facts (see on 
 xii. 40). The parable of Dives and Lazarus does not require 
 us to believe that Abraham converses with the souls that are 
 under punishment in the other world. Our Lord took the 
 current beliefs of the day. Where they were morally misleading. 
 He corrected them, as in the Sermon on the Mount and in 
 ch. xxiii. Where they were not so, He sometimes, without 
 either affirming or denying their truth, drew His own lessons 
 from them. The lessons hold good, whether the story of Noah 
 or of Lot's wife be fact or fable. The lesson from Noah and 
 his generation is that those who heed God's warnings are 
 delivered, while those who refuse to do so are left to their fate 
 (40, 41). One thing is certain, — that we do not know the time 
 of the Coming ; and the only thing that can give security is 
 unceasing watchfulness (42).! 
 
 This lesson evidently made a great impression upon those 
 who heard it, and it probably was given more than once, and 
 not always in the same form: comp. xxv. 13-15; Mk. xiii. 
 
 ^ Trapa.\a/j.paviTai., 'is taken into safety,' or 'taken home' (comp. i. 20, 
 24) ; AcpUrai, as in xxiii. 38, 'left unprotected.' 
 
 In TToiq, rip.^p(^ here and tto'k^ ^'vXo.ktj (xxiv. 43) the wolg. is hardly dis- 
 tinguishable from Thi. : comp. iroiac Sipay (Rev. iii, 3). 
 
XXIV. 43-51] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 34I 
 
 32-37 ; Lk. xii. 35-40, xvii. 26-35, ^"i. 34-36- Our Lord says 
 that it is difficult to induce men to attend to these warnings, 
 therefore He would be the more likely to repeat them. The 
 divergence in wording between the passages shows that there 
 were different sources for the Evangelists to draw from. 
 
 XXIV. 43-51. Two Illustrations of the Need for 
 Watchficlness. 
 
 There are matters in which it suffices to watch by day ; at 
 night one may sleep. But the man whose house has been 
 broken into and plundered in the night has to abandon that 
 doctrine, and so must the Christian : comp. i Thes. v. 4 ; 
 2 Pet. iii. 10; Rev. iii. 3, xvi. 15. These passages are further 
 evidence of the impression which these warnings made upon 
 the first Christians. ' Blessed is he that watcheth ' (/.laKapios 6 
 ypiqyopSiv) is one of the seven Beatitudes in the Revelation 
 (xvi. 15), and it remains always true. It is based on the 
 Beatitude which is expressed here (46). 
 
 The second illustration is more complete than the first. It 
 gives the blessedness of the watchful servant as well as the 
 dreadful fate of the one who dares to treat uncertainty about 
 the time of the Master's return as equivalent to certainty that 
 He will not return soon. And it is more complete in another 
 way. The householder could not be certain that the thief would 
 come at all ; he had to be on his guard against an attack that 
 was only probable. The servant was certain that the. Master 
 would return ; the only doubt was as to the time : and that is 
 just the case with the Christian. But the parable evidently has 
 a special reference to the Apostles ; for the faithful and the evil 
 servant are alike placed over the other servants, and their 
 responsibility is great. Consequently the reward and the punish- 
 ment is in each case overwhelming. This special reference to 
 the Apostles had perhaps been suggested by Peter's question on 
 an earlier occasion : ' Lord, speakest Thou this parable unto 
 us, or even unto all?' (Lk. xii. 41). The evil servant has 'his 
 portion ' (to /xepos, as in Rev. xxi. 8) ' with the hypocrites,' because 
 he intended to act the part of a faithful overseer when the Master 
 came home. Lk. says 'with the unfaithful' (xii. 46), which is 
 almost equivalent. In both passages the offender is put to death, 
 but the conclusion here passes beyond the end of the parable to 
 the result which death symbolizes.^ 
 
 ' It is possible that Mt. has substituted ' hypocrites ' for ' unfaithful ' 
 servants in order to make ■■* point against the Pharisees ; and the concluding 
 words, 'There shall be the weeping,' etc., are no doubt an addition made by 
 
342 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXIV. 45-51 
 
 The very free and conversational style in which the second 
 illustration of the necessity for watchfulness is given is remark- 
 able. We have first a question : ' Who is the faithful and wise 
 servant ? ' And there is no answer. His character is not 
 described : only the rich reward which he will win is stated. 
 Then the conduct of ' that evil servant ' is described, although 
 he has not previously been mentioned.^ But the meaning is in 
 no way obscured by this freedom. 
 
 As in other places where the future penalties of sin are 
 mentioned, nothing is said here about the duration of the punish- 
 ment. We are not told that it is endless, and we are not told 
 that there is any way of escape. Contrast the definiteness of the 
 Book of the Secrets of Enoch, x. But we are told plainly enough 
 what it concerns us to know, that the right way in which to wait 
 for the Lord is in the faithful discharge of ordinary duties (ovtw'; 
 ■rroiovvTa). We are to ' study to be quiet, and to do our own 
 business' (i Thes. iv. ii), although it is known that 'the day of 
 the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night ' (v. 2). It is wise to 
 cherish the hope that, in spite of past delay, He will now come 
 soon (Rev. xxii. 20). If that hope is allowed to perish, it will 
 soon be supplanted by the hope that He will no^ come soon, or 
 even by the wish that He may not come at all. 
 
 Comp. the saying attributed by Justin M. (Try. 47) to "our 
 Lord Jesus Christ " : 'In whatsoever I may find you, in this will 
 I also judge you.' Resch, Agrapha, p. 102.; Westcott, Intro- 
 duction to the Study of the Gospels, App. C. 
 
 Characteristics in ch. xxiv. : TopeieaSai (l), irpoaipxeo'Sai (i, 3), (xvvre'Kda 
 (3), T6rell6, 23, 30, 40), iSoi (23, 25, 26, 27), (fiaiveadai (27, 30), iKei (28, 51), 
 avvdynv (28), oiKodecrTroTTjS (43), SLopvccreiv (43), (ppdft/xos (45), ctvpSovXos (49), 
 VTTOKpiTT)^ (51)1 ^ ^pvyp.ds rC)v oShvTiov (51). Peculiar : rh p7]&^v (15) ; peculiar 
 to this chapter : ij irapoutria rod viou rod dvdpihirov (27, 37, 39}, ^pijx^iv (12), 
 (pvy'fi (20), olKCTcla (45). 
 
 Justin M. {Try. 35) quotes a mixture of vi'. II and 24 as a saying of 
 Christ. ' Avaffrrio-oi'Tat iroWol if/evSSxptO'Toi Kal ^evdairdo-oroXot Kal 7roX\oi)s 
 Tuiv iriarCov ■jrXavTja-ovo'LJ^. In Mt. xvii. 23 and xx, 19 there are differences 
 of reading between iy^pdrjcx^Tai and avaaTTjaeraL, but there is none here ; and 
 \pfvdaTr6aTo\oi occurs in no Gospel, but only in 2 Cor. xi. 13. Tertullian 
 {De Prascr. Hier. 4) asks, Qui psetcdopropheta sunt, nisi falsi pricdicalores ? 
 Qui pseudoaposloli, nisi adulteri evangelizatores ? He, therefore, seems to 
 have been familiar with a text which introduced ' false apostles ' either here 
 or vii. 15. See small print near the end of ch. vii. 
 
 him. Wellhausen makes p-trli, rwv xmoKpnwv mean ' with false Christians,' 
 and /i£7-(i T. airi<TTuv, ' with non-Christians.' 
 
 ^ In Lk. xii. 45 he beats tous iratdas Kal ras iraiSio-Kas, for which Mt. has 
 simply Toils aufSoiiXous, a word used by no other Evangelist, but frequent in 
 the parable of the Unmerciful Servant (xviii. 28-33). With the faithful 
 servant's reward comp, xxv. 21, 23. 
 
XXV. IJ LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 343 
 
 XXV. 1-13, The Parable of the Ten Virgins. 
 
 Mt. adds here two parables which still farther enforce the 
 lesson as to the necessity for watchfulness with regard to the 
 Coming of the Son of Man. Both of them take us to the moment 
 of the Coming, and show us from that point of view what the 
 conduct of Christians ought to be, in preparation for so decisive 
 an event. The two epithets given to the good servant in xxiv. 
 45 give us the key to what is necessary ; there must be both 
 fidelity and wisdom. In the Ten Virgins the need of wisdom is 
 insisted upon ; in the Talents the need of fidelity. 
 
 The point of view is indicated at the outset ; the first word 
 gives it. ' Then ' (rdre) ; i.e. at the time of the Messiah's Coming. 
 What follows is again expressed with freedom and brevity, but 
 in a way that is intelligible. Strictly speaking, the ten virgins 
 do not represent the Kingdom of Heaven, but those who are 
 desirous of entering it. Or (seeing that the Kingdom is some- 
 times described as present and sometimes as future), we may 
 say that they represent those who have been admitted to that 
 which can be enjoyed in this world, and are on their probation 
 with regard to the realization of the Kingdom that is yet to come. 
 They represent the great body of expectant Christians, who are 
 looking for ' the life that is life indeed.' Life, in the full glory 
 of the Kingdom, will be secured by those who act as the wise 
 virgins did. 
 
 The scene of the parable is laid near the house of the bride- 
 groom, who has gone to fetch the bride from the house of her 
 parents. She is not mentioned because she is not required for 
 the purposes of the parable. As the bridegroom is the Christ, 
 the bride would be the Church ; but that place is already 
 sufficiently occupied by the expectant virgins, who represent the 
 Church on earth with its earnest and its careless members. 
 
 The addition of ' and the bride ' {koX ttj^ vijfj.(p-ijs) afler ' to meet the 
 bridegroom' (D X 2, Syrr. Latt.) is a not very intelligent insertion made by 
 copyists who knew that a bridegroom implied a bride, but did not see that 
 the mention of the bride would disturb the parable. See Hastings' DB., artt. 
 ' Bride ' and ' Bridegroom.' 
 
 The number ten is perhaps significant, to imply completeness. 
 According to Jewish notions, ten constituted a congregation. 
 These sum up the whole body of Christians, and (as usual) there 
 are just two classes. That the classes are equal in numbers 
 indicates nothing. Our Lord declined to give any information 
 respecting the proportion between the lost and the saved. The 
 Christian's business is to use every effort to secure a place among 
 the latter, without counting his chances. See notes on Lk. xiii. 
 23, 24. We now see why the waiting Church could not be 
 
344 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXV. 3-5 
 
 represented by the bride ; that would have rendered impossible 
 the division into ' wise ' and ' foolish,' which is of the essence of 
 the parable. 
 
 'They took their lamps,' to show what they were therefor; 
 they were waiting for the bridegroom. The lamps were a pro- 
 fession of purpose, justifying their presence at that time and 
 place. The lamps, therefore, may be taken to mean the outward 
 marks of a Christian life, which indicate a certain outlook, and 
 imply that the person who adopts these habits has a definite end 
 in view. He "looks for the Resurrection of the dead, and the 
 life of the world to come." 
 
 If this interpretation of the lamps be accepted, then the 
 meaning of the oil, about which there has been much controversy, 
 follows at once. It is that inward spiritual power which imparts 
 light, warmth, and value to the externals of religion. Christian 
 rules of life, public worship, fasting, and works of mercy are 
 good, but only on condition that they spring from, and are 
 nourished by, the Christian spirit. Otherwise they are as useless 
 as lamps without oil, a burden to ourselves and misleading to 
 others, who naturally believe that so much external profession 
 implies what, as a matter of fact, is not there ; and who are 
 likely to be made to stumble when they discover that it is not 
 there. They have trusted to persons who carried lamps, and 
 who therefore might be expected to be made to help in times of 
 darkness, but who prove to be quite unable to do so, for they 
 are utterly in the dark themselves. The inner life of constant 
 communion with the Spirit of God is the oil which alone can 
 illuminate and render beneficial to ourselves and to others the 
 religious activity which we manifest in our daily life. Comp. 
 I Cor. xiii. 1-3, and see Cosmo G. Lang, Thoughts on some of 
 the Parables of Jesus, pp. 90-9 2. 
 
 ' While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.' 
 This is true of the wise as well as of the foolish virgins ; and it 
 is to be noted that they are not blamed for so doing. This 
 seems to be a merciful concession to human weakness. It is 
 impossible for creatures such as we are to keep our religious life 
 always at high pressure. Certain as we are, and often as we 
 may remind ourselves, that the Lord will come, and may come 
 at any moment, either by our death or in some other way, we 
 cannot live hour by hour as it would be possible and natural 
 to live if we knew that He would come to-night or to-morrow 
 morning. But it is possible to be constant in securing supplies 
 of strength from the Holy Spirit; and then when the call comes, 
 whether by some crisis great or small in our own lives, or by the 
 supreme crisis of all, we shall be ready to go out and meet the 
 Bridegroom. In countless ways the experiences of life bring us 
 
XXV. 5-8] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 345 
 
 the message, ' The Master is come, and calleth for thee ' (Jn. xi. 
 28), and we must cultivate the wisdom which will enable us to 
 be always ready to respond. At such times it is misery to dis- 
 cover that ' our lamps are going out.' 
 
 It is to be noted that there is scarcely any interval between 
 the awakening cry, ' Behold the Bridegroom ! ' and the arrival of 
 the bridal procession ; it all takes place ' in a moment, in the 
 twinkling of an eye' (i Cor. xv. 52). This suddenness has been 
 already predicted. It will be like a flash of lightning, or the 
 swoop of a vulture, or the on-rush of the Deluge (xxiv. 27, 28, 
 37). And perhaps yue lae. to understand that there is something 
 in the coincidence of the lamps going out just as the Bride- 
 groom arrived. Mere outward religion is found to have no 
 illuminating power, when it is tested by His presence. 
 
 The question has been raised whether the wise virgins were 
 not selfish in refusing to help their improvident companions. 
 No parable can be made exactly to coincide with the details of 
 the truth which it sets forth. It was necessary to show that the 
 foolish virgins could not have the consequences of their folly 
 averted at the last moment; and this could hardly be done in 
 any better way than in representing them as asking and being 
 refused. But the refusal of the wise virgins to give of their oil 
 indicates, not want of will, but want of power. It is impossible 
 for one person to impart to another the spiritual power which 
 comes from frequent communion with God's Spirit. That can 
 only come from the man's own experience of such communion, 
 an experience which requires much time. ' Give us of your oil ' 
 is a request which no religious person can grant ; he can only 
 teach how the oil is to be obtained. It must be bought by 
 personal experience. 
 
 The precise form of the refusal is of interest, both as regards reading and 
 grammar. Are we to read JIiJvroTe ov ixt] ipKiari rffuv Kal vfiiv (B C D X A 11), 
 or MTjTTOTe ovk apKiarj ijfuii Kai viiiv (XALZ)? The latter looks like a 
 correction made by copyists who felt that in such a case the strong ou fi-q was 
 not wanted and was scarcely tolerable. ' Perhaps there will not be enough 
 for both of us ' does not require, and barely allows, that the negative should 
 be made emphatic. ' Perhaps there will not by any means be enough ' would 
 be somewhat incongruous, for the ' not by any means' revokes the ' perhaps.' 
 We may conjecture that in this late Greek oii /iri is someh'mes less forcible than 
 in classical Greek, and that there would be no real incongruity in M-jjTrore 
 01) /x-q. Or the precise shade of meaning may be, ' We are afraid that there 
 is no possibility of there being enough for us both.' See J. H. Moulton, 
 Gram, of N.T. Gr. pp. 189, 192. "The omission of the direct negative at 
 the beginning of the sentence both in Greek and in Syriac gives a more 
 courteous turn to the refusal" (Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, ii. 
 p. 76). 
 
 We are not told whether the foolish virgins did succeed in 
 buying the oil, and we are not told whether, after suffering great 
 
346 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXV. 11-20 
 
 loss, they were at last admitted ; and we have no right to assume 
 anything, either way, from this silence. Although, once more, 
 we are told nothing as to the duration of the punishment for 
 careless misconduct, we are told that it was inflicted, and that 
 it was very severe. The closed door, which to those who were 
 ready meant security and untold bliss, to the others meant 
 banishment and untold gloom. And, even if, when it had done 
 its work, the punishment ceased, yet the loss which it had 
 involved was irreparable. Is it not the depth of folly to incur 
 certain punishment, because it is not certain that the punishment 
 will last for ever? It is to be noticed that the mere wish to 
 enter the Kingdom, and even the request to be allowed to enter, 
 is of as little avail as the exhorting others to enter (vii. 22, 23), 
 when the prescribed conditions of obtaining admission have 
 been persistently neglected. All through the long delay there 
 had been continued indifference about providing what was 
 absolutely indispensable. ' Watch, therefore, for ye know not 
 the day nor the hour.' 
 
 XXV. 14-30. The Parable of the Talents. 
 
 That the servant of Christ must be ivise (Kfipovifjio^) is taught 
 in the Ten Virgins : the present parable teaches that he must 
 also be ' faithful ' (tthttos) ; he must be prompt, active, and efficient 
 in promoting the interests of his Master.^ And the parable shows 
 that the Master, while being both just and generous, is also 
 exacting. Just as in the previous parable the offenders are 
 severely punished, not for open contempt or deliberate insult, 
 but for foolish neglect, so here the offender is severely punished, 
 not for fraudulent appropriation of the Master's goods or for 
 careless losing of them, but for unfaithful neglect to make a 
 profit on them for his benefit. He sets before himself a low 
 ideal, and allows timidity and slothfulness to extinguish all 
 enthusiasm. He has not had much entrusted to him, and he 
 does not think it worth while to risk anything, or to take any 
 trouble, with a view to increasing it. That he distrusted his own 
 competence, or excused himself on the ground of diffidence, is 
 not stated or implied in the parable. 
 
 As in the former parable, there are only two classes, the 
 faithful servants, who do their best for their Master, and the 
 unfaithful servant, who does nothing at all, beyond taking steps 
 
 ' The promptness of the first slave is obscured by the wrong punctuation 
 of texts followed by the AV. Between ver. 15 and ver. 16 the evd^us belongs 
 to TTopevBels, not to dTreS-fiiiTjaev. There is no point in the Master's departing 
 immediately. There is much point in the slave's immediately settint; to work. 
 In Mt. eu&4us or ^vdvs invariably belongs to what follows. The RV. is right. 
 
XXV. 20-29] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 347 
 
 to prevent diminution of tlie amount entrusted to him, whicli 
 steps, however, equally prevented any increase. The change 
 from women to men is perhaps intended to show that both sexes 
 alike are required to be on the alert ; comp. the converse change 
 xxiv. 40, 41. And in yet another way the second parable sup- 
 plements the first. That of the Virgins tells nothing about 
 working for the Bridegroom during the delay. That of the 
 Talents teaches that the time of waiting must be a time of 
 service. It also teaches that the time of waiting will be long, 
 and it thus might have corrected the view, that the Lord would 
 come soon ; comp. xxiv. 8, 14. In both cases there is delay, on 
 which the main lesson of the parables turns. 'The Bridegroom 
 tarried,' and it was 'after a long time' that 'the Lord of those 
 servants came.' Herein lay the testing opportunity. The foolish 
 virgins had plenty of time to obtain a supply of oil, and the 
 unfaithful servant might at any time have dug up his talent and 
 put it to some use ; and in both cases there was the good 
 example of others to suggest wiser and more dutiful conduct. 
 
 It has often been pointed out that the reward of the faithful 
 servants was not rest, but nobler employment : they are to have 
 prolonged opportunity of still higher service; comp. xxiv. 47. 
 And we are not to suppose that the promotion ends there. In 
 the charge to be perfect, as the heavenly Father is perfect, there 
 is room for unlimited progress (v. 48). And part of the punish- 
 ment of the slothful servant is that the opportunity for service 
 is taken away. That it can ever be won back, is neither asserted 
 nor denied. Comp. xiii. 12; Mk. iv. 25, and see Briggs, The 
 Messiah of the Gospels, p. 223. 
 
 It would have been easy to subdivide the class of unfaithful 
 servants, as that of the faithful is subdivided ; but this would not 
 have made the parable more instructive. It was necessary to 
 show that there may be degrees of endowment, and that every- 
 one is required to make the most of that with which he is 
 endowed, because all such advantages are a trust and not an 
 absolute gift. But there would have been little gain in showing 
 that there may be degrees of failure. The one instance of 
 failure suffices for the moral. If the deliberate burying of one 
 talent was punished so severely, how heinous it would be to leave 
 ten talents unimproved ! And again, if the mere keeping unused 
 was so grievous a fault, what would it be to squander or destroy ! 
 These are inferences which any one can draw for himself In 
 both parables we are taught that what might seem to be an 
 excusable offence is not excused. To have enough oil for a 
 short delay, but not enough for a long one, might seem to be a 
 pardonable error. And to keep a deposit safe, but to fail to 
 increase it, might seem to be pardonable also. But the failure 
 
348 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXV. 31-46 
 
 in each case, whether it be regarded as great or small, is proof 
 that there is something radically wrong with the characters of 
 those who fail, and the result is the outer darkness. Every one 
 has a vocation of some kind, an opportunity of effective service. 
 If no attempt is made to render effective service, it will be useless 
 to plead that the sphere was very narrow and very humble, or 
 that we did nothing for fear of making mistakes. To do nothing 
 is often the greatest mistake of all the possibilities. 
 
 " 'Tis better to have fought and lost 
 TJjan never to have fought at all." 
 
 On the relation of this parable to that of the Pounds (Lk. xix. 
 11-28) see notes on the latter, especially p. 437. The probability 
 is that we have fairly accurate reports of two different parables, 
 and not two reports of the same parable, one of which, if not 
 both of which, must be very inaccurate. See Wright, Synopsis, 
 § 18, p. 237. Each parable forms a complement to the other. 
 The lesson of the Pounds is, that men endowed with the same 
 gifts may make a very different use of them and be very differently 
 requited. The lesson of the Talents is, that men with different 
 gifts may make an equally good (or bad) use of them, and be 
 proportionately requited. 
 
 In comparing the two parables it is instructive to see how the language 
 whicli is characteristic of each Evangelist comes into play. Thus, Mt. thrice 
 has TT/ioaipxiaBai. where Lk. has Ipx^aOai or Trapaylveadai ; Mt. twice has 
 (7vv6,-yci.i> where Lk. has a'lpeiv ; and Mt. has a irpo(!(j>ipeii/ which is absent 
 from Lk., who has characteristics which are absent from Mt. In both 
 parables (Mt. xxv. 27 ; Lk. xix. 23) we have an ambiguous e\6iiv, which 
 may mean either 'on my coming home' or 'on my coming to the bank.' 
 The iyd> in each case is for the latter : ' You ought to have gone to the bank ; 
 then, when /came there, I should have got,' etc. 
 
 XXV. 31-46. The Lasi Judgment. 
 
 The First Gospel has been called "pre-eminently the Gospel 
 of judgment," and certainly this feature is found throughout. 
 Among other illustrations of it, we have the separations of the 
 wheat from the chaff (iii. 12), of the sincere from the hypocrites 
 (vi. 2, 5, 16), the wise builder from the foolish (vii. 24-27), the 
 wheat from the tares (xiii. 30), the good from the bad fish 
 (xiii. 48, 49), the profitable from the unprofitable servants 
 (14-30); and now we have the final separation of the sheep 
 from the goats (31-46). The principle of separation throughout 
 is the relation in which those who are judged stand to Jesus 
 Himself. This point here receives further elucidation. 
 
 There is good ground for believing that one of the reasons 
 which led our Lord to adopt the title ' Son of Man ' was that 
 
XXV. 31-46] LAST AVORK IN THE HOLY CITY 349 
 
 He regarded Himself as, in a unique manner, the Representative 
 of Humanity. What He did and suffered was done and 
 suffered by the Leader of the human race, and might be 
 claimed, in some measure, as the work of mankind. In the 
 present passage, which in certain respects stands alone in the 
 Gospels, we have the other side of the mysterious unity between 
 the Messiah and mankind. What men do, or fail to do, to 
 one another, they do, or fail to do, to Christ. " Here, as in 
 the Book of Enoch, the Son of Man is seated on His throne 
 as Judge ; and He accepts some and rejects others, of those 
 who are brought before Him, on the express ground that actions 
 done, or not done, to their fellow-men, had been done, or not 
 done, to Him." The writer adds in a note : " I am aware that 
 doubt is thrown on this passage by some critics. But the doubt 
 is most wanton. Where is the second brain that could have 
 invented anything so original and so sublime as iw. 35-40, 
 42-5 ? " (Sanday, Life of Christ in Recent Research, p. 128). 
 
 Even if it were proved that the Testaments of the XU. 
 Patriarchs must be dated b.c. 109, and that the passage in 
 Joseph i. 5, 6, with wording parallel to parts of the addresses 
 in Mt. XXV. 35-43, had not been changed under the influence 
 of Mt, yet this would not detract from the originality of this 
 passage. The parallels are concerned with the sufferings of 
 Joseph in Egypt, not with the Last Judgment. " I was beset 
 with hunger, and the Lord Himself nourished me; I was alone, 
 and God comforted me ; I was in sickness, and the Lord 
 visited nie ; I was in prison, and my God showed favour to 
 me." The thought throughout is very different from the thought 
 in Mt. XXV. Comp. Mt. x. 40, where the Messiah is identified, 
 on the one side with God, and on the other with His disciples. 
 
 The Judgment-scene which is brought before us here is 
 very suitably introduced by the parable of the Talents ; but 
 it is possible that the order is due to the arrangement of the 
 Evangelist rather than to actual chronology. We have had 
 several parables of Judgment which may be regarded as leading 
 up to the final crisis which is here revealed. There is the 
 judgment of the Unmerciful Servant (xviii. 23-34), of the 
 Labourers in the Vineyard (xx. 1-16), of the Wicked Husband- 
 men (xxi. 33-41), of the Guest without a Wedding-garment 
 (xxii. I -1 4), of the Faithful and Unfaithful Servants (xxiv. 
 45-51), and of the Wise and Foolish Virgins (xxv. 1-12). But 
 what is intimated in parabolic language there is revealed with 
 singular plainness and completeness here. 
 
 The full sweep of the revelation is at once indicated. The 
 Son of Man is seated on the throne of His glory : ' All the 
 Angels' are present, and 'all the nations' are gatfiered before 
 
3SO GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXV. 34-41 
 
 Hira. Comp. ' all the tribes of the earth ' (xxiv. 30), and the 
 equally significant mention of Angels elsewhere (xiii. 49, xvi. 27, 
 xxiv. 36). The fact that the Son of Man is come is evidence 
 that the Gospel has been 'preached in the whole world for a 
 testimony to all the nations ' (xxiv. 14) : so that here there is 
 no distinction made between those who have never heard of 
 the Messiah and those who have heard and rejected Him. 
 All have had the opportunity of hearing. That just allowance 
 will be made to those who died before the Birth of the Messiah 
 has been already intimated more than, once (x. 15, xi. 21-24, 
 xii. 41, 42); but even those who have never heard of Him 
 have had the means of knowing their duty to their fellow-men, 
 which is here the crucial test. No question is asked that 
 would be applicable only to professed Christians. Nothing is 
 said about repentance or faith in Christ ; but only about conduct 
 towards other men. It is that which shows the Christlike life. 
 ' By this shall all_ineii_.kDowihaLve are My disciples, if ye have 
 love one to another' (Jn. xiii. 35). That is the true 'Note' of 
 'a soul that IFTyliature Christian. It is the one indispensable 
 virtue (i Cor. xiii.). It is the perfection of the Divine Nature 
 (i Jn. iv. 8, 16), and it is the perfection in which we are 
 specially bound to imitate the Divine (Mt. v. 48). 
 
 The reasons which led to the comparison of the good and 
 the bad to sheep and goats seem to be two : colour andj inhitfr 
 Sheep are commonly white and inoffensive; goats are commonly 
 black (Cant. iv. i, vi. 5) and very mischievous. "This constant 
 browsing of goats (on the tender twigs and the foliage of the 
 thymes and dwarf shrubs) is one of the causes which has pre- 
 vented the restoration of the forests even in the most deserted 
 parts of the Holy Land. Indeed they have extirpated many 
 species of trees which once covered the hills. Though the 
 goats mingle with the sheep, there is no disposition on either 
 side for more intimate acquaintance. \Vhen folded together 
 at night, they may always be seen gathered in distinct groups ; 
 and round the wells they appear instinctively to classify them- 
 selves apart" (Tristram, Natural History of the Bible, pp. 89, 
 90). Comp. 'I judge between cattle and cattle' (Ezek. xxxiv. 
 17, 22), where the rams are classed with the he-goats as injurious 
 to the weaker sheep. In folk-lore goats are of bad repute. 
 
 There is nothing very surprising in the change from ' the 
 Son of Man' (31) to 'the King' (34). The Son of Man comes 
 'in His glory,' and 'sits on His throne,' and 'all the nations 
 are summoned before Him.' This is regal state, and would 
 render the change to 'the King' natural enough, even if we 
 had not been told that this was 'the Son of Man coming in 
 His Kingdom' (xvi. 28). This King not only comes in His 
 
XXV. 34-41] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 35 1 
 
 Kingdom, but has kingdoms to bestow, which have been 
 waiting throughout all time for their proper sovereigns. ' And 
 the kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the 
 kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people 
 of the saints of the Most High' (Dan. vii. 27). Comp. "This 
 place (the third heaven), O Enoch, is prepared for the righteous 
 who . . . give bread to the hungry, and clothe the naked, and 
 raise the fallen, and assist the orphans who are oppressed. . . . 
 For them this place is prepared as an eternal inheritance " 
 (Book of the Secrets of Enoch, ix.); also the Divine charge to 
 Israel, " Esdr. ii. 20. The Talmud has many sayings which 
 exhort to benevolence. " The world stands 04j__three pillars : 
 law, wo rship, ^"'^ <^h£ljh^ " " Charity is greater than all^ ' 
 "iVhogives charity in secret is greater than Moses." " A_ 
 beneficent soul will be abundantly gratihed.'^ "See" also the 
 Koran, ch. Ixxvl 
 
 The truth of Is. Iv. 8, 9 is manifested throughout this scene : 
 ' For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways 
 My ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than 
 the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My 
 thoughts than your thoughts.' Both the good and the bad find 
 that the Divine estimate of their conduct is very different from 
 their own, and they are amazed at the point of view which is 
 put before them. The good did not regard their benevolence 
 as bestowed upon the brethren of the Messiah (40), still less as 
 bestowed upon the Messiah Himself; nor did the bad suppose 
 that they had ever shown neglect or hardheartedness to the 
 Messiah.^ Christ's claiming the poor and needy as His brethren 
 is quite in keeping with His character as the Son of Man and 
 the Son of God. God is His Father and their Fathsr. 
 
 Close as is the correspondence between the address to those 
 on the right and that to those on the left, there are two remark- 
 able changes in the opening words to the latter. The Kingdom, 
 the good are told, was prepared ' from the foundation of the 
 world,' and it was prepared expressly for them {rjToif]i.a<Tfji.fvr]v 
 vjjuv) ; but it is not said that the eternal fire was prepared ' from 
 the foundation of the world ' ; and it is not said that it was 
 prepared for these sinners, but 'for the devil and his angels.' 
 Comp. Rev. xx. 10 and Swete's note, ad loc. It is often pointed 
 
 ^ The placing of the benevolent souls on the right hand, iK Se^iup 
 airov, is a new feature in Biblical symbolism. An early example of it is 
 found in the Testaments: "Then shall ye see Enoch, and Abraham, and 
 Isaac, and Jacob, rising on the right hand in gladness" (Benjamin .\. 4). 
 \\'ith the cfiange from the collective iSv-q to the individual aiirous comp. 
 Acts xxvi. 17. 
 
 - For mii>dyeiv in the sense of receiving an individual hospitably comp. 
 Judg. xix. 18. 
 
352 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVI. 1 
 
 out that 'eternal' (aiaii'ios) in 'eternal punishment' must have 
 the same meaning as in 'eternal life.'^ No doubt, but that 
 does not give us the right to say that 'eternal' in both cases 
 means 'endless.' The meaning of 'eternal' may possibly have 
 no reference to duration of time. Nor is the expression 'eternal 
 punishmeiit ' synonymous with ' eternal pain,' still less with 
 ' unending pain,' and we are not justified in treating these expres- 
 sions as equivalent. ' Eternal punishment ' may mean ' eternal 
 loss ' or ' irreparable loss ' ; but there is no legitimate inference 
 from ' irreparable loss ' to ' everlasting suffering.' Comp. Dan. 
 xii. 2, perhaps the earliest mention of 'eternal life' for the 
 righteous.^ 
 
 Characteristic expressions in ch. xxv. : Thre (r, 7i 3I> 34^ 4r> 44> 45)> 
 fpp6vL}xo% {2, 8, 9), I5o0 (6), TTopeveaBai (9, 16, 41), 7d/iot = 7d/xos (10), varepov 
 (11), TTpoaipxeaSai. (20, 22, 24), avviyeiv (26, 32, 35, 37> 43). flpvyfibs Twv 
 oBovritiif (30), SeDre {34}. Peculiar: tj ^aaiKeia tCjv ovpavQiv (l), aiivalpeiv 
 {19), i^uirepos (30), ^Kei (30), Takavrov {15-28), rb irvp rb alibviov {41 and 
 xviii. 8 only) ; peculiar to this chapter : rpaTrefe/r?;? (27), ipltpiov (33), KoXaffts 
 alihvio^ (46). 
 
 In the rendering of the last expression we have another instance of the 
 caprice of the AV. ' These shall go into everlasting (alihvwv) punishment, 
 but the righteous into life c/i^rKa/ (aiuj'ioj')' ; which leads the English reader 
 to suppose that, whether or no the ' life ' lasts for ever, the ' punishment ' 
 certainly does. This impression will be deepened when he notices that, both 
 in xviii. 8 and xxv. 41, rb irup rb alwviov is tendered ' cvc7'lasling(ne,' and 
 that in xix. 16 j-ut; alCivios is again rendered 'eternal life.' In Mk. x. 17, 
 which is parallel, fwi) alJivios is rendered ' eternal life.' 
 
 Again, in ver. 32 we find * He shall separate {d(f>opiCL) them one from 
 another, as a shepherd divideth {i(f>opi^ei) his sheep from the goats.' 
 
 With ver. 45 comp. Pin/e Ahoth, ii. 13 ; " He that borrows from man is 
 the same as if he borrowed from God," and therefore "he that borroweth and 
 repayeth not " is a grievous sinner. 
 
 XXVI. 1-XXVIII. 20. THE PASSIOBT, DEATH, AND 
 KESURRECTION OF THE MESSIAH. 
 
 This is the seventh and last section of the Gospel. The 
 main division of the Gospel in two parts (iv. 12-xiii. 52, xiv. i- 
 xviii. 35) is preceded by two subordinate sections (i. i-ii. 23, 
 iii. i-iv. 11), and followed by two subordinate sections (xix. 
 i-xx. 34, xxi. i-xxv. 46). This seventh section forms the 
 natural conclusion to all. Everything, from the Birth onwards, 
 has led up to this climax. It opens with three paragraphs 
 (1-5, 6-13, 14-16) which are connected together by the thought 
 
 ' The expression ' eternal punishment ' (/ciXao-is aMnos) occurs more than 
 once in the Testaments: Reuben v. 5 ; Garfvii. 5 ; but is not found in the 
 O.T. For the judgment of the Angels comp. the Ascension of Isaiah, i. 5, 
 iv. 8, X. 12. 
 
 * See the instances collected in Dalman, Words, pp. 156 ff. 
 
XXVI. 1-5] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 353 
 
 of the action of the traitor, in whom Mt. takes a special interest. 
 These paragraphs mark different stages in the process of 
 betrayal. 
 
 In the first of them Mt. again joins Mk., whose narrative he 
 left at xxiv. 42 = Mk. xiii. 35, and the first two verses are the 
 Evangelist's method of returning to the narrative of Mk. We 
 have already had the formula, ' And it came to pass when Jesus 
 finished,' used several times for connecting a long discourse 
 with what follows (vii. 28, xi. i, xiii. 53, xix. i). Here Mt. 
 inserts ' all ' between ' finished ' and ' these words,' to intimate 
 that no more discourses of great length are to follow; see on 
 vii. 28, p. 119. 
 
 XXVI. 1-5. The Approach of the Passover and the Malice 
 of the Hierarchy. 
 
 'Ye know that after two days the Passover cometh.' Mt. 
 omits the mention of ' the Unleavened Bread ' (to " kfy^a), which, 
 although originally distinct from the Passover, had come to be 
 synonymous with it (Lk. xxii. i ; see notes there), and therefore 
 did not need separate mention. The meaning of ' after two days ' 
 is uncertain. If ' after three days ' means ' on the third day,' 
 ' after two days ' ought to mean ' on the morrow,' but it is a 
 strange expression to substitute for so simple and common 
 a phrase as ' on the morrow.' Possibly the Aramaic original was 
 less definite : ' after some days.' By adding ' and the Son of 
 Man is being delivered up to be crucified' Mt. shows how 
 entirely aware the Messiah was of all that His enemies were 
 doing, and of how it will end; comp. xx. 19. 'Is betrayed to 
 be crucified' (AV.) ties the meaning of -TrapuSiSorai to the act of 
 the traitor ; but it may refer to Christ's ' being delivered up by 
 the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God ' (Acts 
 ii. 23); see on xvii. 22 and xx. 18, 19. In mentioning among 
 the enemies of the Messiah 'the elders of the people' (xxi. 23, 
 xxvi. 3, 47), Mt. perhaps wishes to intimate that the hostile 
 hierarchy consisted largely of representatives of the people ; they 
 were popular leaders and teachers. He alone tells us that the 
 conspirators met at the house of Caiaphas,i who had already 
 advised putting Jesus to death (Jn. xi. 50) ; and he follows Mk. 
 in saying that they agreed to do it by craft (SdAw) ; He was to 
 be quietly put out of the way. This meant waiting till the 
 Galilean pilgrims, who had come up for the Passover, and who 
 were enthusiastic on His behalf, had gone home again. If He 
 were arrested publicly, they would make a tumult {d6pv0o<;), a 
 
 ^ Mk. does not mention the high priest by name, and Lk. does so only in 
 a date (iii. 2). Jn. gives the name five times. 
 
354 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVI. 5-7 
 
 word specially used of excited multitudes (xxvii. 24; Acts xx. i, 
 xxi. 34). It was the unexpected offer of Judas which enabled 
 them to abandon this unwelcome postponement, and proceed 
 at once. Mt. perhaps means us to understand that it was at the 
 very time (tot€) when this plot was being made, that Jesus pre- 
 dicted that He would be delivered up to be crucified at the 
 Passover. His foes were intending to wait till after the Feast ; 
 but He knew what would happen through the agency of the 
 traitor, whose work is the thread that connects these three 
 paragraphs, 1-16.^ 
 
 XXVT. 6-16. The Anointing at Bethany and its Sequel. 
 
 It would have been natural to mention the offer of the 
 traitor immediately after the decision of the Sanhedrin (4, 5) ; 
 but Mt. first tells of the incident in the house of Simon the 
 leper, and then records the fact that Judas went to the hierarchy 
 with his proposal. Evidently we are to suppose that the pro- 
 posal was a consequence (tote iropevOik) of that incident. The 
 motives of Judas were doubtless mixed, but the Gospels clearly 
 indicate that one of them was avarice. By the ' waste ' of the 
 ointment he had lost the care of more than 300 denarii (Mk. 
 xiv, 5 ; Jn. xii. 5, 6), and he desired compensation. Thirty 
 shekels would be about 120 denarii, and of the 300 (^w/ar/V Judas 
 would hardly have been able to steal more than 120. Whatever 
 other motives he may have had for his treachery, disappointed 
 avarice would seem to have been one of them. Our Lord's 
 defence of Mary's extravagance was exasperating and might make 
 Judas ready to make money by treachery, and by treachery that 
 would wreak vengeance on Him. 
 
 It is clear from various passages (xxi. 17 ; Mk. xi. 11, 19, 27) 
 that during these last days our Lord generally left the city in the 
 evening and spent the night at Bethany. Therefore His being in 
 a house at Bethany (6) is what we should expect. The fact that 
 the owner of the house was named Simon, and that in it a woman 
 poured ointment on our Lord from an alabaster box, are the 
 only reasons for identifying this story with that in Lk. vii. 36-50. 
 But Simon was one of the commonest of names, for there are at 
 least ten in the N.T. and about twenty in Josephus ; so that 
 identity of name proves very little, and the addition of ' the 
 leper' here points to a different person.^ An 'alabaster' may 
 
 ^ Mt. is alone, not only in recording the prediction (2), but also in stating 
 that there was a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin. Mli. and Lk. say merely 
 that the hierarchy were seeking (i\:i)Tovv) how to destroy Him. 
 
 ^ ' The Leper ' does not necessarily mean that he was a leper at the time. 
 Matthew was called 6 T-eXcii'ijs after he had ceased to be a toll-collector. For 
 guents in alabasters comp. Herod, iii. 20, Pliny says that iDiguenta o^iitiK 
 
 un 
 
XXVI. 8-14] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 355 
 
 have been as common a receptacle for ointment as Simon was 
 common among names. The great objection, however, to 
 identifying the two incidents is the character of the women. 
 John tells us that this woman was Mary, the sister of Martha 
 and Lazarus (xii. 1-3), and it is difficult to believe that she was 
 the 'sinner' mentioned by Lk. On the other hand there is no 
 difficulty in believing that there were two anointings ; indeed the 
 first might suggest a second. The identification involves an 
 imputation on Mary's previous life which " we are not warranted 
 in casting, on a mere surmise, and without any evidence to 
 support it " (Salmon, Human Element, p. 483). See notes on 
 Lk. vii. 30, p. 209. It is certainly remarkable that, in spite of 
 the promise that the woman's act should be spoken of wherever 
 the Gospel was preached, her name is not mentioned by either 
 Mt. or Mk. The reason may be that, when they wrote, she was 
 still alive, and would not desire to have her name published. 
 When Lk. (x. 38-42) and John wrote, she may have been dead. 
 It is perhaps for a similar reason that Jn. alone mentions that it 
 was Peter who cut off the ear of Malchus. No other Gospel gives 
 the names. 
 
 It is possible that a like feeling of caution or reserve caused 
 Mt. and Mk. to withhold the name of him who took the lead in 
 censuring Mary for her extravagance. The statements become 
 more definite as the incident becomes more remote. Mk. says 
 that ' there were some who had indignation ' at her act. Mt. 
 says that these were ' disciples.' Jn. says that it was Judas, and 
 that it was the loss of possible gain that made him find fault. 
 ' To what purpose was this waste ? ' 1 It is likely enough that 
 some of the disciples sympathized with this " plausible fz/z /;o«(? 
 of a shortsighted utilitarianism " (Swete), and showed their 
 sympathy by an approving murmur. Mt. omits the estimate of 
 'more than 300 denarii,' as he omitted the 'about 2000' (viii. 
 32), and '200 denarii' (xiv. 17), and 'by hundreds and by 
 fifties' (xiv. 19). Perhaps such details seemed to him to be 
 unedifying, or at any rate unnecessary. The remarkable rebuke 
 to the plea for the poor, ' For ye have the poor always with you, 
 but Me ye have not always,' is in all three Gospels. Its origin- 
 ality stamps it as authentic. Considering the teaching of Christ 
 and of the O.T. respecting the poor, we may be sure that He 
 alone would have used this argument ; no one would have 
 
 servantur in alabastris. Mt. omits the puzzling ttio-tikti. Both he and Mk. 
 say that our Lord's head was anointed, perhaps influenced by Ps. xxiii. 5. 
 Jn. says that Mary anointed His feet, and wiped them with her hair. 
 
 1 ' Waste ' is hardly strong enough ; ' destruction ' is nearer the meaning. 
 The precious fluid was utterly thrown away and lost. Elsewhere aTrdXeia 
 commonly means ' perdition ' in an intransitive sense (vii, 13 ; Jn. xvii. 12 ; 
 Acts viii. 20 ; Rom. ix. 22, etc. ). 
 
356 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVI. 14-17 
 
 invented it for him. Comp. Deut. xv. 1 1 (which is not easily 
 harmonized with xv. 4), and also " God allows the poor to be 
 with us for ever, that the opportunities of doing good may never 
 fail " (Talmud). Mt. omits, as superfluous : ' whensoever ye will ye 
 can [always] do them good.' The promise that Mary's act shall 
 never be forgotten wherever the Gospel is preached is in Mt. and 
 Mk., who do not give her name, but not in Jn., who does give it. 
 The Evangelist's favourite ' Then ' (roVe) is meant to imply 
 that the anointing led directly to the betrayal. Except in the 
 list of the Apostles (x. 4), Judas has not been previously 
 mentioned in the Synoptic narrative. It is not likely that the 
 Sanhedrin had ventured to offer a reward to whoever would get 
 Jesus out of the way ; but their hostility to Him was notorious, 
 and perhaps the intention to have Him arrested was somewhat 
 widely known. Mt. alone states the amount, ' thirty pieces of 
 silver,' and that it was paid at once.^ Mk. says that they 
 'promised' {iTrrjyydKavTo) and ' Lk. that they 'covenanted' 
 (a-vvedevTo) ' to give him money.' Mt. states the amount in 
 anticipation of xxvii. 3-10, where Zech. xi. 12, 13 is compared; 
 and, unless Judas had already been paid, he could not have 
 thrown the money back. Apparently the earliest tradition 
 mentioned neither the amount, nor the time of payment. These 
 divergencies about details need not trouble us. Having secured 
 either the money or a promise, Judas went back, like Gehazi 
 after securing the money-bags of Naaman, and ' stood before his 
 Master' (2 Kings v. 25). Had he not thought that, while he 
 sout;ht oi)portunity 2 to deliver Him up, Jesus knew all that was 
 passing in his mind ? He must have noticed that Jesus did 
 seem to read men's thoughts. 
 
 XXVI. 17-19. T/ie Preparations for the Passover. 
 
 Mt.'s narrative is only half as long as those of Mk. and Lk., 
 which are very similar. But there is hardly anything in Mt. 
 which could not be derived from Mk. For ' where is My guest- 
 chamber?' Mt. has 'My time is at hand'; but almost all the 
 other differences are those of omission. Mt. says nothing about 
 the man with the pitcher of water. He again (ver. 9) omits a 
 definite number, and does not tell us that two disciples were sent 
 (Mk. xiv. 13), still less that they were Peter and John (Lk. xxii. 
 8). Lk. knows so much about Peter and John after the 
 
 ' In the apocryphal Narrative of Joseph of Arimathtea (ii.) it is stated that 
 Tudas received thirty pieces oi gold. This change seems to be made because 
 the coins are identified with those brought by the Magi, which were lost 
 during the flight into Egypt, found by a herdsman and offered in the Temple. 
 
 ^ The word implies a 'good opportunity' {fvKaipla) ; comp. Lk. xxii. 6. 
 On the character of Judas see Fairbairn, Expositor, 1st series, xii. pp. 47-70. 
 
XXVI. 17-19] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 357 
 
 Ascension (Acts iii. i, iv. 13, viii. 14), that he may have 
 learned this fact also from the same source. The chronological 
 difficulties connected with the narratives of the Last Supper 
 have been often discussed, and need not be re-discussed here.^ 
 It is best to hold fast to the very clear and thoroughly consistent 
 statements in the Fourth Gospel, and correct the confused and 
 inconsistent Synoptic narratives by them. The confusion in the 
 latter originated in Mk., who has been followed by Mt. and Lk. 
 The source of error probably lies in the date, ' On the first day 
 of Unleavened Bread' (Lk. omits 'first'), which cannot be right, 
 and which leads to further confusion. It perhaps represents 
 an Aramaic phrase meaning '■Before the Feast of Unleavened 
 Bread,' which Mk. has misunderstood. The Passover coincided 
 with the Sabbath, which began on the Friday evening. Our 
 Lord, knowing that He would be unable to celebrate it at the 
 proper time, had a representative supper on the Thursday 
 evening. When the disciples asked, ' Where wilt Thou that we 
 make ready for Thee to eat the Passover ? ' they probably did 
 not know of Christ's intention to anticipat-e the celebration. 
 Christ kept both place and time secret, to avoid premature 
 arrest. Judas probably did not know either till Christ took him 
 and the Eleven to the upper room on Thursday afternoon, and 
 then Judas could do nothing till our Lord released him for his 
 evil work. Apparently Christ had an understanding with the 
 owner of the upper room, who seems to have been in some 
 sense a disciple. ' The Master saith ' is in all three. Like ' The 
 Lord hath need of them' (xxi. 3), it manifestly implies that the 
 recipient of the message will recognize the validity of the claim. 
 Moreover, here, ' My time is at hand ' would be meaningless to 
 a stranger. The message in that case would have run, ' The 
 Passover is at hand.' Mt. characteristically omits, 'Where is My 
 guest-chamber?' He does not like questions which seem to 
 imply that our Lord was ignorant.^ 
 
 The question has been raised whether Peter and John pre- 
 pared the lamb, or whether this was left to the master of the 
 house. Almost certainly, there was no lamb. The killing of 
 this ought to be done in the Temple on Friday afternoon in the 
 presence of the whole company. Two disciples would not 
 suffice for this (Exod. xii. 4), and it could not be done two days 
 before the Passover. Moreover, Peter and John were probably 
 not aware that the supper was to take place on the Thursday, 
 
 ^ See the excellent notes in Allen, pp. 269-274 ; also Wright, Synopsis, 
 p. 138. 
 
 ^ Thus, he omits, 'What is thy name?' (viii. 29), 'Who touched My 
 clothes?' (ix. 21), 'How many loaves have ye?' (xiv. 16), ' What question 
 ye with them?' (xvii. 14), etc. Note also how here he cuts out superfluous 
 words in vv. 17 and 19. 
 
3S8 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVl. 19 
 
 but believed that they were getting the room ready for the 
 Friday. 'They made ready the Passover' means that they 
 prepared a room for a Paschal meal.i The site of this room 
 seems to be one of the best ascertained facts in the topography 
 of Jerusalem, and there is perhaps hardly any other site about 
 which a Christian pilgrim would more desire to be assured. Dr. 
 Sanday believes " that of all the most sacred sites it is the one 
 that has the strongest evidence in its favour" {Sacred Sites of the 
 Gospels, p. 77). He believes that it is identical with the 'upper 
 chamber ' of Acts i. 13 (although we have avayaiov in the Gospels 
 and v-mpiiov in Acts) ; and incHnes lo think that the room was in 
 ' the house of Mary, the mother of Mark ' (Acts xii. 1 2). See 
 Edersheim, Life and Times, ii. p. 485. In that case, 'the good- 
 man of the house ' would be the husband of Mary and the 
 father of Mark. But, if so, why is the house called Mary's, and 
 why is her name given and not his ? ^ If, however, this difficulty 
 be set aside and an interesting conjecture, sorely lacking in 
 evidence, be accepted, we may easily accept the further con- 
 jecture that the young man with the linen cloth (Mk. xiv. 51) 
 was the son of ' the goodman ' who lent the upper room. The 
 young man was probably Mark the Evangelist : if not, why does 
 Mk., and Mk. alone, mention him? This reasonable hypo- 
 thesis certainly makes an attractive combination with the other 
 guesses. To sum up. The ' upper room ' of the Gospels is 
 probably the ' upper chamber ' of Acts. The ' young man ' of 
 Mk. \% probably the John Mark of Acts. It is not impossible that 
 the ' upper room ' or ' upper chamber' was in the house of Mary 
 the mother of John Mark ; in which case the owner of it would 
 be her husband and his father. But see Swete on Mk. xiv. 14. 
 
 Mt. omits the ' man bearing a pitcher of water,' the meeting 
 with whom may have been arranged between our Lord and the 
 owner. The carrying of the pitcher, which was work usually 
 done by women, may have been a sign of recognition (Burton 
 and Mathews, p. 244). Our Lord seems to have taken care 
 that Judas should not betray Him before His hour was come ; 
 and this could be done by ordinary prudence. 
 
 XXVI. 20-29. The Paschal Supper. 
 
 This was the last Paschal meal that our Lord was to share 
 with the Apostles, and possibly it was the last meal of any kind 
 
 ' That our Lord makes no comparison between Himself and the Paschal 
 lamb, or between His blood and that of the lamb, is strong evidence that there 
 was no lannb. 
 
 ^ It is possible that, when Mt. wrote, it was thought inexpedient to 
 mention the name of ' such a man ' (rhv Seii/a), and that when Acts was 
 written he was dead. 
 
XXVI. SO-24] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 359 
 
 that He shared with them. His great desire to partake of it 
 with them, as expressed in the independent narrative of Lk., is 
 in harmony with all the circumstances and with what we know 
 of Him. The ways in which Mt. abbreviates Mk. are character- 
 istic ; but he makes one considerable addition by inserting ver. 
 25, and in ver. 28 he adds ' unto remission of sins.' The 
 abbreviation in ver. 21 involves real loss. 'One of you shall 
 betray Me, even he that eateth with Me' (Mk.). The last six 
 words are implied in ' one of you,' and may seem to be super- 
 fluous ; but they are impressive as showing the enormity of the 
 treachery. To Orientals, eating bread with a man bars one 
 from hostile acts against him. But none of the Apostles 
 expresses doubt as to the truth of the dreadful announcement, 
 and none appears to have suspected Judas. Each looks into his 
 own heart, and each of the Eleven hopes that he may acquit 
 himself: 'Surely it is not I, LordP'^ Our Lord's answer can 
 hardly have been a sign by which all could recognize the traitor, 
 for when our Lord dismissed him they were mistaken as to the 
 errand on which he was sent. ' He that dipped his hand with 
 Me in the dish ' is a more emphatic enlargement of ' He that 
 eateth with Me.' There was probably only one dish, into which 
 all the company dipped, and therefore all had dipped in the 
 dish with Christ.^ But it is possible that our Lord's hand had 
 touched that of Judas in the act of dipping, and that this more 
 definite expression would be understood by Judas, though not by 
 the other Apostles ; and it is also possible that the Eleven did 
 not understand the full meaning of ' deliver Me up.' 
 
 ' The Son of Man goeth ' (24) probably means ' goeth His way 
 to death' (comp. Jn. vii. 33, viii. 14, 21, xiii. 3, 33, xiv. 4), and 
 with this may be combined the further thought of going through 
 death to the glory of the Father. Indeed, the word sometimes 
 has the sense of going back or going ho7ne (v. 24, viii. 4, 13, ix. 6, 
 xiii. 44, xix. 21, XX. 14), and that idea may well be included here. 
 See Abbott, Johannine Vocabulary, pp. 144, 145. 'Just as it 
 ■ stands written respecting Him ' (/cameos yiypanrai wepl airov) means 
 that the prophecies and types of the O.T. have revealed God's 
 counsels respecting Him, — counsels which the Son of Man loves 
 to fulfil. But these counsels did not necessitate the sin of Judas ; 
 they would have been fulfilled, if he had remained faithful. Of 
 his own free will he helped to carry them out in a particular 
 manner, and for this he is responsible and stands justly con- 
 
 ' This is the moment seized upon by Leonardo da Vinci in the great fresco 
 at Milan. The disciples are amazed at the fatal announcement ; but each 
 regards himself as a possible traitor rather than doubt the Lord's word. 
 
 ^ In Mlv. xiv. 20 some of the best texts (B C) insert ' one ' before ' dish ' • 
 ei's t6 tV Tpi^Xiov, See DCG. , artt. ' Bread ' and ' Dish.' 
 
360 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVI. 24 
 
 demned. So far from being compelled to act as he did, Judas is 
 allowed abundant opportunities of repentance. To the last Christ 
 tries to win him back ; and this intimation that his guilt is 
 enormous, that our Lord knows all, and yet will not denounce 
 him to the others, is the final attempt to bring him to repentance. 
 And there seems to be more of sorrow than of anger in the con- 
 sciousness that He has failed. As in the Woes in xxiii., we 
 should perhaps translate: 'Alas for that man through whom the 
 Son of Man is being delivered up.' There is here no malediction, 
 such as we find in the cursing Psalms. ' Through whom ' is in 
 all three (Si' ov not v<^ oS) : Judas is the instrument, in one sense 
 of the Divine decree that the Messiah must suffer, in another of 
 Satan's desire that he should commit this sin (Jn. xiii. 2, 27; 
 Lk. xxii. 3). 
 
 ' Good were it for him, if that man had not been born.'^ It is 
 grammatically possible to make ' for him ' (ai™) refer to ' the 
 Son of Man.' It would have been a happy thing for Jesus, if 
 there had been no Judas. But the context is wholly against this 
 interpretation. Our Lord is pointing out the miserable condition 
 of the traitor, not His own sufferings. The common rendering, 
 ' Good were it for that man, if he had not been born,' gives 
 the right meaning. Life to a human being is a Divine gift ; but 
 it is possible to abuse this blessing to such an extent that it is 
 turned into a curse. Comp. xviii. 6, where we have a similar, 
 but less severe saying ; and also the Book of Enoch, xxxviii. 2 : 
 "When the Righteous One shall appear . . . where then will be 
 the dwelling of the sinners, and where the resting place of those 
 who have denied the Lord of Spirits ? It had been good for 
 them, if they had not been born." Clement of Rome combines 
 xviii. 6 with this saying {Cor. xlvi.) ; Clement of Alexandria copies 
 this combination {Strom, iii. 18) ; and in the Clementine Homilies 
 we have as a saying of " the Prophet of the truth," i.e. of Christ : 
 "Good things must come, and blessed is he through whom they 
 come ; and in like manner it is necessary that bad things come, 
 but alas for him through v\hom they come" (xii. 29). In no ■ 
 case is 'it were good for him' understood as applying to our 
 Lord. See Hastings' DB., art. 'Judas Iscariot,' § 3. 
 
 We do not know where Mt. found the detail respecting the 
 appeal of Judas (25). It may be an inference from the statement 
 that the Apostles began to say, ' Surely it is not I ? ' If all did so, 
 then Judas must have done so in his turn, and our Lord would 
 not say 'No.' But the verse gives the impression of being 
 historical. It is probable that Judas asked with the rest ; his 
 
 ' The inversion, 'for him, if that man,' instead of 'for that man, if he' 
 is Semitic ; and ' it were better foi him ' is a well-known Kabbinic expression 
 (Erlersheim, Life and Times, ii. p. 120). Comp. Hermas, Vis. iv. 2. 
 
XXVI. 25, 26] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 361 
 
 not doing so would have aroused suspicion, and he would be 
 anxious to find out how much our Lord knew. In a few hours 
 all would know his guilt, so that he did not risk much by asking 
 along with the others. Christ had shown an unwillingness to 
 expose him, and perhaps would adhere to this. Moreover, Judas 
 may have been reclining so close to Christ that he could hope to 
 get a reply without the P^leven hearing it. The meaning of our 
 Lord's reply is not quite certain. It was probably an indirect 
 affirmation : ' Thou hast said ' (cri) ctTras) what is the case.^ In 
 ver. 64, Mt. evidently uses it as an affirmation, for it is equivalent 
 to ' I am ' (cyuj ilfxi^ Mk. xiv. 62). But there is not much evidence 
 to show that ' Thou hast said 'or 'Thousayest' (xxvii. ii = Mk. 
 XV. 2 = Lk. xxiii. 3=Jn. xviii. 37) was a common form of affirma- 
 tion either in Greek or in Hebrew (Dalman, Words, p. 309). 
 Possibly our Lord used a vague formula, which Judas would 
 understand as no contradiction of what he had said, and which 
 would not amount to an exposure, if it were overheard. Some, 
 however, think that it was spoken aloud, and with the intention 
 of letting the Eleven know who the traitor was. In that case we 
 may believe that our Lord was freeing the Eleven from distressing 
 doubts about themselves. But this hypothesis can hardly be 
 reconciled with Jn. xiii. 28, 29. Mt. gives no intimation of the 
 moment when Judas left the company. Not till ver. 47 d5es one 
 see that he must have been away some time; and it will always 
 remain doubtful whether he partook of the Eucharist or not. 
 Early and mediaeval writers commonly take the view that he did, 
 moderns that he did not. See Schanz on Lk. xxii. 21-23, PP- 
 509, 510; Girodon on the same, pp. 490, 491. 
 
 It is evident from tlie accounts of the Institution of the 
 Eucharist which have come down to us that it took place in 
 the evening (20) and in the middle of the meal. It was 'as they 
 were eating' (26) that Jesus took a loaf (probably one of the 
 cakes or biscuits prepared for the Passover), and blessed and 
 brake and gave it to the disciples. Both Mt. and Mk. 
 have 'blessed' {^vX.oy-ijtxa.'i) of the bread, and 'gave thanks' 
 (cix^^piuTiya-as) of the cup. Lk. has the latter of both bread and 
 cup, and S. Paul has the latter of the bread, and neither of the 
 cup.2 All three Synoptists have ' blessed ' of the five loaves at 
 the feeding of the five thousand, where Jn. has 'gave thanks.' 
 
 ' We must talse account of the emphatic pronoun : ' It was thou, and not 
 I, who said it.' Jesus would not have said as much, if it had not been drawn 
 from Him. The expression is found only in the narratives of the Passion. 
 
 - It is not hkely that dXoyriffas means that He blessed the bread ; it has 
 the same meaning in reference to the bread as ei^xapio-TTjeras has in reference 
 to the cup. He blessed, or gave thanks to, the Father ; perhaps in the Jewish 
 formula, " Blessed is He who bringeth food out of the earth." ' Bread' is 
 the accusative after 'took' [Xa^uiv Aprov). 
 
362 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVI. 26 
 
 Mt. has ' gave thanks ' of the loaves and fishes at the feeding of 
 the four thousand, where Mk. has ' gave thanks ' of the loaves 
 and 'blessed' of the fishes. It is not likely, therefore, that in 
 this connexion there is any difference of meaning between the 
 words. Both indicate an act of thanksgiving, perhaps in the form 
 usual for saying grace at meals. This taking of one loaf, breaking 
 it, and distributing it is true catholic ritual (i Cor. x. 16, xi. 24; 
 Ign. Eph. 20) ; and it is very significant that an article of food so 
 simple, and almost universal in its use, should have been adopted 
 as a symbol of Christian unity in diversity. This beautiful 
 symbolism seems to be obliterated by the employment of separate 
 wafers for Holy Communion. 
 
 As regards the words of administration, Mt. and Mk. have 
 'Take' (Aa^tTc) of the bread, to which Mt. alone adds 'Eat' 
 (^aycTc),! and Lk. alone has ' Take ' of the cup. S. Paul has 
 neither word. ' This is My Body ' (toCto' kmiv to <7<o/xa /xou) can 
 only mean 'This bread \% My Body,' the pronoun being attracted 
 from the masculine to the neuter on account of to aw/xd /xod. 
 The 'is' is not emphatic, and it would not be expressed in 
 Aramaic ; but it must be understood, and therefore explained, 
 even if it is not expressed. Moreover, in the language in which 
 our Lord's words have been preserved for us the ' is ' is expressed. 
 The meaning will perhaps always be disputed. But the choice 
 hes between these two : 'This represents My Body,' and 'This is 
 (in some sense not specified, and in some way that we cannot 
 understand) identified with My Body.'^ Those who adopt either 
 of these interpretations can give good reasons for their choice. 
 But it is not necessary to have the question determined. All 
 that is necessary is that the Christian should be assured that 
 whoever worthily partakes of the Holy Communion really partakes 
 of Christ ; and he has this assurance without determining the 
 precise meaning of the ' is.' See Hastings' D£., art. ' Lord's 
 Supper,' pp. 148, 149; EUicott on 1 Cor. xi. 24; T. S. Evans in 
 
 ' Inferior MSS. add (pdyere in Mk. xiv. 22 ; but this is a manifest interpola- 
 tion from Mt. Does the Xd^ere imply that our Lord placed the broken bread 
 on a plate and told the disciples to help themselves to it ? 
 
 ^ Such expressions as ' I am the bread which came down from heaven,' 
 ' I am the light of the world,' ' I am the door,' ' I am the true vine,' ' Ye are 
 the salt of the earth,' ' Ye are the light of the world,' must not be quoted as 
 quite parallel to 'This (bread) is My Body.' In all these six instances that 
 which is actual and unsynibolized is the subject, and the symbol or metaphor 
 is the predicate. This difference may be important. Comp. ' My Flesh is 
 true meat, and My Blood is true drink,' and i Cor. .\. 16. It is necessary 
 to be wary in drawing inferences from sj'mbols and metaphors, especially in 
 Oriental literature, which is so full of such things. See Swete on Mk. xiv. 
 i^, p. 336. If ' is ' means ' is identical with,' some adverb, such as ' mystic- 
 ally' or * sacramentally,' must be understood; and what does this adverb 
 mean ? 
 
XXVI. 26-28] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 363 
 
 the Speaker's Commentary on i Cor. x. 16; Thirlwall, Charges, 
 I. V. and vi., 11. x., esp. p. 251, ed. Perowne, 1877. 
 
 The four reports that have come down to us of the words of 
 institution are very instructive with regard to the question of the 
 verbal accuracy of Scripture. Here it is impossible to suppose 
 (what is a very reasonable hypothesis in some cases) that our 
 Lord uttered similar sayings on different occasions, and that the 
 divergent reports of His sayings may be explained by the sup- 
 position that His wording was not always exactly the same. It 
 is incredible that the words of institution were uttered more than 
 once ; and yet no two reports of them agree. The only words 
 which are common to all four accounts are 'This is My Body'; 
 and even here there is a slight difference of order (toCto ji.o\i 
 icrnv to crol/ia in I Cor., and tovto ianvTo o-Sifid /xov in the Gospels). 
 It will be useful to place the four reports in pairs. Those of Mt. 
 and Mk. are evidently closely related ; and those of Lk. and 
 I Cor. are also closely related, if the current texts of Lk. are 
 correct, which, however, is very doubtful 
 
 Mt. xxvi. 26-28. Mk. xiv. 22-24. 
 
 Take, eat ; this is My Body. Take ye ; this is My Body. 
 
 Drink ye all of it ; for 
 this is My Blood of the covenant, This is My Blood of the covenant, 
 
 which is shed for many, which is shed for many, 
 
 unto remission of sins. 
 
 Lk. xxii. 19, 20. I Cor. xi. 24, 25. 
 
 This is My Body This is My Body 
 
 [which is given for you : which is for you : 
 
 this do, in remembrance of Me. this do, in remembrance of Me. 
 
 This cup is the new covenant This cup is the new covenant 
 
 in My Blood, in My Blood : 
 
 even that which is poured out for you]. this do, as oft as ye drink it, 
 
 in remembrance of Me. 
 
 The words in brackets are very possibly no part of the original 
 copy of Lk., but are an early interpolation. See notes, ad loc. 
 Salmon believes them to be original {Human Element, p. 491). 
 
 It is certainly surprising that there should be such wide 
 divergence in the report of such words ; and it is specially 
 remarkable that neither Mk. nor Mt. record the command to 
 continue the celebration of the rite in remembrance of Christ. 
 Unless the disputed words in Lk. are genuine, that command 
 rests upon the authority of S. Paul alone. The authority 
 suffices ; but we should have expected to find the command in 
 the Gospel narrative of the institution. The command, ' Drink 
 ye all from it ' (Trt'cTc ki, aurov travTVi), is apparently an inference 
 drawn by Mt. from the narrative of Mk. Mk. says that they 
 
364 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVI. 28 
 
 all drank from the cup ; and Mt. concludes that our Lord told 
 them to do so : 1 comp. ver. 2. 
 
 And the divergence respecting the words of institution does 
 not end with Scripture ; it is increased by the ancient liturgies, 
 from which we might extract seven or eight other forms. One 
 would have supposed that one or other of the Scriptural forms 
 would have been selected ; but this is not the case. The 
 Scriptural forms are blended, and blended in different ways; 
 moreover, here and there something is inserted which is not in 
 Scripture. We have no means of determining which of the four 
 Scriptural forms is most exact. Each may have preserved some 
 element that is authentic ; and we may believe that the whole 
 of Mk.'s report is authentic. But, when we make a mosaic of 
 all four reports, we are on much less secure ground, as we see 
 from the differences between the mosaics which have been made 
 in this way. Pere Girodon, who has some excellent remarks on 
 the differences between the Scriptural forms, thinks that all four 
 of them are inferior in exactitude to that which is used in the 
 Roman Liturgy, which he believes to be a tradition older than 
 any of the Gospels. ^ But what is the evidence for this? Some 
 of the most corrupt readings in the N.T. might be defended on 
 this ground. See J. M. Neale, Liturgies of S. Mark, etc., App. i. 
 
 In ' This is My Blood of the covenant,' the ' This ' in stricter 
 grammar means ' this cup,' but it evidently means the contents 
 of the cup. In i Cor. we have ' This cup is the new covenant 
 in My Blood.' The Blood was shed to ratify the new covenant 
 (Exod. xxiv. 8), and the wine in the cup represents, or in some 
 sense is, the Blood. It is not stated in any of the forms who 
 are the parties to the covenant, but we may assume that they 
 are ' the many ' and Christ, or ' the many ' and God. The latter 
 is more probably right, and Mt. by the addition of 'for the 
 remission of sins ' seems to have understood it so. Forgiveness 
 is covenanted by God under certain conditions, and the covenant 
 is ratified by blood (see Westcott on Heb. i.x;. 20). Hence 'the 
 cup ' = the wine = the blood = ' the covenant ' ; and thus ' This 
 cup is the new covenant ' is true. 
 
 There are a number of various readings in this important passage, but 
 there is not much difficulty in determining what is right. In ver. 26, ' bread ' 
 or ' a loaf,' 6.pTov (N B C D L Z, Syr-Sin. ) is to be preferred to ' the bread ' 
 or 'the loaf,' rhv dpTop (AT A II); 'blessed,' (vKoyqiras (K B C D G L Z, 
 Syr-Sin. Lalt. Copt. Arm. Aeth.) to ' gave thanks,' (vxapiar-qirai (A T A 11) : 
 in ver. 27, ' a cup,' iroT-fipiof (K B E F G L Z A 2) to ' the cup,' t6 iroTripioi' 
 
 'The rendering 'Drink ye all f 7-0 in it,' lit. 'Drink from it all of you,' 
 avoids the misconception that 'all of it' means the whole of the wine. 
 
 ^ It contains much that is not in the N.T. Hie est enini Callx sanguinis 
 inei, novi ct ,Ttenii testametili, mysterinin fidei : qui pro vohis et pro iiiultis 
 effundetur in remissioncvi pcccalorutU. 
 
XXVI. S9] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 365 
 
 (ACDHKMSUV etc. ) : in ver. 28, ' the covenant,' ttjs SiaBriK-n^ (X B L Z, 
 33, 102, Cyr-Alex. Cypr.) to 'the new covenant,' tiJs koii'jjs Siadrixr)! 
 (A C D r A etc., Latt. Syrr. Boh. Arm. Aeth.). The article before ' bread' 
 and ' cup ' was inserted to emphasize the fact that this was the eucharistic 
 bread and the eucharistic cup. ' Blessed ' was changed to ' gave thanks ' to 
 assimilate the treatment of bread and cup, and also to assimilate with Lie. 
 and I Cor. ; and ' new ' was inserted to assimilate with Lk. (?) and I Cor. 
 In. ver. 26, the AV. has the better readings, in w. 27, 28, the worse. 
 
 The saying of Christ, ' I will not drink henceforth of this 
 fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you 
 in My Father's Kingdom,' is in all three Gospels, with some slight 
 differences of wording. We treat it with scant reverence when 
 we regard it as a "poetic utterance," in interpreting which we 
 have chiefly to beware of "turning poetry into prose." In all 
 three accounts it is introduced with the solemn ' I say unto you.' 
 With Swete and Salmon, we may rightly regard it as " mysterious," 
 and therefore not be over-con5dent in interpreting it. The 
 passage, reads like a solemn farewell. Our T^ord had greatly 
 desired to eat the Passover with them, but He is not going to do 
 so [again] until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God (Lk. xxii. 
 15, 16). And here He says that He will not drink wine any 
 .more, until He does so in the Kingdom. ' TAts fruit of the 
 vine ' might mean the Passover-wine, but in Mk. and Lk. it is 
 simply ' t/ie fruit of the vine,' which is a common O.T. expression 
 for wine (see the Septuagint of Is. xxxii. 12 ; Hab. iii. 17 ; and 
 comp. Num. vi. 4), not for the Passover-wine in particular.^ 
 Even 'Ms fruit of the vine' does not necessarily mean the 
 Passover-wine. ' Henceforth ' {air aprC), or ' from henceforth ' 
 (d-TTo ToC vvv, Lk.) or 'no more' (ovKeTi, which is probably right 
 in Mk.), seems clearly to imply that on this occasion our Lord 
 did drink from the cup before passing it to the Apostles ; and 
 it would have been a strange thing for the person who presided 
 at a Paschal meal not to do so. Yet some think that the 
 symbolism requires that He should have partaken of neither 
 the bread nor the wine. ' I have greatly desired to eaf this 
 Passover^ points in the other direction. The meaning seems 
 to be that He partakes of this Paschal supper, but it is His last. 
 He is taking a solemn fa?-ewell of the ordinances of the Jewish 
 dispeTisation. But see Jour, of Th. St., July 1908, p. 569. 
 
 ' Until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's 
 
 ^ Here and in Mk. and Lk. the right form is yerqua (yhofiai), not 
 yivv-qiia (yevvau). Iri iii. 7, xii. 34, xxiii. 33 ; Lk. iii. 7, yivvTifj.a is right. 
 Latin versions differ in translation : genera/ione vitis, or f7-uctu vinea or 
 creatiira vinetv^ or geninn)2e vitis. In ' drink it new ' we have not the 
 newness of the 'new wine' [olvov viov] in ix. 17, a newness which is opposed 
 to what is mature, but the newness of the ' new heaven ' and the ' new eartli ' 
 (Kixiviv), which is opposed to what is obsolete. See Deissmann, Bible Studies 
 109, 184. ' 
 
366 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVI. S9, 30 
 
 Kingdom ' is surprising. Will there be any eating and drinking 
 in the Kingdom ? Why does our Lord not say, 'Till ye see the 
 Kingdom of God come with power' (Mk. ix. i), or 'Till ye see 
 the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom ' (Mt. xvi. 28), or 
 'Till I come'(i Cor. xi. 26)? Possibly because that Coming 
 is associated with thoughts of suddenness and surprise, of swift 
 movement and stern judgment (xxiv. 30, 31, 39, 44, xxv. 31, 32), 
 and what our Lord desires here to suggest is a hope for satisfac- 
 tion and repose and social joy. All of that is far better sym- 
 bolized under the Jewish idea of the Kingdom as a banquet (Is. 
 xxv. 6; Lk. xiii. 29, xiv. 15, xxii. 30; Rev. iii. 20, xix. 9; comp. 
 2 Esdr. ii. 38 and the Book of the Secrets of Enoch, viii.). Our 
 Lord had adopted this idea in commending the centurion (viii. 
 11), and He does so again here. The 'with you ' is peculiar to 
 Mt. here : the Apostles are to share His joy, and He will share 
 theirs. And the wine which symbolizes the joy is 'new ' (Kaivov), 
 because everything in the Kingdom is new (Rev. iii. 12, v. 9, 
 xxi. 1,5). It will be joy transformed and glorified ; joy so 
 different from the joys experienced here that the heart of man 
 cannot conceive it. With 'the Kingdom of My Father,' which 
 again is peculiar to Mt. here, comp. 'the Kingdom of their 
 Father ' (xiii. 43). 
 
 XXVI. 30-35. Departure to the Mount of Olives. 
 Desertion and Denial foretold. 
 
 The ' hymn ' which was sung at the close of the Paschal 
 meal was no doubt one or more of the Psalms (cxxxvi. or cxv.- 
 cxviii.), which were often called hymns. Lk. tells us that it was 
 ' His custom ' to go out to the Mt. of Olives, so that this termina- 
 tion of the meal would excite no surprise in the disciples, who 
 were perhaps still meditating on the declaration that one of the 
 Twelve was a traitor, and on the departure of Judas.^ Was it 
 he who was going to deliver the Lord up? Then comes the 
 startling prediction, ' All ye (Travres i/u-fi?) shall be offended ' ; 
 which Mt. makes still more definite by adding, 'in Me this 
 night.' It is about nothing less than the Messiah that this 
 catastrophe is to happen ; and it is no mere possibility in the 
 distant future ; it will take place at once. The quotation from 
 Zech. xiii. 7, by which this disquieting prophecy is supported, is 
 
 ' The exact time of departure from the upper room is uncertain. Mt. 
 and Mk. place it before the prediction of Peter's denial, Lk. (xxii. 39) and 
 Jn. (xiv. 31) place it after that prediction. Note the characteristic 'Then,' 
 vv. 31, 36, 38. In the apocryphal Acts of John, our Lord composes a hymn 
 of many verses, some of which are evidently of Gnostic origin. It was 
 attributed to the Priscillianists, but Augustine says that it was found elsewhere; 
 than in their writings. Donehoo, pp. 310-312. 
 
XXVI. 31] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 367 
 
 in Mk. as well as in Mt. It appears to be an independent 
 translation from the Hebrew.' It sets forth the general principle, 
 soon to be so sadly illustrated by the conduct of the Apostles, 
 that the striking down of the shepherd means the scattering of 
 the sheep. 'For it stands written' {yiypa-mai yap) is part of 
 Christ's saying ; it is not a remark of the Evangelist to point out 
 a fulfilment of prophecy. The prediction of their own failure 
 evidently made more impression upon Peter, and presumably 
 upon the others also, than the comforting assurance that He 
 would rise from the dead and see them again in Galilee (xxviii. 
 10, 16; Mk. xvi. 7). The disciples would in any case be likely 
 to return to Galilee after the Passover was over ; all the more 
 so as Jerusalem would be unsafe for them. This departure is 
 clearly given in the last lines of the fragment of the Gospel 
 according to Peter (xiii.) : "Now it was the last day of the 
 Unleavened Bread, and many went forth returning to their 
 homes, as the feast was ended. But we, the twelve {sic) disciples 
 of the Lord, wept and were grieved; and each one grieving for 
 that which was come to pass departed to his home. But I, 
 Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother took our nets and went 
 away to the sea ; and there was with us Levi the son of Alphseus, 
 whom the Lord. . . ." Our Lord encourages them to take this 
 step, by promising to be in Galilee before they are. The scatter- 
 ing will certainly take place, but a reunion is equally certain.^ 
 
 Peter does not notice the promised Resurrection, which none 
 of them as yet understand, nor the promised reunion. Conscious 
 of his own affection for the Lord, he impetuously repudiates for 
 himself the prediction that he will be made to stumble respecting 
 Him. In his characteristic impulsiveness he is guilty of three 
 faults. He contradicts our Lord ; he claims to be stronger than 
 the other disciples ; and he relies on his own strength. He 
 might have remembered his own prayer, when he was sinking in 
 the lake, 'Lord, save me' (.xiv. 30), or that of all of them in the 
 storm, 'S.ive, Lord, we perish' (viii. 25). Mt. makes the 
 repudiation very emphatic. Mk. has simply, ' yet will not I ' ; 
 while Mt. has, ' I will never be made to stumble.' The reply of 
 Christ is equally emphatic. The solemn ' I say unto thee ' (Ae'yo) 
 croi) is in all four Gospels ; in Mt. and Mk. this is preceded by 
 
 ' Both Mt. and Mk., and also the FayOm fragment containing this saying, 
 have 'I will smite' for 'smite ye' (xardlw for TraT-dfare). The imperative 
 would hardly have made sense here. ' Of the flock ' (rris irolixv-q^) is not in 
 the Hebrew, but is added in .\ in the Septuagint, whence Mt. probably 
 derived it. Comp. the quotation in xix. 5, and see Swete, Int. to the N. T. 
 in Greek, p. 393. 
 
 - The contrast between the mournful scattering of the disciples and the 
 joyful Resurrection and reunion is more strongly marked in Mk. (iXKa.) than 
 in Mt. (5e). 
 
368 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVI. 35-38 
 
 'Verily,' in Jn. by the double 'Verily.' Lk. has 'to-day,' Mt. 
 ' this night,' Mk. has both, and Jn. neither, of the time when the 
 denial is to take place. That Peter repudiated the special 
 prediction respecting himself, and in this was followed by the 
 others, is mentioned by Mt. and Mk. alone. Mk. says that he 
 continued to do this with vehemence (cKTrtpicrcrajs cAaAei), and 
 Mt. compensates for omitting the words by turning ' If I must 
 die with Thee ' into ' Even if I must die with Thee ' ; and his 
 vehemence encourages the others to repudiate also.' 
 
 XXVI. 36-46. The Agony in Gethsetnane. 
 
 Perhaps the Evangelists had no such intention, but they 
 exhibit a tragic irony in placing our Lord's prayer in the garden 
 immediately after the confident boasting of Peter and his 
 companions. The Apostles are so sure of their own strength 
 that they will not allow the possibility of failure, even when they 
 are forewarned of it by Christ. The Son of Man is so conscious 
 of the weakness of His humanity that He prays to the Father 
 that He may be spared the approaching trial. He feels the need 
 of being strengthened by prayer. And although He at other times 
 followed His own rule (vi. 6) of praying in retirement (xiv. 23), 
 here He seems to have desired the company and sympathy of 
 His three most intimate disciples. They had been witnesses of 
 His glory (xvii. i, 2), and they are now to be witnesses of His 
 humiliation. 2 Yet it is for their own sakes rather than for His, 
 that He has them there. Mt., as usual, tones down expressions 
 which attribute human emotions to the Messiah ; ' greatly 
 amazed ' (eK^a/^ySeio-^ai) becomes ' sorrowful ' {Xv-Kua-Qai), but the 
 strong ' sore troubled ' {uZyijiovfiv) remains unchanged (see 
 Lightfoot on Phil ii. 26).^ Mt. was perhaps influenced by 
 Christ's own confession, ' My soul is exceeding sorrowful,' in 
 changing 'greatly amazed 'into 'sorrowful.' With this mention 
 of His 'soul' {if/yxv), which is very exceptional, comp. Jn. xii. 27. 
 "The narrative does not encourage the view which prevails in 
 many patristic commentaries, that the Lord's sorrow and prayers 
 were only for the sins and woes of men. His human soul shrank 
 
 ^ As in xxii. 26, Mt. has o/totws where Mk. has waauTus. For ' cock- 
 crow ' as a mark of time comp. Aristoph. Eccles. 390 ; Juvenal, ix. 107. 
 
 * Mk. says 'James and John,' Mt. 'the sons of Zebedee' ; Lk. does not 
 mention them, and Jn. omits (he whole incident. On the eVei (39) see on 
 xxvii. 47. 
 
 ^ It seems to imply " bewilderment," a "half-distracted state,'' as if His 
 soul could hardly see its way. But His trust in Ilis Father's love is not 
 shaken, even by the contents of the cup which \vas given Him to drink. The 
 Son's will decides for the Father's will, not for the .^nn's wish. Sonship of 
 necessity means submission. With nepiXuirAs, k.t.X., comp. 'S,<p6Spa, \e\inn)- 
 fiai iyu> fus davirov (Jonah iv, 9). 
 
XXVI. 38-41] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 369 
 
 from the Cross, and the fact adds to our sense of the greatness 
 of His sacrifice " (Swete on Mk. xiv. 34). 
 
 Mt, while he omits one or two small things, probably as 
 superfluous {e.g. ' that the hour might pass from Him ' ; 
 'Abba ... all things are possible unto Thee'; 'Simon'), 
 yet adds some things which are of interest. Chief of these are 
 ' with Me ' after ' watch,' both in the charge to be wakeful (38) 
 and in the reproach for sleeping (40) ; and again the addition of 
 'My' to 'Father' {Yidrep jxov).^ The chosen three are to share 
 His watch and listen to His prayers : that they were said aloud is 
 manifest, and perhaps very loud, so that the disciples could 
 easily hear, even at a little distance. The ' strong crying and 
 tears ' of Heb. v. 7 may refer to this. 
 
 Other differences between the three Gospels are very in- 
 structive. Lk. gives only one prayer and one reproach to the 
 disciples, who apparently are the whole Eleven, for the three 
 are not mentioned apart from the rest. Mk. says that our 
 Lord returned thrice to the sleeping three, but he mentions 
 only two prayers ; and he says that when our Lord prayed 
 the second time He used 'the same words' as in the first 
 prayer. Mt. alone distinguishes three prayers. He gives the 
 first two, which differ in a remarkable way, and says that in 
 the third prayer Christ said ' again the same words ' as in 
 the second. Lk., though less definite, can be harmonized 
 with either Mt. or Mk., but Mt. and Mk. cannot be harmonized 
 with one another. Moreover, in no two cases is the wording 
 of Christ's prayer the same. 
 
 Mt. Mk. Lk. 
 
 I. My Fallier Abba, Father, Father, 
 
 if it be possible, all things are possible if Thou be willing, 
 
 to Thee ; 
 
 let this cup pass remove this cup remove this cup 
 
 from Me : from Me : from Me : 
 
 nevertheless, not as I will, howbeit, not what I will, nevertheless, not My will, 
 
 but as Thou. but what Thou. but Thine, be done. 
 
 2. My Father, [Same words 
 
 if this cannot pass, as in I.] 
 
 except I drink it. 
 Thy will be done. 
 
 3. [Same words 
 as in 2.] 
 
 It is clear from our Lord's own action at this crisis that vi. 7 
 does not forbid the repetition of prayers, even in the same form 
 
 1 It is probably under the influence of Mk. that a few witnesses (LA, a, 
 Just. M.) omit the ij.ov in ver. 39 but not in ver. 42. 
 
 24 
 
370 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVI. 41-44 
 
 of words.i Why did He repeat His prayer in Gethsemane? 
 We may reverently suppose that He Himself knew that the first 
 utterance of the prayer had not been complete in its success. 
 His human will was not yet in absolute unison with the will of 
 His Father ; and in this we may trace progress between the first 
 prayer and the second. In both cases the prayer is made 
 conditionally, but in the first the condition is positive, in the 
 second it is negative. 'If it be possible' has become 'If it be 
 not possible,' and there is no longer any petition that the cup 
 may be removed. \A'e may believe that in the third prayer, even 
 if the same words were used, the 'If has become equivalent to 
 ' since ' : ' Since this cup cannot pass from Me, Thy will be 
 done.'^ In Mk. 'AH things are possible to Thee' means 'AH 
 things that Thou wiliest are possible.' It cannot mean that what 
 God does not will are possible for Him. And in Mt., 'If it be 
 possible' means 'If Thou be willing,' which is what Lk. writes. 
 With this threefold prayer of our Lord we compare the three- 
 fold prayers of Elijah (i Kings xvii. 21) and of S. Paul (2 Cor. 
 xii. 8). In each case the result is peace, through the union of 
 the human will with the Divine will.^ But Elijah's prayer needs 
 to be repeated to increase his own earnestness in desiring that 
 which God is ready to grant, and to make himself more worthy 
 to receive such a boon. Prayer is not an engine by which we 
 overcome the unwillingness of God. God is ever ready to grant 
 what is really good for us, when we have, by prayer, made 
 ourselves ready to receive it. 
 
 As on the Mount of Transfiguration, the three disciples 
 struggle, and unsuccessfully, with heavy drowsiness. It was 
 caused, as Lk. says, by great sorrow, which is very exhausting. 
 The words in which the Lord reproaches and warns them 
 are not quite the same in all three Gospels. Both Mt. and 
 Mk. tell us that, on the first return, these words, though 
 meant for all (' Watch ye and pray '), were specially addressed 
 to Peter,* who in Mk. is addressed by his old name, 
 ' Simon,' — perhaps to suggest to him that he is in danger 
 of forfeiting his right to be called the ' Rock-man.' Mt. also 
 omits, as at the Transfiguration, that Peter 'wist not what to 
 
 ^ Possibly rbv avTov \6yov means ' the same pra)er,' rather than ' the same 
 words.' The substance of the request, rather than the wording of it, may be 
 intended. Even so, prayers for a special object may be repeated. 
 
 - The echo of the Lord's Prayer is heard clearly in these words ; and we 
 catch another echo in the charge to the disciples (41). 
 
 ' " In His will is our peace" (Dante, Par. iii, 85). 
 
 '' Mt. transfers the rebuke as well as the warning from Peter to all three ; 
 ' Couldest thou not watch one hour?' has become ' CoaMye not watch with 
 Me one hour?' and Mt. omits the significant 'Simon.' They had promised 
 to die with Him, and this is the result. 
 
XXVI. 45] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 37 1 
 
 answer.' As often, he spares the Apostles by omitting what 
 might be blamed. 
 
 That the disciples struggled to be wakeful need not be 
 doubted. They had been charged to watch (38), and at such a 
 time they would be anxious to be loyal to the Lord's commands. 
 Moreover, the saying (so often quoted, because in such intense 
 agreement with human experience), ' The spirit indeed is willing, 
 but the flesh i.s weak,' implies that the disciples had been willing 
 to obey, but had been overcome by frailty of the flesh.^ And 
 we may believe that, in giving this warning to the Three, our 
 Lord is speaking out of the fulness of His own pressing 
 experience. Even He has been finding that the most perfect 
 human nature may feel weakness when confronted with the 
 supreme requirements of the will of God. If He needed to be 
 strengthened by prayer, how much more did His faulty disciples ! 
 Yet none of the narratives represent Him as asking the disciples 
 to pray for Hiin. It is for their own sakes that He bids them 
 to be watchful and prayerful ; and it is probably in reference to 
 the Prayer which He had taught them that He says, ' Pray, that 
 ye enter not into temptation.' He had entered into temptation, 
 and had felt the full strain ; He desires, therefore, that they may 
 be protected, as He has been, by prayer. 
 
 Is 'Sleep on now and take your rest' (45) spoken in 
 mournful irony? To take it so does not fit very well with 
 ' Arise, let us be going,' which immediately follows, without any 
 intimation that there has been a pause. It is possible to take 
 the words as a question, like ' Could ye not watch with Me one 
 hour?' (40), and like 'Simon, sleepest thou?' (Mk. xiv. 37). 
 ' Are ye going to sleep on and take your rest ? ' This makes 
 one more sad reproach. They had been slumbering while He 
 was in agony; but surely they will not continue to slumber, 
 when the sound of the traitor's footsteps will soon be heard. See 
 Klostermann on Mk. xiv. 41, and B. Weiss, margin. 
 
 Mt. omits the rather difficult and ambiguous ' It is enough ' 
 (a.-wi-)(f.i) ; perhaps because he was not sure of its meaning, or 
 possibly because he thought that it was implied in 'the hour is 
 at hand.' The simplest meaning is ' enough of slumber.' 
 
 There is no need to inquire whether our Lord " felt the 
 proximity of the traitor even before he was there "(J. Weiss), or 
 became aware of his approach through the noise of the multitude 
 and the lights which they carried. 'The Son of Man is being 
 
 ' See Swele on Mk. xiv. 38 ; Westcott on Jn. iii. 6 ; Sanday and 
 Headlam on Rom. viii. 9. Tertullian [De Bapt. 20) gives as a saying of the 
 lyOrd previous to His arrest, that ' no one who has not been tempted can 
 enter the ICingdom of Heaven ') neminem intemplatinn regna ccelestia 
 consecuturuvi), and it is perhaps here that He is supposed to have uttered it. 
 See Resch, Agrafha, p. 130. 
 
372 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVI. 45-47 
 
 delivered up into sinner's hands ' refers to the action of Judas, 
 which is going on at the moment, in handing the Messiah over 
 to His enemies among the Jews and to the heathen soldiers who 
 aided them, — two kinds of sinners which are distinguished in 
 XX. 1 8, ig. 
 
 Here, as in vv. 21, 23, 24, 25, 46, 48, the AV. prefers 'betray' to 
 'deliver up,' and the RV. makes no change. In Mk. xiv. 41 both 
 substantives have the article, ras x^^pcts rlav anapruAHi', in Mt. neither has it ; 
 but even the RV. does not distinguish. It is remarkable how often in this 
 section Mt. has the graphic historic present, of which Mk. is so fond, bu 
 which Mt. commonly avoids, either by change of tense or by omission. Here 
 both Evangelists have ' saith ' (31), 'cometh,' ' saith ' {36), 'saith' (38), 
 ' Cometh,' ' findeth,' 'saith' {40), 'cometh,' 'saith' (45); and once (35) Mt. 
 has \iyei where Mk. has i\d\ci. 
 
 ' Let US be going ' (dyw/xEi/) is ambiguous in English, and 
 might be understood to mean ' Let us fly from this peril,' which 
 is not at all what is intended. The meaning is, ' Let us go to 
 meet this peril' (Jn. xviii. 4). His hour is come, and He is 
 anxious to fulfil all that is required of Him. The charge which 
 Celsus seems to have made that Jesus " tried to escape by 
 disgracefully concealing Himself" (Orig. Con. Cels. ii. 10) may 
 have been based upon a misinterpretation of ' Let us be going ' 
 (Abbott, Paradosis, p. 157). Of the three that Christ was 
 addressing, Peter and John already knew who was meant by ' he 
 that is delivering Me up ' (Jn. xiii. 26) ; they now see in what 
 way he had been carrying out his designs. There is no 
 suggestion that they had been told to watch for the approach ot 
 the traitor, so as to warn the Lord. He had no need to be 
 warned, for He had no intention of escaping. It was against 
 temptation to themselves, not against danger to Him, that they 
 were charged to watch. Even without the aid of legions of 
 Angels He could have escaped. We are perhaps to understand 
 that the other eight Apostles came up when the band with 
 Judas was approaching. They were near enough at the time of 
 the arrest to be said to have 'left Him and fled' (56). 
 
 XXVI. 47-56. The Arrest of the Messiah. 
 
 All three mention that it was while Jesus ' was still speaking ' 
 that 'Judas, one of the Twelve,' led the hostile multitude to 
 arrest Jesus ; and all three mention the betrayal by means of a 
 kiss. Nothing that has been told of Judas has so excited the 
 horror of Christendom as the incident of this demonstrative 
 {Ka.ri.<^'ikr](T(.v) and atrociously treacherous kiss. Jn. omits it, and 
 Mt. may have had no other authority than Mk. But Lk. is 
 independent of both, so that the fact rests upon the authority of 
 
XXVI. 47-50J PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 373 
 
 at least two sources ; and it is not likely that so hateful a detail 
 was invented. Christian detestation of his crime might imagine 
 a specially horrible end for Judas, but there is no reason for 
 believing that it added imaginary blackness to his crime. The 
 Evangelists are singularly restrained about the traitor ; with them 
 it is sufificient condemnation to mention that he was ' one of the 
 Twelve' {vv. 14, 47; Mk. xiv. 10, 20, 43; Lk. xxii. 3, 47; Jn. 
 vi. 71). 
 
 Mt., Mk., and Jn. represent the multitude that came with 
 Judas as sent by the chief priests. Lk. supposes the chief priests 
 and elders to have been present, and to have been addressed by 
 Christ ; and it is possible that some of them may have come, in 
 order to see whether the plot was successful. Evidently, there 
 was no intention to arrest any of the disciples. To capture them 
 would increase the risk of disturbance, and without their leader 
 they would not be dangerous. Hence the necessity for a sign 
 by which the captors might distinguish Jesus from His followers. 
 In the charge which Judas gives to his supporters, Mt. omits 
 ' lead Him away safely ' (aTrdyeTc dcr^aXios). Does he omit it as 
 superfluous, or as implying an unworthy conception of the 
 Messiah? It was an additional outrage on the part of the 
 traitor to suggest that the Lord might take refuge in flight. In 
 any case, the omitted words show how anxious Judas has 
 become that his treachery should be successful. Jesus had 
 exposed him to himself aX the Supper, whether or no the Eleven 
 had understood what was said ; and Judas is now wholly on the 
 side of the enemy. In his address to Jesus, the ' Hail ' (x«'P«) 
 before ' Rabbi ' is peculiar to Mt., whose report of Christ's reply 
 to Judas is also peculiar to him, and the meaning of it is not 
 .plain. 'Friend, wherefore art thou come?' is not right. 
 ' Comrade ' rather than ' Friend ' is the meaning of kralpo's : 1 and 
 our Lord would hardly, at this climax of the apostate's wicked- 
 ness, address him as ' Friend.' Judas had long since ceased to 
 be Christ's friend, while still remaining His companion. The 
 remaining words (e</)' o irapu) meaji 'for which thou art come,' and 
 something must be understood. 'Comrade, do that for which 
 thou art come' ; i.e. Accomplish thy treachery. Or, 'Is this the 
 end iox which thou art come?' i.e. Hast thou really sunk to this 
 depth of wickedness ? Or, ' JDost thou kiss Me for that for 
 which thou art come ? ' i.e. Dost thou think a kiss fitting for such 
 a purpose as this ? Or, ' / knoiv well for what thou art come.' 
 It is impossible to say which of these is right. If the text is not 
 
 ^ The woid occurs .ts a form of address xx. 13, xxii. 12 ; and in the dat. 
 plur. as a doubtful reading xi. 16; but nowhere else in the N.T. xdpei may 
 be from either irapLevai or irapelvai. If ' do that for which thou art come' is 
 right, conip. Jn. xiii. 27. 
 
374 OOSPEI. ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVI. 50-53 
 
 corrupt, it may be a colloquial expression to which the clue is 
 lost.i 
 
 Blass would read alpe for eTa7pe : ' Take that for which thou art come.' 
 But this is conjecture without any documentary support. Moreover, the 
 word occurs twice in parables, and each time in the vocative, and in making 
 a remonstrance ; .so that it represents some word which our Lord was 
 accustomed to use in the kind of connexion in which we have it here. If the 
 text of the saying is corrupt, it is not eraipe that is likely to be wrong. Note 
 the ' Then ' here and in ver. 52, where we again have the historic present. 
 
 It is the way in which the Messiah acted when His hour was 
 come that chiefly interests Mt. Hence these utterances of our 
 Lord (50, 52, 53, 54), which no one else records, though Jn. 
 has part of ver. 52. It is possible that the name of the disciple 
 who smote the high priest's servant is suppressed for prudential 
 reasons ; when Jn. wrote there was no further need for silence. 
 Mt. and Lk. are a little more definite than Mk., who merely 
 says that it was ' one of them that stood by.' Mt. and Lk. 
 admit that it was one of those who were with Jesus. Jn. alone 
 gives the servant's name, which he would know through his 
 intimacy with the high priest. Like Simon, Malchus was a 
 common name ; there are five instances in Josephus. Malchus 
 was perhaps the first to 'lay hands on Jesus,' and hence Peter's 
 impetuous assault, which possibly had no other meaning than 
 that of protecting the Master from outrage ; but Peter may have 
 wished to distract attention from Christ to himself 
 
 The source of the verses which follow (52-54) is unknown; 
 but ' Return thy sword into its place ' is confirmed by ' Put the 
 sword into the sheath ' (Jn. xviii. 11). It was probably a knife 
 (lj.dxai.ija in all four Gospels) rather than a sword. We know 
 that the disciples had two such weapons (Lk. xxii. 38), and 
 Peter possibly carried one of these. 
 
 Our Lord will have no help from human violence. If He 
 willed it, which means, if His Father willed it, He could ask, 
 and be sure of receiving, overwhelming assistance from heaven. ^ 
 
 ' Lk. records quite a different answer : 'Judas, betr.aycst thou the Son of 
 Man with a kiss?' Jn. gives as our Lord's first words, ' \Vhom seek _\e ?' If 
 ' that for which thou art come ' is rightly recorded as having been said by 
 Christ, the purpose of the words may have been to make Judas realize the 
 enormity of his conducl. 'Think what thou .nrt doing ; — for the sake of a 
 small reward, betraying the Messiah, thine own Master and companion, with 
 a kiss.' But, whatever the exact meaning of the words may be, they seem 
 to have silenced Judas. No reply of his is recorded. He was as ' speechless ' 
 as the man in the parable (spoken only a day or two earlier) to whom the 
 king said, 'Friend, how earnest thou in hither?' — 'Eralpe, wuis ehijXdes 
 w5e ; (xxii. 12). 
 
 ^ The mention of Angels here is strong corroboration of what has been 
 urged above as to our Lord's teaching respecting them ; see on xiii. 49, 
 xvi. 27, xviii. 10, xxii. 30, xxiv. 36. 
 
XXVI. 54-56] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 375 
 
 But He knows that the cup of suffering must be drunk, and 
 that the hour for drinking it has come, and He will not again 
 ask, even conditionally, that it may be removed or postponed. 
 The Scriptures have said (Ps. xxii. ; Is. liii.) that it is by suffering 
 that the Messiah must conquer. Lk. says nothing about the 
 fulfilment of Scripture, a point which Mt. insists upon twice 
 (54, 56) ; and he makes it all the more emphatic by expressing, 
 what Mk. (xiv. 49) implies, that 'all this is come to pass in 
 order that ' there may be fulfilment, and by giving the fuller 
 phrase, 'the Scriptures of the Prophets.' 
 
 It is quite clear that in ver. 54 the saying about the fulfilment 
 of the Scriptures is part of what Christ says. In ver. 56 there is 
 doubt, as in i. 22, whether 'But all this is come to pass' is 
 meant as a continuation of the preceding speech or as Mt.'s own 
 comment. Mk. gives it as part of Christ's speech (xiv. 49).^ 
 The point is immaterial, for ver. 54 is explicit, and it gives rise 
 to this question. Did this serene statement of His reason for 
 submitting without resistance convey to the disciples, and in 
 particular to Judas, any impression of Christ's confidence that 
 His cause would in the end be triumphant? Here may be the 
 turning-point in the attitude of Judas from greed and resentment 
 to remorse. He had been absolutely successful ; and, at the 
 very moment of his success, his Victim claims, with unruffled 
 assurance, to be fulfilling the prophecies respecting the Messiah. 
 Perfedo demum scelere, magniiudo ejus intellecta est (Tac. Ann. 
 xiv. 10). 
 
 It is certainly remarkable that Judas is nowhere said to have 
 borne witness against Jesus at any of the trials before the 
 Sanhedrin or Pilate or Herod. And he could have quoted 
 utterances which would have told against Christ in a prejudiced 
 court ; e.g. His predictions of His coming again in glory, and 
 of the destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem (Salmon, 
 Humati Element, p. 502). What was it that withheld him from 
 doing so ? Some change apparently had begun. 
 
 It is nut likely that 'in that hour' (55) refers to 'the hour' of the 
 Messiah's Passion (45). The expression is common in Mt. (viii. 13, ix. 
 22, .X. 19, XV. 28, .xvii. 18, xviii. i), and it is said to be common in 
 Rabbinical Literature. And it is not certain that the words which follow, 
 and which are in all three Gospels, ought to be taken as a question. They 
 may be a reproachful statement of fact. ' \'e aie come out as against a 
 robber with swords and staves.' 'As against a robber ' is placed first with 
 emphasis. This was an aggravation of the outrage. He was a peaceful 
 Teacher, who was always at their disposal, and they were treating Him as 
 a dangerous bandit. Conip. Martyr. Polyc. vii. I. 
 
 ' ^^'ould Mt. transfer the declaration from our Lord to himself? In 
 xxi. 4 there is no doubt, and also (in the true text) no SXoc. See Lightfoot, 
 On Revision, p. 100. 
 
376 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVI. 56-60 
 
 'Then all the disciples left Him and fled' (56) must include 
 more than the chosen Three. In Mk. the 'all' is very 
 emphatic. It seems to look back to the prediction that they 
 would 'all be offended' in Christ that night (31). a prediction 
 which they had resented as incredible. With characteristic 
 candour, the Gospels tell us that it was fulfilled. There was 
 not one exception. With 'left' (ac^evrcs) comp. xxiii. 38, xxiv. 
 40, 41 : ' left Him to His fate ' is the meaning. 
 
 XXVI. 57-68. The Trial of the Messiah before the 
 High Priest. 
 
 As in ver. 3, Mt. is the only Synoptist who gives us the name 
 of the high priest, and, like the others, he distinguishes two 
 trials before the Sanhedrin, an informal one in the night, and a 
 formal one after daybreak. It is the nocturnal meeting which 
 is here described, and it takes place in the house of Caiaphas, 
 the official high priest, with whom very likely lived his father-in- 
 law, Annas, who, although he had been deposed by the Romans, 
 was still regarded by many of the Jews as the true high priest. 
 Mt. seems to mean that the Sanhedrin was already gathered 
 together {aw^xQfi'yav), when the Prisoner was brought. Mk. 
 rather implies that they came together after He was led to the 
 high priest. They had resolved that He was to be put to 
 death : the important thing now was to find a legal justification 
 for so doing. Mk. says that ' they sought witness against Jesus 
 to put Him to death,' and he states afterwards that the witness 
 which they procured was false. Mt., rather illogically, says that 
 they ' sought false witness,' as if they preferred to have testimony 
 that was untrue. He may mean to attribute this perverse 
 intention to them ; but who would prefer false testimony to 
 true ? They wanted testimony, whether true or false, which 
 would justify sentence of death ; and this they could not find, 
 though plenty of false witnesses came. No two witnesses agreed 
 about anything that could be regarded as a capital offence.^ 
 
 Mt., who often omits numerals (see on ver. 18), here puts 
 in a numeral. 'But afterward came two, and said,' etc. The 
 
 ' There is a passage in the Mishna which may represent the legal 
 practice of the Sanhedrin in the time of Christ, and, if so, it was grossly 
 violated when He was toed by that court. Witnesses were warned to be 
 scrupulously careful in a trial for a capital offence : " Forget not, O witness, 
 that it is one thing to give evidence in ? trial for money, and another in a 
 trial for life. In a money-suit, if thy witness-bearing shall do wrong, money 
 may repair that wrong ; but in this trial for life, if thou sinnest, the blood 
 of the accused and the blood of his seed unto the end of lime shall be 
 imputed unto thee." And special care was taken that a reprieve, if there 
 was one, should not come too late (Brodrick, The Trial and Crucifixion of 
 Jesus Christ, p. 80). 
 
XXVI. 61, 62j PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 377 
 
 meaning of the 'two' is that the minimum of testimony required 
 by the Law (Deut. xvii. 6, xix. 15 ; Num. xxxv. 30) had at last 
 been found. Mt. tones down ' I will destroy ' ('Eyi) KaTakvaw) 
 to ' I am able to destroy ' (Swajuat KaToXvcrai), and it is the same 
 Temple (tov vaov tov &eov) which is destroyed and built. The 
 distinction between ' this Temple made with hands ' and 
 ' another made without hands ' is omitted. Mt. appears to 
 think that this charge of saying that He was able to destroy 
 and rebuild the Temple was one of the charges on which Jesus 
 was condemned to death, and therefore he omits ' And not even 
 so did their witness agree together ' (Mk. xiv. 59), which shows 
 that this charge had failed.^ Jn. (ii. 19) tells us what Jesus 
 said ; Mt. and Mk. tell us what He was reported to have said ; 
 and no two of the three statements agree. Jesus had said that 
 if the Jews destroyed 'this Temple' (of His Body), He would 
 raise it up in three days. So far as we know. He had said 
 nothing about destroying the Temple (in any sense) Himself. 
 But He had foretold the destruction of the actual Temple 
 (xxiv. 2); and some report of this prediction may have got 
 abroad, and have been twisted into a threat that He would 
 destroy the building. If the charge was made in the form in 
 which Mk. gives it, and also in the form in which Mt. gives it, 
 we have an illustration of the statement that ' their witness did 
 not agree together.' It is, however, more probable that the 
 report of the charge in Mt. is simply Mt.'s modification of the 
 charge as made in Mk. 
 
 To this charge about the Temple our Lord makes no answer. 
 His silence might be interpreted as meaning that He could not 
 deny the accusations ; but, as the accusations did not agree, 
 there was no need to answer them. And, if silence was to be 
 taken as assent, to which of the inconsistent charges was He 
 assenting? Caiaphas feels that they have got hold of no 
 tangible ground for condemnation. He therefore stands up for 
 greater impressiveness and solemnly invites Christ to make some 
 reply (62).^ When Christ preserves His silence, Caiaphas tries 
 an entirely new topic. We do not know whether it had been 
 reported to Caiaphas that Jesus had claimed to be the Messiah, 
 and Caiaphas does not ask Him whether He had done so. 
 
 ^ Strangely enough, the very men who wanted to convict the Messiah of 
 having threatened to destroy the Temple were themselves destroying the 
 Temple. By killing the Christ they were compassing the destruction of 
 Jerusalem. To them His silence seenied to be contempt of court. But it 
 was they who contemned the court by prostituting it to such uses. 
 
 ^ Mt. omits the superfluous ' in the midst ' and the still more superfluous 
 'and answered nothing.' Does Caiaphas ask two questions (AV. , RV. ), 
 or one (Vulg., Tisch.)? Nihil respondes ad ea qtia isti adversum te 
 testificanturl See also the Vulg. of Mk. xiv. 60. 
 
3/8 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVI. 63, 64 
 
 But he must have heard that people wondered whether Jesus 
 was the Messiah, and that at the triumphal entry He had been 
 hailed as the Messiah. The question of Caiaphas is therefore 
 quite natural. But it is remarkable that he joins together ' the 
 Messiah' and 'the Son of God,' as if they were synonymous. 
 This was not the universal view of the Messiah among the 
 Jews. In the Psalms of Solomon, where the use of this title 
 for the great Deliverer possibly begins, the Messiah is the son 
 of David, but not the Son of God. He is a second Solomon, 
 without Solomon's sins.^ But in the Book of Enoch (cv. 2 ; 
 comp. Ixii. 14) He is the Son of God, as also in 2 Esdras 
 (vii. 28, 29, xiv. 9). We may therefore believe that, like 
 Nathanael (Jn. i. 49), Caiaphas held this view respecting 
 the Messiah. It is, however, possible that he combined 
 the two titles with a sinister object. To get Jesus to admit 
 that He claimed to be the Son of God would be more 
 important than to get Him to say that He was the Messiah. 
 The former would amount far more clearly, in the eyes of the 
 Sanhedrin, to blasphemy. Mt. alone tells us that the high 
 priest put this question with the utmost solemnity, adjuring 
 Christ to reply to it : 'I adjure thee by the living God, that 
 Thou tell us' (63). 
 
 Our Lord, who had recognised no obligation to answer false 
 and conflicting charges, at once recognizes the right of the 
 head of the Jewish Church to question Him about such a 
 matter. And He perhaps also admitted that the form of 
 adjuration which Caiaphas is reported to have employed added 
 to the obligation to answer.- At any rate He did not object 
 to it. In His reply, as in the high priest's question, there is a 
 difference between Mt. and Mk. Caiaphas probably said, ' the 
 Son of the Blessed,' and not 'the Son of God.' Did Jesus say, 
 ' Thou hast said ' (a-v etTras), or ' I am ' ('Eyw et/xt) ? Here Mt. 
 seems the more exact ; but Mk.'s giving ' I am ' as an equivalent 
 shows that ' Thou hast said ' was understood to be a form of 
 affirmation, though a qualified form. By 'the Messiah, the Son 
 of God,' Caiaphas would mean something very different from 
 what our Lord would mean by the expression ; it is therefore 
 more probable that Christ gave a qualified rather than an 
 absolute assent to what was asked. He could not say that He 
 was not the Christ, the Son of God, meaning that He was not 
 what Caiaphas understood by the words ; that would have been 
 
 'See Kyle and James, pp. liv, Iv ; Schlirer, 11. ii. pp. 158-162; 
 Hastings' Z>B., art. 'Son of God,' pp. 570, 571. Mk. has 'the Son of 
 the Blessed ' for ' the Son of God,' and Caiaphas is more likely to have used 
 that expression, to avoid using the Divine Name. Comp. Enoch Ixxvii. i, 
 and see Dahnan, Words, p. 200. 
 
 - See Burkitt, yT'.S., April 1904, p. 453. 
 
XXVI. 64] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 379 
 
 Utterly misleading. On the other hand, He might mislead if 
 He gave full assent with ' I am.' A formula which neither 
 denied nor gave full assent would be in place. In Lk. it is the 
 high priest who asks whether He is the Christ, to which He 
 gives no direct answer. Then the whole Sanhedrin asks 
 whether He is the Son of God ; and He then gives an indirect 
 reply which combines the answers in Mt. and Mk. : ' Ye say that 
 / am ' (v/xcts Xeyere on eyuj d/xi.), where there is a strong 
 emphasis on the ' Ye,' as here and ver. 25 on the ' Thou ' : ' It is 
 not I who say this, but you.' 
 
 The solemn introductory formula, ' Nevertheless I say to 
 you,' like ' I adjure thee by the living God,' is peculiar to Mt., 
 who thus gives additional emphasis to both the high priest's 
 question and the Messiah's reply. The ' henceforth ' {dw' apri), 
 or in Lk. ' from henceforth ' (oltto tov vvv), is not easy. In what 
 sense was it true that the sight of the Son of Man sitting at the 
 right hand of Power ^ began from His being condemned to death 
 by the rulers of the Jews ? One expects 'hereafter' rather than 
 ' henceforth,' but the latter seems to mean that their condemna- 
 tion led to His glory ; there was not merely sequence, but con- 
 sequence. He who now stands before their judgment-seat will 
 then be seated on the clouds, invested with Divine Power, and 
 ready to judge them ; comp. xxiv. 30. 
 
 These two verses (63, 64) are of great import. They intro- 
 duce a great change in Christ's method. Just as He had taken 
 great pains to avoid premature capture, and imprisonment, and 
 death, by retiring before His enemies, avoiding dangerous regions, 
 and keeping His movements secret, un/iV the hour for His 
 Passion had come ; so also, as part of this method, He had been 
 very reserved about His own personality, and had avoided pre- 
 mature disclosure of the fact that He was the Messiah. When 
 Peter showed that he had become possessed of this truth, our Lord 
 charged all the Apostles that they should ' tell no man that He 
 was the Christ' (xvi. 20); and He commanded those who had 
 seen the Transfiguration, that they were ' to tell the vision to no 
 man,' till He was risen from the dead (xvii. g).^ But now there 
 
 ^ ' The Power' (^ Sina/i^s) is an equivalent for ' God' ; Dalman, IVords, 
 p. 201 : ' the right hand of Omnipotence ' (Salmon) expresses the meaning. 
 The difficult ar dpri is not found in the LXX. In the N.T. it occurs only in 
 Mt., Jn., and Rev. 
 
 - Nevertheless, lie did not disclaim this position when it was, by im- 
 plication, forced upon Him. He did not deny that He had the Divine pre- 
 rogative of forgiving sins (ix. 4-6). He justified His command to carry a bed 
 on the Sabbath by a declaration that was said to be a claim to be equal with 
 God (Jn. V. 17, 18), and He did not deny that it was such a claim. When 
 the Jews challenged Him to say whether He was the Christ, He declared that 
 He and the Father were one (Jn. .\. 24-30). To Pilate He explains in what 
 sense He is a King ; in a sense which in no way affects the sovereignty of 
 
380 GOSrEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVI. 65, 66 
 
 is no need of reserve any longer. He is challenged by the 
 highest religious authority in the Supreme Council of the nation 
 to declare Himself; and for the first time He declares publicly 
 that He whom they are determined to condemn to death is the 
 Messiah. His first Coming, His earthly mission, as a Preacher 
 of Repentance and a Prophet of the Kingdom, is over. His 
 next Coming will be on the clouds of heaven as Judge. 
 
 The high priest recognizes in this utterance a reference to 
 Dan. vii. 13, and he interprets ' the Son of Man ' as meaning the 
 same as ' the Son of God,' but, no doubt, without the right fulness 
 of meaning. We need not suppose that he was acting a part and 
 pretending to be horror-stricken. He was probably shocked at 
 what he regarded as a blasphemous claim, and he expressed his 
 feeling by making a protest in the usual way. Rending one's 
 clothes was a very ancient way of expressing distress, and it is 
 frequent in the O.T., especially in the historical books, but also 
 in Isaiah (xxxvii. i), Jeremiah (xxxvi. 24), and Joel (ii. 13). The 
 common phrase is ' to rend the outer garments ' (Stapr/yvwat ra 
 IfioLTia), which Mt. has here. Not everybody wore inner garments 
 or shirts (x'twcs), or, if they did, wore more than one (Mk. vi. 9 ; 
 Mt. x. 10). But here Mk. states that the high priest rent his 
 inner garments (8ta/Dj;tas roiis ■)(yrtiiva.<i) ; and this is probably 
 correct. Mt. has employed the usual, but, in this case, less 
 accurate phrase (Epistle of Jeremy 31). The high priest was not 
 allowed to rend his clothes for his own sorrows (Lev. xxi. 10), 
 but he was expected to do so when a gross offence against God 
 took place in his presence. His being shocked at our Lord's 
 utterance, while he felt no scruples about the manner in which 
 he was compassing His death, is very characteristic. 
 
 But the Lord's utterance was a great relief to him and to the 
 Sanhedrin generally. Without any further trouble with unsatis- 
 factory witnesses, they had now got all that they needed. 1 Jesus 
 had been guilty of blasphemy, and was worthy of death (Lev. 
 xxiv. 16 ; I Kings xxi. 10, 13). Mk. says that they a// condemned 
 Him ; and Mt. omits the ' all,' either as superfluous, or perhaps 
 
 Tiberius. To the Sanhedrin He gives no explanation as to the sense in which 
 He is the Son of God. They had got the right sense ; a sense which, if 
 untrue, was blasphemy. 
 
 ' The whole of the proceedings up to this point had been illegal for want 
 of witnesses. The witnesses ought to have arrested Him, and to have arrested 
 Him before sunset ; and, as the charge was for a capital offence, arrest at 
 Passover time was unl.ivvful (Brodrick, pp. 30, 31, 65). The question, t( 'iri. 
 Xpei-a.i' Ixof^^" I^P'''-, is in all three: it expresses the relief of Caiaphas at 
 getting free from a great difficulty. Comp. Plat. /{ep. I. xiii. 340 A : Kal ri, 
 Stjiri, Seirai fi,6,pTvpos ; aiirbs yap 6 Bpacn'/ij.axo! onoXoyet. The apocryphal 
 addition to xv. 4 which is found in Ephraem is here of interest : "and he 
 who blasphemes God, let him be crucified." Nestle, p. 252. For 'guilty of 
 death ' see Pircje Aboth, iii. 11, 12. 
 
XXVI. 67-60] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 38 1 
 
 as an exaggeration. Joseph of Arimathea had not consented 
 (Lk. xxiii. 51), and Nicodemus is not likely to have done so 
 (Jn. vii. 50, xix. 39) ; but probably they were not present. It is 
 hardly likely that such unsatisfactory members would be sum- 
 moned to this exceptional meeting in the middle of the night. 
 
 Such a meeting was illegal, and no business transacted at it 
 was valid. Probably all that was important was repeated at the 
 meeting after sunrise. But, although urgency might be pleaded 
 for such a sitting, and though their conduct in holding it is not 
 surprising, yet their treatment of the Prisoner after they had 
 condemned Him is amazing in its indecency and brutality. Mk. 
 says that '■some began to spit on Him'; he limits the outrage to 
 a part of the Sanhedrin, perhaps to a few. And when one asks 
 whether the ' some ' who did this are not the servants who 
 guarded the Prisoner, this hypothesis seems to be excluded by 
 the special mention of the behaviour of the servants afterwards : 
 they 'received Him with blows.' Mt. omits Mk.'s 'some,' as he 
 previously omitted the 'all'; and his condensed account reads 
 as if the whole Sanhedrin were guilty of the outrage. Lk. says 
 that this pitiful persecution of our Lord was committed by the 
 men that held Jesus in custody, and apparently before the 
 meeting of the Sanhedrin ; but as he omits the nocturnal meet- 
 ing, the latter point is uncertain. It is possible that before the 
 nocturnal meeting Christ was insulted by His captors, and again 
 after it, and that on the latter occasion some members of the 
 Sanhedrin took the lead in insulting Him. That His captors 
 should begin again after He had been condemned is probable 
 enough. Mt. abbreviates to such an extent as to be scarcely 
 intelligible. ' Prophesy to us, who is it that smote Thee ? ' has 
 little meaning, when the fact that they had thrown a covering 
 over His head is left out. Did Mt. think that covering His face 
 was inconsistent with spitting in it ? 1 
 
 XXVI. 69-75. Peter thrice denies his Master. 
 
 This narrative is in all four Gospels, and their substantial 
 agreement, combined with serious divergence about details, is 
 very instructive. As elsewhere, Mt. is plainly dependent upon 
 Mk., while Lk. and Jn. are independent. We have three authori- 
 ties, not four ; and there may be connexion between Lk. and Mk. 
 See DCG., art. ' Denial' 
 
 Mt., like Mk., now returns to Peter, who from a distance had 
 
 ' D, Syr-Sin. and some Lat. texts omit the covering of the face in Mk. 
 xiv. 65. It is not Ukely that this bHndfolding had any connexion with the 
 Roman practice of covering the head of the condemned (Cic. Pro Rabirio, 
 iv. 13, V. 16). These mockers are Jews. 
 
382 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVI. 69-75 
 
 followed those who arrested Jesus, and had gained admission into 
 the courtyard within the high priest's palace (58 ; Jn. xviii. 15, 16). 
 He wanted 'to see the end,' the result of the trial. He had 
 shown courage at the arrest of his Master ; and, after his attack 
 on the high priest's servant, it was a courageous thing to enter 
 the high priest's dwelling. But he was quite unprepared for the 
 kind of trial that awaited him. Had he been arrested by the 
 Temple-guard and taken before the high priest, he would probably 
 have answered with courage and truthfulness. But the sudden 
 question of the porteress who let him in surprised him into a lie. 
 Perhaps he was more afraid of being turned out than of being 
 arrested and punished : or he may have thought that he was 
 justified in misleading any one who was in the service of the high 
 priest. His not taking refuge in flight, even after being twice 
 challenged, is some evidence that he was still determined at all 
 risks 'to see the end.' 
 
 No two Gospels agree as to the wording of the first challenge, 
 and all four differ considerably as to Peter's reply to it, Mt. being 
 closest to Mk. whom he abbreviates. ^ Mk. says that it was the 
 same woman (the porteress) who gave the second challenge as 
 gave the first; Mt. that it was another woman; Lk. that it was 
 a man ; ]n. that it was a group of people. In Mt. Jesus is called 
 a ' Galilean ' in the first challenge, a ' Nazorean ' in the second ; 
 in Mk. it is ' Nazarene ' in the first challenge. The Synoptists 
 agree that at the third challenge Peter was recognized as a 
 'Gahlean' (Mt, Lk.), which his dialect betrayed (Mt); Dalman, 
 ]Vords, p. 80. But Mt. and Mk. attribute the third challenge to 
 ' those that stood by,' while Lk. says that it was ' another man ' 
 (aXAos rts). Jn. is here very different : a kinsman of the servant 
 whose ear Peter had cut off says, ' Did I not see thee in the 
 garden with Him ? ' Mt. records swearing at the second and 
 third denials, Mk. at the third only, Lk. and Jn. not at all. Lk. 
 alone mentions the Lord's turning and looking upon Peter; but 
 there is no reason for doubting either the fact or the effect of the 
 look. Jn. omits the subsequent weeping. 
 
 Both as regards the denying and the weeping (rjpv-qa-aTo, 
 tVA.auo-fi'), Mt, as often, avoids the imperfects of Mk. (rjpvuTo, 
 iKXaiev). But here the change is a real loss. ' He kept on 
 denying ' and ' he continued weeping ' are much more graphic, 
 and are possibly more in accordance with fact Of the first 
 denial, which was probably a single utterance, all three have the 
 aorist, ' he denied ' (rjpvr'jo-aTo) : the second challenge made him 
 more voluble. Both Mt. and Lk. add ' bitterly ' to ' he wept ' ; but 
 the simple ' he continued weeping ' of Mk. (who has Peter behind 
 
 ' In some texts of the Testaments we have the same words : ovk oWa tI 
 Xiye^s {Joseph xiii. 2). 
 
XXVI. 75] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 383 
 
 him) is more impressive. Peter's going out (Mt., Lk.) is an 
 incidental confirmation of the Lord's searching look. Peter 
 could not bear to meet that again. 
 
 The guilt of Peter's denials, which has perhaps sometimes 
 been exaggerated, must be measured by the quickness and 
 completeness of his repentance. Tn his declaration that he was 
 ready to go with his Master to prison and to death, he was no 
 vainglorious braggart or insincere sycophant. His courage in 
 the garden and in following into the high priest's palace is proof 
 of that. But he found out that it may be more difficult to act 
 rightly in small things than to brace oneself for an act of heroism. 
 And he also found out that one false step commonly involves 
 other steps in the same direction. This is specially the case with 
 falsehood. A lie seldom can stand alone : it needs to be backed 
 up by subsequent acts and words of deceit. Peter's descent, 
 especially as we have it in the Gospel of his own ' interpreter,' 
 is quite normal. He begins with a single lie (-^pvr^craTo). The 
 next time he kept on repeating his lie (^pveiTo). Finally, he 
 invokes a curse on himself if his denial is false, and he swears 
 that it is true. There is no need to suppose that " Peter's faith 
 in his Master's supernatural power had been rudely shaken when 
 he saw Him led away an unresisting captive." Indeed, if we 
 believe either Lk.'s account of the healing of Malchus' ear, or 
 Jn.'s of the captors going backward and falling to the ground, 
 what had taken place in the gardAi would be likely to strengthen 
 Peter's faith rather than to shake it. Peter's error consisted in 
 two things : in believing that his own warm feelings towards his 
 Master could be relied upon to carry him through all temptations; 
 and, secondly, in resorting to falsehood as a means of avoiding 
 expulsion or arrest. And the falsehood was of a glaring charac- 
 ter, — denying that he had any knowledge of Him whose most 
 trusted disciple he had long been, and whom he himself had 
 recognized as 'the Messiah' and 'the Son of the living God' 
 (vi. 16). 
 
 It has been remarked that "the women introduced on this occasion are 
 the only women that are mentioned as taking part with the enemies of our 
 Lord : and even they are not concerned in bringing about His condemnation, 
 nor any further than to detect S. Peter. It is remarkable that no woman is 
 mentioned throughout as speaking against our Lord in His life, or having a 
 share in His death " (Isaac Williams, The Passion, p. 107). " It is a matter 
 worthy of the deepest consideration, that not only is so very little told us of 
 the Saints of God, but what is recorded is for the most part to their prejudice. 
 And this is the case even with regard to those who approached most nearly to 
 the Person of our blessed Lord. . . . Indeed we may humbly venture to 
 think that, this melancholy failure in one so eminent and favoured was per- 
 mitted to occur to afford us encouragement and hope in similar dereUctions 
 and temptations. And that as our Lord could not afford us an instance of 
 human infirmity in Himself, He has given it to us in the person of the most 
 
384 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVII. 1, 2 
 
 exalted of His pastors : that all may fear, and none may presume, and all 
 may hope " [ibid. pp. 112, 113). 
 
 Characteristic expressions in ch. xxvi. . Tire (3, 14, 31, 36, 38, 45, 50, 52, 
 56, 65, 67, 74), (jwayeiv (3, 57), AetV^"" (3. '4, 36), TpCMTipxc^Sa-i- (7. I7> 
 49, 50, 60 its, 69, 73), 7rofici'e(rSai(l4), diri rore (16), aipbbpa (22), ^/.-ci (36, 71), 
 yevri8riTa (42), (5oi> (45, 46, 47), Kal ISoii (51), (Spa eKclvri (55), IVa T!-\rjpaewcnv 
 (56), Co-repoi' (60), ri ij^ix So/tei; (66), dfj.i'veiv {74). Peculiar: eTaipos (50), 
 o-i'i/Tdfftreij/ (19), ^evdop-apTvpla. {S9 and xv. 19 only), pajrffai' (67 and v. 39 
 only) ; peculiar to this chapter : (japirtp-os (7), 6 Se'ipa.{l8), Karaeep-aTlfeiv (74). 
 
 If the reading of D, d in ver. 15 could be regarded as genuine, we should 
 have to add a-rar-qp (xvii. 27) to the words that are peculiar, for that reading 
 gives ' thirty staters ' as the sum paid to Judas. The reading is probably 
 deduced from (arriaav, 'they weighed to him thirty pieces of silver,' and the 
 deduction may be correct. See on xvii. 27, and DCG., art. ' IMoney,' ii. p. 200 ; 
 DB., art. ' Money,' iii. p. 428 : "The thirty pieces of silver (t piaKovTo. apyvpia) 
 are more likely to have been thirty Phenician tetradrachms (120 denarii= 
 ^4, 16s.) from the Temple treasury (cf. Zee. xi. 12 in LXX) than thirty 
 denarius-drachms," which would have been a very unattractive sum. Thirty 
 tetradrachms would be about twenty weeks' wages for a labouring man, and 
 it was the average price of a slave. 
 
 Note the aorists (39, 60, 67, 72, 75), where Mk. (xiv. 35, 55, 65 [?], 70, 
 72) has the imperfect. 
 
 XXVII. 1-10. T/ie Messiah condemned to Death. 
 The Remorse and Suicide of the Traitor. 
 
 From different points of view the nocturnal meeting or the 
 morning meeting of the Sanhedrin may be regarded as the more 
 important. At the nocturnal fneeting everything was practically 
 decided ; therefore Mt. and Mk. give it the first place. The 
 morning meeting was the only valid meeting ; therefore Lk. 
 takes notice of no other, while Mt. and Mk. dismiss it in a few 
 lines. Lk. assigns to it incidents which the others assign to the 
 earlier meeting. Mt. mentions only chief priests and elders, 
 whom he again calls 'elders of the people' (xxi. 23, xxvi. 3, 47). 
 Mt. adds 'Scribes' and 'the whole Sanhedrin,' which Mt. 
 naturally omits as superfluous.^ Lk. sums up all as ' the whole 
 company of them ' (a-rrav to ttAjj^os avrwv). 
 
 The matter was urgent, for it was necessary that Jesus should 
 be disposed of before the killing of the Paschal lambs that after- 
 noon. Jerusalem was full of pilgrims, many of whom were well 
 disposed towards Him. Hence it was thought expedient to bind 
 Him again. He had been bound in the garden, and Annas had 
 sent Him bound to Caiaphas (Jn. xviii. 12, 24); but during the 
 long hearing before him He had probably been freed from His 
 bonds. As soon as sentence of death was pronounced at a 
 
 ^ (Xvp-^oiiKiov %\a.^ov {Mt. ) probably ^ci'/xjSouXtoi' Trot.i)ixavTes (Mk.) o"u/x- 
 jSoiiXioi' being a late equivalent for consilium. 'Held a consultation' is 
 probably right: avpp. IXafioi/ is peculiar to Mt. (xii. 14, xxii. 15, xxvii. 17, 
 7, xxviii. 12). Deissmann, Bii/e Studies, p. 238. 
 
XXVII. S-8] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 385 
 
 lawful hour, it was necessary to induce Pilate the Procurator ^ 
 to execute it, and speedily ; but he required to be informed of 
 the nature of the oflence. It is remarkable that the Gospels, 
 while not hiding the weakness and injustice of Pilate, do not 
 give such a black impression of his character as we derive from 
 Josephus and Philo. There does not seem to have been any 
 inclination in the first Christians to exaggerate the misdeeds of 
 either Judas or Pilate. They are not represented as monsters 
 of wickedness any more than the Apostles are depicted as models 
 of saintliness and wisdom. Renan goes so far as to maintain 
 that "all the Acts of Pilate that are known to us show him to 
 have been a good administrator" {l^ie de Jesus, p. 401). At 
 any rate he shines in comparison with the Jewish hierarchy, but 
 for whom he would have released Jesus as innocent. 
 
 It was probably from local tradition, written or unwritten, 
 that Mt. derived his account of the death of Judas. It differs 
 widely from that given by Lk. in Acts (i. 18-20). Mt. says that 
 the traitor, in remorse, returned the blood-money,^ and com- 
 mitted suicide by hanging, the place of his death not being 
 stated. Then the chief priests buy the Potter's Field with the 
 money, which was afterwards known as the ' Field of Blood ' 
 (dypos ai'/iaros), as being bought with blood-money, and was used 
 as a burial-ground for foreigners. ^ Lk. says that Judas retained 
 the money, and bought a field with it, in which (so the narrative 
 implies) he fell on his face (Trprjvrj? yevd/itvos) and ruptured his 
 abdomen fatally, and, from his violent death there, the place 
 was known as the 'Field of Blood' (xwpiov ai'^itaros). Nothing 
 is said in Acts about suicide, or hanging, or the Potter, or the 
 chief priests, or the subsequent cemetery. The three points 
 common to the two narratives are (i) that the traitor came to a 
 violent end, (2) that a field was bought with the blood-money, 
 and (3) that it was subsequently known as the ' Field of Blood.' 
 It is possible that 'Akeldama,' which was interpreted as 'Field 
 of Blood,' is a corruption of an Aramaic expression for ' cemetery.' 
 If so, the connexion of the field, in the one case, with the 
 
 ' Mt. calls him ' the governor ' (riji -riye/i.dvt), which is a vague word 
 capable of being applied to any ruler, from the Emperor downwards, and a 
 favourite word with him: ii. 6, x. 18, xxvii. 2-27, xxviii. 14. For biblio- 
 graphy see Hastings' £>B. and DCG., art. ' Pilate.' 
 
 ^ That Judas is said to have thrown the money into the rais, into which 
 priests alone entered, is surprising, even if the full force be given to piitas, 
 which, however, has no such force in xv. 30. Josephus uses fa6s of the 
 collective Temple-buildings. Perhaps the source used by Mt. did so. 
 
 ^ The expression, 'price of blood' (tlixt) aiixarot), is found in the Testa- 
 ments, where eight of the sons of Jacob refuse to spend the money paid for 
 Joseph upon food, but buy sandals with it, saying : " We will not eat it 
 for it is the price of our brother's blood, but we wiU assuredly tread it under 
 foot " {Zebtdon iii. 3). 
 
 25 
 
386 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVII. 3-8 
 
 blood of Christ, in the other, with the blood of Judas, falls away as 
 divergent explanations of a wrong name ; while, on the other hand, 
 Mt.'s statement about the cemetery for strangers is confirmed. 
 
 As regards the other details it is impossible to determine 
 whether Mt. or Lk. is nearer the truth. But Mt. wrote earlier, 
 and is probably reproducing earlier tradition. The story in Lk., 
 with the dreadful detail about bursting asunder, looks as if 
 tradition had added something to the horror of the traitor's 
 death ; and the story in Papias makes the death still more 
 horrible and disgusting. It is rash to brush away all three 
 stories as equally false, or to suppose that Mt. and Lk. give us 
 mere modifications of the story in Papias. There is good reason 
 for believing that the end of Judas was violent and was regarded 
 as appropriate, but we cannot recover the details. Suicide by 
 hanging may come from the death of Ahithophel (2 Sam. xvii. 23), 
 which would be regarded as parallel. See Hastings' DB., art. 
 'Judas Iscariot,' p. 798; DCG., artt. 'Akeldama' and 'Judas 
 Iscariot,' p. 911 ; and, for harmonizing attempts, Knowling on 
 Acts i. 18, 19 ; Edersheim, Life and Times, ii. p. 575. 
 
 Mt. takes no notice of the parallel with Ahithophel, but he 
 sees in these incidents another fulfilment of prophecy. His 
 usual formula is that an event took place that prophecy might 
 be fulfilled (iva TrX.rjpuiOrj or oTTcos irXrjpoyOfj). But here, as in 
 ii. 17, he says, 'Then was fulfilled' (roVe iirXripwdr]).'^ The pro- 
 phecy, though attributed to Jeremiah, is evidently Zech. xi. 13; 
 but it may be influenced by Jer. xviii. 2 and xix. i, 11, and 
 hence be quoted as from Jeremiah. It is a loose rendering of 
 the Hebrew of Zech. xi. 13, which differs from the Septuagint. 
 The original passage presents considerable difficulties, and they 
 are augmented by the quotation (probably from memory) here. 
 Apparently Mt. thinks that the Prophet's action in throwing his 
 despised wages to the potter foreshadowed the chief priests' 
 action in using the despised wages of Judas for buying the 
 Potter's Field. See Hastings' Z)^. and BCG., art. 'Potter,' 
 and Jerome's letter to Pammachius (.£/. Ivii. 7). Mt. possibly 
 inserts the episode of Judas with a view to a triplet : Judas, Pilate, 
 and the people (4, 24, 25) are three shedders of innocent blood. 
 
 The reading 'Jeremiah' is firmly established (NABCD (?) LXT All, Vulg. 
 Copt. Arm. Aeth.) ; ' Zachariah ' is an obvious correction. A few texts omit. 
 
 ^ Other suggestions are that this is a quotation from a lost writing of 
 Jeremiah's, or from a traditional saying of his ; or that the Jews deleted the 
 passage from Jeremi.ih's writings (Eus. Dem. Ev. x. 4) ; or that the latter 
 part of Zechariah was originally anonymous, and was sometimes attributed to 
 Jeremiah ; or that the prophetical books were sometimes in rolls, one of 
 which began with Jeremiah but contained Zechariah also, and that the 
 contents of that roll were cited as 'Jeremiah.' A slip of memory is much 
 more probable. 
 
XXVII. 11] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 387 
 
 XXVII. 11-26. The Trial of the Messiah before the 
 Heathen Procurator. 
 
 After the digression respecting the death of Judas, Mt. returns 
 to Mk. XV. 2, and in order to resume the narrative he inserts 
 " Now Jesus stood before the governor." Pilate had come up 
 from Cfesarea to keep order at the Passover. We learn from 
 Jn. that his interview with the hierarchy took place outside his 
 residence, because these scrupulous murderers did not wish to 
 be polluted by entering a pagan house (xviii. 28). Lk. tells us 
 that they accused Jesus, not of blasphemy (for which the San- 
 hedrin had condemned him to death, but which would have 
 been no capital offence in Pilate's eyes), but of sedition, of 
 forbidding to give tribute to Csesar, and of claiming to be King 
 (xxiii. 2). Pilate had probably heard of the triumphal entry, and 
 therefore this last charge would seem to be true. From his 
 point of view it was the most serious of the charges. But now 
 that he sees the Accused, the charge surprises him ; ' Art Thou 
 the King of the Jews?' {<jv eT 6 /SaaiXev'; twv 'lovSatW;) — with 
 emphasis on the pronoun. Certainly, He looked very unlike 
 a man who had claimed sovereign power. Pilate's expression is 
 the same in all three Gospels, and it is exactly what a Roman 
 official would be likely to use. If Jesus claimed to be a King, 
 it would be King of the Jeivs that He aspired to be. Comp. 
 the title on the cross (37). But, when the Sanhedrists mock 
 Him on the cross, they call Him ' the King of Israel' (42 ; Mk. 
 XV. 32 ; comp. Jn. i. 49, xii. 13). 
 
 We are uncertain whether there is any shade of difference 
 between ' Thou sayest ' (o-i Aeyeis) and ' Thou saidst ' or ' Thou 
 hast said' {uv diras, xxvi. 64). Jn. gives the answer as 'Thou 
 sayest that I am a King.' The answer is probably a modified 
 affirmative : ' 1 do not deny it ; but it is thou who sayest it, not 
 I.' It is manifestly no denial of the matter, and Pilate would 
 understand the reply as an admission that He was a King. In 
 that case we require the supplementary narrative of Jn., in which 
 Jesus explains to Pilate that His Kingdom is not of this world 
 (xviii. 36). Otherwise the trial would have ended here. The 
 hierarchy had charged Jesus with claiming to be King, and Jesus 
 Himself did not deny the charge. That would have been 
 decisive. But Pilate saw that Jesus was no rival to Tiberius, 
 and that there was animus in His accusers. His private con- 
 versation with Him convinced him that He was a harmless, 
 innocent man, and he tries to set Him free without causing a 
 disturbance. But he has not decision enough to act as Claudius 
 Lysias did in the case of S. Paul ; — send the object of Jewish 
 hatred away to Cjesarea under a strong guard. He hopes to be 
 
388 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVII. 12-17 
 
 able to satisfy the fanatical Sanhedrists without sacrificing Jesus. 
 But his statement to them, that he finds no fault in Him (Lk. 
 xxiii. 4), only provokes a reiteration of false charges, about which 
 he questions the Prisoner. 
 
 The contrast between our Lord's behaviour to Pilate in 
 private, and His behaviour when confronted in public with the 
 accusations of the hierarchy, is very marked. He recognizes the 
 right of the Procurator to question Him about the accusations 
 laid against Him, and answers freely. He does not recognize 
 the right of the Sanhedrists to bring these accusations ; they are 
 false, and the accusers know that they are false.^ Pilate is 
 naturally astonished at this behaviour. If He answered before, 
 why will He not answer now? Mt. strengthens the language 
 with regard to both Christ's silence and Pilate's amazement. 
 ' He gave him no answer, fiot even to one word; insomuch that 
 the governor marvelled greatly'' (Xiav). 
 
 Respecting the custom of releasing a prisoner at the Passover 
 we know no more than is told us in the Gospels. It may easily 
 have been a Jewish custom, which the Romans, with their 
 customary tolerance of national institutions that were not 
 dangerous to their rule, continued.- Pilate's evident hope that 
 the release of Jesus would be preferred to that of Barabbas, 
 indicates that Barabbas was just a common criminal. If he 
 had claimed to be the Messiah, or had been in arms against the 
 Romans, he would probably have been too popular and too 
 dangerous to be proposed for release. The sedition (aTam's) 
 and bloodshed for which he was imprisoned (Lk. xxiii 19) was 
 probably a mere plundering raid, and it is not said that he was 
 the leader of it. ' He used to release to them ' in Mk. would 
 strictly mean that he used to release to the chief priests, for they 
 are the persons last mentioned. Mt. avoids the possibility of 
 this interpretation by saying he ' was wont to release to the 
 multitude,' and he calls Barabbas ' a notable prisoner ' (SeV/nioi' 
 iirifT-qfLov). Pilate would naturally select a prisoner whose case 
 was well known, notorious as a peril to society. 
 
 The Gospels differ as to the exact way in which the choice 
 came to be made between Jesus and Barabbas. According to 
 Mt., it is Pilate who proposes the alternative. Which will they 
 have ? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ ? Mk. seems 
 to mean that the multitudes came to ask for Barabbas, and that 
 Pilate proposed ' the King of the Jews ' instead. Lk. does not 
 
 ' Just in this one place (12) Mt. uses the classical middle form aireKpivaro 
 (comp. Mk. xiv. 61 ; Lk. xxiii. 9) ; but he immediately (14) returns to the 
 usual passive form AireKpW-q. Note his favourite ' Then ' (13). 
 
 ^ Pilate says : ' Ye have a custom ' (Jn. xviii. 39). But Kai-d iopT-fjv (i 5 
 Mk. XV. 6) cannot mean ' at that feast ' (AV.) ; it means ' at festival-time,' 
 
XXVII. 18, 19] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 389 
 
 mention the custom, for xxiii. 17 is an interpolation (A B K LT 11 
 and other authorities omit) ; but he says that, when Pilate pro- 
 posed to release Jesus, the people cried out, 'Away with this 
 man, and release unto us Barabbas.' In Jn., Pilate reminds the 
 Jews of the custom, and proposes that the King of the Jews be 
 released in accordance with it. These divergencies are of small 
 moment. All four Gospels agree as to the momentous fact that 
 the Jews preferred a dangerous criminal to the Messiah, whom 
 they thereby handed over to a shameful and cruel death. 
 
 There is strong probability that Barabbas is Bar-Abba, ' son of Abba ' 
 or 'son of a father.' Samuel Bar- Abba and Nathan Bar-Abba are instances 
 which confirm this. Whether Abba was used as a proper name as early 
 as A.D. 29 is disputed. Ewald and Renan suggest Bar-Rabban, 'Son of a 
 Rabbi.' For this reading there is little authority, but Jerome says that in the 
 Gospel of the Hebrews this robber had a name which meant Jilius inagistri 
 eoriiiii, and this points to Bar-Rabban as the reading there. If it had been 
 usual to address a Rabbi as ' Father ' {see on xxiii. 9), there would not be 
 much difference between Bar-Abba and Bar-Rabban. The usual derivation 
 affords an obvious contrast between ' the Son of the Father ' who was rejected 
 and ' a son of a father ' who was preferred to Him. 
 
 The remarkable reading in vv. 16 and 17, which inserts 'Jesus' before 
 ' Barabbas,' turns Barabbas into a patronymic, and Jesus Barabbas is parallel 
 to Simon Bar-jona. Origen seems to be almost inclined to adopt this reading. 
 It occurs in a very few cursives, Syr-Sin. and Arm., and is accepted by Allen, 
 Burkitt, Ewald, Merx, and Zahn. Pilate's alternative is thus made very 
 pointed: 'Whom will ye that I release to you? Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus 
 which is called Christ ? ' And there is something in Origen's suggestion that 
 the ' Jesus ' may have been omitted in many copies because it seemed shocking 
 that such a name should be borne by a murderer. But, on the other hand, 
 there is the evidence of nearly all Greek MSS., including the best, and of 
 nearly all Versions. There is also the fact that even the few witnesses which 
 prefix 'Jesus' to Barabbas in vv. 16, 17, do not do so in vv. 20, 21, 26, 
 where we should expect to find it repeated. There is also the fact that no 
 trace of any such reading is found in any text of M!c. or Lk. or Jn. The 
 reading is rejected by the large majority of editors, including WH., who say 
 that "it cannot be right" {Appeiidi.x, p. 20). See also DCG.,zxi. 'Bar- 
 abbas' ; Burkitt, Kvangelion da-Mcpharreshc^ ii. pp. 192, 277. 
 
 The incident about Pilate's wife (19) perhaps comes from 
 the same source as the account of the death of Judas. Legend 
 gives her the name of Procla, which appears in one MS. of the 
 Gospel of Nicodemus, i. 2. In the Greek Church she is 
 canonized. 'While he was sitting on the judgment-seat' (Acts 
 xii. 21, xviii. 12, [6, 17, xxv. 6, 10, 17; Rom. xiv. 10; 2 Cor. 
 V. 10) 1 suggests that Pilate was waiting until the people had 
 decided which prisoner they ' would release ; comp. xxiv. 3. 
 
 ' In the Septuagint /3^/ta is used of = pulpit or platform (Neh. viii. 4 ; 
 2 Mac. xiii. 26). On the question of Roman governors being accompanied 
 in the provinces by their wives see Tac. Ann. iii. 33-35. On the form of 
 the wife's message (19) and of the people's reply (25) see J. H. Moulton, 
 Or. of N.T. Gr. i. p. 183. 
 
390 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATtHEW [XXVII. 19-SS 
 
 His wife would naturally not come into court herself, but serid 
 a messenger; and her message is introduced here to explain 
 why Pilate, after giving the people their choice, still tried to 
 release ' that righteous Man,' whom they had rejected. In the 
 Gospel of Nicodemus, Pilate tells the people of his wife's message, 
 and they reply : " Did we not tell thee that He was a sorcerer? 
 Behold He has sent a dream to thy wife." 
 
 "This intensely interesting paragraph (25-27) is the only 
 explanation which the Gospels give of Pilate's extraordinary 
 conduct in hesitating to sign the death-warrant. That a man 
 in his position should have troubled himself in behalf of a poor 
 and friendless convict demands some reason, and that which 
 is here given accords perfectly with the age " (Wright, Synopsis, 
 p. 263). The explanation is adequate and credible; but even 
 without it the conduct of Pilate would be intelligible. He had 
 a Roman's contempt for Jewish laws and customs, and he 
 had a Roman official's regard for elementary justice. ' He 
 knew that for envy the chief priests had delivered Him up ' 
 (18; Mk. XV. 10), and he had been greatly impressed by Christ's 
 bearing before him both in public and in private (Jn. xviii. 38, 
 xix. 12). All this would account for the Procurator's behaviour; 
 but the message of his wife makes it still more credible. 
 
 In ver. 20, in mentioning who it was that induced the crowd 
 to ask for Barabbas, Mt. adds what asking for Barabbas involved, 
 viz. destroying Jesus : he also, as in ver. 1 2, adds the elders, 
 where Mk. mentions only the chief priests. This 'stirring up 
 the multitude ' took some time, during which Pilate would be 
 aware of what was going on. He had recognized the hypocrisy 
 of the hierarchy ; while pretending to be jealous for Csesar and 
 his government, they were really jealous of a Teacher who was 
 more successful and influential than themselves. But at last 
 he ' answered ' the sounds that reached him and put the question. 
 The reply did not convince him that popular feeling was against 
 Jesus. The crowd might be induced to vote for Barabbas, and 
 yet not be unfavourable to the Galilean. What was he to do 
 with Him ? This time there was no deliberation. The answer 
 came back at once, and Mt. says that it was unanimous (Xe'yovcrii' 
 7ravT€s) : ' Let Him be crucified.' Pilate, influenced by a 
 Roman's sense of justice, by his interest in the Prisoner, and 
 by his wife's dream, still tries to make a stand. ' Let Him be 
 crucified ? But, for what ? What has He done to deserve 
 that?' To that question he gets no answer. What does a 
 mob care about such things ? It knows what it likes and dis- 
 likes, and that is enough. Its only reply is to repeat still more 
 urgently (Trepicrorais) what it desires : ' Let Him be crucified.' 
 Once more Mt. inserts into the narrative something derived 
 
XXVII. 24-26] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 39 1 
 
 from local tradition (24). Washing the hands is a natural 
 symbolism for expressing freedom from guilt.^ We find it 
 among the Jews (Deut. xxi. 6; Ps. xxvi. 6, Ixxiii. 13; Jos. iv. 
 viii. 16) and the Gentiles (Virg. Aen. ii. 719; Ovid, Fasti, ii. 45). 
 The Gospel of Nicodemus says that Pilate washed his hands 
 ' in the face of the sun,' irpos tw rj\i.ov (i. 9). It was not unusual 
 for a judge, in pronouncing sentence of death, to protest that 
 he incurred no guilt by causing life to be taken (Apost. Const. 
 ii. 52). But it is not likely that Pilate said 'I am innocent 
 of the blood of this righteous man.' The 'righteous' looks 
 back to his wife's message (19), and may be a later insertion 
 to agree with that ; and ' see ye to it ' seems to look back to 
 the reply of the hierarchy to Judas. But, whether or no Mt. 
 wrote it, it is not likely that Pilate said it. A Roman Procurator 
 would not confess to a Jewish mob that out of fear of them he 
 was putting an innocent man to death. 
 
 The evidence for ' the blood of this righteous man ' (N L r U, Syr-Pesh. 
 Vulg. ) is not so weighty as for ' this blood ' (B D, Syr-Sin. ). The Old 
 Latin is divided, a and b being for the shorter reading. Sovne texts have 
 ' this righteous man ' without ' the blood ' ( A A, Copt. Syr-Har. ). 
 
 The Testaments have a remarkable parallel : " I am innocent of your 
 ungodliness and transgression which ye shall commit"; d6i}6s ci'yut 7775 
 aje^eia! v/idv Kal Trapapcureois ^c iroiiycreTe {Levi x. 2). 
 
 ' See ye to it,' lit. ' Ye shall see to it ' (v/xeis oij/ecr6e), is 
 similar to the reply of the Sanhedrists to Judas (4) : ' See thou 
 to it ' (av 6^y). Mt. once more states that the answer of the 
 multitude to Pilate was unanimous. ' AH the people answered 
 and said, His blood be on us and on our children.' It is perhaps 
 to this that the Gospel of Peter refers. The fragment begins 
 with the words: "But of the Jews no one washed his hands, 
 nor yet Herod, nor even one of His judges (the Sanhedrists) ; 
 and since they did not choose to wash, Pilate stood up." The 
 writer desires to contrast the hard-heartedness of the Jewish 
 judges with the scruples of a heathen judge. The point of the 
 tradition which Mt. preserves is that all the Jews who were 
 present accepted the responsibility. The crime of murdering 
 the Messiah is to this extent a national one. 
 
 In Mt. and Mk. the scourging is part of the capital punish- 
 ment. It was not unusual to scourge a criminal before crucifying 
 him. In Jn. the scourging is Pilate's final attempt to save 
 Jesus from crucifixion ; he hopes that this terrible infliction 
 will satisfy the Jews. Lk does not mention the scourging, 
 except in the prediction of what will take place (xviii. 33). 
 From what follows, both in Mt. and Mk., it is evident that 
 
 ' Here the verb for ' washed ' is a strong compound (ai!-(vl\l/aTo). Pilate 
 dramatically cleansed his hands with great thoroughness. 
 
39- GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVII. 87-29 
 
 Pilate ' delivered Jesus ' to the soldiers, to be executed. But 
 there is no contradiction between this and Jn. xix. i6, where 
 Pilate delivers Him to the chief priests, or Lk. xxiii. 25, where 
 he delivers Him to the will of the people. He handed ' Him 
 over to those who carried out the will of the priests and the 
 people. No mention is made of a formal sentence of death 
 by the Procurator, and there was no need to pronounce one. 
 The Sanhedrin had sentenced Jesus, but it could not execute 
 the sentence without Pilate's help (Jn. xviii. 31), and Pilate at 
 last gave this. Christ Himself said that the chief responsibility 
 was not with Pilate (Jn. xix. 1 1). 
 
 XXVII. 27-31. The Messiah is Mocked by Heathen Soldiers. 
 
 The attempt of the subtle Procurator to play off the people 
 against the priests has been a complete failure. The priests 
 have made the people as fanatical as themselves and as bitterly 
 hostile to Him whom the Procurator has called their King. 
 While the centurion and his four soldiers are making prepara- 
 tions for the execution, the other soldiers of the Procurator 
 amuse themselves by mocking the condemned Prisoner, and 
 they invite the rest of the cohort that had come to keep order 
 at the Passover to join in the sport. Some of them had taken 
 part in arresting Him in the garden, and therefore knew some- 
 thing about the case. We may regard ' the whole cohort ' 
 (0X771/ T^i' o-Tretpav) as a Colloquial way of speaking. The soldiers 
 on duty called in a number of those who were outside to enjoy 
 a brutal amusement which throughout the ages has been common 
 enough in the case of condemned prisoners. ^ In the case of 
 these Roman soldiers the maltreatment of the Condemned 
 would be all the more to their taste, inasmuch as it gave them 
 an opportunity of showing their contempt for the Jews. Here 
 was ' the King of the Jews ' to make sport of. 
 
 There is nothing in the Gospels to enable us to identify 
 the plant of which the crown of thorns was made. The con- 
 jectural identifications do not agree. But we need not doubt 
 that the crown (although o-re'^afos and not SiaSi^yua is used) 
 was meant to represent that of a king rather than that of a 
 victorious commander. The soldiers were familiar with the 
 ceremony of Ave Casar, and imitated it. Mt. alone mentions 
 
 ' Comp. in the Testaments : "They stripped off {i\khvaa,v) from Joseph 
 his coat when they were selling him, and put upon him the garment of a 
 slave" (Zebulon iv. 10). "They stripped nie of my coat and gave me a 
 loin-cloth and scourged me and bade me run " (Benjamin ii. 3). The 
 Armenian omits both these passages. Field compares the account in Plutarch 
 ( Pompey, 24) of the way in which the pirates mocked a prisoner who said that 
 he was a Roman. 
 
XXVII. 30-32] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 393 
 
 that the reed was placed in Christ's hand as a sceptre before 
 it was used for striking Him on the head, and this gives the 
 key to Mt.'s arrangement of the details, in which all the mock 
 homage comes first, and all the undisguised outrage comes 
 afterwards. In Mk. the two kinds of insult are mixed up 
 together. The Gospel of Peter, while differing much in details, 
 has the same kind of arrangement as Mt. " And they took the 
 Lord, and pushed Him at a running pace, and said, Let us 
 hustle (crupco^e)/) the Son of God, as we have got Him in our 
 power. And they clothed Him with purple and set Him on 
 a seat of judgment, saying, Judge righteously, O King of Israel, 
 And one of them brought a crown of thorns and put it on the 
 head of the Lord. And others stood and kept spitting in His 
 eyes, and others smote Him on the cheeks. Others pricked 
 Him with a reed, and some whipped Him, saying, With this 
 honour let us honour the Son of God" (iii.). 
 
 The prediction recorded xx. 19 has had its complete 
 fulfilment as regards the first half of it ; the fulfilment of the 
 second half now follows. 'They led Him away to crucify 
 Him.' In Mk. the change of tense (cVeSuo-av omtov . . . 
 i^dyovcTii' avTov) indicates a change of meaning in the ' they.' 
 Those who lead Him forth are not those who mocked Him. 
 In Mt. no distinction is made, and this is a loss. 
 
 XXVII. 32-44. TAe Crucifixion of the Messiah. 
 
 The behaviour of the soldiers on duty for the execution of 
 the Condemned is in marked contrast to that of those who had 
 been mocking Him and maltreating Him in their leisure time. 
 The outrage and brutality at once cease, and genuine considera- 
 tion is shown to one on whom it is their duty to inflict the last 
 penalty of the law. It was usual for those who were condemned 
 to crucifixion to carry their own crosses to the place of execution, 
 and at first our Lord had done so. The soldiers, seeing that this 
 was beyond His strength, compelled ^ Simon the Cyrenian to 
 carry it for Him. Then they offered Him drugged wine, in 
 order to deaden the agony of crucifixion. There was no 
 exceptional brutality in dividing His garments among themselves ; 
 they were a customary perquisite. Sitting down to watch Him 
 was a necessary duty ; they were bound to see that He was not 
 rescued.^ And it was in accordance with custom, and by Pilate's 
 
 ' For the verb used here [y\y-f6.(>i\>aa.v) comp. v. 41. The criminal usually 
 carried only part of the cross, either the upright or the cross-beam. 
 
 - Mt. perhaps inserts the sitting down and watching to explain the casting 
 of lots ; the soldiers had plenty of time for this. It is remarkable that he does 
 not quote Ps. xxii. 18. 
 
394 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVII. 32-34 
 
 order, that they placed above His head the inscription, which 
 was intended as an insult to His enemies rather than to Himself, 
 'The King of the Jews.' There may have been studied derision 
 in placing His cross between the crosses of the two robbers ; 
 but, if so, this was probably contrived by the hierarchy, who 
 had followed their victim to the place of execution (Jn. xix. 21). 
 
 Mt. omits that Simon of Cyrene was ' coming from the 
 country ' {ipxoft-ivov u.iv aypov), which seems to mean that he was 
 coming from work in the field, and this would have been 
 unlawful on the first day of the Unleavened Bread. This 
 apparent incongruity was perhaps the reason for the omission. 
 Mt. also omits that Simon was ' the father of Alexander and 
 Rufus,' who no doubt were persons well known to some who 
 would read Mk. Mt. may not have known Alexander or Rufus, 
 and he may have thought their names of no interest ; but he 
 frequently omits details. Alexander is not to be identified with 
 any other Alexander in the N.T., but Rufus may very possibly 
 be the Rufus of Rom. xvi. 13 ; see Sanday and Headlam, ad loc. ; 
 also DCG; artt. 'Alexander and Rufus' and 'Cyrene.' This 
 Rufus may also be the Rufus of the Epistle of Polycarp (ix.) ; see 
 Lightfoot, ad loc. 
 
 Mt., Mk., and Jn., all give the Greek equivalent of ' Golgotha ' 
 as ' place of a skull ' or ' skull-place ' (xpavtou toVos), and this 
 rather clumsy name may have been in use among the Greek- 
 speaking Jews. Lk. calls it simply ' skull ' (KpaviW) or ' The 
 skull,' so named, probably, from the shape of the mound or rock. 
 That it got its name from the skulls of criminals lying there 
 unburied is incredible. The Jews would not have tolerated 
 unburied bones ; and the name in that case would have been 
 ' place of skulls.' ^ The curious legend which connects the 
 place and name with the skull of Adam (whence the skull at the 
 foot of the cross in many pictures of the Crucifixion) was known 
 to Jerome, and perhaps to Origen.^ We must be content to 
 remain in even greater doubt respecting the site of Golgotha 
 than respecting the origin of the name. At present we have not 
 data for a decisive opinion. See Sanday, Sacred Sites of the 
 Gospels, pp. 54, 68-77 ; DCG., art. 'Golgotha.' 
 
 The 'wine mingled with gall' (34) is not out of harmony 
 with the ' myrrh'd wine ' (6o-/xvpvtcr/x€vov oTvov) of Mk. ' Gall ' 
 (;!(oA.j;) is a vague word for drugs with a bitter taste, and the 
 
 ^ This second objection holds, even if the skulls are supposed to have been 
 buried ; and why ' skull ' or ' skulls ' if the bodies of criminals were buried 
 there ? Would not ' bones ' or ' skeletons ' be more probable ? 
 
 ^ Some Fathers call it a Jewish tradition ; but it is not likely to have 
 been pre-Christian : it is, no doubt, Jewish-Christian, to bring the first Adam 
 into contact with the Second, that ibi erectus sit medictts, itbi jacebat agrotiis 
 (Augustine). 
 
XXVII. 34-38] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 395 
 
 meaning in each Gospel is that the wine was drugged, probably 
 with other things besides ' gall ' and ' myrrh.' It seems to have 
 been a Jewish custom to give a drink of this kind to those who 
 had been condemned by the Sanhedrin to be stoned, and it is 
 said that there was a sort of women's guild in Jerusalem for 
 supplying condemned criminals with these anaesthetics (Wetstein 
 on ML). 'Give strong drink to him that is ready to perish, and 
 wine unto the bitter of soul' (Prov. xxxi. 6) would apply to this, 
 though probably not intended to do so. It is quite possible 
 that a recollection of Ps. Ixix. 21 made Mt. substitute 'gall' for 
 ' myrrh,' and it is probable that such a recollection caused ' wine ' 
 in some texts to be changed to 'vinegar.' 
 
 ' Wine' (olvov) is the reading of f^ BD KLII, Vulg. Aegyplt. Arm. Aeth., 
 while 'vinegar' (fifos) is supported by ANT A, Irenaus. Old Latin and 
 Syriac texts are divided. Barnabas vii. 5 is probably not a reference to this 
 passage, and throws no light on the reading. 
 
 That our Lord tasted the medicated draught is told us by 
 Mt. alone ; and it is a little remarkable that he should mention 
 such a fact, while Mk. does not. Mk. has simply, ' He received 
 it not ' (ovK iXapiv), ' He refused to take it.' Had Mk. stated 
 that He tasted before refusing, and Mt. omitted the tasting, we 
 might have supposed that Mt., as often, was omitting what 
 seemed to imply ignorance on Christ's part ; for certainly the 
 tasting does seem to imply that our Lord did not know what 
 kind of drink it was until He tasted it. The fact is parallel to 
 His going up to the braggart fig-tree, to see whether it had any 
 fruit. In both cases our Lord seems to have abstained from 
 using supernatural power where natural power sufficed. We may 
 suppose that He refused to drink the cup which would have 
 deadened His sufferings because He desired to drink to the full 
 the cup which His Father had given to Him (Jn. xviii. ii).i 
 
 After the casting of lots, which is in all four Gospels, Mt. omits as super- 
 fluous 'what each should take' (Mk.). The second half of ver. 35, 'That 
 it might be fulfilled,' etc. (AV. ), is no doubt a later interpolation from Jn. 
 xix. 24. The words are found in A $, some Latin and some Syriac texts, 
 and Arm. But they are wanting in XAEDLmS, Syr-Sin. Aegyptt. 
 Aeth. 
 
 In what follows (36) Mt. has 'And they sat and watched Him there' 
 where Mk. has ' And it was the third hour, and they crucified Him.' We have 
 seen that Mt. is apt to omit details, especially details with numbers (viii. 32, 
 xiv. 16, 19, xxvi. 9) ; and here he may have seen that the fixing of a definite 
 hour involved difficulty. For ' crucified Him ' {4irTaTjpw(rav auTdf) D and some 
 Latin texts have 'guarded Ilim ' (e(/>wXatr(roi' avT6ii, custodiebant etini). It 
 looks as if Mt. had had a text of Mk. with this reading : otherwise, why should 
 he change ' crucified ' into ' watched ' ? 
 
 ' That He refused it because of its nauseous taste does not seem to be 
 adequate; but see Wright, Composition of the Gospels, p. 126. 
 
396 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVII. 38 
 
 It has often been pointed out that no two Gospels agree as 
 to the wording of the title on the cross ; but all four have the 
 significant words, 'The King of the Jews.' Yet it is probable 
 that Mt. is right in putting ' Jesus ' also, for it was usual to give 
 the name of the condemned ; and Jn. is probably right in adding 
 'the Nazarene' (6 Na^ojpatos) to 'Jesus.' S. John had read the 
 inscription again and again, as he stood by the Crucified; and 
 it is he who tells us that it was written in the two languages of 
 the country as well as in the official Latin. The Gospel of 
 Nicodemus repeats this ; but it rather confusedly adds that Pilate 
 ordered this ' in accordance with what the Jews had said' ; while 
 the Gospel of Peter altogether spoils the Procurator's mockery, 
 by not merely attributing the inscription to Jews, but making it 
 run, 'This is the King of Israel.^ "^ See pp. 387, 393. 
 
 The two robbers (38) may have been connected in crime 
 with Barnabas, but at any rate they were ' bandits ' {X-rja-rai) 
 plundering by violence, and not pitiful ' thieves ' (KklirTai). 
 They had perhaps been condemned about the same time that 
 our Lord was condemned, for one of them had heard Him 
 speak about His Kingdom (Lk. xxiii. 42); and they had 
 certainly been led with Him to execution (Lk.). Now they are 
 placed, in derision of Him, one on each side of Him. He is 
 enthroned on a gibbet as King of the robbers. Thus, through 
 the malice of His enemies, the very manner of His death illus- 
 trates the purpose and the result of His coming into the world. 
 He came to save the penitent ; but that involved a separation 
 of the penitent from the impenitent (Jn. iii. 19-21, xii. 46-48); 
 and He separates the penitent from the impenitent on the cross ; 
 like Aaron (Num. xvi. 48), ' He stood between the dead and the 
 living.' 
 
 The names given to the two robbers in legend have no historical value. 
 Dismas, Dysmas, Dymas, Dimas, and Demas are variant names for the 
 penitent robber, Gestas, Gesmas, and Stegas for the impenitent. In the 
 Arabic Gospel of the Infancy the two are called Titus and Dumachus 
 {Qcofidxos) ; in Codex Colbertinus, Zoathan and Charamatha ; in Codex 
 Rhedigeranus, loathas and Maggatras ; in Bede, Matha and Joca ; in Xaverius 
 (Persian Life of Christ), Zjustin and Visimus. But perhaps the commonest 
 names are Dismas and Gestas. The Bonus Latro is commemorated in the 
 Roman Church on 25th March, in the Greek Church on the 23rd March. 
 
 In mentioning the crucifixion of the robbers, Mt. has the 
 passive where Mk. has the active. This is frequently the case 
 
 ' That criminals had the tiiulus, stating their crime, fastened to their 
 necks, as they went to the place of execution, is established : that it was 
 fastened above their heads on the cross is probable, but evidence of such a 
 custom seems to be wanting. The t'ni.x inimissa (with a projection above 
 the cross-beam), which was the commonest shape, would suggest the affixing 
 of the litulus there. 
 
XXVII. 38-42] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 397 
 
 (iv. I, viii. 15, xiv. 11, xix. 13, xxiv. 22, etc.). Here the change 
 seems to be made for the sake of greater accuracy. In Mk. the 
 natural meaning is that the soldiers who crucified Jesus crucified 
 the two robbers with Him ; but the ' they ' is, no doubt, indefinite 
 all through (16-27), — ^^Y soldiers. Each, however, of the three 
 who were to be crucified would be in charge of a different 
 quaternion of soldiers. Mt., having finished the action of those 
 who crucified our Lord, goes on : ' Then are there crucified 
 with Him two robbers ' ; but he does not say or imply that it 
 is the same set of soldiers as before who do this. And we 
 may note the characteristic ' Then ' and the unusual historic 
 present. 
 
 There is nothing to show who 'they that passed by and 
 railed on Him ' were, but they know about the charges which 
 had been brought against Him in the Sanhedrin (xxvi. 61, 63). 
 The sarcastic, 'Save Thyself is in all three Synoptists. In 
 choosing the expression ' they that pass by ' (01 TrapaTropevofievot) 
 the Evangelists were probably influenced by Lam. i. 12, ii. 15; 
 comp. Ps. xxii. 8; Is. li. 23. These mockers are not the 
 hierarchy, who are separately mentioned ; but they are prob- 
 ably some who had been induced to clamour for the release 
 of Barabbas and the crucifixion of Jesus, and who perhaps 
 a day or two earlier had joined in the shouts of Hosanna. 
 
 In describing the Sanhedrists (41), Mt. again adds 'the 
 elders,' as in vv. 12, 20. Their words of derision, 'Others He 
 saved,' is in all three. Yet this sarcasm, with its sequel, 
 ' Himself He cannot save,' though spoken in mockery, was 
 both true and also a great glory. The mockers were among 
 those whom He was dying to save ; and He could not come 
 down from the cross and save Himself, because He was held, 
 not by the nails, but by His will to save them. 
 
 They said, 'We will believe on Him, if He comes down 
 from the cross.' Would they have done so? They had Moses 
 and the Prophets, and yet they did not believe on Him. They 
 had heard His words and seen His mighty works, and yet they 
 did not believe on Him. Nevertheless, after His Resurrection 
 and the preaching and mighty works of the Apostles, ' a great 
 company of the priests were obedient to the faith' (Acts vi. 7); 
 but much has to happen before that is accomplished. Here it 
 is possible that we have a confirmation of the statement that the 
 chief priests made a vain attempt to get Pilate to alter the 
 inscription on the cross (Jn. xix. 21, 22). In their chagrin, 
 they accept the titidus, but they express it in their own way, 
 'King of Israel,' instead of 'the King of the Jews,' and they 
 express their willingness to accept Him, if He will give them 
 a sign (xii, 38, 39, xvi. i). Such demands were never granted. 
 
398 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVII. 45 
 
 The addition to their mockery which Mt. here makes, looks 
 as if it was his own thought put into their mouths. Their words 
 suggest to the Evangelist the words of Ps. xxii. 8 (with perhaps 
 a reminiscence of Is. xxxvi. 5 or 2 Chron. xvi. 7)/ and he adds 
 the quotation as being appropriate. It is not very likely that 
 the Sanhedrists, if the words of the Ps. occurred to them, would 
 utter them aloud. But it is possible that Mk. omitted the 
 quotation for the same reason that he omits almost all references 
 to the Old Testament, as having little interest for Gentile 
 readers. 
 
 It would seem as if neither Mt. nor Mk. knew anything 
 about the penitent robber. The tradition which they follow 
 recorded that reproaches came from the robbers ; and it is, of 
 course, possible that at first both robbers reproached Christ. But 
 this harmonistic hypothesis must not be asserted as a certainty. 
 
 XXVII. 45-56. The Death of the Messiah. 
 
 The darkness from the sixth to the ninth hour (twelve till 
 three o'clock) is in all three Synoptists, and this is the first 
 mention of an hour of the day by Mt. The Gospel of Peter 
 says that "it was noon," and it probably gives the right inter- 
 pretation of the Evangelists when it goes on to say that " darkness 
 covered all Judtea." 'All the earth,' or 'the whole earth,' may 
 be justified as a translation (Lk. xxi. 35 ; Rev. xiii. 3), but it is 
 not what seems to be meant. The darkness ' over all the /rt«(^ 
 of Egypt' {i-Ki iracrav yrjv AlyvTTTov) is perhaps in the narrator's 
 mind. There is here, says an ancient commentator, "the sign 
 from heaven which they asked Jesus to give " (V^ptor of Antioch). 
 But there is no need to insist upon anything miraculous. Ex- 
 traordinary events proceeding from natural causes may rightly 
 be regarded as signs ; but caution and insight are required for 
 the interpretation of them. Was Nature throwing a veil over 
 the sufferings of the Messiah ? or expressing sympathy with 
 them ? or protesting against the conduct of the Jews ? Ideas 
 such as these are found in the Fathers, and we can neither 
 affirm nor contradict them. As a cause of the darkness an 
 eclipse is impossible, for it was the time of the Paschal full- 
 moon. The Gospel of Peter says that " many went about with 
 lamps, supposing that it was night, and fell down." In the so- 
 called Report of Pilate to Tiberius, the Procurator assumes that 
 the Emperor is aware that " in all the world they lighted lamps 
 from the sixth hour until evening." 
 
 ' The change from ' hoped ' to ' trusted ' .suggests this. There is perhaps 
 also an echo of Wisd. ii. 18: 'But if the righteous man is God's son, He 
 will uphold him.' 
 
XXVII. 46, 47] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 399 
 
 Neither Mk. nor Mt. give any other word from the cross 
 than the one which is recorded here (46), and which both of 
 them give in Aramaic, with the interpretation in Greek. Hitherto 
 Mt. has given only single Aramaic words (Amen, Corban, 
 Mamon, Pascha, Raca, Satan, and Golgotha), but here in 
 company with Mk. he gives us a sentence in Aramaic.^ The 
 translation which Mt. and Mk. give is that of the Septuagint, 
 except that Mt. has the vocative instead of the nominative used 
 for the vocative (Oee /xou for 6 ©cos /u-ou), while Mk. more exactly 
 follows the Greek of Ps. xxii. i, although he has eis rt for 
 Lva Ti. The translation in the Gospel of Peter is remarkable : 
 "My power, power, thou has forsaken Me." And this is 
 followed by "And when He had said it He was taken up." 
 This and other features in the fragment seem to show that the 
 Gospel of Peter favoured the Gnostic view that the Divine Son 
 of God was united to the human Son of Mary at His Baptism 
 and departed from Him at the Crucifixion. This word from 
 the cross, like the final cry (5o = Mk. xv. 37 = Lk. xxiii. 46), is 
 said to have been uttered in a loud voice. For an awful moment, 
 the agony of which is beyond our comprehension, even the love 
 of the Father seemed to have been withdrawn from Him. A 
 passage in the Testaments may serve as a comment : "For the 
 Lord doth not forsake [lyKaraXdiru) them that fear Him, not 
 in darkness, or bonds, or afflictions, or necessities. . . . For a 
 little space He departeth, to try (SoMynaVat) the inclination of 
 the soul. . . . Because long-suffering is a mighty charm (<^ap/LiaKov), 
 and endurance giveth many good things " {Joseph ii. 4-7). 
 
 Whether 'This man calleth Elijah' was spoken in mockery 
 or not does not appear. ' Let us see whether Elijah cometh to 
 save Him ' (49) does not prove that the group of persons who 
 started the idea did so in a spirit of derision. Elijah, it is said, 
 was regarded as "a deliverer in time of trouble," and these by- 
 standers ^ may have been serious in thinking that Jesus had 
 invoked his aid. In any case, the remark seems to favour the 
 form ' Eli ' rather than ' Eloi ' ; but Mt. may have made the 
 change because in Greek ^Xa sounds more like 'HAtas than 
 eAwi does. Neither Mt. nor Mk. mention the cry of ' I thirst,' 
 which Jn. tells us led to the 'vinegar' or sour wine {posed) being 
 put to our Lord's lips in a sponge. Jn. uses the plural, but it 
 is not likely that more than one man acted in this way, and 
 
 ' It is remarkable that in Mk., who wrote for Gentiles, Aramaic ex- 
 pressions are more frequent than in Mt., who wrote for Jewish Christians. 
 See Schlirer, 11. i. 9 ; Hastings' DB. iii. p. 39 ; Dalman, Words, p. 53. 
 The exact wording of the cry in Mk. and Mt. remains a problem which 
 cannot be solved with any certainty. See Swete on Mk. xv. 34, 35. 
 
 ^ Mt. has his favourite 'there' (tux f kei eemjKdruv), where i\Ik. has simply 
 Tdiv kaT-(\KbTiiiv , Conip. xiv. 23, xv. 29, xix. 2, xxi. 17, xxvi. 36, 71. 
 
400 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVII. 49, 50 
 
 both Mt. (eU) and Mk. (ns) say expressly one. And as John 
 stood by the cross we may beheve that it was a stalk of hyssop,^ 
 and not a reed that was used by the compassionate bystander. 
 Thus far there is no serious divergence between the three 
 narratives. But Mk. says that it was this same man who cried : 
 ' Let be ("A<^£tc) : let us see whether Elijah cometh to take Him 
 down ' ; while Mt. says that it was ' the rest ' (ot Xoittoi) who 
 cried: 'Let be ("A<^es): let us see whether Elijah cometh to 
 save Him.' 2 That is, Mk. represents the compassionate man 
 as deprecating the interference of the rest ; whereas Mt. says 
 that it was the rest who told him to stop and leave everything 
 to Elijah. It is difficult to see the reason for these changes, 
 unless Mt. had some authority other than Mk. 
 
 At the end of ver. 49 there is a remarkable interpolation from Jn. xix. 34 
 which must have been made very early, for it is found in X B C L U T and 
 five inferior cursives ; some Latin te.xts, Syr-Hier. and Aeth. ; Chrys. and 
 perhaps Tatian. Even if the words dXXos 5^ Xa/Silif \6yxv 'dvv^cv avrov Tijv 
 ir'Kevpdi' Kal e'fijXSfi' iiSiip (cat alfxa were placed here in Tatian's Diatessaron, 
 that would not account for their presence in the authorities quoted above. 
 Tatian's work had no such influence, and the evidence points to an earlier 
 insertion. It is perhaps just possible that the words were in the original text 
 of Mt. , and were omitted in all other MSS. and Versions on account of their 
 intrinsic difficulty and contradiction of S. John, who places the piercing after 
 Christ's death. But it is improbable that Mt. would have recorded the pierc- 
 ing of the side and the effusion of blood and water, and would then have gone 
 on to say that Jesus again cried with a loud voice. And would Mt. have 
 recorded the piercing without recalling the Scripture which S. John quotes 
 in connexion with it ? Whereas it is not impossible that a mere copyist would 
 make an insertion out of harmony with the context, being led to do so because 
 eh e^ uvTuiv (Mt. xxvii. 48) recalled els Tc-jv a-rpaTtujTWv (Jn. xix. 34). '* Eine 
 ungeschickte Interpolation aus Jo xix. 34" is Zahn's conclusion, and it is 
 probably correct. So also Salmon: "If the passage had ever been in the 
 genuine text of the First Gospel, it could never have been eliminated, so 
 as to leave so little trace of its existence" [Human Element, p. 524). He 
 thinks that some one, remembering the story as told by S. John, severed the 
 incident from its true connexion. See Nestle, Textual Criticism, pp. 227, 
 228. 
 
 The way in which Mt. (50) changes the wording of Mk. 
 (xv. 37) in recording the death of the Messiah brings out with 
 greater clearness that the death was a voluntary laying down of 
 His life (Jn. x. 18). He transfers the 'sending forth' or 'letting 
 go ' (a.^iiva.C) from the cry to the spirit : instead of ' Jesus, having 
 sent forth a loud voice, expired,' Mt. has, 'Jesus, having cried 
 
 ^ Unless we adopt the conjectural reading iianip for itra-ihirui. A pilum or 
 javelin seems more probable than hyssop, but S. John would remember that 
 it was not a reed. 
 
 - Ought there to be a comma between "A0es or'AcpeTe and ldoi/j.ev? Why 
 not take the two verbs together, as in the case of d<pe! &/3(iXw (vii. 4), and 
 translate, 'Let us see,' without a preceding 'Let be'? J. H. Moulton, 
 Gram, of N.T. Gr. p. 175. 
 
XXVIl. 51] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 4OI 
 
 again with a loud voice, sent forth His spirit.' Jn. also em- 
 phasizes the voluntary surrender of life : TrapiSwK^v to Trvtv/jia. 
 The Messiah did not die of exhaustion, struggling for life. Of 
 His own will He let go what He could have retained. "Who 
 goes away so entirely when He pleases as Jesus died when He 
 pleased ? " (Aug. Tr. in Joh. xix. 30). The ' again ' in Mt. refers 
 to the cry, ' My God, My God ' (46). Lk. tells us what the later 
 cry was : ' Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit ' (xxiii. 
 46). Like the earlier cry, it comes from the Psalms (xxxi. 5). 
 That our Lord knew the Psalms and used them is at least as 
 probable as that the Evangelists attributed suitable words from 
 the Psalms to Him. And do the other Words from the Cross 
 look like inventions ? Contrast the inventions in the apocryphal 
 gospels. 
 
 The rending of the veil of the Temple (51) is recorded by 
 all three Synoptists, and Mt. makes little change in the wording 
 of Mk.i JBut Lk. connects it with the darkness which preceded 
 the death, Mt. with the earthquake which followed the death, 
 and which he alone mentions. Mk. mentions it after the death 
 without special connexion. We may suppose that the priests, 
 ' a great company ' of whom became ' obedient to the faith ' after 
 Pentecost (Acts vi. 7), were the authorities for this remarkable 
 occurrence. This veil separated the Holy of Holies from the 
 Holy Place, and it is mentioned nowhere else in the N.T., for 
 Heb. ix. 3 refers to the Tabernacle, not to the Temple. The 
 rending of it is mentioned, possibly as a portent, but more 
 probably as symbolical of the change which was involved in the 
 death of the Messiah. The rending would indicate that the 
 special sanctity of the place was now at an end, because the 
 purpose for which the Temple and its services had been continued 
 no longer existed. That which had hitherto been screened off 
 from the world was now thrown open to be trodden underfoot 
 by the Gentiles (Lk. xxi. 24). Or again, that which had hitherto 
 been accessible to the high priest alone, and to him but once 
 a year, was now thrown open to all Christians, at all times, for 
 in Christ each Christian is a high priest (Heb. x. 19 and West- 
 cott's note). Every barrier between the soul of man and the 
 presence of God was removed by the death of the Messiah. 
 Jerome says that the Gospel according to the Hebrews stated 
 that it was a lintel (superlimenare) of the Temple that was rent 
 (Ep. cxx. ad Hedib. 8 ; in Mt.). It is likely enough that damage 
 
 ^ In the Testaments the best texts give a parallel : "The veil of the 
 temple shall be rent, so as not to cover your shame" ; ax'-<!Si](mai to kuto.- 
 ■wiTaaixa tou caoO {Levi ix. 3). But some texts have ifSv^a, which would 
 point to the rending of garments, rather than of the veil. See Charles 
 tzd toe. 
 
 26 
 
402 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVII. 51, 53 
 
 to the building accompanied the rending of the veil ; but it is 
 rash to say that the veil " must have been torn asunder by angel 
 hands." Of the manner of rending we know nothing. 
 
 Josephus {B. J. VI. v. 3) mentions a number of portents 
 which preceded the destruction of the Temple, and among them, 
 that at the Passover the heavy gates of the Temple, which were 
 shut with difficulty by twenty men, and had bolts fastened deep 
 into a solid stone, opened of their own accord in the night. The 
 Gemara mentions a similar thing as happening at a Passover 
 about forty years before the overthrow of Jerusalem. As Neander 
 and Zahn remark, these statements point to a recollection of 
 something extraordinary having taken place in the Temple at the 
 time of the Crucifixion. Since the Jews turned the Temple into 
 a robbers' den (xxi. 13), Mt. has regarded it as doomed, and he 
 here indicates that its desolation has begun. See DCG., art. 
 'Veil.' 
 
 Mt. adds two other portents to the rending of the veil : 1 an 
 earthquake, which rent the rocks and opened the tombs; and 
 the resurrection of certain holy persons, who left the tombs and 
 appeared to many in Jerusalem.^ There was no doubt a tradition 
 to this effect among Palestinian Christians, and the Evangelist 
 thought it worthy of being inserted here. The earthquake helps 
 to explain the rending of the veil and (if the other story be 
 accepted) the breaking of the lintel, and it is not impossible that 
 the earthquake was an inference from these strange phenomena. 
 If they took place, must they not have been caused by an earth- 
 quake ? And if the earthquake took place, would not tombs be 
 opened? Then open tombs at once suggest resurrection. We 
 Seem to have here a tradition with a lei;endary element in it.^ 
 Mk. and Lk., while agreeing with Mt. about the darkness and 
 the rending of the veil, are silent about the earthquake and the 
 resurrection of the saints. And the tradition as given by Mt. 
 is inconsistent with itself The opening of the tombs, the rising 
 of the bodies of the saints, and their coming out of the tombs 
 must be thought of as taking place at the same time ; and yet, 
 while the opening of the tombs is caused by the earthquake at 
 the Crucifixion, the bodies are said to have come out of the 
 
 ' It is possible tViat here again Mt. is making a triplet. Three signs 
 attesi the Messiahship of the Crucified ; tlie rending of the veil, the earth- 
 quake, and the resurrection of the saints. 
 
 - With ' the holy city ' comp. iv. 5 and reff. 
 
 ^ What is recorded in the Gospels has a tendency to grow. Arnobius 
 [adv. Gen/es, i. 53)says that " all the elements of the universe were thrown into 
 confusion" ; and in writings attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite it is said 
 that, when the philosophers at Athens could not explain these wonders, it 
 was concluded that the God of nature was suffering, and the people raised an 
 nltar to ITim with the inscription. To the unknown God. 
 
XXVII. 52, 53] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 403 
 
 tombs 'after His Resurrection.' Mt. or his authority has added 
 ' after His Resurrection ' in order to preserve for the Messiah 
 the glory of being ' the firstfruits of them that are asleep ' (i Cor. 
 XV. 20, 23) ; but the words do not harmonize with the context. 
 The word for 'resurrection' (eyepcni) occurs nowhere else in the 
 NT., nor in the Septuagint in this sense.' The usual word in 
 this Gospel (xxii. 23, 28, 30, 31) and elsewhere, in Gospels, Acts, 
 and Epistles, is avda-Taa-t's. And who are these ' saints ' ? The 
 expression (01 ayioi) is found nowhere else in the Gospels ; and 
 elsewhere in the N.T. it is used always of Christians (Acts ix. 13, 
 41 ; Rom. xii. 13, xv. 25, 26, 31, etc.). It would seem, there- 
 fore, to mean those who, like Simeon and Anna, Zacharias and 
 Elizabeth, had accepted Jesus as the Messiah ; and it was 
 perhaps in order to point to saints of the O.T. that the reading 
 Toiv SLKaibiv (Syr-Sin., Tatian) was substituted. What was 
 the purpose of their appearing to many in Jerusalem ? And 
 what became of these ' bodies of the saints ' (a remarkable expres- 
 sion) after they had appeared to others ? Did they return to 
 their tombs ? We are not told that their appearance produced 
 belief in the Resurrection of the Messiah, or served any other 
 purpose. Comp. Heb. xi. 40, xii. 23. 
 
 On the other hand, there is no textual evidence that the 
 passage is an interpolation, and we need not doubt that the 
 tradition of these resurrections was believed by the Evangelist 
 himself Westcott {Int. to the Study of the Gospels, p. 328) 
 classes it with other details which are peculiar to Mt.'s narrative 
 of the Passion, and which "all tend to show how the Messiahship 
 of Jesus was attested during the course of events which checked 
 the faith of some." It is possible that Ignatius refers to these 
 resurrections in connexion with the descent into Hades {Magnes. 
 ix. ; see Lightfoot's note), and it is certain that Eusebius does 
 {Dem. Ev. x. 8, p. 501). Moreover, although the earthquake 
 is not mentioned by Mk., yet something of the kind seems to 
 be required in order to explain the exclamation of the centurion, 
 which, according to Mk., was caused simply by the way in which 
 Christ gave up His life.^ Would the loud voice suffice to con- 
 vince the Roman officer that this was not only an innocent (Lk.), 
 
 ' It may be understood actively, ' after the raising of Him ' ; comp. ' for 
 the raising up of the House of the Lord ' ( i Esdr. v. 62) ; also of Gideon's 
 rousing the guards {iyipaei ijyeipev) in the A text of Judg. vii. 19. But 'my 
 downsitting and mine uprising ' (Ps. cx.xxix. 2) favours the neuter signification. 
 
 ^ In the Testaments there is a passage which predicts two of these excep- 
 tional phenomena (the rending of the rocks and the darkness) as among the 
 judgments which are coming upon the sons of men : Stl irerpuv <TKi.iop.ivav, koI 
 Tov TjXlov (T^evvviiivov or aKOTiiojiivov. A few lines lower down is an obscure 
 line which may be an interpolation referring to Hades being spoiled by the 
 resurrection of these saints {Levi iv. i). See Charles, ad loc. 
 
404 GOSrEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVII. 54 
 
 but a supernatural (Mk., Mt.) person? Nevertheless, the resur- 
 rection of the saints had nothing to do with that conviction, and 
 when we have admitted the earthquake as historical, in spite 
 of the silence of Mk. and Lk., we have still the difficulty of the 
 bodies leaving the tombs to explain. The earthquake explains 
 how such a tradition might arise, but it is no evidence of its 
 truth. The saints might have risen without the earthquake, and 
 the earthquake might take place without their resurrection. 
 Those who accept the tradition as true "consider it full of 
 spiritual meaning as to the supernatural character of our Lord's 
 death in relation to the holy dead, holding that it was a mani- 
 festation of His power over death and the grave (i) by the 
 resurrection of some from Hades, (2) by the clothing of them 
 with a resurrection body, and (3) by permission to appear to 
 those who knew them " {DCG., art. ' Saints '). See also Andrews, 
 Life of Our Lord, p. 561 ; Edersheim, Life and Times, ii. 
 p. 612 ; Alford and B. Weiss, ad loc. 
 
 After this anticipation of the Resurrection, the Evangelist 
 returns to the moment of Christ's death (54). Mt. alone says 
 that those who were guarding Jesus joined with the centurion in 
 declaring that there must be something more t'nan human in one 
 whose death was accompanied by such phenomena. In this we 
 see again his tendency to enhance whatever contributed to the 
 glory of the Messiah. He emphasizes the wonderful character 
 of the miracles which adorned His life ; and here he augments 
 the testimony of those who were impressed by the manner of His 
 death. Instead of repeating Mk.'s rather otiose statement that 
 the centurion ' stood by over against Him,' he brings in the other 
 Roman soldiers, and adds that all of them ' feared exceedingly.' 
 And he omits the 'man' (ai/^pwTros, Mk., Lk.) from the exclama- 
 tion: ' Truly this man was a son of God.' There is no article before 
 ' son,' and the centurion, however much he may have heard of 
 the conversations with Pilate (Jn. xix. 7), cannot have meant 
 very much by ' son of God.' It is remarkable that the Gospel 
 which records the words that explain the centurion's expression, 
 ^Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit,' does not record 
 the expression. Lk. has, ' Certainly this was a righteous man.' 
 We have already had one excellent centurion in the Gospel 
 narrative (viii. 5-13), and this one is another worthy repre- 
 sentative of the class. Polybius (vi. 24) tells us what solid 
 and strong characters were looked for in those who were pro- 
 moted to be centurions. It illustrates the want of originality 
 in legends, which constantly borrow features from earlier 
 legends, that the name Longinus {Xoyxq) is given both to 
 this centurion and to the soldier who pierced Christ's side 
 with a spear ; also to a prefect who was commissioned by 
 
XXVII. 55, 56] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 405 
 
 Nero to put S. Paul to death (Donehoo, The Apocryphal Life 
 of Christ, p. 360). 
 
 In this mention of the women who were present at the 
 Crucifixion (55, 56), Mt. has a smoother arrangement of clauses 
 than Mk.,' and it is perhaps not without purpose that he changes 
 ' also ' ((cai) into his favourite ' there ' (cKti). Mk. couples the 
 women with the centurion; 'And there were also women.' 
 They, like the centurion, regarded the death of the Messiah with 
 sympathy. Mt. suggests no such comparison : 'And many 
 women were there.' It is one more instance of candour on the 
 part of the Evangelists that they record how women, who might 
 be expected to have less courage, watched till the very end, after 
 all the disciples had left Him and fled (xxvi. 56 ; Mk. xiv. 50). 
 All three mention that these women were from Galilee, and are 
 therefore not to be identified with the ' daughters of Jerusalem ' 
 (Lk. xxiii. 28) who had witnessed the procession to Calvary. 
 Both Mt. and Mk. mention that there were many of them. 
 Mary Magdalen is introduced as a well-known person, although 
 she has not been previously mentioned in the Gospel, It is 
 from Lk. (viii. 2) and from the appendix to Mk. (xvi. 9) that we 
 learn that she had been freed from demoniacal possession. 
 MaySaXvyi/r; probably means ' of Magdala ' ; comp. Nafap->;vds. 
 She is not to be identified with any other Mary, and certainly 
 not with the 'sinner' of Lk. vii. 37, which is "a graver error in 
 Western Christian tradition" (Swete), yet impossible to eradicate. 
 'The mother of the sons of Zebedee ' (Mt.) is, no doubt, 
 identical with 'Salome' (Mk.). She has already been mentioned 
 XX. 20, where Mt. transfers to her the ambitious request for her 
 sons which Mk. attributes to the sons themselves. ' Mary the 
 mother of James and Joseph ' is the same as ' Mary of Clopas ' 
 (Jn. xix. 25) ; but she was not the sister of the Virgin, and 
 Clopas is not to be identified with Alphfeus, nor with the 
 Cleopas of Lk. xxiv. 18. We cannot safely argue that James 
 and Joseph are mentioned because they were leading men in the 
 Apostolic age. They are mentioned here in order to distinguish 
 their mother from other women of the same name. 
 
 Here, as in xiii. 55, Mt., according to tiie best texts, has 'Joseph,' while 
 Ml<., according to the best texts, has Joses ; but the evidence is confused. 
 Joseph and Joses are different forms of the same name ; but the Joseph or 
 
 ' In changing, as often, imperfects [-qKoKovBovv koX hiriKivow) into the 
 aorist (^/coXoiJ^7;crai/ Sta/coi'oOa-ai), Mt. makes the statement less accurate. It 
 was during the stay in Galilee, and not merely on the journey to Jerusalem, 
 that these women ministered to the Messiah, and in some cases their minister- 
 ing was prompted by what lie had done for them in healing them. It has 
 been noticed that no women are mentioned among those who were hostile 
 to the Messiah. 
 
4o6 GOSrEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVII. 57, 58 
 
 Joses of xiii. 55 and Mk. vi. 3, who is a brother of the Lord, is not to be 
 identified with the Joseph or Joses here and Mk. xv. 40, any more than the 
 James there is to be identified with the James here, whom Mk. (xv. 40) calls 
 ' James the little,' to distinguish him from the son of Zebedee, where ' the 
 little ' (6 fUKpbs) probably refers to stature, as in Lk. xix. 3. Both here and 
 Mk. XV. 40, Syr-Sin. has 'the daug/iier o( James and mother of Joseph,' which 
 is not likely to be the meaning of ij roO 'la/cw^ou ^-at 'luarjcp ^li^rrip. The Aeth. 
 has iJtriTi)p with both names, while some Old Latin texts have fJ-Tirrip with 
 neither. It is probable that Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward 
 (Lk. viii. 3, xxiv. 10), was among the many women whom Mt. and Mk. do 
 not name. 
 
 Mt. alone, here and xx. 20, speaks of ' the mother of the sons of Zebedee.' 
 Why he should avoid mentioning their names here is not obvious. Mt., Mk. , 
 and Jn. tell us that Mary Magdalen was present at the Crucifixion, and we 
 may infer this from Lk. xxiii. 49, xxiv. 10. Jn. alone tells us that the 
 Mother of Jesus was there. 
 
 XXVII. 57-61. TAe Burial of the Messiah. 
 
 Mt. follows Mk. in noting that it was evening, but he omits 
 'because it was the Preparation, that is, the day before the 
 sabbath.' He also substitutes 'rich' for 'a councillor of 
 honourable estate,' and 'was Jesus' disciple' (ifiae-riTevOri t<S 
 'Irjo-ov) for 'was looking for the Kingdom of God.' All three 
 changes may be mere abbreviations, but the change to ' rich ' is 
 perhaps made with a view to ' with the rich in his death ' (Is. 
 liii. 9). By 'evening' (oij/ia) is meant the time between 3 p.m., 
 when our Lord died, and sunset, after which no work could be 
 done. 
 
 Joseph of Arimathcea, with the centurion and the women, 
 may be counted as a triplet of those who regarded the Cruci- 
 fixion with sympathy and reverence. But it is not a triplet of 
 Mt.'s own making, for the arrangement is already in Mk. In the 
 case of the signs which accompanied the Messiah's death, the 
 triplet is made by Mt.'s adding two signs to the one recorded 
 by Mk. Nevertheless, the triplets in Mk. may have had an 
 attraction for Mt., so that he adopted them readily. The 
 identification of Arimathasa with Ramathaim, the birth-place and 
 burial-place of Samuel, is possible, but not certain. 
 
 We may believe that Joseph of Arimathsa had, like Simeon 
 and Anna, been 'looking for the Kingdom of God' before he 
 came into contact with Jesus. Then he became a secret disciple. 
 At the death of the Master he became an open one. He 
 'summoned up courage ' (ToA./t*r/oras), as Mk. says, and went in 
 before the Procurator to ask for the Lord's Body. It did re- 
 quire courage to do this. Pilate had just been driven by the 
 Sanhedrin to put an innocent man to death — a humiliating 
 experience for the official representative of Roman Law, and he 
 could not be expected to be gracious to a member of that court. 
 
XXVII. 58-61] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 407 
 
 Joseph had no legal claim to the Body, for he was not a relation. 
 He would therefore have to explain why he was interested in the 
 burial, and this would amount to confessing that he had been a 
 disciple of 'the King of the Jews.' Moreover, his request to the 
 Procurator would become known, and this might bring him into 
 serious collision with the hierarchy. 
 
 Both Mt. and Lk. avoid the term ' corpse ' (TrTco/za), which is 
 what Mk. says that Pilate 'granted' (cScop^o-aro). The latter 
 expression perhaps means that there was no need to bribe the 
 Procurator, whereas Mt.'s expression (eVe'A.cuo-tv' dTroSo^^vat) might 
 mean that Pilate commanded the Body to be delivered in return 
 for a fee.^ Both Mt. and Lk. omit Pilate's surprise at Christ's 
 being already dead, and his asking the centurion if it were a fact. 
 The centurion's report of the circumstances of Christ's death 
 would make Pilate disposed to grant Joseph's request without a 
 fee. Mt. and Mk. seem to imply that Pilate had the Body taken 
 down by soldiers and given to Joseph ; but Lk. expressly states 
 that Joseph took it down, and Jn. adds that Nicodemus helped 
 him. 
 
 Again, both Mt. and Lk. omit the buying of the linen, but 
 Mt. mentions that it was ' clean ' (o-ivSoVi KadapS.), which means 
 that, like the tomb, it had not been used. This ' clean linen ' 
 may be the same as the strips (oOovia) with which the spices 
 were bound to the Body (Jn. xix. 40). Neither Mt. nor Mk. 
 mention either these spices or those which the women prepared, 
 for use when the sabbath was over (Lk.). They merely tell us 
 that two of the women watched the sepulchre. 
 
 That the tomb was hewn in rock is of importance in reference 
 to the lie that the disciples had stolen the Body. They could 
 not have removed it without breaking the seal. The sepulchre 
 was probably a small chamber, along one side of which was a 
 shelf cut in the rock, and on this shelf the Body was laid. The 
 'great stone' (Mt. perhaps gets 'great' from Mk. xvi. 4) was no 
 doubt ready for use. It was these stones, forming the doors to 
 tombs, that were whitewashed every spring (xxiii. 27) to prevent 
 passers-by from being made ceremonially unclean. The stones 
 were sometimes round and flat, like millstones, lying upright against 
 the face of the rock in which the excavation was made. They 
 could then be easily rolled backwards and forwards, to open or 
 close the aperture. 
 
 ' Mary the mother of James and Joseph ' (56) must be meant 
 by 'the other Mary.' Mk. calls her 'Mary of Joses' (Mapi'a 17 
 
 ' Contrast eKfKevaev Sodfjvai (xiv. 9), and comp. the difference between 
 SoOvat and aTrSSore (xxii. 17, 21). In the Gospel of Peter, Joseph is the friend 
 of Pilate, who passes on Joseph's request for the Body to Herod, and Herod 
 tells his " brother Pilate" that it must be buried. 
 
408 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVII. 62 
 
 'ItDcr^ros), which might mean 'the daughter of Joses,' but 
 probably does not. She sat with the Magdalen to see the last 
 of the Lord whom they had loved. The quiet reverence of the 
 description in both Gospels is remarkable. Mt. adds the touch 
 that Joseph, after closing the sepulchre, departed. The two 
 women, apparently, still sat on. The similarity of ver. 6i, both 
 in structure and in substance, to ver. 55 should be noted. In 
 both there is the frequent ' there ' (cKet). 
 
 XXVII. 62-66. The Sepulchre made Secure. 
 
 Mt. here makes another insertion (comp. vv. 52, 53) which 
 probably comes from traditions current in Palestine. It forms, 
 and is perhaps intended to form, a striking contrast to the pre- 
 ceding paragraph. There we had the faithful three showing 
 affectionate devotion to the Body of the Messiah. Here we have 
 His bitter enemies pursuing Him with implacable hostihty even 
 beyond the shameful and cruel death to which they have subjected 
 Him. They will not rest until they have made it impossible for 
 His followers to turn His death into a point in favour of His 
 cause. And it is remarkable that, while even the chosen three 
 did not understand what the rising from the dead meant (Mk. 
 ix. 10), and while none of the disciples seem to have found any 
 comfort in Christ's predictions that He would rise again, yet the 
 chief priests and the Pharisees understood and remembered, and 
 •were determined that no apparent fulfilment of such predictions 
 should be accomplished by the disciples.^ 
 
 'Now on the morrow, which is after the Preparation' (62). 
 The expression is remarkable and redundant. ' On the morrow ' 
 would have sufficed, and ' on the sabbath ' would have been 
 plainer. 'The Preparation' had already become a name for 
 Friday as the eve of the sabbath. Mt. uses it without explanation, 
 but Mk. (xv. 42) tells his Gentile readers what it means. It 
 looks as if Mt. employed this circumlocution in order to avoid 
 using the word 'sabbath.' Did he shrink from saying in so 
 many words that this miserable act of hostility, on the part of the 
 Jewish hierarchy against the Messiah, took place on the sabbath ? 
 Months before this the Pharisees had been moved to take counsel 
 to destroy Him, because He had done good on the sabbath 
 (xii. 12-14); ^nd now they do not scruple to do evil on the 
 sabbath. It is possible that the expression is used as an equivalent 
 for Mk.'s date (xv. 42), which Mt. omits at that point. Having 
 given no mention of 'the Preparation' there, he names it here, 
 
 * The combination, 'the chief priests and the Pharisees,' occurs xxi. 45. 
 It is not found in Mk. or Lie, but is frequent in Jn. (vii. 32, 45, xi. 47, 57, 
 xviii. 3). 
 
XXVII. 63] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 409 
 
 and calls the sabbath ' the morrow of the Preparation.' It is just 
 possible that this circumlocution was common among Jewish 
 Christians when Mt. wrote. 
 
 The readiness of Mt. to expose the iniquities of the Pharisees 
 appears once more in his mentioning them as taking part in this 
 deputation to the heathen Procurator on the sabbath. He often 
 takes what Mk. supplies against the Pharisees (Mk. ii. 24 = Mt. 
 xii. 2 ; Mk. iii. 6 = Mt. xii. 14; Mk. vii. i=Mt. xv. i ; Mk. viii. 
 ii=Mt. xvi. i; Mk. viii. i5=Mt. xvi. 6; Mk. x. 2 = Mt. xix. 3; 
 Mk. xii. i3 = Mt. xxii. 15), and he adds a great deal against them 
 which is not in Mk., as here ; comp. iii. 7, v. 20, ix. 1 1, 34, xii. 38, 
 xxi. 45, xxii. 34, 41, xxiii. 2, 13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29. This is his 
 last mention of the Pharisees. In his first mention of them he 
 intimates that the Baptist's stern condemnation of the ' offspring 
 of vipers,' which Lk. regards as addressed to the multitudes, was 
 really addressed to Pharisees and Sadducees ; and here, in his 
 last mention of them, he illustrates once more their malignant 
 opposition to the Messiah. 
 
 The deputation address the Procurator with respect : ' Sir 
 (xxi. 30), it came to our mind (xxvi. 75).' And they speak of 
 Him whom they have forced the Procurator to crucify with con- 
 temptuous abhorrence. They will not even name Him ; they use 
 a pronoun which indicates that He is far removed from them, and 
 a substantive which stigmatizes Him as a seducer of the people : 
 'that deceiver' (cKetvos o irXdvos) ; comp. Jn. ix. 28; 2 Jn. 7.^ 
 They quote His words in a manner which suggests the confidence 
 with which they were spoken: 'After three days I rise again' 
 (Mera rpets 17/j.epas iyeipofiai). The Evangelist is perhaps thinking 
 of xii. 40, which he says was spoken in the presence of certain 
 Pharisees, but which is probably his own interpretation of Christ's 
 words. But ' after three days ' (not ' three days and three nights ') 
 looks like a reference to Mk. viii. 31, x. 34 = Mt. xvi. 21, xx. 19 ;^ 
 and although the words recorded there were spoken in private 
 to the disciples, yet they may have been repeated until they 
 reached the ears of His watchful enemies. The Pharisees, having 
 suggested that the Body might be stolen, put into the mouth of 
 the disciples the very expression which Herod Antipas is said to 
 have used of Jesus : that He was the Baptist, who ' is risen from 
 the .dead' (xiv. 2). 'The last error' (r) laxaTTq TrXavrf) means 'the 
 last deceit' or 'the last seduction,' with direct reference to 'that 
 deceiver' or 'seducer.' The Pharisees knew that they must use 
 
 ^ Jvistin Martyr uses the same word when taxing the Jews with dissemi- 
 nating lies about Christ ( TV)'. 108), thereby showing acquaintance with this 
 Gospel. See below on xxviii. I3-I5- 
 
 ^ It is remarkable that Mt., after twice correcting ' after three days ' to the 
 more accurate ' on the third day,' should have left ' after three days ' here. 
 
4IO GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVII. 63-66 
 
 political considerations in order to influence Pilate. Just as they 
 had charged Jesus with claiming to be King of the Jews, while 
 they said nothing about His claiming to be the Son of God, so 
 here they mean that, if the disciples persuaded people that 
 Jesus had risen from the dead, they might cause a far more 
 serious rising than had occurred at the Triumphal Entry, in 
 consequence of the persuasion that Jesus was the Messiah ; 
 comp. xii. 45. 
 
 The Pharisees do not dictate to Pilate hoiv the sepulchre is 
 to be made secure ; they leave that to him : and they find him 
 more willing than before to accede to their wishes. He had tried 
 to escape from their determination to have Jesus put to death, 
 but he raises no difficulty about the guarding of His tomb. 
 Nevertheless, they are not welcome visitors. He had seen 
 through their malignity before (17, t8), and no doubt he saw 
 through it now. He dismisses them with a curt consent to their 
 suggestion. ' Take a guard ; go, make it as secure as ye can.' 
 That his words mean ' Take a guard,' rather than ' Ye have a 
 guard,' seems clear from the fact that the only guard which they 
 had was the Temple-police, and this they could have employed 
 without coming to the Procurator. Evidently they want some- 
 thing which required his permission ; and it is Roman soldiers 
 who are set to guard the tomb (xxviii. 12-15). Hence the ap- 
 propriateness of the Latin word custodia ("ExtTt Kouo-rwStav). 
 Comp. the ' twelve legions of Angels ' (SaiStKa XcyioJvas ayycAajv) 
 in xxvi. 53. 
 
 The sealing of the stone would seem to be the Pharisees' own 
 idea, and it was perhaps suggested by the sealing of the stone at 
 the mouth of the lion's den after Daniel had been thrown into it 
 (Dan. vi. 1 7). In the O.T. both ' seal ' and ' sealing ' are frequent, 
 whether in the literal sense or as a metaphor. In the N.T. 'seal' 
 (cre^payt's) does not occur, and, except in this place, the verb is 
 always used in a metaphorical sense. 
 
 The hierarchy overreached themselves in these precautions. 
 All that they accomplished was to increase the number of those 
 who could bear witness to the Resurrection. And these addi- 
 tional witnesses had to be bribed to give false witness, — with 
 what result we do not know. We know that the plot failed, but 
 we do not know how the bribed soldiers behaved. It is evident 
 that the fact of the bribery became known, unless we assume 
 that the whole story is a Christian invention ; and it is more 
 probable that it became known through some of the soldiers than 
 through any of the Sanhedrin. A soldier who would confess that 
 he had been bribed would probably tell what he knew respecting 
 the circumstances of the Resurrection. But some of the priests 
 who were converted after Pentecost (Acts vi. 7) may have known 
 
XXVIII. 1] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 4I I 
 
 and disclosed the truth about this transaction. Comp. the 
 Ascension of Isaiah, iii. 14. ' 
 
 Characteristic expressions in ch. xxvii. : Tore (3, 9, 13, 27, 58), ijyeiiiiiv 
 (2, II dts, 14, 21, 27), \ey6fJi.6PO! (16, 17, 22, 33 Ms), trvpdyeiv (17, 27, 62), 
 e/cei (47, 55, 61), cipdSpa. (54), ^/cei (47, 55, 61), d.Tro5i.56i/aL (58), 7-d0os (61, 
 64, 66), TTOpeveaffai. (66). Peculiar : avix^ovXiov Xa^/3ciceii' (1,6), oi TrpeajHrtpoi 
 rod XaoO ( I ), t5 pT/S^i' (9), 'lepe/xla! (9), crui'Tdcrcrei!' ( lo), /car' Srap (19), 
 KovaruSia (65, 66); peculiar to this chapter: awdyxd," (5), tii0^ (7), KaSd 
 (10), dS^'i's (24), 6e^ (46), x'^ayiii/s (28, 31), iycpaii (53). 
 
 Mt. is the only Evangelist who uses Td<pos of the sepulchre, and (excepting 
 in a quotation in Romans) the word occurs nowhere else in theN.T. Mk. 
 and Lk. use fii/ijpLo, and fii/ij/ielov, and Jn. uses the latter only. Mt. uses 
 firqiK'iov as well as rd^os. For centuries ' sepulchre ' has been the traditional 
 word in English. Seeing that /xprj/xa and fiprj/ieiov are very frequent, and 
 that Td</>0! is rare in this connexion, it seems to be unfortunate that ' tomb ' 
 was selected in RV. for the frequent terms, while ' sepulchre ' represents the 
 rare one. But such passages as viii. 28, Mk. v. 2, 3, 5 perhaps turned the 
 scale, and the derivation of ' sepulchre ' may have helped to do so. 
 
 Once more we have aorists (i8, 34, 55) where Mk. (xvi. 10, 23, 41) has 
 imperfects. 
 
 It is doubtful whether Barnabas recalls iSoiKav aOrw rielv otvov /lera xoXiJs 
 liefiiyijAvov (34) when he writes aravpaSeis (woTl^eTo 8|ei Kal x°^V (v"' 3)- 
 He may be thinking of ^dwKav ei's rb jSpui^a fiov x^^V^^ '^^^ ^^^ ^V^ Si^av /xov 
 ^TTuTKrdj/ /te iifos (Ps. Ixix. 21). Mt. alone mentions x<'^')i ti"t both he and 
 Barnabas may be thinking of the Psalm independently, and Barnabas is 
 closer to it with iroTl^eiv and il|os. 
 
 XXVIII. 1-10. The jResurrection of the Messiah and His 
 Appearance to certain Women. 
 
 The earliest evidence that we have respecting the Resurrec- 
 tion is that of S. Paul in i Corinthians, written about a.d. 56, 
 and therefore about twenty-seven years after the Resurrection, 
 which may be placed with much confidence in a.d. 29. If 
 I Corinthians is dated a.d. 53, as by Harnack, the interval 
 between event and record is less than twenty-five years. In 
 any case, the conversion of S. Paul took place soon after the 
 Resurrection ; and therefore he had been convinced of the fact 
 of the Resurrection for more than twenty years, and during the 
 greater part of that time had known of the appearances of the 
 Risen Lord to others, in addition to the appearance to himself 
 which was the immediate cause of his conversion. ^ He mentions 
 these appearances in chronological order: i. to Peter; 2. to the 
 Twelve ; 3. to over 500 disciples, most of whom still survive ; 
 4. to James ; 5. to all the Apostles. But he mentions no 
 appearance to women. 
 
 We must, however, beware of the dangerous argument from 
 
 ^ Most of the Twelve were still alive when he wrote i Cor., and he knew 
 all that the Jews had said in denial of the Resurrection as weU as what the 
 first witnesses had testified respecting the fact. 
 
412 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVIII. 1-20 
 
 silence, and of assuming that S. Paul knew nothing of any appear- 
 ances to women. The evidence which he gives in this highly 
 condensed form is " official" evidence (Knowling, The Testimony 
 of S. Paul to Christ, pp. 301-3) ; it is that of the two leading 
 persons in the Apostolic Church, S. Peter and S. James, and 
 that of the Apostolic body as a whole. To this is added that of 
 a large number of witnesses, who are added probably for two 
 reasons : first, as being members of the largest company that saw 
 the Risen Lord at any one time; and, secondly, as being for the 
 most part still alive, and therefore capable of being questioned. 
 Beside such a mass of official testimony it would have seemed 
 altogether superfluous to mention an appearance to women, all 
 the more so as the testimony of women was not greatly esteemed. 
 Even if S. Paul had conversed with any of these women, he 
 would not be hkely to mention their evidence along with that of 
 Apostles. S. John, when he reckons up three manifestations of 
 the Risen Lord to the disciples (xxi. 14), does not count the 
 manifestation to Mary Magdalen, although he records it at con- 
 siderable length. 
 
 Next after the evidence of S. Paul comes that of Mk. 
 Perhaps we may place it some twelve years later. But un- 
 fortunately the most essential part of Mk.'s evidence on this 
 matter has been lost. He gives us the early visit of three 
 women to the tomb, and the very important fact that they found 
 it open and empty. He tells us how they went in and saw a 
 young man in a long white robe, who told them that the Lord 
 was risen and would meet His disciples in Galilee, and that this 
 appearance and utterance struck them with terror, so that they 
 went out of the tomb and fled. And here Mk.'s narrative ends 
 abruptly, so abruptly that we conclude that the last leaf (or 
 possibly more than one leaf) has been lost from very early times.^ 
 That he did record at least one appearance of the Risen Lord 
 can hardly be doubted. In Mt. xxviii. 1-8 we have a free re- 
 production of Mk. xvi. 1-8. It is probable that in vv. 9, 10 Mt. 
 is still making use of Mk. ; and it is not improbable that in 
 vv. 16-20 we again have Mt.'s reproduction of Mk. Mt. repeats 
 almost every word of the command and promise in Mk. xvi. 7, 
 and Mt. xxviii. 16-20 records the fulfilment of the command and 
 the promise. It is therefore reasonable to believe that Mk. 
 recorded the fulfilment of the command and the promise, and 
 
 ' There are three ways of ending the Gospel of Mk. Some authorities 
 stop at 'they were affrighted,' which cannot have been the original conclusion. 
 Others have a short ending, which was evidently written to supply a con- 
 clusion, and which no one believes to be genuine. Nearly all our extant 
 authorities have the longer ending, which is in most Bibles, wliich was not 
 intended as a conclusion to the Gospel, and the history of which is lost. See 
 DCG. ii. pp. 131 ff. 
 
XXVIII. 1-20] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 413 
 
 that it was from him that Mt. derived the substance of vv. 16-20. 
 For vv. 9 and 10 no more probable source than Mk. can be sug- 
 gested. See Allen's acute discussion of the question, and " The 
 Lost End of Mark's Gospel" in the Hibbert Journal, July 1905. 
 
 No such argument can be used with regard to the intermedi- 
 ate paragraph about, the hierarchy and the soldiers (11-15). 
 Like the paragraph at the end of ch. xxvii., it is peculiar to Mt., 
 and it forms a dramatic contrast to that which immediately 
 precedes. In the one case, the malignity of the chief priests and 
 Pharisees is contrasted with the devotion of the women who had 
 seen the last offices paid to the Body of the Crucified Messiah ; 
 in the other, the malignity of the chief priests and elders is con- 
 trasted with the devotion of the same women, who had come 
 again to visit the sepulchre, and who had thus become aware 
 that the Body was gone because the Messiah was risen. This 
 later paragraph is the natural sequel of the earlier one, and no 
 doubt comes from the same source, — traditions that were current 
 in Palestine at the time when Mt. compiled this Gospel. It is 
 plain, therefore, that Mt. had additional information, and was not 
 simply dependent upon Mk. for what he tells us in this last 
 chapter. 
 
 The evidence of Lk. is similar, and it may be dated about 
 A.D. 75-80. He also was partly (but not wholly) dependent 
 upon Mk., and his narrative must be placed side by side with 
 that of Mt. in order to form a just estimate of what was con- 
 tained in the lost conclusion of Mk. But it is plain that he had 
 also very valuable information in addition to Mk. In the 
 narrative of the walk to Emmaus he contributes "one of the 
 most convincing of the post-Resurrection narratives, for which 
 he was probably indebted to first-hand testimony " (Swete, The 
 Appearances of our Lord after the Passion, p. xiii). 
 
 Some fifteen or twenty years later we have the entirely 
 independent evidence of the Fourth Gospel, which may still with 
 confidence be asserted to be that of a disciple who had been 
 intimate with our Lord, and who was probably the Apostle 
 S. John. 
 
 Lastly, we have the evidence of the conclusion to the Gospel 
 of Mk., as we have it in most Bibles. That it was not written 
 by Mk., from whose vocabulary and style it differs very consider- 
 ably, and that it was not originally written as a conclusion to his 
 Gospel, which it fits very badly, may be regarded as certain. 
 But, whether Aristion or some unknown Christian be its author, 
 it is good evidence for what was believed early in the second 
 century. There are traces of it in Justin Martyr and Irensus, 
 and it is found in almost all the MSS. and Versions that have 
 come down to us, the archetypes of which would take us back to 
 
414 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVIII. 1-20 
 
 the first half of the second century. " We may say with confi- 
 dence that its date is earlier than the year 140" (Sanday, The 
 Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, p. 241). He adds a remark 
 which is important in estimating the value of the evidence for 
 the Resurrection which is here summarized : — the twelve verses 
 which form the current conclusion to the Gospel of Mk. " imply 
 not only the existence, but up to a certain point the authority of 
 the Fourth Gospel." 
 
 It may be freely admitted, that, whether or no the evidence 
 for the appearances of our Lord after His death and burial is as 
 good as could reasonably be expected, it is not all that we should 
 have ourselves desired. It is less full than we should have 
 wished, and it is also less harmonious. No one can deny that, 
 however highly we may estimate what has come down to us, yet 
 additional evidence would be welcome ; but, with regard to the 
 other point, it must be remembered that very harmonious 
 evidence would, for that very reason, have been suspicious. The 
 divergencies which are found in the te.stimony which has come 
 down to us (not all of which could be got rid of by additional 
 knowledge) are sufificient to show that each witness is telling 
 what he believes to be the truth, and that he is not careful to 
 make his testimony agree in all particulars with that of other 
 witnesses. The divergencies are not sufficient to discredit the 
 testimony as a whole, which is in remarkable agreement about 
 the main facts. This does not mean that all the discrepancies, 
 or apparent discrepancies, are confirmations of the evidence as a 
 whole. But it does mean that they do not all of them tend to 
 weaken it. Some of them are real difficulties, others are of 
 small importance. But each report bears the stamp of honesty 
 upon it, and the divergencies are marks of independence. " They 
 are just the flaws which we might expect to find in faithful 
 reports proceeding from independent witnesses, especially if the 
 circumstances were of an unusual and disquieting character, and 
 the witnesses persons who were unaccustomed to interpret to 
 others the impressions left upon their own minds. . . . The 
 process of sifting the Gospel narratives of the Appearances will 
 bring to light a great preponderance of solid fact, which can be 
 set aside only by the stubborn scepticism that is born of 
 unworthy presuppositions " (Swete). The Christian Church 
 exists, and has existed and grown since the year of the 
 Crucifixion. So enormous a fact cannot be explained without 
 an adequate cause, and it is impossible to find an adequate 
 cause if the Resurrection of Christ from the tomb is rejected as 
 a fiction. 
 
 Mt. begins his narrative with a confused note of time, the 
 
XXVIII. 1, S] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 415 
 
 result of condensing the narrative of Mk. Mk. gives two events, 
 each with its note of time ; — the buying of the spices, when the 
 sabbath was past, i.e. on Saturday evening ; and the coming to 
 use the spices, very early on the first day of the week, i.e. on 
 Sunday morning. Mt. omits the buying of the spices, just as he 
 omits the buying of the linen (xxvii. 59), and yet keeps two 
 notes of time. His first time-note (oi/'t Se o-aP/3a.To>v) ought to 
 mean 'late on the sabbath,' which would be before sunset on 
 Saturday afternoon. 1 Even if the expression stood alone, it 
 would be almost incredible that Mt. should intend to contradict 
 every other tradition about the Resurrection, and assert that it 
 took place on the sabbath. The weekly celebration of the first 
 day of the week, even without the testimony of the other 
 Gospels, would suffice to refute this. But Mt.'s own words 
 suffice to correct such an interpretation, for he goes on to say, 
 ' as it began to dawn towards day one of the week,' i.e. near 
 daybreak on Sunday. Elsewhere, when Mk. gives two notes of 
 time (i. 32, ii. 20, vi. 35, xiv. 30), Mt. omits one of them (viii. 16, 
 ix. 15, xiv. 15, xxvi. 34). Here, where Mk. gives only one time- 
 note for the visit of the women, Mt. gives two, and thereby 
 causes confusion. 
 
 Mk. tells us that on this occasion a third woman accompanied 
 the two that had watched the sepulchre on Friday evening. 
 This third was Salome, the mother of James and John, the sons 
 of Zebedee. Mk., who tells us that these women had bought 
 spices on Saturday night, says that they came on Sunday 
 morning 'that they might anoint Him.' Mt. says that they 
 came 'to see the sepulchre.' This change would be suggested, 
 not merely by the omission of the buying of the spices, but by 
 the sealing and guarding of the tomb, for the guards would not 
 allow them to come near the tomb, much less to enter it. But 
 the women knew nothing about the setting of a watch, and 
 there was no need to alter ' that they might anoint Him.' 
 
 Mt. once more (2) tells us of an earthquake which is not 
 mentioned by the others; comp. viii. 24, xxvii. 51. In each 
 case it is possible that the Evangelist (or his source) is conjectur- 
 ing a cause for the extraordinary phenomena which he has to 
 relate. There is a great storm on the lake ; the veil of the 
 temple is rent in twain ; the large stone is rolled away from the 
 door of the sepulchre ; and on each occasion an earthquake may 
 be part of the explanation. Omitting viii. 24 as doubtful, for 
 the 'great quaking' (a-eLcrixo^ jixcyas) may refer to the water only, 
 we may compare the two instances about which there is no 
 
 ' Mt. must be using 6\f/i in the sense of 'after,' — 'after the sabbath' ; but 
 a clear example of such use seems to be wanting. See J. H. Moulton, 
 Gram, of N. T. Gr. p. 72. 
 
4l6 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVIII. S-5 
 
 question. In both the earthquake is accompanied by something 
 supernatural ; in the one by the resurrection of the bodies of the 
 saints, in the other by the descent of an Angel, who seems to be 
 regarded as the cause of the earthquake. ' And, behold, ^ there 
 was a great earthquake : for an Angel of the Lord descended 
 from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon 
 it.' In Mk. the women find that the stone, from which they 
 anticipated difficulty, is already rolled away, and the Angel is 
 Mt.'s explanation of the removal. Lk., like Mk., states that the 
 women found the stone rolled away, and, like Mk., offers no 
 explanation. How readily Angelic agency might be assumed in 
 such a case is shown by the fact that a modern commentator on 
 Mk. XV. 38 assures us that the Temple-veil " must have been 
 torn asunder by angel hands." The appearance of an Angel 
 (Mt., Mk.), or of two Angels (Lk., Jn.), at the tomb rests upon 
 the testimony of the women who reported their experiences. 
 The descent of an Angel Avho rolled away the stone was witnessed 
 by no one ; it is an hypothetical explanation of a known fact. 
 The earthquake may have been suggested by the quaking of the 
 guards (tcrei'tr^ijo-av 01 TvjpoiJi'Tcs), although their terror is said to 
 have been caused by the appearance of the Angel ; but the 
 earthquake may have taken place and have been felt by the 
 women after they set out. 
 
 It is worth while contrasting the narrative in the apocryphal Gospel of 
 Peter, which may be assigned to about the middle of the second century. It 
 is evidently based upon the four Canonical Gospels, which it sometimes 
 abbreviates, and sometimes greatly enlarges. Where it does the latter, the 
 writer is probably inventing what seemed to him to be probable. There are 
 few, if any, places in which it is likely that he is preserving an independent 
 tradition of what actually took place, although he may be borrowing from 
 uncanonical literature. 
 
 "And in the night in which the Lord's day was dawning, when the 
 soldiers were on guard two and two in each watch, there was a great voice in 
 heaven, and they saw the heavens opened, and two vien descend thence, with 
 a great Light around them, and drawing near to the tomb. But that stone 
 which had been cast at tiie door rolled of itself and withdrew to one side, and 
 the tomb was opened, and both the young men entered. When, therefore, 
 those soldiers saw this, they awakened the centurion and the elders, — for 
 they also were present on guard. And as they were relating what they saw, 
 again they behold three men (comp. Dan iii. 24, 35) come out of the tomb, 
 and two of them supporting the otie, and a cross following them ; and the 
 head of each of the two reached up to heaven, but that of Him who was led 
 by them by the hand was higher than the heavens. And they heard a voice 
 from the heavens which said : ' Hast Thou preached to them that are asleep ? ' 
 And a response was heard from the cross: 'Yea.' Those men therefore 
 discussed with one another as to going and reporting these things to Pilate. 
 
 1 KoX I801J is very frequent in Mt. and Lk. , who has it here ; but it is not 
 found anywhere in Mk. Here both Mt. and Lk. treat the narrative of Mk. 
 with great freedom. Evidently there were different traditions of what took 
 place. 
 
XXVIII. 2-5] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 417 
 
 And while they were still considering, again the heavens appeared opened, 
 and a man descended and entered into the sepulchre. When those who 
 were with the centurion by night saw these things, they hastened to Pilate, 
 leaving the tomb which they were guarding, and related all which they had 
 seen, being in an agony of terror, and saying : ' Truly He was God's Son.' " 
 Comp. " Gabriel, the Angel of the Holy Spirit, and Michael, the chief of the 
 holy Angels, on the third day will open the sepulchre : and the Beloved 
 sitting on their shoulders will come forth" (Ascension of Isaiah, iii. 16). 
 
 In his characteristic way, Cornelius h. Lapide comments on 
 these two earthquakes (xxvii. 51, xxviii. 2): "The earth, which 
 trembled with horror at the Death of Christ, as it were leaped 
 for joy at His Resurrection." We may also compare the mention 
 of ' an Angel of the Lord ' (ayyeAos Kvpiov) at the beginning of 
 this Gospel (i. 18) and this mention of one at the close of it. 
 Each is charged with a message to dispel fear : /xr) (^ojS-i/^ijs to 
 Joseph, firj cf,o/3u(xB€ v/tas to the women. The Incarnation of 
 the Son of God is the announcement in the one case, His 
 Resurrection from the grave in the other. In the latter case 
 the emphatic pronoun must not be overlooked. ' Fear not ye ' 
 is said in reference to the terrified watchers.^ It was fitting that 
 i/tey should be stricken with fear ; but there was no need for fear 
 in those who had been the devoted servants of the Messiah 
 during His lifetime, and had come to minister to Him once 
 more after His death. 
 
 The narrative implies that the Angel had removed the stone 
 before the women arrived. He is represented as sitting upon it 
 in reference to what is said in xxvii. 61. On Friday evening the 
 women are left ' sitting over against the sepulchre ' and watching 
 it. When they return early on Sunday morning to watch it once 
 more (i), it is a heavenly watcher that has taken their place; 
 and 'he was sitting' {iKadrjTo) there, when the women arrived. 
 He is described as Angels are described in the O.T. (Ezek. i. 13 ; 
 Dan. X. 6; 2 Mac. iii. 26). The whole is entirely in harmony 
 with Jewish modes of thought, and in essentials may be in 
 harmony with fact. Such passages as xiii. 39, 41, 49, xvi. 27, 
 xviii. 10, xxii. 30, xxiv. 31, 36, xxv. 3r, 41, xxvi. 53 cannot easily 
 be explained as mere accommodations to Jewish modes of 
 thought, or as cases in which Christ's words have been mis- 
 understood and misreported by those who heard them. The 
 sayings are too numerous and too varied for that, and some 
 are in Mk. and Lk. as well as in Mt. Moreover, Lk. adds 
 several which are not in Mt. or Mk. See notes on ' Thy will 
 be done, as in heaven, so on earth' (vi. 10). And Jn. (i. 52) 
 
 ' Once more we have in the Testaments a passage which in some respects 
 may be read as a parallel : " When, therefore, the Lord looketh upon us, all 
 of us are shaken ; yea, the heavens, and the earth, and the abysses are shaken 
 at the presence of His majesty" {Aevi iii. 9). 
 
 27 
 
41 8 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVni. 2-5 
 
 adds one more. We therefore need caution in setting aside 
 certain details in this narrative as due to notions current among 
 the Jews rather than to experience of what actually took place. 
 
 In the law-courts it is a common experience that even 
 educated and dispassionate witnesses have difficulty in dis- 
 tinguishing between what they actually saw and heard and what 
 they inferred from what they saw and heard. They are apt, 
 quite honestly, to give their inferences as facts. And uneducated 
 and excited witnesses have difficulty in recalling, and expressing 
 with anything like accuracy, their experiences during actions at 
 which they were certainly present, and which they desire to 
 report faithfully. This is specially likely to be the case if the 
 experiences have been of an unusual character. It is manifest 
 that some extraordinary phenomena were perceived by a number 
 of women on the morning of Easter Day. These emotional 
 witnesses, excited by what they had experienced, would hardly 
 know themselves what it was that they had perceived. Perhaps 
 the experiences had not in all cases been the same. Certainly 
 not all would agree as to what had been seen and heard. Still 
 more certainly those to whom each of them told her experiences 
 would not repeat the story with perfect accuracy. In this way 
 the differing narratives in the Synoptic Gospels can be reasonably 
 explained. "It is not surprising if, with the exception of the 
 evidently genuine reminiscences of the fourth Gospel, the story 
 of the women has reached us in a less certain form than the 
 rest of the narratives of the forty days. . . . The uncertainties 
 which attend the Synoptic accounts of the doings of the women 
 at the tomb are not greater than we might have expected, and 
 cast no shadow of suspicion on the general truth of the narrative " 
 (Swete, Appearances of our Lord, p. 12). 
 
 Let us confine ourselves to the narrative in Mt. We can 
 distinguish hypothesis from tradition of what took place. The 
 women on their way to the sepulchre in the dark have sensations 
 which they attribute to an earthquake. On their arrival, they 
 find the stone, about the removal of which they had been anxious, 
 already rolled away. They are addressed by a being, whom they 
 suppose to be an Angel, who shows them that the tomb is empty, 
 and assures them that the Lord is risen and will be found in 
 Galilee. In a transport of mingled fear and joy they hurry away 
 to report what they have seen and heard. On their way they 
 see the Lord Himself, who confirms what they have just heard. 
 That is the substance of what one or more of them related as to 
 what took place. 
 
 They, or some of those to whom they told their story, drew 
 certain inferences and stated them as facts. There was, they 
 said, an earthquake. Then what caused it? and how was the 
 
XXVIII. 2-5] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 419 
 
 Stone rolled away ? The Angel who spoke to the women at the 
 tomb must have done both. Again, some knew that a guard 
 had been set to watch the tomb. How was it that the soldiers 
 allowed the women to approach? The Angel had frightened 
 them away. How had the Angel come thither? Of course 
 he had descended from heaven. Without asserting that these 
 inferences are incorrect, we are justified in separating them from 
 what is given as the experiences of those who were there. No 
 one professed to have seen the Angel descend, or produce the 
 earthquake, or roll away the stone. Indeed the earthquake may 
 be a separate hypothesis to account for the removal of the stone, 
 or may be the means by which the Angel rolled it away, or may 
 have been thought of as an appropriate accompaniment to such 
 wonderful facts. 
 
 It is important to notice what comes out clearly in all four 
 narratives. No one professes to know at what hour or in what 
 manner the Resurrection took place ; but, when the first visitors 
 arrived at the place early on Sunday morning, ^ the third day' 
 from the Crucifixion, according to Jewish ways of reckoning, 
 the tomb was empty. Even O. Holtzmann, who rejects the theory 
 of a physical resuscitation of Christ's Body, admits the evidence 
 for the empty sepulchre as too strong to be rejected. " There 
 is no reason to doubt that the women could not carry out their 
 purpose, simply because they found the grave empty. . . . This 
 astounding fact, the emptiness of the grave, may well have excited 
 them to such a degree that they could see an Angel and hear 
 his message" {Life of Jesus, p. 497). Whether or no that result 
 is probable, the recognition that the emptiness of the grave on 
 the third day must be admitted on critical grounds is important. 
 " But that the body was stolen by the disciples is utterly out of 
 the question." As a more probable alternative it is suggested 
 that, as soon as the sabbath was over, Joseph of Arimathasa 
 " must have been careful to have the body buried in some other 
 place," because he " was not disposed to have a crucified man 
 to lie permanently beside the dead of his own family. 1 Such 
 seems to be the simplest explanation of this secret transaction " 
 (pp. 498, 9). Yet it is admitted that, "in the case of a person 
 so extraordinary as Jesus, even the greatest miracle might be 
 accepted as an actual occurrence, and it might not seem 
 incredible that the dead body, after having been laid in the 
 rock-grave, was resuscitated and restored to life by God " (p. 500). 
 
 ^ The tomb was a new one ; there were no dead there ; and, if Joseph 
 had any such thought, he could secure this result by directing that neither he 
 nor any of his family were to be buried there. Is it credible that Joseph 
 would have removed and hidden the Body, or that, if he did, no tradition of 
 this transaction should have survived ? 
 
420 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVIII. 2-8 
 
 It must be remembered that our earliest witness definitely states 
 that Christ ' hath been raised on the third day according to the 
 scriptures' (i Cor. xv. 4). The mention of the third day is 
 meaningless, except to one who believes that the tomb was left 
 at a particular time. If all that is true is that our Lord's spirit 
 continued to exist after He had died on the Cross, then to say 
 that He ' was raised ' is a strange exaggeration ; but to say that 
 He ' was raised on the third day ' is an absurdity. All the large 
 amount of evidence respecting a definite date, such as 'after 
 three days,' or ' on the third day,' is a strong confirmation of the 
 otherwise strongly attested fact that a day or two after the 
 entombment the grave was found to be empty.i 
 
 A writer who rejects, not only the resuscitation of Christ's 
 Body, but the fact of the empty tomb, says : " How early the 
 disciples of Jesus became convinced that He had been raised 
 from the dead, cannot be ascertained with certainty. There 
 seems to be no good reason for doubting that the conception 
 goes back to the immediate disciples of Jesus" (Schmidt, The 
 Prophet of Nazareth, p. 321). It would be hard to find good 
 reason for doubting this, in the face of the evidence which has 
 come down to us. But if the immediate disciples of Jesus 
 were convinced that He had been raised from the dead, and 
 this in spite of the despondency caused by His death (Lk. xxiv. 
 17-21), then at once we have a number of witnesses whose 
 testimony cannot easily be set aside. 
 
 The changes which Mt. (7, 8) makes in Mk. xvi. 7, 8, — 
 the last verses in which we can compare the two Gospels, are 
 full of interest. He makes the charge to the women more 
 urgent by inserting 'quickly' {Ta-)(y: comp. v. 25) and changing 
 'even as He told you' into 'behold, I have told you.'^ He 
 substitutes his favourite iro/jeu^cio-ai for -lurayere, inserts his 
 favourite Koi iSou and tSou, and repeats the fact that ' He is 
 risen from the dead ' as part of the message to the disciples. 
 On the other hand, he omits ' and Peter ' after ' tell His 
 disciples.' In narrating the departure of the women he again 
 inserts ' quickly ' {ro.)(y), and says that ' they ran ' (ISpayiiov) to 
 deliver the message. This is a correction of Mk., who says 
 that in their first fear they told no one anything. Mt. knows 
 that the women did communicate the glad tidings, and therefore 
 
 ' The story that was circulated by the Jews, that the disciples had stolen 
 the Body, shows that there was no possibiUty of denying that the tomb had 
 been seen to be empty when the stone was removed. See Wellhausen, Das 
 Evan. Matt. p. 150. Jerome's comment on the Angel's words : ' He is not 
 here . . . come see the place where He lay,' is to the point : ut, si meis 
 verbis non creditis^ vacuo credatis seputchro. 
 
 ^ Comp. xxiv. 25 ; Jn. iv. 35. A few inferior authorities have here ' even 
 as He told you,' and some editors conjecture iSoi) nht.ey iiy-lv^ 
 
XXVIII. 7-9] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 42 i 
 
 for the trembling and astonishment and fear which Mk. records 
 he substitutes 'fear and great joy.' Fear might incline them 
 to say nothing, but the great joy of hearing that the Lord was 
 alive again made them hasten to deliver the message. 
 
 The omission of 'and Peter' after 'tell His disciples' is 
 remarkable ; all the more so because Mt. elsewhere shows a 
 special interest in the 'first' of the Apostles (x. 2, xiv. 28-31, 
 XV. 15, xvi. 16-19). Perhaps the simplest explanation is that 
 in the lost conclusion of Mk. there was no mention of any 
 special appearance to Peter, and therefore Mt. omitted the 
 special mention of him in the Angelic message. We know 
 from our earliest autiiority (i Cor. xv. 5) that there was a 
 manifestation ' to Cephas ' ; and this is confirmed incidentally 
 (and therefore all the more convincingly) by S. Paul's companion 
 (Lk. xxiv. 34), who says that Cleopas and his comrade, on their 
 return from Emmaus to Jerusalem, were greeted with the joyous 
 declaration that the report that the Lord had risen must be true, 
 for He had 'appeared to Simon.' S. Paul probably was told this 
 by S. Peter himself when he went ' to visit Cephas' (Gal. i. 18); 
 but it is quite possible that Mt. found no mention of any meeting 
 between Peter and His Master in the concluding portion of Mk. 
 Did these last verses of Mk. contain the meeting between 
 Christ and the women, which Mt. narrates (9, 10) as taking 
 place while the women were on their way to tell the disciples ? 
 The probability is that they did. The meeting is closely con- 
 nected with what is narrated Mk. xvi. 1-8, and it fits better to 
 the narrative of Mk. than to that of Mt. Mk. says that the 
 women were too frightened to deliver the message. Then 
 Jesus appears to them, calms their fears, and repeats the 
 substance of the message. The reason for His appearing to 
 them is manifest. But in Mt. no such reason is manifest. Joy 
 outweighs their fear, and they are hurrying to deliver the 
 message. That, of course, would not render Christ's appearing 
 to them improbable; but the fact remains, that in the one 
 narrative we have an explanation of Christ's appearing to the 
 women which is absent from the other. But perhaps, with 
 Dr. Swete, we ought to recognize the possibility that, " notwith- 
 standing the manifest differences between the details of this 
 story and those of the appearance to Mary, it may reasonably 
 be doubted whether the two narratives do not relate to the 
 same incident" (p. ii).i The statement here, that 'they held 
 'See also Wright, Synopsis, p. 174: "We believe that an epitome of 
 this appearance (to Mary of Magdala) passed from S. John's oral teaching 
 not only into the pseudo-Mark (xvi. 9) Ixit also into S. Matthew (xxviii. 
 9, 10)." In any case, "there is no reason to doubt that the Gospel [of 
 Mark] went on to describe some of the appearances of Jesus to the disciples 
 after the Resurrection" (Burkitt, /7"5., April 1904, p. 342). 
 
422 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVllI. 6, lO 
 
 His feet ' (^iKparrja-av avTov rovi irdSas), may have some con- 
 nexion with the rebuke, ' Hold Me not ' or ' Cling not to Me ' 
 (M»^ /xov aiTTov), in Jn. xx. 17. And in both narratives we have 
 the message to Christ's 'brethren' (Jn. xx. 17). The expression 
 is remarkable, however we interpret it. It may mean our Lord's 
 own brethren (xii. 46, xiii. 55); or it may be a gracious synonym 
 for His disciples : ' for whosoever shall do the will of My Father 
 who is in heaven, he is My brother' (xii. 50). What is added 
 in Jn XX. 17, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father,' as a 
 message to these brethren, looks as if the disciples were meant. 
 Moreover, the charge of Christ to the women seems to be 
 given as a repetition of the charge given by the Angel (6, 7, 16). 
 
 Whether Mt. took the account of this meeting between the Lord and the 
 women from Mlc. or some other source, he has left on it the marks of his 
 own style. We again have /cat l5oii and rdre^ as often, and his favourite 
 expression, 'they worshipped Him' (iv po(TeKvvqaav airif) : comp. ii. 2, 8, II, 
 viii. 2, ix. 18, xiv. 33, xv. 25, xviii. 26. 
 
 The words with which the AV. has made us familiar, ' as they went to 
 tell His disciples,' are no part of the true text. They are wanting in X B D, 
 Latt. Copt. Syrr. Arm. ' The Lord ' in ' come see the place where the Lord 
 lay ' is also wanting in authority. Both insertions are found in A C L T A II. 
 Mt. never, in his narratives, uses 6 Kvptos of our Lord. 
 
 The translation, ' All hail,' for Xalpere is not quite satisfactory. It 
 makes the greeting rather unusual ; whereas Xalpere probably represents the 
 usual greeting. It may have been our Lord's purpose to convince them that 
 He was the Jesus that they had known, and that He employed the usual 
 greeting for that reason. It is the word used by Judas in his treachery 
 (xxvi. 49) and by the soldiers in their mockery (xxvii. 29). 
 
 XXVIII. 11-15. TAe Lie, Paid for attd Propagated. 
 
 The verses which follow (11-15) "o doubt come from the 
 same source as xxvii. 62-66, and are a continuation of that 
 narrative, to which also xxviii. 4 belongs. Nothing is said 
 about the way in which the women delivered their message, 
 nor about the way in which it was received, but only that the 
 guard came into the city and reported what they had experi- 
 enced to the hierarchy, while the women were still on their 
 way. S. John tells us that Mary Magdalen came and told the 
 disciples that she had seen the Lord, but he does not say how 
 the disciples received the news. In the appendix to Mk. we 
 read that 'she went and told them that had been with Him, 
 as they mourned and wept,' and that they disbelieved her 
 statements. Lk. says much the same of the message of the 
 women (xxiv. 11). We may infer from the silence of Mt. on 
 this point that there was nothing in Mk. about the Apostles' 
 reception of the message. But the evidence that we have 
 shows how incorrect it is to say that " even before making such 
 
XXVin. 11-15] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 423 
 
 a discovery [that the grave was empty], they certainly expected 
 the resurrection of Jesus" (O. Holtzmann, p. 497). Even 
 S. John did not infer from the disappearance of the Body that 
 the Lord had risen, until he had entered the tomb and seen 
 the way in which the linen cloths and the napkin were lying 
 (Jn. XX. 6-9). Christ's predictions about His rising again had 
 never been understood (Mk. ix. 10, 32; Mt. xvii. 23; Lk. ix. 
 45) ; and the disciples had no expectation of seeing their Master 
 again alive (Lk. xxiv. 17-21; [Mk.] xvi. 10-13). The first 
 statements to the contrary, so far from being anticipated, were 
 rejected as too good to be true. 
 
 This story about the return ot the guard and their being 
 bribed by the chief priests, like the preceding one about the 
 hierarchy asking Pilate for a guard, forms a marked contrast 
 to the narrative which immediately precedes it. In both cases 
 the malignity of the foes of the Messiah is contrasted with the 
 devotion of His friends. In the one, we have the affectionate 
 watch of the women who had ministered to Him followed by 
 the hostile watch of the soldiers who had arrested and mocked 
 Him. In the other, we have the faithful women hastening to 
 tell His disciples the joyous news of His Resurrection, but 
 anticipated by the heathen soldiers hastening to tell His enemies 
 the amazing news of the tomb opened and found empty. There 
 probably was no formal assembly of the Sanhedrin, any more 
 than xii. 14 or xxii. 15, where the same expression of 'taking 
 counsel ' is used. The combination of chief priests and elders 
 does not constitute a meeting of the Sanhedrin (xxvii. 3, 12, 20), 
 and in so urgent a case the summoning of the whole body 
 would have taken too much time. The soldiers must be dealt 
 with at once, lest the true story should get abroad ; and those 
 who had bribed Judas to betray the Messiah now bribe the 
 watch to deny His Resurrection. But, whereas a small sum 
 was enough to induce an Apostle to sell his Master, they had 
 to give ' large money ' to induce Roman soldiers to tell a lie 
 that might incriminate themselves.^ They might be put to 
 death for sleeping at their post. Hence the promise that, if 
 they are prosecuted for it, or (as we might say) if they are tried 
 by court-martial before the governor (cav aKovaOfj tovto i-n-l tov 
 ijye/xo'vos), tAey will know how to manage him, and to free the 
 soldiers from all anxiety.^ 
 
 ' The use of \Ka.vb% in the sense of ' a considerable amount of is common 
 in Lk. and Acts, but is not found elsewhere in Mt. and only once in Mk. 
 (x. 46). It is remarkable that legend has not identified the money paid to 
 the soldiers with that which was flung back by Judas. To make the same 
 coins do the unholy work on both occasions would have been truly dramatic. 
 
 ^ There is little doubt that inl toO -qyefidvos means ' before the Procurator,' 
 i.e. as judge ; and therefore aKova-Sy must have a judicial sense, of a case 
 
424 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVIII. 11-15 
 
 This lie about the disciples having stolen the Lord's Body, 
 in order to maintain that He had risen and ascended to heaven, 
 was still in circulation when this Gospel was written, not 
 everywhere among the Jews, but in certain quarters (Trapa 
 'lovSaiois, not irapa Toi? 'I., though D has the article). Justin 
 Martyr says that the Jews sent out special emissaries to dis- 
 seminate this falsehood {Try. io8; comp. 17); and Tertullian 
 also alludes to it, saying sarcastically r " This is He whom His 
 disciples secretly stole away, or the gardener took away that 
 his lettuces might not be injured by the crowds of visitors " 
 {de Spec. 30). Whether, as is probable, Justin and Tertullian 
 had independent knowledge of the propagation of this slander, 
 or they are simply repeating what Mt. states here, is not quite 
 certain. In any case, Mt. begins and ends the Gospel, which 
 is specially intended for Jews, with a refutation of well-known 
 Jewish falsehoods, which were employed to discredit the 
 foundations of the Christian faith. In his first chapter he 
 shows that the foul stories about the Birth of Christ are 
 monstrous falsehoods ; in his last chapter he shows the same 
 respecting the attempts to deny His Resurrection. Jesus was 
 not the son of a human father who had seduced Mary, for 
 Joseph himself was convinced by Divine revelation that she 
 was with child by the operation of the Holy Spirit. The Body 
 of Jesus was not stolen by His disciples ; that was a lie specially 
 paid for by His enemies ; it rose from the tomb and was seen 
 alive by many of those who had know^n Him best. 
 
 And it was a lie which could deceive none but those who 
 were willing to be deceived. How could the soldiers know 
 what had taken place while they were so fast asleep that the 
 opening of the sepulchre and the removal of the Body had not 
 awakened them ? The lie involved the fatal admission that the 
 tomb had been found empty, and at the same time gave no 
 reasonable explanation of that significant fact. And with this 
 foolish and dastardly falsehood, hastily adopted and hastily paid 
 for, the history of those who for centuries had sat on Moses' 
 seat (xxiii. 2) closes. The duty of teaching Israel and ruling 
 Israel has passed into other and better hands. They had had 
 the light, and had so abused it that it had become darkness to 
 them ; and how great was the darkness (vi. 23) ! They had 
 had Moses and the Prophets, who wrote of the Christ, but they 
 had not believed their writings. And now they ■ refused to be 
 persuaded, though one rose from the dead. They had taken 
 care that the tomb should be shut in all safety, with the keepers 
 
 being heard in court. Note the emphatic pronouns : ' We will persuade the 
 Procurator, xn&you will have no need to be anxious.' For the iirl comp. 
 Mk. xiii. 9 ; Acts xxiv. 19, 20, xxv. 9. 
 
XXVIII. 11-15] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 42? 
 
 standing at the door; and when it was opened, no man was 
 found therein (Acts v. 23). Instead of welcoming the Joyous 
 truth that ' He is not here ; He is risen,' they decided to pay 
 handsomely for the propagation of what they knew to be false. 
 
 But the Evangelist will not end his Gospel with the last 
 insults that were framed against the Messiah by His unrelenting 
 and unscrupulous enemies, — insults which were still repeated 
 by unbelieving Jews in the writer's own time. In the Gospel 
 of Nicodemus, Annas and Caiaphas say that the disciples had 
 bribed the soldiers to allow them to take the Body from the 
 tomb. In the Toledoth Jeschu, a Jewish book full of similar 
 statements, it is said that Judas, fearing that the disciples might 
 take away the Body, removed it himself and buried it in the 
 bed of a river. From malice of this kind the Evangelist passes 
 on to tell very briefly how Christ's disciples obeyed the message 
 which He had sent to them, and to give a condensed report of 
 the gracious words which He spoke to His Church while He 
 still remained in a visible form on the earth. His enemies are 
 mentioned no more. They have twice been defeated in their 
 attempts to prevent the triumph which they prepared for the 
 Messiah when they compassed His death ; and now the doom 
 which He pronounced upon them only a few days before He 
 surrendered Himself into their hands may be left to work. The 
 Lord of the vineyard, to whom they have been so faithless, will 
 destroy them and will give the vineyard to others — even to a 
 nation bringing forth the fruits thereof (xxi. 40-43). Yet even 
 now all is not hopeless. The doom on the Chosen People is 
 irrevocable ; but those members of it who can ' bring forth fruit 
 worthy of repentance ' (iii. 8) may escape the coming wrath. 
 Along with 'all the nations' (19) Jews may find admission to 
 the Kingdom, not by descent from Abraham, nor by observance 
 of their own traditions, but by becoming disciples of Him whom 
 they ignorantly crucified (Acts iii. 17, xxi. 20). 
 
 XXVIII. 16-20. The Appearance to the Eleven on the 
 Mountain. The Great Claim; the Great Charge; and 
 the Great Promise. 
 
 This brief narrative is evidently given as the Messiah's 
 fulfilment of the promise made at the Last Supper (xxvi. 32 = 
 Mk. xiv. 28), and as the disciples' response to the message sent 
 to them by the Angel on Easter morning (xxviii. 7 = Mk. xvi. 7) 
 and repeated by the Messiah Himself (ro). He tells them to 
 return to Galilee, and that they shall see Him there ; they go, 
 and they do see Him. Whether Mk. gave any narrative 
 corresponding to this is, as has been shown, uncertain. It is 
 
426 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVIU. 16-20 
 
 quite possible that Mt., like the writer of the appendix to Mk. 
 (xvi. 14-18), knew that there had been appearances to the whole 
 of the Apostolic body, and gives a representative narrative which 
 contains a mixture of details. Mt. has done this with regard 
 to other utterances of the Messiah, which, in five different cases, 
 he has gathered together into one discourse. And it is quite 
 possible that he has done the same in the short farewell 
 discourse with which he concludes his Gospel. The triplet 
 which he constructs, consisting of a claim, a charge, and a 
 promise, may not have been spoken in this form on one and 
 the same occasion. The charge, without the claim or the 
 promise, is given in different words, but with the same meaning, 
 in the appendix to Mk. : ' Go ye into all the world, and preach 
 the Gospel to the whole creation.' 
 
 On the other hand, the mention of 'the mountain where 
 Jesus had appointed them' (to opos ov hd^aro aurois 6 'Irjo-ov's), 
 points to a definite occasion, as also does 'then to all the 
 Apostles' (i Cor. xv. 7); and, while admitting the possibility 
 that words spoken on a different occasion may be included 
 here, we need not suppose that Mt. here gives us an imaginative 
 account of what might have taken place at one of the appearances 
 in Galilee. The words recorded here are beyond the imagina- 
 tion of the Evangelist, and in this respect are in marked contrast 
 to some of the words attributed to our Lord by the writer of the 
 appendix, e.g. 'They shall take up serpents, and if they drink 
 any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them.' The wonderful 
 fulness of meaning, which characterizes all three of the sayings 
 that are recorded here, is a strong guarantee for their author- 
 ship. Each one of them is capable of indefinite development 
 and application. ' Never man thus spake ' (Jn. vii. 46). 
 
 There remains the difficulty that Lk. and Jn. tell us that our 
 Lord appeared to the Eleven in Jerusalem, and Jn. tells us that 
 they did not obey the charge to go to Galilee for at least a week. 
 There is also the fact that Lk. says nothing about any appear- 
 ances in GaHlee. Possibly the traditions respecting these events 
 became somewhat confused before they were written down ; and 
 certainly our ignorance of the details, and of the motives which 
 guided the Evangehsts, is too great to allow us to be dogmatic 
 either in charging them with errors or in explaining what seem 
 to us to be such. The narratives have the stamp of honesty, 
 and there is a good deal which cannot have been invented. See 
 Wright, Synopsis, p. 174 ; Westcott, introductory note to Jn. xx. 
 
 We do not know when the Lord appointed the mountain as 
 a place for the Eleven to meet Him when they returned to 
 Galilee ; nor do we know what place is meant by ' the mountain.' 
 But about the latter point we may reasonably conjecture that 
 
SCXVlli. 16-20] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECttOiST 42^ 
 
 some spot above the lake is intended. After feeding the five 
 thousand near the lake, Jesus ' went up into the mountain apart 
 to pray' (xiv. 23). After healing the daughter of the Canaanitish 
 woman, Jesus ' came nigh unto the sea of Galilee ; and He went 
 up into the mountain, and sat there' (xv. 29). It can hardly 
 have been very high ground, for the multitudes brought lame, 
 maimed, and others and cast them at His feet to be healed. 
 Comp. v. I, viii. i ; Mk. iii. 13. It is perhaps possible that 
 there was some particular spot in this hilly district near the lake 
 that was known in the circle of Christ's disciples as ' the 
 mountain.' Our Lord would be likely to a,ppoint a familiar 
 spot, and we know of no other occasion on which He appointed 
 a definite place for meeting Him after the Resurrection. In 
 most of the appearances those who saw Him were not expecting 
 to see Him. 
 
 There are several marks of Mt.'s hand in the narrative: ^TropeiSrjaav, 
 irpo(T€\diov, iropev&evTes, /j.adTjTEuaaTe, Kal Idov. And there is not much doubt 
 about the text, not even in ver. ig : for iropivdivm some Western texts have 
 TTopeveade, which makes no difference to the sense. 
 
 'They worshipped; but some doubted.' There are one or 
 two uncertainties here. Who doubted ? And what did they 
 doubt? All the Eleven fell on their knees and prostrated 
 themselves. Although no one else has been mentioned, it is 
 probable that others were present, and that among these others 
 were the doubters. The doubt might be as to whether Jesus 
 was risen from the dead, or as to whether He whom they now 
 saw was Jesus. The latter seems to be more probable ; and, if 
 we assume that only the Eleven were present, the latter must 
 be the meaning, for the Eleven had already seen Him in 
 Jerusalem.! Comp. Lk. xxiv. 11. From all the Gospels it is 
 clear that the disciples were disposed to be sceptical (xxiv. 23) 
 rather than credulous about the Resurrection. 
 
 Once before in this Gospel (xiv. 31, 33) we have had doubt 
 and adoration in close proximity in reference to the Messiah, 
 and there the same verbs are used as here. When Peter began 
 to sink in the water and cried out for help, our Lord rebuked 
 him : ' O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt ? ' (cis rt 
 cStcTTao-as /). And when they had entered the boat, those who 
 were in it ' worshipped Him ' {Trpoa-mvvTjo-av airw). These are 
 the only two occasions on which the Apostles are said to have 
 worshipped the Lord. In both instances the attitude is very 
 natural ; there, because of His power over wind and wave ; 
 here, because of the awe inspired by His return from the grave. 
 
 ! Is ' when they saw Him ' (itfivTi'i airbv) meant to refer back to ' and 
 here shall they see Me ' {icd/fei /ie S^ovrai) ? Comp. w. 7, 10. 
 
428 GOSPEL AdCORDiNG TO S, MATTHEW [XXVlII. 17, 18 
 
 But Jesus approached them and addressed them, that they 
 might be assured that it was really Himself, and that they 
 had nothing to fear. Comp. [Mk.] xvi. 11-14. 
 
 'There has been given to Me all authority in heaven and 
 upon earth.' Again one asks. Who is it that dares thus con- 
 fidently to make this amazing claim ? Who is it that utters it 
 as if it were a simple matter of fact about which there was no 
 question? Not merely power or might (8vVa/iis), such as a great 
 conqueror might claim, but ^authority'' [l^ovfjta), as something 
 which is His by right, conferred upon Him by One who has the 
 right to bestow it, (Rev. ii. 27). And 'all authority,' embracing 
 everything over which rule and dominion can be exercised ; and 
 that not only ' upon earth,' which would be an authority over- 
 whelming in its extensiveness, but also 'in heaven.' Human 
 thought loses itself in the attempt to understand what must be 
 comprehended in such authority as this. Nothing less than the 
 Divine government of the whole universe and of the Kingdom 
 of Heaven has been given to the Risen Lord. In more than 
 one Epistle, S. Paul piles up term upon term in order to try 
 to express the honour and glory and power which the Father 
 has bestowed upon the Son whom He has raised from the dead. 
 The glorified Christ is 'above every principality and authority 
 and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not 
 only in this age, but also in that which is to come ' (Eph. i. 2 1 ; 
 comp. Col. i. 16-21; Phil. ii. 9-11). Nevertheless, with all his 
 fulness of language, the Apostle does not get beyond, for it is 
 impossible to get beyond, the majestic, inexhaustible reach of 
 the simple statement which Christ, with such serenity, makes 
 here. 
 
 No mere human being in his senses ever made such a claim 
 as this. Nor did the Son of God, during His ministry as the 
 Son of Man, make any such claim. 1 He taught in a way that 
 made those who heard Him feel that He had authority greater 
 than the official teachers of the nation (vii. 29), and which forced 
 His adversaries to take notice of it (xxi. 27). He proved by His 
 successes that He had authority to heal all manner of disease 
 and sickness among the people (iv. 23, ix. 35), to cleanse lepers 
 (viii. 2, 3, xi. 5), to cast out demons (iv. 24, viii. 32, xiL 22, 
 xvii. 18), and to raise the dead. He gave the Twelve authority 
 over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner 
 
 ^ Perhaps the nearest approach to this is xi. 27 ; Jn. iii. 35 ; but possibly 
 that was spoken by anticipation, and this is far more definite. That it was 
 because He had suffered and died that lie received this authority is plain from 
 other passages of Scripture : Phil. ii. 8, 9 ; Heb. ii. 9 ; comp. i Pet. i. 21 and 
 Plort's note. In Rev. i. 5, He is not only 6 ir^tar&roKo^ ruv v€Kp(cv but also 
 6 dpxotv Tujj' paatKiav rrj! yijs, supreme over all rulers, including those who 
 had slain Him. Comp. the LXX. of Dan, vii. 14. 
 
XXVIII. 19] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 429 
 
 of disease and sickness (x. i); and He gave similar authority 
 to the Seventy (Lk. x. 9, 17). He produced evidence to show 
 that He had authority on earth to forgive sins (ix. 6). He said 
 that the Father had given Him authority to execute judgment ; 
 authority over all flesh to bestow eternal life ; authority to lay down 
 His own life and to take it again (Jn. v. 27, xvii. 2, x. 18). But all 
 this falls short of what is stated here, that He has received all autho- 
 rity in heaven and on earth. And it is in the plenitude of this 
 Divine authority that He lays upon His Apostles and His Church 
 His last great charge, and leaves to them His last great promise. 
 ' Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations ' (19). 
 The connexion between the declaration of universal authority 
 and the command to His servants is clearly expressed. It is 
 because the Messiah has all dominion both above and below 
 that He gives this comprehensive charge to the Apostles.^ He 
 commits the whole human race to their care, and they are not 
 to rest until all have been brought in as disciples with them of 
 the one Master (xxiii. 10), and as sheep with them of the one 
 flock and the one Shepherd (Jn. x. 16). Before this, when He 
 was Himself ministering to the lost sheep of the house of Israel 
 (xv. 24), He had confined their ministrations to the same field. 
 They were not to go into any way of the Gentiles or into any 
 city of the Samaritans, and they were sent forth by Him as 
 sheep in the midst of wolves (x. 5, 6, 16). But the Risen Christ, 
 to whom all authority has been given, imposes no such limitation 
 of sphere upon the labours of His disciples. It is specially to 
 the Gentiles, but without excluding the Jews, that they are now 
 sent, not merely to instruct them, but to make them as fully 
 disciples of Christ as they are themselves. The promise that 
 He made to the first of them, when He invited them to follow 
 Him, that He would make them fishers of men (iv. 19), is now 
 fulfilled in its widest extent of meaning. He has trained them 
 Himself, and since His Resurrection He has been training them 
 to do without His bodily presence. The salt of the earth (v. 13) 
 is sent forth to save mankind from corruption ; the light of the 
 world (v. 14) is sent forth to illuminate every branch of the 
 human race. They have no longer to preach the Messiah of 
 the Jewish people, but the Saviour of the world. Comp. the 
 Ascension of Isaiah, iii. 18. 
 
 ' "The Eleven are to be sent on an cecumenical mission, and they must 
 know that they have behind them an authority which is oecumenical. . . . 
 Universal authority is now in the hands of Jesus Christ, and with it has come 
 the universal mission of His Church" (Swete, Appearances, pp. 71, 73). 
 Those whom God has placed in possession of the truth that saves are bound 
 to impart it to those who are not in possession of it ; and for the discharge 
 of this obligation they need the power which ha,s been committed to the Son 
 of God. 
 
430 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVIII. 1 
 
 We need not suppose that, when Christ said, 'Disciple all 
 the nations ' (iMxOrjrevcraTe iravra to. iOvrj), He meant to exclude 
 the Jews. ' The nations ' (to. Wvri) often means the heathen 
 nations, but not necessarily ; and ' all the nations ' cannot ex- 
 clude any branch of the human race. Jewish Apostles could 
 not for a moment suppose that their own nation was to be 
 avoided in their preaching, and it is evident from their practice 
 afterwards that they did not understand Christ's farewell charge 
 in any such sense. To say that the Jews had excluded them- 
 selves, and that by the dastardly conduct of the representatives 
 of the nation (conduct persisted in even after Christ's death) 
 the nation had forfeited all right to admission into the Kingdom, 
 is no Christian argument. The door is always open to Jew and 
 Gentile alike. If Christ readmitted to the high office of the 
 Apostolate those who in the moment of trial ' all left Him and 
 fled' (xxvi. 56), would He be likely to exclude from His Church 
 those who, without ever having been His disciples, ' in ignorance ' 
 rejected and slew Him? Acts xxi. 20 is sufficient answer to that.^ 
 
 This enormous extension of their mission was not wholly 
 new to the Apostles, although this statement of it may have 
 startled them. During the last days of His Ministry Christ had 
 told them that there was a Divine necessity (Sei) that the Gospel 
 should 'be preached unto all the nations' (Mk. xiii. 10), or, as 
 Mt. puts it, 'shall be preached in the whole world {iv oXrj rrj 
 oiKou/neVr/) for a testimony unto all the nations' (xxiv. 14); and 
 again in the house of Simon the leper at Bethany He had said 
 that Mary's act in anointing Him for His burial should ' be 
 spoken of for a memorial of her, wheresoever this Gospel shall 
 be preached in the whole world' (xxvi. i3 = Mk. xiv. 9).^ The 
 Apostles, after their mission as preachers in Palestine, could 
 hardly fail to understand that they were themselves to under- 
 take this work of preaching unto all the nations. If not at the 
 time, they would understand it afterwards. 
 
 We are less sure that they were not surprised to be told that 
 this work of making disciples of all the nations was always to be 
 accompanied by baptism. John had baptized his penitents, and 
 for a time Christ's followers had administered baptism, apparently 
 to those who wished to become His disciples (Jn. iv. i, 2); but 
 this rite of initiation does not seem to have been continued. 
 We read no more of it in connexion with the Messiah. All that 
 
 ^ Chrysostom in commenting on the passage says : " He gives them orders 
 partly about doctrines and partly about commandments. And of the Jews 
 He says not a word, nor .does He upbraid Peter with his denial nor any of 
 the others with their flight ; but He commands them to spread themselves 
 over the whole world, entrusting them with a brief teaching, even that teach- 
 ing which is liy baptism." 
 
 - Comp. also the command in the parable xxii. 9 ; Lk. xiv. 23. 
 
XXVIII. 19] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 43 1 
 
 was required of those who desired to be His disciples was that 
 they should follow Him (viii. 19, 22, ix. 9, xvi. 24, xix. 21 ; Jn. 
 X. 27, xii. 26). The command to make baptism a condition 
 of discipleship may possibly have been a surprise to the 
 Apostles. 
 
 This command is implied in the appendix to Mk. Immedi- 
 ately after the charge, ' Go ye into all the world, and preach the 
 Gospel to the whole creation,' come the words, ' He that believeth 
 and is baptized shall be saved.' ^ Have we any evidence that 
 it was contained in the authentic conclusion of Mk. ? There is 
 just this reasonable inference. At the very opening of his Gospel 
 Mk. places John's contrast between his own baptism and that 
 of the Christ : ' I baptized you with water ; but He shall baptize 
 you with the Holy Spirit ' (i. 8). " It would be wholly congruous 
 that the last section of the Gospel should contain the fulfilment 
 of that prophecy in Christ's final command to His disciples, that 
 they should baptize ' all the nations ' and bring them into a vital 
 union with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" (Chase, 
 "The Lord's Command to Baptize," in t^cA Journal of Theological 
 Studies, vi. 24, p. 483, July 1905; the whole paper should be 
 studied). There is also the probability that the momentous 
 statement in Mk. xiii. 10, 'The Gospel must first be preached 
 to all the nations,' would be confirmed before Christ's final de- 
 parture, and that Mk. would record the confirmation. See the 
 Hibbert Journal, July 1905, p. 781. 
 
 With regard to our Lord's command to baptize, as recorded 
 here, several questions have been raised to which an answer ought 
 to be given, i. Is ver. 19, as we have it in our Bibles, part of 
 the genuine text of Mt. ? 2. If it is, does it give the substance 
 of words actually uttered by our Lord ? 3. Does it order the 
 use of a particular baptismal formula? 
 
 I. The question of the genuineness of the verse may be 
 answered with the utmost confidence. The verse is found in 
 every extant Greek MS., whether uncial or cursive, and in every 
 extant Version, which contains this portion of Mt. In a few 
 witnesses the conclusion of the Gospel is wanting, but there is 
 no reason for believing that in these witnesses the verse or 
 any portion of it was omitted. It has been argued by F. C. 
 Conybeare {Hibbert Journal for Oct. 1902) and by Professor 
 Lake {Inaugural Lecture at Leiden, 27 Jan. 1904) that the clause, 
 'baptizing them . . . Holy Spirit' was very early interpolated 
 for dogmatic reasons in some copies of Mt., and that it was not 
 firmly established as part of this Gospel till after the Council of 
 Nicea. The chief argument is that Eusebius, Bishop of Csesarea 
 (a.d. 313-339), where he had access to a great library, often 
 
 1 Comp. Acts ii. 38 ; Tit. iii. 5 ; I Pet. iii. 21, 
 
432 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVIII. 19 
 
 quotes this passage and habitually omits, or stops short of, the 
 words which speak of baptism. Therefore the original text was 
 simply, ' Go and make disciples of all nations,' perhaps with the 
 addition ' in My name.' Dr. Chase has conclusively shown the 
 fallacious character of this argument. Eusebius quotes the verse, 
 with the command to baptize into the name of the Trinity, when 
 he requires the command for his purpose ; when he requires the 
 rest of the verse, but not the command, he omits the latter. It 
 is incredible that an interpolation of this character can have been 
 made in the text of Mt. without leaving a trace of its unauthen- 
 ticity in a single MS. or Version. See Burkitt, Evangelion da- 
 Mepharreshe, ii. p. 153. The evidence for its genuineness is 
 overwhelming. 
 
 2. But it is possible that, although the Evangelist wrote these 
 words, yet they do not represent anything that our Lord actually 
 uttered; he may be putting into Christ's mouth the baptismal 
 formula with which he was familiar, and which he was sure must 
 have Christ's authority. He seems to act in this way with 
 regard to his own interpretation of the sign of Jonah (xii. 40), 
 and he may be doing a similar thing here. In answer to this 
 suggestion it may be pointed out that, although it is probable 
 that we have here only the substance of what our Lord said, and 
 perhaps an abbreviation of it, yet there is very good reason for 
 believing that Christ did say something which is fairly repre- 
 sented by the words which Mt. records. There is so much 
 Trinitarian doctrine in the N.T. which can hardly be explained, 
 except upon the hypothesis that Christ Himself had said some- 
 thing of this kind. The writers produce this doctrine quite 
 naturally, as if it was a mode of thought which was habitual 
 with them ; and (not only so) they evidently feel sure that those 
 to whom they write will understand it. Writing on i Pet. i. 2, 
 Dr. Hort says; "The three clauses of this verse beyond all 
 reasonable question set forth the operation of the Father, the 
 Holy Spirit, and the Son respectively. Here therefore, as in 
 several Epistles of S. Paul (i Cor. xii. 4-6; 2 Cor. xiii. 14; 
 Eph. iv. 4-6), there is an implicit reference to the Threefold 
 Name. In no passage is there any indication that the writer 
 was independently working out a doctrinal scheme : a recognised 
 belief or idea seems to be everywhere presupposed. How such 
 an idea could arise in the mind of any apostle without sanction 
 from a Word of the Lord, it is difficult to imagine : and this 
 consideration is a sufficient answer to the doubts which have been 
 raised whether Mt. xxviii. ig may not have been added or recast 
 by a later generation." The strongest case among the passages 
 named is 2 Cor. xiii. 14, on which see the present writer's notes 
 in the Cambridge Greek Testament. But there are other passages 
 
XXVllI. 19] PASSlON, DEATH, RESURkECTIO^ 433 
 
 which might be added : 2 Thes. ii. 13-15 ; Eph. ii. 18, iii. 14-17 ; 
 Heb. vi. 4-6 ; i Jn. i-.i. 23, 24, iv. 2 ; Rev. i. 4, 5 ; Jude 20, 21. 
 
 3. One reason f^ir doubting whether our Lord ever uttered 
 anything like the command to baptize as recorded by Mt. is the 
 thought that He would not be likely to prescribe a set form of 
 words for this purpose. And this thought is strengthened by 
 the fact that nowhere in the N.T. do we read of the Trinitarian 
 formula being used. At the outset, Peter exhorts the people to 
 'be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ' (Acts ii. 38). The 
 Samaritans converted by Philip were ' baptized into the Name 
 of the Lord Jesus' (Acts viii. 16). Peter directed that Cornelius 
 and others should 'be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ' 
 (Acts X. 48). And the Ephesian disciples were ' baptized into 
 the Name of the Lord Jesus' (Acts xix. 5). Moreover, the 
 Pauline expression, ' baptized into Christ ' (Rom. vi. 3 ; Gal. 
 iii. 27; comp. i Cor. i. 13, vi. ir), is much closer to the 
 passages in Acts than to the words recorded here. If our 
 Lord had really given directions that the Trinitarian formula 
 was to be employed by the Apostles, the formula given in Acts 
 would never have come into use. 
 
 It is possible that the passages in Acts do not profess to give 
 the exact form of words that was used : they need not mean 
 more than that the persons mentioned were admitted by baptism 
 into the Church, the Body of Christ. It is still more possible 
 that in the words before us our Lord was not ordering any 
 particular form of administering baptism, although He was after- 
 wards supposed to have done so. His command, as reported 
 by Mt., would naturally suggest the Trinitarian formula, whether 
 or no it was from the first understood to prescribe it ; but it is 
 not certain that it was meant to prescribe it. Our Lord may 
 be explaining what becoming a disciple really involves : it means 
 no less than entering into communion with, into vital relation- 
 ship with, the revealed Persons of the Godhead. The Divine 
 Name is often a reverent synonym for the Divine Nature, for 
 God Himself; and therefore baptizing into the Name of the 
 Trinity may mean immersing in the infinite ocean of the Divine 
 Perfection. In Christian Baptism the Divine Essence is the 
 element into which the baptized are plunged, or in which they 
 are bathed. Thus both prepositions {d% and iv) are justified.^ 
 
 ^ Mk. has both i^a,-wT\,^ovTO iv rif 'lopSavri (i. 5) and e^airTlaSTj eh riv 
 'lopddyrji' (i. 9). In late Greek els sometimes loses its distinctness of meaning 
 and is used as almost equivalent to iv ; but this is not the whole explanation 
 of the two constructions, which look at the act of immersion from different 
 points of view. The one regards the plunge into the water, the other the 
 washing in it. 
 
 It is possible that the expression 'into the name of conveys the idea of 
 ' becoming the property of ; see Deissmann, Biile Studies, p. 146. 
 
 28 
 
434 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVIII. 19 
 
 We have seen that, whereas in Acts we have 'baptized into the 
 Name of the Lord Jesus ' or ' baptized in the Name of Jesus 
 Christ,' S. Paul says simply ' baptized into Christ,' omitting all 
 mention of the Name. Evidently he regards the meaning (or 
 result) of baptism, rather than the form of words used in ad- 
 ministering it. The baptized person has put on Christ (Gal. 
 iii. 27) and is incorporated with Him. It is remarkable that 
 we find the same significant omission of 'the Name of in early 
 Christian writers with regard to the Trinity. Tertullian uses 
 both expressions. In the De Baptismo 13 he translates this 
 passage exactly, as prescribing a form : " Lex etiim tingucndi im- 
 posita est ef forma prascripta. Ite, inquit, docete nationes, tingu- 
 entes eas in notnen Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sandi." But in the 
 De Prascriptione Hcereticorum 20 we have : "Jussit ire et docere 
 natio7ies tinguendas in Patrem et in Filiuni et in Spiritum 
 Sanctum." And again. Adv. Praxean 26: " Ma?tdans ut 
 tinguerent in Patrem et Filiiim et Spiritum Sanctum" It 
 would seem as if Tertullian saw that the baptism which Christ 
 enjoined was that of admission to communion with the Trinity.^ 
 If, then, in this important passage our Lord was explaining the 
 import of Christian baptism rather than enjoining a particular 
 mode of adrainistratiou, the difificulty of believing that He 
 uttered this saying is greatly diminished, if it does not vanish 
 altogether. And possibly, if we had His exact words, of which 
 this verse may be a condensation, we should see clearly that He 
 was not prescribing a formula. 
 
 We may believe that the publication of this Gospel made 
 baptism in the Name of the Trinity the usual form, for the 
 Lord's words suggest this. Justin Martyr, writing a.d. 150-160, 
 tells the heathen that Christians use the Trinitarian formula, 
 which, however, he paraphrases, so as to make it more in- 
 telligible to outsiders. He says that they make the purification 
 in water after the manner of a new birth, "in (lit. on) the Name 
 of the Father of the universe and Sovereign God and of our 
 Saviour Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit" {Apol. i. 61).^ 
 And Tertullian is witness as to what was customary less than 
 fifty years later. The Didache (7) exactly follows Mt. "Having 
 first taught all these things, baptize into the Name of the Father 
 and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water " ; where 
 "living water" probably means river-water or spring-water, as 
 
 ' It is worth noting tliat Tertullian nowhere has the onines before naliones ; 
 and the same omission is found in the treatise De Rebaptismate 7, commonly 
 printed with Cyprian's works (Hartel, ii. p. 78). 
 
 ^ ^tt' 6vbixa.T0% Tov 7rarp6s rdv dXiov Kal deairdrov Qeov Kat rov ffWTyjpos t^ixCiv 
 'ItjctoO XpifrroD Kal irveO^aros ayiov. Comp. Iren. III. xvii. I. Three pre- 
 positions, therefore, are used in this connexion, without great difference of 
 meaning, eh, iv, and i-n-l. 
 
XXVIII. so] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 435 
 
 distinct from what is stagnant. Nevertheless, the practice of 
 baptizing "in the Name of Jesus Christ," or "into the death 
 of Christ," must have continued for some time, for Cyprian 
 {Ep. Ixxiii. 18) contends against the one, and the Apostolical 
 Canons (50) forbid the other. Any bishop or presbyter baptizing 
 with only " one immersion which is administered into the death 
 of the Lord " is to be deprived. 
 
 It has already been pointed out that there are good 
 reasons for believing that Mt. derived the substance of this 
 last paragraph (16-20) from the lost conclusion of Mk. 
 Perhaps there would be less doubt as to the meaning of 
 ver. 19, if we could know what Mk. had written. The evidence 
 contained in it is no doubt later than that contained in the 
 Epistles of St. Paul ; but we are not justified in saying that it 
 is later than the evidence contained in Acts. As a document, 
 the First Gospel, including this verse, must be placed earlier 
 than Acts. 
 
 The division of the verses (19, 20) is not very happy. 
 "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded 
 you" clearly belongs to ver. 19 : it is part of the great charge. 
 The charge is characteristically reproduced by Mt. in a threefold 
 form : the Apostles are to make disciples of all men, to baptize 
 them, and to instruct them. The great promise which follows 
 the third portion of the charge should have been made a separate 
 verse. 
 
 It is evident from the threefold charge that the teaching 
 which suffices for discipleship and for admission to Christian 
 communion is not all that is requisite. After baptism much 
 additional instruction will be required, especially for Gentiles, 
 who knew nothing about the teaching of the O.T., either as 
 regards doctrine or morality. But it is not the O.T. which 
 Christ gives to the Apostles as the source of the instruction 
 which they are to give to the new disciples ; the basis of their 
 teaching is to be ' all things whatsoever I commanded you.' What 
 was 'said to them of old time' is not enough; it is what '/ 
 say wxilo you' (v. 21, 22, 27, 28, 33, 34), expanding, deepening, 
 spiritualizing what had been taught by the Law and the Prophets, 
 that is to be the Apostles' guide in teaching all the nations. And, 
 lest they should fear that they would forget much of what He had 
 enjoined. He had already promised them that the Holy Spirit 
 would ' bring to their remembrance all that He said to them ' 
 
 (eKeivos Vji.a.% SiSafct Travra, kol vTrofivrjO-ei i/xSs TrdvTa a cTttoi' vfjuv, 
 Jn. xiv. 26). The wide sweep both of the promise {TrdvTo. d) and of 
 the command (TravTa Sera) should be noted. They exactly corre- 
 spond, and the fulfilment of the one is the security for the fulfil- 
 ment of the other. Moreover, they both include Christ's teaching 
 
43<5 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVIII. 20 
 
 respecting what is to be believed as well as what is to be 
 done.^ 
 
 But more is required than that they should be enabled by the 
 Holy Spirit to remember, and understand, and develop, and 
 apply all that the Messiah had enjoined during His training of 
 them. This overwhelming charge to ' go and make disciples of 
 all the nations ' might well make each one of the Apostles ask, ' And 
 who is sufficient for these things ? ' (2 Cor. ii. 1 6). The answer is, 
 'I can do all things in Him that strengtheneth me' (Phil. iv. 13). 
 Therefore, just as the great claim leads on to the great charge, so 
 the great charge is followed by the great promise. ' And lo, / 
 am with you all the days, even unto the end of the world.' 
 There need be no doubts or faintheartedness after such an 
 assurance as that, and nothing is wanting to the fulness of it. 
 There is the solemn introduction (koI iSov) ; the emphatic pronoun 
 (eyu) fjieO' v/xan/ dfii), showing that no less than the Risen Lord 
 Himself is to be their companion and their ally; the detailed 
 description of the time (Tracras ras ij/xtpas), leaving not a single 
 day without the certainty of this help ; and the express statement 
 that this promise holds good so long as the present dispensation 
 shall last (ews r^s o-vi/reXetas tov aiiovos). When ' the consumma- 
 tion of the age ' has been reached, they will no longer need the 
 assurance that He is with them to aid them in their work, for 
 their work will be accomplished, and they ' will see Him even 
 as He is' (i Jn. iii. 2). 
 
 The symbolism of Him who ' walks in the midst of the lamp- 
 stands ' which represent the Churches (Rev. ii. i) illustrates this. 
 "A sharing of their hfeand motion is intended" (Hort, ad loc). 
 "As the Enemy TnpnraTel t,-r}Twv KaraTTiclv (i Pet. v. 8), so the 
 Lord patrols the ground, is ever on the spot when He is needed ; 
 His presence is not localized, but co-extensive with the Church " 
 (Swete, ad loc). 
 
 The expression ' consummation of the age ' or ' end of the world ' (avvri- 
 Xeia TOV aiuivoi or (Tvvt, aiiivos), is, in the Bible, peculiar lo Mt. (xiii. 39, 40, 
 49, xxiv. 3, xxviii. 20). Comp. avvT. twv alibvuv (Heb. ix. 26 ; Testament 
 of Levi X. 2) and avvT. Katpojv (Dan. ix. 27), cvfT. iiii^pwv (Dan. xii. 13), 
 KcupoO ffvpT. (Dan. xii. 4, 7). But this fact does not prove that our Lord did 
 not use the expression. In xiii. 39, 40, 49 it is probable enough that Mt. 
 found it in his source ; and he may have done so here. But if both here and 
 xxiv. 3 he has introduced it in editing what lay before him, he still may be 
 introducing an expression which Christ sometimes used. The phrase is 
 Jewish in tone, and seems to have been almost a technical term in apocalyptic 
 literature. " Thou shall therefore be assuredly preserved lo the consumma- 
 tion of the times" (Apocalypse of Baruch, xiii. 3 ; comp. xxvii. 15, xxix. 8, 
 
 ' Wellhausen unduly limits the meaning : /;; x.xviii. 20 ist von der 
 Predict des Evangeliums welches den gekretizigten und aufcrstandenen 
 Christus rMm Inhalt hat keine Rede, sondern nur von Geboten /esu (p. 152). 
 
XXVIII. 20] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 437 
 
 XXX. 3, liv. 3«, lix. 8, Ixix. 4, Ixxxiii. 7) ; " The Lord shall visit them in the 
 consummation of the end of the days " (Assumption of Moses, i. 18) ; " Thus 
 will they destroy until the day when the great consummation of the great 
 world be consummated over the watchers and the godless " (Book of Enoch, 
 xvi. i); where the expression sometimes means the end of the world, some- 
 times the Messianic age. There is nothing improbable in the supposition 
 that Christ Himself made use of it. Dalman (Words, p. 155) goes too far 
 when he says : "As the term occurs only in Matthew, it will belong not to 
 Jesus Himself, but to the Evangelist." Is it impossible that a phrase which 
 Christ Himself had used should be preserved by only one Evangelist ? What- 
 ever may be the origin of the phrase, one feels how suitable it is as a solemn 
 conclusion to the Gospel. 
 
 It was suggested above that the narrative of the visit of the 
 women to the sepulchre (i-io) may possibly refer to the same 
 visit as that which is recorded of the Magdalen alone (Jn. xx. i, 
 2, 11-18). Here it is necessary to consider whether this ap- 
 pearance to the Eleven (16-20) is not to be identified with that 
 to 'more than five hundred brethren at once' which S. Paul 
 mentions (i Cor. xv. 6).^ One tradition may have singled out 
 the Magdalen in the former case and have been silent respecting 
 her companions ; and something of a similar kind may have 
 taken place with regard to an appearance in Galilee. The Eleven 
 were the most important element in the company of witnesses, 
 and it is possible that in some narratives no one else was mentioned. 
 It is obvious that if the appearance was to be made to hundreds 
 of persons, it must take place in the open air, and the high 
 ground above the lake was a suitable place. A manifestation to 
 the Eleven could take place in Galilee, as at Jerusalem, in a 
 room. Comp. Lk. xxiv. 33-43, where others besides the Apostles 
 were present. In any case, the appeal which S. Paul makes to 
 the testimony of so large a number of still living witnesses cannot 
 be dismissed as a "battered sophism." "It would have been 
 dangerous for the Apostle to appeal to the survivors of the five 
 hundred in a letter written to Corinth, where he had enemies 
 who were in frequent communication with Jerusalem" (Swete, 
 Appearances, p. 84). The probability that, if the Risen Messiah 
 appeared at all to human eyes, He would appear to others besides 
 the Apostles, is great. It would have placed the Eleven at a 
 serious disadvantage if they had been the only disciples who 
 could affirm that they had seen Him. According to the evidence 
 which has come down to us, both in Jerusalem and in Galilee a 
 number of persons, in addition to the Apostles, were allowed to 
 see and hear Him, and in some cases even to touch Him. And 
 yet, in the first instance, none of them expected to do so. They 
 
 ' Maclaren says that "it is obviously the same incident," which is too 
 strong a statement. ' ' There is no veiled personality now, as to Mary and 
 to the two on the road to Emmaus ; no greeting ; no demonstration of the 
 reality of His appearance. He stands amongst them as the King." 
 
438 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVIII. SO 
 
 had made up their mind that they would never see Him 
 again. 
 
 On the other hand, however many appearances there may 
 have been in Jerusalem and in Galilee to the Apostles and 
 others, we read of no appearance to Christ's enemies, to the 
 chief priests, or elders, to Pilate or to Herod. There was no 
 attempt to force them to beheve. He had refused the demand 
 for a sign from heaven, when the Pharisees challenged Him to 
 give one. He had worked no miracle before Herod. What 
 the suffering Christ had refused to do, the triumphant Christ 
 abstained from doing. The wills of His enemies were still left 
 free, and they could continue to reject Him and oppose Him, 
 if they so pleased. The desponding doubts of a loyal Apostle 
 who was yearning to see Him again, and yet would accept no 
 testimony respecting a fact which seemed to be far too good to 
 be true. He was willing to dispel ; such doubts could be utilized 
 for the more confirmation of the faith. But the obstinate 
 hostility of those who had declared Him to be a deceiver was 
 left without any special privilege or intervention for its cure. 
 When He was ministering to men's bodies and was ready to heal 
 them, we are told that there was a time when ' He could not (ovk 
 eSvVaro) there do any mighty work, save that He laid His hands 
 upon a few sick folk and healed them' (Mk. vi. 5), because of 
 their unbelief ; and it is possible that there were similar limita- 
 tions with regard to His appearances after the Resurrection. 
 Those appearances did not depend solely upon His own will : 
 something depended upon the condition of the recipients. To 
 hostile or unwilling hearts there was no appearance.^ 
 
 This does not mean that it was necessary that the recipients 
 of this favour should be expecting it. If that were true, there 
 would be some ground for the objection that those who 
 declared that they had seen Him were quite honest, but were 
 victims of a delusion : they saw what they had hoped to see, 
 and what they had made up their minds that they were 
 sure to see. Experience has proved that such delusions are 
 possible for groups of persons as well as for individuals. But 
 all the evidence that we possess contradicts this supposition. 
 Except the meeting on ' the mountain ' in Galilee, ' where Jesus 
 had appointed them,' all the appearances were surprises ; and in 
 
 ' It is one of the many signs of inferiority in the Gospel according to the 
 Hebrews that it makes a servant of the priest (presumably the high priest) a 
 witness of the Risen Lord. Jerome tells us that this Gospel narrated that 
 ' ' when the Lord had given His linen cloth to a servant of the priest {servo 
 sacerdotis) He went to James and appeared to him ; for James had sworn that 
 he would not eat bread from that hour wherein he had drunk the cup of the 
 Lord until he saw Him rising again from the dead" (Calal. Script. Ecc!., 
 Jacobus). 
 
XXVIII. so] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 439 
 
 some cases those who saw Him and talked with Him did not at 
 first know that it was He. Nevertheless, we may reasonably 
 believe that a readiness to accept whatever He might desire to 
 bestow upon them was one of the conditions of being able to see 
 and hear and touch Him after His Resurrection ; and this con- 
 dition was wanting in those who had crucified Him. 
 
 But, although the large majority of those who had seen Him 
 during His ministry thus forfeited the privilege of being among 
 the witnesses of His Resurrection, this did not mean that they 
 were for ever excluded from that equally real presence which 
 He has promised to all faithful disciples throughout all time. 
 They lost the opportunity of seeing the Risen Lord before His 
 visible presence was withdrawn from human eyes. But, as we 
 know from history, after the Holy Spirit was given to the Church, 
 many of those who had been His opponents, including not a 
 few of the priests,^ joined the company of His disciples, and thus 
 became partakers of His farewell blessing: 'Lo, I am with you 
 all the days, even unto the end of the world.' 
 
 Characteristic expressions in ch. xxviii. : rdi^os (i), Kal ISoii (2, 7, 9, 20), 
 aei<Tii6'i (2), wpocripxenBai (2, 9, 18), Ivdvjxa (3), devre (6), iropciieaBai (7, II, 
 16, 19), TrpoiTKvi/eTv (9, 17), rdre (10), idov (7, II), avvdyeiv (12), iyye/xibv {14), 
 ixudfireiav (19), avvreKeia toO aiuyos (20). Peculiar: KovaTuSia, (ll), avfi- 
 ^ov\iov Xafi^aveiv {12), dtcrrd^eLv ( 1 7 and xiv. 3 1 only) ; peculiar to this chapter : 
 eid^a (3), and perhaps (pijfiifai' (15), but the common reading, Sie<j>T]ixliT6ri 
 (A B C D L) is probably right here as in ix. 31 and Mk. i. 45. 
 
 ^ Acts ii. 41, iv. 4, V. 14, vi. 7. 
 
INDEXES 
 
 Index I. General. 
 
 Abba, 369, 389. 
 
 Abbott, E. A., 13, 51, 72, 119, 123, 
 125, 243, 281, 359, 372. 
 
 Abbreviation of Mk. by Mt. , xii, xiv, 
 XV, xxiv, 48, 128, 201, 203, 211, 
 223, 241, 269, 290, 306, 395, 
 406. 
 
 Abel, 322. 
 
 Abiathar, 173. 
 
 Abomination of desolation, 332. 
 
 Aboth ; see Pirge Aboth. 
 
 Acta Paidi et Thed{S^ 60. 
 
 Acta Thomce, 199, 248. 
 
 Acts of John, 366. 
 
 Adam, skull of, 394. 
 
 Adultery, 81, 182, 259. 
 
 Africanus, Julius, I. 
 
 Agony in Gethsemane, 368. 
 
 Alexander, W. M., 135, 177, 242. 
 
 Allen, W. C, i, xii, xxv, 17, 19, 47, 
 no, 141, 153, 166, 175, 183, 
 185, 192, 213, 218, 227, 290, 
 
 295. 303. 328,357. 389, 413- 
 Almsgiving, 91. 
 Alphseus, 405. 
 Ambrose, 60, 61, 109. 
 Amiel, 62, 161. 
 Andrew, 49, 204, 328. 
 Andrews, S. J., 132, 204, 404. 
 Angels, 6, 99, 198, 236, 251, 306, 
 
 336, 339, 374. 416, 417. 
 Annas, 321, 384. 
 Annius of Viterbo, 2. 
 Antipas, 161, 200, 202, 223, 409. 
 Aorists preferred by Mt. to imperfects, 
 
 xiii, 128, 13s, 240, 312, 384, 
 
 405. 
 Apocalypse of Baruch, 32, 42, 127, 
 
 171, 235, 325, 330, 436. 
 
 Apocryphal Gospels, 4, 12, 18, 356, 
 
 367, 393. 399. 416, 
 Apostles, lists of the, 147. 
 Apostolic Canons, 435. 
 Apostolic Constitutions, 391. 
 Arabic Gospel of the Infancy, 18. 
 Aramaic, 25, 29, 49, 55, 91, loi, 
 
 105. 137. 164, 228, 353, 357, 
 
 385, 399- 
 Archelaus, 19. 
 Arimathsea, 406. 
 Aristophanes, 368. 
 Arnobius, 402. 
 Arrian, 116. 
 Article, the definite, 73, 306, 307, 
 
 365- 
 Ascension of Isaiah, 1, 34, 155, 177, 
 
 196, 352, 417, 429. 
 Assumption of Moses, 336, 437. 
 Augustine, 15, 35, 56, 62, 67, 70, 82, 
 
 85. 86, 94, 97, 99, :o7, 108, 
 
 366, 394, 401. 
 
 Banquet, the ICingdom as a, 127, 302, 
 
 366. 
 Baptism, Christian forms of, 433. 
 Baptism of John, 22, 293. 
 Baptism of the Messiah by John, 31. 
 Baptist, John the, 20, 24, 27, 46, 
 
 161, 193, 199, 203, 293. 
 Baptist's message to Christ, 159. 
 Barabbas, 388, 389. 
 Barachiah, 323. 
 Barnabas, Epistle of, xxxviii, 146, 
 
 312, 325, 395, 411. 
 Barnes, W. E., 8. 
 Barton, G. A., 212. 
 Baruch ; see Apocalypse of. 
 Baskets, kinds of, 219. 
 
442 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Beatitudes, 57, 70, 160, 1S9, 228, 
 
 341- 
 Bede, 152. 
 Beelzebub, 154, 175. 
 Beet, J. A., 181. 
 Beloved, 34. 
 Bengel, 15, 40, 71, 117, 137, 160, 
 
 202, 30S. 
 Beratiniis, Codex, 28 1. 
 Bethlehem of Judsea, 12. 
 Bethphage, 283. 
 Bethsaida, 165, 224. 
 Binding and loosing, 227, 231, 
 
 254. 
 Birth of Christ, the date, 10. 
 Blasphemy, 178, 3S0. 
 Blass, 164, 197, 265, 374. 
 Blind, healing the, 143, 175, 282, 
 
 289. 
 Bousset, xxix. 
 Box, G. H., 19. 
 Bread, daily, loi. 
 Brethren of the Lord, 9, 186. 
 Briggs, C. A., X, xxx, 8, 20, 23, 29, 
 
 34, 154. 157, 183, 229, 297,299, 
 
 3", 347- 
 Brodrick, 376, 380. 
 Bruce, A. B., 52, 96, 164, 205, 239, 
 
 295- 303- 
 Burkitt, F. C., viii, xvi, 3, 17, 20, 23, 
 
 33, 53, 77, 81, 141, 154, 230, 
 
 237, 284, 303, 345, 378, 389, 
 
 421, 432. 
 Burton and Mathews, 41, 237, 246, 
 
 262, 30s, 358. 
 Butler, Bishop, 320. 
 
 Caesarea Philippi, 224. 
 
 Caiaphas, 376, 378. 
 
 Calmes, Th., xxviii. 
 
 Camel, 269, 319. 
 
 Canaanite, 217. 
 
 Candour of the Evangelists, 262, 376, 
 
 385, 405- 
 Capernaum, 46, 135, 200. 
 Casuistry of the Rabbis, 79, 83, 85, 
 
 174, 211, 318. 
 Celsus, 12, 17, 18, 51, 372. 
 Centurions, 125, 403, 404, 407. 
 Chamisso, 205. 
 Charles, R. H., xxiii, xxxiv, 34, 38, 
 
 77, 80, 83, 176, 250, 309, 325, 
 
 401, 403. 
 Chase, F. H., 94, 229, 431. 
 Children, Christ's treatment of, 248, 
 
 262. 
 Chorazin, 164. 
 
 Christology, xxv, xxx, xxxi, 167. 
 Chronology in Mt., 17, 24, 30, 46, 
 
 54, 135, 283, 349- 
 Chrysostom, 73, 109, 130, 190, 
 
 430. 
 Church, the, 26, 229, 253. 
 Cicero, 32, 381. 
 Cities of Israel, 153. 
 Clarke, J. Langton, 181. 
 Cleansing of the Temple, 287. 
 Clement of Alexandria, 67, 84, iio, 
 
 128, 268, 360. 
 Clement of Rome, [171], 360. 
 Clemeittine Homilies, 84, 120, 215, 
 
 250, 264, 360. 
 Coins, 244, 247, 248, 256, 274, 305, 
 
 354, 356. 384, 423- 
 Compassion, 144, 149, 282. 
 Confession of Peter, 226. 
 Corban, 211. 
 
 Cornelius a Lapide, 62, 68, 93, 417. 
 Cross, 156, 233, 393, 396. 
 Cup, 277, 363. 
 Cyprian, 14, 86, loi, 181, 231, 
 
 .435- 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, 22, 112, 162, 167, 
 
 335- 
 
 Dalman, 73, 84, 115, 129, 137, 143, 
 179, 220, 225, 271, 278, 311, 
 
 352, 361. 379, 399, 437- 
 Dalmanutha, 220. 
 Dante, 370. 
 Darkness, 107, 398. 
 Date of the Nativity, 10. 
 Date of the First Gospel, xxxi, xxxiii, 
 
 237, 333- 
 Davidic origin of Mary, 2. 
 Dead, raising the, 142, 149, 160. 
 Decapolis, 219, 220. 
 Deissmann, 86, 91, 127, 128, 140, 
 
 150, 173, 175, 258, 284, 285, 
 
 299, 337, 384, 433- 
 Deliver up, 243, 276, 372. 
 Demoniacs, 133, 135. 
 Demons, 133, 144, 149, 175, 185, 
 
 241. 
 Denarius, 256, 274, 305, 354. 
 Denials, Peter's, 381. 
 Derenbourg, 152. 
 Devil, personality of the, 37, 188, 
 
 193- 
 Didache, 103, 112, 116, 171, 287. 
 Didon, 27, 35. 
 Diminutives, 216, 219. 
 Discourses, compiled, xix, 56, 119, 
 
 148, 164, 198, 313. 
 
I. GENERAL 
 
 443 
 
 Discrepancies and differences between 
 Gospels, 3, 40, 58, 81, 89, 95, 
 121, 131, 132, 133, 140, 145, 
 150, 164, 174, 177, 188, 199, 
 206, 222, 236, 264, 277, 282, 
 287, 290, 293, 307, 356, 363, 
 
 369, 373. 374, 378, 382, 388, 
 396, 414, 418. 
 
 Divine decrees, 234, 239, 330, 375. 
 
 Divorce, 81, 259. 
 
 Documents used by Mt., viii, x, xi, 
 
 xvi, 3, S3. 
 Dogs, 112, 216. 
 
 Donehoo, J. de Q., 12, 366, 405. 
 Dove in symbolism, 33. 
 Doxology to the Lord's Prayer, 103. 
 Drachma, 244, 274. 
 Dreams, 6, 8, 16, 390. 
 Driver, S. R., 33, 64, 172, 212, 308. 
 Droosten, P. H. , 35. 
 Drummond, J., xxviii, 137, 288. 
 Du Bose, W. P., 140. 
 Dumb, curing the, 143, 175, 218. 
 
 Earthquakes, 131, 402, 415, 418. 
 Edersheim, A., 82, 150, 151, 172, 
 
 173. 176, 321, 358, 360, 386, 404. 
 Editorial additions, xvii, 140, 183, 
 
 360, 419. 
 Egypt, 16. 
 Elijah, 27, 93, 147, 163, 238, 240, 
 
 370, 399. 
 Elmslie, W. G., 19. 
 Encyclopcedia Biblicay 167, 186, 220. 
 Enoch, Book of, 133, 151, 168, 176, 
 
 270, 306, 325, 330, 334, 360, 
 378, 437. 
 Enoch, Book of the Secrets of, 68, 83, 
 
 87, 115. 255, 329, 342, 351. 366. 
 Epictetus, 86, 155. 
 Essenes, 22, 84. 
 Eternal life, 263, 352. 
 Eternal punishment, 29, 250, 346, 
 
 352. 
 Eucharist, Institution of the, 361, 
 
 363- 
 Euripides, 155. 
 
 Eusebius, vii, xxxii, 70, 176, 403, 431. 
 Euthymius, 298. 
 Evans, T. S., 362. 
 Ewald, G. H. A., 389. 
 Excommunication, 254. 
 Exorcists, 1 44, 177. 
 Expansion of Mk. by Mt. , xiii, xvii, 
 
 8, 82, 132, 183, 187, 226, 227, 
 
 232, 236, 259, 266, 275, 307, 
 
 309, 360. 
 
 Expositor, xxxiv, xl, 10, 11, 19, 272, 
 
 356. 
 Expositor's Bible, 112, 205. 
 Expository Times, 147. 
 
 Fairbairn, A. M., 356. 
 
 Faith, 126, 135, 217, 291. 
 
 False prophets, 116, 331, 334. 
 
 Fasting, 104, 141. 
 
 Father in heaven, 73, 74, 97. 
 
 Field, F., 14, 108, 183, 256, 392. 
 
 Fig-tree, the braggart, 290. 
 
 the lesson of the, 337. 
 Fire, baptizing with, 28. 
 
 eternal, 250, 352. 
 Five, groups of, xviii, xxi, 78, 312. 
 Five thousand, feeding of, 203, 218. 
 Flood, the, 340. 
 
 Forgiveness, 136, 180, 252, 255. 
 Four thousand, feeding of, 218. 
 Free will, 41, 42. 
 Freer, C. L., 103, 237, 247. 
 Fritzsche, 125. 
 FulfilHng the Law, 76, 
 
 Gadarenes, 132. 
 
 Galileans, 156, 353, 382. 
 
 Galilee, 46, 
 
 Gehenna, 79, 321. 
 
 Genealogy of Christ, i, 3. 
 
 Gennesaret, 210. 
 
 Gentiles, salvation open to, xxiv, 19, 
 
 127, 298, 300, 301, 331, 429. 
 Georgius Hamartolus, 278. 
 Gerasa, 132, 
 Gethsemane, 368. 
 Girodon, P., 109, 118, 182, 205, 361, 
 
 364. 
 Gnosticism, 34, 399. 
 Godet, F., 8. 
 Golden Rule, 1 13. 
 Gore, C., xxxi, 38, 55, 127, 183, 
 
 311- 
 
 Gospel, 50; see Hebrews,, G, ace. to. 
 Gospel of Nicodemus, 389, 390, 391, 
 
 396, 425- 
 Gospel of Peter, 367, 393, 399, 407, 
 
 416. 
 Gould, E. P., 48, 173, 180, 223, 250, 
 
 259, 30s. 311- 
 Gray, G. B., 172. 
 Gregory, C. R., ix, 103, 247. 
 Gregory the Great, 130. 
 Grenfell and Hunt, 74, no, 112, 
 
 258. 
 Groser, W. H., 192. 
 Guardian- Angels, 251, 
 
444 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Hades, 79, 229. 
 
 Hammond, C, 295. 
 
 Hammurabi, 85. 
 
 Harnack, x, xxxix, 40, 51, 56, 89, 
 
 167, 411. 
 Hase, K. V., 55, 86, 166. 
 Hatch, E., 64, 106, 278. 
 Hawkins, Sir J., xxiii, 20, 23, 89, 
 
 120, 141. 
 Hearing or reading, 78, 173. 
 Heathen, 13, 127, 139, 215, 301, 
 
 392. 
 Heaven, 89, 97, 99, 127, 228. 
 Hebrews, Gospel ace. to the, ix, 31, 
 
 loi, 255, 264, 389, 438. 
 Henslow, G., 192. 
 Herford, R. T., 8, 17, 76. 
 Hermas, xxxviii, xl, 155, 360. 
 Hermon, 223, 238. 
 Herod the Great, i, 16. 
 Herod Antipas, 161, 200, 202, 223. 
 Herodians, 174, 304. 
 Herodias, 161. 
 Herodotus, 354. 
 Hibbert Journal, 52, 413, 431. 
 High priest, 14, 353, 376, 378, 384, 
 
 401. 
 Hippolytus, 326. 
 Holtzmann, H. J., 291. 
 Holtzmann, O., 4, 25, 51, 71, 168, 
 
 419, 423- 
 Holy City, 40, 332. 
 Holy place, 332. 
 Holy Spirit, 178. 
 Homer, 186, 230, 235. 
 Hort, 75, 114, 125, 152, 162, 173, 
 
 229, 253, 317, 328, 428, 432, 
 
 436. 
 Hosanna, 286. 
 
 Ignatius, 15, 31, 194, 248, 403. 
 
 Illingworth, 122, 136. 
 
 Imperative mood, iii, 113, 159, 
 
 320. . 
 Imperfect tense, 9, 120, 215, 218, 
 
 224, 240. 
 Imperfects and aorists ; see Aorists. 
 Interpolations, 43, 82, 92, 103, 144, 
 
 154, 186, 187, 221, 237, 243, 
 
 252, 274, 281, 299, 317, 343, 
 
 362, 395, 400. 
 Irenteus, vii, 8, 35, 67, 78, 264, 413, 
 
 434- 
 Tsaiah ; see Ascension of. 
 Iscariot, 147. 
 Isocrates, 114. 
 Izates, 318. 
 
 Jacquier, E., viii, 103. 
 
 Jairus, 141. 
 
 James, brother of John, 146, 276, 278. 
 
 Jeremiah, 18, 225, 386. 
 
 Jericho, 282. 
 
 Jerome, ix, 12, 31, 54, loi, 161, 181, 
 
 255, 262, 386, 389, 394, 401, 
 
 420, 438. 
 Jerusalem, Lament over, 324. 
 Jesus Christ, conscious of possessing 
 
 Divine authority, 76, 89, 113, 
 
 117, n8, 130, 139, 152, 157, 
 
 165, 184, 197, 281, 322, 378, 
 
 422, 428. 
 has knowledge of future events, 
 
 234, 246, 278, 297, 321, 33S, 
 
 354, 366. 
 originality of His teachmg, 61, 69, 
 
 114, 120, 227, 255, 307. 
 uses hyperbola, 86, 242, 292, 319. 
 uses irony, 91, 269, 320, 371. 
 abstains from using supernatural 
 
 means, 126, 225, 226, 290, 374, 
 
 395- 
 marvels, 126, 131, 217, 222. 
 is ignorant of the date of the Last 
 
 Judgment, 339. 
 prays, 206, 368. 
 see also Christology. 
 John the son of Zebedee, 49, 276, 278, 
 
 357- „ . 
 
 John the Baptist ; see Baptist. 
 
 Jonah, 183. 
 
 Joseph, husband of Mary, 2, 4, 9, 199. 
 
 Joseph of Arimathsea, 406, 408. 
 
 Joseph of Arimathcea, Narrative of, 
 356. 
 
 Josephus, I, 19, 24, 84, 156, 161, 
 177, 183, 201, 210, 212, 215, 
 224, 260, 318, 333, 385, 402. 
 
 Journal of Theological Studies, 4, 14, 
 25, 35, 46, 125, 135, 137, 164, 
 233, 241, 252, 260, 284, 312, 
 365. 378, 421, 431- 
 
 Jubilees, Book of, xxxvi, 133, 151, 
 
 173. 252, 300- 
 Judaea, 259, 333. 
 Judas Iscariot, 148, 356, 359, 361, 
 
 385- 
 Judas Maccabseus, 225. 
 Judgment, Day of, 151, 338, 339, 348, 
 Julicher, xi. 
 Julius Africanus, I. 
 Justin Martyr, 8, 33, 84, 117, 120, 
 
 183, 264, 285, 329, 331, 342, 
 
 409, 413, 424, 434. 
 Juvenal, 368. 
 
I. GENERAL 
 
 445 
 
 Kaddish, the Mourner's, 104. 
 
 Keim, 37, 167. 
 
 Kennedy, H. A. A., 156, 163, 165, 
 
 306. 
 Kenosis, 126, 311. 
 Kenyon, F. G., 3. 
 Keys, the power of the, 227, 230. 
 King, E. G., 312. 
 
 Kingdom of God, 25, 177, 269, 295. 
 Kingdom of Heaven, 24. 
 Kirkpatrick, A. F., 64, 311. 
 Klostermann, E., 31, 32, 133, 172, 
 
 . 309. 371- 
 Knowling, R. J., 84, 136, 182, 386, 
 
 412. 
 Koran, 351. 
 
 Lake, Kirsopp, 431. 
 
 Lamb, Paschal, 357- 
 
 Lang, Cosmo G., 344. 
 
 Last Supper, 358. 
 
 Latham, H., 42, 72. 
 
 Law, Christ's attitude towards the, 
 75, 76, 82, 88, 123, 124, 139, 
 172, 213, 259, 306, 3r4, 318. 
 
 Leaven, 194, 222. 
 
 Leo the Great, 92. 
 
 Leonardo da Vinci, 3S9. 
 
 Leprosy, 122. 
 
 Levi, 137. _ 
 
 Lex talionis, 84. 
 
 Liddon, H. P., 224. 
 
 Life, 108, IIS, 156, 23s, 250. 
 
 Light, 46, 73, 107. 
 
 Lightfoot, J. B., 9, loi, 103, 186, 
 229, 248, 285, 36S, 375, 403. 
 
 Limitation of Christ's human know- 
 ledge, 126, 290, 311, 339, 395. 
 
 Liturgies, 98, 364. 
 
 Livy, 32. 
 
 Lock and Sanday, 74. 
 
 Loisy, A., xxxiii, 54, 57, 82, 105, 
 108, III. 
 
 Longfellow, IL W., 150. 
 
 Longinus, 404. 
 
 Lord's Prayer, 95, 370. 
 
 Lord's Supper, 361. 
 
 Lost Sheep, 252. 
 
 Love, 78, 87, 114, 266, 308. 
 
 Lupton, J. M., 262. 
 
 Lyttleton, E., 260. 
 
 Machrerus, 159, 203. 
 
 Mackinlay, G., 10, 48, 171, 188, 
 
 240. 
 Maclaren, A., 27, 51, 162, 184, 281, 
 
 299. 437- 
 
 M'Nabb, V., 4. 
 
 Madden, F. W., 247, 274, 305. 
 
 Magadan, 220. 
 
 Magdalen ; see Mary. 
 
 Magi, II. 
 
 Magic, 15, 17, 176. 
 
 Maldonatus, no. 
 
 Mammon, 107. 
 
 Martial, 83. 
 
 Mary, the Mother of the Messiah, 2, 
 
 9. 185. 199, 405- 
 Mary, the sister of Martha, 355. 
 Mary Magdalen, 405, 421, 437. 
 Matthew, x, xvi, xvii, 137. 
 Mayor, J. B., 10, 186. 
 Metaphors against the Pharisees, 121. 
 Metaphors, inferences from, 29, 80, 
 
 81, 242. 
 Midrash, 303. 
 Milton, 39. 
 Ministry in Galilee, 45, 49. 
 
 in Judjea, 288, 324. 
 Miracles, 38, 46, 121, 149, 182, 201, 
 
 203, 218, 246, 291. 
 Miracles, enhancement by Mt. of the 
 
 greatness of Christ's, xv, 128, 
 
 142, I43> 175, 205, 210, 211, 
 
 218, 220, 241, 291. 
 Mishna, 376. 
 Mission of the Twelve, 144, 148, 151, 
 
 153, 158. 
 Moore, G. F. , 285. 
 Moses ; see Assmnptioii of. 
 Moulton, J. H., 13, 14,98, III, 134, 
 
 156, 166, 197, 252, 255, 277, 
 
 301, 322, 345, 389, 400, 415. 
 Moulton, R. G., 8, 60, 183. 
 Mountain, 37, 54, 206, 242, 292, 425, 
 
 427. 
 of transfiguration, 23S. 
 Mozley, J. B. , 87. 
 Mustard-seed, 194, 242. 
 Mylne, L. G., 311. 
 
 Nazarene, 18, 382, 396. 
 
 Nazareth, 19, 198. 
 
 Nazarite, 130. 
 
 Neander, 38, 274, 402. 
 
 Nestle, 3, 7, 103, IS4, 195, 202, 275, 
 
 281, 380, 400. 
 Nicodemus ; see Gospel of . 
 Nominative for vocative, 399. 
 Nbsgen, C. F., 166. 
 Numerical arrangement ; see Five, 
 
 Seven, Ten, Triplets. 
 
 Oaths, 82, 84, 318, 378, 382. 
 
446 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Old Testament, quotations from the, 
 8, 17, 18, 40, 41, 46, 78, 82, 87, 
 128, 140, 173, 175. 189, 195, 
 212, 260, 266, 285, 289, 306, 
 309, 310, 332, 366, 375, 386, 
 
 398, 399. 401 • 
 
 Olshausen, 155. 
 
 Origen, xxxviii, xxxix, 15, 17, 68, 
 83, lor, no, 117, 127, 128, 197, 
 201, 202, 214, 227, 233, 337, 
 
 372. 389. 394- 
 Ovid, 391. 
 Oxyrhynchus Logia, 74, no, 112, 
 
 222, 254. 
 
 Papias, vii, viii, 278, 386. 
 Parables, 187, 190, 301, 348. 
 of judgment, 349. 
 pairs of, 72, 141, 194, 197. 
 Paradoxes in Christ's teaching, 61, 
 
 69, 86, 130, 242, 292. 
 Parousia, 329. 
 Pascal, 107. 
 Passion, prediction of the, 231, 243, 
 
 275. 
 Passover, 203, 284, 356, 358. 
 Paul, the Apostle, 212, 316, 363, 370, 
 
 4n, 421. 
 Peckover, Algerince, Codex, 24T. 
 Perjea, 258, 283. 
 Perowne, J. J. S. , 311. 
 Persecution predicted, 151, 330. 
 Personality of evil, 37, 188, 193. 
 Peter, 49, 128, 147, 208, 213, 226, 
 
 228, 231, 239, 244, 25s, 270, 357, 
 
 367, 370, 374> 381, 421. 
 Peter ; see Gospel of. 
 Pharisees, 27, 77, 90, 136, 139, 144, 
 
 172, 175, 179, 182, 211, 221,259. 
 antagonism of Mt. to the, 28, 121, 
 
 182, 299, 308, 310, 313, 409, 
 Philo, 114, 265, 309. 
 Philostratus, 133. 
 Pilate, 385, 387, 391, 407. 
 Pindar, 199. 
 Pirqe Aboth, xxiii, 80, 86, 99, 171, 
 
 249, 250, 254, 275, 352. 
 Plato, 88, 92, 3S0. 
 Plautus, 309. 
 
 Pliny, 71. 3S4- 
 
 Plutarch, 85, 194, 392. 
 
 Polycarp, Epistle of, 394. 
 
 Popular enthusiasm for Christ, 120, 
 
 206, 284, 287, 313. 
 Prcedicatio Pauli, 31. 
 Prayer, 93, 100, 113, 206, 242, 261, 
 
 291, 369. 
 
 Prayer, the Lord's, 95, 370. 
 Preparation, the, 408. 
 Present tense, xiii, 48, III, 113, 136. 
 Priests, 123, 289, 299, 373, 385, 397, 
 
 401, 410. 
 Primacy of Peter, 147, 229, 234. 
 Prophecy, fulfilment of, xxiv, 16, 17, 
 
 20, 46, 128, 163, 175, 189, 195, 
 
 285, 37S> 386. 
 Prophets, false, 116, 331, 334. 
 Proselytes, 126, 317. 
 Proverbs in Christ's teaching, in, 
 
 171, 177, 213, 269, 334. 
 Psalmcx., Christ'squestion about, 310. 
 Psalms of Solomon, xxvii, 106, 177, 
 
 190, 337> 339, 378. 
 Publicans or toll-collectors, 89, 137, 
 
 254, 295. 
 Punctuation, 20, 34, 161, 295, 377, 
 
 400. 
 Punishment, eternal, 29, 250, 346, 
 
 .352. 
 Purifications, 22, 212, 319. 
 
 Quotations ; see Old Testament and 
 Prophecy. 
 
 Rabbinical sayings, 76, 81, 140, 158, 
 
 213,308; see Talmud. 
 Raca, 78. 
 Rahab, 2. 
 
 Ramsay, Sir W., x, 10. 
 Ransom, 280. 
 
 Reading or hearing, 78, 173. 
 Readings, important differences of, 3, 
 
 29. 35, 43, 78,91, 103, 114, 144, 
 164, 165, 168, 294, 306, 308, 
 
 317, 319, 321, 323, 339, 364, 
 
 389, 400. 
 Remission of sins, 22. 
 Renan, xi, 165, 385, 389. 
 Repentance, 21, 295. 
 Resch, 35, 88, 109, 128, 247, 281, 
 
 342, 371. 
 Rbnsch, no. 
 Resurrection, 183, 244, 305, 411, 414, 
 
 419. 
 Rich young man, 263. 
 Riches, dangers of, 267. 
 Robbers, the two, 396, 398. 
 Robertson, A., 25. 
 Robinson, J. A., 34, 229, 278, 288. 
 Rock, the, 228, 234. 
 Roman liturgy, 364. 
 Room, the upper, 358. 
 Rooms, 315. 
 Ropes, J. R., A. 
 
I. GENERAL 
 
 447 
 
 Ruth, 2. 
 
 Ryle, H. E., 225, 322. 
 Kyle, R. J., 52. 
 Ryle and James, 378. 
 
 Sabbath, 172, 174, 333, 408, 415. 
 
 Sadducees, 27, 221, 305, 307. 
 
 Salmon, X, 22, 38, 76, 124, 133, 159, 
 164, 180, 183, 208, 227, 265, 
 272, 277, 355, 363, 375, 379, 
 400. 
 
 Salome, 277, 405, 415. 
 
 Salt, 71. 
 
 Samaritans, 148. 
 
 Sanday, xxvi, xxix, 3, 23, 25, 36, 
 51, 122, 125, 160, 163, 165, 
 183, 191, 20s, 229, 233, 272, 
 280, 28S, 292, 311, 327, 349, 
 358, 394, 414. 
 
 Sanday and Headlam, 136. 
 
 Sanhedrin, 13, 79, 293, 299, 376, 
 381, 384, 410. 
 
 Satan, 36, 37, 43, 176, 188, 193. 
 
 Schanz, P., 361. 
 
 Schmidt, N. , 420. 
 
 Schmiedel, P. W., 51, 166. 
 
 Schlirer, E. , xxxiv, 141, 148, 152, 
 202, 24s, 318, 378, 399. 
 
 Scourging, 322, 391. 
 
 Scribes, 13, 77, 136, 211, 214, 289, 
 
 .314- 
 Scrivener, 7, 103, 281. 
 Sealing, 410. 
 Second Advent, xxvii, 153, 236, 329, 
 
 338- 
 Secrets of Enoch ; see Enoch. 
 Seneca, 116, 142, 199. 
 Septuagint, sparse use of the, 8, 14, 
 
 17,47, "7. 128, 161, 175, 189, 
 
 19s, 212, 266, 289, 309, 367, 
 
 386, 399- 
 Sepulchre, 407, 410, 411, 419. 
 Sepulchres, whiled, 319. 
 Seven, xix, xxii, 60, 96, 109, no, 
 
 148, 196, 316, 327. 
 Shakespeare, 41, 192, 256, 269, 315. 
 Sheba, the Queen of, 15, 1S4. 
 Shewbread, 172. 
 Sidon, 219. 
 Silence as to the Messiahship, 175, 
 
 231, 234, 379- 
 Silence enjoined on the healed, 124, 
 
 142, 143, 175. 
 Sinaitic ; see Syriac. 
 Sinlessness of Christ, 7, 31, 113. 
 Slaves, 107, 280, 346. 
 Sodom, 151, 165. 
 
 Solomon ; see Psalms of. 
 
 Son of David, 2, 10, 143, 215, 282, 
 
 289, 310. 
 Son of God, xxviii, 34, 39, 40, 133, 
 
 167, 210, 378, 398, 404. 
 Son of Man, xxv, 129, 136, 153, 
 
 I7l> 173. 196, 225, 236, 240, 
 
 252, 270, 280, 335, 337, 349, 
 
 353> 359, 37i> 380. 
 Soul or Life, 156, 235, 309. 
 Soul of Christ, 368. 
 Stanley, A. P., 188, 224. 
 Stater, 247, 248, 384. 
 Steinbeck, J., 76, 157. 
 Stier, R. E., 57. 
 Strauss, D., 8, 167, 286, 324. 
 Streane, A. W., 225. 
 Supper, the Last, 358. 
 Swete, PL B., 14, 47, 126, 212, 
 
 266, 268, 298, 305, 321, 336, 
 
 351. 355. 358, 365, 367, 369, 
 371, 399. 405. 413. 418, 421, 
 429. 436, 437- 
 
 Syriac, Sinaitic, 29, 74, 89, 91, 125, 
 
 154, 164, 217, 221, 232, 253, 
 
 254. 275, 281, 317, 319, 321, 
 
 364. 381, 389. 391. 395. 403. 
 406. 
 
 Tabernacles, Feast of, 11, 240, 2S6. 
 
 Tabor, 54, 238. 
 
 Tato/a of Cebes, 115. 
 
 Tacitus, 139, 325, 375, 389. 
 
 Talmud, 17, 68, 83, 98, 102, 106, 
 109, 113, n6, 119, 136, 149, 
 211, 316, 321, 351, 356. 
 
 Tamar, 2. 
 
 Tares, 192. 
 
 Taylor, C. , 275. 
 
 Temple, 40, 287, 289, 292, 328, 
 
 377. 401- 
 Temple-tax, 244. 
 Temptations of Christ, 35, 40, 42, 
 
 125, 233, 234, 368. 
 Ten, xxiii, 59, 343. 
 TertuUian, 22, 82, 95, 107, 112, 160, 
 
 190, 266, 331, 342, 371, 424, 
 
 434- 
 
 Testament of Abraham, 337. 
 
 Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs, 
 xxxiv, 13, 32, 34, 44, 47, 58, 
 62, 77, 78, 80, 88, 99, 104, 105, 
 io5, 107, HI, 128, 151, 181, 
 185, 214, 253, 270, 271, 304, 
 
 309, 325, 329. 336, 349. 35". 
 
 352, 382, 385, 391, 392, 399, 
 403, 414, 417, 436. 
 
448 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Thaddseus, 147. 
 
 Third day, 183, 243, 275, 409, 419. 
 
 Thirlwall, C, 311, 363. 
 
 Thomas de Celano, 155. 
 
 Thomson, W. M., 71. 
 
 Titus, 334. 
 
 Toledolh Jesdiu, 425. 
 
 Tombs, 319, 411. 
 
 Toy, C. H., 118, 177, 275. 
 
 Tractatus de Rebaptismaie, 31. 
 
 Tradition, 174, 211, 319. 
 
 Transfiguration, 238. 
 
 Trench, R. C, 70, 191. 
 
 Tribute to Caesar, 304. 
 
 Triplets, xix, xxi, 2, 77, 91, 96, 
 lOS, 123, 130, 137, 141, 154, 
 171, 193, 309, 316, 317, 318, 
 319, 321- 
 
 Tristram, H. B., 113, 165, 192, 350. 
 
 Triumphal entr)', 284. 
 
 Twelve, the, 148. 
 
 Twelve, tenderness of Mt. for the, 
 xiv, 132, 189, 210, 222, 238, 
 243, 248, 269, 275, 277, 371. 
 
 Two classes of men in Scripture, 118, 
 178, 193. 273> 343. 346- 
 
 Uncleanness, 130. 
 Unpardonable sin, 179. 
 
 Valentinus, 67. 
 
 Veil of the Temple, 401. 
 
 Version, Authorized, eccentricities of, 
 
 89, no, 175, 200, 274, 276, 
 
 283. 352. 372, 422. 
 Revised, 159, 240, 372, 411. 
 Victor of Antioch, 398. 
 Virgil, 391. 
 Virgin-birth, 3, 7. 
 Vultures, 334. 
 
 Walking on the sea, 207. 
 
 Warfield, D. B., 252. 
 
 Washing, 22, 212, 319, 391. 
 
 Watchfulness, 340, 343. 
 
 Wedding, 140, 301. 
 
 Wedding Garment, 302. 
 
 Weiss, B., 205, 229, 246, 254, 311, 
 
 371. 404- 
 Weiss, J., 371. 
 Wellhausen, J., 105, 109, 116, 125, 
 
 127, 168, 295, 339, 342, 420, 
 
 436. 
 Westcott, 179, 180, 195, 268, 330, 
 
 342. 364. 371.403. 426. 
 Wetstein, 142, 290, 303. 
 Weymouth, R. F., 286. 
 Wicked Husbandmen, 296. 
 Williams, Isaac, 336, 383. 
 Wine, 141, 364, 366, 393, 395. 
 Wisdom, 163. 
 
 Woes, 58, 68, 165, 249, 316, 321, 360. 
 Women in the First Gospel, 326, 383, 
 
 407, 412, 418. 
 Wood, J. G., 334. 
 Words from the Cross, 399, 401. 
 Wordsworth and White, 281. 
 Worshipping Jesus, 14, 122, 142, 
 
 210, 216, 422, 427. 
 
 Wright, A., 9, 30, 39, 82, 122, 186, 
 
 211, 214, 260, 286, 288, 326, 
 357, 390, 395. 421, 426. 
 
 Yoke as a metaphor, 171. 
 
 Zachariah, the blood of, 322, 323. 
 
 Zahn, viii, 8, 9, 32, 91, 125, 143, 
 162, 164, 175, 205, 231, 237, 
 258, 291, 295, 303, 324, 339, 
 389, 400, 402. 
 
 Zealots, 147, 2o5, 304. 
 
11. GREEK 
 
 449 
 
 Index II. Greek. 
 
 ayavaKTciv, 262, 289. 
 
 dyaTnjTds, 297. 
 
 dyyapeueLj/, 393. 
 
 &yye\os Kvplov, 417. 
 
 AyeLv, 372. 
 
 dyco^ rdwoSy 332. 
 
 dypos, 385, 394. 
 
 ddrjfxoveTuy 368. 
 
 derdSj 334. 
 
 cti-u/^a, T(i, 353. 
 
 dd(^0Sy 391. 
 
 alTcipy 1 13, 277, 
 
 a^cip, 180, 195, 436. 
 
 alujVLOS, 250, 263, 352. 
 
 dKavdai, 188. 
 
 dKfJL-rjv, 213. 
 
 d/cotieti', 46, 423. 
 
 dKpi^ovv, 20. 
 
 dfiapro}\ol, 372. 
 
 d^T;!/, 76, 83. 
 
 d/j.(pi^\f]a'Tpov, 49, 
 
 di'd7aioi', 358. 
 
 dpdTrai/crts, 171, 
 
 dz'ttTrXTypoOy, 1S9. 
 
 di'aroX'^, 13. 
 
 dfaxw/>eii', 47, 142. 
 
 dvdpWTroSy 113, 131, 257, 29S, 404. 
 
 dvolyeiv, 32. 
 
 dfo/xia, 117, 196. 
 
 dvTdX\ay/j.a, 235. 
 
 dTr' (ipri, 365, 379. 
 
 dWx^ir, 91, 371. 
 
 d7rt(rWa, 243. 
 
 dTrXoOs, 107. 
 
 dird, 163. 
 
 d7r6 rire, 48. 
 
 aTTodTj/Meiu, 296, 346- 
 
 dTToStSii/at, 92, 256, 258, 305, 407. 
 
 diroKpiveada.Lj 38S. 
 
 dTToXOeir, 260. 
 
 dTToariW^LV, 151, 321. 
 
 dp76s, 181. 
 
 dpxi, 142, 379- 
 
 dproi TTJs TTpod^ffeio^, 173. 
 
 dLpxeffdaL, 28. 
 
 dpxtepeijs, 14. 
 
 dpxojy, 263. 
 
 do-^earos, 29. 
 
 ai}X£^e<T^at, 290. 
 
 dtpavi^eiv^ 105. 
 
 d<pUvaL, 43, III, 136, 253, 340, 400. 
 
 d<popi^€Lv, 352. 
 
 29 
 
 ^aTTTL^eiv, 433. 
 
 (3aa'Td^eLV, 28, 128. 
 
 ^cLTTokoyeTv, 93. 
 
 /S^^a, 3S9. 
 
 j3id^€a6aL, 162. 
 
 ^X^ireiv. 112. 
 
 ^pvyixhs tQv dSdfTojv, 200. 
 
 yd/iOL, 312. 
 
 yiypairrai, 146, 3 12, 359, 367. 
 
 yHvv^, 79) 321. 
 
 7e»'ed, 182. 
 
 y4v7}fia T^s d^iriXov, 365. 
 
 yevv-qfiara ^x^SytSi', 27, 35. 
 
 7e;'pdi', 6. 
 
 yivea-dai, 9, 88, 120, 151, 262, 2S5. 
 
 7oi'U7rereti', 241. 
 
 ypijyopeTy, 341. 
 
 Set, 234, 250, 275, 330. 
 
 Seipa, 358. 
 
 d^vdpoVf 194. 
 
 5efi6s, 351. 
 
 5id^oXos, 36, 37, 43. 
 
 Sia/copeir, 43. 
 
 6id/co;/os, 280. 
 
 Stdi'ota, 309. 
 
 dia(pT}/j.i^€iv, 439. 
 
 SiSii/at, 305, 407. 
 
 dibpaxfJ-CLy ret, 244. 
 
 diKaiotnjjfjj, 65, 91, 106, 109. 
 
 Stcrrd^eii', 427. 
 
 doKeip, 28. 
 
 SouXeueii', 107. 
 
 SoCXos, 280. 
 
 Sjjva/its, 335, 379. 
 
 Svuaadaiy 377. 
 
 iyeipeLP, 330. 
 
 eyepats, 403. 
 
 iyKaTCLKeiireLV, 399. 
 
 6716, emphatic, 151, 294, 321, 436. 
 
 ^^pos, 46. 
 
 eZ/c^, 78. 
 
 eiV(, e7c6, 2o8, 37S. 
 
 fts, 22, 33, 433. 
 
 ^/c, 319, 363- 
 
 ^K^dWeiv, 124, 145. 
 
 e/cet, 206, 290, 399, 405, 40S. 
 
 iKKKrjffia., 228, 253. 
 
 €K7r€Lpd^€iv, 41. 
 
 ^Xerj/j-ojv, 66. 
 
450 
 
 INDEX 
 
 iXwi^eiv, 175. 
 e/jLJ3\4Tr€tj', 267, 270. 
 
 ^^, 156, 433- 
 ^voxos., 79. 
 evTo\r}y 30S. 
 €^ojj,o\oyov(T6at., 165. 
 ^^ovaia, 1 1 9. 
 eoprrjv, Kara, 388. 
 eTrduiij, 286. 
 eTT^, 33, 286, 423. 
 eTnyafJ-lBpeueLV, 306, 
 eirLovaLos, lOl, 
 ^pxetrdac, 75, 348. 
 ipX^f^^vo^) Oj 76, 159' 
 eratpe, 374. 
 eTOLfid^eiv, 351. 
 eL'a77Aioi', 50. 
 ei-S^a, 237. 
 eije'^wsj^ 49, 335, 346. 
 euXoyeiv, 361. 
 ei/x'^pt-O'TeTv f 361. 
 ^Xet^, 256, 410. 
 
 ^t^cii/ia, 192. 
 
 ^-oj^, 115, 263, 352. 
 
 ijye/xuv, 385. 
 7]\LKia, 108. 
 7]/j.4pa Kpicreojs, l$l. 
 
 Qa^LopLOv, t6, 23S, 241. 
 ^Aetc, 163, 208, 325. 
 Qeov vl6s, 210. 
 &^poSy 337. 
 6'<i/3u/3os, 353. 
 
 £5oi;, 15. 
 'lepocriXu/xa, 1 3. 
 'lepoucdXTj/x, 324. 
 i/caj'^s, 423. 
 IpLdrLOP, 286, 380. 
 W, 20, 31, 189,1322. 
 
 KaOapds, 66, 407. 
 KaeT]y7}T7}s, 315. 
 Ka6l^€Lv, 314. 
 Kadibs, 284, 359. 
 /cat 7dp, 217. v-^fl 
 /cai /5o(y, 15, 416. 
 KaLp6s, 43, 221/270. 
 KoKetif, 302. 
 KdfXLvo^, 250. 
 Kapdla, 309. 
 /card, 388. 
 KaTa\{ietVf 76, w 77- 
 Karavoecv, 112. 
 /caraTT^ratr/xa, 401. 
 
 KaTa(pt\e'iVj 372. 
 /careloivfTici^cii', 279* 
 KaroLKeiv^ 1 85. 
 KLVCLV, 314. 
 /cXau^^is, 200. 
 kX^ttttjs, 396. 
 KdXaais, 250, 352. 
 Koirreadac, 336. 
 /cot;(7rw5£a, 410. 
 KScpLvos, 219. 
 Kpdtnredov, 14I. 
 KTaaOai, 149. 
 /cffdpioj', 216. 
 KiJpios, 123, 131, 422. 
 K(a^6Sf 175* 
 
 Xijo-ttJs, 288, 396. 
 XiKfJiap, 299. 
 XiJrpoj', 280. 
 Xu^^os, 89. 
 
 f^a07}TG^€tVj 406, 430. 
 /xaXaKia, 50, 53> ^28. 
 fj.a/jLLijvds, 107. 
 /idxatpa, 374. 
 fjL^WsLv, 243, 275, 277. 
 fxipiixva, 108, 109. 
 /jLepifiydv, io8. 
 p-erdvoLaf 21. 
 
 fJ,€TOLK€(Tla, 1 1. 
 
 M^, III, 306. 
 yUPT/jueloy, 411. 
 fiOLXo^Xis, 182. 
 fMvaTTjptoi', 189. 
 pi,it)p6Sf 79, 118. 
 
 Nafa/>^r, 18. 
 Nafwpatos, 1 8, 396. 
 I'af, 84. 
 
 ^a6s, 377' 385- 
 /'eaz'ts, 8. 
 i'eai'io-/co?, 263, 
 j'^os, 365. 
 
 olKo8e<T7r6T7}s, 296. 
 6Xi707rto"Tfa, 243. 
 6'Xoj,^ii4, 375. 
 6fj.oLovy, 192. 
 6/ioXo7eii' ^f, 156. 
 fipo^a, 325, 330, 434. 
 ^^os, 395, 411. 
 67r£a-tJ, 43, 233. 
 6'7rws, 20, 189, 322. 
 6pa/ia, 239. 
 6pKOs, 84. 
 6pos, 54, 426. 
 otJ /^i?, 325. 345- 
 
II. GREEK 
 
 451 
 
 oipavios, 74. 
 
 oipavol, 24, 32, 74, 228. 
 
 ofJrws, 74, 
 
 801S, 113. 
 
 S^Xoi TToKKoi, 53, 
 
 ^VJ-^, 415. 
 
 ^i/'£a, 406. 
 
 TrayiSedeiVj 304. 
 
 irais, 201, 289. 
 
 TdXw, 77, 254. 
 
 7raXi;''yefeo"/a, 271. 
 
 TvapadiS6vai, 16S, 243, 276, 353. 
 
 TTapaKoveiv, 254. 
 
 TrapaXa/x^dveii/, 253, 340. 
 
 irapaxpvp-a, 2go. 
 
 Trapeim, 373. 
 
 irapdipos, 8. 
 
 irapiivai, 373. 
 
 irapovaia, 329. 
 
 Ilariip, 74, 369. 
 
 TTfLpd^Hv, 43. 
 
 TrevOepd, 127. 
 
 ireplXviros, 368. 
 
 irirpa, 228. 
 
 n^T/pos, 228. 
 
 x^pa, 150. 
 
 iriveLVj 363. 
 
 TrLlrpdffKeiv, 197. 
 
 TrXai'aj', 307, 330. 
 
 TrXdvtj, 409, 
 
 TrXd^/os, 409. 
 
 wXtipovv, 20, 76, 189, 386. 
 
 xoieij/, 181, 240. 
 
 TTofos, 265, 292, 308, 340. 
 
 TTOJ-TJ/Dds, 86, 113. 
 
 TTopeieffffai, 15, 140. 
 
 TTopvela, 81. 
 
 Tpafit, 64, 170. 
 
 Trpodyeiv, 295. 
 
 Trp6$eaL5j 173. 
 
 TTpis 77^as, 199. 
 
 Trpaa^pxea-dat, 37, 141. 
 
 wpoiTKWecp, 13, 15, 43, 122, 142, 427. 
 
 T'poa\aiJ,pdv€<T8at, 232, 
 
 Trpocr(pipeiv, 79, 128, 261. 
 
 TrpdiTbnrov, 105. 
 
 '^'""Ma, 334> 407- 
 
 TTuxis, 62, 334. 
 
 tiJXt/, 115. 
 
 TCp, 250, 352. 
 
 vvfipdj^ec, 237. 
 
 pijOii', r6, 20. 
 (5^/Ha, 181. 
 /JiVreii-, 145, 385. 
 
 ad^^arov, 333, 415. 
 
 (Tayrjvq^ 49. 
 
 (xawpbs, 181. 
 
 creio-p.ds, 131, 415. 
 
 <reXi;;'i(£fe(7-#ai, 241. 
 
 a-KXripoKapSiaj 259. 
 
 (T/ciJXXet!', 145. 
 
 iTTT^Xaioi', 288. 
 
 a-Tr\ayxvi^e(Teai, 123, 1 44, 282 
 
 a-TaTTjp, 248, 384. 
 
 (TTavpovv, 395. 
 
 o-i) rfTras, 361, 378, 387. 
 
 tri) X^eis, 387. 
 
 <rufi^o6\cov Xa/j.^dveiv, 175. 
 
 (ru«£7ei(/, 308, 351, 376. 
 
 (Twalpeiv \6yoi', 258. 
 
 cri5i'5oi;Xoy, 342. 
 
 o-WT^Xeia, 195, 436. 
 
 ctpddpa, 15. 
 
 iTipuph, 219. 
 
 (TxoMteiv, 185. 
 
 rap.etov, no. 
 
 Tii0os, 411. 
 
 TiKvov, 136, 163, 294. 
 
 TeKch, 119, 153. 
 
 rAeios, 88. 
 
 TeXii^r/s, 89. 
 
 ti/it; a'i/iaTos, 385. 
 
 TcSre, IS 276, 313, 343, 356. 
 
 rpiT)/ ij/t^p^t, 183. 
 
 TpvpXlof, 359. 
 
 vVaye, 43, 134, 233. 
 flro, 37. 
 
 ilTT'OKpCT-qS, 342. 
 
 ilTTO^Ov-q^ 152. 
 var(7(f, 400. 
 varepeip, 265, 266. 
 
 (pi/xovv, 303. 
 
 tpoprll'eii/, 170. 
 (poprlov, 170. 
 (jtpdvi/ios, 1 18, 346. 
 i^UTEtyis, 239. 
 
 Xa-lp^re, 422. 
 X'T(iy, 380. 
 XoXtJ, 394, 411. 
 XPW'd^, 170. 
 
 4'evSoiJ.o.pTvpl.a, 214, 220. 
 if-KX^, 156, 309, 368. 
 
 lidli'oiv, apxv, 330. 
 
Printed by 
 
 Morrison & Gibb Limited 
 
 Edinburgh 
 
1 ^^\r^'^"''^^ V ? 
 
 '«K