Bathe Bese ite ist rasan 2; ae Saree ἐ Baie Ὑγρῦ 2» 3 596? DL ΟΣ, ΣΟ λον ἊΝ ἢ $2 Phi : Ἢ τ ἘΥΕΞ ΞΟ: an » Γ » τ ie , > δ᾽: δον ον : eehesetsteseces , 33 23 δ oes ‘A >, 2 πὸ δ δες cite é es etite ξ ~ Seal oe ae, CAs χ' 7, 4, ἜΗΝ ied SEPLERIPEDREEERREE BREE . THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, © Princeton, Ν. J. | τ οὐ οἵδε δύο οἷ οὗν, Wh of S05 Coens <> 009 S0o πως. νὴ ΩΝ ἵ Ἢ ΟΥ̓ ἐν i Sy ᾿ ι μι Gar Yi AMaiie Ny yo Es I. 4 " THE Ζ f BIBLICAL CABINET; OR rs HERMENEUTICAL, EXEGETICAL, AND PHILOLOGICAL LIBRARY. ΓΙ VOL. XX. THOLUCK’S EXPOSITION OF THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. EDINBURGH: THOMAS CLARK, 38. GEORGE STREET ; J. G. ἃ F. RIVINGTON, LONDON 5 AND W. CURRY, JUN. & CO. DUBLIN. MDCCCXXXVII. ‘, & j te) ν᾿ - is haa ta poate in mis ἤλαυνε i me a ‘i ee 7 ΔΑ ἀν EX POSITION, DOCTRINAL AND PHILOLOGICAL, 5 CHRIST’S SERMON ON THE MOUNT, GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ; INTENDED LIKEWISE AS A HELP TOWARDS THE FORMATION OF A PURE BIBLICAL SYSTEM OF FAITH AND MORALS. “ TRANSLATED FROM να ORIGINAL GERMAN OF DR. A.”THOLUCK, CONSISTORIAL COUNSELLOR AND PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF HALLE, AND CORRESPONDING MEMBER OF THE ASIATIC SOCIETY OF LONDON, BY THE REV. ROBERT MENZIES, MINISTER OF HODDAM. VOL. IE. «* Habet Scriptura Sacra haustus primos, habet secundos, habet tertios.” AUGUSTINE. EDINBURGH: THOMAS CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET. MDCCCXXXVII. ᾿ é ia at § RN, i Rint ; ἢ We ye ἮΝ Ὁ ᾿ ΓΝ ve ἡμᾷ ὦ ἣν " ἐς τς ρα MIN EBS NREL oe “Worry ey 770s Ξ τὰ CHAPTER V. VERSES 33—36. To the Old Testament precept respecting perjury, our Saviour here givesits tAjgwors. The οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις, SO far as the substance is concerned, although not alto- gether the same in expression, is to be found repeated in the law, Lev. xix. 12. spw> ‘nwa, 1yawn x», and Ex. xx. 7. In the first of these passages, the LX. X. have οὐκ ὀμεῖσθε τῷ ὀνόματί μου ἐπ᾿ ἀδίκῳ; in the latter, οὐ λήψῃ σὺ ὄνομα Kugiou τοῦ Θεοῦ σου ἐπὶ ματαίῳ. The ap- pended clause, ΠΝ %. 7. A. does not stand in the law, excepting that in passages, such as Num. xxx. 3. Deut. xxiii. 22. the fulfilment of the o13 which are made to God is required. In conjoining it immediately with the commandment in question, the doctors of the law, in all probability did so, with the intention of re- stricting the commandment, and giving it a reference principally to vows and oaths made to God. The sup- position is quite consonant with the character of the ‘men, as we learn that from Matt. xv. 53 xxiii. 18. Accordingly, the τῷ Κυρίῳ would require to be read with emphasis. To this perversion and limitation of the precept, our Saviour does not here pay particular notice, but sets it aside in, and by giving the Old Testament commandment its πλήρωσις. “In that Tes- VOL. 11. B 9 CHAP. V. VERSES 33—36. tament such a veneration for the name of God was required, as rendered penal the swearing by it of false oaths. I, however, call for such a veneration of God’s name, that even érue oaths shall not be sworn thereby : Nay, not merely must not this be done by his name, it must not even be done by any other object of re- verence, as even in that case oaths indirectly violate the reverence due to God. In place of such oaths, make use of simple affirmation.” We shall first explain the μὴ ὀμόσαι ὅλως, and then the subdivisions by μήτε. As regards the infinitive ὀμόσοι, it must not, as done by Bezaand Georgi, be taken as imperative, (the Vulgate has non [ne] jurate,) but as infinitive go- verned by λέγω, which, in classical as well as Hel- lenistic Greek, is, after ax, equivalent to κελεύω, v. 39, 44.; Luke vi. 46. ὅλως, tantamount to τὸ ὅλον, τὼ ὅλα, τοῖς ὅλοις, Which are used adverbially and resp. to πάντη, πάντως, παντά- πᾶσι, τὸ παράπαν, &c. contrasts the total to the parti- cular, and forms the antithesis to xara σμικρά and κατὰ μέρος. From the New Testament compare | Cor, v. 1; vi. 7; xv. 29, Plato, Sophistes, ὃ 22. ed. Heind., Xenephon, Memor. vi. ], 17; 1, 2, 85, Wetstein on 1 Cor. v. 1. Now, here arises an important ques- tion, viz. What the particular is to which ὅλως forms the antithesis. Are all the occasions meant on which there is need to swear true oaths? so that the mean- ing would be : I command you in no conceiveable ease ever to swear a true oath. Have we perhaps to re- solve the saying as follows: λέγω ὑμῖν μήτε πυκνὰ, μή- τε σπανίως ὀμέσαι, μήτε μετὰ φόβου τοῦ Θεοῦ, μήτε ἀνο- CHAP. V. VERSES 99---96. 3 csiwg? Were this the πλήρωσις of the Old Testament precept, then must there have been previous ques- tion, not of the ἐπιορκεῖν, but in certain cases of the εὐορκεῖν. Or, again, does the ὅλως refer to the various species of oaths, so that Christ meant to say: Not only do I forbid oaths by God, but oaths of all sorts, even those sworn by the creatures? (In that case every particular oath would be forbidden implicitly ). This supposition might be suggested by the circum- stance, that hereafter, in the subdivision, the principal kind of oath, that by God, is omitted. But then there must antecedently have been question respect- ing the εὐορκεῖν κατὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, and the Old Testament precept must have run: μὴ ὀμόσητε εἰ μὴ κατὼ τοῦ Θεοῦ μόνον. Expressed as it now is, the ὅλως manifestly forms theantithesis, not to the εὐορκεῖν κατὰ μέρος, but to the ἐπιορκεῖν or Ψευδορκεῖ, so as to yield us the meaning, “ Not merely do I forbid false swearing in specie, but swearing in genere.” ἃ. ? Bengel excellently : Omnino utrumque, falso et vere, ju- randi genus, non tamen verum juramentum wniversaliter prohibet. The antithesis has seldom been seized in this man- ner. It would have been more expressive had ἁπλῶς stood here in place of ὅλως. That word is indeed used like ὅλως, in order to contrast every universal with the particular; but it is used “more specially to contrast the universality of the idea apart from side definitions—such as here true and false swearing— with the limitation of it occasioned by accompanying circum- stances. So simpliciter in Latin, and in German schlechthin, (schlecht originally the opposite of krumm, in which sense schlicht is now used.) In the same way in Rhetoric, ἁπλῶς ἐκφέρειν is opposed to voxiaws, 6. g. Dion. Hal. de Thue. 53, 2. Cicero de Orat. 11. 16. So, too, the adjective μετὰ ἁπλῆς 4 CHAP. V. VERSES 83—36. A greater universality consequently is not to be given to the precept of Christ than belongs to that of his disciple James, 6. v. 12. πρὸ πάντων δὲ, μὴ ὀμνύετε, without ἃ ὅλως. Doubtless, even in that way, the command is sufficiently general for us, even, ὦ prior, to expect nothing less than that every particular case of swearing is excepted. Still, he who is familiar with the language of the New Testament, will recollect a multitude of passages, where commands and prohibi- tions have an equal, nay a still greater degree of ge- nerality, and where, nevertheless, exceptions are supposed. As a first instance, this is the ease above at v. 22, when we banish εἰχῇ from the text; the πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος, and the ὅστις ἂν εἴπῃ have there indubita- bly their exceptions. Again, when it is said in the sequel, v. 39, ὅστις σε ῥαπίσει, or V. 41, ὅστις σε ἄγγα- eevous, or Vv. 42, τῷ αἰτοῦντί σε δίδου, all this has, by common admission, its exceptions. Nay, in Luke vi. 30, the last of these sayings runs, παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι σε, which is a still more express intimation of generality than our κωλύω τὸ ὁμνύειν, answering, as it does, to λέγω ὑμῖν πάντοτε μὴ ὀμόσα. Nevertheless, no one doubts that the σαντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντί σε has its exceptions. At Col. iii. 20, Paul says to children, traxovere τοῖς γονεῦσι κατὰ πάντα. Does this hold even when parents enjoin something sinful? In all such instances, the generality of the expression, and the absence of every modifying clause, are to be explained upon the prin- κινήσεως, Arist. de Mundo, 6,12, ‘ purely by motion.” In the Talmud we often find in precepts the contrast, 5552 and 55, which amounts to, ‘ without exception, and in particular.” CHAP. V. VERSES 33—36. 5 ciples laid down at 6. v. 21. Accordingly, there being nothing, so far as the words are concerned, which forbids us, despite its indefinite generality, to limit the commandment not to swear, the determina- tion as to whether we are to understand it absolutely or not, depends upon the following grounds: For which of the two suppositions does, 1. the nature of the oath; 2. the connection of the passage; and, 3, other declarations of scripture decide ? With regard, first, to the xaéure of the oath: An oath is the token of a religious disposition. He only who believes on God, can appeal to God as a witness and avenger. Every pious man, when unjustly accused, will, in his heart, look up to the Omniscient to bear testimony to his innocence. Why then, should not a Christian do outwardly, what he may do inwardly with impunity? If we here make the supposition, that the man of piety, even without any outward oc- casion to do so, and merely prompted by an inward impulse alone, will, in the consciousness of the truth of what he says, invoke God to bear testimony, we have an indisputable proof of the fact, in the pas- sages about to be quoted from Paul’s Epistles, where the Apostle, although not called upon, nor under any constraining necessity from without, asseverates the truth by God. To this we shall afterwards return, in the history of the exposition of the precept, and here, by way of premising, merely refer to Rom. ix. ], 2 Cor. ii. 17; xi. 10, which passages being not oaths in the regular form, but a transition to them, serve to shew, that the oath proceeds ‘involuntarily from a lively consciousness of the divine Being. In the Old 6 CHAP. V. VERSES 33—236. Testament the oath is commanded by God, Ex. xxii. 10. Deut. vi. 13; x. 21. It is a mark of the true worshipper of God, Is. xix. 18; Ixv. 16. Jer. iv. 2. Ps. Ixiii. 11. God himself swears, Is. xlv. 23. Heb. vi. 18, the import of which is stated at Heb. vi. 16.* As to the connection in which the passage before us brings the precept forward, the πλήρωσις of the Old Testament command consists in the fact, that ὦ stid/ higher reverence for God is required, than was the case under that dispensation. Now, ifall kinds of swearing are not, by any means, repugnant to reverence for the divine Being, but merely that which is inconsiderate, it follows that, according to Christ’s intention, this latter sort alone can be excluded. * Maimonides in Const. de Jurejur. c. 11, § 1. “ The oath, in the name of the great God, is a sort of religious wor- ship. It is a high act of veneration or reverence to swear in the name of God.” We have to compare with this the beautiful observations of Kimchi, on Jer. iv. 2, where he says, towards the close: That not every man is worthy to swear, 98) NON YITN) OWT, but those only who fear and love God. As in other cases, so here also, Spenser is partial and shallow when he considers the concession of the oath in the Old Testament as a mere accommodation to the heathenish practice of swearing much, De leg. Hebr. ed. Pfaff. 1. 1. ὁ. 9. p.31. The Essenes, too, who rejected every oath except that of initiation into their order, shew, in this respect, also, that they had united with the doc- trine of Moses a mysticism foreign to its spirit. The im- port of the oath given, Heb. vi. 16, lies in the etymology of the word ὅρκος from εἴργω, ἀρκέω. See Scheidius zu Lennep. Ety- mol. 11, 685. The German Eid, is dark. Adelung instances Ty. Grimm compares aiva, eva, Law, as, in the Swedish laws, dag, (lex) also used for oath = a statute. So are jusand jurare the same word. CHAP. V. VERSES 33—36. 7 In fine, if we take into consideration other passages of the New Testament, there is a fact which has, at all times, awakened the strongest scruples with re- gard to the absolute rejection of the oath. It is, that St. Paul, in several parts of his Epistles, invokes God as a witness, Rom.i. 9. Phil. i.8. 1 Thess. ii. 5, 10. .2. Cor. ‘xi. 11,.S1.. Gal. 1. 20... 1. Tim. veal. 1 Cor. xv. 81. 2 Cor. i. 23, nay, in the last text, which has been already remarked by Gerh. Vossius, Hist. Pel. |. v. p. 2. antith. 1, as an avenger. (This, however, is substantially involved in every invocation of God asa witness.) Along with these we have to take the formulas, Rom. ix. 1. 2 Cor. ii. 17; xi. 10. Eph. iv.17. 1 Thess. v. 27, which form a kind of transition to the proper oath. Nay, what is still more, we are able—despite the many objections taken by Pott, Flatt and de Wette—to shew, beyond a doubt, that Christ himself swore a judicial oath. Upon the solemn adjuration of the high-priest, ἐξορκίζω σε κατὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος, Mat. xxvi. 63, our Lord replies σὺ εἶτας, and, by these words, made a judi- cial oath in proper form: For, among the Hebrews, it was the judge who pronounced the words, the person accused made them his own by the yax.* These rea- sons are so cogent, that, as the words, agreeably * The oath }2¥Y DM and the J MX DD (which another dictated, were of equal weight.) Maimonides, Constit. de jure- jur. c. 11, § 10. Selden de Synedr. 11, 11, p. 830. Michaelis Mosaisches Recht. Th. 6, § 302. If Christ had held an oath to be sinful, he must needs have rebuked the High Priest for propos- ing it, and then have declared the truth; Unless, as we are told was done by the early Christians, to whom the oath appeared 8 CHAP. V. VERSES 33—36. to what we have said, do not oblige us to ascribe ab- solute universality to the prohibition, but admit of a restrictive view being taken of if, we must, without scruple, regard that as the truly correct one. The Saviour, accordingly, forbids absolutely such oaths only as are hostile to the reverence which is due to Giada)! We now turn to the subdivision appended. What first strikes us here is, that in the specification of the ὅρκοι, the chief sort, such, to wit, as are sworn by God, is not placed first. Neither is this done by the disciple James, c. v. 12, where it is said: 720 σάντων δὲ, μὴ ὀμνύετε μήτε τὸν οὐρανὸν, μήτε τὴν γῆν, μήτε ἄλλον τινὰ ὅρκον. Many have made use of the circum- stance, to demonstrate that no other oaths whatever, excepting such as are sworn by the creatures, were prohibited. That oaths by God, however, are not excluded from the prohibition, but, on the contrary, are the kind principally intended, results indisputably from the grounds advanced against oaths made by the creatures. Because, the reason given by our Saviour for the latter not being allowed is, that they, in fact, involve an oath by God, and, consequently, they fur- nish against such an oath a conclusion a minori ad majus. On this account also, it was not properly necessary to make particular mention of the oaths by God. If, however, from this passage itself we may be permitted to infer, that the Israelite looked upon sinful, he meant to keep silence at the adjuration, as he pre- viously did when the accusations were brought against him, and again afterwards when in presence of Pilate. CHAP. V. VERSES 99---96. 9 swearing by the creatures to be of a less questionable character, if again, Matth. xxiii. 16—18, we find that certain smaller oaths were considered as not obligatory, if we consider besides that the Talmud, Tr. Schebuoth, c. 4, § 13, positively avers, that oaths nyawa and y1x2 do not bind, and, moreover, that quite in the style in which lax jesuitical casuists make laxer still the precepts of their lax forerunners, Maimonides, in virtue of the Halacha, adds, that oaths “by heaven,” “by the earth,” “ by the prophets,” &c. are not bind- ing, even when, at the time, we think of the Creator and author of all things, but that the judge absolves from them,* then surely, these oaths not being valid before a tribunal, and only used in common life, it may be inferred, that our Saviour—as afterwards his disciple James—does intentionally condescend upon them, and that, in the whole commandment, he had mainly in view the oaths of common life. In this way the exception we have made, to wit, that the μὴ ὀμόσαι Goes not include oaths taken with due reverence, acquires fresh confirmation. And now, if we would obtain a satisfactory insight into the grounds on which Christ forbade swearing by the creatures, it is necessary to explain in general # Maimonides Constit. de jurejur. c. 12, § 3. We have a trace of this even in Martial, |. 10, Ep. 95: Eece negas jurasque mihi per templa Tonantis, Noun eredo: Jura verpe per anchialum. (ort vox.) The casuistry was carried still farther. We read in the Gemara: Whoever swears DY>wy4) is not bound to keep his oath, but only he who swears DY Wd, or yyw). 10 CHAP. V. VERSES 33—36. the use made of this sort of oaths. All the nations of antiquity swore, not only by God, but likewise by the creatures, particularly such of the creatures as were consecrated to God, swearing, as the medium of the oaths thus sworn to the Deity, by the symbols, towns, groves, &c. that were sacred to him, afterwards by his most significant representatives in nature,* by the sun, the earth, the elements, moreover by the bodily members, or any thing else that was dear to them, by the head, the beard, Women swore by the breast, and the hair—by the graves of their forefathers,> by their sword, &c. In Greek, verbs of swearing most generally govern the accusative, except when xara is used with the genitive.© (Compare the forms of * Quite like the ancients is the passage in Philo, de leg. Special, p. 770, Fr. where he recommends to swear in pre- ference by the sun, the earth, the heavens, as the oldest of God’s creatures—=mgocies ἀγήρω διαιωνισθέντα τῇ Tod πεποιηκότος apn, with which we may compare the passage from Eustathius in Wetstein. > Herodot. of the Nasamones, Hist. IV. 172. © Κατά is also used, Matt. xxvi. 63. Heb. vi. 13, 16. We find the accusative, Jam. v. 12. The genitive, with κατά in this construction, intimates, without doubt, direction towards, (Bernhardy, Syntax, s. 238). In old German gegen is used in oaths: gein der Sunnen. See Grimm Rechtsalterth, II. 895. Upon 3 in Hebrew, see Ewald Gramm. 5. 606. εἰς and ἐν are copies of the Hebrew, although we find in Herodian, 1. 2, c. 2, in reference to the military oath: εἴς re σὸ ἐκείνου ὄνομα τοὺς συνήθεις ὅρκους ὀμόσαντες. Here, however, Irmisch, T. II. Ρ. 58, saw an imitation of the Latin, in nomen jurare. Georgi believes that he has found also in Plato an example of ἐστομινύναι iv, to wit, De Leg. 1. xi. St. p. 917, and in fact the passage CHAP. V. VERSES 33—36. 11 supplication, πρὸς Θεῶν, πρὸς δεξιᾶς) 3 in the New Tes- tament εἰς and ἐν, the latter imitative of the Hebrew 2 yow3; in Latin we have the accusative or per, in the languages of the German stock, bez (at, ved, wed), in the Sclavonic dialects auf, zu (na). The circum- stance common to all these constructions is, that the party swearing, places himself in communion with the Divine Being, addresses him, and does so with the twofold intention, partly that he should be a witness, and partly that he should be an avenger ; the latter of which implies that, in case of perjury, his protection is to be lost. To express this meaning in a still more lively way—as every lively sentiment calls for an outward representation—the person taking the oath places his hand on the object sacred to the Divinity ; among the Greeks and Romans, and even the Chris- tians of an early age, he laid hold of the altar; among the Greeks and ancient Germans, of the staff of the judge; in Scandinavia, of the blood-stained ring -of the god Ullr; in the middle ages, of the relic chest, the book or bell of the mass, the gospel; among the Jews of the sn or the phylacteries ; among the Ma- hometans of the Koran.2. With respect now to oaths has generally been translated in a way as to induce such a belief. See, however, the correction by Ast, T. II. p. 513, who shews that ἐπομνύναι is not here, according to the common translation, equivalent to pejerare, but has its usual significa- tion of dejerare. * We have also an essay upon the oath, by Staudlein, Got- ting. 1824. But more solid information may be found in other authors, 6. g- Montblanc. The literatureon the subject is given by the learned Fabricius in his Bibliogr. Antiquaria, p. 427 —432. As regards the practice, particularly among the Greeks 12 CHAP. V. VERSES 33—36. sworn by the creatures, they too originally did no more than express, that in mind the party bronght himself into their presence, and addressed them. This, however, assumed a further intention, to the effect, that they were invoked as witnesses, or that, on the supposition of falsehood, he was engaged to loose them. In the first case, a bold personification took place, mingled with the thought that the creature was something animated with divinity. Now such oaths are regarded by the Saviour in a way which, for a human sage, would be said to display profound religious insight; for certainly it would not occur to any common mind to declare swearing by the creatures, as in this point of view, unlawful. What- soever a man swears by is usually regarded by him as the greater (Heb. vi. 16), at least as something possessed of worth or importance, and which can do and Romans, the youthful treatise of Valckenaer, in the Opuse. ed. Lips. T. I., may still be called the most instructive. Upon the oath among the northern and Germanic nations, the collec- tions of Grimm, in his Rechtsalterth. Th. II., are admirable. As for the Jews, the Tract Shebuoth, with Annotations by Maimonides and Bartenoras, is to be perused (Surenhusius, P. IV.) and the edition of Maimonides, published by Suren- husius’ Scholar, Dithmar, Constitutiones de Jurejur. Lugd. Bat. 1706. We mention farther Zeltner, De jur. vet. Hebr. Jen. 1093. Halterman De formulis juram. Jud. Rost. 1701. Seb. Schmidt Fasc. disp. disp. XI. The Mahometan oaths, which resemble in all respects the Jewish, are given by Mill in his admirable dissertation De Muhammedismo, &c. Dissert. sel. Lugd. Bat. 1743, p. 113. Much useful matter upon the subject of the oaths of different nations, is contained in the 11th chapter, B..ii. of Selden De Synedriis. CHAP. V. VERSES 33—36. 13 him good or harm. Here our Saviour avers, that all that is lofty, valuable or interesting in crea- tion, borrows its worth or import from the Most High; quia nulla pars mundi, says Calvin, cui Deus non insculpserit gloriz sue notam. Accordingly, as the glory of all things is the glory of God, it follows that oaths sworn by created things are oaths by God, requiring to be uttered with reverence, and on that account not to be used on common occasions. This sublime thought, which conducts the mind into the profoundest deep of thetheory ofthe world, is, never- theless, here expressed by our Divine Master in so po- pular and simple a form, as to render it intelligible, in the first instance, to the Jew, and then universally to all. The lofty poetry of the Hebrews had described heaven as God’s throne, and the earth as his foot- stool, (Is. Ixvi. 1) ;? Jerusalem, the central point of the theocracy, is called by way of distinction 22 np an, Ps. xlviii. 3 (falsely translated by Luther, Eines grossen, KGnigs) ; and how much is the human head the property and work of God, considering that it is not in a man’s own power to change the colour of a single hair? Let it be observed also how the discourse descends from the higher to the lower kinds of oath.> 2 Augustine: Quoniam in hoc universo mundi corpore maxi- mam speciem coelum habeat, et terra minimam, tanquam pre- sentior sit excellenti pulchritudini vis divina, minima vero ordinet in extremis atque infimis sedere in coelo dicitur ter- ramque calcare. > The use of these very oaths by Jews and Gentiles, is at- 14 CHAP, V. VERSES 338—36. It is likewise remarkable in this subdivision, that at ver. 36, the verb is again repeated, and that it does not, as one would have expected, couple a new sentence with μηδέ, but just, as before, with μήτε. This oecurs in other passages, E;ph. iv. 27, where, however, Lach- mann has adopted μηδε. ‘The interchange of οὔτε and οὐδὲ, μήτε and μηδέ, is of frequent occurrence in the co- dices, and modern Editors commonly form the read- ing according to the requirements of grammar. (For passages where μῆτε is used in place of μηδέ, after a μηὃξ going before, See Winer, Gram. s. 410, and for where tested by Grotius, Wetstein, Schéitgen, Lightfoot, Scheidius in Meuschen, N. T. I shall only add what Aben Ezra says on Ex. xx. 7. YAW’ ON DY TY OND WIN ATID min 2 87 137 NN ops ΝῊ, FONT wea DIX TMA NIWTID NILA AW Ν Ὁ ant Ypwn wr 73 Nd N’DTDA 3127 MN from which he draws an inference as to the responsibility of the perjurer to God. It is thus that the Caliph in Elmakins Hist. Sarac. ed. Erp. p. 109, requires, “Swear by my head.” Among the Mahometans of the pre- sent day, x\JJ Ν and xi§l, 81:6 511} quite customary forms of oath in common life, though in general no where is the name of God so greatly profaned as among this people, which Burckhardt has recently observed afresh. As to the colouring of the hair (Béwrecbas τὰς τρίχας), it was a practice which vanity often dic- tated in their old age, to the Greeks and Romans. The commen- tators have collected copious allusions. The most ludicrous of all is the remark of Bapt. Oittius in his Spicil. ex Josepho (ed. Havere. 1741), who, as Josephus has related that He- rod practised this piece of vanity, supposes that the passage conveys a reproof to him: Christus Servator sapientissime et sanctissime hoc monito Herodis taxavit vanitatem. CHAP. V. VERSES 99---90, 1) μηδὲ ἴῃ place of μήτε, 6. g. according to Bekker, Stall- baum in Plato de Rep. iii. p. 391, ¢.) Even Lach- mann, in the passage before us, has retained μήτε, and as the sentence runs on in the subdivision, this may well be defended. We now turn to the history of the exposition. The opinion of the unlawfulness of all oaths, we find very extensively spread in the infancy of the church, and grounded upon our Saviour’s saying and the text, Jam. v. 12. One of the most ancient voices is that of Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 6.16: Περὶ δὲ rod μὴ ὁὀμνύ- ναι ὅλως «2. οὕτω παρεκελεύσατο" μὴ ὀμόσητε ὅλως" ἔστω δὲ ὑ μῶν τὸ vai ναὶ κσλ. At the beginning of the third century, Basilides suffered martyrdom for refusing to take an oath: ὅρκον διὰ τινὰ αἰτίαν πρὸς τῶν συστρατιωτῶν αἰτηθεὶς, μὴ ἐξεῖναι αὐτῷ τὸ παράπαν ὀμνύναι διεβεβαιοῦ- σοῦ Irenaeus declares himself to the same effect, adv. Her. II. 32, with the limitation, that either by or from a regard to weaker brethren, an oath may be taken. So Clemens Alexr. Strom. VII. p. 861, Origen ad Jer. Hom. 5, tr. 35, in Mat., Exhort. ad martyr. c. 7, Cyrill Alexr.1. VI. de Ador. p. 212. Again the oath is peremptorily prohibited by Basil, ep. 45 and 22: Compare, ep. 209, what he says of Gregory the Great,” by the Const. Apost.1. VI. ¢.3; 2 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. VI. 5. > His words are: "Ἔφευγε τοὺς ὅρκους ἡ καθαρὰ ἐκείνη ψυχὴ καὶ ἀξία τῆς τοῦ ἁγίου Τινεύμαςος κοινωνίας, ἀρκουμένη τῷ ναὶ καὶ τῷ ov. The writers upon the oath, all quote this passage from Basil on Ps. xiv.(xv.) It is doubtless the strongest, but the work is spurious. See Append, ad T. 1. ed. Garnier. --ἰντ-......ὕ....Ὅὕ....“ - τ .-τ- 16 CHAP. V. VERSES 33—36. by Theodoret De cur. Gr. aff. disp. x., Epit. divin. decret. c. 16, but above all by Chrysostom, in many passages of his works. In the exposition of the text before us, for instance, he says: Τί οὖν, ἂν ἀπαιτῇ σις ὅρκον, φησὶ, καὶ ἀνάγκην ἐπάγῃ ; ὃ τοῦ Θεοῦ φόβος τῆς ἀνάγκης (ἔστω) δυνατώτερος. In like manner after him Isidorus Pelus. and even Theophylact and Euthymius. In the Latin church, Hilary commenting on the text, and Jerome do the same. The scruple that the Apostle Paul had made use of an oath, seems never to have suggested itself to these fathers, inasmuch as all of them (with the exception of Theodoret, who, on 2 Cor. xi. 10, speaks of a ὅρκος), regard these passages, not as asseverations in the form of oath, but as special manifestations of the σπουδὴ, ἀγάπη and θεραπεία. of the Apostle. For the further establishment of their views, an appeal is always made to the circumstance, that if the Christian never but keeps his simple word, as strictly as an oath, his yes or no will pass for such, and that an oath is,as Chrysostom says, τρόπων ἀπιστουμένων ἐγγυής. It might, to be sure, be answered: But if others are so depraved as not to believe the thorough integrity of the affirming party, and if the oath have nothing ir- religious in its nature, it too may lawfully be sworn. Accordingly, Chrysostom, in another passage, replies, It is enough to know that Christ has, once for all, for- bidden it. Upon the grounds mentioned, several philosophers also argued for the unlawfulness of the oath. We name Pythagoras, of whose scholar Syllus, it is told, that he once declined, at the expense of a heavy fine, an oath, which he could, with a good con- CHAP. V. VERSES 99---890. 17 science have taken,? and then, in particular, the Stoics, Epictetus, Enchir. c. 33. 5, and Simplicius.® It was not until the fifth century, that the refusal of an oath among the Pelagians was considered hereti- eal. In later times, we only meet with it among the sects seceding from the Romish church, who were desirous of restoring Christianity to its primitive form, the Cathari, Albigenses and Waldenses ; also in times still more modern, among a party of the professors of the ancient orthodoxy in Russia, the Rascolnici, the Duchoborzi and Philippones. Memorable, and within the pale of the church unique, is Erasmus’ note upon ver. 31: Moxque subjungit de non jurando, quod ita vetuit ut nihil omnino exceperit. Et tamen quasi non sit hoc a Christo serio dictum, passim ju- ramus. Certe votis omnibus optandum, ut tales sint Christiani, ut neque divortio sit opus neque jurejuran- do. Beza, even in his time, expresses himself surprised how Erasmus should have here fallen into ‘“ Anabap- tistical errors.” The last phrase, however, shews that he did not mean the oath to be absolutely rejected. In the general principles of the church upon this subject, the Reformers acquiesced, affording us another occasion to admire the soundness of their moral sense.° 2 Jambl. Vita Pyth. p. 126. > Compare Grotius, Wetstein, Menage zu Diog. Laert. IV. 7, T. II. 169. : © We have only to except Carlstadt, of whom my respected colleague, Dr. Weber, gives a very characteristical note in manuscript. Juramentis nemo melior, plures fiunt deteriores. Qui Deum non reveretur, is nequaquam jusjurandum reverebi- tur. Ergo facessat ! See the Pogr. de publici rel. Sacramenti abusu. Viteb. 1802, p. 18. VOL. Il. Ὁ 18 CHAP. V. VERSES 99--96. How easily might they have deviated into the path of error, but the Spirit of God was in them, by which, in their important work, they were protected from every fanatical aberration. There were, however, two among them, as we shall afterwards see, who re- stricted the use of the oath to intercourse with those not true disciples. Against the oath in general, the Anabaptists were the first to come forward, afterwards with greater violence, the Quakers,* and more lately, certain individuals among the Moravian brethren. On the other hand, several of the English Deists brought as objection against Christianity, that it for- * With modesty, but still betraying some traces of uncertainty, does the more modern (1766) Mennonite Confession of Faith by C. Ris, pronounce against the oath. See Reiswitz, Beytrage zur Kenntniss der Mennoniten, s. 124. The Quakers come forward more boldly. The objection that the Apostle him- self had sworn an oath, Barclay (Apology Propos. 15, § 12), meets directly: “ The question is not, what Paul or Peter did, but what their own master taught to be done, and if Paul did swear (which we believe not) he had sinned against the com- mand of Christ.” The English theologians of that day had, in their controversy with the Quakers, placed themselves in an awkward position. They took for granted, that Christ had only forbidden extra-judicial oaths, but that his prohibition did apply to these. Hence, Samuel Clarke, (A Paraphrase on the Four Gospels, 10th Ed. 1758), thus paraphrases, ‘* Swear not at all in common conversation.” Even Barclay seems to have been inclined, by his sense of truth, to regard Paul’s expressions as forms of oath. But as the English theologians were bent on shewing that the Apostle had not sworn extra-judicially, the Quaker was glad to yield the point, and his adversaries lost their strongest hold. CHAP. V. VERSES 99---96. 19 bade to take an oath. In modern times, Kant? looks upon the prohibition of Christ as absolute, and re- garding the oath as an altogether superstitious prac- tice, it being an attempt to persuade men to speak the truth, by a formula, which contains nothing be- yond simple averment, except that the party invokes upon himself the penalties of God (which he cannot, at any rate escape, supposing him to tell a lie), just as if it lay with him whether he would be responsible to that tribunal or not.” Among theologians, Pott was the chief to admire and embrace this opinion, in the treatise De jurisjurandi natura morali, contained in the Sylloge Comm. T. V., he endeavours to obviate the argument drawn from the judicial oath of Christ, by alleging that ἐξορκίζω, may merely signify obtes- tari, and the other from the Epistles of Paul, by saying, that perhaps the Apostle was not acquainted with Christ’s declaration, or that we have here, to be sure, oaths, guoad formam, but not guoad materiam.” But what does this mean? Another theological disciple of Kant’s, who remained true to his master until the day of his death, K. Ludwig Nitzsch, like- wise adopted the view, although after reflection of hisown. For in the work, De judicandis morum preceptis in N. T. a communi omnium hominum ac temporum usu alienis, the sixth Comm. treats of the oath, and with remarkable industry and great exact- ness. A priori, one would have expected the author to class the prohibition of the oath with the local * Relig. innerhalb der Gr. der blossen Vernunft. 2‘. Aus. 5. 24], » Like the Pseudo-Basilius, see the note p. 25. 90 CHAP. V. VERSES 99---96. and temporary precepts, as is done by Storr and Tzschucke. But so powerful has been the influence of Kant’s doctrine upon his mind, that even he de- termines to find in the saying of the Lord a general and universally binding prohibition. He restricts this, however —and it is the point on which he differs from his master and Pott—solely to the superstztious oath, such as Kant describes, declaring, on the con- trary, the religious oath to be lawful. Independently of the principles of this school, and led, as it appears, more by a strong moral sense of the worth of veracity, the upright Staudlin, who, it is deserving of remark, hasin general a strong partiality for the friends of light, as he calls the Quakers, also joined the party of those who consider the prohibition of Christ as absolute, in such a way, however, as to allow, for the sake of avoiding worse evils, the lawfulness of an oath in the present imperfect state of Christianity. Subsequent- ly, in the very latest period, since Christian exposi- tors have ceased to consider this or that precept as obligatory, and this or that doctrine as true, on the ground that the mouth-piece of truth, the Son of God, has declared them, several have taken up the prohibition as absolutely general, without, however, deducing any ulterior conclusion affecting Christianity in its present state. The first among theologians to do so was Gutbier, in Augusti’s Theolog. Blattern lster Jahrg. Nr. 24. s. 374, and, as it appears, under the influence of the views of Kant. He was followed by Augusti himself in his Com. on Ja. v. 12, and then by Paulus, Henneberg and Fleck." Even, however, * De Regn. Divin. p. 204. CHAP. V. VERSES 99----96. 91 of those theologians with whom the word of Christ weighs as eternal truth, two, Olshausen and Stirm, the latter in his admirable treatise, Revision der Griinde fur und wider den Eid, in Klaiber’s Studien der Evang. Wirtenberg. Geistlichk. B. 1. p. 2, have of late taken the command of Christ absolutely ; accompa- nied however, with the special understanding which we find already given by Clemens Alexr., Pellicanus, Bu- eer * and Staudlin, and with which that of Paulus is formally identical, to wit, that it is meant for the ideal “world, the βασιλεία τῆς ἀληθείας, and consequently that, for the present, it is valid only in relation to such as are true Christians, and not calculated for intercourse with the world as it is, in which Christ himself and the Apos- tles made use of oaths. ‘* The oath,” says Olshausen, “ἐ ἧς in tts nature an emanation of sin. In the party requiring it, it presupposes distrust in a brother, in the party who makes it unrequired, consciousness of being unworthy to be trusted.” I, myself, at a for- mer period, took this view of the passage, but must @ Pellicanus: Aut enim parum bene sentit, qui jurat de eo, cui jurat, aut diffidit is, qui jusjurandum exigit; Itaque cum in totum vetem jurare, non abrogo legem, que vetat perjurium, sed legem reddo pleniorem, ac longius ab eo submoveo quod punié lex... .. Sed vult Christus discipulos suos ea inter se fide et dilectione esse preditos, ut nulli omnino juramento apud eos locus relinquatur, quippe unoquoque de alio etiam injurato optime et sentiente et sperante. He subsequently, however, adds exceptions of such a character as shew, that even among true Christians the oath is lawful. For he says: Agnoscimus igitur omnia hic juramenta prohibita, gue cum fide fratrum et dilectione pugnant, queque nulla causa in quotidiano sermone leviter profunduntur. The same is the language of Bucer. 29 CHAP. V. VERSES 33—36. now decidedly reject it. Is it in point of fact sin, to require from him, whom otherwise I have grounds for mistrusting, an oath, in confirmation of what he says?” And, supposing it to be so, is an oath given unasked, under all circumstances, really what Olshausen calls it, “in its own nature an emanation of sin?” Olshau- sen asserts, that in this case, it presupposes a consci- ousness of one’s own incredibility. We ask, whether such a consciousness be really supposed, whether it cometh of evil (ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ), when under an unjust accusation, the Christian whose life is in God, inwardly" appeals to him as the witness of his truth and inno- cence? This is certainly not the case. Such an ap- peal, on the contrary, is much more the natural result of the life inGod, and with God; and the same is equal- ly true of the oath that is outwardly expressed. We have a most convincing evidence of the incorrectness of the former view in the forms of oath used by Paul, which, according to it, are wholly indefensible. Who would maintain that the Apostle was called upon to make these oaths? It may be said he was so indirectly, the condition of the Corinthian church insome sort com- pelling him μωρὸς γενέσθαι, by his καυχᾶσθαι, recount- ing in how far he would compete with any ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολος. So placed, the humble-minded man, to whom self-commendation was odious, says, γέγονω ἄφρων, ὑμεῖς μὲ ἠναγκάσατε, 2 Cor. xii. 11. But from the very number of his asseverations in the form of oath, particularly when he does not, in a single case, shew a symptom of displeasure at being compelled to make them, who can avoid concluding that it must be quite otherwise with respect to them. In most of the passages, CHAP. V. VERSES 33—-36. 93 e.g. 2 Cor. i. 23) “Rom. is 9. Phil.i.8. 1 Cor. xv. 31, these asseverations rather shew, that, in general, they did not flow from any reflection upon the wants of those who received the epistle, but gushed from a strong subjective conviction of the inward truth of what he says. To this effect, Chrysostom admirably observes on Phil. i, 8: ody ὡς ἀπιστούμενος μάρτυρα καλεῖ τὸν Osby, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ πολλῆς διαθέσεως τοῦτο ποιεῖ, καὶ σῷ σφόδρα πεπεῖσθαι καὶ θαῤῥεῦ. This remark is still farther confirmed by our finding a multitude of asseve- ‘vations which stand midway betwixt the formal oath and solemn assurance, as was above observed, page 7. But even apart from this argument, is it credible, that our Saviour meant here to deliver a command, applicable solely to the intercourse of true Christians with each other, or with an eye to the period of the realization of the βασιλεία Assuredly, no. Assur- edly in this passage, no less than in ver. 39—47, he conceives his followers as also holding converse with the world.? On the other hand, however, we also find that, even 4 We may here allude, for the sake of its singularity, to a little pamphlet, in which the lawfulness of eaths, in general, has recently been very seriously assailed : Der eid, eine religidse Abhandlung, Barmen, 1830. The well-intentioned author, however, makes shipwreck in his argumentation upon the de- finition of the oath. For, in order to get quitof the counter evidence from the passages in Paul’s epistles, he requires, as be- longing to the essence of an oath, that in the appeal to God, as witness and avenger, there shall be added, “ I swear,” a thing which Paul has ποῦ ἄοπθ. But what means the word “ swear,” originally, nothing more than say, reply, (svaran, in English, answer). That this answer is of a sacred nature, lies in what the formula expresses. 94 CHAP. V. VERSES 33—36. in the infancy of the church, the oath, in the same ᾿ way as military service, had its decided advocates. Tertullian, Apolog. ce. 32, says, Christians never swear per genios Cesaris, they swear per salutem Ceesaris, 6188 est augustior omnibus geniis—et pro magno id ju- ramento habemus. Novatus allows his followers to swear by the body and blood of Christ, that they will not desert his cause.2_ The canons of the most an- cient Synods do not pronounce against the oath itself, but only against perjury on the part of the clergy and laymen, and against swearing in the name of creatures.” Athanasius, who shews himself to have been personally averse to oaths, swears in the presence of Constantius. Rudius Junicus, Nestorius and others abjure their errors before the Synods. Vegetius Renatus, in the 4th century, 1. II. c. 5, says of Christian soldiers: Jurant per Deum et Christum et Spiritam Sanctum et per majestatem Imperatoris. In the 5th century, the oath appears to have been already so generally re- cognized in Christendom, that Hilary, Epist. 88, to Augustine, notices as one of the errors which the Pelagians had spread in Sicily, their holding the oath to be unlawful; the same view Pelagius himself, in the Ep. ad Deometriad, ο. 22, declares to be enter- tained by him. In this, asin many other respects, Au- gustine exercised a distinguished influence upon the Romish church. He confesses that the saying seems to contain an absolute prohibition of the oath, but feels himself restrained by the oaths used by Paul. To be * Euseb, Hist. Eccles. VI. 43. » Can. Apost. 18. Synod Illiberit. c. 74. Comp. Basil. Epist. Can. c. 17, 29, 64, 82. _ CHAP. V. VERSES 33—36. 95 sure, he says, many do not acknowledge these as oaths, the Apostle not saying per Deum, but testis est mihi Deus; ridiculum est hoc putare. Tamen propter con- tentiosos aut multum tardos, ne aliquid interesse quis “ putet, sciat etiam hoe modo jurasse apostolum, | Cor. xv. 91: νὴ τὴν ὑμετέρων καύχησιν Compare Sermo 181, 6. ὅ, in 1 John i. T. v. ed. Ben. p. 599, where he also urges the v7, and says, that every one knows well enough, from common life, that among the Greeks, this word, in all cases, indicates an oath. On Gal. i. 20, also: Qui dicit: ecce coram Deo, jurat utique. With respect to the way in which he accounts for the absolute form of the precept, he thinks it enough, in several passages of his works, simply to make the re- mark, that frequent swearing becomes an occasion of perjury, and that our Saviour’s reason for stating the precept so generally, was just to cut off the opportu- nity for that crime. See on Ps. Ixxxviiii De Men- dacio c. 28, and elsewhere. Wemight then compare Sirach xxiii. 9: ὅρκῳ μὴ ἐθίσης τὸ στόμα, σου, καὶ ὀνομνωσίᾳῳ τοῦ ἁγίου μὴ συνεθισθῇς ....ὁ ὀμνυών καὶ ὀνομάξων διαπαντὺς οὐ μὴ καθοωρισθῇ ἀπὸ ἁμαρτίας. He does not, however, reject absolutely the oath, as he expressly states on the passage quoted from the Sermon on the Mount, and in the Comm. on 1 John i. Nay, he here, c. 9, * To get over this passage, in which "the usual formula ap- pears, was the most diificult task of the opponents of the oath. Pseudo-Basilius in Ps. xiv. (Opp. I. 356), says upon it: οὗ παρήκουσε τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς διδωσκαλίας 6 εὐαγγέλιον πεσπιστευμοένος. ἀλλὰ λόγον Ψιλὸν ἐν σχήματι παραδέδωκεν ὅρκου κτλ. Pelagius, likewise, in the Com. on 1 Cor. xv. 31, makes the remark, Per non semper significatio juramenti est. Nam si dicam, per puerum misi, non statim per puerum jurasse recte putabor. 928 CHAP. V. VERSES 99---96. says of himself: Quantum ad me pertinet, juro; sed quantum mihi videtur magna necessitate compulsus. Cum videro non mihi credi, nisi faciam, et ei, qui mihi non credit, non expedire, quod non credit, hac perpensa ratione et consideratione librata, cum mag- no timore dico, coram Deo, aut, Testis est Deus, aut, Scit Christus sic esse in animo meo.? This side of ecclesiastical tradition was embraced, first, by the Catholic, and afterwards by the Protestant church. The Socinians did the same, although many, as for example Pott in the Treatise quoted, p- 350, Nitzsch, p. 107, and elsewhere, falsely rank them along with the Quakers, among the opponents of the oath. We now pass to another branch of the subject, viz. the classification of the various attempts to explain the passage which have been made by those holding the lawfulness of the oath. This is a difficult task, as ina great many of the interpretations we find a wavering, and different modes of exposition brought forward severally, or obscurely blended together. By far the greatest majority are satisfied with saying, that it is self-evident Christ cannot have prohibited all oaths whatsoever; very few take pains to shew that there is nothing in the words of the passage compelling us to adopt the absolute meaning. The one who ap- * The passages in the Fathers, upon this subject, contain much _ that is curious; but they have not, as yet, been fully collected. Suicer gives the most, Thes. eccl. T. 11. 5. v. ὅρκος. He is fol- lowed by Nitzsch, who, however, introduces much original matter. Besides these, we have to compare Gerhard Vossius, Hist. Pel. 1. v. c. 2. : CHAP. V. VERSES 33—36. 27 proximates nearest to our view, although with some degree of superficiality, is Erasmus, when he says: Hac ratione multarum questionum nodi dissolvi pote- runt, si intelligamus Christum non simpliciter heec vetuisse, sed vetuisse eo more fieri, quo vulgato more hominum fiebant ; sic vetuit irasc?, sic vetuit salutare gquemquam in via, sic vetuit ditescere—resistere malo— appellari magistros. Luther makes the passage ob- scure by commencing with the observation: ‘“ By what he here says, Christ does not at all intend to touch the government and order temporal, nor yet to take any right away from the magistracy. He preaches solely to private Christians, how they ought, each for himself, to live and be.” Afterwards, how- ever, he correctly subjoins, “ Hence we are to con- sider swearing, as prohibited, in just the same way as killing, and looking at, or lusting after a wo- man, were so before. To kill is both lawful and not lawful. To lust in man or woman is sin, and is not sin, and hence we ought to make the right dis- tinction between the two.” But then, again, he re- sumes a too special reference to the magistracy. Cal- vin explains the ὅλως more accurately, as comprising the several species of oaths, and, in this way, mean- ing, Neque directe neque indirecte jurare per Deum. To the objection, that, “in that case, it seems that all oaths whatsoever are forbidden,” he briefly replies. Ex legis intentione debere intelligi, quod dicit ejus in- terpres. Christ merely designed to say, aliis quoque modis frustraaccipi Dei nomen quam pejerando. Chem- nitz observes upon the ὅλως, that its antithesis must be determined from the context, and was formed by 28 CHAP. V. VERSES 99---96. the two perverted views of the Pharisees, 1. That it is lawful to swear by the name of God even in com- mon life, 2. That it is lawful to swear falsely by the creatures. Subsequent Biblical rhetoricians, such as Flacius and Glassius, bring the ὅλως under the figure synecdoche, the whole being used metonymieally for the part. Others, as for example Hunnius, Bengel, Elsner, referthe saying, without any further defence, to inconsiderate swearing. Rosenmuller states an alter- native: plane non Jurare nempe in convictu quotidi- ano, vel etiam per creaturas, quod exempla sequentia declarant. Zwingli, to whom, in his controversy with the Katabaptists, as he calls them, a satisfactory exposition of the passage was an object of great de- sire, has here peculiar views. He takes ἐπιορκεῖν in the sense which originally belongs to it, of dejerare or ad- jurare, remarking, that in the two Old Testament passages, Lev. xix. 12, and Ex. xx. 7, the subject spoken of is not, by any means, a violatio jura- menti, but a dejerare ad mendacium, and conse- quently it is not an oath required in confirmation of evidence, but one voluntarily tendered, which is here forbidden. Apart from other grounds, the antithesis, in ver. 37, is contrary to this view, for there a simple affirmation is set in opposition to every sort of swearing. Akin to this is the ex- * That ἐπιορκεῖν had originally the meaning of adjurare, is cor- rect, so even with Solon, see Passow. That meaning, how- ever, has remained exclusively attached to the cognate ἐσόμεονυ- “i, to which, as we saw, in the note, p- 10, it was also wished to give, in a passage of Plato, the signification of pejerare. How ἐπιορκεῖν acquired the meaning of παρορκεῖν, ψευδορκεῖν is dark CHAP. V. VERSES 38—36. 29 position, first given by Socinus, which, at a sub- sequent period, is also to be found in Grotius,* Epis- copius, Wolzogen and others, to wit, that ὀμνύνα; re- fers exclusively to the juramenta promissoria, not assertoria; That such oaths are improper, inasmuch as the future does not lic in the power of man; but that the present does, and of it I may give evidence by oath. In this way the Apostle’s forms of oath are justified, being all, without exception, assertoriz. It is true that this explanation of the matter appears, at the first glance, to be far-fetched, it admits, how- ever, of an ingenious defence, better indeed than Gro- tius himself has made for it. ‘To be sure, if ver. 37 is expounded in the usual way, it contains a universal antithesis, which refutes the view now in question. Grotius, however, expounds it: “ Rather let thy yea ‘be a yea in fact.” Now, as the passage in the New Testament, especially with the clause ἀποδώσεις But, certainly, it was not, as Dr. Paulus says, in consequence of its being a contraction of ἔπε, ὁρκεῖν, verbo jurare—a calem- bourg like greis from gar eis, or testamentum from testatio mentis. The ancient Lexicographers, such asthe Etym. M. and Gudian: ἡ ta} ἀντὶ τῆς ὑπὲρ ἔγκεισαι, καὶ δηλοῖ ὑπερβαΐνειν Tous ὅρκους. ‘The German Meineid also, which pervades the dialects of the North and the Netherlands, has been considered dark in its origin. ‘The sole correct derivation, however, which is given by Grimm, is from the old substantive mein, nequitia, impro- bitas, whence the formula, reine und unmeine, Rechtsalterth. It. 904. Compare the middle German mein, perfidia, Nibel. 3896, meinrite, verrath. * First in the De jure belli et pacis 1. 2, ο. 13, § 21, after- wards sixteen years later, also in the Commentary on the New Testament. 90 CHAP. V. VERSES 33—36. appended, likewise speaks of juramenta promissoria, all seems to accord, even what is added at ver. 36: “ The very hair of your head is not in your own power ;” To which several arguments, derivable from the language, might be added. Still, to say nothing of other arguments, the subjoined clauses, verses 34, 35, clearly shew that the reason why Christ forbids the ὀμνύναι is not because the thing promised does certainly not stand in our power—moreover, the en- gagement we take by oath only extends so far as there is not an absolute impossibility of keeping it—but be- cause the act of affirming anything by a higher being, ought always to be accompanied with reverence. Daniel Heinsius, who abounds in arbitrary hypothe- ses, imagined he had found a way of escape from all perplexities in his Exercit. sacr. Lugd. Bat. 1639, p. 27. He made the discovery, that the words had hitherto been wrong arranged, and that μὴ ὀμόσαι ὅλως must be connected closely with the subdivision Veto ne quocunque modo sic juretis. (Such was also the way Jerome construed the passage, although he wished to consider the concession of swearing by God, which in this way was allowed, as an accommodation to the weak). His rude, but superior antagonist, Salmasius, lashed him not very gently for this con- ceit at the time.* Judicium et bona mens quo abistis! he exclaims. Salmasius very properly ob- jects, that as it was previously said, Non pejerabis, no antithesis arises if it be said here, Non esse ju- randum nisi per Dei nomen. Besides, in such a con- nection as this, what can the ὅλως signify? The ex- 4 De trapezit. foen. p. 269. CHAP. V. VERSES 99.--06. 91 position of Heinsius has nevertheless obtained many friends, e.g. Heumann (who takes much credit for it to himself), Moldenhauer, Kocher, Michaelis, Flatt ® and others. Another effugiuwm has been found out by Sebast. Schmidt, and has obtained a special ad- mirer in Wolf. In the fase. disput. referred to above, that divine attempts to vindicate for the word éuvivas the meaning falsé jurare, in proof of which, how- ever, all he can adduce is that yaw s has that mean- ing in the Talmud, tr. Schebuoth, c. 5, ὃ 4, 5, and that ὀμνύναι seems to have it, Matt. xxii. 16. But these assertions are both groundless. Compare on the first passage Bartenora, and Maimonides in Su- renhusius. In fine, we have still to notice the idea of Peter Miller, in his Abhandlung vom Eide, Leipz. 1771, viz. that ὅλως, in this passage, means ve- rily. But allowing that in some passages we may thus express its import, a thing much to be doubted, it never can have this signification, and even if it could, its position here would be quite inappropriate. These are the expositions which have hitherto been brought forward, and it is a matter of surprise, that none of those holding the lawfulness of the oath, and who, at the same time, were afraid to restrict the general dictum, should have yet fallen upon another way of evading the difficulty. “Ὅλως might very well have the signification, im general, just like the German im ganzen, which apprehends the whole, not more in allits parts, thanin a general way. Our German dictionaries (Adelung) too, give in general as one of a Moral. s. 382. 99 CHAP. V. VERSES 33—36. the special meanings of tiberhaupt.* To this mean- ing approximate the formulas, ὅλως δὲ, τὸ δὲ πᾶν, in the sense of ne multo, denique, moreover, ὅλως εἰπεῖν, τὸ δὲ ὅλον, τὰ ὅλα, τοῖς ὅλοις." Precisely in this way is ὅλως used by Aristotle, Politic II. 2, ὃ 4, where the inquiry 15 made, as to whether it be better that there should bea community of goods, or strictly defined private proper- ties, and the philosopher decides to the following effect: ἕξει γὰρ τὸ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων ἀγαθόν" λέγω δὲ τὸ ἐξ ἀμφοτέ- ρων τὸ ἐκ τοῦ κοινὰς εἶναι τὰς κτήσεις καὶ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ ἰδίας" δεῖ γάρ πως μὲν εἶναι κοινὰς, ὅλως δ᾽ ἰδίας, Where Garve paraphrases: “as a general rule, i. 6. on the whole, every thing must be private; according to particular circumstances, however, and in a partial regard, must it be looked upon as common property.” Now, were it proposed to apply this meaning to our passage, the following very appropriate sense would result: “I say unto you, iz general, (not intending to decide upon all cases), swear not.” But to leave other grounds out of view, we should then, at least, expect as the anti- thesis, to have it defined tz what particular eases an outh is lawful. In place of that, however, the anti- a Haltius Gloss. Germ. Med. evi, s. v. hauff, derives this word from tiber haufen, in Dutch, by den hoop; so also in the middle German records. Grimm does not give it in the Gram. 111. 108, among the adverbs compounded with iiber. (In Ulphilas the adverbial genitive form, allis). But whether it comes from Haufen or Haupt, the etymology in either case admits the twofold meaning of in general, and the whole without’ exception. ; > Upon σὰ ὅλα and σοῖς ὅλοις in Demosthenes, see Bremi zu Olynth. III. p. 187, elsewhere Wesseling zu Diodor. Sic. T. Il. p. 26°. CHAP. V. VERSE 37. 39 thesis that follows is, “Let your communication be yea, yea! and nay, nay !” V. 37. In opposition to the foregoing protestations by oath, our Saviour now proposes simple affirmaticn, as what was becoming in his disciples) ‘The vai and ov are doubled, the reduplication being primarily ex- pressive of lively feeling, Among rhetoricians it is called ἀναδίπλωσις, (Demetr. De elocut. § 66), condu- plicatio. It is chiefly known from the interjections φεῦ, φεῦ, ἰοὺ, tod. Compare αὔλινον αὔλινον in Aschylus, Agam. v. 159, Perse, v. 981, Bog, βοᾷ, Aristoph. Plut. v. 114, ojwas γὰρ, οἴμιαι, and then more especi- ally in the case of a lively affirmation or negation, Theocr. IV. 54: Nal, vai, τοῖς ὀνύχεσσιν ἔχω τέ νιν, Aristoph. Nub. v. 1457, vai, val, xarasdéodqri Tlaregov A/a, of the Pythagorean in Ausonius, Idyll. 17: Si consentitur, mora nulla, intervenit est, est, si contro- versum, subjiciet non. Even so among the Rabbins qv, Ἱπ. See Buxt. Lex. Talm. 5. v. ym, which dupli- cation is by some of them regarded as tantamount to an oath. In like manner we have, 2 Cor. i. 17, the double vai and οὔ, although many there construe the clause, but do so erroneously, ina different manner.— Τὸ περισσόν is excellently translated by Luther: was dariiber ist, Anglice, what is over that: Chrysostom, τὸ πλέον καὶ ἐκ περιουσίας προσκείμενον. Compare Eph. iii, 20. There is a diversity of opinions respecting the ex- planation of ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ. The ancient interpreters, who were disposed to find the Devil spoken of every- where, expounded, not only ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ, ὁ. vi. 13, of him, but, as we shall see, even the σῷ πονηρῷ, v. 39 of D 34 CHAP. V. VERSE 37. the present chapter, and hence one Codex has, as a gloss, ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου. Luther, in the first edition of 1522, translated “ vom argen,” but, in the second, which followed a few months after in the same year, corrects “vom uebel.” It is also interpreted of the Devil by Zwingli and Piscator. The more modern expositors of the Rationalist school, since the time when the fact of Christ’s having said it, was uo longer a proof of a thing’s being true, have striven to find the Devil everywhere in Scripture, with the same zeal displayed in expounding him out of it, by those of an earlier period, when it was deemed wrong to admit any direct contradiction to the Scriptures; and, ac- cordingly, the ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ in our passage, has been interpreted of the Devil, by Fritzsche, Wahl, Meyer, &e. just as had been formerly done by Wetstein and Semler. The article which is here appealed to proves nothing for the masculine. In proportion as the idea expressed is more or less viewed as a collective, the neuter adjective, if used for a substantive, can have the article with it or not. See Plato, Respubl. 1. v. p- 476, A. Inthe New Testament we have σονηροῦ in place of τοῦ πονηροῦ, 1 Thes. v. 22, unless with older expositors, we there choose to consider it as an adjective. So, likewise, with the adverbs ἐκ περισσοῦ and & τοῦ περισσοῦ, ἐξ ἐμφανοῦς, ἐκ τοῦ ἐμφανοῦς, &e. The regular way, however, is to make use of the ar- ticle, so that even were πονηροῦ neuter, we should here miss it. [0 would be better to appeal to éx τοῦ πονηροῦ and ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου, at John viii. 44. 1 John iii. 8, 12. Doubtless, the analogy is not perfect, inasmuch as it is persons who are there spoken of, and the ex- CHAP. V. VERSE 97. 35 pression is tantamount in meaning to υἱὸς διαβόλου. But upon that much stress cannot be put, as the New Testament brings, indirectly at least, all sin and evil into connection with the ἄρχων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, and, consequently, any evil action whatever, may likewise be referred back to him. If, then, some degree of sin attaches to every averment, going beyond simple affirmation, and not delivered with becoming reverence for God, Christ might well say that it cometh of the Devil. It must, at the same time, be remarked that this direct ascription, in the New and Old Testament, of evil to the Devil, only takes place when something is mentioned, which is in an eminent manner diabolically wicked. In the passages from John’s Epistle, it is murder that is spoken of. Now, that the Saviour should have meant to designate the thirst of blood, and a thought- lessly uttered asseveration, “ by God,” or “ by hea- ven,” or “ by the earth,” as being both, in the same way, the Devil’s work, is not probable. We hence suppose that εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ is here to be taken up as neuter, its antithesis would be formed by the εἶναι ἐκ τῆς ὠληθείας, John xviii. 57. 1 John ii. 213 iii. 19. As to other passages, where the neuter πονηρόν ap- pears, admitting, in some of them, of dispute, we reckon the following among the number: Mat. vi. 13. John xvii. 15. Rom. xii. 9, and, perhaps, also 1 Thess. v. 22.2 A similar sentiment among the Arabs, 4 Over subtle is the observation of Augustine, who takes the word as masculine, but refers it to the party requiring the oath: Non dixit: malum est, tu enim non malum facis, quibene uteris juratione, que etsi non bona, tamen necessaria est, ut 46 CHAP. V. VERSE 97. is to be found in the Proverbia, centur. II. 40, edited by Erpenius, “ Let thy speech be yea or nay, so that you may be truthful to all men.” We have still to add, that if this declaration of Christ be pressed, a charge may be brought against the Saviour, of not keeping his own command. For his frequent ἀμὴν, ἀμήν goes beyond the bare ov. A moralizing Rabbi (mentioned by Capellus), desirous of abrogating the oath, requires expressly that nnx2 ΞΞ ἀμήν, shall not he uttered ; and, in point of fact, abstractly reasoning moralists will suppose that the Saviour, had he wished to establish an ideal kingdom of truth among men, would have done better, not by such asseverations exceeding the plain yea, to give occasion to assever- ations still stronger, and, at last, to the oath itself. This, the usual explanation of the words, which we have embraced, would doubtless have also remained the universal one, had not James, v. 12, delivered the like declaration: ἥτω δὲ ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ val καὶ τὸ od οὗ, ἵνω μὴ ὑπὸ κρίσιν (εἰς ὑπόκρισιν) πέσητε, and in this very form does Justin Martyr quote it as the word of the Lord from the Apomnemoneumata:* Περὶ ὃὲ τοῦ μὴ ὑμνύναι ὅλως, τἀληθῆ δὲ λέγειν ἀεὶ, οὕτω παρεκελεύσατο" μὴ ὀμόσητε ὅλως" ἔστω δὲ ὑμῶν τὸ νωὶ ναὶ καὶ τὸ Ov οὐ" τὸ δὲ περισσὺν τούτων, ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ, So likewise do the alteri persuadeas, quod utiliter suades, sed ὦ malo est, illius cu- jus infirmitate jurare cogeris. Sed nemo novit, nisi qui exper- tus est, quam sit difficile et consuetudinem jurandi extinguere et nunquam temere facere, quod nonnunquam facere necessitas cogit. * Apolog. 1. c. 16. CHAP. V. VERSE 97. 37 homilies of Clement twice, Hom. III. c. 55, and Hom. XIX. ο. 2, and the Const. Apost. 1. V.c. 12; On the other hand VII. 3, quotes it according to Matthew. Now of that saying of the Apostle James, and conse- quently of this in Justin Martyr, there were in the ancient church two different expositions. Compare Theophylact on Jas. v. 12. The one explained, “ Let your yea, ἢ. 6. your κατάφασις, your λόγος καταφατι- κός always consist in ἃ simple yea;” the other, “ Let your yea in word be likewise always a yea in deed.” (Both dicta have Rabbinical parallels, see Wetstein, Capellus, Schottgen, Buxtorff’s Florilegium, p. 329.) We have no hesitation, in James’ case, to take the first explanation for the correct one, and we do so prin- cipally, because it is only in this way that a strict an- tithesis to the μὴ ὀμόσητε arises; It is not to perform our oaths, but zot to swear them, that the Apostle exhorts, with which also the ἵνα μὴ ὑπὸ κρίσιν πέσητε best suits. For there can be no dispute, that when it isthe thought- ~ less use of the oath which is spoken of, and which, just because it is thoughtless, may easily become a perjury, entailing the threat, Ex. xx. 7, οὐ γὰρ μὴ καθαρίσῃ Κύριος ὁ Θεός σου τὸν λαμβάνοντα τὺ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ μα- raiw—the expression, so precisely selected, answers better than it would have done had the breach of the simple word been spoken of. This explanation then being the likeliest, even when we do not look beyond the passage itself, becomes still much more likely, could we but suppose that James: means, in these words, to quote the saying of the Lord now under discussion. But this we may the more readily pre- 538 CHAP. V. VERSE 97. sume with certainty, seeing that, as is very remarkable, several allusions to the Sermon on the Mount occur in this Apostle’s writings, c. iv. 3,9; v.1,2,9. Itis to be added, that the Clementina, the Constitut. Apost. and Justin, who expressly intimate their intention to give the saying of the Lord, and consequently must also have taken it in the sense which it bears in Matthew, give it in the same formas James. A little acquaint- ance with Justin’s quotations from the Apomnemoneu- mata might certainly occasion doubts, whether he ac- tually had the words which we now read in Matthew before him, and whether he had not derived, by prior tradition, the command in another form, to which he also attached a different meaning from what we are now compelled to give to Matthew’s words. In proof of this, it may be urged, that Justin has ex- pressed the meaning he ascribed to the final part of the command in the τἀληθῆ δὲ λέγειν ἀεί, which points to the exposition, “‘ Let your yea in word bea yea in deed.” But generally, with regard, in the first place, to the deviations of his quotation from Matthew, we must take into account, with what extreme mo- difications and variations he himself is wont to cite one and the same text of scripture, compelling us unavoidably to acknowledge that he guotes from me- ᾿ “γον, (Compare the very satisfactory references in Olshausen’s Aichtheit der vier Evangelien, s. 293), and hence we can by no means say with certainty, that in all the cases in which he deviates, he had a dif- ferent text in his eye: The same remark also holds of other citations in the fathers, as is guile manifest CHAP. V. VERSE 37. 39 with regard to our text in the Constitut. Apost.* The words τἀληθῆ δὲ λέγειν ἀεί certainly make it doubtful whether Justin did not put the alleged con- struction upon the ἔστω δὲ ὑμῶν ναὶ vai, We donot, however, necessarily require to suppose so, for even when we construe the precept respecting the vas in the way we did, it at any rate likewise includes im- plicité the command τἀληθῆ λέγειν, which was just what the apologist had an interest to make prominent in the eyes of the heathen. Now, the explanation of James v. 12, which we have embraced, has long ago influenced even ancient translators in thus rendering the passage before us. The Syriacand Ulphilas give it as the Greek text, only that the former, with seve- ral others, interpolates χα. The Aithiopian has “ either yea, yea, or no, no,” and so likewise the Persian, even although he had the Syrian text before him. Such, also, is the way in which Beza, Piscator and Paulus explain the words ; and, in confirmation,we may likewise adduce, that among the Rabbins, and in 4 This mode of quotation from the Bible employed by the fathers, gives occasion to an interesting comparison. The of- fence which some take at the sayings of the Lord being often given by the different Evangelists under such diversities of form, nay at the Apostles themselves sometimes quoting the Old Testament so inaccurately, is met by Olshausen with the re- mark, that it is hence evident the Apostles, and the early deliverers of the Christian doctrine, regarded not the letter but the Spirit. The same also applies to the first fathers of the ' church. There can be no doubt that their reverence for the word of the Lord was as great as can possibly be, and yet they made no scruple to change the form of it in their quota- tions, if but the substance remained the same. --ἑ 46 40 CHAP. V. VERSE 37. the Talmud, it is very common to eall the κατάφασις, whose usual name is pyat7 map, also the yea (}7) and that as we have observed above, they have simi- lar dicta. But that λόγος should here be defined, without the defining word being annexed by either the masculine or neuter articles ὁ vas or τὸ vai, would be too great an infringement of the rules of grammar to be allowed, unless compelled by pressing necessity. Accordingly, although we consider the sense of the passage in James to be identical with that of the one before us, we still believe that the same thought is here delivered in another form. Interpreters have rather adopted, in James’ case, the meaning, ‘“ Let your yea in word, be a yea in deed,” and after- wards found the same in the passage before us, as Calvin, Zwingli, Grotius, Wolf and others. Now this explanation is, in the first place, chargeable with the same fault as that previously stated; but it is also chargeable with this other, that here the antithesis to the prohibition of the oath, rather requires the state- ment as to what, on the oath being abolished, is to come in the place of it, and does not require the ad- monition, not fitting the train of thought, to fulfil what one has consented to. In fine, Erasmus wavers whether the first ναΐ and od be not, perhaps, question, and the others answer. But, in this ease, the thought would, without doubt, have been differently expressed, somewhat as follows: ἤτω δὲ ὑμῶν ἡ ἀπόκρισις τοῦ ναὶ, γαὶ, OY ἤτω δὲ πρὸς τὸ val ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν ναί. V. 38—42. The Saviour gives to the current con- struction of the Mosaic precept, Ex. xxi. 24. Lev. xxiv. 19. Deut, xix. 21, its πλήρωσις. In the admi- CHAP. V. VERSES 38—42. 41 nistration of justice, Meses had made the primeval jus talionis (τὸ ἀντιπεπονθός, τὸ ἀντιτάλαντον,)" in the Greek laws of Solon and the Pythagoreans, and in the Ro- man twelve tables, the basis also of Judicial pro- cedure among the Jews. It is the rule of justice which most immediately presents itself to the law-giver : The law is elastic, the stroke given it by the transgres~- sor returning with equal force upon himself. That Moses did not here mean to establish a rule for pri- vate intercourse, is shewn by the prohibition of re- venge, Lev. xix. 18; Compare what is to be observed in the sequel, at verses 33and 34. In Prov. xxiv. 29, the very contrary is expressed: ‘ Say not, I will do to him as he hath done to me: 1 will render to the man according to his work ;” and Lament. iii. 27—30, “ It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth, that he sit alone and keep silence that he give his cheek to him that smiteth, and be filled full with reproach.” Now, as Christ does not address the magistracy, but speaks to those who have reeeived in- juries, we must infer that the carnal mind of the doc- tors of the law, had made that jurisprudential rule, the rule also for common life, in order to gratify an inordinate thirst of vengeance. If anywhere at all, this is the place where it might appear, the So- 5. Compare Zell zu Aristot. Ethica ad Nicom. I. ¢. 8, and a very learned Treatise of Danz, Origo talionis in Meuschen N. Test. e Talm. illustr. p. 488. With Solon the interpretation was so strict, that the man who put out the eye of him who had but one, lost éwo on account of it. In the X1i. Tables it ran : Sei membrom rupsit, nei cum eo paicit, talio (von tale = tan- tundem) estod. 42 CHAP. V. VERSES 38—42. ciniaus have good grounds for maintaining, that the Saviour comes forward in an attitude of contradiction to the ancient covenant, by a legislation diametrically opposite in its character,* and how, founding upon this text, the Gnostics who assailed Judaism, declared that the law of the New Testament proceeds from a dif- ferent God. To the Socinians it has been correctly answered, in the first place, that supposing such an an- tithesis, in a general point of view, to exist, still, as Christ opposes not the magistracy, but offended indi- viduals, it would not be an antithesis to the Mo- saic law itself, but to the pharisaical exposition of it. Besides, attention must also be paid to the fact, that the jus talionis does, to a certain extent, al- ways lay a restraint upon passion. The voice of passion demands, that when an injurer makes an assault, not merely simple, but double retribution shall be made.® It is, consequently, a proper πλήρωσις of the Mosaic precept, when the Saviour here addresses to his disciples the requisition, to keep themselves free from revenge, to the extent that, far from returning like for like, they should be willing to submit to still severer injury. The general principle @ See what Maresius, the able adversary of Volkel, in the Hydra Socin. II. p. 606, replies. > Augustini: Nemo enim facile invenitur, qui pugno accepto pugnum reddere velit et uno a convitiante verbo audito unum et quod tantundem valeat, referre contentus sit, sed sive ira perturbatus immoderatius vindicat, sive quia justum putat, eum, qui laesit prior, gravius laedi, quam laesus est, qui non laeserat.—Qui ergo tantum reddit, quantum accepit, jam donat aliquid. See upon this subject Michaelis’ Mos. Reicht. V. § 140—142. CHAP. V. VERSES 38—42. 43 μὴ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ πονηρῷ is premised, which then, agree- ably to the character of Christ’s discourse, of which we spoke, vol.i. p.220—224, is made palpable, by striking examples in particular. As the discourse at ver. 44, ascends from the weaker to the strongest manifesta- tions of enmity; so, in the present case, it begins with the strongest ebullition of insolence, and at ver. 42, terminates with the weaker. And, whilst at ver. 38—42, the behaviour of the Christian under out- rage, is described negatively, ver. 44, where the com- mand is given, to recompense every evil by a good of equal magnitude, gives us the positive aspect. The disposition here required by the Saviour has, at all times, been a peculiar characteristic of those who were his people. It is as distinctly expressed by the Apostles, Rom. xii. 19—21. 1 Thess.v.15. 1 Cor. vi. 7. 1 Pet. iii. 9. Nay, so much has the church of Christ appropriated these precepts, all contrary to human nature though they be, that, immediately subsequent to the Apostolic age, they were taken ab- solutely and literally, and in consequence, military service, the office of magistrate and _ self-defence, were, without reserve, pronounced to be unlawful. Doubtless, the Saviour does propound the precepts with undefined generality. That we cannot, in pre- cepts of Scripture, however, from this form of unde- fined generality, always infer that they are to be unre- servedly acted upon in every case, we have already seen, vol.i. p. 218,372. Here too the question, whe- ther areally absolute universality and literal fulfilment pertain to them, must be determined, first, from the whole Christian doctrine, then from the connection 44 CHAP. V. VERSES 38—42. and, in fine, from other declarations of Scripture, es- pecially Christ’s own behaviour, and that of his disciples. In regard to the first of these topics, it may be said as follows :—The Christian in the perfected state, is the child of his heavenly Father : and, consequent- ly, χοινωνὸς τῆς θείας φύσεως, 2 Pet. i. 4. Goodness in him, must hence resemble that of his original, and thus his love bear the character of the love of God. The love of God, however, is always accompanied with holiness and wisdom, and being so, it stands in its relation to evil, not merely in an attitude of defence, but also of restraint and punishment, partly, according to the inward necessity of the Divine nature, partly for the good of the sinner himself, and partly for the advantage of human society. In the same way then, the love of the Christian in relation to evil must not manifest merely passive submission, except in such measure, as not to compromise the honour and holi- ness of God among men, in the first place, the good of the sinner in the second, and in fine, the interests of human society. On the contrary, when this is the cease, even the Christian’s love in relation to evil, must become restraining and punitive. Considering however, that in a community, the exercise of this restraining and punitive love cannot be conceded to every individual, inasmuch as the individual wants the power. or, by reason of excited passion, the wis- dom requisite, the office of punitive love has, by di- vine appointment, been devolved upon the magis- @ See ver. 45, and p. 145, &e. CHAP. V. VERSES 38—42. 45 tracy, in which those qualities, necessary for its ex- ercise, are united, and has continued with indivi- duals, as e. g. with the father of a family, only in such measure as the magistracy invests them with. Thus, viewed with reference to the whole system of Chris- tian truth, our saying acquires the following import: “ To such an extent ought ye, my disciples, to be free from the desire of revenge, as that, except where the honour of God, and the good of your injurer and the community, require the contrary, you ought, in patient self-denial, to do more than even what inso- lence exacts of you.” To this restriction, the context is at least not op- posed, for the aim of the precept is not to limit the punishment of the wicked, but the desire of vengeance in Christ’s disciples. Nay, that the restriction much rather emanates from the spirit of Christianity, will be established by other Biblical declarations. Here we have chiefly to consider the kind of way in which the Apostle Paul expresses himself in the particular passages, where he delivers admonitions referring to the commandments of Christ. At 1 Cor. vi. 7, he does not call ita παράπτωμα of the Corinthian Church, that they had gone to law with one another, but a ἥττημα. Διὰ τί, says he, οὐχὶ μᾶλλον ἀδικεῖσθε ... ἀλ- λὰ ὑμεῖς ἀδικεῖτε. «. καὶ ravra ἀδελφούς. Here the precept of Christ appears, in that less harsh form in which every reader of sound sense takes it up at the first approach, with an οὐχὶ μᾶλλον. With this we have to conjoin the well known dict. prob. in Paul and Peter respecting the magistracy: Θεοῦ διάκονός ἐστιν, ἔκδικος εἰς boy ny τῷ τὸ κακὸν πράσσοντι ; and more- 46 CHAP. V. VERSES 98 ---49, over, the passages where Jesus permits his followers to withdraw from persecution by flight. As regards Christ’s own behaviour, and that of the Apostles, we have, John xviii. 23, the example, that when he was smitten upon the cheek, he does not li- terally fulfil the precept; but, on the contrary, asks of him who did the violence, “ If I have spoken well, why smitest thou me?” Paul, too, every where acts In such a way, as to recognize the punitive of- fice of the magistrate, and when exposed to injus- tice, in place of suffering patiently, appeals to them, Acts xvi. 35—40; xxii. 23—29; xxy. 9, 40, 11. When the high-priest gave order to smite him on the mouth, he answers with a curse, Acts xxiil. 2—4; and on being reasoned with, he regrets not the curse, but that he had unwittingly cursed the hizgh-priest, i. 6. the magistracy. We now direct our attention to particulars. V. 38. With respect to the elipses in the Old Tes- tament words, we have not to supply τινέτω," but from the immediately preceding context inthe Old Testa- ment, δώσεις. The first words of the laws only are quoted. In the same manner, the Roman Jurists quote law-titles, by the introductory words. V.39. The first proposition μὴ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ πο- vnow, expresses the general antithesis to the carnal con- struction put upon the Old Testament commandment. ᾿Ανθίστημι denotes contradictoriness in word (Luke xxi. 15. Acts vi. 10), as in deed. It is equivalent to a Abresch, anim. ad Aesch. II. 216, on the passage in ZEschy- lus Choephorae, ver. 307. where the jus talionis is delivered as a τριγίρων μῦθος. CHAP. V. VERSES 38—42, 47 ἀνταίρειν (with which Justin M., in citing our text, exchanges it) and ἀντιτάσσεσθαι, Rom. xiii. 2. Jas. v. G6. in which last passage mention is made of the δίκ- κοιος Who fulfils the precept of the Lord. Compare upon ἀντιτάσσεσθαι in that passage and generally, Tittman de Synom. |. I]. 1832. s. 9. Whosoever would wish to fulfil the command quite literally, ought not, even 272) words, to correct evil. How we are to interpret τῷ πονηρῷ is a disputed point. Eras- mus Schmidt, with whom Elsner is not averse to agree, took it as the ablative, and as denoting the sort and manner of the resistance, like ἐν τῷ ἀγαθῷ, Rom. xii. 21. But to say nothing of other reasons, we would here, just as in the passage of the Epistle to the Romans, expect the antithesis of ἀντιστῆναι ἐν τῷ ἀγαθῷ. It is incorrectly stated by these two authors, by Wolf and others, that Chrysostom has taken the same view of the words; but this Father rather ex- plains πονηρῷ of the Devil, not indeed in the same sense as at Jas. iv. 7, but in so far as the Devil em- ploys the adversary as his instrument.2 The main question is, whether the word ought to be considered as neuter in the sense of injuria, which is done by Augustine, Calvin, Castellio, Chemnitz and Wolf, or as masculine, and so equivalent to ἀδικοῦντι, which the LXX., Ex. ii. 13, give as the translation yw), This view, embraced by a majority of interpreters, has been, of late, defended by Fritzsche, upon the * Chrysostomus: οὖκ εἶπε, μὴ ἀντιστῆνα, τῷ ἀδελφῷ, ἀλλὰ τῷ πονηρῷ, δεικνὺς ὅτι ἐκείνου κινοῦντος ταῦτα τολμᾶται, καὶ 4 x - ~ > ~ ~ XN Ν 7 _ ‘\ ε ταύτῃ τὸ πολὺ τῆς ὀργῆς τῆς πρὸς τὸν πεποιηκότα χαλῶν καὶ ὑπο- ua ~ \ oa ΝᾺ n> aoe FEMVIMEVOS Tw THY σιτίων ED ETEGOY μεταθεῖναι. 48 CHAP. V. VERSES 38—42. ~> 5, ground that ἀλλ᾽ ὅστις is immediately annexed, and by Olshausen, who says: (so likewise Hackspan on the passage), “* We cannot well take πονηρόν here as neu- ter, for to resist evil per se, is, in every case, our duty. Evil is, however, considered as operative in some individual, in whom there is, at the same time, susceptibility for good.” The former reason does not oblige us to adopt this view, inasmuch as it might be said in Greek, as well as English, “ Resist not the power, but if any one, &c.” And still less is the other ground tenable, for πονηρόν does here certainly designate wickedness, in as far as it outwardly assails me, and consequently, evz/. If we consider this first clause as a general principle, which is afterwards in- dividualized by examples, we shall also be inclined to view τῷ πονηρῷ as neuter, for only ifresistance to evéd in general be the subject, can ver. 42 be well included. Should it be insisted upon, however, to take it as mas- culine, then must we do, what certainly can be less approved of, refer μὴ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ πονηρῷ solely to the first example ἀλλ᾽ ὅστις urd. 'Ῥαπίζειν has been falsely rendered by Beza, according to its etymology, bacillis caedere, but a stick is not used to strike upon the cheek. We find the proper translation already in the Vulgate. A stroke upon the cheek is a mark of pe- culiar contempt, Seneca de Constant. c.4: Sie in- venias servum, qui flagellis quam colaphis caedi malit. In just the same way as χαταπτύειν, did κολαφίζειν afterwards become a proverbial designation of great ignominy, Is. 1.6. Lament. iii. 830. 2 Cor. xi. 20. In Latin it was regarded as the utmost degree of con- tumelia,—os praebere, or offerre contumeliis. We CHAP. V. VERSES 98:...49, 49 have examples in Clericus upon the text, and in Gro- novius’ Adnot. on Grotius, De jure belli ac pacis, 1. I. e. 11. § 7,8. Why is the right cheek specified, al- though, when we strike, it is upon the ἐο 9 Mal- donatus correctly answers: Non eaedendi consuetu- dinem sed loquendi, secutus est, it being always the custom to mention the right first. In Hebrew, we have uniformly yo.» first, and not till after it, Sxnw>. Augustine and Beza explain the matter otherwise. On τὴν ἄλλην interpreters repeat the ob- servation, that, contrary to pure Greek, it stands in place of ἕτερος, according to the rule of grammarians : ἕσερος ἐπὶ δυοῖ, ἄλλος ἐπὶ πολλῶν. The distinction, however, was already overlooked, even among the classics. See Sallier and Oudendorp Thomas Μ. 5. V. ἕτερος. V. 40. Here there exists a doubt as to whether we have to conceive a judicial, or an extrajudicial dis- pute. The first is the common view, according to which the Vulgate translates, Qui vult tecum in judi- cio contendere, and Chrysostom explains, ἐὰν εἰς δικαστήριον ἕλχῃ καὶ πρώγματά σοι παρέχῃ ; so Erasmus, Calvin, Michaelis and Paulus. The latter of the two views again, we find in Beza, Grotius, Wolfand Kuin- nol. We can draw no decision from the words them- selves; Kg/vecdos in the middle, with the dative of di- rection,*® or even with πρός, denoting both a judicial and an extrajudicial controversy, Isa. u. 8. Job ix. 3. Judg. xxi. 22. Jer. ii. 9. Before determin- ing which of the two is here meant, let us take in- * Matthai Gr. Gram. § 404. VOL. Il. E 50 CHAP. V. VERSES 38—42. to view the relation betwixt the pieces of clothing. There is here the same sort of discrepance be- tween Matthew and Luke, as that with respect to the grapes and the figs, Mat. vii. 16. Luke vi. 44. For the precept is to be found, Luke vi. 29, in the following form: ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴροντός σου τὸ ἱμάτιον, καὶ τὸν χιτῶνω μὴ κωλύσῃς. Χιτὼν, in the Old Test. 2nd, among the Rabbins pyr is, as is well known, the undercoat, made of linen or cotton, and which fold- ed close to the body, (the Vulgate correctly, tunica.) Ἱμάτιον, in the Old Test. το, and among the Rab- bins nw (the Vulgate, pallium), was the cloak worn outmost. It hung loose around the body, and was made of various stuffs, according to the fortune of the wearer. Accordingly, the position of the words in Luke speak decisively for a violent seizure. He who means to rob another, naturally tears off, in the first place, his outer-garment. And with this the verb αἴρειν also agrees, which signifies a forcible taking away. On the other hand, in the passage before us, although not the use of λαμβάνειν, which does not, as is main- tained by Dr. Fritzsche, merely correspond with su- mere, but also denotes a carrying off by force, still the relation in which the χιτών stands towards the ἱμάτιον, shews, that it cannot ke a violent carry - ing off which is spoken of, and that the only possible question is, whether the χρίνεσθαι be judicial or eatra- judicial. The ἱμάτιον, even on account of its size, was the more valuable piece of raiment, Mark xiii. 16, with which we may compare the saying, Tr. Bava Meziah: « When one gives a penny to a poor man to buy a pin, let him not buy a nv.” We have a CHAP. V. VERSES 38—4?, 51: to add, that the poor Eastern makes his cloak serve also for bed-cover, on which account, Moses gave the humane law, that the creditor should not keep it in pledge over night, Ex. xxil.25. We may then either conceive to ourselves, that here some debtor is in- tended, whom the ereditor sues before a court for his tunic, not having a title to the cloak. See Michaelis on this passage, and Jahn’s Bibl. Archzeologie, I. 2, s. 78; or that a malicious person out of court, on some plea or other, makes a claim for the tunic. In the former ease, Christ’s counsel would resemble the saying, v. 25, and recal the Latin proverb: Qui de ovo tibi litem intendit, da et gallinam. We prefer the latter supposition, however, partly because in gene- ral it fits better into the connection, where arbitrary violence is spoken of, partly because, when we trans- late τῷ θέλοντί σοι κριθῆναι, “ if any man will go to Jaw with thee,” the antithesis which we require and expect, is, ‘“ Jet him have, ere this be done;” or “ let him have, without a lawsuit...” Wedo not then, moreover, need to consider, τῷ θέλοντί with Kuinol, as redundant. The meaning is, “ If any man shall endeavour to pick a quarrel with thee, in order to possess thy coat, let him, before it comes to a quarrel, have thy mantle also.” V. 41. ᾿Αγγαρεύειν is well known to be a Persie word, of whose signification the modern language af- fords no trace, except in the verb c pralss), to write, paint, and in the substantive x 15); angare, something written, specifically an account-book. This ~ 52 CHAP. V. VERSES 38—42. is Lorsbach’s derivation ; those of Reland, Castellus and Jahn merit no attention. It has not, however, satisfied our more modern lexicographers, who ac- cordingly have adopted the old derivation from the Semitical root 538, mercede conduxit, or have even had recourse, like Eichhorn, to a root from the Ethi- opic. See Winer in the edition of Simonis, and Ge- senius in the smaller Latin dictionary, s.v. ΤΣ ΝΜ - In the Thesaurus, Gesenius had inclined still more to the view of Lorsbach, but here he has again relinquished it. In the former work, he proposes to consider the Talmudic x93, as a quadrilittera from ax, and in this way to derive also max, whose dagesch points to the assimilated 5, from a quadr. of “ax. ~ But how could this excellent scholar fall upon such a thought, when every thing conspires to shew that the Rabbinical is just the Persie word? If even, in the Greek and Latin, it has become decidedly naturalized, for in the later days of the latter language, we have angariare, to oblige to perform soccage, (See Du Cange, Gloss. Lat. Med.s. h. v.) how should not the Jews who lived in Persia have known the word? How can it have happened that the word moaxy first appears in the dater Hebrew, and that 3 should have been the particular letter chosen for the forma- tion of a quadrilittera? The supposition is to be wholly rejected. If the word must be traced to a Semitic root, it would be better to say with Winer, that it was connected with such a root, even in the Persic. There can be no doubt, that the deriva- tion from ce seal S;3)}, to write, is still the most CHAP. V. VERSES 38—42. 58 probable. Originally, the ἄγγαροι were bearers of dispatches,* why might they not be called the dis- patch, and that is x Leash? The word is of very frequent occurrence in the Talmud, used primarily, of all compulsory labours performed in the service of the state, and afterwards, of compulsory labour of any sort,> so that in Rabbinical works, ΝΟΣ) Ν 5, by force, is directly opposed to mmnwa. In the other N. Test. passage, where it appears, Mat. xxvii. 32, the special reference to state service is to be retained; so likewise have we here to suppose some official reguz- sition, to serve as guide, messenger or porter. V. 42. Here the remark presented itself most irre- sistibly, that Christ could not have required the ob- servanee of the commandment under all circumstan- ces, not even when the giving is restricted to alms. But any one who holds stiffly by the letter, may put a wider construction upon the givzng, and draw the conclusion, that I must never refuse any request what- soever. The Carpocratians defended the gratifica- tion of lust, by saying, if the inclination asks, we are 8 Herodotus, VIII. 98. Xenoph. Cyrop. VIII. 6,17. Sui- das: of ἐκ διαδοχῆς ye αμματοφόροι. b Just so Suidas: ἀγγαρεία ἡ δημοσία καὶ ἀναγκαία δουλεία, and previously ἀγγαρείαν ἀνάγκην ἀκούσιον λέγομεν καὶ ἐκ βίας γινομένην ὑπηρεσίαν. ἔπνρῃ the ἐπισταθμία, or quartering, was included in the ἀγγαρεία. See Suidas, s. v. ἀνεσισσάθρευτος. The same author moreover, under the article ἄγγαροι, says what, so far as 1 am aware, none has drawn attention to, that the Persians also call them ᾿Ασσάνδαι. That is posts, from ce sw astanden, {0 establish. δά CHAP. V. VERSE 49. bound to give to it. In order to justify giving to every one, and under all circumstances, Jerome re- stricts the matter of the gift, making it to be merely the spiritual gift of salvation which is spoken of. (Even that ought not, however, to be given to all, see c. vii. 6.) He says: Si de eleemosyna tantum dic- tum intelligamus, in plerisque pauperibus hoe stare non potest, sed et divites, st semper dederint, semper dare non poterunt. There can be no doubt, that our Saviour had beneficence of a temporal kind chiefly in his eye, as even the lending which immediately fol- lows, demonstrates. Even such beneficence, how- ever, must not, under all circumstances, be vouchsafed. The New Testament rather lays down certain laws for generosity, which limit the generality of the pre- cept, 2 Cor. viii. 12, Gal. vi. 10. 1 Tim. v. 8. ᾿Αποστρέφεσθαί τινα, is used even among the classics, for an angry turning away from any one, particularly in the LXX. as translation of yo nD, yo DY YT. Kindred passages are to be found, Deut. xv. 7. ἐὰν 6: γένηται ἐν σοὶ ἐνδεὴς ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου ... οὐκ ἀποστέρξεις (Vulg. ἀποστρέψεις, ex conj. Salm. ἀποστέξεις) τὴν καρ- diay σου, Sirach iv. 5: ἀπὸ δεομένου μὴ ἀποστρέψῃς ὀφϑαλμὸν, καὶ μὴ δῷς τόπον ἀν)ρώπῳ καταράσασϑαί σε. Passing to the history of the exposition of these words, we meet in the infancy of Christianity, just as was the case with the oath, only not quite so ex- tensive, nor quite so strict, with the absolute and literal construction. We say not so strict, for an absolute general observance would, in this instance, haveled not * Sophocles, GEd. Col. v. 1236. CHAP. V. VERSE 42. 55 metely to absurdities, but, as at v. 42, even to crzmes. Many inferred from the passage solely the unlaw- fulness of war, others that of capital punishments, as of the punitive function of the magistrate in general. There were some who imagined it forbade the most necessary self-defence, or at least looked upon unreserved forbearance from self-defence, as a higher stage of Christianity. See G. Arnold Ab- bildung der ersten Christen. B. 5. c. 5. Neander’s Denkwurdig. I. 378, but especially Chancellor Pfaft’s De ecclesia sanguinem non sitiente, Tub. 1740. As in that of the oath, so likewise in this instance, did the mystical Essenes lead the way, of whom Philo tells us that they would not manufacture weapons ofwar. Quod probus liber, ed. Fr. p, 877. So too some philoso- phers ; Compare Grotius. The heathen, on their part, made these maxims of the Christians, a ground of mockery and reproach. Thus Celsus, Origen cont. Cels. 1. vii. c. 8, assails with derision the saying of v. 39, and the refusal of military service by the Christian, l. viii. c. 6, where Origen returns him such an ad- 2 Some admirable observations of Isidorus Pelusiota upon this section—likewise quoted by Beza with the complaint: Quae cuinam hodie persuaserimus !—are to be found in his epistles, 1. iii. 126, 1. ii. 169, 1. iv. 175. Basil, De legendis libris — Gentil. c. 5, relates, as a pendant to v. 39, the anecdote of Socrates, who took with patience a wound in the face from the blow of a drunkard, and, according to the practice of placing under statues the name of the artist, put over it, done by such a one! Doubtless! If it was love to the ruffian, the desire of bringing him, by salutary shame, to a sense of his guilt, and if scorn and sarcasm had no share in the matter, then it may be taken for a pendant. 56 CHAP. V. VERSE 42. mirable answer. The scruple of the noble heathen Volusianus is communicated in the letter of Mar- cellinus to Augustine, Ep. 136. (in other editions, ep. 6), Tum deinde, (it is objected by the Gentiles), quod ejus praedicatio atque doctrina reipublicae moribus nulla ex parte conveniat. In Persia too, the informers against the Christians raised the objection, that by their religion, war of every kind is forbidden.* In the self same way, the Jews found fault with the precepts before us, and very justly remarked that the conduct of Jesus, John. xviii. 22, and of Paul, Acts Xxili. 3, stands in contradiction to them. See the polemical work ΤΙΣ pm in Wagenseil, Sota, 5. 822. On the other hand, the Jew in the book of Cosri, admonishes the king of the Chasars, not to let the poverty of the Jews deter him from embracing their religion, seeing that the Christians, although professing such humilitating precepts, had yet at- tained so high a degree of importance among the na- tions. The English Deists, moreover, and especially Mandeville, in his Fable of the Bees, laugh at the im- practicability and fanaticism of these precepts ; while, again, the Anti-Jewish Gnosties, particularly the Manichees, found upon the contrariety which is here alleged, their tenet, that the Gospel could not be de- rived from the same God with the Jewish law, a te- net which, among the Fathers of the Church, was chiefly controverted by Augustine, in reference to the passages before us, cont. Faust. Man. |. XXII. * Assemanni Acta Martyr. 1. 181. > Liber Cosri ed. Buxt. p. 1. § 113. CHAP. V. VERSE 42. 57 c. 76. Similar views are also to be met with among several of the sects which separate from the Romish ehureh ; and if they have been broached less fre- quently on the subject of war than on that of the oath, this has no other ground, except that the desire of self- preservation involuntarily restricted the over-rigid interpretation. The Romish church laid down the literal and absolute fulfilment of these precepts as a consilium, but conceded to the great bulk of mankind the free use of self-defence, of process by law and war. ‘This is another of the points on which Erasmus wavered, see the Annot.in h.1. and Luke iii. 22. War is, by the singular and paradoxical Cornelius Agrippa, declared to be unlawful, De vanit. scient. ο. 79. The Reformers, free from a partial cleaving to this one pas- sage, proceeded upon a comprehensive view of the Scripture system, and, supported by a sound histori- cal knowledge of the world, arrived at the true way of viewing these commandments of Christ. The Anabaptists, on the contrary, denounced the military profession and the office of magistrate, which, in re- gard to the former, was also done by the later and purer Menonite Baptists, and the followers of Schwenk- feld. With them the Socinians agreed, at least so far as to prohibit the private Christian from having recourse for succour to the law, and as to declare war to be unlawful. But these principles have been most boldly asserted since the commencement of the 17th century by the Quakers, and have survived down to the present modern days, in which a community pro- fessing them subsists as a marvel of times that are passed away. δ8 CHAP. V. VERSE 42. Such rigid views, however, were far less general among the first Christians, with respect to military service, than with respect to the oath. Even in the writings of Justin Martyr, the most ancient witness to the principles of early Christianity, we find a milder exposition of the sayings under review. In the Apo- log. I. c. 16, where they are quoted, he merely no- tices generally how, in these words, the Lord has recommended his followers to triumph over the world, by the ὑπομονή and πραότης ; and in the same way did most of the Fathers expound the sayings with the temperamentum of the οὐχὶ μᾶλλον, given 1 Cor. vi. 7, by St. Paul. But nothing can compare with what Augustine says upon this passage, both in the expo-— sition of the Sermon on the Mount, in the Epist. 138, ad Marcellinum, and in De mendacio, 6. 27. His chief thought is as follows: Ista praecepta magis ad preeparationem cordis, que intus est, pertinere, quam ad opus, quod in aperto fit, ut teneatur in secreto animi patientia cum benevolentia, in manifesto autem id fiat, quod eis videtur prodesse posse, quibus bene velle debemus, hine liquido ostenditur, quod ipse dominus Iesus..... Here follows a reference to John xvili, 23. Compare also Hilary. The principles which the Church general has laid down on the sub- ject of war, self-defence and the power of magis- trates, were asserted and defended by all the Re- formers, and, as was the natural consequence at a time when energies of an impure were developed along with those of a better character, more particularly those relating to the magistrate’s right of punishment. Besides what he says in expounding this passage, CHAP. V. VERSE 42. 59 compare Luther’s treatises on the duties of magistrates and of subjects in the 10th vol. of Walch’s edit., and the list there given of passages from his works, treating of the magistracy. See also, p. 572 of the same vol. the admirable dissertation : Scruple as to whether soldiers can be in astate of salvation, and p. 622, On self- defence in puncto religionis. With these we have also to compare Melancthon in the locus de Magis- tratu; and Calvin, Instit. 1. IV. ce. 20, De politica ad- ministratione. From an after period, we cite, as well worthy of perusal, Grotius’ exposition in his book, De jure belli et pacis, 1. 11. c. 7, and Episcopius’ exe- getical dissertation: Tractatus brevis de Magistratu, in the Opp. I. p. 71, but, above all, the profound and truly theological dissertation on war, magistracy, &e. in Gerhard’s Loci, Tom XIV. ἶ As to the manner of expounding these sayings, par- ticularly v. 39, Luther draws the distinction between what is incumbent upon the Christian, as Christian, in which capacity he is bound to suffer every thing with patience, and to turn the other cheek to him who has smitten the one, and what is incumbent upon the Chris- tian, as magistrate, or the subject of magistracy, in which he holds it as acommission from God, to ward off evil, and protect from violence himself and those who belong to him. Although the good man here and else- where does not express himself upon the subject with sufficient clearness, he stillalways means the right thing. It may be said, to wit, that in so far as the Chris- tian is only a Christian, he must bear all things pa- tiently ; but in so far as every man on earth is steward of the glory and of the property of God, he must defend himself. Calvin on this passage, as in regard to the 60 CHAP. V. VERSE 42. oath, says, that we must look to the design of Christ. He spoke merely against revenge, and consequently whenever it can be done without revenge, evil may be checked by resistance. So likewise Bueer. Zwingli treats the expressions as hyperbolical, which was previ- ously done by Erasmus, and afterwards by many more, e. g. Piscator, Pellicanus, Flacius, Gerh. Voss. Instit. Orat. 1. LV. 6. 9. In this Glassius acquiesces, when he does, what many followed him in doing, subjects the passages to the rule: Negativum adverbium quan- doque pro comparativa particula ponitur. In the pre- sent day, several, as Kuinol and Seiler, declare the forms to be proverbial; others, as Rosenmiller and Bahrdt, supply a rather. Others still, with Paulus, will have it to be a prudential rule, calculated for a time of negligent administration of justice. Fritzsche believes, that here, as at v. 29, the asperitas severi morum magistri requires a quite literal construction. Among moderns, none, in my judgment, has spoken so well upon the subject, as K. Ludw. Nitzsch, De judicandis morum preceptis, &c. p. 157. He shews justly, that, in the first place, it is no local precept, and then, that still less is it a prudential maxim ; but at the same time, that the Saviour could not possibly, either in public or private life, have required in every | ease a literal fulfilment, and at last decides to the effect, that it is the disposition only of the Christian which is meant to be delineated, that for this purpose our Saviour selects striking examples by which that is best disclosed ; Consequently that it is to mistake Christ’s design, when the expositor stops short at the facta, and maintains these per se. Still more fully, from CHAP. V. VERSES 42, 49, 44. 61 the spirit of the gospel, does Olshausen, the most re- cent commentator, expound the words ; but the form in which he delivers his exposition is as unsatisfactory in the present instance, as it is in that of the oath. Here, too, he maintains that the order was meant for the βασιλεία, and not for the Christian’s connection with the world. Even Dr. Paulus, however, who, on the subject of the oath, seemed not a little to go hand in hand with Olshansen, remarks, that in this case it is*'clear, that it is not the relation of Christians to each other, but their relation to the world, which is spoken of. Persons belonging to the βασιλεία per- petrate no act of violence. Hence, too, we find Ols- hausen afterwards speaks only of the literal fulfilment of the precept towards those who are susceptible of evangelical sentiments. Obviously, however, no one capable of committing such violence as is here described, can be ranked among the υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας, and so the formula has no application whatever. We deem it enough to say, that ““ Christ, with indefinite generality, declares in what way the Christian has to fulfil the divine law, when he happens to be subjected to violence. The application of the precept, how- ever, is in many ways conditionate upon a regard to God’s glory, the good of the injurer and the interests of the community.” V. 43, 44. The preceding sayings had expressed negatively the duty of Christ’s disciple with regard to violence. The Saviour now gives its σλήρωσις to the commandment, Lev. xix. 18, and at the same time states what is the positive duty of the Christian under violence and injury. Augustine: Sine ista dilectione A 62 . CHAP..V. VERSES 43, 44, .... a, Quze superius dicta sunt, implere quis potest ! In the glow of inspiration, Chrysostom thus traces the progress of thought: Εὖδες ὅσους ἀνέβη Badmods, καὶ πῶς εἰς αὐτὴν ἡμᾶς τὴν κορυφὴν ἔστησε τῆς ἀρετῆς ; σκόπει δὲ ἄνωϑεν ἀριϑι μῶν: πρῶτός ἐστι Padwoc, μὴ ἄρχειν ἀδικίας" δεύτερος, μετὰ τὸ ἄρξασϑαι, τὸν ἀδικοῦντα τοῖς ἴσοις μὴ ἀμύνεσϑαι τρίτος, μὴ δρᾶσαι τὸν ἐπηρεάζοντοι ταῦτα ἃ ἔπαϑεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἡσυχάσαι" τέταρτος, τὸ καὶ πα- ρασχεῖν ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὸ THIEN κακῶς" πέμπτος, τὸ καὶ TAEOY παρασχεῖν, ἢ ἐκεῖνος βούλεται ὁ ποιήσας" ἕκτος; τὸ μὴ μι- σῆσαι τὸν ταῦτα ἐργαδόμενον: ἕβδομος, τὸ καὶ ἀγαπῆσαι" ὄγδοος, τὸ καὶ εὐεογετῆσαι" ἕννατος, τὸ καὶ Θεὸν ὑπερ αὑτοῦ παρακαλεῖν" εἶδες ὕψος φιλοσοφίας 38 We have to observe, that this precept also of our master has its restrictions, which results, as in the former case, 1. from the whole system of Christian truth; 2. from the intention of the Saviour; 3. from other declarations of Scripture. On the first of these heads we proceed, as at p. 44, upon the fact, that the regenerated Christian resembles his heavenly Father. Indeed, we find that this very be- neficent love towards those who do us evil, is here, 2 Do you observe the scale he has ascended, and how he has placed us upon the pinnacle of virtue? Contemplate the enumeration from the beginning. The first grade is, not to begin injuring ; the second, after injury has been done, not to retaliate like for like upon the injurer ; the third, not to inflict the same on the offender that one has suffered, but to be quiet ; the fourth, to yield ourself to suffer evil; the fifth, to yield more than he who did the evil wishes ; the sixth, not to hate him who did such things ; the seventh, even to love him; the eighth, to do him good ; the ninth, to pray to God for him. Do you mark the summit of philosophy ? CHAP. V. VERSES 49, 44. 63 in v. 45, brought forward as a feature of similarity to our Father in heaven. If then, we would wish to know the nature of the love of the Christian for his enemies, we have but to contemplate the nature of the love of God for his. Now, doubtless, God’s love reaches to every one of his creatures, for, as it is said, Wisdom xi. 25, “ He hateth nothing that he hath made.” At the same time, co-existing with this love, there is the divine ὀργή, which, as we read Rom. i. 18, extends to all unrighteousness ; and thus also, on the part of the Christian, there exists, along with love to his enemies, a hatred of the unrighteousness which is in them, and the manifestation of the for- mer sentiment is restricted by the necessary manifes- tation of anger. We must not then forget, that the very God, who makes the sweet light of his sun to rise even upon the wicked, torments them, on the other hand, by the sting of conscience within, and that it is one and the same law, which causes the clouds of heaven to drop down blessing upon the fields of the unrighteous, and which, at the same time, has indissolubly united in their hearts, with alienation from himself, the want of true happiness ; Yea, that that very God who reveals even towards him that is ungodly, the riches of his goodness, has decla- red, Rom. ii. 5. that, by despising it, he is heaping up for himself a treasure of wrath. We have previously said, that along with the love of God to the sinner, there exists also the ὀργή. Viewing this more profoundly, we say that, as the holiness of God, which, in its opposition to evil, becomes wrath, never but reposes in his love, so does his love also repose in his holiness or wrath. 64 CHAP. V. VERSES 49, 44. Hence, at p. 44, we could justly express ourselves to the effect, that the resistance which God makes to evil, and the punishment he inflicts upon it, emanate from love, z. e. a holy love. And for the same reason, in the case before us, we must also say, that the holy love of the Christian towards the man that is evil may, according to circumstances, manifest itself in the ὀργή as well as in the ἀγάπη, no less in the καταρᾶσθαι than in the εὐλογεῖν, no less by the μισεῖν than by the καλῶς ποιεῖν, no less by the στηνωρεῖν than by the προσεύχεσθαι. This we shall forthwith evince by cther passages of Scripture, from the example of Christ and his Apostles. It is in consequence of the fact, that the present age is wont far too much to conceive of love as disunited from holiness, that sayings of the Saviour like the one before us, have been so partially understood, and that men can conceive from the mouth of Christ himself no other sort of expressions towards his and God’s enemies, them who hate God and him, than those of friendship and benediction. True it is, that, even upon the cross, the expiring Saviour prayed, ‘«« Father, forgive them ;” and that, to the disciples who would have commanded fire to come down from heaven, he said, “ Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.” But the same Saviour has also de- clared in his prayer, John xvii. 9, “I pray not for the world ;” and called to hypocrites, Matt. xxiii. 33, ἐς Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” He has said, Matt. xviii. 6, ““ Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a mill- stone were hanged about his neck, and that he were CHAP. V. VERSES 43, 44. 65 drowned in the depth of the sea ;” and Matt. xxv. 41, «: Then shall he say unto them on the left hand, Depart from me ye cursed, into everlasting fire.” Paultoo, who, in compliance with his master’s precept, 1 Cor. iv. 12, says, “ Being reviled we bless, being persecuted we suffer it, being defamed we entreat,” proclaims, Gal. i. 8, “ Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you, let him be accursed,” and Acts xxiii. 3, calls out to the High Priest, ““« God shall smite thee, thou whited wall.” At 1 Cor. v. 5, too, he delivers the transgressor unto Satan, for the destruc- tion of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved, and says, 2 Tim. iv. 14, of Alexander the copper-smith, “ He did me much evil, the Lord reward him according to his works.” In fine, John, in his first Epist. c. v. 16, declares, *‘ ‘There is a sin unto death, I do not say that he shall pray for it;” and 2 Epist. 10, “«“ If there come any un- to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed, for he that biddeth him God speed, is partaker of his evil deeds.” WhenChrist was misrepresented, assaulted and scorned, he by no means replies with benedictions, but rather sometimes with sharp invectives, Matt. xvi. 3, 4. John viii. 44. Matt. x. 33; xi. 20; xii.34. Neither does he, at all require of his disciples, that to those by whom they were hatedand rejected, they should proceed just as if ithad been otherwise, to offer the blessing of the gospel, (which is, however, the highest species of the καλῶς coi.) See Matt. x. 14; vii. 6. For these reasons, accordingly, we must also understand the precepts of Christ in the passage before us, with the restriction borrowed from the analog. fidei, viz. that VOL. II. F ‘ 66 CHAP. V. VERSES 49, 44, the love of enemies ought to be manifested in the way here prescribed by Christ, in all cases, except where the circumstance of its being a holy love, makes some other manifestation of it requisite. This restriction, it must also be added, does not contra- vene the intention of Christ in the passage. He wish- ed to enlarge the measure of love, of which the Scribes formed so narrow a conception; a holy love on the part of the Christian still continues to be love, even when it discloses itself in punishment.* The added clause καὶ μισήσεις τὸν ἐχθρόν σου, is not to be found in the Old Testament. It is an addita- mentum of the doctors of the law. Here also then, the Saviour takes an attitude of opposition to the carnal construction of the Old Testament precept. The first thing incumbent upon us, is to investigate the original sense of the Mosaic precept, there being different views taken of it. Much depends upon who it was whom the law-giver understood by the ὁ zA7- σίον, Sart. According to the carnal Jewish view, as is shewn by the additamentum and the opposition of Christ, the word meant a friend. That this is a false construction put upon it is easily shewn. True yo, like 7x, may denote friend, Prov. xvii. 17. But in the laws of Moses, it is used differently, e. g. Ex. xviii. 16, of the man who has a law-suit with 4 The most profound remarks that perhaps were ever made upon the nature of punishment, and especially upon the iden- tity of grace and of justice, as contained in it, are to be found in the Essay upon Penal Jurisprudence by Géschel, in the Zerstreuten Blittern aus den Hand-und Hulfs-acten eines Ju- risten, Erfurt, 1832. 1% ‘Th. CHAP. V. VERSES 49, 44. 67 another, nay, Deut. xxii. 26, even of the man whom one designs to murder. Everywhere, in the prohibi- tion against bearing false witness, coveting property not our own, Ex. xx. 16, 17, it is the term employed ; and, in point of fact, did it here refer solely to our friends, the legislation would be almost superfluous. In all these instances, y4 is equivalent to ἕτερος. It is, however, a proper subject of inquiry, whether, in the Mosaic legislation, and so likewise in our passage, this ἕτερος means only a compatriot, an Israelite, or whether it means a fellow-man in general, and so in- cludes the Gentile. Now, doubtless, it has been un- derstood, not merely by carnal Jewish interpreters, but even by Jews, such as Philo and Maimonides, in the former sense. ‘They explain it 71N2 yo IN, Compare Minster Fagius on the Old Testament passages in the Crit. sacr. Accordingly, it is also explained in the same way by Socinus, Drusius and Grotius, in recent times by Bretschneider, Fritzsche and Meyer, and espcially by Hiipeden in his Dissert. de amore inimicorum, Gott. 1817, § 1. That this exposition is the right one, appears on a comparison of several passages of the law, where the legislation is expressly addressed to the oy, 6. g. Ex. xxii. 24, 27, and such is precisely the case with respect to the passages before us, where, Lev. xix. 16, 4yay2, was used, and v. 18, Joy 5 ΩΝ. In the same way too, do TN and may, two words which in the laws, are inter- hanged with yy, refer also to Jewish fellow-coun- trymen. ‘This is particularly obvious in Tob. iv. 13, where itis first said: Καὶ νῦν παιδίον ἀγάπα τοὺς ἀδελ.-- φούς σου, and forthwith in explanation: τῶν υἱῶν καὶ, 68 CHAP. V. VERSES 43, 44. θυγατέρων τοῦ λαοῦ cov. In Greek likewise, as is well known, ἀδελφός is used to denote the tie of having one common country. It serves to corroborate this explanation in regard to the passage before us, that Lev. xix. 38, 34, the same thing is again repeated by God, with respect to the a: 05> MYT DIN ΤΤῚ ΝΘ 2995 NaN) DINK ἼΣΤΤ an, with which the feel- ing words, Ex. xxiii. 9, (Deut. x. 18.) may be com- pared. It is true, that these very sayings may also be quoted to prove, onthe other side, that, supposing the command in question does in fact refer to Israel alone, still the same degree of love was likewise required to beshewn towards the Gentiles. In recent times, this argument has been drawn from the present passage, particularly by J. D. Michaelis, in his Anm. zum N. Test. and by Stier, Andeutungen zum. gl. Schriftverstand. 1. 5. 216, (Those of a former period merely urge against the Socinians, that y> signifies ἕτερος, Hackspan Notae phil. 1. 448), and in like manner, by such theologians, as in other respects sought to disparage the morality of the Old Testa- ment, e. g. Bauer Bibl. Moral des A. T. 1. 105. On the other hand, it must not be overlooked, that the sa and awin, cannot be considered as directly signifying a Gentile. The LXX. translates, προσήλυ- ros, and with this idea, that of embracing the Hebrew re- ligion and manners is so entirely coincident, that προσ- ἤλυτος afterwards received the signification of a con- vert toa religion. The Syrian translator renders Ὁ who is converted to me.” At the period when Israel possessed full sway, so far, according to the ac- count of Maimonides, Constitut. de culta peregrino CHAP. V. VERSES 43, 44, 69 c. 10, from a Gentile sojourning among the Israelites, even a temporary residence in the country, for pur- poses of trade, was not allowed him; and this author, Constit. de regibus, c. 8, affirms, “ Any Gentile who had not embraced the seven precepts of Noah was slain when he dwelt among us.” If this, then, was actually the case in ancient times, and if the oma be- longed to the mim ττρ (Deut. xxiii. 9.), it would appear that the Mosaic precept was designed for the Israelitish nation. This is the conclusion of Hupe- den, in the Dissert. which we alluded to above, p. 14. Herea great deal depends upon the ques- tion, firstly, whether the known distinction between the pox a, who were mma ‘92, and the syw a, already obtained in the time of Moses; and, second- ly, whether, in that lawgiver, we are to understand under the general names on and pawn, the for- mer or the latter. On the first point, the Mosaie laws abundantly shew that, 7m substance, such a dis- tinction did exist, for the na spoken of are such as sojourn among Israel, without being bound by all the national laws; in. all probability, the name yyw 12 was derived from Lev. xxv. 48. With respect to the second, 1 know not whether it has been narrowly in- vestigated. Accordivg to Jarchi and other Rabbins, (Compare Breithaupt’s Annot. on Jarchi’s Expos. of Ex. xii. 45), the 42 is ἃ ptx 4a, while the awin isa “yw 13, an explanation likewise adopted by Buxtorf, Drusius,2. and the more ancient interpreters, but which, on the other hand, more modern lexicogra- ἃ In the Notis maj. in the first vol. of the Supplement to the Critici Sacri on Ex. xii. 19. 70 CHAP. V. VERSES 49, 44. phers, Gesenius and Winer, have renounced, with- out endeavouring to make any other distinction be- twixt the two words, although these are always coupled by }. Michaelis, too, is undecided whether there be a distinction at all between awn and 43, and what it 15.8 Manv of the Rabbins, in several passages, take the 43 to mean one who has been wholly brought over to the congregation of Israel, consequently the ΤῊΣ 35, in others they do not. Thus, Aben Ezra in the Com. on Ex. xii. 19, 49,® expressly observes, that the passage treats solely of the ptx a, and Maimonides makes the same re- mark* with respect to the laws on alms. The distinc- tion between the two words swin and 43, which Michaelis is inclined to draw, might be made to agree with the view of Jarchi; but, at all rates, a more com- prehensive signification must be given to the 3, so as to comprise at once the proper proselyte, and the syw o>. That 43, however, embraces also the un- circumcised stranger, appears indisputably from Ex. xil. 48. And in the same way we should then have to refer the 45, Lev. xix. 33—36, not less to the more lax, than to the stricter observers of the laws of Mo- ses ; otherwise this very precept would have sanction- ed the commission of every violence against the “a syw. Now, as these more lax proselytes do by no means belong to the Sxow*>np (Deut. xxiii. 9), as in after times they have been expressly denominated no more than pa ‘nM, pious Gentiles, this passage * Mos. Recht. II. 5, 339. > Bibl. Rabb. Bomb. T. I. © Constit. de Pauper. c. 1, 8 9. CHAP. V. VERSES 49, 44, 71 of the law of Moses no doubt serves to shew that that lawgiver had in general designed for the connec- tion with the Gentiles, the precept: 305 95 man. But even granting that we could not point to these special commands of the lawgiver respecting the oa, it would still not be allowable for us to suppose, that in their intercourse with the Heathen, he had conceded to the people ἃ licence for the sins, which he had prohibited them to commit in their intercourse with each other. When the lawgiver ordains in the decalogue, not to kill, nor bear false witness against a neighbour, could he have permitted the opposite of all this in inter- course with Gentiles? It cannot at once be affirmed, that, in the Old Test. passage, the direct signification of yo is compatriot, (in Meyer’s Com. we read “ ys, a fellow Jew,”) any more than in the decalogue, but, as it is interpreted by several Jewish expositors, “ every one with whom we live in intercourse,” an idea which the Rabbins express by 1am. [ῃ conse- quence of the strict demarcation of the nation, their intercourse was limited to two descriptions of per- sons, proper Jews, and such Gentiles as observed the precepts of Noah, consequently the legislation ad- dressed none but these. When, in after times, we behold Jews coming, in private life, into contact with Gentiles, several examples occur of noble generosity, even towards Gentile persecutors, as for instance, 2 Kings vi. 22, that of Elisha. The application, too, made by Christ of the commandment (see Mark xii. 31), presupposes the more general signification of yn. On the other hand, that signification has no place in the passages which some have quoted, Si- 75 CHAP. V. VERSES 49, 44, rach xiii. 15: πᾶν Cio dyarG τὸ ὅμοιον αὐτῷ, καὶ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ἀγαπᾷ τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ: and Sirach xviii. 12, ἔλεος ἀνθρώπου ἐπὶ τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ, ἔλεος dz Κυρίου ἐπὶ πᾶσαν σάρχα. Inthe after period, when, having lost their independence, the Jews lived among the Gentiles, we find that these are. by no means excluded from their sympathy and love. Of the eorner of the field, which, aecording to the law of Moses, was to be left for the 12 and the poor of Israel, a share is expressly coneeded by later Jews also to the Gentile. See Maimonides, De jure paup. et peregr. c-i. ὃ 9. Ina particular bason, alms were collected for obyy “ay, “ the poor of the world.” Ibid. c. ix. § 6. The same work, 6. vii. § 7, expressly ordains ““ to feed and clothe the poor who are not Israelites, in like manner as the poor that are, for the sake of the way of salvation.” Now, notwithstanding that we have obtained, as the result of our investigation, that, in the Old Test. pre- cept, yo signifies compatrioé, we must still reject the inference which Socinus has founded upon the eir- eumstance. This is the passage from which, above all others, the Socinians believe they can prove, that Christ has set up in opposition to the preeept of the Old Test. a new and altogether different one. For @ On the ἘΞ), and the relation of the Israelites to the Heathen, compare Selden, Jus nature et Gent. 1. 2, ¢. 3; Maimonides Const. de jure pauperis et peregrini, ed. Prideaux, Oxon. 1679, along with which the 13th and 14th chaps. of TINT IDX upon proselytes, is printed; Danz, Cura Hebreor. in conquir. prosel. in Meuschen ; Michaelis Mos. Recht. 11. § 138, 143; 1V. § 184; Selig, der Jude, Th. Y. ' s. 67; J. Gottl. Carpzov, Apparatus Antiquit. p. 39. CHAP. V. VERSES 43, 44. 73 after having very skilfully shewn, that, where that precept is given, yo denotes the Israelite, Socinus re- marks that ἐχθοός must, in virtue of the antithesis, de- note one who is not an Israelite, and consequently, in enjoining the love of enemies in general, Christ en- joins something altogether new. In the first place, however, we cannot allow that the Old Test. precept is here quoted according to that exposition, which makes ὁ πλησίον and ὁ ἐχθρός, the Jew and the Gentile. Were it so, Christ must have said antithetically : ᾿Εγὼ Of λέγω Umi, ἀγωπῆσαι πάντας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ὁμοίως, whereas the antithesis which he brings forward shews, that the ὁ πλησίον and ὁ ἐχθοός were understood of friend and foe in private intercourse. It is only in this way, moreover, that the’ precept is connected, on the one hand, with what goes before, and, on the other, with verses 45 and 46, which speak of the good and the evil of those who do and of those who do notlove us. But, besides this, Socinus leaves altogether out of view, that the μισήσεις 6: τοὺς ἐχθοούς is not to be found in the Old Test., which just evinces that the positive command of love to countrymen, by no means involved the negative command of hatred to those who were not. ‘To be sure, the Socinian Os- terode goes so far as to imagine, that these words must have been dropped from the Old Test. codex. Our Saviour’s antithesis is aimed singly and solely at the construction given to the Old Test. precept, ac- cording to which ὁ σλησίον and ὁ ἐχθρός denote friends and foes in the ordinary commerce of life; and here, too, the antithesis is, at the same time, a πλήρωσις. The carnal mind believed, that it had fully satisfied 74 CHAP. V. VERSES 43, 44, the precept of love, by at least practising it upon one class of men; Christ shews that it has a wider com- pass. Upon the words of our Saviour that now follow, a peculiarly high importance, especially in later times, has been placed, inasmuch as those who estimate the value of the Gospel, solely by certain isolated moral precepts, point to the command of love to enemies as one which, if not exclusively, is at the least pre- eminently, peculiar to Christianity. Doubtless the spirit of a forgiving and placable love is to be found mainly within the pale of our religion; only never ought this fairest fruit of Christian faith to have been regarded separate from its root. And what is that root? | It is just the great truth of God, out of his unmerited compassion in Christ, having been gracious to us, and a heart, which being made sensible of his mercy, is by necessary consequence filled with placability towards the brother who offends. To this source of the for- giving temper of Christ’s disciple the declarations, Eph. iv. 92. Col. iti. 18, point. Compare our observations on Matt. vi. 12. It is from the same source, more- over, that Christian placability, and the love of ene- mies, derive their inexhaustible force of endurance, and, on the other hand, that humility, without which a forgiving disposition towards a brother has always something defective. If, however, the question mere- ly respect a knowledge of the duty of loving enemies, great injustice has been done, in the first place, to the Old Test., when, from the sharp opposition in which the Israelite stood to the ungodly Gentile, as such, a conclusion was drawn as to the principles of CHAP. V. VERSES 49, 44, 75 love to enemies in general. We have already seen, that even opposition to the Gentile, as Gentile, did not do away the feelings of humanity towards him asa man. And as for the relation to enemies in general, even the Mosaic law, Lev. xix. 18, declares opn-x» yay 92 Mx ἼΘΙ d, “ Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people.” Compare Ex. xxiii.4,5. Prov. xxiv. 17, 29, and xxv. 21, 22, the same passage which St. Paul quotes, Rom. xii. 21. Job xxxi. 29. Sirach xxviii. 1. Compare the examples of Joseph, Gen. xlv. 1; of David, | Sam. xxiv. 7; xviii. 5; and of Elisha, 2 Kings vi. 22. With respect to the Heathen, it is certainly remark- able, that even a Socrates (Mem. 2, 3, 14; 2, 6,35; it is different in Plato) can declare: καὶ μὴν πλείστου γε δοκεῖ ἀνὴρ ἐπαίνου ἄξιος εἶναι, ὃς ἂν φ)άνῃ τοὺς μὲν πολεμίους κακῶς ποιῶν, τοὺς δὲ φίλους εὐεργε- τῶν the Stoics in particular, however, are rich in sayings upon the love of enemies. The passages from the ancients upon the subject may be found in Fischer, Quid de officiis et amore erga inimicos Graecis et Ro- manis placuerit. Hal. 1789; and Hiipeden’s far more copious treatise: Comparatur doctrina de amore ini- micorum Christiana ete. Gott. 1817.4 Of the words in v. 44, the εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμέ- * How strange the love of an enemy appeared to the hea- then world, and that, even at a time when many ideas had been transferred into it from Christianity, is shewn by the following passage of Julian, where he makes a vaunt with the thought he has borrowed from Christianity, Fragm. ed Spanh. p. 290: φαίην δ᾽ ἂν, εἰ καὶ wagadokoy εἰπεῖν, ὅτι καὶ τοῖς πολεμίοις ἐσθῆτος χαὶ τροφῆς ὅσιον ἄν εἴη μεταδιδόναι. 70 CHAP. V. VERSES 49, 44. νους ὑμᾶς, and the καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοῖς μισοῦσιν ὑμᾶς, which are wanting in several Fathers, and in ἃ few manuscripts and translations, have been pronounced by Griesbach, an addition made from Luke vi. 27, 28, and are removed by Lachman from the text. (So also Zegerus, while Erasmus thinks they may perhaps have been written on the margin from Rom. xii.) The external evidences for this supposition do not sufficiently preponderate, and internal reasons make it improbable. For we find both that, in Luke, the two clauses stand in the reverse order, and also that, as we read them in Matthew, the thought is admirable. (In the other Evangelist, they have no suitable order at all.) In the first place, the Saviour speaks of the dis- position, then of its manifestation in word, then again of its manifestation in act, and, finally, at a point. which the act does not reach, of exerting it by means of prayer. To the ἀγαπᾷν, in this passage, Tittmann applies the distinction, which, following the lead of Wetstein on John xi. 3, he has drawn betwixt ἀγαπᾷν and φιλεῦ. Wetstein justly observed, that the former word answers tothe diligere; the latter, to the amare— bene alicui cupere. That this is correct in regard to ἀγαπῷν appears froma comparison of the usus lo- quendi of the more δηοϊθηΐ,---(ὠγαπάζω in Homer, the etymon éyaua:)—with that of a more modern period. It was late before it was used of physical love. Now, in the passage before us, Tittmann says that ἀγαπᾷν only can have place: amare enim pessimum quem- que vir honestus non potest. This scholar, how- ever, goes much too far in desiring to maintain the distinction in the Greek of the Hellenists, and in that τ CHAP. VY. VERSES 43, 44. 77 of the Christian period in general. It is obliterated in the New Test. John xxi. 15—17; xi. 3, 5, 36. Luke xi. 43. comp. xx. 46. Compare, moreover, Herodian, Hist. I. 5,7, and [. 5, 12. Nay, the sub- stitution of the one for the other went so great a length, as that ἀγαπᾷν, even in the sense ¢o kiss, was used in place of φιλεῖν, which Tittmann denies, Eusthat. p. 1935, 35. Du Gange, Gloss. Graec. med. aevi s. ν. ἀγάπη. In the same manner were the originally diverse φιλεῖ, ἐρᾷν, ποθεῖν, afterwards interchanged. See Creuzer zu Plotin. de pulcritudine, p. 213. According to preponderating authorities, χαλῶς ποιεῖτε τοῖς μισοῦσιν is to be adopted in place of τοὺς ὠισοῦντας. The construction with the accusative is, however, to be found not merely in the classical usus loquendi, in which it predominates, only giving place to that with the dative, in passages where mis- takes are to be apprehended, as at Xenoph. Memor. II. 3 13, (Compare the Annot. of Zeune), but like- wise in the LXX. Gen. xxxii. 9, 12. Job xxiv. 21. Deut. xxviii. 633; xxx. 5. Τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑμᾶς is wanting in several codices, in others it is placed after σῶν διωκόντων, on which ae- count Griesbach doubts of its genuineness. Beza is inclined to do, as he had already done with διώκειν in v. 11, to take both words in sensu forensi, and so likewise Pricaius, Elsner, Schleusner: deferre apud judicem et accusare. It does not of itself, however, accord with the connection, that the hostility should be restricted to mere judicial complaints. The usus forensis of ἐπηρεάζω, moreover, is greatly less frequent - 4 “ ' 78 CHAP. V. VERSES 43, 44. than of διώκω :8. and, in fine, it is not credible that διώκειν, in the New Test. has anywhere the classic ju- ridical meaning. See above, Vol. I. p. 156. The word, then, being referred to private intercourse, ex- positors differ as to whether it is to be understood of injury by word, in which case some translate it ealum- niart, others conviciari, or of injury by deed. Origi- nally the term denoted the former, coming as it does from aed. The Vulgate translates, calumniari; and Casaubon says, Placet mihi vehementer heec interpreta- tio. Ithas this meaning, 1 Pet. iii. 16. The same has been recently given to it by Wahl and de Wette. But after the καταρᾶσθαι which precedes, is not this mean- ing too feeble? We hence givea decided preference to the signification embraced by Erasmus, Vatablus and Luther, ledere, vexare, to tmjure. So in the LXX. ἐπήρεια and ἐπηρεαστής : and so frequently in Philo (see Loesner), Diodor. and Hesychius: ἐπη- ρεάζει, βιάζει: ἐπήρεια, βία. Compare Suidas, and likewise all ancient translators. With respect to the Syriac, it was supposed, in consequence of following Tremellius, that that translator has rendered: Qui ducunt vos in vincula. His words are, aaa on jpadoa, Tremellius translated according to the Chaldaic, yup, vincula, Dan. v. 12. In the Syriac, however, ᾿ς. λον» (the singular is used, ) signifies power. See Ludw. de Dieu, Critica sacra, p. 326. In this way, too, has the Persian understood the Syrian translator: yps pp Slows 1=- On the whole precept of love to enemies, and * On this use, See Irmisch. zu Herodian 11. 4, 16, p. 121. T. 1. CHAP. V. VERSES 49, 44, 45. 79 especially of praying to them, Chemnitz has ex- pressed himself conformably to the analogia fidei, in a highly beautiful way: Simplicissima re- sponsio sumitur ex verbis Christi: ita diligendos seilicet esse inimicos, sicut Deus diligit malos, longanimitate sua parcens, et benefaciens illis in opere providentiae, non ut illos confirmet in impietate, sed - ut hac sua bonitate illos ad poenitentiam adducat, ad Rom. ii. 4. Saepe vero freno et hamo coercet ipsos, ut ita eos convertat, Ps. xxxii. 9. Is. xxxvii, 29. Ex hac collatione multae quaestiones recte et expedite possunt explicari..... Optanda sunt etiam inimicis bona gratiae et gloriae, quibus nemo potest male uti, bona vero naturae et fortunae eatenus ipsis optanda sunt, quatenus ipsis salutaria sunt ad poenitentiam. V. 45. The binding reason for such a disposition, and the most profound that could be proposed. Goodness in the Christian is nothing more than the image of that attribute in the Deity ; the most essential charac- ter of sonship is resemblance in nature to the father. See above, p. 44. Hence υἱοί is expounded in a gloss by ὅμοιο. Now, God rejects from himself and his affection, none of the creatures he has made, Wis- dom xi. 24; and, for this reason, there is always left something in every being, for the sake of which it is an object of love toa son of God. He, accordingly, shews his love, both to his own and to God’s enemies. This infinitely profound and ingenious truth, our Sa- viour here again expresses in the most popular way, by referring to that instance of God’s bounty in which the comprehensiveness of his love is most pal- pably manifested, and for which the mind of the com- 80 - CHAP. V. VERSE 45. mon people has every where an open sense, viz. the sweet light of the sun, comprehending all, and shining alike for all, (Sirach xlii. 16, ) provided they do not with- draw from his beams; and the fruitful blessing of the rain-cloud, (Ps. cxlvii. 8,) which stretching far from land toland, pours its waters indiscriminately forth.2 What a beautiful and popular image of that universal love of Ὁ God, from which none is excluded! Something which must here be taken into account, in order not to givea false and partial construction of this saying of the Saviour, has been already remarked, p. 63. In the same manner does Paul describe the love of God toward the heathen, Acts xiv. 17. "Ὅτι had been already translated by the Vulgate and the Syriac, probably with a mere regard to sense, who. But, in quite a peculiar way, Kuinoel, Gratz, and Bretschneider, here take it as relative after the Hebrew 33. On the other hand, Winer, in the edi- tion of Simonis’ Dictionary, and Fritzsche, have dis- puted even the relative use af x3, which Gesenius de- fends, and which may also be defended on good * What Plutarch adduces inhis excellent work, De seranuminis vindicta, c. 5, is not merely in outward form, but in substance, parallel. He begins thus: σκοσεῖσε πρῶτον, ὅτε κατὰ Ἰτλάτωνα «ἄντων καλῶν 6 ϑεὸς ἑαυτὸν ἐν μέσῳ παράδειγμα ϑέμενος, τὴν ἀνϑρω- πίνην ἀρετὴν, ἐξομοίωσιν οὖσων ἀμωσγέπως πρὸς αὐκὸν, ἐνδίδωσι τοῖς ἕπεσθαι ϑεῷ δυναμένοις. He proceeds to shew in what way our ἐργή and σιμωρία, towards the wicked, must resemble the pro- cedure of the Deity. This parallel to the present passage be- comes still more striking, when it is recollected how, according to the passage of Plato, Republ. 1. viii., the Platonicians re- present the sun itself as the μήμημωα Θεοῦ. Wyttenb. zu Plut. de sera num. vind ed Lugd. Bat. p. 27. CHAP. V. VERSE 45. 81 grounds. That the Greek ὅτι, however, has been anywhere used by the Hellenists as relative, is alto- gether to be doubted, and this, were it for no other reason but that the relative use of ‘> belongs to the Hebrew of the ancient period. Here, at least, as at 6. vi. ὅ, it is beyond a doubt explicative, like γάρ in other passages. See Bornemann on Xenoph. Cyrop. IV.5,'11. ᾿Ανατέλλειν is here used transitively, which was the primitive signification of τέλλω = τελέω, τελέϑω 5 τεέλλομαι, ἴῃ the passive, existo, orior. This transi- tive sense it still retained in Homer and Pindar’s time; subsequently, the intransitive came to pre- dominate, and already in Herodotus’ day, is the only one in use. In the κοινή, the transitive here, as in other instances, returns, Diodorus Sicul. Histor. 1.17, ce. 7. Philo, de nomin. mut. p. 1083, and in the LXX. Is. xlv. 8. Gen. iii. 18. According to the lively conceptions formed in antiquity of the ma- tertal world, the phenomena of nature are ascribed directly to nature’s Lord, as his work, and according to the same lively child-like mode of apprehending, the sun is here called his: τὸν ἥλιον αἀὑ τοῦ. Augustine: solem suum, i. e. quem ipse fecit atque constituit et a nullo aliquid sumsit, ut faceret. In this passage, like- wise, where the special intent is to represent the im- ~ mediate dependence of the blessings of nature upon God the Lord, we had better not take βρέχει as im- personal, but conceive God as the subject. Com- pare 6. vi. 26, 80. Thus it was, that the Hebrew using sum in the Hiphil, connected it with Jehovah, so that even Josephus usually expresses himself, ὕοντος VOL. 11, . ἃ 89 CHAP. VY. VERSES 46, 47. τοῦ Θεοῦ, vidovrog τοῦ Θεοῦ, e.g. Antiq. I.c. 3. § 5. See Kypke on the passage. Thus it was, that the old Greeks used to say, ὁ Θεὸς vs1, on which Aristophanes, Nubes v. 367, shews his wit; and thus, too. the old Romans: Jove tonante et fulgurante. Βρέχεν in place of ὕειν, is, by the grammarians, Thomas M. and Phrynicus, characterized as new, and, in point of fact, prior to Alexander, is only found in the poets; sub- sequently in the LXX., also Arrian, Polybius, and others. See Triller on Thomas M. ed. Bernardi, p. 171. Lobeck zu Phrynicus, s. 291. V. 46, 47. The Saviour shews the low degree of that love, which only returns the affection of those united with us in the bonds of friendship. Its source is egotism. In such objects a man loves himself; they are but an enlargement of his own being. Φίλος and ὠφέλιμος, according to the notions of antiquity, were correlative ideas, Plato de Republ. I. 334, B. Compare the dialogue upon friendship, in Kenophon’s Memorabilia, 1. ii. c. 3. This sort of love, says the Saviour, you will find even among those in whom you are wont to suppose an absence of all religion, and who consequently are only moved by selfish in- stinct, among the Publicans and the Heathen. V. 46 and 47 form a parallelism, in which we have to compare the several words answering to each otlier. ; ]. As for the terms ἀγαπᾷν and ἀσπάζεσθαι, (Some codices in Wetstein, in place of ἀσπάζεσθαι, have ἀγαπᾷν repeated,) it is a question, whether ἀσπάζε- σθαι here forms an exact parallelism, and means ¢o treat ina kind and friendly way, as Beza has ren- CHAP. V. VERSES 46, 47. 83 dered it, si complexi fueritis, and Luther and De Weitte (who, in the 2d ed. however, has griissen, angl. to greet), if ye shew kindness, and in the same way the more recent lexicographers, Bretschneider and Wahl, or whether the parallelism is less exact, and the word must be taken in its proper signification, fo salute, as is done by the Vulgate, the Syriac, Ul- philas, Erasmus and Grotius. Salutation, be it ob- served, had in the East a far greater significance than among us. Even at present, in Egypt and Assyria, the form alc oN), corresponding with the Hebrew 05> nv>w, is addressed solely to brethren of the same faith, Faber, Beobachtungen uber den Orient. II.s. 36. Rosenmiiller, altes und neues Mor- genland, Th. V.s.31. Compare Sir. xli. 20. Luke x. 5,6. 2 John x. But ean it be that Christ has de- signated the salutation of enemies as of itself a moral περισσόν, a thing deserving a μισός, and can he have co-ordinated it directly with the eyardéy? That would have been speaking much too λαοδογματικῶς, nor can Luke x. 5,6, and 2 John 10, be adduced to give likelihood to it. From these circumstances, we are of opinion that if the more comprehensive meaning of daoraZeodos can be at all justified, it de- serves to be adopted in preference. Now, at a very early period, the meaning of ἀσπάζεσϑαί τινα expand- ed into that of giAogeaveioSai τινα, so that even where it means merely fo greet, aoraZeo3ou always intimates a more tender sort of greeting than the mere λέγειν χαίρειν. It is then tantamount to καταφιλεῖν» περισλέκε- 09a: ; See Fischer on Aristoph. Plutus v. 324. From 84 CHAP. V. VERSES 46, 47. several Greek classics, e. g. Plato (de Rep. V. 462) and his imitator Plutarch, the frequent conjunction of ὠγαπᾷν and doré2eoSu: is known as a formula. For passages from other classics of a later and earlier age, as also from Josephus and Philo, see in Miinthe, Palairet, Loesner iz ἢ. ]. and Kypke on Heb. xi. 25. 2. Οἱ ἀγαπῶντες and οἱ ἀδελφοί correspond. In place of the latter, numerous authorities have Q/Ao, which, however, betrays itself to be agloss. Under ὠδελφοί, we cannot well, at least not exclusively, understand fellow-countrymen, for at vs. 44, 45, it was injurers quite generally, who were spoken of, as the of ἀγα- πῶντες is also general. Moreover, can it be said that the Israelites were really affectionate towards every fellow believer ? Let ἀδελφοί then be taken in the wide compass of the Hebrew mx, which comprises: friends and relatives, afterwards fellow-countrymen, and in general the persons more intimately related to one, so that it comes to be tantamount in meaning to φίλοι. 3. As counterparts to each other stand μισϑόν τινὰ ἔχειν, and περισσόν τι ποιεῦ. On μισθός, in the evarge- lical sense, see above v. 13, The present ἔχετε is in many versions rendered by the future ; Codex D has even ἕξετε. It is rather to be explained, however, in the same way as v.12, ὁ μισϑὺς ὑμῶν πολύς (ἐστι) ἐν. τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. To περισσόν is not to be taken compara- tively as equivalent to σλέον, in such a way as to bring out the comparison involved in the signification of the word, and to require ἢ οἱ ἄλλο; to be supplied, which is done by the Vulgate, Beza, Grotius, Miinthe and others. It is correctly given by Luther: “ Was CHAP. V. VERSES 46, 47. 85 thut ihr sonderliches, out of the common.” Compare v.20. Plutarch is fond of coupling ἴδιος and περιττός. See Wyttenbach, T. I. 368. A gross blunder has been made here by Wilkins, in his Latin translation of the Coptic N. Test. Mistaking the one for the other of two similar Coptic words, he renders, Quid mali facitis, whereas the Coptic aceords entirely with the Greek. 4, The words οἱ τελῶναι and of ἐθνικοί correspond, of which the preferable authorities read the former in v. 46, and the latter in v.47, while, by others, the latter is read in v. 46, and the former in v. 47. These are the two descriptions of men who stood lowest in the eyes of the Pharisees. Τελώνης properly = drowns, the general renter of the customs; in the New Test. and elsewhere, at a later’ date, also the portitores and exactores, otherwise called οἱ δεκα- τῶναι, οἱ ἐκλογεῖς, of ελλιμενισταί, in Euthym. of Qogo- λόγοι καὶ χκομμερκιάριοι. (Attention has been drawn to the distinction principally by Fischer, although it was also done at an earlier period by Salmasius, the expositor of the New Test.). This order of men were eminently exposed to the temptation of rudeness and dishonesty, and, from the nature of their office, became so odious to the people, that even by the Greeks they were put on a level with the most depraved classes of society. Artemidorus Oneirocr. LV. ο. 59, says, “ Thorns and thistles seen in a dream are for the τελώναις καὶ καπήλοις καὶ λῃσταῖς καὶ ζυγοκρούσταις, καὶ παρωλογισταῖς ἀνδρώποις...διὰ τὸ βίᾳ τὰ ἀλλότρια τῶν ἄλλων καὶ μὴ βουλομένων ἀποσπᾷν." Pollux gives, in the Onomasticum |. IX. c. ὅ, ἃ cata- 86 CHAP. V. VERSES 46, 47. logue of nicknames to call the τελώνης. It begins with the following :--- βαρύς, φορτικὸς, ἄγχων, λῃστεύων, AniComevos, παρεκλέγων, ϑωλάττης ἀγριώτερος, χειμῶνος βιαιότερος, κωταδύων τοὺς καταχϑέντας, ἀπάνθρωπος χελ.3 But still greater must have been the reproach attach- ing to the business of publican among the Jews, inas- much as at the period before the death of Herod, a share of the customs, and after that period the whole, flowed into the coffers of a foreign gentile nation, the Romans. A part of the sub-collectors at this time also consisted of heathen; but Jews who stooped to the employ- ment, were regarded as the slaves of tyrants, and foes to their own nation. Hence, likewise, in the Talmud, publicans (p21 from Ὁ) appear along with pun, robbers. They are disqualified as witnesses ; D213 and yw are used as identical, &c. Inthe New Test. τελῶναι and ἁμαρτωλοί occur conjoined, Mat. ix. 11. Luke too, in the sermon on the Mount, ec. vi. 33, 34, in place of the τελῶναι and ἐθνικοί, has the more inde- finite ἁμαρτωλοί. Mat. xxi. 32, τελῶναι and πόρναι are coupled, as in Greek authors are τελῶνα, and ogv- βοσκοί. Now to find the τελώνης and évévixés broadly used in the mouth of our Saviour as the type of the worst of sinners, (See also c. vi. 7, 92; xviii. 17) might occasion some offence. It might be supposed, that it would help to promote that self-righteous con- ceit with which the Pharisee looked down upon this class of persons. But in the passage before us this is, ἃ Much matter on this subject has been colleeted by We:- stein. Dr. Paulus on Luke iii. 12, has made very thorough investigations into the nature of the customs among the Ro- mans and in their provinces. See Exeget. Handbuch i. 315. / CHAP. V. VERSES 47, 48. 87 least of all, the case, for his conceit would much ra- ther be humbled, by shewing the Pharisee that his piety was not different from that of the most despised order of men.* The scruple might appear to have a better foundation at the subsequent passage, c. vi. 7, 32. Much depends, however, on the question, whe- ther in point of fact the reproaches there expressed against the Heathen, are not mainly based upon the religious life and views of the world which belonged to them as Heathen. But however that may be, when the Saviour embraces the prevailing opinion, and designates Publicans and Gentiles as ἁμαρτωλοί pre-eminently, we must reflect, on the one hand, that these two classes of men, taken as a whole, were in point of fact more than others alienated from God, and on the other, that by the relation in which he placed himself to the publicans, and by the remarks | which he made on the reception of the heathen into the kingdom of God, Matt. viii. 11, 12. Luke xiii. 29, our Saviour sufficiently shewed that the self- righteous Pharisee was farther from that kingdom than they. V. 48. As the οὖν shews, we have here, in the first ἃ To convince ourselves of the degree to which, through the influence of our religion, the general feeling of Christendom had become different from that of the most civilized heathen, let us call to mind the counterpart of this saying of the Savi- our’s in Hesiod Op. et dies, νυ. £53: Tov φιλέοντα φιλεῖν, καὶ τῷ προσιόντι προσεῖναι, καὶ δόμεν, ὃς κεν δῷ, καὶ μὴ δόμεν ὅς κεν μὴ δῷ. Δώτῃ μέν τις ἔδωκεν, ἀδώτῃ δ᾽ οὔτις ἔδωκεν. As the Scholiast says, even Plutarch had wished to reject this verse of the poet’s, on account of its illiberality. 88 CHAP. Vv. VERSE 48. instance, an inference from what goes before, “ That sort of love being mere egotism, do you (ὑμεῖς being made prominent) rather take God for your pattern.” But inasmuch as the ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ ὑμῶν is not added, we must give the proposition a still more compre- hensive meaning, viz. ‘ in this as in all other points.” Indeed, even if it had possessed a more general form, still the requirement in all points of a τελεότης like that of God’s, would proceed from the relation of υἱότης (ν. 45). In this way had verse 9. designated peace-making, as the characteristic mark of υἱότης. The saying has been justly admired as the most sub- Jime in Christian morality.“ Aceording to Luke, 4 To discover this sublimity, however, we must not take it up ‘on its formal side alone. Looking merely to that, we may likewise find in Pythagoras and Plato, the poousSaita Dew κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν. (Compare on this idea according to Plato’s view Creuzer zu Plotin, de pulcritudine, p. 288, ff.) and among Stoics, the ἕπεσθα, τῷ λόγῳ καὶ τῷ 92H, (Arrian. J. 20). ‘The perception that that which is superior and supreme must give rule to that which is beneath it, is one at which reflection easily arrives. It is of far more importance to know of what nature that supreme is, which is to serve as standard for the soul of man, and in what way the soul of man comes toresemble it? With per- fect truth does our poet, walking in the tracesof Xenophanes the Eleate, say ‘* Man paints himself in his gods,” and ‘* When the gods were more human, men were more divine.” When man has first brought the Deity down to his own level, it is not saying much if he then lift himself to the same height. On the contrary, in the gospel, we are told concerning God, what no one can know save He who was in the Father’s bosom, Johni. 18. And, with respect to the sort of ὁμοίωσις to the πατὴρ ἐπουράνιος, it is neither a Platonic ὁμοίωσις κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν, according to which CHAP. V. VERSE 48. 89 the expressionis more limited, γένεσθε οὖν ofxriguoves καθὼς καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν οἰκτίρμων ἐστί, Which refers solely to the love of enemies. The future ἔσεσθε is used imperatively as at 6. vi. 5. See Winer, Gramm. s. 259. TéAgsoc, in Hebrew pn, tantamount to ἄμωμος. for which, in the original appears in the copy only in shreds, nor yet is it an external imitation done by one’s own hand, as the Stoies teach, by which the human soul becomes the fellow, an amicus Deorum (Seneca’. The original appears perfect in the copy, and the reason is, that the former conveys his own form into the latter, as the father does into the son whom he begets. (See vol. i. 146, sup. p.44. Would we become aware of the essential difference betwixt the soul of man formed after the Platonic ὁμοίωσις, and that formed after the Christian, we must compare the beau ideal of Platonic humanity in the Philosopher’s Republic with the beau ideal of Christian humanity in the βασιλεία τοῦ Χριστοῦ. The Git- tingen Theological faculty have proposed a fine subject for a prize essay, The Platonic and Stoic morality compared with the Christian. It is, however, greatly to be deplored that the inquiry has been met by young Theologians, who unhappily dis- play a far greater want of insight into the Christian doctrine, than into the philosophical systems in question. See Grote- fend, doctrina Platonis ethica cum Christiana comparata. Gott. 1620. Klippel, doctrina Stoicorum ethica atque Christiana, 1823. Meyer, doctrina Stoicorum ethica cum Christiana com- parata, 1823. But indeed little satisfaction was to be expect- ed from the labours of persons, of whom, 6. g. the last, although greatly to be preferred to the others, thought proper, p 12, pref., to say of his teacher Stéudlin’s Geschichte der Moral phi- losophie (Hannoy. 1823): instar omnium auxiliorum sufficere potuisset opus hoc perfectissimum. Whereas it is certain, that it would be scarcely possible to instance a historical work on philosophy chargeable with such monstrous defects, and which, to an equal degree, forces us to recall what Jean Paul says respecting excerpts. ‘90 CHAP. V. VERSE 48. speaking of sacrifices, it is used, is frequently in Hebrew an epithet applied to man. Of God and his doings it occurs less frequently, 2 Sam. xxii. 26. Deut. xxxii.4. 2 Sam. xxii. 31. But neither when used of God nor yet of man, has the word so general a meaning as our perfect. It relates al- ways to moral perfection, and is hence equivalent to ἅγιος, δίκαιος Mat. xix. 21. Rom. xii. 2. Col. 1. 28. James iii. 9, Even according to this usus loquendi, accordingly, we must needs say, that the meaning of the requirement of Christ is not that we should strive after the omniscience and omnipotence, but after the holiness, of the divine being. Here, how- ever, arose the question as to whether divine holiness is attainable by man. Almost without exception the interpreters have remarked, that ὥσπερ, or ὡς, as some of the fathers read, denotes, not equality but similitude, likeness not in degree but in kind.* That such is the view which, according to rule, ought really to be taken of the comparison suggested by ὡς, compare our remarks on c. vi. 12. . The say-- ing accordingly would resemble 1 Joh. i. 7: ἐὰν δὲ ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατῶμεν, ὡς αὐτός ἐστιν ἐν τῷ φωτί, and 1 Pet. i. 15: κατὰ τὸν καλέσαντα ὑμᾶς ἅγιον, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἅγιοι γενήδητε. Thatin this passage from Peter no similarity of degree but of kind is proposed, v. 16, - where the causal ὅτι is used, still more distincily , > shews : ἅγιοι γένεσϑε, ὅτ, ἐγὼ ἅγιός εἰμι. The limitation 4 Even the Christian Fathers accordingly, like Plato, add to the statement, that the ὁμοίωσις Θεοῦ is the Christian’s aim, the restriction: χατὰ στὸ ἐνδεχόμενον ἀνθρώπου φύσει, Gregor. Nyss. Orat. i, in Gen.i. 26. Opp. T. 1. 150, Comp. Suicer Observat. sacrae. Tiguri 1665, p. 239. - CHAP. V. VERSE 48. 9I to similarity of kind must not however be misunder- stood. We have here resemblance and not equality, in as far as each of the several members of the σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ can realize the εἰκών of God, only in a de- fined sphere to which God has appointed him. But we have equality and not mere resemblance, in so far as in this divinely appointed sphere, the will of God is not partially but absolutely fulfilled, in the way Christ says of himself, John viii. 29, and Paul, 1 Thes. v. 25: αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης ἁγιάσαι ὑμᾶς CHAPTER VI. WARNING AGAINST THE HYPOCRITICAL PERFORM- ANCE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS IN THREE OF ITS PRIN- CIPAL MANIFESTATIONS. νυ. 1—I18. V. 1. After having shewn the full extent to which the fulfilment of the law, as obligatory upon his dis- ciples, reaches, (ce. v. 20.) the Saviour here points ont, in the first place, the manner of its perform- ance in regard to those three kinds of good works, to the practice of which the self-conceit of pharisaical piety was chiefly addicted, and which the Romish Church prefer to include under that name, viz. alms, prayer and fasting. The fundamental thought * On the worth assigned to alms by the later Jews, see Cramer Moral der Apocr. in Keil und Tzschirner’s Analekten JJ. 83, Bertholdt zu Dan. iv 24. Otho, lexicon Rabb. p. 164. Buxtorf, florilegium Hebr. p. 88. Joh. Gottl. Carpzov, de eleemosynis Judaeor. Lips. 1728. In the Jerusalem dialect they were styled at once 11)¥7 (Buxtorf, lex. talmud. 5. h. v.) The following maxims prevailed: ‘ Alms are the salt of riches.” ‘* As the altar once was by the offering, so now is a man’s table sanctified by alms.” ‘“‘ Prayer is a shovel, for as this casts about the grain, so does that the divine wrath.’” “ Alms and beneficence are the fulfilment of the whole law,” CHAP. VI. VERSE I. 93 of the Lord’s precept regarding these three points is, Let not the motive be a regard to men, but to the invisible Father who is in heaven. The view to be taken of the first words is matter of dispute, and depends somewhat upon the reading. A very considerable, nay preponderating number of authorities (almost all Eastern) read ἐλεημοσύνην, in place of δικαιοσύνην, to the former of which, from among the critics, Erasmus, Whitby, Wetstein and Mat- thai have attached themselves. On the contrary, the Cod. Vat. and Cantabr. which usually in other cases stand opposed to each other, the Itala, (with &e. Accordingly, such having been, and now beirg, the mag- nitude of charity among this people, it is not to be wondered at that Pestalozzi used to say, even in reference to our times, that the Mosaic religion kindled this virtue more than the Christian. Even Julian proposed the Jews (and likewise the Christians) as patterns of charity to his Gentile subjects. Compare also Basnage, hist. des Juifs (2te.Auflage 1716.) T. VI. p. 408, seq. On the value of prayer, see Cramer. Buxtorf, floril. p. 280. Selig, der Jude, Th. i. c. 76, seq. Concerning it they had the following maxims: ‘* Prayer is the greatest of all virtues, greater than sacrifices, according to Isa. i. 11.” ‘* All the world and the whole of Israel depend on our prayer, and could not otherwise subsist. Many thousand angels are employed in the office of receiving Israel’s prayer.” ‘‘ Prayer is a shovel, &c.” The Jews of the present day found upon the figurative expression, Hos. xiv. 3: 12.DW MH 1D ΤΙ 2, their trust. that prayers are now a substitution for the whole sacrificial worship. On the importance of fasting, see Buxtorf, Syna- goga Judaica, c. XXX. Easnage, Hist. des Juifs, T. VI. p. 407. But, on the whole, the worth of fasting is in the eyes of Jews greatly inferior to that of alms-giving and prayer. In so far, there is a gradation in the order in which Christ speaks of the three duties. 94 CHAP. VI. VERSE l. exception of the not altogether trust-worthy Cod. Brix.) the Vulgate, the Jerus. Syr. version,* Isido- rus Pel. and the Latin fathers have διχαμοσύνη, and they have been joined at an earlier period, by Bengel and Mill, and subsequently to Griesbach’s investiga- tions in the Commentar. crit. p. 60. by the more re- cent commentators and editors Knapp, Paulus, Fritz- sche and Lachmann. Leaving other grounds out of view, it certainly seems decisive in favour of this reading, that it is difficult to comprehend how a word so current among the Christian Greeks as ἐλεημοσύνη should have been changed for δικαιοσύνη. On the other hand, it was a very easy matter to substitute δικαμοσύνη for ἐλεημοσύνη, with which, in the Hebraistic usus loquendi, it had the same signification. If we read ἐλφημοσύνη, the Saviour’s admonition be- ging at once with the first class of the good works in question ; if we read d:xcsoouvy, the sense is doubtful, seeing, as we have now said, that δικομοσύνη might mean just as much as ἐλεημοσύνη, but at the same time, may here also have the general signification of right- a The Peschito has not,—as Olearius and Simon, crit. Hist. der Ubers. des N. T. II. 57, in one passage affirms, without correction on the part of Semler.—c2Zao»} justitia vestra, sonderne G2/\cs}, eleemosyne vestre It is justly observed by Dr. Paulus, that the Peschito might have so translated, even if the reading were δικαιοσύνη, and hence must not be counted among the authorities for ἐλεημοσύνη. Cn the other hand, the Philox has manifestly read ἐλεημοσύνη. True to its character of being literal, it translates |Zartousso misericordia, on which the marginal gloss observes that the usual expression is |/icy}, see Storr in Repert. fur bibl. und morg. Litt. Th. X. 5. 20. CHAP. VI. VERSE 1. 95 eousness. That ΤΡῚΣ among the Talmudists had the sense of alms, is shewn in every page of their works, but as to whether this sense occurs in the Old Test. or merely a sense forming the transition to it, that of goodness, kindness, has been disputed. In ten pas- sages has ΤΡῚΣ been rendered by the LXX. by ἐλεημοσύνη, in three by ἔλεος. In the same manner do the fathers of the Greek church in several passages of the Old and New Tests. (especially Rom. iii. 25.) explain δικαιοσύνη by goodness, and this is the sense which Grotius, Drusius and de Dieu vindicated chiefly for the Old, but also for the New Testament, in face of the contradiction of many others, apprehen- sive that in this way these authors were working into the hands of the Socinians, who resolved the idea of penal justice directly into that of love. A very thorough investigation was set on foot by Vitringa, de synag. vetere L. III. P. 1. ο. 12. His result was, that equity belongs to justice, and that that in reference to the sinner manifests itself likewise as goodness, grace. Even according to Cicero’s definition of Jus- sitia, goodness is comprised in it, De finib. 1. V. c. 23.: Quae animi affectio suum cuique tribuens, at- que hane quam dico societatem conjunctionis hu- manae munifice et aeque tuens Justitia dicitur, cui adjunctae sunt pietas, bonitas, liberalitas ete. Atque haec ita justitiae propria sunt, ut sint virtutum reli- quarum communia. Terence, Heaut. act. 4. scen. I. v. 33: Nune hoe te obsecro, quanto tuus est ani- mus natu gravior, ignoscentior, ut meae stultitiae in justitia tua sit aliquid praesidii. Comp. Bremion Corn. Nepos Vitae, p. 65. Vitringa met with a very acute 96 CHAP. VI. VERSE l. opponent in Gottlieb Carpzov, whose admirable disser- tation, de eleemosynis Judzorum we have cited above. This author embraces the views expressed by Herm. Reiners in a treatise in the 3d fase. class. VI. der biblioth. historic. philolog. (Amstel. 1723), De vocum justi et justitiae multiplici sensu in quibusdam scrip- turae locis usurpatis [Ὁ de Deo et hominibus. Reiners, in all the passages of the Old and New Testament, assailed the meaning of goodness. The more recent of lexicographers have fallen greatly off from this strictness. Gesenius, in his large dictionary of 1812, gives, under pty, and without explana- tion, as varieties of meaning, “ judicial righteousness, _ merit, goodness, blessing, prosperity ;” and at Dan. iv, 24, after Bertholdt’s example, the sense, alms. Of superior execution is the article upon this word, in Winer. The true state of the case, as there can be no doubt, was already perceived by Vitringa. Up- rightness must manifest itself likewise as charity, aud charity, viewed in the concrete, is alms. Thus has the word, in the Arabic (x3d.0) Syriac and Samari- tan, acquired the meaning, a/ms.* Thus too, the German alms is nothing else, but the Greek ἐλεημο- σύνη, to be found even in the Gothie of Ulphilas as armajon. In just the same way we find, in modern languages, the formulas, faire la charité, far Ja carita, hacer la caridad, rising out of charitas. In the pas- sage 2 Cor. ix. 9, Paul took δικαιοσύνη, not as equi- valent to alms, but to benevolence, as appears from v.10. A similar transition of the abstract into the. @ Gesenius carmina Samarit 2, 17 18. CHAP. VI. VERSE Ἰ. 97 concrete idea of alms, obtains in the case of κοινωνιά, also of χάρις, and evAcyia, 2 Cor. vili.4; ix. 5. The meaning alms, however, could not as yet appear in the Old Testament. It was founded upon Dan. iv. 24; but there Bened. Michaelis demonstrated its unsuitableness, and there too, Winer and Havernick (Comentar. on Daniel, p. 158,) prefer the more gene- ral signification of honestatis studium. | On the other hand, it is certainly to be found in Tob. xiv. 10, Li ges. 8,.9. In the opinion of Drusius, the great extent to which, at the time of Christ, the meaning alms had spread, suffices, in the passage before us, to vindicate this meaning for the word. But then, as Wetstein justly observes, how could it have happened that Matthew, who afterwards, three times, calis alms ἐλεημοσύνη, has, justin this passage, called it by ano- ther word. If we read δικωμοσύνη, it can hardly be doubted that it here means generally righteousness, _ and that the οὖν following denotes the transition to the different species. Such was the opinion of Augus- _ tine, Erasmus inthe paraph., of Beza, Grotius, Bengel, especially of Olearius, observ. in Matth. Obs. XVIII. and of Fischer de vitiis lex. N. T., prolusio XXII. 517. Let eoydgedas and ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, Acts x. 85. 1 John ii. 29. Heb. xi. 33, be compared. When Wetstein objects, that one would merely look for ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην without a pronoun, the answer is that the matter may be conceived in two ways. It may be that sort of righteousness to be performed. peculiarly by the disciples of the Lord, to which re- ference is made, and of which it is said ch. v. 20. VOL. Il. H 98 CHAP. VI. VERSES I, 2. ἡ δικαιοσύνη ὑμῶν. Compare 6. g. the pronoun in Gen. xx. 19, “Say Swrn ἼΩΝ JIM mm, thy grace, i. e. which I expect from thee. The construction of θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς is the passive. See above vol. I. p. 211. The verb θεᾶσθαι is generally known to be different from βλέπειν and ὁρᾷν, in Ammo- nius (ed. Valckenar, p. 30.) : ϑεᾶσθαι, τὸ ὁρᾷν τι τῶν τεχ- νικῶς γινομένων, οἷον πάλην, παγκράτιον, γραφήν. Comp. Tittman de Synon. N. T. p. 111, seq. Πρός denotes the purpose. See vol. I. p. 279. Compare the anti- thesis, c. v.16. Accordingly, it is here a θεατρίζειν τὴν ὠρετὴν αὑτοῦ, which is spoken of; the hypocrite being, properly speaking, the actor ;? in Latin, mores personati. On μισθός, see c. v. 12. In place of οὐκ ἔχειν, there is afterwards, c. v. 16. ἀπέχειν. The present ἔχετε is not used for ἕξετε but ἀποκείμενον is to be supplied. See onc. v. 12. 46. WARNING AGAINST THE HYPOCRITICAL PRACTICE OF CHARITY. y. 2-4. V. 2. Od» denotes the inference of the specific from the general precept, given v. 1. Much depends on the meaning of the formula, σωλπέζειν ἐμπροσθὲν twos. The readiest way is to stop short at the pro- per meaning of the word, if that can by any means be justified. We should then have to suppose that the hypocritical performers of good works were actually ac- * On account of its singularity, let the following note of Nic. Lyia have here a place: Hypocrita dicitur ab hypos quod est sub et crisis aurum, quia sub auro vel sub honestate exterioris eonversationis habet absconditum plumbum falsitatis. CHAP. VI. VERSE 2. 99 customed to congregate the poor by wind instruments played by themselves or by others in their service, in order thereby to direct public attention to their charities. So Nic. Lyra, Calvin, Chemnitz, Wolf, Wolle, Woldenhauer, Paulus, Henneberg.* An os- ‘tentatious theatrical mode of acting lies quite in the character of that class of men. It might certainly, however, be objected, as Iken also remarks, that in this case, the striving after the καύχημα before men, would have been too palpable, and that in other in- stances, they knew better how to conceal their bad motives. Thus, for example, it is related in the Talmud of ἢ. Abba, who is held up as a pattern to the charitable, that, not to put the poor to shame, he tied on his back an open bag of alms, in order that they might be able, unobserved, to take what they wanted.> Here, in spite of the theatrical parade, vanity knew full well to lurk behind the screen. The objection, however, would amount to less, if we but had any accounts before us of these pre- tending sdilits having in so clumsy a way evinced their desire of honour in the sight of men. But none such are to be found. The industrious Lightfoot says: Non inveni, quacsiverim licet multum serio- que, vel minimum tubae vestigium in praestandis eleemosynis ; a doctioribus libentissime hoc discerem. We have to add, when we understand συναγωγαΐ of the synagogues, that we cannot in any wise conceive * This author, in a dissertation De usu et abusu syn. vet. in interpret. N. T. prefixed to Vitringa’s work, De Synagoga vet. Even Euthymius observes: φασὶ δέ τινες, ὅτι ὑποκριταὶ τότε διὰ σάλπιγγος συνεκάλουν τοὺς δεομένους. ᾿ * Wagenseil excerpt. Gemar. in Sota, p. 98. 100 CHAP. VI. VERSE 2. the poor to have been congregated by the sound of mstruments, ἐν ταῖς cuveywyais. Such a practice, had it been left to the caprice of every self-righteous Pharisee, must necessarily have occasioned the great- est disturbance of the divine service. There obtained, moreover, if we can at all put confidence in the re- ports of the Talmudists, a definite rule for the dis- tribution of alms in the synagogues. Before the commencement of the: prayers, they were put into the m>D)p or alms-box. In after times, and on very par- ticular occasions, they were, by proclamation, de- livered to the synagogal officers. Accordingly, in this point of view likewise, it is but little. probable that Christ has here spoken of a convocation of the poor by sound of trumpet. There remains for us nothing but to take the expression as figurative, which has been already done by Chrysostom, the Auctor op. imperf., Theodoret,’ Jerome> (as it appears,) Beza and the majority of moderns. Chrysostom; οὐχ, ὅτι CUATIYY HS εἶχον ἐκεῖνοι, ἀλλιὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἐπιδεῖξαι βούλεται μανίαν, τῇ λέξει τῆς μεταφορᾶς ταύτης κωμῳ ἦν ταύτῃ καὶ ἐχκπσομπεύων αὐτούς. Theodoret in Ps. xeviil. 6. (Opp. i. 1809.): σάλπιγγα πολλάκις τὴν βοὴν ἡ Seta καλεῖ γραφή. He then says of our passage: ἀντὴ τοῦ, μὴ ANQVENS, μηδὲ δήλην ἅπασι καταστήσης" ἵνα μὴ TH κενῇ δόξῃ τὸν τῆς φιλανδρωπίας λυμήνῃ καρπόν." It is true, that we can * See Lightfoot, and more exactly with corrections Vitringa, in his Sy nag: Vetere. Not as if they actually had trumpets, but to shew their infatuation, he, by this metaphor, derides and exposes them. ¢ In place of, do not publish or ewhibit to ail, that you may not lose by empty glory the fruit of your benevolence. CHAP. VI. VERSE 2. 101 produce from the Rabbins no proverbial expression of the sort, which would be very desirable to corro- borate this exposition. Still vestiges of such an ex- pression are to be found, although but sparingly, among the Greeks and Latins, in the ecclesias- tical phraseology of the first age (at which time, however, the interpretation of our passage may have exercised some influence, ) and especially inthe modern languages. Cicero fil. ad Tiron. epp. ad diversos ]. xvi. ep. 21.: Quare quod polliceris, te buccinatorem fore existimationis meae. To which Manutius: Qui quasi buccina canens divulgas laudes meas, and observes that Cicero, the father, in the speech pro Archia has used the word preco instead. Prudent. contra Symm. I. ii. v. 68.: Talia principibus dicta in- terfantibus, ille persequitur, magnisque tubam con- centibus inflat. (A passage from the Rhetorician Sydonius in his Ep. |. iv. ep. 3, which some have quoted, is not relevant, and, moreover, the reading is corrupted.) Achilles Tatius 1. viii. p. 507: αὕτη δὲ οὖχ ὑπὸ σάλπιγγι μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ κήρυκι μοιχεύεται. Demosthenes, I.contra Aristogit.ed. Reiske, T.I. 797: καὶ ἃ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν ἠτυχηκότων ἕχαστος ἀψοφητὶ ποιεῖ, ταῦ οὗτος μονονοὺ κώδωνας ἐξ ἂψ μενος διαπράττεται. Jerome, ep. xxii. ad Eustoch. 6. 32, where he paints the depraved morals of the Christians of his time: Quum manum egenti porrexerint, buccinant. Quum ad agapen vocaverint, praeco conducitur. Vidi nuper (nomen taceo, ne satyram putes) nobilissimam mulierum Romanarum in basilica beati Petri, semi- viris antecedentibus, propria manu, quo religio- 102 CHAP. VI. VERSE 2. sior putaretur, singulos nummos dispertire pauperi- bus. Comp. dial. c. Pelag. 1. ii. c. 10: ad largiendum frustum panis et binos nummulos praeco conducitur, et extendentes manum huc illucque circumspicimus, quae si nullusviderit contractior fit. Esto unusdemille inveniatur, qui ἰδία non faciat.? In the Constit. Apost. 1. 8. 6. 14, under the title, ὅτι οὐ de? κομπόά ζειν, it is said of the widows: 4 μέντοι εὖ ποιοῦσω ἀποχρυψάτω Tb οἰκεῖον ὄνομα, ὡς σοφὴ, μὴ σωλπίζουσα ἔμπροσθεν αὐὖ τῆς. Grotius quotes the saying of Basil: τῆς εὐποιίΐας σαλπι- ϑομένης ὄφελος οὐδέν. With regard to modern languages, we have in German the phrase ausposaunen, and andie grosse Glocke schlagen, in English, to trumpet forth, and in French and Italian, faire quelque chose tam- bour battant, trompetter, trompetar, bucinar. Now if σαλπίζειν is not to be taken in its proper sense, neither is the verb to be understood to imply, occasioning, permitting, (This is precisely the case with σαλπίζειν 1. Sam. xiii. 3.) as Winer (Gramm. 2d ed. 5. 103.) Alt, Gramm. N. T. p. 106, but ones own act. The ἔμπροσθέν σου is graphic, the trumpet with its sound preceding the person. Having thus stated the exposition of the phrase which appears the most demonstrable, it but remains to mention two others, which, in comparison with those we have given, are wholly destitute of probabi- lity, but are yet ingenious. The one was incidentally delivered by the learned Leyden professor, Stephan le Moyne in his Notae in varia sacra. Lugd. Bat. 1685. T. Il. p. 78. According to it Christ here a Julian, Oratio IIT. p. 103 .Spanh.: χρήματα μὲν γὰρ εἰς τὸ ἐμφανὲς διδόναι καὶ περιβλέπειν, ὅπως ὅτι πλεῖσσοι. πὸ δοϑὲν εἴσονται, πρὸς ἀνδρὸς ἀπειροκάλου. d CHAP. VI. VERSE 9. 103 alludes to a practice of the hypocrites who threw the alms they gave into the nm»byw—so were the thirteen yaopurdxiainto whichthe temple dues were cast called, from their resemblance to trumpets, being narrow at the top and wide below, to prevent the money being again abstracted—in such a manner as that the sound made the contribution to be taken notice of. This exposi- tion Hottinger, Deyling (observ. sacr. III. 175) and Schéttgen have followed. Buta variety of objections lie against it. First, so far as we know, mp 1w was merely the name of the vessels for receiving the temple duties. whereas the poor’s box was called mDyp, and of its shape we are wholly ignorant. Again, it is inconccivable how, by means of that form of the mypiw the giver could, with all his efforts, have made a louder sound with one piece of money than with another. If they were trumpets, with the wide end fixed to the ground, one coin would sound just as loud as another. Furthermore, the term σαλπίξειν would be yery inappropriate for such a ringing (tinnire) ; we should rather have looked for κροτεῖν, κροτοθορυβεῖν or ἠχεῖν, equivalent to box 1 Sam. iii. 1]. 2 Kings xxi. 12. In fine, it may be objected that this would apply only to the συναγωγαΐ, and not to the ῥύμαι. There is more to recommend the explanation first broached by Iken, who in all his treatises, is so surprisingly erudite and profound, in dissert. xxi. vol. I. of his Dissert. Philol.-theologica, and which Michaelis, in his remarks on this passage, and ἃ See a representation of them in Reland de spoliis templi Hierosol. Traj. ad Rhen. 1716, p. 126. 104 CHAP. VI. VERSE 2. Christ. Fr. Schultz, in his Anmerk. zu Michaelis, embraced. Iken learnedly explains how, in ancient times, the servants of Isis and Cybele, beat their basins in demanding alms; and as travellers inform us, Persian and Indian monks do the same. With this we have to compare Jahn’s Archaeologie, I. 2. 340. Rosenmiiller, altes und neues Morgen]. Th. V.s.33. Ifthen we take σαλπίζειν transitively, ne partiaris tuba cani, there would result the admo- nition, not from ostentation, to allow the poor to sup- plicate alms in so noisy a way. Against this exposi- tion, however, speaks, 1. the honest admission made by Iken himself, of his inability to shew that such a practice obtained among the Jews: Ingenue fateor, me, licet non vulgari studio hane in rem inquisiverim, quin et alios sive Christianos sive Judaeos sedulo con- suluerim, nihil hactenus certi invenire potuisse. Ne- vertheless he afterwards props himself upon the pas- sage, which Lightfoot had previously adduced from the Jerusalem Gemara of the Cod. Demai fol. 23. 2, where it is said that the almsgatherers (jy) do not use the same ery on festivals as on other days. This he sup- poses clearly infers, that it was not those who gave, but those who received alms, by whom the σάλπιγξ was employed. In the first place, however, it is not the poor who are spoken of in this passage, but the pub- licly appointed collectors of alms, on whom the warm was imposed, and again it is greatly to be questioned whether this 1277 was accompanied as Iken supposes, with sound of trumpets. 2. Moreover the music made by the poor, (Michaelis says, If Christ had delivered the discourse among us, he CHAP. VI. VERSE 2. 105 would have said, Let them not sing before your door ), is not in the East a thing arranged by the givers of alms, but voluntary on the part of the poor, so that Christ could not say, Ne curato buccina cani, but must have said χώλυς rods σαλπιζομένους. 3. This ex- planation, too, only applies to the ῥύμαις, not to the ἐν THIS συναγωγαῖς. Συναγωγή, however, has not been here taken by all in the sense of synagogue, but, on the contrary, by Erasmus and Grotius long ago, and afterwards by Elsner, Wolf and Kuinol, in the sense conciliabula, circuli bominum ; and they have conceived assem- blages to be meant, or larger crowds of people con- gregated upon the streets. - But ought ἐν ταῖς συναγω- yais καὶ ἐν ταῖς ῥύμαις to stand here in a different sense from ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς nal ἐν ταῖς γωνίαις τῶν πλατειῶν, inv. df . Now, although some understand it, even there, of congregated crowds or assemblages, still one should feel less hesitation in that, than in the present passage, to consider the meaning, synagogue, as the sole correct one. We have to add, that if it be the crowds on the streets that are spoken of, (sup- posing, in general, the term συναγωγή, and not ὄχλος had been used for these,) it should not have been: ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς καὶ ἐν ταῖς ῥύμαις, by which a two- fold locality is intimated, but must have run: ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς τῶν ῥυμῶν. In fine, it is to be considered, that the synagogue, as we can demonstrate, like the Christian churches in after times, were the places for the collection of alms; so that when Jewish authors speak upon the subject, it is usually divided into the collection within, and the collection without the sy- 106 CHAP. VI. VERSE 9. nagogues. See Lightfoot on the passage, Vitringa de synag. vet. III. 1. ο. 13. Buxtorf de synag. 6. XLIV. On the very ground of its being said in the synagogues, and that it actually was within these that the collection of alms took place, we can here as little suppose Christ to mean the bestowal of alms upon the poor who assembled before the door of the synagogues, Acts iii. 3, just as they afterwards did at Christian churches.* _“Pdun, in the Macedonian dialect, for στενωπός. Even if it should not be here, as at Luke xiv. 21, different from σλατεῖχι, still in the East, as in all ancient, and in all southern cities, the streets are in point of fact στενωποί in comparison with ours, for the purpose of excluding the sun. The antithesis to the δοξασθῆναι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων lies in ὁ. v. 16. ᾿Ασέχειν (Luke vi. 24. Phil. iv. 18.) answers per- fectly to the German, “ weghaben,” to have got. It is accordingly in sense a preterite, ‘ they have al- ready received.” So also among the Greeks: τὸν μισ)ὸν ἀπέχειν, τὸν καρπὸν ἀπέχειν, Wyttenbach ad Plut. moral. ed. Lips. II. p. 124. According to a passage quoted by Capellus, from the Rabbinical book, Liber timoris, the phrase would be likewise Rabbinical : ‘“ Whoever boasts of a fulfilment of the law, xin ὙΠῸ 53, he has taken his reward.” The more usual expression in the Talmud is on»y Yap. Compare also Luke xvi. 25. 3 V. 3. Proverbial description of the deep conceal- @ Bingham antiqgq. ecclesiast. T. V. p. 273, seq. CHAP. VI. VERSE 9. 107 ment in which charity ought to be perfurmed. The same is afterwards enjoined, v. 6, in regard to prayer. What objects stand in closer relation to each other than the members of the same body, particularly such as are pairs, and which, among the Greeks and Romans, are called ἀδελφός and frater, among the Syrians {;a,.* The right hand gives the alms ; and if the left, closely connected although it be, must know nothing of the matter, this finely represents how not even the nearest and most familiar friend among men, but the πατὴρ οὐράνιος alone, ought to be witness. Chrysostom: εἰ γὰρ οἷόν τέ ἐστι. φησὶ, καὶ σεαυτὸν ἀγνοῆσαι, περισπούδαστον ἔστω σοι τοῦτο, κἂν αὐτὰς δυνατὸν ἢ τὰς διωκονουμένας χεῖρας λαϑεῦ.» Among an- * Xenoph. Memor. II. 3, 19, and Gesenius thes. 5. v. TIN. > For if it be possible to be thyself unaware, let it be your desire, to escape the notice, if you can, of even the hands that give. In the collection of very characteristical Egyptian proverbs, recently edited from Burkhardt’s papers, (Arabic Proverbs of the modern Egyptians, Lond. 1830), this sentence of ours is p. 77 also to be found, Sh on SHS less pee “* Let thy right hand know nothing of thy left.” Burkhardt also brings from the Hadiss, or traditions of Muhammed the following ecee maxim, which wholly agrees with it: x3 Qxe5 Gduad fs; rae asf Ly ale ὁ ἊΣ “© In alms- giving, the left hand should not know what the right hath given.” This maxim, however, as may be demonstrated of many of the sayings in the Hadiss, is beyond all doubt not ori- ginal, but has flowed from the Christian traditions. Pure Hellenistically the same idea, ὅτι δεῖ σὴν δωρεὰν ἀκενοδόξως χαρί- ζεσϑαι, is expressed in the Greek proverb, αἱ χάριτες γυμναί. See Arsenius, Violetum ed. Waltz, Stuttg. 1832, p. 33. 108 CHAP. VI. VERSES 3, 4. cient authors, not a few would urge the sensus malus, elsewhere attached to the left hand. According to Augustine, several understood by it the infideles, others, the dissatisfied wife, the auctor op. imperf. : voluntas carnis semper Deo contraria. Augustine himself, who is followed by Gregory, and Schottgen in his Greek Lexicon, ipsa delectatio Jaudis, where- as the right indicates the intentio implendi praecepta divina. Compare Theophylact. The exposition of Luther is original. According to him, sucha giving by the right hand is meant, as that the left knowing nothing of the matter, cannot stretch itself out, in order, by the reception of the honour, to make up the loss. “ That is called givers havers, as children joke with each other.” V. 4. Chrysostom: μέγα καὶ σεμνὸν αὐτῷ xadigwy Séearpov, καὶ ὅπερ ἐπιυμεῖ, τοῦτο μετὰ πολλῆς αὐτῷ διδοὺς τῆς περιουσίας" τὶ γὰρ βούλει ; φησίν" οὐχὶ ϑεατὰς ἔχειν τῶν γινομένων TVS; ἰδοὺ τοίνυν ἔχεις, οὐχὶ ἄγγξελους καὶ ἀρχαγγέλους" ἀλλὰ τὸν τῶν ὅλων Θεόν εἰ OF καὶ ἀνϑ)ρώ- πους ἐπιδυμεῖς ἔχειν ϑεωροὺς, οὐδὲ ταύτης σε ἀποστερεῖ τῆς ἐπιϑυμίας καιρῷ τῷ προσήκοντι .. «+s ἂν δὲ σπουδάζῃς νῦν λανϑϑάνειν, τότε σε αὐτὺς ὁ Θεὸς ἀνακηρύξει τῆς οἰκουμένης παρούσης ἁπάσης. Τὸ βλέπων we have not to supply the object σὰ ἐν a Appointing to him a great and dignified theatre, and giving him in large abundance what he is desirous of. What want you, he says? Is it not to have some spectators of your actions ? Behold you have them, not angels and archangels, but the God of the universe himself. If, however, you wish men too, to behold. you, even of this desire he will not deprive you at the seasonable time...... But if you choose now to be conceal- ed, God himself will then proclaim your praise in presence of the whole world. CHAP. VI. VERSES 4, ὃ. 109 τῷ χρυπτῷ, as is done by the Arabic, “Ethiopic, Gro- tius and Kuinol, or, in Beza’s way, σὲ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ. But ἐν comprises motion and rest, as Luther has it ; who seeth into what is secret. Ἔν τῷ φανερῷ relates to the publicity of the day of judgment. Matth. xxv. 31. Lue. xiv. 14. 2 Cor. v. 10. WARNING AGAINST HYPOCRITICAL AND UNWORTHY PRAYING. v. 5—15. V. 5. With regard to the future in the prohibition, see on 6. v. 48. and as for the explicative ors in or: φιλοῦσι, see on v. 5. of that chap. and v. 16. of the pre- sent. Φιλεῖῦ, coupled with the infinitive following,— and in the same way éyarév—forms the adverbial idea of doing willingly, as Luther has here conceived it; in the same manner Ὁ anx, Ὁ ppm, comp. LXX. Is. lvi. 10. Jer. xiv. 10. Hos. xii. 8, also in N.T. Matth. xxiii.6. This idea of liking to do, passes under cer- tain circumstances into that of being wont to do, as we _might say, “ In slanders, somewhat at least dikes to stick fast.” So in Greek, φιλεῖν in particular,—also sometimes ἀγαπᾷν, ég¢v—is explained by the Scho- liast in the sense εἰωθέναι, ἔθος ἔχειν with the infinitive and the participle.* Xenophon de mag. equit. 6. 7, § 9. φιλοῦσι δέ πως στρατιῶται, ὅσῳ ἂν πλείους ὦσι, τοσούτῳ πλείω ἁμαρτάνειν. Aristoteles Cécon. 2. τοὺς Λυκίους ὁρῶν ἀγαπῶντας τρίχωμα φέρειν. In Latin this often hap- pens with amare. Horace, od. 1. III. $6. v.10. Aurum a 5. Irmisch, Exeurs. ad Herod. 1. 2. 8, T. 1. p. 890. 110 CHAP. VI. VERSE ὅ. perrumpere amat saxa, so likewise od. II. 3. 10. epod. 8. 15. Plin. hist. natur. 18, 15. Palma toto anno bi- bere amat. Accordingly Erasmus has, in our pas- sage, even in his day, translated solent.2 But did the meaning of liking to do any thing among the Hellenists become enfeebled into that of being wont? It is certain that at Matt. xxiii. 6. the trans- lation of φιλεῖν by delectari is the more correct. Compare ϑέλειν Mare. xii. 88, 39. Luc. xx. 46. Here also Luther’s is the preferable translation. With regard to ἑστῶτος the first inquiry is, how it ought to be connected? Beza, Castellio, Pricaeus and Hammond, couple it closely with the designation of the place. “ They love to pray, whilst they are in the synagognes and in the corners of the streets.” In this case, as these interpreters say, ἑστῶτες ---ὔντες, in proof of which Pricaeus appeals to John i. 35. Lue. xxiii. 10. Mare. ix. 1; xi. 5. Acts xi. 18. Nay, Castellio even thinks it more likely that they prayed kneeling. In all of these passages, however, ἑστώς and σταθείς retain their meaning, and are not, ina single case, lost in εἶναι. Moreover, in this passage, the object is to bring out the standing at prayer, on which account, ἑστῶτες, as side-definilion, is to be coupled with προσεύχεσθαι, like Mark xi. 25. In just the same way as at this last passage, Cyprian also says: rate, stamus ad orationem, and in the Koran Sure V. v. ¥ Joa) “" kes 2) “‘ when he stands up to pray.” ᾿ The usual attitude of the Jews in prayer,® as also ® See Holland. Ubers. zy pleegen gaarne. » Maimonides constit. de precat. c. 5, § 2. CHAP. VI. VERSE ὅ. 11] of the ancient Christians, was standing. And this is the case among the Mahometans of the present day.? The circumstance is in so far material, that if these hypocrites had said their prayers sitting or walking, they would not have attracted attention at all. We have said above, v. 2, that their sanctimony always knew to assume a disguise. Here, however, it might seem that they had wholly laid aside the mask. For who takes his stand at the corner of a street to pray, ἃ Grotius, whom the more recent commentators Fritzsche, Meyer and others follow, declares that the Jews prayed on their knees only when mourning. This is not quite correct. As kneeling is the sign of profound emotion and abasement, doubt- less it was principally practised in mourning, Dan. ix. 20. Ezra. ix. 5, besides also Dan. vi. 11. 2 Chron. vi. 13. 1 Kings viii. 54. In like manner N.’%'. Rev. ix. 40; xx. 36; xx’. 5. The Rabbins speak of a threefold kind of humiliation in prayer. I. Bending the head and shoulders τ: 2. Bending the knees τ τι. 3. Falling down and lifting up the hands. See Carpzov, Appar. ad antiq. sacr. p- 323, and the learned disser- tation of Lakemacher de sitibus formulisque precum Pharisaei et Publicani inden Observ. philol. P. VII. p. 97. Doubtless the first Christian church, on particular festivals, such as the day of Christ’s resurrection, the Sabbath, and in the interval be- tween Easter and Pentecost, prayed standing ΄ ὀρθοὶ στῶμεν καλῶς the call of the deacons to the congregation), at other times, however, they prayed kneeling. See Bingham Antiqu. sacrae ΤΙ. p. 257, sqq. In the Mahometan prayers, several differ- ent attitudes are required alternately, Reland de relig. Mohamm. 1. 1. e. 9. What Bened. Michaelis, in his excellent treatise Ritu- alia quaedam codicis sacri ex Alcorano illustrata Hal. 1739 (in Potts’ Sylloge dis. T. 11.) says upon the subject, needs par- tial corrections. 112 CHAP. VI. VERSE 5. without betraying by the very act, that all he wants is to be observed? Such is not however the case, the Jew, and like him, the Mahometan, are strictly bound to fixed times of prayer, so that even in the present day the Mahometan, and no less also the conscientious Jew, as soon as the appointed hour strikes, falls to saying his prayer, wherever he may happen atthe time to be. See the Tract. Berachoth, Lightfoot on the passage, and Rosenmiiller’s altes und neues Morgenl. Th. V. 5, 35. Now the hypocrite might so contrive as at these precise hours to be found upon the street. It isto be added that, accord- ing to the Talmud, the Jew, at the sight of certain objects, of a place where a miracle had been wrought, of a negro, or acripple, &c. was bound to utter a sigh.2 Maldonatus thinks that the Saviour, by the ἑστῶτες, points to a hypocritical and publicly exhibited absorption, somewhat like that singular scene related by Socrates in his Symposion. The ἑστῶτες, how- ever, put as it is simply, by no means intimates a particularly long duration. Moreover, the Talmud actually requires from the pious suppliant such a de- gree of absorption, that, as it is said, “ ifa king sa- lutes him he does not salute again, and were a serpent to wind about his foot, he does not interrupt his pray- ers.» So likewise the Mahometans, Olearius Itiner. Pers. p. 685. The γωνίαι τῶν πλατειῶν are the projecting corners where two ways meet, and where, consequently, one 4 Compare Lightfoot on this passage. » Tr. Berachoth, c. 5, § 1. CHAP. VI. VERSE 5. BES is seen by much people. It, accordingly, corresponds with the διέξοδος τῶν ὁδῶν, Mat. xxii. 9, in triviis. Thus it is said of the harlot, Prov. vii. 12, “ She lieth in wait at every corner.” It is strange that the auc- tor. op. imperf. supposes znflected corners, where they might conceal themselves, and explains this ingeniously enough: ut ne, si in plateis oraverint, quasi simulatores religionis vituperarentur, sed in angulis, ut videantur abscondite orare—astuta vanitas. With regard to praying in the synagogue, that place, like the church by the Roman Catho- lies, was deemed the most favourable for prayers being heard. ‘To pray there was consistent with duty, nor does our Saviour blame them, generally, for praying in the synagogues, but because they had a preference for praying in those places only, where numbers of people congregated. Theoph.: οὐ γὰρ βλάπτει ὁ τόπος, ἀλλὰ 6 τρόπος καὶ ὁ σκοπός. When Erasmus, Beza, Hammond and Elsner want here, as at v. 2, to suppose crowds of people collected on the street, it is quite inappropriate, for these hypocrites would not carry their effrontery so far as to force their way into crowds of people; Besides, that was just a situation where they might not have gained their end of being particularly remarked. ν “Ὅπως φανῶσι, and farther on at ν. 16, ὅπως φανῶσι νηστεύοντες. It is not, as has been done by Luther, and in the Vulgate and other translations, to be ren- . dered with the passive. The Aorist sec. pass. ἐφάνη has elsewhere the medial signification, and so also here; Beza, ut conspicui sint, “ that they may attract observation.” VOL. Il. I 114 CHAP. VI. VERSES 6, 7. V.6. In the East, houses in days of old had, and now still have garrets, my, which were devoted to particular purposes. They served partly for un- clean uses, partly for store-rooms, partly for the ac- commodation of strangers, partly for religious medi- tations and discussions, (so often in the Talmud,) or likewise for prayer, as frequently in the Acts of the Apostles. See the profound Faber, Archaeologie der Hebraeor. Th. I. 5.442, That garret is ealled in the New Testament ὑπερῷον; here we have the more ge- neral ταμιεῖον or ταμεῖθν. It is doubtless, however, the garret which is intended. It was of itself soli- tary, and shut up from common use. To strengthen the idea, it is further here recommended to shut the door. Origen, Hilary and Augustine expound the cubiculum allegorically of the heart, referring to Ps. iv. ὅ. V. 7. Another warning against hypocritical prayer, to wit, against the self-deception of uttering. long prayers without the proper frame of mind becoming a suppliant. What it properly is which Christ forbids in these words, is a subject on which opinions are diverse. We must infer it, on the one hand, from the words βαττο- λογεῖν or πολυλογία, on the other, from the connection. In a philological and antiquarian point of view, many inquiries into these words have been set on foot, of which we name the most distinguished : Henr. Stepha- nus in the Thes., Dan. Heinsius, Exercitt. sacr. Lugd. Bat. 1639, p. 30. Cl. Salmasius, De foen. trapez. Lugd. Bat. 1690, p. 795. Is. Casaubonus, Exercitt. _ Anti-Baronianae. Francof. 1615. exercit. 14. p, 235. CHAP. VI. VERSE 7. 115 Balth. Stollberg in the Thes. theol.-philol. Amst. 1702. T. 11. p.112. Joh. Schaller in the Thes. nov. theol.- philol. Amstelod. 1732, T. 11. p. 183. Guil. Sal- deni Otia theolog. Amstel. 1684, p. 579. Joh. Sau- berti Opera posth. Altd. 1694, p. 70. Cornel. Adami Observatt. philol:-theolog. Gron. 1710, p. 108. Selden De diis Syriis, Lips. 1662, proleg. c. iii. Dey- ling, Observ. sacrae III. p. 208. Olearius, Observ. in Matth. Obs. XIX. Joh. D. Michaelis Comment. de battologia 1758. Herder Erlauterung des N. T. aus einer morgenl. Quelle, p. 109. The first point investigated has been, whether the word is to be de- duced from the proper name Barros, and, as tradition speaks of three different Barro, from which of these. or whether it be an onomato-poeticon, like βατταρίζω, (likewise traced back by some to a Βάττος) βαβάκτης. βαττολάλος, (found in the Gloss. Philox.) Compare too, the nick-name of Demosthenes βάτταλος, which is in allusion to his stammering. Following the lead of Vossius, Instit. Orat. 1. V. c. 5, (where he designates the βαττολογία as the overdoing of the rhetorical emovq,) and Salmasius, De foen. trapez. p. 796, the latter is now pretty generally supposed. It has, how- ever, been omitted to observe that tradition, in one of its forms, has already united the two derivations. For, according to that, the Battus meant was. first called Aristoteles, and obtained the other name from the Pythia, just on account of his stammering. See Hemsterhusius in Aristoph. Plutus v. 926.* * Herder begins his inquiry, ‘‘ The learned expositors are responsible for having so terribly battologized upon the word.” He should have reflected on what was often enough said to him, 116 CHAP. VI. VERSE 7. The older derivations, according to which the word is a vox hybrida, compounded either with the Heb- rew measure na, or with xo, effutivit,? or even as Schleusner thinks, with p12, are to be entirely re- jected. The authors of these could not as yet call to their aid either the βατολογέω of the codex Εἰ. and in Hesychius, or the βατταλογέω of the codex B.D. Al- though, doubtless, there is much to favour the sup- position, that Christ might, in the language of the country, have used the word mwa, from which we have often in the Rabbinical 2 futilitas, temeritas in loquendo, and that this was the way in which the translator was guided to the choice of a Greek word of such rare occurrence.” For as yet, apart from the Glossaries, it has been found in the single pas- sage, Simplicius in Epict. enchirid. ¢. 37, p. 212, ed. Salmas.© The interpretation of its mean- that he himself is the man in whose hands the subject is but too frequently lost beneath a flood of battological exclamation. What, however, in this case, is the result of his echauffement against the expositors ? He discovers that the word is borrow- ed from the Zend language ! * See Wolf’s Curae. > The translation of the New Test. set on foot by the Lon- don Society for the conversion of the Jews, which is usually too stiff, and on that account, not Hebraical, has here 3m a7 ἸῺ Ν Ὁ, quite according to the English transla- lation: Do not use vain repetitions. In this, as in other points, a newer translation (1831,) set on foot and brought out by Baxter, is preferable. It has ΠῚ xo2> 29n OX (o>nDw) ° Here, according to the quotation of Schaller and others, another passage from Plautus would be added: paucis verbis rem divinam facito, centies idem dicere est βατσολογεῖν. But CHAP. VI. VERSE 7. 117 ing we must obtain partly from these two pas- sages, partly from the synonymes βατταρίζειν, βαττο- λάλος, partly from the Scholia and Fathers of the church, and partly from the connection. In Sim- plicius, the βαττολογίω is quite clearly the same as πολυλογία. Βαττολάλος Gloss. Philoxeni, ed. Labb. Par. 1679, p. 35, is interpreted garrulus, and in Lucian, Deo Chrysostom, Themistius,* βατταρίζειν comprises speaking both without order and foolishly. In a passage of Theodoret, Opp. V. p. 47, Barragi- oor and τὰ ἀτημελῶς εἰρημένα stand parallel. The authors of the Glossaries, on the word Barros, give first the meaning ἰσχνόφωνος, μογιλάλος, and on βάττο- λογία, μόγις Aude (Etym. M.,) afterwards the sense zo- λυλογία (Suidas,) and, in fine, φλυαρία, ἀργολογία, ἀκυρο- λογία, (Hesych., Alberti’s Gloss.) These three mean- ings, moreover, pass into each other, for the stam- merer repeats the same thing, he consequently speaks too much, and he speaks awkwardly. Theophylact, to be sure, draws the distinction, that only βαττολογία = φλυαρία, whereas βατταρισμός is ἡ ἄναρθοος φωνή, but this distinction, as may be shewn, did not obtain in the usus loquendi. Now it is not indifferent for the meaning, whether we here give prominence to the mere idea of much speaking, or to that of praying for what is dmproper and unworthy. Among the Greek Fathers, over by a strange blunder, the last sentence has been ascribed to’ Plautus, whereas the words are by Grotius, appended after quoting those of Plautus. The former words are to be found in the Poenulus, act. 1. sc. 2. v. 196. 2 See Wetstein. 118 CHAP. VI. VERSE 7. whom the comparison of this saying with v. 32, had a powerful influence, the notion of much speaking falls quite into the shade, whereas that of praying for things unworthy and improper, is brought forward. Gregory of Nyssa, in the introduction to his ex- position of the Oratio domin. ed. Par. T. 1. p. 717, thus speaks upon the word: ἄξιον éZerdocs, τί σημαίνει τῆς βαττολογίας τὸ ῥῆμα... δοκεῖ τοίνυν μοι! σωφρονίζειν τὴν χαυνύότητω τῆς διονοίας, καὶ συστέλλειν τῶν τοῖς ματαίαις ἐπιυμίαις eubasuvorvray, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὴν ξένην ταύτην τῆς λέξεως καινοτομίαν ἐξευρηκέναι," ἐπὶ ἐλέγχῳ τῆς ἀνοίως τῶν περὶ τὰ ἀνωφελῆ τε καὶ μάταια THIS ἐπι- ϑυμίαις διωυχεομένων" ὁ γὼρ ἔμφρων τε καὶ συνετὺς, καὶ πρὸς τὸ χρήσιμον βλέπων λόγος, κυρίως λέγεται Χόγος" ὃ δὲ ταῖς ἀνυπάρχτοις ἐπιϑυμίωις διὰ τῆς ἀνυποστάτου ἡδονῆς ἐπιχεόμενος, οὖκ ἔστι λόγος, ἀλλὰ Barrorhoyio ὡς ἄν τις ᾿Ελληνικώτερον ἑρμηνεύων εἴποι τὸν νοῦν, φλυαρίω καὶ λῆρος καὶ φλήναφος, καὶ εἴ TH ἄλλο τῆς τοιωύτης ση- μασίας." Basil very expertly adduces the saying in 4 When this Father speaks of mew words which the Evan- gelists had invented, as at present, we must not always take this strictly, as if they actually did not occur in the whole do- main of the Greek tongue. Thus, in the discourse upon 1 Cor. xv. 28, T. II. p. 19, he designates as καωινοσομίω λέξεως. the expression rzgregedeoSas, 1 Cor. xiii. 4, and ἐριϑείω, which words were, however, not so very rare in the usus loquendi. See my Beitrage zur Spracherkl. des N. Test. s. 27. Ὁ It is worth while to investigate what the term Barroroyia denotes. ... He seems to me, then, to be castigating haughtiness of mind, and restraining suchas immerse themselves in vain desires, and, for that purpose, to have invented this foreign novelty of a word, to reprove their folly, who are dissipated with desires about things useless and vain. For speech discreet and intel- ligent, and directed to what is expedient, is properly styled λόγος. Whereas that which, through vain pleasure, is over- CHAP. VI. VERSE 7. 119 the exposition of Is, 1. 15: xal ἐὰν wAnduvnre τὴν δέησιν, οὐκ εἰσωκούσομαι, and in both the saying of the Old, and the saying of the New Testament, refers the much speaking, to prayers for (all kinds of) σωματικά and ἐπίγεια, drawing a comparison with Prov. x. 19. ἐκ πολυλογίας οὐκ ἐκφεύξῃ ἁμωρτίαν, to which he then, in like manner, very ingeniously con- trasts Ps. xxvii. 4. μίαν ἠτησάμην παρὰ Κυρίου, ταὐτὴν ἐκζητήσω, τὸ κατοικεῖν με ἐν οἴκῳ Kugiou(Opp. Τ.1]. p.408.) In substantially the same way, had the word been before conceived by Origen, (in the Book περὶ εὐχῆς; T. I. p. 330), and by Chrysostom. Origen com- mences his explanation of it, with the antithesis, μὴ βαττολογήσωμεν, ἀλλὰ ἡεολογήσωμεν,δ and adds, βατ- τολογοῦμεν δὲ, ὅτε μὴ μωμοσκοποῦντες ἑαυτοὺς, ἢ τοὺς ἀναπεμπομένους τῆς εὐχῆς λόγους, λέγομεν τὰ διεφι)αρμένο, ἔργα, ἢ λόγους, ἢ νοήματα ταπεινὰ τυγχάνοντα κτλ." That πολυλογεῖν, means the same, what is good being but one. Chrysostom says, “ The βαττολογία is in the first place the φλυαρία, οἷον ὅταν τὰ μὴ προσήκοντω αἰτῶμεν παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, δυναστείας καὶ δόξας... «καὶ ἁπλῶς τὼ μηδὲν ἡμῖν διαφέροντα---- μετὰ δὲ τούτων, he then, however, adds spread with empty inclinations, is not λόγος, but Barroroyia. As one telling his mind in better Greek may say, Pavagia, and λόρος and φΦλιναῷῴος, and if there be any other term of a like sig- nification. 4 Θεολογεῖν has here the meaning which spread in the ec- clesiastical usus loquendi, Deum laudibus celebrare. See Eus. Hist. eccl. 1. X. c. 3, and’Montfaucon on Athan. Opp. in indice, ΠΡ v. . b We battologize, when, neither ‘severely scrutinizing our- selves, nor the words which in prayer we utter, we say cor- rupt.things, or express. thoughts and language that are mean, 120 CHAP. VI. VERSE 7. δοκεῖ μοι κελεύειν vrad3a μηδὲ μακρὰς ποιεῖσϑαι τὰς εὐχάς. So afterwards also Theophylact and Euthymius. To this way of conceiving the word, the Aithiopic and Persic translators approximate: They have, “ Speak not what is improper.” On the other hand, by far the greatest number of translators take βαττολογία as altogether—sorvacyia. So even in his day, the Syrian with his much debated,? -οοσλο oluoar Ul. The Vulgate and Arabic have, nolite multum loqui, Ulphilas, filuvaurdjaith, to make many words, Luther, plappern, the English version, to use vain repeti- tions, the Danish, to use superfluous words. A\l- most all expositors likewise restrict βαττολογία to verbose prayer. Zwingli: Sine verbositate, multa jacula simul emissa tardius volant, pennis impedita, unum solum velocius scopum attingit. Few only form an exception. Dan. Heinsius says: pmerewgic- μόν ἴῃ orando maxime notari arbitror, ut cum la- bia et lingua sine mente orant, and Casaubon, that # See Casaub. Exercit. Anti-Baron, 1. xiv. p. 236. Nik. Fuller, Miscell. sacra. Lond. 1617, 1. 2, ο. 16. Ludy. de Dieu Critica sacra. Amst. 1693, p. 327. The word Joos is doubtless the same which occurs in the Targum of Ps. xxxi. 19, and very frequently among the Rabbins in the sense to shut. This is put beyond all doubt, by the fact, that lola, which Castellus ought to have brought under the root Goog is used for DO in the Syriac translation of Ps. xxxviii. 14. But as the stammerer likewise cannot rightly open his mouth, it has also received the meaning of blaesus, which is the usual one. The Syriac accordingly has used the very word which answers to the first meaning Of βατσολογεῖν. Whether, however, in the Syriac also δ) in the extended sense, meant πολυλογεῖν is not certain, but yet quite probable. | CHAP. VI. VERSE 7. 121 βαττολογεῖν involves two faults, repetitio eorundem verborum and multiloguium. So likewise, Gro- tius. Baronius, . τὶ whom he contends, has, in defence of the rosaries, &c. used in his church, observed that βαττολογία is not equivalent to πολυλογία, but denotes the φλυαρία, to which his learned opponent justly answers, that though that be the case, there is made immediately after mention of the σπολυλογία. Salmasius takes up the idea in just the same way as Basil. The heathen, he says, prayed for all manner of earthly blessings and enjoyments, and, in so far, the βαττολογεῖν comprises prayer for what.is vain. Many, as Chemnitz, conjoin this reference with the two meanings given by Casaubon. It is verses 8 and 32. that have mainly given occa- sion to that conception of the word, which we find in the Greek fathers and Salmasius. In the latter of these passages, it is said that the disciple of Christ ought not, like the Gentile, to be full of care for his earthly supplies, seeing that his heavenly father knows that he has need of them, and so here likewise at ver. 8, the antithesis is taken in the sense: “ Ye do not need to enumerate to God your many bodily wants, for he knows well what ye stand in need of.” Now, although this view commends itself in certain regards, still the following has much more clearly a basis in the context. The γάρ after δοκοῦσιν, states the reason why the battology obtains among the Gentiles. It is because they believe they can force God to listen to them by the multitude of words. Quite in the sense of the ancient world, and of the view here censured, Polybius, Hist. 1. xix. ο. 239, calls the much praying of the Gentilesa μαγγανεύειν πρὸς τοὺς ϑεούς, and again 122 CHAP. VI. VERSE 7. ἀποκναίειν, καταδυσωπεῖν τοὺς ϑεούς, among the Latins fatigare, lassare, obtundere Deos. Now, from this antithesis, it is necessarily to be inferred, that Barro- λογεῖν must have mainly the sense of πολυλογεῖν, al- though to that, as the nature of the case involves, accessory ideas, such as of φλυαρεῖν, ὑθλεῖν, may be at- tached. Accordingly, ver. 8 must be also taken in this conneetion, which further recommends itself in preference to that formerly given, inasfar, as a reason then arises for the πρὸ τοῦ ὑμᾶς αἰτῆσαι αὐτόν : ““ He who is my disciple must not suppose that by prayers alone does God come to know what man stands in need of. Hence also it is not necessary to recite diffusely, or frequently repeat it to him, in order in this man- ner to bring him at last to listen favourably to prayer. Such a disciple cherishes a filial confidence, which in few, but consequently weighty terms, prays in the way shewn, ver. 9—13.” According to this view, we should like best to translate βαστολογεῖν as Luther does, plappern ; Angl. to prate, or as Beza, blatterare, only that with the latter the eadem which is appended, re- stricts somewhat too much the compass of the word. Τὸ but remains to mention historically in how far the βαττολογεῖν could be specially laid to the charge of the heathen. We have first, however, to obviate a possible misunderstanding of thewords. The text Luke xviii. 2, appears to stand in contradictory antithesis to the present admonition, for there the éxrextoi are called upon by their many prayers, χύπον παρέχειν τῷ Θεῷ, καὶ ὑπωπιάξειν αὐτόν. But these ex- pressions are in the’ domain of parable, and hence must not, in the strict sense, be transferred to God. : CHAP. VI. VERSE 7. 195 If we look to ver. 7, it is elear that: Christ in that ex- hortation by no means required a σολυλογεῖν, a using of many words, but that. we should not grow weary, when God delays his help. Such is the case with Luke xi. 8. Thereis the same exhortation Rom. xii. 12. Col. iv. 2. 1 Thess. v.17. The saying of the Lord, accordingly, is not aimed against frequently and repeatedly praying, and neither is it against praying long, provided only that the multitude of the words be the expression of the feelings ; in which case the saying of Philemon applies (Philemonis reliquiae, ed. Meinecke, p. 398.) Τὸν μὲν λέγοντα τῶν δεόντων μηδὲ ev | μακρὸν νόμιζε, κἂν δύ᾽ εἴπῃ συλλαβάς | τὸν δ᾽ εὖ λέγοντω μὴ νόμιξ᾽ εἶναι μακρὸν, | μηδ᾽ ἂν σφόδρ᾽ εἴπῃ πολλὰ καὶ πολὺν χρόνον. Admirably, observes Augustine in ep. 121, ad Dioscor.: Multum loqui in precando est rem necessariam superfluis agere verbis, multum autem precari est ad eum, quem precamur, diuturna et pia cordis excitatione pulsare, nam ple- rumque hoc negotium plus gemitibus, quam sermoni- bus agitur. Compare, moreover, in a practical point of view, the beautiful: words of Luther and Chemnitz on the passage. With regard now to the ὥσπερ οἱ ἐθνικοί, the very same does not hold here as at ch. v. 47. The egotis- tical love, which loves only those who are its own, was not peculiarly distinctive of the Gentiles. To the blinded Israelite it is there demonstrated that the virtue, in the way exercised by him, is to be found even among persons who passed in his eyes for the re- presentatives of ungodliness. Inthe present passage, and at v. 32, notice is taken of an error which was 194 CHAP. VI. VERSE 7. pre-eminently characteristic of the Gentile. While, among the Rabbins we meet with only a few pas- sages upon the love of enemies, they give manifold ad- monitions to brevity in prayer. In Scripture, Eccl. v. 1. (Sir. vil. 14,) belong to this class. Copious and beautiful savings of the kind from the Rabbins are to be found in Grotius, Drusius, Wetstein, Schott- gen, Buxtorf, floril. p. 280, Scheidius and Meuschen, p- 68. Some of their sayings, to be sure, express likewise the very opposite. See Lightfoot, Buxtorf, floril. p. 281. Selden, De synedr. I. 1. c. 12, gives a very tautological prayer of the modern Jews; And especially apposite is what Saubertus, p. 71, states, viz. that the Jews in the Sabbath evening prayer, are wont to call out for half an hour the last syllable of the word sx, from Moses saying, Deut. vi. 4. The προφάσει evyeosous woxedin Matth. xxiii. 14, seems like- wise to point to the πολυλογία of the Pharisaical party ofthose days. Among the heathen, this much speaking was particularly at home, and indeed, as Casaubon has correctly discriminated, in a two-fold form, to wit, as διπλασιολογία, κυκλοπορείω, ταυτολογία, aNd as πολυ- λογία in the narrower sense. First of all, the heathen was misled into στωμυλία in praying, by the multitude of his gods. In order to secure being heard, the Greek, not satisfied with invoking one of his 50,000 deities,—for that is the number given by. Hesiod, Oper. et dies, v. 250—frequently brought forward a whole choir of them. Thus, it is said of the Mauri- tanean priestess in the Mneid, 1. 1V. v. 510: tercentum tonat ore Deos Erebumque Chaosque ete., on which, see Heyne. Besides this, there were the endless CHAP. VI. VERSE 7. 125 ἐπσωνυμίωι Of the deities, which in solemn prayer, re- quired to be enumerated. Compare Plato de republ. 1. 3, p. 394, A., πολλὰ τῷ ᾿Απόλλωνι εὔχετο, τάς τε ἐπωνυμίας τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἀνακαλῶν. Such enumerations are known to us, particularly from the Orphean Hymns, and are also ridiculed by Lucian in Timon, 6. 1.8 It is a question, however, whether the σολυλογία of the Gentile prayers, in this point of view, was known to the Jews and our Saviour. On the other hand, even the Jews were universally acquainted with the recitative form of the heathen prayers, which struck even a person who did not understand the language, somewhat, perhaps, like the Ave Maria chaunted in countless repetitions by the crowds of penitents on the streets of Italy. The most ancient example of such endless reiteration of one and the same formula, is that which we find 1 Kings xviii. 26, where the priests of Baal cry out for Πα] ἃ day, “ O Baal, hear us!” We have afterwards another in the New Test. Acts xix. 34, when the people of Ephesus cried out the space of two hours, “ Great is Diana of the Ephe- sians.” In Terence Heautont. V. 1, we read: Ohe! jam desine deos, uxor, gratulando obtundere..... ἃ That the more serious Israelites looked with contempt upon this accumulation of God’s epithets in prayer, results from the dictum of R. Charina which Maimonides adduces in the More Nevochim 1.1, c. 59. He remarks, however, on that very passage, that this abuse appeared among the Jews in just the same way as among the Gentiles, OYNDTM WW WD ND M927 12977) TMNT S12W2 WAT WSN NANI mr. spn misap mxyn nyan ΠΤ ΝΣ 196 CHAP. VI. VERSE 7; illos tuo ex ingenio judicas, ut nihil credas: intelli- gere, nisi idem dictum est. centies.2. This repeti- tion is particularly frequent among the Indian and Mahometan monks, of whom the former for whole days cry aloud the sacred syllable Um, and the latter turn about in a circle, and pronounce the He! or x\§§ God! until they grow giddy and drop down.” We saw, however, that this sense of διπλασιο- λογία, κυκλοπορείω lies nearest to the primary sense of βαττολογεῖν, viz. to stammer, inasmuch as the stam- 4 Commentators here quote almost generally, as an example of the βαττολογεῖν, the passages from Lampridius and Trebo- nius Pollio, where the decrees of the senate are intimated with the statement, that the call has been made Sewagies, Auguste Claudi, dii te nobis praestent, guadragies, Principem te semper optavimus, qguinguies, Tu nos a Palmyrenis vindica etc. See Trebellius vita Claudii, c. 4. But, first of all, these are civil and not religious advocations, and moreover, this way of dis- senting belonged to the forms of the later Roman and Byzan- tine court. The acclamationes, together with the number of times which they had been made by the different parties, were formally registered by a public secretary, hence also the name axra and axroasyia. A much greater number might have been collected from Constantine’s Porphyrog. than from the Hist. Aug. e.g. 1. 1 ς. 38—40, p. 114, sqq. Casaubon. ad Vuleat. Gall. in Avid. Cass. c. 13, and Reiske and Leich in Constantin Porphyr. Ceremoniale, ed. Lips. p. 27. > The Mahometans carry the βαττολογεῖν. to the greatest lengths of any nation. Olearius relates in his travels in Persia, that in Schammachia he heard a man pray so long and soloud, that he lost his voice ; but, nevertheless, when his voice had quite died away, he still groaned out 50 times the name of God. Compare the very solid book, Muhammedanus precans, von Henning, Schleswig 1666, p. 14. CHAP. VI.. VERSES 9--- 8, 127 merer forthwith repeats the same words, and conse- quently speaks much. The very abuse of prayer ac- cordingly, which Christ has here chiefly in view, has become naturalized in his own church; we allude to the Rosary of the Roman Catholics. Nay, the very prayer which he opposed to batétology, has been made subservient to that error. For, according to the ro- sary, the Ave Maria is prayed over 150 times, (or 50 or 63 times,) and the Paternoster, patriloquia as it is styled, 15 times, (or 7 or 5.) An admirable treatise against the βαττολογεῖν in the Christian church, is the De pseudo-precationibus, rosariis, litaniis etc. von Gis- bert Boetius in his Disput. selectae theol. T. III. p. 1022, sqq. Erasmus himself directs attention to the degree in which the transgression of this precept of the Lord had become prevalent in the church to which he belonged. THE LORD’S PRAYER, V. 9—13, and as appendant, vi TS 15: 1. The literature. 2. The time, place, and design of it. 3. The sources from which it has been derived. 4, Its contents and train of thought. 1. LITERATURE UPON THE LORD’s PRAYER. The treatises or writings which relate to the pre- face or particular passages of the prayer, will be men- tioned in their place. Here we shall only name the interpreters who have favoured us with an exposition of the whole, and among these, merely the most emi- nent, the number of explanations, particularly for as- 128 CHAP. VI. VERSES 9—13. cetical uses, being prodigiously great. Of these quite a multitude are quoted in Lilienthal’s biblischem Ar- chivarius, Konigsb. 1745, p. 39. In the ancient church, the prayer has been expounded by most of the distinguished Fathers. From the Greek church, we mention as follows: 1. Origen in his work, περὶ εὐχῆς, c. 18, Opp. T. I. p. 126, sqq., a detailed and highly talented treatise. Here, to be sure, as in the other writings of the author, there are digressions; such as are made by the over-flowing stream; here also original fancies, but, compared with the penury of spiritual understanding shewn by more recent com- mentators, what a plenitude of genuine theological insight! and what riches of sentiment and thought ! The man who, with Herr von Matthai,* can say of this work, {περὶ εὐχῆς,) of the great Father : quo libello equidem nihil usquaam unquam inveni absurdius, has truly exposed the certificate of his own mental poverty. 2. Chrysostom, once in his Homilies in Matth. hom. XIX. T. VII. p. 149, and afterwards in that De insti- tuenda secundum Deum vita T. II. ed. Montf. In T. VIII. we also find a spurious exposition of the pa- ternoster. His explanation is simple, popular and full of heart. He likewise endeavours to trace the connection between the petitions. 3. Isidorus Pelu- siota Epist. 1. 1V. ep. 24. The explanation is short, and of no great value. 4. Cyrillus Hierosol. in Ca- teches. 23, § 11—18. Opp. ed. Touttée, p. 329. Here too, it is short and not distinguished. 95. Gre- gory of Nyssa’s five discourses, De oratione, in which, ἃ Nov. Test. T. I. p. 23, note. CHAP. VI. VERSES 9—13. 129 from the second to the end, he elucidates the Lord’s prayer, T. I. ed. Paris. p. 723, sqq. The exposition is verbose, but full of mind and beauty. The Anony- mus in Steph. le Moyne Varia sacra, Lugd. B. 1685, I. 66. The explanation he gives of ἐπιούσιος deserves attention. The fragments communicated by Alex. Morus from a codex of Athanasius in the Medicean bible,* belong to the same author. From the Latin church we name, 1. Tertullian, in his Liber de oratione T. III. ed. Paris. p. 501. The explanation is brief, and not devoid of substance. 2. Cyprian, in his work, De oratione dominica, Opp: ed. Par. p. 817. This is more detailed, and contains much that is excellent and profoundly Christian. 3. The Pseudo-Ambrosius, in his work De sacramen- tis 1. V.c. 4. (On its spuriousness see Oudinus T. I. 651.)® This is short and without importance. 4. Je- rome, in his explanation of Matthew, and in his dia- logus contra Pelagianos, |. III. c. 15. Τὶ IL ed. Ven. This is brief, but particularly important for the history of the exposition. Augustine in his exposition of the Sermon on the Mount, and discourses on Matthew vi. 8. Notz in Nov. Test. p. 26. b TI do not know upon what foundation, the statement of Wetstein rests, that Ambrose is unacquainted with the doxology. In his commentary on Luke, he passes entirely over the Lord’s Prayer, and elsewhere I have not been able to find a single passage in which he speaks of the doxology. That the book De sacramentis, however, does not proceed from Ambrose, but belongs to no earlier a century than the seventh, is evinced by the circumstance that the explanation there, contains the doxology, and that it refers to Father, Son and Holy Ghost, as was common in the later Catholic Church. See on νυν. 13. ω VOL. II. EK ‘ ᾿ 130 CHAP. V1. VERSES 9—13. De oratione domin. sermo LVI—LX. ΤΥ, ed. Bened. His explanations contain excellent matter, but are uncommonly vacillating. 6. Auctor operis imp. This contains much worthy of attention. Suicer has, with great erudition, collected the expositions of the Greek Fathers, in his Observationes sacrae, Tiguri 1665. c. VII—XI. From the period of the reformation, the explana- tions received into the catechisms of the two Protes- tant churches, have acquired the most importance ; the one in the larger, another in the smaller cate- chism of Luther, and that in the Heidelberg catechism of Ursinus and Olevianus. Both explanations, like the respective catechisms themselves, are masterpieces of popularity, and at the same time, of theological depth. Besides Luther’s two explanations in the ca- techisms, we have three others from him. The first from his sermons, taken down by J. Sneider, appear- ed in 1518, and was shortly after in the same year, published by Luther himself, under the title “ Ex- position of the Lord’s Prayer, for simple folk.” To this edition there is an appendix formed by two quite short tracts: A brief compend and order of ali the prescribed petitions, and, A short exposition of the Pater Noster, forwards and backwards. Afterwards © in 1529, there followed the exposition in the catechisms, and finally something more explanatory of the Lord’s prayer, in the sermons on Mat. vi. which he began to deliver in 1530. That first more detailed exposition for the laity gives evidence of a less degree Of purity and ripeness of insight, than the subsequent works. Among the mighty number of expositions to be found ἥν ἢ , ~ CHAP. VI. VERSES 9—18. 191 in the later commentaries of the different churches, none deserves to be distinguished so much, as Chemnitz’ Harmonia evangel. T.I.¢, 51. It is pe- euliarly rich in Christian knowledge, and insight into the connection of the truths of Scripture. So- cinus’ exposition also is very copious, and laboured with great industry. Among the various separate treatises that have appeared, most consideration is due to the Exercitationes in orationem dominicam of thelearned Herm. Witsiusin his Exercitationes sacrae, Amst. 3. ed. 1697. Overlooking the want of preci- sion and of able generalization of particulars, there is here much very serviceable for elucidation, and also, as must be noticed, a learned attention paid to the Patres. In the next place, the acute and partly original exposition of Gottfr. Olearius, in his Obser- vatt. sacr. Lips. 1718. p. 176, sqq. deserves attention. Neither again is the treatise of Nik. Brunner De prae- stantia et perfectione orationis dominicae in the 2d vol. of the Tempe Helvet. Tig. 1736, to be over- looked, manifesting in form, the strictness of the school of Lampe, but with good insight into the mean- ing.? In fine, from a more recent date, the treatises a In this collection of dissertations, Vol. I. p. 351, there is one by Stapfer, De nexu et sensu orationis dominicae pro- phetico, which shews that it is not the philosophy of Hegel alone which can light the way to that profound view of the Lord’s Prayer, which discovers in each petition, a period in the development of countries and nations, agreeably to the description of Professor Sietze in his Grundbegrifie preussischer Rechts-und Staatsgeschichte, Berl. 1829. Even the Theolo- gian Stapfer points out in the six petitions, the periods 7 history of the church, # ΕἾ Γ 132 CHAP. VI. VERSES 9—138. worthy of most regard, are that of Nosselt in his Exercitat. Hal. 1803, which, however, in nowise penetrates deeper into the subject than the works which preceded it; farther, my esteemed colleague, Dr. Weber’s valuable elucidation of the prayer in the Program of 1828, entitled Eclogae exegetico-crit. in nonnullos libror. N. T. locos II. and III. and Gebser’s dissertation De oratione dom. comment. I. Regiom. 1830, which is written with pains. 2. UPON THE TIME, PLACE AND PURPOSE OF THE PRAYER. At Luke xi. 2, it is related to us from a later pe- riod of the life of Christ, that after he had prayed, one of his disciples applied to him for a form of prayer, and that then Jesus communicated ito him the very prayer which we here find in the sermon on*the Mount. Now, this occasion for the delivery of the prayer seemed to many so very ap- propriate, and, on the contrary, the insertion of it in Matthew so much the reverse, that, coupling the fact of Luke in other cases proceeding more chrono- logically, modern divines, as we already remarked, have, since the days of Pott, whom Olshausen and Geb- ser recently joined, drawn from this their main proof of the assertion, that, in the sermon on the Mount, Matthew has fused together speeches of our Saviour, heterogeneous in their character, and delivered at different periods. The most recent scepticism to be sure here vouchsafes its confidence in a chronological κ᾿ ; ὶ ‘ a 7 te CHAP. VI. VERSES 9—18. 133 regard to Luke, just as little as to Matthew. Sieffert (uber den Ursprung des ersten Canonisclien Evangel. s. 79) thinks: ““ There is certainly ground to suppose, that it must have been an earlier period when the oc- easion offered itself to the disciple of making the re- quest, in which he referred to the similar procedure of John,” and that in general, “ in Luke’s narrative much might well have been jointed together, which did not happen just on that last journey ;” this must necessarily be supposed in regard to the various declarations that are ranged together from v. 5. See above, Vol. I. p. 17. Still Sieffert is of opinion that Luke has as- signed the proper and the sole occasion of the delivery of the prayer, and remarks that this being conceded, as is done by Olshausen, one «ΤῊΣ hardly can resolve upon believing that the Evangelist, who has here re- ported the prayer in a connection so entirely differ- ent, was an apostle and ear-witness. What, how- ever, was the judgment formed in earlier times re- garding this diversity of report? Among the an- cients, Origen in particular, attended to the rela- tion between the two reports. The question ‘that chiefly interested him, however, was, whether, from the shorter form of the prayer in Luke, it follows that Christ himself then gave it abbreviated? From c. 30. De orat. at the commencement of the elucida- tion of the sixth petition, we perceive he imagined to himself, that Christ had at an after period given — it abridged to the disciple, he standing less in need of detail than the people. The circumstance, that after the prayer had been communicated to them in the sermon on the mount, the disciples could still 80- 134 CHAP. VI. VERSES 9—13. licit a form to direct them, is explained by commenta- tors of an earlier date, by saying that the disciple who, in Luke, asks for the form, had either been absent at this part of the sermon, or had not recollected the passage, (an opinion brought forward by Origen,) or that μαθητής, as is likewise the case in other passages, denotes not one of the twelve, but another dis- ciple, perhaps one of the seventy (Euthymius, Heu- mann), or in fine, that the disciples regarded the prayer in the sermon on the mount, as more caleulated for the people, and now, as related in Luke, desired a form for themselves in particular. According to Nos- selt and Raw, this request was made by them to Jesus, shortly prior to the sermon on the mount, and the answer which he then gave has been inserted by Matthew in the discourse. According to Paul- us, in his Commentary, I. 5. 712, it was in the prayer itself, that Jesus first replied to their question, which had been put to him prior to the sermon. All these answers have been declared by the most recent critics to be unsatisfactory.2. And yet why so? Is there 4 Calvin also wavers in total uncertainty: Incertum est, se- mel an bis hance orandi formam Christus discipulis tradiderit. Quibusdam hoc secundum videtur magis probabile...... Quia tamen diximus, Matthaeum praecipua quaeque doctrinae capita colligere, ut melius ex continua serie totam summam perspi- ciant lectores, fieri potest ut Matthaeus occasionem, quam re- fert Lucas, omiserit, quamquam hac de re cum nemine pugnare velimus. Socinus, too, finds all these methods of escape wholly unsatisfactory. He makes the proposal, although with the ut- most caution not thereby to encroach upon the reverence due to the word of God, whether in this case we might not suppose in Luke a neglect of the order of time? It is interesting to ® CHAP. VI. VERSES 9—13. 135 anything at all violent, anything forced, in the suppo- sition, that the prayer, set forth by Jesus in the pre- sence of the people as an example of how we are to avoid battology in praying, and which, in the context before us, is so entirely destitute of the character of a formula, was not looked upon by the disciples as a formula at all, or as being intended for their use, and consequently that, unmindful of this type of a true prayer, they at a later period solicited one particu- larly destined for themselves? Were they not in other cases also uncertain, whether what the Lord said before the people hada special application to them? See Luke xii. 41. And supposing it were to be considered very unlikely, that αὐ of them should labour under such a mistake, still might not that be the case with one or more? Luke speaks of but ove of the disciples. Should any however object, that the Lord must have intimated by some word or other, that they had only to call to mind the prayer which, at a former period, he had already given them, would this be the sole instance, in which, of what was spo- ken by Christ, the essential part alone has been com- municated? Let us, besides, take into consideration, how excellently the prayer fits its place in our Evan- observe, how men, who, in the atmosphere of the nineteenth century, would infallibly have proved rationalists, when grow- ing upon the stock of the strong faith of the sizteenth, notwith- standing their endeavours to tear themselves away, did yet draw from it spiritual nourishment! How many genuinely Chris- tian ingredients, of which our modern theology is destitute, are yet to be found in the writings of the Socinians, whose fun- damental tendency is in other respects wholly that of our so called rational-supra-naturalists ! 136 CHAP. VI. VERSES 9—13. gelist, so that were we to tear it out of the connec- tion, we might also discard v. 7 and 8, the warning against hypocrisy in prayer being already complete at v. 6, and we shall not be able to avoid the conclu- sion, that, upon a different occasion, the Saviour did in fact repeat the same form of prayer. If such be the case, we might also embrace the supposition of the ancients, viz. that the second time, the Saviour gave the prayer in the abridged form in which we find itin Luke. But what then could be his reason for abbreviating it upon that occasion? As he had before delivered it, to serve as the model of a short prayer, in opposition to the βαττολουγεῖν, we should not expect him superfluously to insert the three clauses which are awanting in Luke: ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, γενηϑ)ή- τῷ τὸ JEAMILG σου ATA.. ἀλλὰ ῥῦσωι ἡμᾶς “TA. SO as af- terwards to find a correction necessary. It would only remain, therefore, to seek perchance, as Michaelis does, the ground of the abbreviation in the disciplés, to wit, that to them the previous formula had appeared all too short, and that being, from their love of battology, dis- satisfied with it, they had supplicated a new one, upon which, in order to put them to shame, they had re- ceived one still more brief. It is more correctly sup- posed (as Nosselt and Olshausen also do), that the informant of Luke has reported the words less fully than they have been preserved to us by the apostle Matthew, which is, in fact, the case with the report of the whole sermon on the Mount, and likewise in other passages, Luke vi. 3—5. Compare with Matth. xii. 3—8. Luke viii. 19—21. Compare with Matth. xii. 47—50. Luke ix. 19—22. Compare with Matth. xvi, 14—21. CHAP. VI. VERSES 9—13. 137 With regard to Christ’s design in communicating this prayer, the main question is, whether it was in- tended to be repeated word for word:by his followers; or whether he merely meant to shew what the sub- stance of a Christian prayer should be. . The one ex- treme on this subject lies in the opinion, which, ac- cording to Harmenopulus (Century 14th), De sectis hereticis, was ascribed to the Bogomilians, viz. that they rejected every prayer, except the Lord’s, which statement, however, certainly refers only to prayers ap- pointed to be said in the church. The other extreme is indicated by. Grotius, when he says: Non preecipit Christus, verba recitari, sed ‘materiam preeum hine promere. According to this author, οὕτως must mean in hune sensum. Now, doubtless, our dictionaries do give under οὕτως, simili vel eodem modo ; but when the subject is publishing or reciting, so as that after οὕτως, the words also are expressly given, that cir- cumstance itself cuts off all indefiniteness, and we can come to no other conclusion, but that the precise words ought to be recited. (Mat. ii. 5. Luke xix. 31. Acts vil.65 xili.34,47. Rom.x.6.) Wherever this strictness is not intended, the expression will uniformly be found to be likewise modified, as perhaps by a οὕτω πως. ‘That inthe present case, however, the very words are meant to be given, is plain, partly from Luke xi. 2, ὅταν rooceuynode, λέγετε, and partly from the an- ἃ It is a great mistake, when Méller (Neue Ansichten schw. Stellen, s. 43), tries to shew, that the adverb stands here for ταῦτα, as is also Schleusner’s opinion. ΟἿ the supposed location of adverbs for adjectives see Winer, s. 389. 138 CHAP. VI. VERSES 9—138. tithesis. Had Christ designed merely to give the substance of Christian prayers, this would have af- forded a very indirect antithesis to the πολυλογία and βαττολογία. A direct antithesis arises only, when he shews how they might in prayer be both brief in words, and yet rich in matter, and this having been his intention, it behoved him to specify the words. Wolzogen, who could not reconcile himself at all to the thought of Christ’s intending here to prescribe a formula, requires that the οὕτως οὖν shall not be at all understood as contrast to what goes before. Even, however, although the Saviour have here prescribed a form, still what the Bogomilians are supposed to have wished does not follow. Tertullian in his day says very appositely : Quoniam tamen dominus prospector humanarum necessitatum seorsim post traditam oran- di disciplinam, petite, iuquit, et acctpietis, et sunt quae petantur pro circumstantia cujusque, ete. Christ# himself, and the apostles likewise, use other prayers. John xvii. Matth. xxvi. 39. Acts i. 24; iv. 24. Nay, we cannot even prove what we now witness, viz. that no general assemblage of Christians can or should take place, without the Lord’s prayer being said. For neither in the Acts of the Apostles, nor in any other writers prior to the third century, do we find a Christ, be it remarked, delivered this prayer solely for his church. He could not pray, ‘‘ Forgive us our debts.’’ Hence the expression, ‘‘ After this manner, therefore, pray ye.”? And were there any of the sons of Adam without sin, he, too, could no more join in with the Christian church, when with one ac- cord it recites it. By the very circumstance, he would go out from the Christian church, as it exists on earth. ; - CHAP. VI. VERSES 9—18. 139 that it was used as a formula in divine worship. In Justin Martyr, it is said, that the προεστώς makes the prayer, “ for which service he has the qualification.” See Augusti Denkwiirdigkeiten, Th. V. Joh. Georg. Walch De usu orat. domin. ap. vet. christ. in the Mis- cellanea sacra, Amst. 1744, Cyprian says of it: Quae potest magis spiritualis esse oratio, quam quae a Christo nobis data est, a quo nobis et spiritus sanc- tus missus est; quae vera apud patrem precatio, quam quae a filio, qui est veritas, de ejus ore prolata est, ut aliter orare, quam docuit, non ignorantia sola sit, sed et culpa, quando ipse posuerit et dixerit, Rejicitis mandatum Dei, ut traditionem vestram statuatis. The opinion of its peculiar sacredness rose higherand higher from the time when it was assigned a place in the dis- ciplina arcana, and conceded not to the Catechumens, but solely to believers, which was done chiefly, as is supposed, on the ground that the fourth petition was interpreted spiritually, and applied to the Lord’s Sup- per. If, according to recent inquiries, we date the composition of the seven first books of the apostoli- cal constitutions towards the close of the 3d century, it results from 1. vii. ὁ. 24, that at that period the faithful said the Paternoster three times a-day. In the days of Charlemagne, even children got it by heart. With respect to the βαττολογεῖν practised with it, see Supr. p. 127. The Protestant church also adopt- ed the Lord’s prayer, as a standing form in the public worship, and met with opposition solely from the Anabaptists, from a seet of eccentric Puritans, and from the Quakers, parties who in general reduce the whole service to the subjective state of feeling in the 140 CHAP. VI. VERSES 9—13. ® congregation at the time, and consequently will not consent to tolerate in it any permanent objective ele- ment. Respecting the controversy of the Puritans with the Episcopalians in England upon this subject, see Benthem England. Kirch-und Schulenstaat, C. xxvi.s.591,seqq. We have already observed, that the shorter the prayer opposed by the Saviour to batto- loyy, the richer did it require to be in substance. We may hence concede what has been received in the church, that all Christian supplications must be re- ducible to this one. As Chrysostom says, it is the μέτρον of the Christian’s prayers; and as Euthymius finely expresses it, παραδίδωσι τύπον εὐχῆς, οὐχ, ἵνα ταύτην μόνην τὴν εὐχὴν εὐχώμενα, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα, ταύτην ἔχον- τες πηγὴν εὐχῆς, ἐκ ταύτης ἀρυώμεγα τὼς ἐννοίας τῶν εὐ- xa. In fine, Cyprian: Qualia sunt orationis domi- nicae sacramenta, quam multa, quam magna, breviter in sermone collecta, sed in virtute spiritualiter copi- osa, ut nihil omnino praetermissum sit, quod non in precibus atque orationibus nostris coelestis doctrinae compendio comprehendatur. The Socinians were dis- satisfied with this assertion, but only because they took up the idea too outwardly. Volckel, however, De vera religione, 1. IV. c. 9, forms an exception. We have only farther cursorily to notice, two hypotheses upon the design of the prayer, which may pass for antiquated. One of them is Pfannkuche’s opinion in Eichhorn’s allgem. Bibl. der bibl. Litt. Bd. x. s. 846, that Christ meant it to serve for a sym- bol of faith to his disciples, and the other the highly absurd view of Moller, broached first in Augusti’s Theolog. Monatschrift, and then in the CHAP. Vi. - VERSES 9--- 18. 141 book, Neue Ansichten schwieriger Stellen der vier Evangelisten, Gotha 1819, s. 39, that each several petition was the beginning of a Jewish prayer, and that Jesus’ only intention was, by instancing the most serviceable of the prayers in use among the nation, to give his disciples an interim prayer, until the time when, by the Spirit, they should be taught to pray. It is remarkable that Augusti should have thought of de- fending in the Denkwiirdigkeiten, Th. IV. 132, V. 93, this view of his old friend. Against Pfannkuche, Nésselt, in particular, takes arms in the Exerc. 3. SOURCES OF THE PRAYER. It appears somewhat strange to speak of the sources of a prayer dictated by the Saviour to his disciples, inasmuch as a personage like Christ has no need to search beyond the inexhaustible fountain of his own being, for materials, especially for a prayer. If all that is meant, however, merely is, that to serve for clothing the suggestions of his own mind, the Saviour found some kind of form already extant, and proceeded to make use of it, there is nothing to ob- ject. In this way, the entire Old Testament mode of delineation became a form to him. For the good of others too, the Saviour might have deigned to make use of foreign sources. Let us now try the different opinions that have been broached upon the subject. Itisnot to the fifteenth century, when Pico von Miran- dola described Plato and Pythagoras as deriving their 149 CHAP. VI. VERSES 9—13. wisdom from the Pentateuch, but to the century in which we now live, that the bizarre hypothesis of Christ having borrowed a large portion of his religion, and, among other things, the Lord’s Prayer, from the Zendavesta, belongs. This view, broached by Herder, Erlaut. des N. T. aus einer neueroffn. Urkunde, Riga 1775, by J. A.C. Richter, Das Christenthum und die altesten Relgionen des Orients, Leipz. 1819, by Rhode, Die heilige Sage der alten Bactrer 1820, and by Seyffarth, Beitrag zur Specialcharakteris- tik der Johanneischen schriften, Leipz. 1823, is ex- pressed most boldly by Rhode, p. 416, where it is said, “ In truth we may call Christ’s prayer a short eatract from the prayers of the Zend writings, and for every petition, several almost verbally equivalent parallels are to be found. But what is the proof of this in fact monstrous assertion? A single passage from the Zendavesta, B. 1. Th. 2. 5. 89, which is supposed to resemble the fifth petition, but of which similarity there is not the slightest trace. A refutation of the groundless hypothesis is to be found in the dissertation by Gebser, De explica- tione script. sacr. praesertim N. T. e libro Zenda- vesta, len. 1824, and in his treatise De oratione do- minica, p. 19. On the other hand, there can be nothing startling in the assertion, that the Saviour borrowed the peti- tions of this prayer from prayers used by his country- men at the time, provided always that we do not reckon the cause of this to have been any poverty of intellect on his part, but hold what Olshausen, p. 223, says, ‘ Every element of truth and beauty which CHAP. VI. VERSES 9—13. 143 the civilization of the country offered, always ope- rated in exciting his inward resources. He even reproduced the materials of tradition in fresh youth- fulness, from the creative life-power inherent in him- self’ The collections of prayers, which the Jews make use of under the name tm, contain many excellent ones, borrowed both in thought and ex- pression from the Old Testament. Supposing such prayers to have existed in those days, why should not the Saviour, in order to nurture his disciples in the good which they already possessed, have delivered the best petitions they contained, worked up in his mind to a beautiful whole? So far from a believer taking offence at this, the circumstance would sug~ gest a still deeper reflection, such as is expressed by Grotius: tam longe abfuit Dominus ab omni affecta- tione non necessariae novitatis. Could it pessibly scandalize any one, for the Saviour, who had experi- mentally imbibed so much of the spirit of the Old Testament, as that even upon the cross, Matt. xxvii. 46, he expresses his inmost feelings in the words of the Psalms, to have delivered an entire prayer in the same? Does not the Christian church of the present day, express her devotion largely in the language of the Old Testament? There could therefore be no- thing offensive in that supposition. The supposition, however, must nevertheless be rejected, and rejected on the ground that the agreement which has been asserted between this prayer and prayers of the Rab- bins, is wholly null. This has been already perceived by Kuinol, Fritzsche, Henneberg, Gebser, Olshausen, so that one might look upon the opinion as almost an- 146 CHAP. V1. VERSES 9—13. make us to follow thy commandments, lead us not into the hand of sin, nor into the hand of transgres- sion, nor into the hand of temptation, nor into con- tempt. Remove us far from the bent to evil, (9x ro), unite us with the bent to good.” It needs no further proof that allusions of this kind by no means suffice to demonstrate a causal connection betwixt the Rabbinical prayers and that of our Lord. Over and above, however, we have to take into account the important circumstance, that those apparently " similar expressions have been collected together from the most heterogeneous writings. Some of them occurring in the Talmud and the book Sohar, in his- torical narration, others in moral treatises, and, in fine, others in collections of prayers. Those of greatest similarity are to be found in ἃ ὙΣΥΤΊΩ, 2. e. a collec- tion of prayers of the Portuguese Jews, and in the D179 "DD, so much used by Drusius, whose author is a R. Jehuda Klatz. Now the Portuguese collec- tion most certainly does not reach beyond the middle ages, and as for R. Jehuda Klatz, he lived, it ap- pears, at the end of the fifteenth (! ) century. What sort of an inference can be drawn from the prayers of this R. Jehuda Klatz, and of the Portuguese Jews in Amsterdam, with regard to the prayers in use- among the Jews at the time of Jesus ? We have still an original view to notice, first broached by Knorr von Rosenroth, and which has * Wolf does not give the age he lived in. Even the Ger- man sound of his name shews that he belongs to modern times. But in De Rossi, Dizzionario storico degli autori Ebrei, Parma 1802. I. p. 89, we read that his work Sefer Musar came out as an opus posthumuim, 1537, in Constantinople. CHAP. VI. VERSES 9—13. 147 gained the approval of several persons of note. This pious statesman, profoundly initiated into Jewish mysticism, and known as a writer of hymns, brings forward, in the third part of his Apparatus in libr. Sohar. pref. § 2, the opinion, that the petitions in the Lord’s prayer represent the series of the cabalistical emanation, according to the four worlds, mundus Azilu- ticus, Beriathicus, Jeziraticus, and Asia, and in this ob- tained the assent of several of the learned, among others, of the great and judicious Buddeus. There arose upon this subject an animated controversy, the opposite view being maintained, particularly by Gottlob Wernsdorfin his Vindiciis orationis domin. Vit. 1708, and in the disputation held under the presidency of Joh. Andr. Schmid by Schrader.: Orat. dominica historice et dogmatice proposita, praecipue autem Judaismo opposita. Helm. 1710. 4, CONTENTS OF THE PRAYER AND TRAIN OF IDBAS. On the richness of its contents, Tertullian, in his day, expresses himself with great force, De orat. c. 1: Brevitas ista...... magnae ac beatae interpretatio- nis substantia fulta est, quantumque substringitur verbis, tantum diffunditur sensibus, neque enim pro- pria tantum orationis officia complexa est, venera- tionem dei, aut hominis petitionem, sed omnem paene sermonem Domini, omnem commemorationem dis- ciplinae, ut revera in oratione breviarium totius Even- gelii comprehendatur. This depth of import, how- ever, will only be rightly apprehended, on the sup- ᾽ 144 CHAP. VI. VERSES 9. 1 tiquated. During the whole of last century, and down to the present day, however, it met with such univer- sal acquiescence, that we must enter upon the matter somewhat more in detail. Nay, but very recently, a clergyman expressed in a journal an anxious request for information whether Christ really borrowed his prayer from the Rabbins, in which ease, he confess- ed that he would no longer be able to say it with devo- tion. The parallels, as they have been called, from the writings of the Rabbins, are to be found in the Annot. upon the Lord’s Prayer, by Drusius, Grotius, Cappellus, Lightfoot, Schéttgen, Wetstein and Vi- tringa de syn. vet. p. 962, in the treatise of Witsius above referred to, and in fine, in a treatise on the particular subject by Surenhusius in the Syll. dissert. Ρ. 91, which Chamberlayne printed along with the edition of his collection of Lord’s Prayers.2. Now, on a comparison of all these so called parallel passa- ges, it appears that a proper similarity subsists solely in regard to the preface and the two first petitions. For instance, in several Jewish prayers, God is even to this day addressed, “ Our Father in heaven”: There occurs, too, in several more modern pray- ers, ‘ Let thy name be hallowed by our works,” or “ Let thy name be hallowed and thy memorial ex- 4 That very uncritical work too, Die geheime Lehre der al- ten Orientaler und Juden zur innern und héhern Bibelerk- larung aus Rabinern (Rabbinen) und der ganzen alten Li- teratur von einem grossen Philologen des Auslandes (the Swede Hallenberg), Rostock 1805, which made so much noise on its first appearance, commences its disclosures with the pre- tended demonstration of the Lord’s Prayer being contained in the writings of the Rabbins. CHAP. VI. VERSES 9—13, 145 alted.” In fine, prayer is often made “ that the Messiah’s kingdom, the kingdom of God, and the re- demption of Israel might come.” Now that the Sa- viour did not need to borrow the appellation Father, from a Jewish prayer, is a point on which no doubt can obtain, even were there no other ground, than that in the Old Testament, as well as among the la- ter Jews, God is as seldom called Father, and as fre- quently called King, as in the New, the name Father is the regular, and that of King the rare one. With respect, moreover, to the phrase Jaw wipn’ tasan we will see in ver. 10, that it too occurs so often in the Old Testament, that Christ assuredly did not re- quire to borrow it from the Rabbins. The petition, again, for the coming of the paw nian, belongs so entirely to the Old and New ‘Testaments, that, agreeably to Christian phraseology, he could not have spoken otherwise. With this, the actual pa- rallels are properly exhausted. Τὸ the ¢hzrd peti- tion, the only parallel. to be found, consists in the words, “ Let thy name be hallowed in this world, as it is hallowed in heaven,” and “ The Israelites are angels upon earth, the angels hallow the name of God in heaven, the Israelites upon earth.” As a parallel to the fourth petition, the passage from the Tr. Bera- choth is quoted, “‘ The wants of thy people are many ; May it please thee, O God! to give to each of them as much as is necessary for his nourishment, and to every nation what they need.” For the jifth peti- tion, there is wanting even the semblance of a paral- lel. To answer the sixth, the following is quoted from a Jewish morning prayer, “ O Lord, our God, VOL. 11. L 148 CHAP. V1. VERSES 9—13. position of the correctness of the hermeneutical rule, delivered vol. i. p. 139. 183. 200, to wit, that in ex- pounding the words of Christ, we have not merely to take into account the sense in which his hearers at the time understood them, but rather try to find that which he himself connected with them. If we suppose, therefore, that, having foretold to his disciples, the fu- ture’coming of the Spirit to make them perfect, he was aware of what was one day to be the spiritual life of the church, then must the prayer delivered for the use of his church in all following ages, be likewise such a one, as cannot be rightly prayed and rightly understood, except from the finished state of spiritual attainment. In other words: This prayer acquires its full signifi- cance in the mouth of the regenerated Christian alone. He only can, in the full sense of the term, call God Father. He only can, with right understanding, pray for the coming of the kingdom of God. He only can ask, ““ Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” This is a principle which we shall have to hold fast throughout the whole exposition, and it is the sole point of view from which the import of the prayer becomes perspicuous, _ If then the prayer be really rich in matter, we shall also be certain to find in ita train of ideas. . Nei-. ther will there be any tautology, as so many imagin- ed was the case with the three first petitions; For there can be no. doubt of the truth of Calov’s obser- vation, That in this prayer, which was opposed to tautologies, tautologies are least of all to be expected. And if there be a train of ideas, this will evince it- self likewise by an external arrangement, such as CHAP. VI. VERSES 9—13. 149 even the superficial observer remarks in the thrice- repeated σύ of the three first petitions, and in the fourfold ἡμεῖς of the three or four last. No doubt we must beware of underlaying with logical schemes, according to the forms of the school, the discourses of the Lord and his Apostles. In the language of God to mankind, sounding from the kingdom of grace, equally with that which addresses us from the kingdom of nature, an order of a loftier kind than the formally lo- gical prevails. Just at the point where the square of our logic will no longer fit, commence the confines of a higherrealm. The discourses of men of God do not need to be dressed into French gardens by the scholastic shears of a Lampe and a Baumgarten, in or- der to acquire order and connection. They are like an English park, where grove and meadow variously al- ternate, but where, through all the seeming confu- sion, the law of beauty and order of a higher sort is yet maintained. It would, however, be running into ex- tremes on the opposite side, were we to discard every proof of a strict logical arrangement. There are in- stances in which the formally logical disposition of bo- dies is the essential logic of the mind, and this is quite peculiarly the case with triplicity. It was not the effect of a meaningless schematismus, that the philo- sophy of the ancients was subdivided into Dialectics, Physics and Ethies, or the Christian’ doctrine into Theology, Anthropology and Soterology. In the same way, there results a logical plan for the Lord’s prayer, founded necessarily in the nature of prayer and of Christian faith. The prayer contains a sacred heptad of petitions, which separate into two halves. (See, as to the number six which the Reformed, and 150 CHAP. VI. VERSES 9_ 1% the number seven, which the Lutheran Church, sup- poses, what is said, v. 13, on the seventh petition.) The first expresses God’s relation towards us, the latter our relation towards God. The three opening petitions unfold gradually one thought: 1. God must be acknowledged to be what he is; 2. Then does he reign over man; 3. Thereby will the earth be at last glorified into the kingdom of heaven. In like manner, the four last petitions contain a progres- sion which runs parallel. Supplication begins with what is inferior, entreating first for earthly necessaries, and then for spiritual blessings: 1. for the removal of past guilt; 2. for protection from guilt to come; 3. for final deliverance from all sin and evil. Here- upon is appended an epilogue, belonging indeed to a la- ter period, but exceedingly well suited to the placeit oc- cupies, and which once moreinatriad, states the grounds of the Christian’s assurance of faith. This train of ideas is set forth, still more strictly arranged, in the following scheme by Dr. Weber, in the program of 1828, to which we have referred. Πρόλογος. τς Δύγος. ᾿Επίλογος. εὐχαΐ. αἰτήματα. 1) πάτερ. [1) ἁγιασθήτω 1) τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν «.}1} ὅτι σοῦ φὸ Ὀνομοί oov.| ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμνν]} ἐστιν ἡ βα- σήμερον. σιλεία.. 2) ἡμῶν. 12) ἐλθέτω 7/2) καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ [2) σοῦ ἐστιν βασιλεία σου.] ὀφειλήματα κτλ. ἡ δύναμις. 3) ὁ ἐν τοῖς] 9) γενηθήτω 3) καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς 8) σοῦ ἐστιν οὐρανοῖς. | τὸ ϑελημά! ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμὸν! ἡ δόξα. σου “TA, κτλ. =F ἃ Bengel: Tres reliquae rogationes spectant vitae spiritualis in mundo initium, progressum, exitum, rogantesque confiten- CHAP. VI. VERSES 9—18. 15] The first εὐχή and the first οὔτημα Dr. Weber re- fers to theology, the second εὐχή and αὔτημα to Christology, the third εὐχή, with the third αὔτημα, to pneumatology, or angelology and demonology. It is more correct tosay, thatthe disposition of these petitions is founded in the economy of Father, Son and Spirit, which economy here, as is also often the case else- where, appears as the deeper basis of our logical or- der of the Triad. The acknowledgment of the nutue of the Godhead as holy, relates mainly to the Father, as the ἀρχή. His retgn in mankind is carried on through the mediation of the Son. It attains its completion through the Spirit, in which the Father and Son preside in the Church, so that the divine will 15. executed upon earth as itis in heaven. In the same way, the support of the bodily existence relates to the opus creationis et conservationis, consequently, chiefly to the economy of the Father, the doing away of the guilt of sin, to the economy of the Son, protec- tion from the power of temptation, and ultimate sub- jective redemption from evil, to the economy of the Spirit. According to this, and especially after reflecting for one’s self on the several petitions, we shall know what to think of the following remarkable judgments passed by Joh. Chr. Fr. Schulz in his Anmerk. zu. Mich. Uebers., and by Moller 5. 47. The former theo- logian is of opinion that « The want of all cohe- rence and all natural connection between the seve- tur non solum de sua indigentia, sed etiam de reatu, periculo et angustiis. Quum haec amota sunt, Deus est illis omnia in omnibus, per rogationes tres primas. Compare Augustine and Calvin. 152 CHAP. VI. VERSES 9—13. ral petitions, which could scarcely be excused in a supplicant praying with the most unbridled fancy, far less in one so reflective and considerate, as Jesus doubtless requires, makes it impossible to suppose that the prayer forms a connected whole.”* And Moller, “ In short, the moment we regard the prayer as connected, we perceive in it so many de- fects, that one does not understand, why Jesus did not deliver something more perfect (!!)” We have still one question to discuss. Are the three first petitions really petitions? It might be urged, that they refer to the cause of God, and that we cannot properly be said to pray for God’s cause, but only that we long for the accomplishment of what is contained in these three clauses. Dr. Weber accord- ingly calls them, as had been before done by Grotius, pia vota. In substance, however, this comes to the same thing, for, with the Christian, every desire be- comes prayer. Besides, it would be a superficial view to say, that we here pray for God’s cause and not for our own. Much more is the glorifying of God in mankind, the glorifying at the same time of mankind in God, and consequently likewise a proper subject of supplication to us. Many of the exposi- * Schulz supposes that the prayer is to be taken up as fol- lows :—“‘ When you want to make a prayer of adoration to the Father of universal nature, thus speak, O thou, who art our Father, and the Father of all thy creatures, highly exalted, let thy praise be our continual employment.” 2. ‘ Or when you wish to pray for the acceleration of the commencement of my religion, speak . . . ” 3. “Or when you wish to pray to God for the utmost happiness of mankind, consisting in the willing observance of his precepts, say . . . ” CHAP. VI. VERSE 9. 153 tors, however, have considered at least the first petition to be merely a votum, or as they termed it, a doxolo- gy=cdr0ynris 6 Θεός, so Pricaeus, Olearius, Wetstein, Michaelis. The nature of the doxology, as we find it among the Jews and Mahometans, consists in this, that as often as with heartfelt emotion, they name the name of God, a “ blessed be it,” or ‘* hallowed be it,” is subjoined. Now, if the ayiao3jz7w here were not petition, but merely something appended to the men- tion of God, we should expect the relative or the par- ticiple to be used, as it is, Rom. i. 25, or Rom. ix. 5. Standing in the way it does, we must necessarily re- gard it as supplication ; the more so, that it complete- ly fits into the train of thought, whereas in so short a prayer, a mere doxology would seem to be out of place. V.9. Tue InvocaTion.—Here, at the very out- set, we must keep in mind the remark made at p. 148. Although among the Heathen and Jews the paternal name of God was the rarer, and δεσπότης and βασιλεύς the more common, the former is still not wholly | awanting. Among the Persians, Mithras bore the name of Father; See Julian, Caesares p- 336. ed. Spank. Jupiter is a composition of Diovis—Deus und Pater. The πατὴρ Θεῶν τε ὠνδρῶν τε from Homer is familiar, as also the Hellenistic triad, Zed τε πάτερ καὶ ᾿Αϑηναΐη καὶ "Απολλον, as, 6. g. Od. IV. ν. 841. According to the celebrated passage in Plato’s Tim- aeus, where the Deity is spoken of as the πατὴρ xai ποιητὴς τοῦ κόσμου, it became particularly current among the new Platonists, who also lay special stress upon the fact, that the Deity is pre-eminently 154 CHAP. VI. VERSE 9. the Father of the good. Plutarch Vita Alex. e. 27. What the heathen put into the predicate πσασήρ is stated Diod. Sie. bibl. V.c. 72, &c.: πατέρω δὲ (αὐτὸν προσαγορευλῆνοι) διὰ THY φροντίδα καὶ τὴν εὔνοιαν THY εἰς ἅπαντας, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὸ δοκεῖν ὥσπερ ἀρχηγὸν εἶναι τοῦ γένους τῶν ἀνδωρώπων. 80 ἴοο does Plutarch, De superstit. 6. 6, put the πατρικόν in opposition to the τυραννικόν, and say that the δεισιδαΐμνων knows the latter only in the Deity. It is true, that all the Gentile was acquainted with was man’s original descent by nature from the Divine Being. This of itself, however, involved the basis of a filial re- lationship on the part of man to God, and of a pater- nal love on God’s part to man, as has been expressed above, 6. v. 45; Acts xiv. 17, xvii. 28; So that it was not mere delusion when the Heathen, in the all- disposing Deity, recognized and marked not merely the ruling, but also the paternal, power. This name acquired still greater truth in the mouth of the Is- raelite, who enjoyed manifestations of the mercy of his God, of a kind so distinguished, that he could exclaim in the language of Ps. cxlvii. 19, 20. The paternal name is to be found in the Old Test. Deut. xxxii. 6. Is. Ixiii, 16. Jer. iii. 4, 19.. Mal i. 6. Wisd. xiv. 3... Sir... xxii» 1» That for ἃ Hebrew too, the idea of defence and pro- tection was what chiefly lay in the appellation, may be inferred from such passages as Ps. Ixviii. 6. Is. ix. 6. It acquires its deepest sense in the case of the Christian, by the birth which is from God. To be- come in this respect children of God, is an ἐξουσία they have first obtained through him who is God’s child, in the absolute sense, John i. 12. Compare CHAP. VI. VERSE 9. 155 vol. i. 146; supra, p. 44, which is acknowledged by the large majority of ancient expositors ;# and which even the philologist Camerarius expressly brings for- ward. Just then as in regard to the paternal relation among men, the watchful and nurturing care of the father is based upon the procreation of the son from his substance, so is it in the paternal relationship of God to man. God is in Scripture styled the author of that relationship. He is Father in the highest sense, Eph. iii. 15. Matt. xxiii. 9. All therefore in the human father that belongs to the paternal idea, will be found again in the relation of the heavenly Father to his human offspring, and this in the highest degree, whereas a human father only corresponds im- perfectly with the type, as is implied in ὁ. vii. 11. While recent interpreters and doctrinalists allow the appellation of God as the Father of men, to be only an improper metonymical figure of speech, ancient writers of the Church express themselves more pro~ foundly, and more consistently with scripture, when, on the contrary, they give the name to all earthly fa- thers only in the zmproper sense, and to God alone in the proper. Basilius adv. Eunom. |. II. ο. 23, op. T. I. 259: ὥστε πατὴρ ἡμῶν ὁ Θεὸς ob κατωχρηστικῶς, οὐδ᾽ ἐκ μεταφορᾶς, ἀλλὰ κυρίως καὶ πρώτως καὶ ἀληδϑινῶς Gvo- μάζεται, διὼ τῶν σωμωτικῶν γονέων εἰς τὸ εἶνωι ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ * Cyprian: Homo novus, renatus, et Deo suo per ejus gratiam restitutus pater dicit, quia filius esse jam coepit.— Quod nomen nemo nostrum in oratione auderet attingere, nisi ipse nobis sic permisisset orare. Origen : εἰκὼν οὖν εἰκόνος οἱ ἅγιοι 4 ~ ~ TUYKAVOVTES, τῆς εἰκόνος οὔσης υἱοῦ, ἀπομάττονται υἱότητα. 156 CHAP. VI. VERSE 9. μὴ ὄντος πωραγαγὼν, καὶ ταῖς κηδεμονίαις προσοικειούμενος. Even so Damascenus, De orthod. fid. |. I. ο. 18. Here, at the very outset, as is the case through the whole prayer, the suppliant uses ἡμῶν. The Christ- ian is the member of a body, and therefore the indivi- dual feels the necessities of the whole, just as he is to partake its exaltation, when the whole shall be glori- fied, 1 Cor. xii. 26. In virtue of this bond of mem- bership, the disciple of Christ supplicates in behalf of all, what he supplicates for himself; in fact, the kingdom of God in its perfection, can only come to him, in as far as it, at the same time, comes to all. ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. The paternal name had awakened confidence, 1 John iii. 1. Rom. viii. 15. Ps. ciii. 13, as Luther says in his Kleiner catechismus: “ God means thereby to lure us into believing that he is our true Father, and we his true children.” But the mind of the suppliant must not stop short at the earthly pattern of what a Father is; He is bound to worship God 27 spirit and in truth, and hence it is said, Our Father, which art in heaven. The Heidelberg Catechism replies to the question, Why is this added ? “ In order that there may not be anything earthly in our conception of the heavenly majesty of God.” To make the pure, the silent, the changeless, the immea- surable ether, exalted as it is above all the pollution and troubles, the mutability and limitations of this earth, thedwelling place of the Divine being, belongs to those spontaneous symbols, which have a foundation in the consciousness of all mankind. Aristotle thus speaks in that remarkable passage, De coelo 1. I. c. 3: πάντες CHAP. VI. VERSE 9. 157 γὰρ ἄνϑρωποι περὶ Sediv ἔχουσι ὑπόληψιν, καὶ πάντες τὸν ἀνωτάτω τῷ δείῳ τόπον ἀποδιδόασι, καὶ βάρβαροι καὶ “Ἕλληνες, ὅσοιπερ εἶναι νομίζουσι Seovs, δηλονότι, ὡς τῷ ἀϑανάτῳ τὸ ἀδγάνατον συνηρτημένον. Compare the book ascribed to this philosoper, De Mundo, ec, 2, and c. 6. As the Greek said of his Jupiter, Ζεὺς ὑπέρτατα δώμα- σὰ ναΐων, so the great majority of heathen nations, both in ancient and modern times. In the Old Test. like- wise, the heaven is designated as God's seat, but even this designation is again nullified, as being symboli- cal, inasmuch as, on the other hand, the omnipresence of God, and his elevation above all space, are spoken of in the strongest and most exalted expressions, | Kings viii. 27.. 2 Chron. ii. 6. Ps. exxxix. 7. Jer. xxiii. 23. The impious only say, Job xxii. 13, 14, « How doth God know? Can he judge through the dark cloud? Thick clouds are a covering to him that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven.” Sometimes the symbolical character of the expression, «¢ Jehovah in heaven,” evinces itself quite manifestly, as when, Is. Ixvi., it is said, ““ The heaven is his throne, and the earth his footstool,” which nobody will take in the literal sense. That the predicate intimates exaltedness and superioity to all earthly relations, is likewise apparent from Ps. ii. 4; cili. 19; cxiil. 4, 5; -exy. 3. De Wette bibl. Dogm. ὃ 99, quite correctly : calls these expressions znstinctively symbolical. It is only to be wished that he himself, and other modern expositors of the Old Test., had not lost sight of this. They would, in that case, have abstained from so often charging the Scriptures with carnal conceptions, suchas might perhaps have been entertained by some fleshly- 158 CHAP. VI. VERSE 9. minded individuals among the people, but to which the more enlightened were far superior. Since then, the symbolical character of the designation is not to be mistaken, even in the Old Test., how much less may this be done, in the discourse of Christ, according to whose saying, his Father isa spirit. Christianity hav- ing retained the symbolical language of the Old Test., we shall just have to inquire what it was designed to express. There is first the purity of the divine being, Job xv. 15, God dwelleth in light, 1 Tim. vi. 16, then his immensity, Ps. cxili. 4; xxxvi. 5, then his loftiness and immutability, Ps. xi. 4; ciii. 11. Is. lv. 9. In this meaning the phrase is also understood by the fathers. See Suicer, Thes. ii. 523. Many of them, however, bring forward in preference another signification, which is likewise not excluded. Heaven, as v. 10 also expresses, is the seat of the sinless and blessed spirits; Compare in the Old Test. Gen. xxviii. 12. It is in these spirits that the fulness of God chiefly resides, and hence it is said that he dwells among them. Damascenus De orth. fid. 1. 1. ο. 16; λέγεται τύπος Θεοῦ, eve ἔχδηλος ἡ ἐνέργειω αὑτοῦ γίνεται. So, at the present passage, Origen, Theodoret, Chry- sostom and Augustine. On the necessity of avoiding, in the conception of the phrase, all limitation in regard to space, Origen and Augustine, the pillars of the eastern and west- ern Churches, both speak with particular emphasis. The latter says, ep. 57, ad Dard.: Si enim populus Dei, nondum factus aequalis angelis ejus, adhuc in ista-peregrinatione dicitur templum ejus, quanto ma- gis est templum ejus in coelis, ubi est populus angelo- CHAP. VI. VERSE 9. 159 rum, quibus aggregandi et coaequandi sumus, cum finita peregrinatione, quod promissum est sumpseri- mus. In elucidating our passage, Augustine observes : « Were any one to place God locally in the heaven, then might the birds be envied, for they would be near- er to him than men. The expression is rather symbo- lical, just as in prayer we ourselves turned towards the east, in order that, by the very turning of the body to something superior, we might become more aware of the spirit turning to the Supreme: convenit enim gradibus religionis et plurimum expedit, ut omnium sensibus et parvulorum et magnorum bene sentiatur de Deo. Here, however, heaven properly designates the corda justorum.” After having heard several voices of antiquity up- on the rich import of the invocation of the Lord’s prayer, we shall now hear what the most recent ex- positors have to say upon the subject. In Kuinol we read, πατὴρ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς sc. wy, Deus optime, maxime, potentissime et benignissime. In Meyer, ‘‘ Most exalted and omnipresent Father, an address in prayer very frequent among the Jews, and opposed to the idolatry of the heathen ;” just as if somebody from the Jewish people, no matter who, were here speaking, and not the only begotten Son of God, he who was in the bosom of the Father, and who, when he made use of the language of those he appeared amidst, knew well how to attach to it a different - sense from that in which it was understood by this or that individual of the Jewish nation. And can this be all that these interpreters have to tell us! ᾿Αγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά cov. The elucidation of this 160 CHAP. VI. VERSE 9. petition depends chiefly upon the narrower or more comprehensive sense we give to the ὄνομα. We may understand it as restricted in its meaning to ἡ the proper name of God, i. 6. Jehovah, or, according to the larger use of the word, we may regard it as the designation of the Divine Being, after those attributes which are ascribed to him iz the conception of man, taking it up in the way 15>} is used.. Even Origen: ὄνομα τοίνυν ἐστὶ κεφαλαιώδης προσηγορία, τῆς ἰδίας ποιό- TNTOS τοῦ ὀνομαζομένου παραστατική.8 ᾿Αγιάζειν answers the Hebrew wipn and wp and imports primarily to make that which is unholy, holy, afterwards ¢o treat or regard as holy that which is holy ; it is then tantamount to, fo honour, Numb. xx. - 12. Deut. xxxii. 51... Ex. xx. 8. Lev. xxi. 8. The transitive meaning of intransitive verbs is often that of treating. So bbp to be light, bbp to treat disre- spectfully, \) to be weighty, splendid, V5 to treat honourably. So likewise ἁγιάζειν in the N. Test., 1 Pet. iii. 15, in the Apochr. Sir. xxxiii. 4, and in the Ecclesiastical Fathers, 6. g. Chrysostom Hom. in Ps. CXiil., ὥσπερ ἄγγελοι τὸν Θεὸν ἁγιά ζουσι πονηρίας μὲνπάσης ἀπηλλαγμένοι, ἀρετὴν δὲ μετιόντες μετὰ ἀκριβείας" οὕτω δὴ καταξιωδ)είημεν καὶ ἡμεῖς αὐτὸν ἁγιάζειν» Accord- ing to this, the sense of ἁγιάζειν would answer to that of δοξάζειν ; thus there cccurs side by side, τὸ ὄνομ τοῦ ἃ ὄνομα is a compendious denomination, exhibitive of the pro- per quality of the person’s name. > As the angels’ sanctify God by being delivered from all _ wickedness, and punctually following virtue, let us also be deemed worthy so to sanctify him. : CHAP. VI. VERSE 9. 161. ϑροῦ τὸ ἅγιον καὶ ἔνδοξον (Tob. viii. 5.) We also find together, Sirach xxxvi. 9, ἀνύψωσε and ἡγίασε. In the Old Test., Lev. x. 8, 139 Ν and wspx stand beside each other. So likewise, Ez. xxviii. 22; xxxviil. 99. In the Jewish prayers we find side by side wipn’ / ys ow Stam and aXBMy ΤΊΣ wpm qow, from which forms it is that the highly esteemed Chaldaic prayer wip has its name.? In the Semitic dialects, and even in the later Greek, ἁγιάζειν has hence ac- quired the meaning of εὐλογεῖ. Among the Rabins, wip is equivalent to mo 12. In the Athiopic, the doxology is called by a term from the same root. In the Arabic, ue sd23 takdis, is the technical name for praising God, Reland De rel. Muh. p. 149. In the language of the later Greek church, the forms were usually ἁγιάζειν τὸ ποτήριον = εὐλογεῖ, and ἁγιασμὸς μέγας was the designation for the benediction of the water. See Du Cange Gloss. Graec. med. s. h. v. At this passage it is at once taken as synonymous with δοξάζειν by Chrysostom and Theodoret, Op. T. II. p. 349, on Is. xlviii. 7, τὸ ἁγιάσατε ἀντὶ τοῦ ὑμνή- Cure τέλεικεν. οὕτω γὰρ καὶ προσευχόμενοι λέγομεν, ἅγια- σγήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου ἀντὶ τοῦ δοξασγήτω. Origen expounds ἁγιάζειν by ὑψοῦν. ΤΠ then we take the ὄνομα beside it, in the narrower sense, the petition would express the desire that the name of God may be uttered with reverence, and hence never unnecessarily taken into the lips, never abused. Were we, however, to put this restriction * Compare Capellus, Schéttgen, Wetstein on this passage, and Vitringa de Synag. Vet. ΠῚ. 2, 8 ¥OL. Us | M 162 CHAP. VI. VERSE 9. upon the petition, the narrowness of the meaning would form too strong a contrast with the wide com- prehensiveness of the rest. We have to add that " even the Hebraic and Rabbinical phrase* sow wpm has not merely the narrow sense, “ to utter the divine name with reverence,” but rather “ to regard God as holy in all the relations he bears.” Is. xxix. 99, Ezech. xxxvi. 23. Comp. Is. lii. 5. Rom. ii. 24. 1 Tim. vi. 1. Just as little in the N. Test. can δοξάζειν and φωανεροῦν τὸ ὄνομα τ. ϑεοῦ, be taken in so narrow a sense. John xii. 28; xvii. 1, 4,6. Rev. xv. 4. We shall accordingly regard ὄνομω as a pe- Tiphrasis, in which case, however, the proper name itself is also included. “ Let all that is compre- hended in the name of God, God in every aspect of his character, be held’sacred !” This hallowing, more- over, is twofold; one, the recognition of God as the being he is, the other, submission to his governance, as a necessary consequence of such recognition, whenever it is genuine. Properly speaking, too, the construction we mentioned first, when it does not take all too superficial a form, reverts to this, fora serious dread of abusing the divine name with the lips, when it is not a mere external opus operatum, must be based upon reverence of the heart towards God. This is also expressed by Calvin’s exposition, which rather inclines to the first construction. Sanc- tificari Dei nomen nihil aliud est, quam suum Deo habere honorem, quo dignus est, ut nunquam de ipso loquantur vel cogitent homines sine summa ye- neratione. | As for the history of the exposition, we are able in this, as well as the subsequent petition, to give a CHAP. VI. VERSE 9. 163 gradation of expositions, according as interpreters have assigned greater or less comprehensiveness to the words. It is rendered least comprehensive by those who make the scope of the petition to be, that the divine name must not be abused, but always uftered with reverence. Such is almost the way in which it is taken, by the authors who regard the clause as a species of doxology, Priczus, Olearius, Wetstein, Michaelis. The comprehensiveness is en- larged by those, who make the hallowing consist ge- nerally, either in praising, acknowledging and glori- fying God by words, as is done by Socinus, Episcopius and Piscator, or in the acknowledging and glorifying of God in the heart and walk, from which also results the acknowledgment and glorifying of him through others, (ch. v. 16.), so Chrysostom, Euthymius, Jerome, Au- gustine, Beza. The compass of the petition is largest when the glorifying in word and the glorifying in work are united, as is doze by Luther, who says, “ This is doubtless a brief word, but in sense it goes far and wide as the world, against all false doctrine and liv- ing ;” and in the grosser Katechismus, “ Now this is ‘somewhat dark, and not good German, for in our mo- ther tongue we should say ‘ Heavenly Father, Help us, that thy name alone may be holy. How then is it made holy amongst us ?—Answer. Clearly, as we may say, when both our life and doctrine are Chris- tian.” So too Zwingli, and like him the Heidelberg catechism. Calov: Fit sanctificatio nominis diyini tripliciter, 1. δογματικῶς per sanam doctrinam; 2. ἐνεργητικῶς per sanctam vitam ; 3. παϑητικῶς per pas- siones ob evangelii confessionem toleratas. With the ᾿ 164 CHAP. V1. VERSE LO. purpose of better separating the second petition from the first, Coeceius takes! quite an original view. Dei nomen sanctificatur, 1. per obedientiam servatoris ; 2. per verbum evangelii, quo Christi justitia et Dei sanctitas manifestatur. V.10. The beginning of the divine work in and upon us is the acknowledgment and veneration of God. The form in which, and at the same time the medium by which, this is brought about, is the king- dom of God once prefigured in Israel, and now in Christ substantially introduced, and through him ad- vancing with the course of time, to ever greater com- pleteness. Such is the connection of this petition with the foregoing, and such with this, the connec- tion of the third which follows, and which specifies the final issue, consisting in the reconciliation of all dis- cord, and the perfect oneness of the creature with the will of the Creator. In this way these three petitions present us with a beginning, middle and end. In order to understand the petition before us, we must take up afresh what was said, ec. v. 3, in deve- loping the idea βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ. Agreeably with that, the import will come out as follows: ‘ May the holy community of God’s obedient children, which, in the person of Christ the Son of God, has had its first beginning, be ever more and more established, both in the general body, and in in- dividuals of mankind, through the progressive tri+ umph of Christ’s redeeming power over all opposing foes, and go on to be unfolded until that point of final issue, at which God will be all in all.” 1 Cor. xv. 28. ¥ CHAP. VI. VERSE 10. 165 ~The history of the exposition here also exhibits a scale of less or more comprehensive meanings. The authors who, like Pfannkuche, Rosenmuller and Meyer, interpret βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ, the Messiah's kingdom, keep standing in the indefinite, because the question still remains, What did Christ understand by the Messiah’s kingdom? The lowest position is taken by such as Grotius, Teller and Michaelis, who solely bring forward the abstract idea of the spread of the Christian doctrine or dispensation. The idea becomes more comprehensive in the hands of that class of expositors, who refer the reigning either to the progressive victory of God’s Spirit in us and over us, or to its final victory in the history of the world, which is connected with the reappearance of Christ.* The former is done by Jerome, Cyril, Isidorus Pe- lusiota, Gregory of Nyssa, Zwingli, Socinus and Wetstein, the latter most decidedly by Tertullian and Cyprian. It seems to have been in consequence of this view, that Tertullian placed the second peti- _tion behind the third. To their way of explaining the Lord’s prayer, Hilary, the auct. op. imp., Euthymius, Theophylact, Piscator (videl. regnum gloriae, nam de regno gratiae sequitur in petitione tertia), Maldonatus profess their adherence, the latter comparing 1 Cor. xv. 28, and Rev. vi. 9,10. But the construction of the petition becomes most comprehensive and pro- @ Nitzsch, in an interesting essay in the Studien und Kriti- ken III. 4, 5. 846, has broached the question, why Tertullian places the third petition before the second, and takes occasion to make several beautiful remarks upon the exposition of the Lord’s prayer. ΄ 166 CHAP. VI. VERSE 10. found, when both meanings are connected together, nor in point of fact do they admit of being severed. For the more Christ becomes the governing prin- ciple in humanity, the nearer likewise does the final pe- riod of winding up approach, for it is said, Christ must reign tell he has put all enemies under his feet, 1 Cor. xv. 25. How extremely beautiful and ingenious Origen’s construction of this is, we have seen Vol. I. p. 101. Differently, aud pointing more to the end of all things, Augustine says: Adveniat ac- eipiendum est manifestetur hominibus. Quemad- modum enim praesens lux absens est coecis, et eis qui oculos claudunt, ita Dei regnum, quamvis nun- quam discedat de terris, tamen absens est ignoranti- bus. Nulli autem licebit ignorare regnum Dei, cum ejus Unigenitus non solum intelligibiliter sed etiam visibiliter in homine dominico de coelo venerit judi- eaturus vivos et mortuos. In the Homily on this passage, Chrysostom gives the same meaning; else- where, however, he likewise gives the spiritual and moral. See Suicer Obs. p. 219. The Heidelberg Ca- techism says, “ Rule us, therefure, by thy word and spirit, that we may ever more and more subject our- selves to thee. Uphold and enlarge thy church, and destroy the works of the devil, and every power that exalts itself against thee, and all wicked devices that are contrived contrary to thy holy word, until the perfection of thy kingdom comes, wherein thou shalt be all in all.’ Luther, “ The kingdom of God comes once here temporally by God’s word and faith, it comes once more eternally, in the future world, CHAP. VI. VERSE 10. 167 when all shall be revealed.” Compare Calvin and Chemnitz. Γενηϑήτω τὸ ϑέλημά σου κτλ. As was formerly said, this petition contains what is to be the upshot of the hallowing of God’s name, and the coming of his king- dom, and, at the same time, what is the ground of both. For that which God has fixed as his end and aim, is also the ultimate reason of all that he does. As it is said, Eph. i. 4, ‘* He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy in love.” So, for effectuating this purpose, has the kingdom of God been established, and by it the name of God proclaimed to men, for them to hallow it, John xvii. 26. Spirits created according to the image of God, can have no other rule, no other material, for their will, but the will of God, James iv. 15. It was by sin that self-will was brought forth. To abo- lish it is the end and aim of all discipline on the part of God. What the Old Test. prophets depict as the winding up of their visions of futurity, the period when the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth, as water the channels of the deep, when neither sun nor moon shall shine, but the Lord shall be his people’s light, when the holy nation shall consist of the righteous, and of none else, Is. iv. 3; xi. 93 Ix. 19—21; Ιχ]. 10, 11; Ixv. 24, 25, is the very sub- ject which the prophetical book at the close of the New Test. again resumes, and which it sets up as the issue of Christ’s kingdom, Rev. xxi. 3, 22, 235; xxii. 3—5. Οὐρανός is not only the habitation of God, but likewise of those spirits in whom he chiefly dwells. See p. 158. The angelsare, by distinction, called of ἄγγελοι τῶν οὐρανῶν and ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, Matth. xxiv. 86. Mark 168 CHAP. VI. VERSE 10. xii, 25. Their purity and holiness, their doing of the will of God, are expressed in Ps. ciii. 21, {ποιοῦντες ra JeAnuwara αὐτοῦ) Hebr. i, 14. Luc. xv. 10; as also in the predicate οἱ ἅγιοι ἄγγελοι, Mark viii. 38. Ori- ginally they were one with our, sinless race. The fall in breaking the bond between man and God, broke it also between man and the holy world of spi- rits. In our reconciliation with God through Christ, we are again brought together under one head with the celestial beings, Eph. i. 10; and in the state of perfection, enter into fellowship with them, Heb. xu. 22,23. Tillthat time, the world of spirits who, in unfallen purity, adore God, is our consolation and our model. Well does Aretius carry out the mean- ing of the petition when he says,* summa petimus hie, ut eterna Dei sententia de redemtione humani gene- ris . . . compleatur et ad finem tandem perducatur. Quod cum in dies in hae vita videmus fieri, tum de- mum in novissimo judicio Christi judicis finalis sen- tentia his rebus omnibus colophonem imponet; ac deinceps in piis voluntas Dei ad plenum locum ha- bebit. If we now look to the history of the exposition, it might, in the present petition, be less doubt- ful. Still there are several of the ancients, especially in the Latin church, who have allegorized in a peeu- liar way. From that church Tertullian delivered the interpretatio figurata, that heaven and earth denote the @ The view that the θέλημά σου has a reference to the reali- zation of the βασιλεία is assailed, but from much too low a po- ᾿ sition in an essay in Siisskind’s Magazin fiir Dogm. τι. Moral. St. XIV. 5. 39. CHAP. Vi. VERSE 10. 169 antithesis of sowl and body. Afterwards, however, he prefers to interpret as follows, “Let thy will be done on earth avd in heaven upon us, ut salvi simus et in ccelis et in terra,” for he does not, like Cyprian, Ambrose and Jerome, read sicut in ecelis, but sim- ply, in coelis et in terra. Cyprian, too, knows no other but the allegorical explanation, that heaven and earth denote either spirit and flesh, or the pious and the ungodly, and the inventive acuteness of Augus- tine states the following constructions side by side: 1. Let thy will be done, as upon saints, so upon sin- ners, that these may be converted. 2. Let thy will be done alike upon sinners and saints at the last judg- ment, so that the latter may obtain their reward, the former their merited condemnation. 3. As it is done by the angels who are beyond the reach of terrestrial restraints, so let it likewise be by men who are snb- ject to these. 4. As thy will is done in the spirit, so let it also be done in the bodily frame, when that shall have one day attained to glory. 5. As the earth is impregnated by heaven, heaven may denote Christ, and the earth the Church, which, through Christ, performs the divine will. Compare Sermo lvii.. The first and last expositions (the last receiving a different turn) are also mentioned by Origen, who here éwice quotes the passage, Mat. xxviii. 18, as fol- lows, ἐδύϑη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς, and then uses it as an appropriate parallel, τῶν μὲν ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ πρότερον ὑπὸ τοῦ Aoyou πεφωτισμένων' ἐπὶ δὲ τῇ συντελείῳ τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς κτλ, In modern times, we still find divergent meanings with respect to the θέλημα, and also with respect 170 CHAP. VI. VERSE 10. to the οὐρανός. We have understood by θέλημα, the will of God, in so far as that is a rule for spirits gifted with intelligence, in so far as it has for its object our sanctification, 1 Thes. iv. 3, 7. Matth. viii’ 215 xn. ὅθ. 1 John ii. 17. Heb σι. According to Beza, however, we have not to think of the voluntas Dei jubens, but of the vo- luntas Dei decernens, so that, properly speaking, the words would not be a petition, but a declaratio animi acquiescentis in voluntate Dei, not a sup- plication that, by God’s help, God’s will may be executed by us, but that he himself may execute his own will upon us. With this view accord those authors, who, like Tertullian of old, and subse- quently Priczus and Grotius, think of that particu- jar class of divine volitions which impose upon us trial. Along with another construction of the words, Tertullian gives also the following: jam hoe dicto ad sufferentiam nosmetipsos praemonemus. In this more special acceptation, the sense given to θέλημα, as the voluntas decernens, cannot be approved, for, if it were, the ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ would have no meaning at all. According to Beza’s more comprehensive acceptation, however, against which, it must yet be said, his friends Calvin and Piscator expressly contend, the meaning would revert once more to the one more generally received, inasmuch as the voluntas Dei jubens is com- prehended under the decernens, and the execution of it must still be derived from God’s assistance; But in general this acceptation will only be received, when the connection betwixt the several petitions is not recog- nised. , CHAP. VI. VERSES 10---}}. 171 - With respect to ἐν οὐρανῷ, Grotius proposed, as an allowable way, to refer it to the course of the stars, whose enduring uniformity may well afford, even to intelligent spirits, an image of obedience to rule, as Lucan sings, sicut coelestia semper Inconcussa suo volvuntur sidera motu. As Old Test. parallels, we should then have to com- pare Gen. viii. 22. Ps. civ. 19. The passage from Clemens Rom. ep. ad. Cor. i. c. 20, might likewise be compared : ἥλιός re καὶ σελήνη ἀστέρων τε χοροὶ κατὰ τὴν διαταγὴν αὐτοῦ ἐν ὁμονοίῳ δίχα πάσης παρεκβάσεως ἐξελίσσουσιν τοὺς ἐπιτεταγμένους αὐτοῖς ὁρισμούς. This view of the meaning has been received with peculiar favour by Michaelis.- That the heaven, as the region of the stars, may serve to designate the stars them- selves, admits of no scruple. ‘The stars are called as δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν Mat. xxiv. 29, of ἀστέρες τοῦ οὐρανοῦ Mark xiii. 25. It answers better, however, beyond all doubt, that kindred intelligent spirits should be held up to man asa model, and, over and above, the reference to the angels has so many bible analogies, that it must, without hesitation, be preferred before that to the dead material bodies of the universe. V.11. From the contemplation of God, the sup- pliant. now turns his eyes upon himself. The prayer ascends from beneath upwards, and entreats, first of all, for temporal necessaries, as the basis of the spiritual life, and then for deliverance from every thing which, in the spiritual sphere, forms a hindrance to the real- izing of the three first petitions, for forgiveness of 179 CHAP. VI. VERSE ll. the guilt which lies behind us, for defence against the temptation which threatens us in the future, and for final redemption from all evil and sin. The explanation of this fourth petition depends upon the meaning which we give to ἐπιούσιος. That word has been the subject of innumerable learned investigations, but, nevertheless, there is room left for investigating it afresh. Scultetus styles the inter- pretation of ἐπιούσιος the carnificina theologorum et grammaticorum, and Alberti says, That to think of here bringing out anything precise may be called σπόγγῳ πσάτταλον κρούει. The principal investigations are to be found in the works of the following learned au- thors. In the first place, many, and amongst these the most distinguished, philologians, have stated their opinions. Wilh. Budeus in the Comm. ling. Gr. s. ἢ. v., Heinr. Stephanus in the Thes. s. ἢ. v., Jos. Sealiger epist. p. 810., and in the Criticis sacri ad ἢ. J., Daniel Heinse in the Exercit. sacrae (ed, 1639.) p.31., Cl. Salmasius in De foen. trap. p. 795., Is. Casaubonus in Exercit. Antibar. 1. XVI. c. 39., Erasm. Schmid in the Comm. in ἢ. 1., Balth. Stolberg in the Thes. disp. Amst. T. II. p. 123., Joh. Phil. Pfeiffer, ibid. p. 116., Wilh. Kirchmayer Nov. Thes. disp. T. II. p. 189., Grotius in h.1., Tanaq. Faber ep. 2. Ῥ. 183, P. 2., Lud. Kuster on Suidas s. h. v. and Toup. epist. crit. p. 140., Alberti obs. in N. T. ad ἢ. 1., Segaar in the Obs. philol. et theol. in Ev. Lue. p.298., Valekenaer in the Selecta e scholis Valck. T. I. p. 190., Fischer in De vitiis lex. N. T. prol. XII. p. 312. Among theologians, the following are to be quoted particu- CHAP: VI. VERSE 1]. 173 larly: Beza ad h.1., Abr. Scultetus Exercit. |. IT. ς. 32., Gottfr. Olearius Obs. sacrae ad ἢ. |., Heinr. Majus Observ. sacrae p. 5., Calov, Bengel, Wolf ad h. 1., Schleusner in the Lexicon 8. ἢ. v., Fritsche, on this passage. Among the whole whom we have named, the most deserving of attention are Salmasius, Stolberg, Pfeiffer and Fischer. The word belongs to those of the New Test., which in the 1200 works of Greek literature? that have come down to us, are nowhere again to be found. The same is the case with: πειθός, 1 Cor. il. 4, πιστικός; which, however, does occur in Diog. Laert. IV. 6, 4, and Pollux Onomast. IV. 21, where, along with it, σαραπιστικὸς hasits authorization, Mark xiv. 3. John xii.3, raga βολεύομοαι Phil. ii.30, according to Griesbach, Lachmam, εὐπερίστατος, Heb. xii. 1. Even in his day, Origen, thoroughly acquainted as he was with Greek literature, made this observation: σρῶτον δὲ τοῦτ᾽ ἰστέον, ὅτι ἡ λέξις ἡ ἐπιούσιος Tag’ οὐδενὶ τῶν ᾿Ἑλλήνων οὔτε τῶν σοφῶν ὠνόμασται, οὔτε ἐν τῇ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν συνηλείῳ τέτριπται; ἀλλ᾽ ἔοικε πεπλάσϑαι ὑπὸ τῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν. He re- marks that the LXX also employ impure Greek words of the kind, such as évwriZeodas and ἀκοντίζεσθαι. The determination of its meaning depends upon the views we take of its derivation. But, first of all, we have to try the opinion of those who, in the gene- ral perplexity, have deemed it most advisable to sup- pose a blunder of the transcribers, viz. that Matthew wrote APTONEIIIOYSIAN, but that a copyist, by 8 Wolf’s Museum, I. 25. 174 CHAP. VI. VERSE lI. mistake, doubled the TON, and that APTONTON ἘΠΙΟΥΣΙΑΝ was again changed into ἄρτον τὸν ἐπιού- σιον, SO Pfannkuche in Eichhorn’s Allgem. Biblioth. Bd. X. p. 864, and Bretschneider in his Lex. is dis- posed to yield his approbation to this hypothesis. But even if this were more probable in itself, than is the case, we would still have to restrain at least our acquiescence, although we had no other ground for so doing, than that Luke, ch. xi. 3, has the same word, nor is there to be found at either of the two pas- sages, the slightest vestige of a variation; to which it must be added, that the more ancient Greek inter- preters, and even such a master of language as Ori- gen, notwithstanding they acknowledge the uncom- monness of the word, do yet take no offence at its formation. Neither does the hypothesis recommend itself by simplicity, as the article could not be here wanted from οὐσία, and further, without it, the hiatus still remains. This hypothesis, then, cannot help us out of the difficulty. The derivations of the word, from the most ancient to the most recent period, fall into two classes. 1, That from the root εἶναι, and 2, That from the root ἰέναι. The oldest and the most widely spread is the former. Grammatical objections, however, have been made against it. Some had derived the adjective di- rectly from the participle of the verb ἐσεῖαι, like πα- ρουσία, μετουσία and also περιουτία. By far the greater a From i¢imus, which Dr Paulus here adduces as a third, no- body but the Doctor himself has ever thought it possible to derive the word. CHAP. VI. VERSE LI. 175 number held it to beacompound of the preposition with the substantive οὐσία. To this latter way, it has been objected by Olearius and others, that substantives in 4 regularly make their adjective-form by αἷς and wong. In point of fact, such is the rule, as weaios ἀγοραῖός, βίαιος shew, and from οὐσία not οὔσιος, but οὐσιώδης. Hence the adjectives συνούσιος, περιούσιος, ἑσερούσιος are not to be traced from the substantive οὐσία, but from the feminine participle. The asser- tion, however, when extended, is by no means correct. Even from substantives ending in sa, we find adjec- tives in μος" 6. g. ἐγκοίλιος, πολυγώνιος beside πολύγωνος from γωνία, ὑπεξούσιος and αὐτεξούσιος from the sub- stantive ἐξουσία, and ἐνούσιος and ἐξουσιος from οὐσία. Several ancients likewise derive περιούσιος from οὐσία. The Scholiast on Thucyd. i. 2, ἡ περιουσία --- ἡ περιττὴ οὐσία. Now, although from the simple οὐσία, there is not any adjective οὔσιος, but οὐσιώδης alone, we yet meet with compound adjectives, which, from the ex- amples quoted, are seen to be permissible. There is more weight in the objection made, first of all, by the philologists Scaliger and Salmasius, and sub- sequently by Grotius, and which many have repeat- ed, that the hiatus at ἐπί is inadmissible. This ob- jection others have thought themselves competent to remove, by bringing forward numerous examples of the same hiatus in other words, as ἐπιανδάνω, ἐπίουρα, ἐπιόσσομα!. See particularly Pfeiffer and Alberti. Now, these examples doubtless are, for the most part, from the language of the epic poets, still some of the same kind from prose authors might also be adduced, aS ἐπιεικής, ἐπίορκος, ἐπιόγδοος. By such instances mo- 170 CHAP. VI. VERSE ILI. dern writers, and among the rest Kuinol and Fritz- sche, have declared themselves satisfied. But the scruple still remains unremoved, that ἐπί, espe- cially in composition with the verb εἶναι, regularly loses itss. The adjective ἐσουσιώδης, which would correspond with our ἐπιούσιος, we find e. g. in Porphy- ry, Isag. 6. 15., Jamblichus Protr. 3, without the hiatus. It might, to be sure, be said, that even in prose, uniformity has not in all cases been observed,* just as along with ἐπόπτομοι we also find ἐπιόπτομαι, (likewise ἐπίοστος beside evorros), the latter, however, with the special signification of ¢o select. Compare Buttmann’s ausfiihrl. Gramm. II. s. 201, in the anno- tations, where, in Plato leg XII. p. 947, C., he also proposes to read ἐσιόψωνται. Hence we cannot de- clare the objection to be wholly obviated, although in the sequel we shall still adduce something in ex- planation of the anomaly. It having been princi- pally this grammatical objection, which made many reject the derivation of the word from the root εἶναι, we must take into consideration the one from the root ives, and review what may be said for and against it. This derivation, although with many modifications in the view taken of the meaning, has in its favour the approval of great philologists, Heinse, Scaliger, Salma- sius, Faber, Kiister, Valekenaer and Fischer ;» and in like manner have many theologians bestowed their com- * In citations of the passage from the Dial. cum Tryphone c. 95. οὐδ᾽ ὑμεῖς τολμήσετε ἀντειπεῖν, I also find avesemsiv ; the Paris and Cologne edition has dvremeiv. > Budzeus in the Comm. ling. Gr. and H. Stephanus in the Lexicon, follow Suidas in the usual derivation from οὐσία, CHAP. VI. VERSE I]. 177 mendation, Grotius, Wetstein, Calov, Bengel, the dictionaries of Pasor, Schwarz and Wahl. It is also to be found, as we shall see, in several of the Fathers of the church. In the first place, the whole of these philologians and divines divide again into two classes. The one trace the adjective back to the feminine participle 7 ἐπιοῦσα, supplying ἡμέρα, the other to ὁ ἐπιών, supply- ing χρύνος. We shall begin with the latter view. It has become usual to derive adjectives and substan- tives in ovis and ovoie from the feminine of the par- ticiple. But as the form of that is itself derived from the genitive form of the masculine, it is hard to see why one should not revert at once to this source, the more so, that no trace of the influence of the femi- nine upon the meaning is visible, and farther, that sub- stantives in wy form adjectives in ovcios, as ἡ πυγών, πυγού- o10g, Axzouv, Avecouoros, ἸΤηλών, ΙΤηλούσιον, γέρων, γερουσία, and finally, that there occur side by side συγούσιος and πυγωνιαῖος, ᾿Αχερόντιος and “Axegovois, exovri and ἑκου- σίως, yegovria and γερουσία. Hence Salmasius De foen. trapez. p. 812, justly derives ἑχούσιος, ἐϑελούσιος, I7- λούσιον, from the masculine in ων. So, following his traces, the linguist Balth. Stolberg (in Thes. nov. Diss. T. II.) and recently Lobeck ad Phrynich. p. 4, and Buttman II. p. 337. Compare also ἐνιαύσιος from ἐνιαυτός, φιλοτήσιος from φιλότης. In afterwards speak- ing of the spiritual interpretation of the word, we shall likewise find that Athanasius, Damascenus and others, have already expounded: ὁ ἄρτος τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος. With respect now to the derivation from ἡ ἐπιοῦσα, it in so far lies more at hand, that in the N. Test. N t 178 CHAP. VI. VERSE 1]. the LXX. and Josephus, ἡ ἐπιοῦσα often occurs ellip- tically, just as ἡ παροῦσα, ἡ προσιοῦσο, ἡ rugeAdovou* are elsewhere to be found. It must be added, that this explanation seems peculiarly welcome, when we farther take into account Jerome’s information, that in the gospel for the use of the Hebrews, the word srt stood in place of ἐσιούσιος, a reason upon which Grotius in particular Jays a peculiar weight. It is true, that against this derivation a protest has been taken, first by Salmasius, and afterwards by Suicer, and - here too, on grammatical grounds. From the ellipti- cal feminines of the ordinals, to wit, as ἡ δευτέρα, ἡ τρίτη, are formed only adjectives in αἷς : δευτεραῖος, reiraioc, dexaraios, &e. in the interrogative form, ποστοαῖος, in how many days. ‘This objection, however, is without foundation. First of all, we have to say, ‘that the form adheres, in preference at least, to ‘numericals properly so called, (although we have also % ὑστε- ραΐα, and ἡ προτεραία) ; Moreover, ‘the termination τὸς gives a larger compass of meaning to the adjective, than the termination aos, and, accordingly, we must say, that the derivation of the word, either from 7 ἐπιοῦσο or from ὁ ἐπιών Πα8, on'the side of the usus lo- quendi, somewhat, although ‘not much, to give it a 4 We might also suppose that Chrysostom too had pointed to this derivation, when, in his homily on the passage, after :ex- pounding the word by ἐφήμερος, he says: ders μὴ περαιτέρω συντρί- βειν ἑαυτοὺς τῇ φροντίδι ris ἐπιούσης ἡμέρας. His employing the ex- "ἢ ession ἡ ἐσ οὖσα ἡμέρα in this connection, is, however, acciden- ᾿ We perceive in the sequel, from his explanation of v. 25 ae in Mat. vi., that he did not derive ἐσιούσιος from ἐσιέναι ; Fer he once more explains it in that’ section by ἀναγκαῖος. CHAP. VI. VERSE II. 179 preference above that from οὐσία. We have to add the confirmation which it receives from the fact, that Jerome in the gospel of the Hebrews found mahar, quod dicitur crastinus, although the circumstance is not to be rated so high, as is done by Grotius. On the other band, the derivation has so much the more against it, when we look to the meaning which arises upon its adoption. Let us just translate the words : Give us this day our bread for the morrow, and upon _ the first impression, it is imposible to avoid saying with Salmasius: Quid est ineptius, quam panem cras- tini diei nobis quotidie postulare?# In point of fact too, there have uot been many expositors who have taken up the words in this precise sense. Among others, Caninius however says: “ Doubtless Christ has, in 6. vi. forbidden us to take thought of the morrow, but it is only because of our weakness that he enjoins, ut patrem rogemus, qui nostrae infirmitati prospiciat nobisque pridie praebeat, quantum sufficere possit postridie.” At once characteristic and interesting in a psychological point of view, are the words of the knight Michaelis: “« When we have enough for to- day, but nothing at all for the time to come, and do not see on what we are to subsist to-morrow, this is an extremely afflicting condition. To be sure, we ought, * It looks almost like a satire upon the explanation of cras- tinus dies, when Erasmus, who, at Matt. vi. and Luke xi. de- fends this acceptation, remarks on the latter passage, that we may also suppose the prayer to be said in the evening, and then it is, in point of fact, for the morrow that we pray: et qui ves- peri petit pro victu postridiano, quid aliud pent quam victum quotidianum ? 180 CHAP. VI. VERSE 1]. even then, as Jesus, v. 25—34, will tell us, to endea- vour, by confiding in God, to divest ourselves of tormenting cares. Still, this is a difficult task, and they will ever be rising up to disquiet us afresh, be- cause, with a view to the preservation of the human race, God has, once for all, made our nature to look forward into, and feel anxiety about, the future. Let a man but fancy himself in such a situation as that he has been deprived of his employment, and is without any provision or prospect whatever for the future. The case is one exceedingly unpleasant, and, struggle as we may, will not leave us wholly exempt from care, but will certainly cause us to have sleepless nights. To have something as a provision for the future, over and above what is just enough to live upon for a single day with the prospect of being hungry and houseless on the morrow, is indeed a very great bless- ing of God.” The majority of expositors of this class adhere to the explanation hit upon by Grotius. That author, to wit, takes ἡ ἐπιοῦσα in its larger sense, as denoting the future, and appeals for proof to the more exten- sive use of the Hebrew xm. It is surprising that he did not rather make a direct appeal to the Greek usus loquendi, for in it ἡ ἐπιοῦσοω, almost oftener desig- nates the future generally, than it does the morrow in the narrower sense. He takes σήμερον, however, as tantamount to the plenior Hebraismus, σήμερον σήμερον, as he calls it; consequently we should rather have to translate the word postridianus, and conceive it in the sense of quotidianus. In that way have Bengel, Olearius, Rosenmiller, Kuinol and many others ta- CHAP. VI. VERSE ILI. 181 ken it, and the petition would then express, ‘‘ Give us this and every future day, what in the future we need.” Now, that meaning would not be objectionable, still the explanation given of σήμερον is wholly contrary to the rules of language. Σήμερον is not equivalent to τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν in Luke. Neither for τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, does the Hebrew say σήμερον σήμερον, for σήμερον is ex- pressed by Ὁ ττ with the article, but dazly by ni Ὁ)" or 012 Ὁ", which the LXX. translate ἡμέραν ἐν ἡμέρῳ, Neh. viii. 18, or τὸ χαϑ' ἡμέραν εἰς ἡμέραν, Exod. XVI. 5, or ἡμέραν ἐξ ἡμέρας, Gen. xxxix.10. If σήμερον however, be not taken as just equivalent to τὸ καθ᾿ ἡμέ- ρῶν, there does not, with the supposed acceptation of ἐπιούσιος, arise any appropriate meaning. Thus So- cinus, Chemnitz, Pasor, Elsner and others, translate the word: succedaneus, adventitius, quem non suffi- cit semel accepisse, sed quem in hac vertentium tem- porum vicissitudine quotidie necesse est nobis adve- nire. Pasor: demensum nostrum, quod nec super- fluit nec deficit, da nobis hodie, ὁ. e. hac quoque die. These explanations bring more into the word than can be contained init. Supposing, however, that this signification were even granted, we should at least have to require καὶ onwegovs Those now who do not adhere to Grotius, have fallen upon other strange explanations. According to Alex. Morus, the word contains an allusion to the share of the manna given upon the Friday, which sufficed likwise for the Sabbath. So that the mean- ing would be, “ Give us this day our bread, but in to-day’s portion, sufficient to serve for to-morrow.” Calov: quod spirituali nostrae necessitati supervenit, 189 CHAP. VI. VERSE II. nam non primarium est. Accordingly, far stronger than the objection which might be raised to the deri- vation from οὐσία, founded on the formation of the word, is that which stands against the derivation from ἐπιέναι, founded upon the meaning. ‘The readiest way to defend even that, would be to say, that Christ has indeed forbidden indulging care for the morrow, but that it is just the person who prays who does not do so. Still it might be here replied, as is done by Augustine, that a prayer for any thing which the person has not seriously at heart, is, in reality, no genuine prayer. Whoever, when at his prayers, ac- tually feels in his heart the inclination to be always looking beyond the boundaries of the present day, of that man it cannot be said with truth, that he is in the frame of mind which becomes the Christian. Even the Arabic proverb? says, jx) {Asli Sir -ς To-morrow’s food for to-morrow.” Finally, it is also worthy of remark, that the Jew- ish prayers, likewise entreat of God, to give to every man, not what he needs for the future, but 1:MD39D7>, what is necessary for his nourishment. We turn back then, once more to the derivation from εἶναι. In its favour, we have first, as already stated, the - authority of the Greek fathers, particularly of the great linguist, Origen. We have besides, that of the Syriac translator, and, as will appear, its perfect suitableness to the meaning in this passage. As first in order, we might broach the question, @ Burckhardt, Arabic proverbs of the modern Egyptians, p. 298. CHAP. VI. VERSE ll. 1838 whether the adjective is derived directly from the participle feminine of the verb, as is Scultetus’ opin- ion, or whether it is a compound of the preposition and thesubstantive. It is surprising to find Scultetus objecting to the latter, that, in that casé, the hiatus could not take place, as if it were not far more of- fensive in the other. To us, it appears most pro- bable, that the Evangelist has formed the word ac- cording to the analogy of περιούσιος. How he did so is a subject on which no judgment can be passed, still the derivation from οὐσία, was what lay most at hand. We even account for the hiatus, by this copy- ing after περιούσιος. The word οὐσία, among the an- cients, stands most frequently in the sense of wealth, which we also find it bearing in the Arabic and Syriac; farther, in the sense of τὸ εἶναι, existence, life, Sophoel. Trach. v. 911, ἄπαις οὐσία, and again in Plato, in the concrete sense of being, a sense in which, according to Heindorf’s remark upon Phedo, p. 41, it first appears from Plato’s time. Finally, in a subsequent period, it is synonymous with ὕλη; See Wyttenbach on Plutarch’s Moralia II. p.825. The fathers of the church waver betwixt the sense of being, to. wit. of the body, and that of existence, both which significations often pass into each other. Chrysostom in the homily, De instituenda secund. Deum vita: ἄρτον ἐπιούσιον, τουτέστιν, ἐπὶ τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ σώματος διαβαίνοντα 8. Just so ὕπαρξις, which Stephanus, following Budeus’ sense, wants to distinguish from οὐσία, making the latter mean essen- tia, and the former substantia. Both words have both signi- fications, and in these are used synonymously. On the phi- losophical sense of the word οὐσίᾳ, See Aristotle, Categor. 1. 184 CHAP. VI. VERSE ILI. καὶ συγκρατῆσαι ταύτην δυνάμενον. Gregory of Nyssa, Orat. IV. in orat. dom.: ζητεῖν προσετάχϑημεν τὸ πρὸς τὴν συντήρησιν ἐξωρκοῦν τῆς σωματικῆς οὐσίας. So like- wise, Basil in Reg. brev., Interr. 252: σὸν ἐπιούσιον ἄρτον, τουτέστι, τὸν πρὸς τὴν ἐφήμερον ζωὴν τῇ οὐσίᾳ ἡμῶν χρησιμεύοντα. On the other hand, Theophylact in Matth. vi.: ἄρτος ἐπὶ τῇ οὐσίῳ καὶ συστάσει ἡμῶν αὐτάρκης, and in Luke xi.: ὁ ἐπὶ τῇ οὐσίῳ ἡμῶν καὶ συστάσει τῆς ζωῆς συμβαλλόμενος" οὐχ, ὁ περιττὸς πάντως, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἀναγ- καῖὸς. Euthymius: ἐπιούσιον δὲ προσηγόρευσε τὸν ἐπὶ τῇ odoin καὶ ὑπάρξει καὶ συστάσει τοῦ σώματος ἐπιτήδειον. Sui- das and the Etym. Magn.: ὁ ἐπὶ τῇ οὐσίᾳ ἡ μῶν ἁρμόζων. So too the Peschito, --λωϑοὺ; δ “ the bread of our necessity,” whereas in words the very opposite, is given in the Hierosol. |;Zas) cand “* our super- fluous bread,” ἐπί being taken to designate direction towards, addition made. In the other explanations, it is also taken as indicative of the aim, direction, so that the meaning is deduced quite correctly, “ what serves for our being or subsistence.” When Fritzsche objects at nihil poterat ἐπί efferre, nisi rez aptae cogi- tationem, ut esse deberet panis naturae accommoda- tus, this is being over subtile. The idea of fitness for a purpose, and of actually serving it, are united in the closest manner. For what reason would food have been calculated by God for the human body, if it did not likewise in point of fact, serve to nourish it ?# Now this is the exposition to which we unreservedly give the preference. The ἐπιούσιον stands in the middle, betwixt the rd ἐλλιπές, and the περιττόν, or περιούσιον, 4 Compare 6. g. ἐπσιϑανάσιος morti addictus, ἐπιτήδειος, ac- cording to Buttman, from ἐσ) σάδε. CHAP. VI. VERSE Ll. 185 and designates that which is just enough. Thus un- derstood, the petition has various biblical analogies in the Old and New Testaments. At Prov. xxx. 8, Solomon prays: “ Give me neither poverty nor riches, ‘prt om> spun.” Now this corresponds with our passage, for pr denotes a suitable portion, as Jarchi explains it in Gen. xlvii. 22, Symmachus renders δίαιτα ἱκανή. Chamberlaine in his Hebrew translation of the Lord’s Prayer, and with him, the London Hebrew translator of the N. Test. have here also ren- dered 33pm om. James ii. 16, has the expression τὰ ἐπιτήδεια τοῦ σώματος, and the Syrian there trans- lates as at our passage. In fine, 1 Tim. vi. 8, and Heb. xiii. 5, are also to be compared. Taking this as the construction of the passage, not only does there arise no contradiction to Matt. vi. 25, but the most perfect accordance with v. 34, where it is allow- ed us to take thought for the present day. Were any one to object, that at verses 25 and 31, every care for things temporal is forbidden, and that at v. 33, it is positively said, that such things must be got as something to boot, we can appeal, first, to v. 34, where the ἀρχετὸν τῇ ἡμέρῳ ἡ κακία αὐτῆς, shews that the preceding sayings are not to be construed quite absolutely ; And we can, besides, urge that the σρῶ- τον, in ν. 33, proves that we are only to seek the king- dom of heaven before all things, but that every care for temporals is not to be rejected. It is only when this explanation of ours is adopted, that justice is done to σήμερον. That is not, as we have already said, identical with the τὸ xa¥ ἡμέραν of Luke. When the old Latin version translated quotidianus, it did so 186 CHAP. VI. VERSE 1]. not as if construing σήμερον in that way, (which it ra- ther rendered by hodie,) neither, as many suppose, with a reference to the passage of Luke. It seems more to have translated agreeably to the sense, ac- cording to which, also, Chrysostom, Suidas and others explain ἐφήμερος. The translations of Beza and Castellio, panis cibarius and victus alimentarius are hence to be preferred, although in preference even to these, we should select sufficiens. The σήμερον denotes exactly the right disposition for a sup- pliant, who, in the frame of his mind is absorbed solely with the present moment, as Chrysostom cor- rectly expounds: οὐκ εἰς πολὺν ἐτῶν ἀρι)ιμὸν αἰτεῖν ἐκε- λεύσγημεν, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἄρτον σήμερον ἡμῖν ἀρκοῦντα μόνον. - For who knows,” he adds, “ whether thou shalt be to-morrow alive.” —“ It is this very assignment of time,” says Isidore, ““ which shows us how to reach the loftiest summit of wisdom.” It only remains to advert to the explanations of those who understand by the word, bread spiritual. We must previously, however, annex one which was first given by Steck, in a treatise in the Tempe Helv. (Tig. 1741) T. V. fase. 4, and afterwards by Lam- bertus Bos and Alberti, and which strikes out a quite original path. Οὐσία is taken in the usual significa- tion of opes, peculium, and ἐπιούσιος means what is part of one’s property. Now believers have become the children of God, they accordingly supplicate for the necessaries of this life, as for what now pertains to them as property. Alberti compares Luke xv. 12, -σάτερ, δός μοι τὸ ἐπιβάλλον μέρος τῆς οὐσίας, τη Inge- nious explanation, against which, passing in silence all CHAP. VI. VERSE II. 187 other reasons, we have only to ask, what entitles us to single out temporal blessings, and regard them as the property of God’s children? Are not these rather just the peculium of ald men, inasmuch as they are creatures, nay, according to 6. vi. 26, even of the irrational animals? At Luke xvi. 11, }2, is not the very opposite expressed, bodily blessings being called τὰ ἀλλότρια," and that what is spiritual, τὸ ὑμέτερον and τὸ ἀληλινόν ἢ Alberti appears to have felt this him- self, for he says: Petunt, ut tamquam benignus pa- terfamilias hoe peculium filiis concedat, et. spirituali- bus bonis tamquam vero suo patrimonio adjiciat. It hence appears that he wavered betwixt his own ex- planation and that of Calov formerly adduced: Id quod accedit, superadditur veris bonis. The expla- nation would then belong to that class which takes οὐσία Spirituaily. Still more strangely does Steck ex- pound: “ What comes in addition to the patrimo- nium,” ἢ. 6. what we have earned, the petition being an exhortation to personal exertion, with a compari- son of 2 Thes. iii. 12. That these words of our prayer have been con- strued spiritually cannot surprise us, considering that the figurative language of the scripture so frequently compares the spirit’s gift with meat and drink. See John vi. 33—35. Heb. vi.4,5. Nay, even the more special interpretation of it, as meaning the Lord’s supper, was approximated by John vi. 51, 53—55. a Compare the admirable explanation of Clemens Alex. Strom. IV. p. 605, in how far the external good things of the Christian are to be called ἀλλότρια, and in how far they are yet again his own. 188 CHAP. VI. VERSE 1]. Even Origen explained the passage with reference to John vi. of the ἄρτος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, which is con- verted into the οὐσία of the spirit, as corporeal bread is into that of the body. Now, the words are in like manner explained, of spiritual food by Tertullian, Cyprian, Cyrillus Hieros., Athanasius, Isidorus Pe- lusiota, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Bede, Max- imus Turinensis, Cassian, Anselm, Erasmus, Zege- rus, Bellarmine, Luther,—in the two expositions of the Pater Noster of 1518, differently in the Cate- chisms,—Zwingli,> Henry Majus, Peter Zorn (Vindi- ciae pro perpetua veteris ecclesiae traditione de Chris- to pane ἐπιουσίῳ in Opuse. sacr. I.)* and in recent days, Pfannkuche and Olshausen.* We find the pas- 4 He also expounds of spiritual food other passages of scripture, which treat of corporeal nourishment. Thus he un- derstands, Ps. Ιχν. 10, ἡσοίμασας τὴν τροφὴν αὐτῶν of the σροφὴ πνευματική, Which is prepared in Christ, πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. See Corder. Catena in Ps. T. II. 270. b Zwingli says: Graece dicunt supersubstantialem. Deus enim substantiam nostram vere pascit et sustinet, idque vero et substantiali cibo.... Nihilo tamen minus vitae nostrae ne- cessitatem hac petitione apud Dominum quaerimus. Panis enim Hebraeis omnem cibum significat. Qui animam pascit, quomodo idem non etiam corpus pasceret ? © By strict Lutherans, this exposition is regarded with hor- ror as heretical. A citizen of Wittenberg having expounded the former petition of spiritwal bread, was called upon either in- continently to renounce the error, or quit the city. In oppo- sition to Majus in Giessen und Zorn, the Wittenberg professor Wernsdorf, in his treatise previously quoted, took the field. Compare Spener’s Theolog. Bedenken I. p. 144, and Walch Religionstreitigkeiten in der luth. Kirche, T. V. 1167. 4 Ulphilas has: Hlaif unsarana sinteinan, our everduring bread. Did he understand this, too, of spiritual bread ? CHAP. VI. VERSE 1]. 189 sages which touch the point enumerated in Suicer, Ob- servat. p. 248, and in the Thesaurus eccles. p. 1173, and still more copiously in Pfeiffer, Thes. Theol. Philol. T. II. p. 120. We have comprised all these expositions together, although certain divergences take place among them. Several, for instance, along with the reference to bodily bread, admit also of that to bread spiritual.*. Under the spiritual bread, many understand merely the doctrina Christi, the verbum Dei, many, the spiritual influence of Christ, many take in also the Lord’s supper, several think of that exclu- sively. The reference to Christ's spiritual nourishment in general, and especially as communicated in the Lord’s supper, we find so early as the days of Tertullian and Cyprian, in all probability too in Cyril of Jerusalem, al- though on that subject doubts have arisen.» In the disquisition upon the Sermo in Monte, Augustine still rejects the special reference to the Lord’s supper,° whereas, in the sermon on the Lord’s prayer, he re- fers the panis quotidianus, at one and the same time, 1. to bodily provender, victus et tegumentum; 2. to nourishment by the word of Christ; 3. to that by the sacrament. How this reference to the Lord’s supper became more and more general is easy to un- a So, on the other hand, have the authors of the Greek glos- saries, who borrowed from their fathers the allusion to corpo- real nourishment, likewise annexed what is spiritual. Theo- phylact and Euthymius explain it in an appendix, of the Lord’s supper. Ὁ Touttée ad Catech. 23. Mystag. 5. © He gives as a reason, that otherwise we should not be able to say the Lord’s prayer in the evening. 190 CHAP. VI. VERSE 1]. derstand. It may be accounted for by the ever in- creasing reverence paid to that sacrament, in virtue of which it was called by names which readily bring to our remembrance the petition in the Lord's prayer, ὁ ἄρτος ἅγιος, ἄρτος ζωῆς, εὐλογηϑείς, ἱερουργούμενος. Casaubon, Exere. Anti-Baron. XVI. c. 39. In the East, the word ἐπιούσιος, not being elsewhere in use, naturally promoted every mystical interpreta- tion. Even the plain quotidianus of the Latin ver- sion, which properly did not favour the petition’s being construed of the Lord’s supper, did yet, how- ever, serve to do so; inasmuch as, in the East, up to the times of Augustine, the Lord’s supper was taken daily. Now, although at a subsequent period, the western interpreters of the Catholic church still waver betwixt the reference to spiritual food in ge- neral, and that to the sacrament, the latter predomi- nates, and is adduced as ¢he jirst in the glossa ordi- naria.” 3 Let us now investigate what this exposition has for or against it. First of all, we require to notice two modifications of view. A number of the Fathers of the Greek church derive the word from ἐσιέναι, and understand by it the ἄρτος τοῦ αἰῶνος μέλλοντος, that heavenly bread which will be the portion of saints in the world to come, Luke xiv. 15, but which is also vouchsafed to the believer, even in the present life. Even Origen on the passage, along with the deriva- tion of the word from ἰέναι, takes notice of this expla- a Panis corpus Christi est, ut verbum Dei, vel ipse Deus, quo quotidie egemus. CHAP. VI. VERSE 1]. 191 nation, but rejects it, although without assigning rea- sons for doing so. In the same way, from a predi- lection for the mystical, the lower and upper Egyp- tian translation has crastinus and venturus.2 The view is also to be found in Athanasius, Damascenus, Pseudo-Ambrosius, whose opinions are to be seen collected in Suicer and Pfeiffer. This acceptation of the word has been embraced by Pfannkuche, who likewise observes, that in cabalistical language, sr denotes the contrast to the αὐὼν οὗτος. Augustine also understood hodie of the present life, (in hac tem- porali vita.) Apart from the general objections to such a construction of the petition, what speaks most against it, is the insufferable antithesis into which the σήμερον then comes with ἄρτος τοῦ ἐπιόντος “χρόνου or αἰῶνος. Even though we admit, that ὁ ἄρτος ὁ μέλλων might, without addition, signify the heavenly, future, bread, for which, however, we can adduce no ex- amples from the usus loquendi of the Holy Scripture, we should yet have here certainly to understand by the future bread, that blessedness which, in the present life, does not as yet take place. But, how then can it be vouchsafed to us here, and that, every day? Were it to be said, however, that ὁ ἄρτος ὁ μέλλων is nothing more than the spirit and power of Christ, in which God’s kingdom comes to us every day, we should have to dispute whether ἄρτος ὁ μέλλων can have any such sense. There would then stand, as in John, ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, or, as with Paul, 1 Cor, x. 3, βρῶμα πνευματικόν. 3. See the latter in Cramer, Beitrigeu. 83. w. Th. HI. p. 61. 192 CHAP. VI. VERSE 1]. According to the other derivation, the word is com- pounded of οὐσία, and the question arises, What notion we are, in this composition, to form of ἐπί As is known, Jerome was the first to render it “ supersub- stantialis,"* and after him, Emser “ the super-self- subsistant bread.” Luther too, in the exposition of 1518, gives three translations, “ the super-essential, the chosen bread, the bread for to-morrow’ (panis erastinus), and attempts to conjoin the meaning of all three. Now, it strikes us at once, that in that case, in place of the preposition ἐπί, ὑπέρ would rather be used, as we do find the adjective ὑπερούσιος in the mystic-speculative sense in Dionysius Areopagita,” and in the Scholia of Maximus.° Were any one, as has been done, to think of appealing to ἐπήλογος and ἐπίμετρον, which is, however, equivalent to ὑπέρμετρον, it would be a mistake, for here too ἐπί only designates what has been given in addition to the proper measure. Accordingly, when we put the spiritual meaning upon the word, we can explain ἐπί in no other way than is done in the case of the corporeal meaning, viz. “ what is serviceable and necessary for our being, to wit, our true being.” So has Origen explained, and so Cyrill ἃ We must not, in this author, entirely overlook the passage of his Commentary on Tit. ii. 12, where he delivers himself upon ἐπιούσιος and περιούσιος still more copiously than in the Commentary on Matthew, adducing the text, John vi. 5, and stating that some suppose, “‘ It is the bread which is above om- nes οὐσίας." Inthe Commentary on Matt. he further says, that according to 1 Tim. vi. 8, others prefer supposing it simplieiter to mean bodily nourishment. b De div. nom. c. xi. § 6. © ¢. xi. § 11, in div. nom. CHAP. VI. VERSE LI. 193 of Jerusalem: ὁ ἐπιούσιος ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ τὴν odotay τῆς Ψυχῆς κατατασσόμενος. Olshausen has not ventured upon any accurate statement of the grammatical sig- nification. If in the case of the corporeal interpreta- tion of the words, the grammatical explanation above mentioned has been allowed, we must here also ac- knowledge its admissibility. Now, upon what is this spiritual explanation founded? We adduce the grounds of it as these have been recently stated by Olshausen, 1. Because the whole prayer comprises only spiritual petitions. To this we reply, what has been so often said ; For that very reason, one petition about things corporeal cannot be wanted.) Is this prayer a scheme in which, as Chrysostom and Augustine in their day aver, the whole supplication of our heart ought to go forth, then, if it be proper for the Christian to pray for things earthly at all, there must be contained in this prayer some petition respectirig what is ter- restrial. But godliness hath the promise of the life that now is, as well as of the life to come, 1 Tim. iv. 8. Paul calls upon Christians to pray for the magistracy, that we may lead a quiet and peaceful life, 1 Tim. ii. 2, in which the desire for the undisturbed enjoyment of our daily necessaries is expressed. The Christian, ac- cording to Paul’s precept, ought to work in order to have something for himself and others, Eph. iv. 28. 1 Thess. iv. 11; v.12. 2 Thess. iii. 10,12. Now, if such working were not to be sanctified by prayer, then would the sense of dependence upon God be wanting in reference to the greatest portion of our employ- ment. Prayer for things temporal is consequently es- Oo 194 CHAP. VI. VERSE I]. sential along with labour for them, just that the latter may be sanctified, and that, in regard to his ‘'terres- trial, no less than his spiritual industry, man may recog- nize his dependence upon God.* 2. Because, in the 4. Admirably does Luther take this up when, in der Kleine Katechismus, he replies to the question, ‘* What is that ?” as follows: ‘‘ God gives us daily bread even without our asking ; He does so to all the wicked. But we supplicate in this prayer, that he would make us sensible of it, and receive with thanks- giving our daily bread.” Spener also, theol. Bedenken, I. c. 1, sect. 16, decides against the spiritual view, and does so mainly upon the ground, That it is essential to the Christian not to re- ceive God’s temporal goodness without prayer and thanksgiving. Nay, so early as among the ancients, this is brought out by the author of the Opus imperf. in Matth., who delivers original, and not seldom very able expositions. He observes, that the prayer would seem to be destitute of meaning in the mouth of those whom God has richly provided for in all time to come, and thus answers the objection: Ita ergo intelligendum est, quia non solum ideo oramus: “ panem nostrum da nobis,” ut ha- beamus, quod manducemus, sed ut, quod manducamus, de manu Dei accipiamus. Nam habere ad manducandum com- mune est inter justos et peccatores, frequenter autem et abun- dantius peccatores habent, quam justi. De manu autem Dei accipere panem non est commune, sed tantum sanctorum. Praeparare ergo non vetant haec verba, tamen cum peccato ’ praeparare vetant. Nam qui cum justitia praeparat, illi Deus dat panem, quem manducat; qui autem cum peccato, illi non dat Deus, sed diabolus. Nam omnia quidem a Deo creantur, non tamen Deo omnia subministrantur. Vel intelligendum est ita, ut, dum a Deo datur, sanctificatus accipiatur, et ideo non dixit: Panem quotidianum da nobis hodie, sed addidit : Nostrum, id est, quem habemus jam praeparatum apud nos, illum da nobis, ut, dum a te datur, sanctificetur. Ut puta, si laicus offerat sacerdoti panem, ut sacerdos accipiens sanctifi- 4 CHAP. VI. VERSE ll. 195 sequel, 6. vi. 25, care for what is bodily is placed in the back ground. We reply, That this too is pre- cisely what is done by our petition, first, inasmuch as it is the only petition which refers to earthly things, and farther, inasmuch as only sufficient for our mainte- nance is requested, and that only for the present day, as is said by Chrysostom: ἄρτον ἐκέλευσεν αἰτεῖν ἐπιούσιον, οὗ τρυφὴν ἀλλὰ τροφήν. 98. Because ἐπιούσιος points to the meat spiritual. How it does this, Olshausen does not specify ; οὐσία. means neither more nor less than being; and it is not easy to see why we ought to understand that which is spiritual, more than that which is bodily. Origen explains with precision and acuteness, the two-fold reference of οὐσία to the bodily and spiritual being, and founds the assertion, that οὐσία here applies to the latter sclely upon the fact—which he assumes—that the bread is of a spiri- tual sort. It would perhaps be a more relevant ob- jection to say: Ifthe prayer was to contain only one petition for a competent maintenance, why so strange- ly formed a word? We have already explained, that we suppose the word to have been composed according to the analogy of περιούσιος, and this supposition suffi- ces to account for the singularity of its formation. We should be more inclined to call in question, whether the Evangelists or Christ would have used the ἡ οὐσία simply as designation of the true existence, and cet, et porrigat ei: quod enim panis est, offerentis est; quod autem sanctiiicatus est, beneiiciuin est sacerdous. Chrysostom also makes some similar remarks in the Homily on the last verses of the uth chapter. Compare Basilius Rev. brey., Lu- terr. 252. 196 CHAP. VI. VERSE 1]. without defining it more specifically by an ἀληθινός. What must Christ have said in the Aramaic, in or- der, without further addition, to express the spiri- tual being and existence? Would he perhaps have used just this same Greek word which we find in the Rabbinical and Syriac, ΝΥΝ, lamo|? Is then the word of so ancient date among the Rabbins and Syrians ἢ ὃ Granting, too, that it were so old, who, without further addition, could rightly understand it, considering that in the Rabbinical it appears much more frequently in the sense of opes, nay, of ager.» Or, did Christ say mid 3 or MT 19 =This could not possibly, without something added, be understood of our spiri- tual being. And, in general, for what purpose have these expressions, rare in occurrence, and diverging from the New Test. usus loquendi, been used, when several other terms expressive of the idea lay quite at hand, and were in general circulation? In all other passages of the New Test. it is expressed by ὠληϑινός, πνευματικός, (1 Cor. x. 3, 4,) οὐράνιος. Had Christ, however, spoken of corporeal bread, he might have made use of the following expressions: ΟἿ 2, yNDINDy 1D, pr ta. We may also suppose him to have said, ‘tan ort, which the Munster transla- tions gives, but of which we do not approve. From this other point of view, accordingly, the re- ference to corporeal bread likewise commends itself. 2 Jacob of Edessa (at the close of the seventh century) observes, that the Syrians, about a century before, had introduced the Greek vocable Lamo| into their language, (Assemani, Bibl. Orient. I. 479.) " » See Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. 5. h. v. CHAP. VI. VERSES 1], 12. 197 Upon ἄρτος, we have only further to remark, that, like pr», it is in the New Test. also used in the more extensive sense, 6. g. 2 Thes, iii. 12, and subsequently under that larger signification, passed over into the later usus loquendi. Compare 6. g. ἄρτον βεβαρημένον odie, see Du Cange Gloss. Graec. med. 5. ἢ. v. The modern Greeks use ψωμί just as generally. From the ἡμῶν, which is appended, some have wished to draw a conclusion in favour of the spiritual, some in favour of the corporeal, signification. But, neither the one nor the other can be drawn from the word. It denotes the bread which we need, which is destined for us. Euthymius: ἄρτον δὲ ἡ μῶν εἶπεν, ἀντὶ TOU, τὸν OF ἡμᾶς γενόμενον. V. 12. The suppliant makes a transition to spiritual necessities. The soul which, in God’s sight, reflects upon itself, first of all, becomes aware of the guilt that cleaves to it, and entreats for its remission. In literal opposition to this prayer of Christian humility, stands that of Apollonius of Thyana, who was wont to pray, ὦ ϑεοὶ, δοίητέ μοι τὰ ὀφειλόμενα," in Philostratus’ vita Apoll. I, I. ¢. 11. Justly did the church general appeal to this peti- tion against the Pelagians in order to demonstrate the continuance of the universal sinfulness even in belie- 8. Here ὀφειλόμενα has the signification which is developed in Plato de Rep. διενοεῖτο μὲν γὰρ, ὅτι τοῦτ᾽ εἴη δίκαιον ro προσῆκον ἑκάστῳ ἀποδιδόναι, τοῦτο δὲ ὠνόμασε ὀφειλόμενον. The New Test. formula ἀφιέναι, τὰ ὀφειλήμασα is well known to be Ara- maic. The Greek would take the phrase as merely synony- mous with ἀφιέναι τὰ χρέα (χρέος however, and even in classical authors, has the moral signification of sins.) 198 CHAP. VI. VERSE 19, vers. To this the Pelagians—if Jerome has reported faithfully, c. Pel. 1. iii. 6. 15,—returned the inept answer, that saints use the prayer humiliter, but not veraciter. Widely different Luther: “ We have thirdly, to remark, how the penury of this wretched life of ours is once more pointed out. We are in the land of guilt, sunk in the sinful state over the ears.” A difficulty is also occasioned by the circumstance, that the petition has a condition appended, rendering it, under certain circumstances, amposszble to be heard. In truth, the ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφίεμεν which is added, has very greatly perplexed the expositors of all ages. This clause may, in the first place, be interpreted in a strict way, as meaning, that the measure of the divine placability will be determined altogether by that of our own. By this account of it, several teachers of the church terrify the unforgiving sup- pliant, and, as Chrysostom informs us, there were many who, out of fear, suppressed it altogether.* Others again, as we are told by Augustine, fell upon the very awkward evasion, of understanding by the debts which we are to forgive our neighbour, debts of money. Chrysostom and Luther, (in the Expos. of 1518,) take the petition entirely according to Luke vi. 8: “ With the same measure that ye mete withal, it shall be measured to you again.” Chrysostom says, ** God appoints thee thyself the master of the verdict. The judgment thou passest upon thyself, he will pass * The anonymous author in Steph. le Moyne: σαῦσα λέγων," avdours, ἐὰν οὕπω ποιῇς (σροσεύχῃ), ἐννόησον σὸ φάσκον λόγιον, ᾧ ὁ- βερὲν ro ἐμπεσεῖν εἰς χεῖρας Θεοῦ ζῶντος! CHAP. VI. VERSE 19, 199 upon thee.” And Luther, Ps. cix. 14, says: “ This prayer will, in the sight of God, be a sin, for when thou sayest, ‘I will not forgive,’ and standest before God with thy precious pater noster, and mumblest with the mouth, Morgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors, what is that but saying, O God, I am a deb- tor to thee, and there is one who is the same to my- self. Now, I will not forgive him, and so do not thou forgive me. [1 will not obey thy command, although thou hast told me to forgive, I will rather renounce thee and thy heaven and all, and go to the devil for evermore.” A great many expositors upon this say- ing, shew that they do not well. know what to do. Many, such as Zwingli, endeavour to mitigate the sharpness of the expression, by alleging, that the words properly imply a mere publica Christianorum profes- sio, not an oratio. Luther too, in the Kleiner Cate- chismus says, ‘¢ It is a vow to God.” Others, as Cal- vin, Chemnitz, hold, that the words are properly a com- monefactio to placability. So they are, but effected, as it appears, by this, that according to the measure of our own, is God’s placability to be apportioned to us, which is just what causes the difficulty. Pericu- losam, says Maldonatus, nobis videtur Christus regu- lam tradere, male enim omnino nobiscum agetur, si non aliter nobis Deus, quam nostris nos debitoribus, peccata remittet. He thereupon took refuge in a de- cision which several protestant interpreters likewise adduce, viz. That it is not a regula, but a conditio which is here stated, not a paritas but a similitudo rationts. Now, this is also quite correct. ‘Os, derived from — 900 CHAP. VI. VERSE 12, the relative pronoun ὅς, is equivalent to of which sort, just like the Latin ut from quud, uter from quuter, the é having come into the place of the d, as it also does in set, aput. Now, this comparison does not directly say any thing as to the measure in which the two objects correspond. The similarity may be more or less great, and on that account our dictionaries place si- militer beside it, as the signification of ὡς. It may certainly, however, be also used in passages, where, to speak correctly, one would say ὅσον. See Passow, s. v. ὡς p. 1127, der 3. Ausg. In the same way does the more diffuse τοιοῦτος stand for τοσοῦτος, and talis for tantus in Latin. See Xenoph. Cyrop. |. IV. ο. 2. § 41. ed. Born., Bremi in Cornel. Nep. vitae p. 367. So in the New Test. does it appear in that parable, Matth. xx. 14: Saw τούτῳ τῷ ἐσχάτῳ δοῦναι ὡς καὶ σοί = τοσοῦτον ὅσον oot. So likewise, Rev. xviii. 6, where ἀπόδοτε αὑτῇ, ὡς καὶ αὐτὴ ἀπέδωκε denotes the answerable measure of retribution, and the διπλώσατε αὐτῇ διπλᾶ, which immediately follows, the double of it. Compare Rey. ix. 3. In the same manner also, on the other hand, is za ὅσον (and τοσοῦτον), which gives the measure and compares, also used in the larger sense in comparisons, where the action alone is com- pared and not the measure, so that it is equivalent to ws, and in the after clause has οὕτω, 6. g. Heb. ix. 27. In Hebrew, likewise, 19 is equivalent to tot, Exod. x. 14. Jud. xxi, 14. In putting so strict an inter- pretation upon the ὡς, however, we should only be justified, supposing this to result necessarily from the context; whereas, on the contrary, the analogia fidei and Mat. xviii. 33, shew, that here it is not an abso- CHAP. VI. VERSE [9. 201 lute paritas, but merely a similitudo rationis which has place. For in the latter passage, we read: οὐκ ἔδει καί σε ἐλεῆσαι τὸν σύὐνδουλόν σου, WS καὶ ἐγώ σε ἠλέησα. The Lord, however, had shewn comparatively greater compassion to the servant, than he was called upon to shew his fellow-servant. Compare ec. v. 48, Τῇ, then, ws merely denotes an analogy in the larger sense, the comparative relation is converted into a causal relation ;? the “ as we forgive” is to be taken in the sense, “ seeing that we do forgive.” Thus the clause would entirely correspond with that of Luke xi. 4, xal γὰρ αὐτοὶ ἀφίεμεν ; a conclusion is made a minori ad majus, as at Mat. vii. 11. Although, accordingly, we cannot infer from the passage, that our placability assigns the measure to that of God, still there does result this much, that in every one who takes the prayer into his lips, heart- felt compassion and placability are supposed ; and al- though not expressly, still, in an indirect way, our placability is viewed as the condition of God’s. And this, moreover, has elsewhere its biblical analogies. Shortly after, at v. 14, the proposition is expressly delivered in the form of a condition. Just in that a So already Grotius and Gomar, and recently also Fritzsche. The comparative particles denote primarily the parallelism of two things in space, then in time, in fine, too, that of cause and effect, which latter is considered as parallel to the former. Thus, even the putting things upon a level, by r?—xai, may express a conditional relation. Hartung, von den griechischen Partikeln, Erl. 1832, I. p. 99. Compare in Latin itaque, in German wei/, Anglice, because (originally a particle of time,) huil, wila, and weile. ΐ ὧν 902 CHAP. V1. VERSE 12. way, Luke vi. 37,2 and indirectly above, 6. v. 24. 1 Tim. ii. 8. James v. 9, and Sirach xxviii. 1—4. Now, this very circumstance, of the Saviour pre- supposing in the person using the prayer, a for- giving disposition towards all the world, corro- borates the statement which we formerly made, that it is only in the lips of a matured disciple of Christ, that the prayer acquires its full truth. Such a per- son it is, who mainly, because he himself has obtain- ed mercy in Christ, brings towards the whole world of sinners a forgiving and pacific heart, Ephes. iv. 32. Col. iii. 195. This truth is also expressed in Mat. xviii., where the king founds the obligation of the servant to forgive his fellow-servant, on the fact that he himself had received a much greater forgive- ness. Hence the Heidelberg Catechism very perti- nently says: * Be pleased not to reckon against us poor sinners all our iniquity, just as we, too, feel within us the testimony of thy grace, that it is our firm purpose, from the heart to forgive our neigh- bour,” in accordance with which Luther, in the Gros- ser Catechismus, says, “ The clause has been added, in order that we might have a mark, whereby to know whether we are God’s children, and conse- quently whether our sins are forgiven us.” With this view of the meaning, Erasmus, Grotius and Witsius @ The letter of Polycarp, c. 2, over and above what we read in our gospels, quotes the analogous words: ἀφίετε καὶ ἀφεϑή- σεται ὑμῖν" ἐλεεῖτε, ἵνα ἐλεηϑῆσε. See Eichhorn’s Einleit. ins. N. T. I. 138. With reference to Sirach xxviii. Chrysostom, in the treatise De compunct. I. 8 5, says: To pray for for- giveness as a mighty blessing, and not to be willing to give the same to others who supplicate it of us, is a mockery of God. CHAP. VI. VERSES 19, 13. 203 agree in the main, the first saying : “ Quemadmodum ipsi inter sese mutuis erratis ignoscunt, ut facere par est ejusdem familiae filios, ita etiam propitius sit ille pater. So likewise Olearius, who, in the end, how- ever, has recourse to still another expedient, for he takes ὡς as the ὡς, with an accent, derived from the demonstrative 6s, in the sense of similiter, eadem ra- tione, and the present tense of the verb, as indicat- ing the certainty of what will ensue, “ and so we also shall forgive.” Now, this construction is ren- dered doubtful, even by the parallel καὶ γὰρ αὐτοὶ ἀφίεμεν in Luke. Buta more general objection is, that such a use of the ὡς is confined to the poets, and a few instances of Attic prose. Buttmann, ausf. Grammat. II. p. 279. V. 13. But it is not merely past guilt which weighs upon the devout mind. It also looks with anxiety into the future, and, conscious of its weakness, de- sires protection from temptation, and deliverance from all sin and evil. : There are two difficulties connected with this pe- tition, the first of which has greatly perplexed expo- sitors. 1. How can we, as even Origen asks, pray for the rzigaouoi to be averted, seeing they are some- thing inalterably connected with the course of this world, (John xvii. 15; the fathers are wont to quote Acts xiv. 22, Job vii. 1), and seeing, moreover, that they effect the δοκιμή of Christians, so that James, i. 2, exhorts them ¢o rejoice when they fall into di- verse πειρασμοίῷ 2. In what sense can it be said of God, that he leads us into temptation ? For the satisfactory solution of both questions, it will be necessary to institute a fresh inquiry into the . 904 CHAP. VI. VERSE 13. meaning of πειράζειν and πειρασμός. As productions of an earlier day connected with this subject, we have to cite Suicer, Observ. sacrae, p. 260, and the Thes. s. h. v. More particularly, Witsius, p. 220, Pott, Exc. 1. ad ep. Jac. The idea of proving is in Greek expressed by two terms, δοκιμάζειν and πειράζειν. The former from the etymon δέχεσθαι, signifies originally to examine whe- ther any thing is fit to be received. The latter, con- nected primarily with perior, experior, and subsequently with sige, means primitively to penetrate, explore. But just as ΤῸ) in Hebrew (j72 is, on the contrary, ra- ther to be compared with δοκιμάζειν), tentare in La- tin, and versuchen in German, so also has πειρᾶν ac- quired, in the usus loquendi, a bad colateral sense. Πειρᾷν, πειράσαι, πειράζειν τινός, and later frequently τινά, is originally used, as equivalent with πεῖραν λαμβά- νειν, πεῖραν ποιεῖσ)αι, Of whatsoever attempt is made up- on any one. Even at a very early period, however, the substantive πεῖρα denotes particularly a bold under- taking, 6. g. πεῖραν ἐχϑρῶν ἁρπάσαι in Sophoclis Ajax. v. 2,5 only in the sense of “ spying out a daring enter- prize.” Afterwards πεῖρα came to signify robbery by sea, Anglicé, piracy, πειρατής, a pirate, Suidas: σπεῖρα ὁ δόλος καὶ ἡ ἀπάτη καὶ ἡ τέχνη. The verb πειρᾶν, used with γυναῖκας, like the Latin tentare Junonem, in ἡ Tibul. I. 3. 73, of the seduction of women, e. g. in Polyb. Hist. ]. 10. ec. 26. § 3. Hesychius: πειράζων, ἐνεδρεύων. vat In the usus loquendi of the Bible, too, it occurs | chiefly in the larger sense, fo essay, make an attempt. * See Lobeck on this passage, p. 219. CHAP. VI. VERSE 13. 205 Acts xvi. 7, where the Cod. Cantab. has ἤϑελον as a gloss, Acts xxiv. 6. We may doubt whether, at 2 Cor. xiii. 5, it is equivalent to the following dox- μάξετε. It appears, however, in the LXX. in paral- lelism with δοχιμάξω, Ps. xev. 9, and thence Heb. iii. 9. Or the codices use it as convertible with doxmuaZa, as Dan. i. 12. Compare also Wisd. ii. 5. In Ps. xvii. 3, some read ἐπύρωσάς με in place of ἐπείρασάς με. But much more commonly is it used in malam par- tem! of men who, by their misbelief, put God to the proof, Acts xv. 10; v.9. 1 Cor. x. 9. In the pas-. sage, Wisd. i. 2, it is used as equivalent to ἀπιστεῖν τῷ Θεῷ. (2) Of God who puts men to the proof, not indeed with a bad design, but under difficult circumstances, so as that stumbling easily may, but never necessarily must, ensue. 1 Cor. x. 13. Heb. ii. 18; iv. 15; xi. 37. In the Old Test. we frequently have it, espe- _ cially in the history of Abraham, Gen. xxii. 1, ὁ Θεὸς ἐπείραζε τὸν ᾿Αβραὰμ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ. Compare Exod. xv. 25. Deut. xiii. 3. (8. ΟΡ men who, with evil in- tent and premeditation, make trial of another, Matth. mei es RIR Os ΧΧΙ a. MEAFK Wille {ὙΠ ὃ. John viii. 6. ( 4.) Hence, in quite a particular way of those trials which the devil—é πολυμήχανος opis—sets on foot with men, and which always take place with malicious views and designs, Matth. iv. 1—4. 1 Cor. vii. 5. 1 Thes. ii.5. Rev. ii.10. Hence his more distinctive name, ὁ πειράξωνε-εὁ πειραστής, whereas God is ὁ δοκιμαστὴς τῶν καρδιῶν, Ps. xvii. 8. In all of these passages, as well as Gal. vi. 1, we might also translate seduce, and apply this signification to Jas. i. 18, 14, in order at once to remove the difficulty there arising 206 CHAP. VI. VERSE 13. from the words, ὁ Θεὸς πειράξει οὐδένα. But there is nothing at all to hinder us from abiding by the mean- ing, ““ to place in a condition liable to temptation ;” and in James, it is impossible to take πειράζειν in a sense essentially different from the πειρασμός, used just before in v. 12. Even here, accordingly, we hold by the usual signification, and take the apostle’s words in a sense as follows: ““ Let no man say, when he is brought under exposure to temptation, that the fault of that lies with God; it is the evil propensity within us, which makes temptations of the relations of life.” Now, from the perf. pas. of the verb πειράζειν, the noun πειρασμός is formed, and frequently means the same as the active πεήρασις. The noun, according to the analogy of the verb, denotes, 1. Generally a trial, so that it does not differ from δοκιμασία, | Pet. iv. 12. 2. A state of trial, in which one may readily fall, and under this we bring all those passages, where Jexicographers and expositors have given the signifi- cation, calamities. Luke viii. 13; xxii. 28. Acts xx. 19. Gal. iv. 14. Jas. i. 12. 3. Many adopt the signification, “ inward incitement, instigation of the exisuuia, and found it upon the texts, Matth. xxvi. 4]. 1 Tim. vi. 9. Luke iv.13. In the last of these passages, however, the word is used actively = dox- facia, in the other two, it denotes, as elsewhere, a state of exposure to temptations, a σκάνδαλον. Paul — places beside, and as expository of it, εἰς παγίδα. It does not, therefore, intimate the δελεάφειν of the ἐπι- — Suuia, but the tempting, seductive condition operated by the δελεάϑειν. The word, accordingly, answers entirely to the classical σερίστασις, which moralists, CHAP. VI. VERSE 13. 207 like Epictetus, Maximus Tyrius and others, frequent- ly use, and which properly signifies no more than circumstance, but comes afterwards to mean a ¢icklish, seductive situation. We accordingly bring all the in- stances numbered in the third, under the second head. If πειρασμός be used as concrete, it is equivalent to σκάνδαλον, for that denotes a πρόσκομμα, ἔγκομμα, On which one may easily meet a fall. wp, 7 παγίς is also equivalent, whichis frequently coupled with σκάν- duro, Jos. xxiii. 138. 1 Mac. v. 4. In the classics, too, Amphis in Athenzeus, calls mistresses, παγίδας ἡ τοῦ βίον. The German word anfechtung, assault, which Luther would have used, as he says, in place of versuchung, temptation, had not the latter been in more frequent use, denotes a challenge to battle. The middle high German bekdrung, which is frequently to be met in Tauler—chorunga in Kero, Otfried, and Notker, from koren—a challenge to the torment of the ordeal. . In the LXX. Job vii. 1; x. 173; in the Pseudo- epigraphs (Testam. Issachar, page 627, and Fabric. Tom. II.) and in the Fathers (e. g. Basil. ep. 231, T. ΠΠ. ed. Par. Hom. in Lue. xii. 18, T. II. p. 43,) πει- ρατήριον is also used in place of πειρασμός, which, in virtue of its termination, like κριτήριον, denotes a means of proving. Among Ecclesiastical writers, we also find ὕχλησις in the sense of πειρασμός. See 6. g. Photius in Wolf Anecd. Gr. I. 145. If then, according to what has been said, σερασμός denotes that situation in which the Christian is tried by God—if, in the Scripture, these divine trials are represented as the means of our becoming established 208 CHAP. VI. VERSE 13. and confirmed in the faith, (Rom. v. 3. James i. 2— 4. 1 Peter i. 6, 7,)—if the πειρασμός, as Chrysostom ep. 157, says: τοῖς γενναίως φέρουσι πολλὰ κομίζει τὰ βραβεῖα καὶ λαμπροὺς τοὺς στεφάνους, so that, under a conviction of this, the true Christian, in Clemens, ex- claims, ὦ κύριε, δὸς περίστασιν καὶ λάβε ἐπίδειξιν,---ἰ it be absolutely impossible, so long as we remain in this world, to live exempt from all σκανδάλοις (1 Cor. v. 10,)—and if Christ expressly prays the Father, not to take us out of this world, but to keep us from the evil that is in it, (John xvii. 15,) there arises a doubt, as follows: How can Christ put it into our lips to pray, that we should not at all be led into the πειρασμοί ? Expositors have almost all had recourse to various devices in order to obviate this scruple ; several en- deavouring to remove the difficulty by sharpening the idea of πειρασμός, many by an tntensified acceptation of εἰσενέγκῃς, and several by urging the preposition cis As for those who heighten the idea of σειρασ- μός, 80 as to make it involve more than the mere indi- eation of a state in which one can easily fall, some speak of a temptation of quite a peculiar sort, in which | God purposely deserts man, ἐγκατάλειψις, according to Ps. xxii. 1, wari ἐγκατέλιπές με, and Ps. exix. 8. Compare Suicer Thes. s. v. ἐγκατάλενψις. No divine temptation, however, goes beyond our strength, 1 Cor. x. 13.2 Others speak of a diabolical temptation @ Basil, ep. 219, which letter begins: ὁ πάντα μέτρῳ καὶ rade asa ἡμῖν κύριος, καὶ «τοὺς πειρασμούς ἐπάγων μὴ oa οντας ἡμῶν τὴν δύναμιν RTA» CHAP. VI. VERSE [9. 209 surpassing our strength. But as all the temptations of the Devil are under the divine permission, and as God never tempts us above what we are able to bear, a temptation of the sort supposed cannot take place: Over and above, the Devil would have to be specified asthe author. Others wish to refer the word here, as at Matt. xxvi. 41, to the inward enticement by lust, so that the prayer would be as it were, “ Lead us not into enticement of evil desire.” Now, even although we were to admit that, in the same sense in which it is said of God that he hardens, a leading into evil inclination might also be ascribed to him, we have still disputed πειρασμός being wholly equivalent to the δελεασμός of the ἐπιθυμία. We hence reply to the question which was put to Basil, whether sickness and affliction are included in the πειρασμός, for whose prevention we may and ought to pray, what that father himself says, Resp. ad interr. 221: οὐ διέκρινε πειρασμοῦ ποιότητα, % adormas δὲ προσέταξε" προσεύχεσ))ε μὴ εἰσελϑεῖν εἰς πειρασμύν.----ϑδὸ likewise Chrysostom in De instit. sec. Deum vita. 2. Many more, down from even the most ancient times, have urged the εἰσενέγκῃς. Isidorus Pel. 1. V. ep. 226, where he speaks upon Matt. xxvi. 41, distinguishes strictly betwixt ἐμπεσεῖν εἰς πειρα- σμόν and εἰσελθεῖν. The former, he tells us, it is in the pre- sent state impossible to avoid, as, according to Jobvii. 1, man’s whole life upon earth is a πειρατήριον: προσεύχεσ)ε ἵνα μὴ ἡττηϑῆτε τῷ πειρασμῷ" οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν, μὴ ἐμπεσεῖν" ἀλ- λὰ μὴ εἰσελἣ εἶν, τουτέστι, μὴ κατα ποδῆνα, ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. Heexpresses himself tothe same effect, 1. 11.6ρ. 71. and a Calvin: Hic notatur interior tentatio, quae diaboli fia- bellum apte vocari potest. VOL. IT. P 910 CHAP. VI: VERSE 13. so does Theophylact on Luke xxii. 46. Augustine: Aliud est ¢entart, aliud induct in tentationem. So Lu- ther, Chemnitz, Bengel. So likewise Grotius, Clericus, Olearius, Michaelis and most others. Luther: “ We cannot make it better. Come under temptation we must, but what we pray for is, that we may not fall into it, and be therein overwhelmed.” Clericus: ‘ te 0 tn 7 ε 230 CHAP. VI. VERSES 19, 20. be the case, we would have to fancy it formed in some such way as follows: The first part of the chapter admonished us to make a regard for the in- visible God our sole motive in the practice of piety ; the second exhorts generally to live with a single re- gard to him and his kingdom. Hilary tries ina way of his own to effect the transition. According to him, the treasures, after which we are not to strive, are the praise of men, those for which we are to do so, honour with the father in heaven. The fallacy of this connection, insufficient even in other respects, results from the more specific description of the trea- sures, as being of a kind which the moth and rust and thieves are able to destroy. The treasure in heaven is that good which, in the firm belief of an invisible world (Heb. xi. 1, 27), we relinquish upon earth. Such treasure is not lost; it is, as it were, deposited and collected in heaven, Mat. xix. 21. Luke xii. 38. The laying up of trea- sure in heaven coincides in that case with securing the divine favour, from which our recompence in the future world accrues, and in that way the deposit we have previously made in faith returns to us with in- terest. Hence, πλουτεῖ εἰς Θεόν, Luke xii. 21. 1 Tim. vi. 18, 19, is in meaning to be rich in the divine fa- vour. Sir. iii. 4; xxix. 11. That the precept does not forbid the accumulation of riches in every case, J.D. Michaelis took a deep interest in shewing. We can appeal to the text, 2 Cor. xii. 14, and, accord- ing to the analogy of the faith, decide, that when the amassing of terrestrial wealth does not promote but 4 CHAP. VI. VERSES 19, 90. 231 hinders the amassing of wealth celestial, it is to be condemned. We can also however, conceive, that by a wise management of what has been confided to us, the accumulation of the heavenly treasure will be promoted. For here, too, the maxim holds, that the more the talents received, the greater the interest which can be gained, Matt. xxv. 20, 22.* It is a question whether βρῶσις, in this connection, has the general meaning of gnawing, consuming ; and, in that ease, whether it be perhaps only mentally re- ferred to a specific sort of it, or whether it has aec- quired a more special meaning, viz. either rust or corn-worm. The explanation of it as rust, is far spread, in the Vulgate, in the Coptic version, in Ulphilas, so also in Erasmus, Luther, Grotius, Bengel, Meyer, and in the dictionaries of Schleusner and Bretsch- neider. We might plead in its favour as follows: ’ James, who elsewhere has also allusions to the Ser- mon on the Mount, as we saw, p. 38, alludes, c. v. 2, 3, to this passage of ours, and there the ἱμάτια o7- ἃ The author of the work ascribed to Basilius, De baptismo, 1. I. ὁ. Land 1. II. c. 2, lays down the true hermeneutical principle, that the more general declarations of scripture require to be minutely defined and expounded by the more specific; but, in the imstance before us, he makes a wrong application of it, saying, that from Luke xii. 33, it results that alms-giving is the means by which alone the celestial treasures are acquired. It is just by adducing other passages, that one is enabled to shew that alms are not the only means. Supposing Christ to have delivered the saying literally as we find it in Matt., the laying up of treasures in heaven is much more general, and extends to every deposit of what i is transitory, in exchange for what is everlasting. 232 CHAP. VI. VERSES 19, 20. σόβρωτα are first mentioned, and afterwards the rust which consumes gold and silver. In the classics, moreover, as is well known, moths and rust are often mentioned side by side, when rapid decay is spoken οὖ; and finally, it might still be said, that perhaps the Hebrew tongue possessed. no other term to denote rust, than the general one before us, rendered by the translator βρῶσις, just as in Syriac, the word |Zams is used for it, which properly signifies corruption. To begin, however, with this last argument, the language of the Rabbins at least contained a current word for rust, viz. στη ττ, and, with respect to James, the more general meaning of βρῶσις may be expressed in the ὁ πλοῦτος ὑμῶν σέσηπε, or, What has more to recommend it, he has, in all probability, conjoined in the σητόβρω- va the back-reference to o7¢ and βρῶσις. We can hence admit the specific signification of rust, only if sure vouchers for it are to be found in the Hellenistic. On the contrary, however, we meet, Bar. vi. 11, with at least στὰ βρώματα beside ids, in the more general signification. In the sense of corn- worm, or general- ly an animal which consumes grain, Theophylact himself appears to have taken the words when he says: ons μὲν καὶ βρῶσις ἀφανίζει βρώματα καὶ ἱμάτια, κλέπται δὲ χρυσίον καὶ ἀργύριον, nay, even Chrysostom’s language may be so construed, as if under βρῶσις he had understood a kind of animal. This explana- tion has been chiefly defended by Clericus, and re- cently by Kuinél, who does not, however, appear to be aware of those who more anciently preceded him. : On the supposition of its truth, there would be a defi- | nite specification of the sort of treasures, 1. Clothing, what the moth consumes, Job xiii. 28. [5.1,. 9 ; 1.1. 8, CHAP. VI. VERSES 19, 20. 233 which anciently, and even at present, in the East, constitutes a part of riches, Ezra ii. 69. Neh. vii. 70. Job xxvii. 16. Jas. ν. 2.—2. Grain, de- stroyed by the worm, Luke xii. —-3. Gold and _ sil- ver, which thieves steal. This precise specifica- tion has, however, something prosaic, and does not well accord with the proverbial character of the say- ing; besides which, the assumed signification of βρῶ- σις has not been made out. Michaelis intended to prove it in his Anmerkungen fiir Gelehrte, but fell short of his design. Kuinol takes his stand upon Mal. iii. 11, where the LXX. have translated box by βρῶσις. From this, however, it would be as impossible to demonstrate that βρῶσις directly signifies the corn- worm, as from the βρωτής which Aquila, Is. L. 9, has put for moth, that βρωτής means the moth. The LXX. have rendered, as if 52x were the word, which they also do, Is. uv. 10, where they translate 59x prt), ἄρτον εἰς βρῶσιν. Clericus comes in aid of that exposi- . tion, by comparing it with >on, which properly means the consumer, afterwards the locust. But what is gained by a comparison like this? The word merely shews, that locusts in Hebrew, and _particular- ly Hebrew poetry, were called consumers, and that βρωτήῆς in the Greek of the New Test. might undoubt- edly signify locust.» * So, in a fragment of Menander, as three inward destroyers, are mentioned side by side, οἷον ὃ μὲν ἰὸς, ἄν σκοπῇ ς, σὸ σιδήριον, τὸ δ᾽ ἱμάτιον οἱ σῆτες, ὃ δὲ ϑρὶψ τὸ ξύλον, Menandri reliquiae ed. Meineke, p. 198. >’ The Munster Hebrew translation of Matt. has Spr, that of the London Society for the Prop. of Christ. among the Jews, ὮΝ ΤΊ, that of the Bible Society την τττη, (this should, 234 CHAP. VI. VERSES 19, 20. From this special signification, we must according- ly depart. Neither ean we, however, with Casaubon, Drusius, and Homberg, suppose a Hendyadis = σὴς βρώσκουσα, were there no other reason save that καί does not stand here, but οὔσε----οὔτε. The auctor op. imperf. and Louis de Dieu also understand βρῶσις, with a special reference to grain, of the gradual con- sumption by men. But this too will not do; for here it is treasures stored up which are spoken of, being called, as the Calembourg of the Greek Etymologists says, S7-_ σαυροΐί Ors ridevras cig αὔριον, Luke xii. 19. It will, consequently, be most correct to refer βρῶσις to every sort of inward consumption and annihilation, whe- ther effected by worms or decay, or whatsoever means. Thus τὼ βρώματω stands beside ἰός, at Ba- ruch vi. 11. So have Basil? and Euthymius taken the word ; the Itala likewise, which is followed by Augus- tine and the auctor op. imperf. has used comestura. Beza, in his day, for the ezrugo of the Vulgate, sub- stituted erosio. The moth is likewise proverbial among the Arabs. See Meidani, Proverb. n. 4399, cn αν" ‘oe east ‘““ more destructive than the moth.” Διορύσσειν, which is here used of thieves, occurs in Greek, without o/x/ac, and in the self same way as doubtless, be 74511,) according to the English version, moth and rust. @ Hom. in Luc. xii. 18. Opp. T. II. p. 49, he says: σὰ ἐκεῖ (ἐν οὐρανῷ) ὠποτιϑέμενα ob σῆτες καταβόσκονται, οὐ σηπεδὼν ἐσινέμεσαι, οὗ λῃσταὶ διακλέππουσι. At another place, where he quotes the saying in the Hom. xxi. c. 8, he altogether passes over βρῶσις, as Chrysostom also does in some passages. CHAP. VI. VERSES 21——28. 935 our to break in; along with it roryweuyet and éxro- χωρυχεῖν. Compare Job xxiv. 16. V. 21. The reason why treasures upon earth ought not to be laid up was specified proximately by the appended clauses in ver. 19, 20; it is that they are transitory. Ver. 21, couples a new reason, and that with singular depth. Luke, xii. 33, has wholly iso- lated these important words. By their location in Matthew, there arises the finest and most ingenious connection of ideas, forming an admirable transition to v.22—-24, Compare Ist vol. p. 29. That object to which our endeavour is mainly directed lays claim to our whole mind. Is the object of our love situate here below, then the whole mind, and especially the knowing faculty—which is specially spoken of at vs. 22, 23—take a direction towards what is here below. Καρδία to be sure is more comprehensive than νοῦς : As it, however, comprises the νοῦς, Justin M., who, in quoting the passage, Apol. I. ο. 15, substitutes νοῦς, does not alter the meaning. V. 22, 23. How Kuinol and, prior to him, Cal- vin could believe that this saying does not stand con- nected with the preceding one, is scarcely conceiy- able. That Luke xi. 34—86, states the connection in which it was originally delivered, no one can easily suppose, inasmuch as in that gospel both this saying, and no less v. 33, can only with difficulty be brought into connection with what precedes. Here in Matth. the train of ideasis conspicuous. Thetendency towards earthly good causes the whole mind to be occupied exclusively with what is earthly. But when the mind’s eye is earthly, how will the whole man, and 236 CHAP. VI. VERSE 5 22, 23. his doings, which ought from that eye to have de- rived new light, be involved in darkness ! The comparison extends to the εἰ οὖν, in v. 23. It . is there that the domain of application first begins. The sense of sight is that whose perceptions are most acute, and consequently it is transferred, still more fre- quently than the sense of hearing, to mental perception, 6. g. Aristotle’s topic. I. 14: ὡς ὄψις ἐν ὀφηαλμῷ, νοῦς ἐν ψυχῇ. See numerous other instances in Grotius and Wetstein.* Farther, light, as denoting the me- dium of perception by outward sense, is designative of the sensible eye, τὰ φάεα in Homer, lumina in the Latin, and then transferred to the spiritual sphere, it is the designation of spiritual perception. Τὸ φῶς τὸ ἐν σοΐ is accordingly equivalent to ὁ ὀφϑαλμὸς ὁ ἐν σοί, and as the Saviour does not here address Christians in particular, but in just the same way as at Mat. xiii. 12, states the general law, according to which an in- crease of light and of life in man takes place, we can employ this saying to demonstrate that according to Christ’s doctrine, there exists in every individual a degree of insight into what is true, and more from this than many other falsely quoted passages, might the theologians have been able to evince, that he does not teach a total depravation of human nature. Cal- vin: lumen vocat Christus rationem, quantulacunque a Compare the fine passage in Isidorus Pelus. 1. II. ep. 112, where he compares the eye, situate in the upper and no- bler part, with the sun in the heights of heaven; as inversely the poets call the sun the world’s eye. Ovid. Metam. IV. v. 226. In sacred scripture, ὀφϑαωλροὶ τῆς καρδίας, Eph. i. 18. Rev. iii, 18. Mark viii. 18, Ps. cxix. 18. CHAP. VI. VERSES 22, 23. 237 in hominibus reliqua manet post lapsum Adae. It is here said of the external eye, that it is the source of light, enlightening the whole body. In con- sequence of the connection of the members in the human body, none of them needs an eye of its own, but each partakes of the light, whose organ is the one eye, 1 Cor. xii. 144—18.2 That the eye may perform this service, it must not be πονηρός. Used of the ex- ternal eye, πονηρός here can have no other significa- tion than diseased, just like the Hebrew ys. So, too, among the Greeks, πονηρῶς ἔχειν, κακῶς ἔχειν, the opposite of ὑγιαΐνειν, by which also the meaning of ἁπλοῦς must be determined. In the sense of healthy that word is not to be found, from which it might be supposed that it ought to be taken in its proper sig- nification, as Elsner and Olshausen do, “ an eye that does not see double.” Double vision is disease, and this might then admit the fine exposition of Quesnel, “which knows but one object of love, viz. God.” We must, however, set out with the inquiry, what Hebrew word was used for it. Now, in Aquilas and the LXX. we find ἁσλοῦς as translation of on, aw = ὁλόκληρος. This, however, like integer, is of kindred significa- tion with healthy. So does Theophylact expound ἁπλοῦς and πονηρός by ὑγιής and νοσώδης. Now, were ἃ The thought would be expressed in a form still more pi- quant, ifitran: ὅλον τὸ capa cov opSarpos ἔσται. Maldonatus: erit veluti oculatum, nam oculus perexiguus orbiculus ita toti cor- pori necessarium lumen praebet, ut, cum oculus purus est, to- tum omnino corpus oculus esse videatur. ‘ When the Gene- ral is taken prisoner,”? says Chrysostom, with allusion to this passage, ‘‘ what hope is there for the common soldier ?” 238 CHAP. VI. VERSES 22, 29. the application to be made with striet reference to v. 21, we should not here expect rd φῶς τὸ ἐν oof, but ἡ καρδία, by which, to be sure, the more exact refer- ence to the similitude would be done away, inas- much as καρδία when taken generally, or even as the seat of the inclination, is not denominated ὀφ)αλμός. Even, however, when χαρδίω denotes the mind gene- rally, this φῶς, the knowing faculty, is particularly included, and of it, too, we may say with truth, that where the object of our affection lies, thither does our knowing faculty turn, and to that object does it ascribe the value of the chief good. The soundness of the inward eye accordingly consists in its perceiv- ing the true chief good unobseured. Its doing this again depends, as v. 21 says, upon whether we are practically seeking our chief good, where alone it is to be found. Furthermore, were there here a strict parallelism, we should expect, εἰ οὖν ὁ 6@3arwmig ὁ ἕν σοὶ πονηρὸς καὶ διὰ τοῦτο σκοτεινός ἐστιν, τὸ σκότος τῆς ψυ- " χῆς σου πόσον : The form of the thought, however, is changed, and the thought itself has thereby been in- vigorated. In place of contrasting the inward eye with the other parts of the inward man, he contrasts that which is light inwardly, with that which is of itself dark, so that the thought is now as follows: «© When that which by nature shineth, and imparts light to all the rest, is dark, how dark will then be that domain, which ought to be lighted with its rays, viz. the domain of the inclinations and propensities.” The article +d σκότος designates accordingly, not the darkness which then ensues, but that which existed there before. So has the τὸ σκότος πύσον been under- CHAP. VI. VERSES 22, 99, . 239 stood by all the ancients, among moderns, by none but Fritzsche. Chrysostom : ὅταν γοὶρ ὁ κυβερνήτης ὑπο- βρύχιος γένηται, καὶ ὁ λύχνος σβεσ)ῇ, καὶ ὁ ἡγεμὼν αἰ- χμάλωτος γένηται, ποία λοιπὸν ἔσται τοῖς ὑπηκόοις ἐλπίς." The Vulgate translates, tenebree zpse, which Jerome and Augustine expounded just as is done by Chry- sostom. The Syriac, Athiopic and Arabic translate, “‘ thy darkness,” and seem to have taken this in the same sense, “ that within thee, which is by nature dark.” Compare especially Euthymius. So likewise Erasmus, Beza and Luther, whereas the moderns for the most part give only ¢his sense to the words, “© How dark will it then also be in all the remaining tendencies of your mind.” Other interpreters entertain a different opinion as to the place in the language, where the domain of application.commences. The auctor op. imperf. con- siders the whole from ὁ λύχνος in v. 22, as applica- tion, so that σῶμα in the very first words, just as sub- sequently in ὅλον τὸ σῶμα, denotes the entire mind. Were that the case, we would have no proper simile here, but merely tropical diction. Many suppose a simile unfinished, holding the application to com- mence already at ἐὼν οὖν, and that the same words from ἐὰν οὖν to σχοτεινὸν ἔσται, which are to be referred to the spiritual eye, being referred to the corporeal, are to be supplied for the completion of the sense afier ὁ λύχνος ὁ ὀφ)γαλμός ἐστιν. So the Vulgate, Au- gustine, Erasmus, Luther, Piscator, Bengel, Beau- a When the pilot is drowned, and the light extinguished, and the captain taken prisoner—what more hope is there for the crew ? 240 CHAP. VI. VERSES 22, 23. sobre, Hammond, Clericus, Wetstein. When these expositors, like Augustine, explain ὀφϑαλμὸς πονηρός of the intentio mala, or like the Vulgate, which trans- lates, nequam, Luther, ein Schalk, @ knave, and Erasmus, who puts for it versutus,? of the deceitful tendency of the heart, the same sense results as from our explanation. On the other hand, many have taken ὀφ)αλμὸς πονηρός, according to the Heb. yn yy, Prov. xxiii. 63 xxviii. 99, Matth. xx. 15. Mark vii. 22, in the sense of 2ll-willed, and ἁπλοῦς, on the contrary, in that of liberal, which, in general, has been far too liberally applied as a substitute for ἁπλοῦς in many passages of the N. Test. Rom. xii. 8. 2 Cor.viii.2. Jamesi.5. The meaning would then be as follows: “ As the inward man is enlight- ened by the inward eye, in the same way that the outward man is by the outward eye, so, when thine inward eye is kind and bountiful, will thy whole man share the light of this virtue.” This exposition, which was ably opposed by Olearius in his day, must be entirely rejected. That author first shews cor- rectly, that ἁπλοῦς does not, at least directly, signify bountiful, but, just like Zéberalis, includes bountiful- ness in its meaning. The opposite of ὀφθαλμὸς πονη- eos, in the sense of 2ll-willed, however, would have to be ὀφθαλμὸς ἀγαϑός. Moreover, when opsaaués is taken for the inward eye, i. 6. the mind, a circum- stance which speaks against the explanation is, that, in the Hebrew phrase, the sense of malevolent cleaves to the outward eye; when, however, it is taken for ἃ. Compare ἁσλοῦς in contrast with δόλιος, Aristoph. Plut. v. 1159. CHAP. VI. VERSE 94. 94] the outward eye, and when of that, benevolence or displeasure are made to be predicated, it is diffi- cult to understand how, by generosity, the external body can become light, or how dark, by ill-will, while the εἰ οὖν τὸ φῶς x τ΄ A. has no right application. We have to add, that by adopting this construction, the beautiful and deeply important meaning of the language is made far two narrow and trivial. But it speaks generally against the supposition of the ἐὰν οὖν beginning the province of application, that the transition from the bodily ὀφθαλμός, spoken of in the first clause of v. 22, to the spiritual, is not at all in- dicated. We find the τὸ ἐν oof indicating the transi- tion first of all beside εἰ οὖν τὸ φῶς. V. 24. The soundness of the inward eye, consisted in recognizing the true and the chief, as the only good. All else, accordingly, and the love of all else, must be subordinated to this, and to the love of it. Every sort of ἐπαμφοτερίζεσγαι in the sphere of religious morality, every co-ordination of some other good beside the chief, confers on derivative blessings a self-subsistence not pertaining to them, elevates them to divine dignity, and hence, in serip- ture, is termed εἰδωλολοατρεία, Col. 1. 5. Phil. iti. 19. Δουλεύειν denotes in the sequel, such a relation towards an object, as that it is put into the place of an abso- lute χύριος, and is subordinated to no other sovereign- τν. Ifterrestrial good, however, be not contemplated ἃ Chrysostom : was οὖν ὁ ᾿Αβραάμ, φησι, πῶς ὁ ᾿Ιὼβ εὐδοκίμησε ; μή μοι TOUS πλουτοῦντας εἴπης, ἀλλὰ τοὺς δουλεύοντας. ἐτεὶ καὶ ὃ ᾿Ιὼβ πλούσιος ἦν GAN οὐκ ἰδούλευε τῷ μαμμωνᾷ, BAR εἶχεν αὐτὸς καὶ ἐκράτει, καὶ δεσπότης (αὐτοῦ) οὐ δοῦλος ἦν. Even among clas. VOL. II. R 949 CHAP. VI. VERSE 24. as something subordinate to God, and the divine pur- poses, it then likewise demands from man endeavours different from those which are demanded by God himself,—endeavours which contradict the divine will, and thus there comes to be two κύριοι, having a dis- crepant bent of will. Now, we must conceive the κύριοι; here spoken of, as being in this way, of contrary ineli- nations, for as Chrysostom correctly observes, two masters having the same bent of will, are, properly speaking, not two, but one, just as the endeavour after earthly good, when once subordinated to the divine will, by no means excludes the endeavour after godliness. But two so different masters cannot be served simultaneously, without the one being less esteemed than the other, consequently, subordinated ‘to him, and robbed of his κυριότης This holds of either of the two, as both claim to be absolute. Ὃ εἷς and ὁ ἕτερος are set in opposition to each other, and the εἷς and ἕτερος in the second member of the verse, are the same as in the first. To be sure, one would then expect τοῦ ἑνός with the article, in order that it might more distinctly relate back to the preceding εἷς. Even in the absence of the article, however, we must of necessity refer the ἑνός to the preceding «ic. For unless we do so, there arises an unmeaning tautology, on which Erasmus, in his col- loquia, shows his wit. But granting this, it is sup- posed by many, that if καταφρονεῖν be taken in pre- cisely the same sense as μισεῖν, and avréyeotos in that of ἀγαπᾷν, the sentence becomes tautological. Now, sical authors, δουλεύειν τινὶ πρώγριωτι, signifies the absolute de- voting of one’s self to an object. So Plato Phaedon. p. 66. D., de Rep. 1. VI. 494. Ὁ. CHAP. VI. VERSE 94. 243 in as much as, according to the usage of the modern languages, καταφρονεῖν is feebler than μισεῖν, it seemed the readiest way, to consider ayréyveotou as likewise feebler than ἀγαπᾷν, and hence Grotius, who is fol- lowed by Kuinol, translates as follows: futurum enim, ut aut hune amet, illum oderit, aut certe alte- rum curet neglecto altero. On the other hand, Ca- saubon and Raphelius, and in like manner Erasm. Schmidt, endeavoured to vindicate for ἀντέχεσθαι a stronger signification than that of the ἀγαπᾷν, so that the meaning would be, vel unum odio habebit alte- rum amans, aut etiam, licet amet utrumque, fieri po- terit, ut, dum in alterius voluntate exsequenda erit intentior, erga alterum se gerat negligentius. Now, doubtless, there may be cases where ἀντέχεσθαι, amplec- ti alicujus partes, sectari aliquem, placed side by side with ἀγαπᾷν, may be so used as to express either more or less than it. This will uniformly depend upon the degree to which the idea of dove is profound- Jy or superficially conceived. In itself, ὠντέχεσθαι signifies neither more nor less. If, however, ὠγαπᾷν and avréyeodas are parallel, we shall look for the same also in κωταφρονεῖν and μισεῖν, and, in order to effect a perfect parity, we do not need to sharpen the idea of καταφρονεῖν, but to enfeeble that of μισεῖν. It was cus~ tomary until now, with regard to the passage Luke xiv. 26. John xii.25. Rom. ix. 13, to take μισεῖν ἴῃ a comparison as equivalent to postponere, in which way the New Testament lexica adduce it. As, in the present day, the object is to give the utmost pos-_ sible point to the meaning, it was to be expected that, in these passages also, an attempt would be made to urge the strict signification, and this, in- 244 CHAP. VI. VERSE 24. deed has been done with great talent by Olshausen at Luke xiv. 26. So, too, in expounding the pas- sage before us. He here calls attention to the fact, that where the masters are decidedly at anti- podes, the servants, too, become reciprocally the same, and haters of the other master, somewhat in the way represented in the old Italian comedy. In our opinion, however, this strict interpretation is not correct. All depends upon whether, on a choice being made, wherein one thing is decidedly valued lower than another, I contemplate this relation, ac- cording to the quantum of positive love still conceiv- able in the matter, or according to the negative view of the love which is awanting. In the latter case, I can regard every act of undervaluing as pertaining to the domain of hatred. That the Hebrew did so, is shewn, besides the New Test. passages, by the following from the Old Test. Deut. xxi. 16. Gen. xxix. 31. Mal. i. 2, 3. The signification of μαμωνᾶς (the termination ἂς is in consequence of the stat. emphat. in the Chaldaic) is subject to no doubt. The word occurs frequently in the Targum and among the Rabbins, and also in Sy- riac authors.* So, too, in the Samaritan. To crown all, Augustine mentions: lucrum Punice mammon di- citur; and the Targumists put it for the Hebrew ps2. Accordingly, it is an old Semitic word. So many more difficulties are connected with its deriva- tion. In the first place, something depends upon the spelling. Just as in the ease of numerous proper names, such as Γαββαϑά, Γαββαϑών, Κάδδης, Γόμοῤῥα, 8. Assemani Biblioth. Orient. III. 2, 122, 123. CHAP. VI. VERSE 94.᾿ 245 the spelling with a simple and double consonant va- ries, so does it also with μαμμωνᾶς. The Greek Fa- thers wrote it for the most part with one yu, e.g. Clem. Alex., Strom. VII. 875, 1V. 577, Theod. Opp. I. 656, Basilius De bapt. 1. II. quaest. 7; Whereas Chrysostom, Euthymius, Theophylact do so with a double μ, and so likewise the Vulgate and Jerome in every passage. Griesbach found the authority of the Codices to be here vacillating, but adopted μαμωνᾷ, as did also Lachmann. Now, that this is the correct orthography of the word, admits of no doubt, as in the Syriac and Chaldaic, it was written with only one μ; and at Luke xvi. 9, that way of writing it maintains its undisputed right. It is another question to be sure, whether Matthew did not originally follow the popu- lar pronunciation, which, in foreign words, gives the syllables rather acutely than prolonged. Ac- cordingly, in investigating the etymology, we must needs set out from the pronunciation with a single μ. The derivation which then lies next at hand is from ἸΌΝ, supposing a contraction of the x. It has been embraced by Drusius, Castellus and others, and that either in the sense of creditum Dei, or what is better, quod in eis fidit homo. At Is. xxxiii. 6, and Ps. xxxvii. 3, the LXX. translate ττϑῚ ΝΣ by Snoaveoi and πλοῦτος, and similar is the use of 4m for riches. This derivation is certainly preferable to that from {1So, numerare = res numeratae, which Lorenz Fabricius in his Reliquiae Syrae in Crenius, Ana- lecta philol. histor. p. 296, defends, and to that which Michaelis, Lex. Syr. s. h. v. proposes, and which is proposed afresh by Kaiser, Commentar. quo linguae 246 CHAP. VI. VERSES 24, 25. Aramaicae usus ad interpretanda plura N. T. lo- ca defenditur. Norimb. 1831. according to which the word must come from co slo The participle (- \gn however, means alumnus cui de victu pros- picimus, but not the victus itself. Schleusner, and several more, state, that among the Syrians a deity answering to Plutus, bore the name of Mammon. This, as we are told, Tertullian relates; but in the passage to which the assertion refers—for it is not more particularly given in Schleusner—adyv. Marcion. 1. IV. c. 59, nothing of the kind is to be discovered. Schleusner refers besides to Casp. Barth adversa- riorum 1. LX. Francof. 1648. But there, all we find is, that Barth, 1. LIV. c. 4, according to the lead of several ancients, understands under Mammon, the Devil. Asa voucher for this, however, he only cites the obscure grammarian Papias, (from the 11th cent.,) who says, in his Glossary, mammona daemon ille di- citur, qui divitiis et lucris carnalibus praeest. V. 25—34. AS GOD SHOULD BE THE ABSOLUTE RULING PRINCIPLE FOR MAN, WE OUGHT NOT TO BE SO SOLICITOUS, EVEN FOR TEMPORAL NECESSA- RIES, AS THEREBY TO FORGET OUR DEPENDANCE UPON HIM. V. 25. The following exhortation is also introduced at Luke xii. 22, with a dia τοῦτο ὑμῖν λέγω, which * Jerome appears to have followed a derivation of his own, saying, c. 121. ad Algasiam c. 6. Mammona autem non He- braeorum sed Syrorum lingua, (by this express statement we CHAP. VI. VERSE 25. 947 there appositely fits into the foregoing parable. But even in the passage before us, the juncture is not in the least forced. For if so be, that no endeavour after earthly good, made in self-dependence, and with- out subordination to God, ought to have place, it fol- lows, that neither ought there to be any μέριμνα on account of it. For this μέριωνα must not be con- founded with a well regulated care for the ἐπιτήδεια σοῦ σώματος, Jas. ii. 16; such a care being without μέριμνα. Μεριμνᾷν περὶ τῶν βιωτικῶν (Luke xxi. 34,) is more than σπουδὴν ἔχειν περὶ τῶν ἀναγκαίων, as the very etymology of the word expresses, inasmuch as being equally with μερμερίζω derived from μερίς, it denotes such a kind of effort as divides the heart be- twixt God and the world, so that the person is not left ἀμερίστῳ καρδίῳ, it presupposes a περισπᾶσθαι ταῖς διανοίαις, it is tantamount to μετεωρίζεσγαι, which Lu- ther puts for it, 6. xii. 29. Compare Ecclesiasticus xxxiv. 1, ἀγρυπνίω πλούτου ἐκτήκει σάρκας καὶ ἡ μέριμνα αὐτοῦ ἀφιστᾷ ὕπνον. This exhortation accordingly fits the preceding context quite appropriately. ψυχή the first time, must naturally not be taken, as is done by the Vulgate, Chrysostom, Euthymius, in the sense of soul, but, as Augustine in his day, cor- rectly observes, it means, in the first instance, zfe. see, that the word had first been introduced into the Rabbini- cal,) divitiae nuncupantur, quod de iniquitate collectae sunt. Vallarsi conjectures that Jerome considered the word as com- pounded of ἸῚΝ 112 and points to Iren. haer. 3, 8, where in a dark passage, the composition of it is also pointed out. very inappositely at v. 27 cogitans. 248 _ CHAP. VI. VERSE 26. Verses 27 and 30 give the explanation of the saying, “ Having vouchsafed to you soul and body without any anxious solicitude of your own, how should not Ged likewise give the nourishment necessary for your support.” Chrysostom : ὁ τὴν τρεφομένην σάρκω διαπλά- σας, πῶς τὴν τροφὴν οὐ παρέξει; V. 26. That God is able, even without any πρόνοια and μέριμνα on the part of the creature, to supply him with food and raimert, is shown by instances which the Saviour takes from the domain of nature, in regard to food, from the animal kingdom, v. 26, in regard to raiment, from the vegetable, verse 28. As is elsewhere the case, so we here find the Sa- viour, alive to the traces of God impressed upon nature. A constant residence in a neighbourhood of exquisite natural beauty must, of itself, have oc- casioned this, otherwise we might say, there is here a reminiscence of the fine passages of the Old Test., in which the care of divine providence is also shewn by instancing the animals, Ps. civ. 27. Job xxxvili, 41. Ps. cxlvii. 9. In the two last passages, the particular species is given, to wit, the ravens, probably because they are the greediest for food. Luke too, 6. xii. 24, has the species in place of the ge- nus, having been led, probably by the recollection οἵ. the Old Test., to individualize the general expression of Christ, which is what we look for when the atten- tion is directed to a thing displayed by nature on every hand. In this case, the discrepance is an indication, an inconsiderable one it is true, of the inferior origi- nality of Luke, See Vol. I. p. 19, The genitive ͵ CHAP. VI. VERSE 26. 249 πετεινοὶ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ is obviously not to be taken, as is done by Fritzsche, for a genit. motus, which fiy to- wards heaven. But here the genitival relation de- notes, in quite a general way, participation in any thing, “4 whose element is the air,” as the beasts of the field, the fish of the sea. See my Beitrage zur Spracherkl. des N. T., p. 155. The addition of σοῦ οὐρανοῦ is not useless, but points, just as after- wards the lilies of the field, to the fact of the birds being without a master, notwithstanding of which they receive their food. Agricultural labour is here graphically described according to its three component parts. Chrysostom relates, that many considered the ex- ample of the birds as inapposite, because in them want of care xara φύσιν πρόσεστι. He replies, ἀλλὰ δυνατὸν καὶ ἡμῶν ἐκ προαιρέσεως προσγενέσϑαι. Hilary’s allegory is peculiar to himself. In his opinion, pursuant of Eph. ii. 2, the fowls are the un- clean spirits, (he might also have cited Matt. xiii. 4 and 19,) the lilies, the good angels, who, without any labour of their own, enjoy the glory of God in eternal innocence. The grass which is designed for the oven, is the heathen ordained for perdition. Jerome and Augustine expressly declare against this allegorizing of the passage, which prevailed, as it appears, in the Latin church. V. 27. After Erasmus had, so early as in his day, intimated in the Annot., (In the paraphrase he fol- lows the common exposition,) that ἡλικίω may also denote term of life, and since the adoption of this 250 CHAP. VI. VERSE 27. meaning by Gusset? and Hammond, expositors are divided on the subject. In the most recent period, the majority have decided for the meaning, age, viz. Wetstein, Kuinol, Schott, Paulus, De Wette (in the first edit. of his translation,) Olshausen and Meyer. Henneberg and Fritzsche alone have retained the signification, stature. We shall first speak of the connection with the preceding context, and begin with supposing ἡλικίω to mean stature. Chrysostom pro- poses a very ingenious and close connection. As this question still lies within the department of the detail which respects nourishment, he supposes the transi- tion as follows: “ Be not solicitous about food, be- cause however much of it you may take, you.cannot thereby promote your growth ; it is God that must give the increase, as i Cor. iii. 7, declares.” Tosay nothing of other reasons, however, were this the connection which obtains, the words would have to run differently. It must needs have been said : μεριμνῶν περὶ τῆς τροφῆς. Besides, Luke xii. 26 shews us still more evidently than the present passage, that the subject here spoken of is something new, although related to what goes before. We might thus perhaps state the connection: “ Take no care for the support of your body, for so little does it stand under your power, that you cannot, even in any wise promote its growth.” In the self same way ἃ In the Vesperis Gron. p. 398, where he translates : qui est ce d’entre vous qui puisse ajouter une des moindres mesures a son age. b Theophyl.: τί μεριμινῶν κερδαίνεις ; προστίϑης τῇ ἡλικίᾳ cov a Ν 3 4 > ΡΨ" ~ ma OM ye ~ ~ ~ δὼ καν σὸ ἐλάχιστον οὐχὶ μώλλον μὲν οὖν ὑῴωιρεις των σώρκων. THKEOWY yee ἡ μέριμνα. CHAP. Vi. VERSE 97. 951 must we construct the connection, were we to adopt for ἡλικία the signification, tame of life. The word is used, and used currently, in both meanings. In the passage before us, all that has been objected to the signification stature, is as follows, 1. Christ here speaks of what man chiefly strives after (ἐπιζητεῖ) which is never size of body. This objection disap- pears when the connection is laid down as we have done. 2. The measure of a cubit, in reference to the human stature, is out of proportion, inasmuch as the design of Christ called for the mention ofa very minute increase. (Compare c. v. 36, οὐ δύνασαι μίαν τρίχα λευκὴν ἢ μέλαιναν ποιῆσαι.) In this way does Luke carry out the thought, saying, v. 26, εἰ ody οὔτε ἐλάχι- στον δύνασϑε, τί περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν μεριμνᾶτε. To this ob- jection no other reply can be given but that of Euthy- mius, viz. that it had become the universal custom to measure the human stature by the ell. But the answer is not satisfactory, for customary although that may have been, it was unsuitable at this place. It mattered not here how great soever any one is, but only that he cannot add even the very least to his stature. Hence we also find ourselves compelled to assent to the more modern exposition. Dr. Fritzsche notices in opposition: Enimvero quod summum est, inepte et inusitate aetatis mensuram e cubito fac- tam contendo, quod apto aliquo testimonio diluere neglexerunt. It is, however, hard to see why the examples which have been already adduced by others should prove nothing. We have principally to com- pare Hammond, Alberti and Wetstein. At Ps. xxxix. 6, the term of life is likened to a handbreadth 952 CHAP. VI. VERSES 28—30. (mrmpw.) So likewise Diog. Laert. viii. 16, σπιϑαμὴ σοῦ Biove Further, Alcaeus in Athenaeus, |. X. ο. 7, δάκτυλος ἁμέρα, and Mimnermus in Stobaeus, Tit. 98, ed. Gaisf. T. III. 282, ἡμεῖς . . . σήχυιον (not πσηχύτον,; it is here an adjective, see Lobeck, Phryn. 494,) ἐπὶ “χρόνον ἄνϑεσιν ἥβης τερπόμεϑα. The image is then bor- rowed from life, conceived as a race-course, = cursus vitae, Job ix. 25. 2 Tim. iv. 7. V. 28—30. With regard to dress, our Saviour might have once more referred to an animal, as, for instance, to the peacock, like Solon, when he wished to humble Creesus. The image he has selected is, how- ever, more delicate, while, at the same time, it better answers his purpose ; for he points to one of the least specious productions of nature, as indicating the highest splendour of raiment. The lily, with us usually white, in the East, more frequently red, orange, and yellow (its finest species is the imperial crown, χρίνον βασιλικόν), grows there in the field. In particular, the broad and fertile pasture-lands of the plain of Sharon were covered with this flower. Com- pare Song of Sol. ii. 1, and Iken de lilio Saronitico dissertat. Tom. II. The ancient classic poets also ce- lebrate the lily, calling it alba, candida, argentea. The splendour of this dress of the flowers is, however, the more striking, the more its existence is precarious. It grows wild, (κρίνα τοῦ ἀγροῦ.) It soon withers. Let the reader only think of the East, where a wind from the south often makes every thing fade in twenty- four hours, Ps. xc. 5,6. 1 Peter i. 24. Horace, Carm. I. 36, 16, breve lilium. When the dry grass CHAP. VI. VERSES 98---90. 953 is gathered to heat the baker’s oven,? it is plucked along with it. Χόρτος in verse 30, denotes the whole class of field and meadow plants, and comprises the flowers, like wm, awy. Κοπιᾷν and νήϑειν may, as is done by the auct. op. imp., be sc understood, that the one denotes male, the other female, labour; for the former is used of agri- culture, 2 Tim. ii. 6. It is, however, more correct to conceive the sowing and preparation of flax for clothing, so that the meaning is, ‘* The flowers can- not prepare their raiment for themselves.” The splendour of the flower is put ona par with what to the Jew was the beau-ideal of magnificence. Such were Solomon and Esther. Of Solomon’s riches, and especially of his ivory throne, we read 1 Kings x. 12. 2 Chron. ix. 17. This monarch’s glory is indicated as the highest possible, by the οὐδέ, not even. The δόξα is the whole festal apparatus of the king, when he appears in state; but, in particular, his splendid gold embroidered robe. We may compare Ecclesiasticus L. 8, where it is said of the high priest, Simon, after he has been likened to a rose and a lily, ἐν τῷ ἀναλαμβάνειν αὐτὸν στολὴν δόξης, καὶ ἐνδιδύσκεσϑαι αὐτὸν συντέλειαν καυχήματος, ἐν ἀναβάσει “γυσιωστηρίου ἁγίου ἐδόξασε περιβολὴν ἁγιάσματος. If we sever the saying from the context, it may, no doubt, lead to gross errors, which, however, we shall not attempt, like a preacher in a German capi- a Jerome on the text, Lam. v. 10: Solebant autem furni in- cendi non tantum ramalibus arborum, sed et floribus, postquam exaruerunt, quemadmodum et paleis et lolio. 954 CHAP. VI. VERSES 28—32. tal, to obviate, by remarking, that although certainly the birds do not sow and reap, they still “ solicitously seek their food and build their nests.” The connec- tion suffices to guide us to the right understanding of the passage. The saying of Christ inculcates, not that we should not labour, but that we should not so indulge care as if God did not care. See 1 Pet. v. 7. If, however, a literal antithesis to the misunderstand- ing be required in this section, let v. 34 be referred to, where, if we keep strictly to the letter, a μέριμνα for at least the present day is permitted. V. 31, 32. As was already observed, v. 46, here, too, Gentile is not exactly tantamount to szmner, but re- ference is made to the character of the life of the Gen- tiles at large, and as a whole. The leading feature of heathenism, as Gothe in Winkelmann’s Leben, p. 397, says, is living for the present, or as Chrysostom expresses it, ra ἔϑνη, οἷς ὁ πόνος ἅπας κατὰ τὸν παρόντα βίον, οἷς λόγος οὐδεὶς περὶ τῶν μελλόντον, οὐδὲ ἔννοια τῶν οὐρανῶν The conviction that God, who here, too, is significantly styled owr,—yea, likewise, our hea- venly Father—knows our wants, does not exclude what he himself has ordained, as a means, to wit, our la- bour, but it excludes anxious solicitude. Equally liable 4 The Gentiles, all whose labour is for the life that now is, who never speak of things to come, nor think of heaven. hen we are told respecting the Romans, that they never suffered the table to be taken quite empty away, in order to intimate that something must still remain over for the day to come, or of Pythagoras, that he forbade any one ever to sit upon an inverted bushel, because a part should always be kept for the morrow, this cannot be here adduced as a proof to the contrary. It was the economy of the olden time. CHAP. VI. VERSE 33. 255 to be misunderstood by the man who is destitute of the spirit, and neglects the analogy of Scripture, is John vi. 27, ‘ Labour not for the meat that perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto life everlasting.* It is quite allowable for Zwingli, and after him many More, to urge in ἐπιζητεῖν the preposition, just as in ἐκζητεῖν. V. 33. The declaration contains no strict antithe- sis. The σπροστεϑήσεται appears to exclude any en- deavour after things terrestrial, while the πρῶτον con- cedes it, although subordinately. The expression is certainly not exact, and so some codices have left out the πρῶτον. The remark, that σρῶτον does not refer to time, but to precedence in order, does not alter the case. A certain degree of care for the pre- sent day is still allowed by v. 34, and is involved in | the petition of the Lord’s prayer for daily bread. The expression added unto you, is, therefore, not to be pressed. Chrysostom: οὐ γὰρ διὰ τοῦτο eyevimeda, ἵνα φάγωμεν καὶ πίωμεν καὶ περιβωλώμεϑα" ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα ἀρέσω- μεν Θεῷ καὶ τῶν μελλόντων ἐπιτύχωμεν dyadav. ὥσπερ οὖν ἐν τῇ σπουδῇ πάρεργα ταῦτα, οὕτω καὶ ἐν τῇ αἰτήσει πάρεργα ἔστω" Even setting out on the principle, that things 4 Very appositely does Chrysostom, in the exposition of that passage of John, T. VIII. ed. Monf. hom. 44. § 1. compare the present one from Matthew, collect all the declarations of Scripture on the subject of labour, and then draws the follow- ing inference as the solution: οὗ ταῦφόν ἔστι μέριμνα καὶ γασία. > For we were not merely made to eat and to drink, and to be clothed with raiment, but that we may please God, and se- cure the good things tocome. Hence, as these things are to be secondary in our desire, so let them also be in our prayers. 256 CHAP, VI. VERSE 99. temporal are not, on their own account, objects of desire to a pious man, but only means towards what is eternal, we might express ourselves so as to say, The pious man does not αὐ all desire what is tempo- ral, inasmuch as he does not desire it independently of, but subordinately to, what is eternal. In the idea of Bacireia τῶν οὐρανῶν, the diosoouvn is properly in- cluded, (Rom. xiv. 17), but to point more strongly to the nature of the kingdom of God, it is made more prominent. Δικομοσύνη is to be here understood as generally asc. v. 6, 10, 20. 2 Pet. ii. 13, it is the food of the kingdom of God, Rom. xiv. 17. Προσ- τίϑεσθαι relates to the overplus, which, as is done with us, the ancients added toa purchase or loan. It was called πρόσδομα, ἐπίμετρον, προσϑήκη (Tob v. 15; xii. 1. ef. Epictet. I. 8. 9) ; among the Latins corolla- rium, mantissa, superpondium. There is a good parallel at 1 Kings iii. 11—13, where it is related, how Solomon, when he sup- _ plicated not for riches and glory, but for wisdom, re- ceived riches as a προσϑήχη. From the N. Test. we may compare 2 Tim. iii.8. Mark x. 30. In Clem. Alex. Strom. |. 346. and in Origen T. III, ed. de la Rue p. 762, the words of Christ are quoted enlarged with still an additional clause: αἰτεῖτε τὰ μεγάλα, καὶ τὰ μικρὰ ὑμῖν προστελήσεται, καὶ αἰτεῖτε τοὶ ἐπουράνια, καὶ τοὶ ἐπίγεια προστεγήσεται ὑμῖν. “As the dictum which is expressed more strictly and generally at. v. 33 and 25 aimed at no more than removing an anxious and distrustful solicitude, there is no contradiction when here the μέριμνα for the day to come is forbidden, and thereby, it seems, a CHAP. VI. VERSE 34. 957 μέριμνα for the day that now is, permitted. The lat- ter, indeed, is not to be taken in the utmost strict- ness, for anxious solicitude even for the present day ought not to have place. As the present day, how- ever, is always wont to care for itself, and the μέ- eyzve usually extends only to the future, that, too, is in effect also cut off by this declaration.2 ‘True that, as is afterwards said, every day brings its own trouble along with it, and consequently begets the μέριμνα; but then this ought to be vanquished by faith, just as faith has cut off care for the future. It isa grand mistake in Wetstein and Paulus, when they adduce as parallels the exhortations of Epicu- rean levity, which sings with Horace: Carpe diem, quam minime credulus postero, or, laetus in praesens animus, quod ultra est, oderit curare. What has the levity of such ἡμερόβιοι, who banish care from their thoughts, with that man’s frame of mind who casts his care upon the Lord? Justly does Olearius ob- serve: Verbis igitur, non sensu plerasque illas sen- tentias cum salutari salvatoris doctrina conspirare ar- bitramur; And apposite is the remark of Hilary: That what Jesus recommends the incuria sollicitu- dinis relaxatae, non negligentiae est, sed fidez. Gro- tius, who isin general ready with his classical parallels, has here wisely abstained. ἃ Bengel: monitum mire ἀστεῖον, quo cura videtur concedi in crastinum, et tamen revera tollitur, nam curaces etiam ex futuris curis praesentes faciunt, unde curam procrastinare fere idem est quod curam deponere. Accedit prosopopoeia: dies cu- rabit, non vos. Qui hoc discet, curas tandem a die ad horam contrahet, vel plane dediscet. VOL. Il. 5 258 CHAP. VI. VERSE 34. That ἡ αὔριον, as Grotius and others will have it, stands here in the more comprehensive sense, of the future in general, is not to be supposed. The gra- phic nature of the expression lies in the very circum- stance, that each day appears, as it were, for its own interest, inasmuch as on each particular day the ways and means which that particular day requires are forthcoming. It is just to bring this prominently for- ward, that Christ employs the prosopopeia, making the day to care for itself. He herein announces a truth which every individual, the careless no less than the religious man, experiences, but which the one takes in with very different feelings from the other. For who but must have had opportunity of remark- ing, how, in circumstances where every prospect of subsistence seems gone and hope entirely cut off, each coming day still brings along with it in its circle unlooked for resources ? We have this de- picted in the life of a Stilling and a Bahrdt.2 Chry- sostom conceives excellently the purpose of the pro- sopopomia : ὅταν δὲ λέγῃ, ὅτι ἡ αὔριον μεριμνήσει περὶ εαυτῆς, οὔχ ὡς τῆς ἡμέρας μεριμνώσης ταῦτά φησιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ πρὸς δῆμον ἀτελέστερον ὁ λόγος ἦν αὐτῷ, βουλόμενος ἐμφαντικώ- σερον ποιῆσαι τὸ λεγόμενον, προσωποποιεῖτοωι τὸν καιρὸν, κατὰ τὴν τῶν πολλῶν συνήϑειαν DIeyyouevos πρὸς αὐτούς." In opposition to a construction of Is. viii. 23, which was ἃ Consider the remarkable helps vouchsafed to him in London. > When he says, That the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself, he speaks, not as if the day is solicitous for these things; but, as he was discoursing to a rude multitude, from a desire to make what he said to them the more impressive, he personifies the time, addressing them in a way practised by many. CHAP. VI. VERSE 94. 259 first broached by Michaelis, and according to which Time is the subject, being figuratively personified as the humbler and exalter of nations, Koppe has ob- jected that such a prosopopeeia is not Oriental, but modern; but even Schultens on Job iii. 3, and Ge- senius on Is. viii. 23, have demonstrated the contra- ry, and that it is rather a genuine Oriental proso- popeeia. Kaxia, equally with πονηρία, occurs both in the clas- sics and the LXX., as designation of physical evil. In the Hebrew yn has likewise the same meaning. See Chrysostom in the exposition of Is. xlv. 7: ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ Θεὺς ὁ ποιήσας φῶς καὶ σκότος, ὁ ποιῶν εἰρήνην καὶ χτίζων κακά, and of Amos iil. 6: εἰ ἔστι κα κία ἐν πό- λει, ἣν κύριος οὐκ ἐποίησε ; Opp. ed. Montf. VI. p. 159. See Barnab. ep.c.8: ἡμέραι πονηραὶ καὶ ῥυπαραί. The Vulgate has malitia ; Tertullian, in one passage, brings forward more correctly, vexatio,* with which the Lu- theran translation corresponds. The construction of the neuter adjective with the fem. subst. raised doubts among some ancient expositors, such as Olearius, and occasioned forced explanations. Itis well known, however, that the adjective, when it is a predicate, is coupled in the neuter with substantives masculine or feminine. See Kypke Obs. in h. 1. a Compare, moreover, Tertullian adv. Mare. II. 24: nam et apud Graecos interdum malitiae pro vexationibus et laesuris, non pro malignitatibus ponuntur. 260 CHAP. VII. VERSE 1. CHAPTER VII. PROMISCUOUS ADMONITIONS, CONCLUDING WITH THE RULE FOR OUR CONDUCT TOWARDS OUR BRETH- REN GENERALLY. Vv. 1—l2. V. 1. With respect, in the first place, to the man- ner in which this passage is connected with the pre- ceding context, many have here also tried to disco- ver the bond, but by far the greatest majority have given up the attempt, and, through the whole of the seventh chapter, have supposed a collection of iso- lated sayings. (They ought rather to have re- stricted the assertion to the commencement, as far as the twelfth verse.) So Calvin, Bucer, Pellicanus, Chemnitz, Maldonatus and others. The saying belongs to the number of those in the N. Testament, which have been most frequently abused. In modern times, it has been made the basis of an effeminate sentimentality and feeble subjectiveness, destitute of any supreme rule of judging; and been used in justification of that so called tolerance, which is as tolerant to falsehood and iniquity, as it is to truth and righteousness. Some of the first Anabaptists in- voked its aid for the purpose of demonstrating the unlawfulness of civil tribunals. The Remonstrants founded upon it at least toleration towards errors in doctrine. Before weighing μὴ κρίνετε, the after clause ἵνα μὴ κργῆτε must be examined, because the kind of argu- mentation to be employed in explaining the first CHAP. VII. VERSE I. 261 words, is determined in and by the circumstance of whether the after clause relates directly or exclusive- ly to the divine judgment. It might be supposed, that the negative of that opinion was sufficiently de- monstrated by the fact, that, at Luke vi. 38, the third person plural δώσουσιν, which unquestionably relates to men, follows the preceding passives. Notwith- standing, however, the third pers. plur., as is well known, (see v. 16,) along with the second pers. sing. is used impersonally, and this impersonal may, when relating to God, be also expressed in the plural, as shewn by Luke xii. 20.2 But that the passives here are only to be referred indirectly back to God, is determined by the proverbial cha- racter of the ἐν ᾧ yao μέτρῳ x. τ. Δ. which immedi- ately follows. Still, as the whole scope of our Saviour goes not to deliver maxims of worldly prudence, (see on ¢. v. 25,) but religious doctrines, so doubtless there is here also, although indirectly, yet properly, a re- ference to the divine judgment. Compare v. 7; vi. 15, and the parallels there adduced. So, too, Jas. ii. 13. With regard now to the acceptation of χρίνειν, not ἃ few have insisted on holding fast the simple mean- ing of judging, such as Drusius, Wolf, Paulus and Fritzsche. But that every passing of an opinion— a Should it be obstinately refused in the parable, Luke xvi. 9, to supply as nominative to déZavras, the obtainers of the bene- Jits, as those who shall receive us into everlasting habitations, which is the most natural way, we might have recourse to the expedient of taking δέξωνται as impersonal, and referring it to God, just as at Luke xii. 20. 262 CHAP. VII. VERSE I. in which that of an affectionate kind would likewise be comprised—cannot be absolutely forbidden, is self- evident. Accordingly, those interpreters must needs limit the comprehensiveness of the expression, and either suppose a condemnatory judgment, in which case the exposition coincides with the other which we are immediately to mention, or what touches it very closely, a judicium preceps et temerarium. That κρίνειν, however, possessed the collateral idea of a well-intentioned, and merely inconsiderate judg- ment, is what cannot be proved ; and, supposing that it could, still the ἵνα μὴ κριϑῆτε, in which we cannot again take xgivev in that way, would not correspond with the preceding one. We are accordingly led to put upon κρίνειν the collateral meaning of judging sharply, 1. 6. condemning. So, by far the great ma- jority, Gregory of Nyssa,* Theophylact, Euthy- mius, Beza, Piscator, Kuinol, Olshausen, Schleusner, Bretschneider and Wahl. Compare Suicer’s Thes. II. 160. This signification is defended in a variety of ways. Some, like Piscator, have recourse to the figure of a synecdoche totius pro parte. That figu- rative use of the word, however, must be capable of vindication from the usus loguendi. Others apply the canon of verbs simple standing for the compound. But as in this case the composition with xara essen- tially alters the idea of the simple word, the canon is here inapplicable.” Most go back to the Hebrew, a Gregory of Nyssa: ob σὴν κρίσιν καὶ τὴν εὐγνωμοσύνην ἐκβάλ-- λει" κρίσιν δὲ ὀνομάζει τὴν τρωχυτέραν κατάκρισιν. b Recently many excellent remarks have been made upon this canon by Winer, in his Disputatio de verborum simpli- — CHAP. VII. VERSE I. 263 which is what we hold to be the correct way. tO Dy, Du, DOD, ΒΦ, in a multitude of connections, has not only acquired the meaning of condemning, punishing, but, through the medium of the language of the Bible, has come to have this as its direct sig- nification. When God holds judgment upon the sin- ner, it is eo ipso condemnation. In this way the sense of condemning arose, as is specially manifest in John v. 29, where χρίσις doubtless signifies judgment, but where, inasmuch as the parties are God and the unredeemed sinner, it amounts to condemnation. Compare 1 Sam. iii. 13. Obad. 21. Ps. cix. 31. Rom.ii. 1; xiv.3.4. John iii. 17, 18. We have here only further to advert to the objec- tion of Grotius, that in Luke vi. 37, and as a gloss of that passage also, according to the Vulgate, in Matthew, there stands after μὴ κρίνετε, likewise μὴ καταδικάξετε, and that we must thence infer that xg/- very merely signifies to form an opinion. But just as in our language, we may couple with the prohibition, « judge not,” what is of kindred signification, “‘ con- demn not,” in order to bring the meaning more strongly out, so may this be done in Greek. The true restriction of the declaration results properly from v. 5, where the zgive is at the same time con- cium pro compositis in N. T. usu et causis, 1833, where, p. 19, the meaning condemnare is allowed to κρίνειν, but where it is justly questioned, whether the simple verb stands for the compound, and p. 16, where, with the same justice, it is ani- madverted on, that in so many passages, the interpaeeem sated wrongfully taken χρίνειν in the sense of κατακρίνειν, 964 CHAP. VII. VERSE 1. ceded, when it is said: τότε διαβλέψεις ἐχβαλεῖν ATK. Now, on two quarters we have to guard against misunderstanding. 1. It must not be thought that hereby every sharp, and consequently disapproving judgment, ought itself to be disapproved, which is the construction, under which, in a thousand ways, in sermons, journals and conversation, a world, itself ac- customed to be false and merciless in the judgment it forms of brethren, the words are wont to be cast up to those, who, for the sake of God’s truth, cannot bring themselves “ to call evil good and good evil,” and to say ““ peace, peace, where there is no peace.” Is. v. 20. Ezek. xiii. 10. Now, in the first place, thus understood, the saying would condemn Christ him- self in the fourfold woe pronounced over hypocrites, Matt. xxiii. 14, and in his ὄφεις, γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, Mat. xxiii. 595. Moreover, as Chrysostom appositely advances, along with the keys, the function of bind- ing and loosing was also devolved upon the apostles, and was exercised by them, Tit. i. 9; 1.15. 2 Tim. iv. 2. 1 Tim. v.20. And as a fruit of the Spirit of God, whereby Christians are anointed, it is required that they should be skilled in distinguishing impure spirits from the pure, 1 Johniv. 1. 2 John 10. 1 Thes. v.21. Nay, as is forthwith said, the disciple of Christ ought to discriminate the dogs and swine, in order not to cast the pearls before them, and learn to know the false prophets by their fruits, v. 16. The misconception of this saying is the same that was ani- madverted upon at c. v. 44, and is to be obviated in the same way. Here, too, the Christian ought to con- CHAP. VII. VERSES lI, 2. 265 duct himself as the child of God. Compare, p. 44. God, the light undefiled, enlightens all things, and so shews all things in their true form. The Christian, having received the Spirit of God, and being σνευμα- σικός, has a standard to measure every thing, dya- κρίνει weve. In his word, God condemns, 7. 6. declares to be excluded from divine grace, him who does not obey the Son. What is done by God, man must also assert as true, and what God declares to be excluded, man must declare to be so too. He ought accordingly to pronounce as rejected whatso- ever God rejects, provided he possesses sure criteria that the conditions of rejection are extant. God is long-suffering, merciful, and gracious in the judg- ment he passes upon man; the same sentiments must also animate man, as | Cor. xiii. demands. 2. The appended clause, iva μὴ κριϑῆτε may be under- stood in just the same partial manner, as 6. vi. 14, 15, to wit, as if abstaining from every ungodly con- demnation was of itself sufficient to gain the favour of God. Compare the observations made upon that passage. V.2. The same thought more fully extended. Agreeably to his justice, God exercises the jus ta- lionis. Justice is elastic; the unjust blow I inflict upon another, by the order of the moral world, re- coils upon myself. See p.41. But as the counter- stroke given to crime by justice is not a fresh crime, but justice, so in the present case the condemnatory sentence of God, which strikes the unjust condemna- tion of men, is not a new injustice, but justice, Ps. xviii. 27. 2 Thes.i.6. See above, 6. vi. 15. 266 CHAP. VII. VERSES 3—5. The phrase, ἐν ᾧ γὰρ μέτρῳ κτλ. is like the Latin par pari, proverbial, and occurs in this way in the Talmud, ΤΙΣ 7232 mI, measure for measure. Also in the Arabic, “1 mete to my friend as he metes to me, with measure overflowing or scanty.” Hariri, Cons. TV. p. 38, ed. Schult. Ἔν ᾧ is neither, as Kuinol states, put Hebraisti- cally for #, nor is it, as Fritzsche supposes, referring to Matthiis’ Gram. s. 842, Iste Ausg., the instrumental per, but it denotes conformity, rule, see Matthia, II. 1140, 2te Ausg., as also in Hebrew 5, 2 Cor. x. 12. V. 3—5. The discourse takes another step in ad- vance. It is shewn partly what folly there is ina person chargeable with the greater sin setting about to correct one who is chargeable with the less, partly that this is an impossibility. The disposition cen- sured is the same which is blamed, Mat. xxiii. 23, 24. Most have overlooked (even Chrysostom and Euthy- mius, only not Theophylact), that the eye is purpose- ly named as the place where the fault is situate. The bodily eye is here, as at c. vi., représentative of the spiritual. Our own sinfulness takes away the right spiritual vision for judging of the moral corruption of others. That this is the thought which the Sa- viour means to deliver is seen from the appended clause: τότε διαβλέψεις ἐκβαλεῖν x. τ A. Did the fi- gure, for instance, express, Why beholdest thou in another the pimple, and seest not in thyself the boil, the ingenious allusion would be dropped. By not seizing this fine feature of the similitude, many allow- ed themselves to be misled so far, as to explain the fut. διαβλέψεις imperatively, see Er. Schmid. The same CHAP. VII. VERSES 9---ὖ. 267 proverbial expression, we may add, is to be found in the Talmud, and among the Arabs, ~&3 λαὶϑ Co yahasl , * one who has few splinters in his eye = one who can see clearly.” In other cases a splinter in the eye is, among the Arabs, the image of some- thing painful in general, Schultens on Hariri, Cons. VI. 235, and on Hamasa, p- 396. The very senti- ment is to be found, Hariri, VI. p. 237, “ I behold in thine eye the beam, and thou art surprised at see- ing the splinter in mine.” Compare Gesenius in Ro- senm. Repertor. I. 126. The same thought, under another image, is to be found in Horace, Serm. I. 3, v. 20. As evidence of the far spread bent of men to be- gin the task of censure with others, in place of one’s self, Grotius, Priczeus, Alberti, Wetstein have col- lected numerous sayings from the classics. Compare also Vorst De adag. N. T. p. 29, and all that sur- prises one is that, with such manifold experiences, the source from which they flowed should still have re- mained concealed, so that we can say with Cicero: Fit nescio quo pacto, ut magis in aliis cernamus, quam in nobismet ipsis, si quid delinquitur. To the sub- stantial parallels furnished by Scripture belong Gal.. vi. 4. Ecclesiasticus xviii. 19. ἃ Let us here give a place to but a few passages. Menander : οὐδεὶς ἐφ᾽ αὑτοῦ τὰ κακὰ συνορᾷ, Ἰτάμφιλε, σαφῶς, ἑτέρου δ᾽ ἀσχημο- vouvros ὄψεται. Sosicrates: ἀγαϑοὶ δὲ σὸ κακόν ἐσμεν ἐφ᾽ ἑτέρων ἰδεῖν, αὐσοὶ δ᾽ ὅταν ποιῶμεν, οὐ γινώσκομεν. Plutarch: τί ἀλλό- rev, ἄνθρωπε βασκανώτατε, κακὸν ὀξυδερκεῖς, πὸ δ᾽ ἴδιον παρα- βλέπεις. 968 CHAP. VII. VERSES ὥ---.Ὁ, Βλέσειν is not, as is done by the Vulgate and Eras- mus, and as Luther also has, to be here translated merely ¢o see, it signifies to look at, and consequently is tantamount in meaning to the κατανοεῖν, which im- mediately follows. Vatablus, animadvertere. See above, vol. i. p. 284. In the future ἐρεῖς, lies the meaning to be able “ How canst thou say,” Rom. vi. 3. Heb. ii. 3. Luther quite correctly makes it, “ How darest thou say.” The Latin translators transfer this emphasis to σῶς, rendering it by qua fronte. Comp. πῶς ἐρεῖς in the LXX. Jer. ii. 23. The self-deluded censurer is called hypocrite, and even when he does not mean to appear better than he is, still, by the conduct he pursues, he makes himself in fact appear what he is not—to wit, spotless. Διαβλέπω is quite incorrectly explained by Schleus- ner, se convertere, componere ad aliquam rem pera- gendam, and by Bengel with false emphasis, trans spicies trabe e medio sublata, oculo expedito. The διά, as in διαγιγνώσκω, διακούω, and in the Latin dig- noscere, dispicere, strengthens the meaning of the simple verb. V.6. Here certainly we might trace a transition from one idea to another, in the way, to wit, in which most state it, “ Still cases will occur when you must exercise the διάκρισις. As neither a connective nor 4 Bengel: Hic occurritur alteri extremo. Extrema enim sunt, judicare non judicandos et canibus sancta dare, nimia severitas et nimialaxitas. The Auct. op. imperf. very ingeni- ously brings this verse into connection with c. v.45. Hesays: God does not confer his spiritual gifts upon the good and bad, but only temporal things, such as sun and rain. ‘ Propter CHAP. VII. VERSE 6. 269 yet an adversative particle, however, links the pro- position to what precedes, this junction must remain very doubtful. Quite inapposite are connections like what Rus has supposed, viz. “ Such friendly correc- tions do not bestow upon every one,” or that of Stra- bus. “ Least of all judge those who are hopeless sub- jects, and on whom consequently all reproof would be lost.” The saying is considered as being one whose main intent is to convey a direction to the apostles, just like c. x. 27, which appears to express the contrary, or one of kindred meaning with the present, c. x. 14. It is, however, in the same case with ce. v. 14. See above, Vol. I. p. 41. It is one of the more difficult passages, for neither the exposition of the figurative diction, as such, nor yet the signification to be given to it, has been clear- ly settled. We shall begin with investigating the fi- gurative language, and here have to unfold, 1. The character of the animals spoken of: 2. What is said of their conduct: 3. What is cast before them. The dog and sow are often, in antiquity, coupled together as unclean beasts. Horace Epist. I. 2. 26, vixisset canis immundus vel amica luto sus: II. 2.75, hac ra- biosa fugit canis, hac lutulenta ruit ses. Priapeia 84, canisque saeva susque ligneo tibi lutosus adfricabit luteum latus. In the LXX. | Kings xxi. 193 xxii. 38: ἐξέλειξαν αἱ ὗες καὶ οἱ κύνες τὸ Glue αὑτοῦ καὶ αἱ πόρναι ἐλούσαντο ἐν τῷ αἵματι x. τ. Δ. Prov. xxvi. 11. 2 Pet. ii. 22. Besides, both of them being declared unclean by the law, are mentioned in scripture with quod in vestris quidem estote simplices (liberales) et benign’, in meis (in spiritual blessings) prudentes et cauti.” 9270 CHAP. VII. VERSE 6. contempt, 2 Sam. ili. 8; ix. 8. 2 Kings viii. 13. Matth. xv. 26. Rev. xxii. 15. Prov. xi. 22. Luke xv. 15,16. Inthe Tr. Bava Kama, ο. 7, ὃ 7, we read Nop Wt JD OX NOX adom-nN cow S499 Nd ΤΩΣ, “ Let no one rear a dog; but whosoever ventures, let it be bound with chains.” Among Greeks and Romans, Hebrews and Arabians, the predicates λοίδορος, ἀναιδής, iraos, were given to the dog, to the sow, ἀσελγής, ῥυπαρός, ἀκάϑαρτος. See upon the subject, Bochart Hieroz. II. c. 56, 57, and Wetstein in ἢ. J. and on Phil. iii. 2. Now, much depends upon whether these animals are here adduced to designate a difference of character, and so denote two distinct classes of individuals. This is the common opinion. Chrysostom, even in his day, makes the distinction, that the one animal denotes unbelievers, the other bad Christians: κύνας τοὺς ἐν ἀσεβείῳ ζῶντας, ὠνιάτῳ εν νν ἠνίξατο, καὶ χοίρους τοὺς ἐν ἀκολάστῳ βίῳ διατρί- βοντας, Pel. 1. I. 6, 1483 in the same manner, Isidore, Euthymius, Theophylact, Grotius, Jerome: Quidam per canes eos intelligi volunt, qui post fidem Christi re- vertuntur ad vomitum peccatorum suorum, porcos au- tem eos, qui necdum crediderunt. Hilary : canes, gen- tes; porci, haeretici, quia acceptam Dei cognitionem non ruminando disponunt. Augustine: canes pro op- pugnatoribus veritatis, porcos pro contemtoribus. Eras- mus: canis profanum animal, sus immundum. The other interpreters usually follow Augustine. Now, this distinction being assumed, there is likewise as- cribed to the two animals a difference of procedure in regard to the gifts. To wit, the dogs, which in the East are very ferocious, (Compare the expos. on Ps, CHAP. VII. VERSE 6. 971 xxii. 17,) signify raging persecutors, who, on being presented with what is holy, rend the givers; the swine, those who are sunk in pleasure, and tread the gift in the mire. To bring out this explanation, an appeal is made to the figure of speech, bearing the name of ἐπάνοδος or ὑστέρησις, and according to which, of two verks coupled together, the first relates, not as usual, to the first of two preceding nouns, but to the second, and the second verb to the first, in proof of which, Matt. xii. 12, is quoted. (Hammond in ἢ. ]. goes into greater detail.) Here, however, the case is different. There the nouns and verbs are coupled together in one sentence; here they form two different sentences ; and at least in place of καὶ στραφέντες, one would expect ἢ στραφέντες. If it be possible to refer the καὶ στραφέντες κ. τ΄ A. to the last subject, we are necessarily obliged to do so, in- asmuch as the opposite construction is, at all events, in some degree unnatural. Now, not only can it be referred to the χοῖροι, but it ἐξ very natural so to refer it. Στραφέντες is Just the word which graphically de- scribes the boar’s (verres et aper) mode of attack ; or if there be any objection to understand it in this man- ner, it describes the conduct of the boar in reference to the gift, which is followed by what he does in re- ference to the giver. The gift, when cast before him, he tramples under his foot, and then turns ¢o the side, and attacks also the giver, an image perfectly true to nature.* On the other hand, it is unusual to specify a Of the boar’s mode of attack, see Horace, Carm. III. 22: verres obliguum meditans ictum. Ovid, Heroid, IV. 154: 272 CHAP. VII. VERSE 6. the dog, as directly the image of him who rends and destroys. In the Bible, as in the classics, he is the image of ἀναισχυντία, whereas the wolf is the type of the raging destroyer, v. 15. ; Several ancients and moderns, Chrysostom, Euthy- mius, Grotius, Hammond, Losner, propose a very pecu- liar view, taking στραφέντες in a sense which has been transferred to it, as equivalent to wereveySevrec, mera βληϑέντες, ““ having become suddenly mad they rend.” Enthymius: εἶτα στραφέντες ἀπὸ τῆς ἐπιπλάστου ἐπίει- κείος εἰς φανερὰν ἐναντίωσιν. In this way, it would serve as designation of those hypocritical men, who, before their introduction into the Christian sanctuary, display the disposition of the lamb, but afterwards all at once become wolves, in which sense the saying was applied to heretics. In objecting to this acceptation, that the word must then have been τραπέντες, Fritzsche com- mits a mistake, for orgégeodas occurs, and occurs in the Hellenistic as translation of 7>7, in the borrow- ed meaning of to change one’s mind. Lam.v. 15. Is. xxxiv. 9. Ps. xxx. 12. Exod. vii. 15... Rev. xi. 6. But this acceptation would here suit neither the figu- rative, nor yet the proper meaning of the language. It would not suit the figurative meaning, because these animals do not take on their rapacious disposi- tion, after the gifts have been cast before them. As little does it suit the proper meaning, to understand the word of profane persons, inasmuch as they do not altogether evince a kindly disposition, before what is holy has been vouchsafed to them. obliquo dente timendus aper. Of the tearing and rending Plautus Trucul. II. 2. 12. CHAP. VII. VERSE 6. 973 Let us now consider the words which denote the gift conferred.2 Magyagiras, as usual, among Easterns, the image of something costly, Matt. xiii., parti- cularly of precious sayings. See Gesenius in Ro- senm. Repert. I. 128. Would it be deemed too forced to say, that pearls are purposely chosen, because they resemble the usual food of swine, viz. acorns ? We have already, vol.i. p. 269, remarked how, in many of the similitudes, the resemblance is to be car- ried out to the most minute particular, and transferred to the spiritual domain. Only, for example, com- pare with what skill, Matt. xii. 22. Luke viii. 14, thorns are chosen, in order to indicate the μέριμναι and ἡδοναὶ τοῦ βίου, which entangle a man; and short- ly after, v. 9, 10, where the stone exactly answers to the bread, and the fish to the serpent. So c. vii. 16. We have to add, that the verb βάλλειν, éo cast before, is select. The generally embraced explanation of τὸ ἅγιον is that which conceives it abstractly, viz. that which is holy. Hence the ecclesiastical apothegin, ra ἅγια τοῖς ἁγίοις, and hence also among all the fathers of the church, (Griesbach specifies only Origen and Chrysostom,) in their quotations of this passage, στὰ ἅγια is more frequently used than the singular. See e.g. Theodo- ret, Opp. I. 1049, 1441, II. 1300. It is, however, wholly repugnant to the exegetical tact, to adopt here this abstract signification. Beside the μαργαρῖται, an- swering to the acorns, we look for some sort of food, a Compare respecting the proverbs of the ancients, Prov. xi. 22, and τί χοινὸν xovi καὶ βαλανείῳ; VOL, II. x 974 CHAP. VII. VERSE 6. such as is usually given to dogs, or at least the men- tion of another kind of jewel. J. ἢ. Michaelis was the first to start the ingenious thought of finding here an error in the translation of the Aramaic. He sup- poses, to wit, that Christ made use of the term xw1p, meaning amulet, but particularly ear-ring, and which the translator has altered for the more usual word. In the same way afterwards, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Bolten and Kuinol. That this meaning of the word in the Ara- maic is ascertained, Gesenius shews in his Comment. on Is. iii. 20. He might have added, that in the Sa- maritan likewise the kindred ert occurs in the meaning, ear-ring. So long, however, as it cannot be considered fully decided, that the Greek Matthew is translated from the Aramaic, or so long as the hypo- thesis is still open to dispute, that the Evangelist was his own translator, the expositor must not, especially if there be any other way of extricating himself, set out with supposed errors of translation. We have to add, that even a mistranslation would not set us free, we should further have to assume an error in spel- ling, inasmuch as ear-ring, ΝΡ, ΝΡ ΝΡ, NYT, is in Syriac called |»,0, but that which is holy, NYU, wp le.a0 {Zoms0 ᾿ Besides, in the Aramaic, Christ would certainly not have employed the singular but the plural, which it would not have been possible to mistake at all. We should also have had a right to require some proof of the fact, that ear-rings, equally with pearls and precious stones, were used proverbially, to denote something costly. on CHAP. VII. VERSE 6. 27 The passage, Prov. xi. 22, usually adduced in sup- port of this, cannot prove it. It hence appears to us, that the high approbation bestowed for a length of time upon this hypothesis must be wholly with- drawn. Accordingly, we do not hesitate to embrace the explanation first? given, by Herman von der Hardt, which makes τὸ ἅγιον signify the flesh of sacrifices. The view is defended at large in the Tempe Hel- vet. 1736, T. 11. p. 2715 and in like manner al- so by Dr. Paulus. In Hebrew, wp signifies every thing consecrated to the service of the sanctuary, and specially also the sacred flesh of sacrifices. Lev. xxii. 2—7, wip awa, Jer. xi. 15. Hag. ii. 12. Among the Rabbins, certain victims bear the name p°w4p wp, others pp owip. See Buxt. Lex. Talm. p. 1980. Tract. Schekalim ed. Wulfer, p. 166. Flesh is just the meat proper for the dog, Ex. xxii. 31. But any priest who should have thrown to the unclean animal, of the flesh of a consecrated victim would have been put to death. It is true, that when we take this view, we cannot refer the ῥήξωσι to the dogs, a remark which applies equally to the κατωπατεῖ ; for flesh, even although consecrated, would still be a welcome mor- sel to the animal. We must rather take the μὴ δῶτε σὺ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσί wholly by itself. The thought which is then expressed in the words: Give not a In his day, however, Bucer says: Sanctum Christus dixit ad eum modum, quo dicata Deo et sanctorum tantum usui de- putata in lege sancta dicebantur ... qualis ¢abernaculi supel- lex habebatur. b Tempe anecdota sacra ed. Winkler. Hal. 1758, p. 483. 576 CHAP. VII. VERSE 6. that which is holy to him who is not worthy of it, is afterwards extended in the sequel so far, as that the second image describes at once the conduct of the unworthy towards the gift, and also towards the giver. ‘““ The gift is abused, and not understanding its worth, they abuse the giver himself.” This accepta- tion of the τὸ ἅγιον, moreover, fully determines us to do, what we already have evinced ourselves disposed for, viz. to look upon the two animals here, not as re- presentatives of two different characters, but of one and the same, to wit, as type of the ἀναισχυντία, in which way they are placed side by side in the pas- sages, p. 269. After having thus made the figurative diction fully intelligible, we next inquire respecting its applica- tion. The general meaning is attended with no dif- ficulty. Even the Pythagoreans taught μὴ sivas πρὸς πάντας πάντα ῥητά, Diog. Laert. 1. VIII. c. 15, and figuratively, σιτίον εἰς ἀμίδα μὴ ἐμβάλλειν, and in this sense it is said in the Τνῶμαι, Πυϑαγορικαί οἵ Demo- philus, in Gales’ Opuse. mythol. p. 623: λόγον περὶ ϑεοῦ τοῖς ὑπὸ δόξης διεφ)αρμένοις λέγειν, οὖκ ἀσφωλές" καὶ γὰρ τ᾽ GANA λέγειν, ἐπὶ τούτων καὶ τὰ ψευδῆ, κίν- duvoy φέρε. In this Pythagorean sense, which dis- tinguishes between the status of esoterics and exote- rics, the words have been frequently understood since the time the disciplina arcani sprung up in the church. The Constit. Apost. |. III. ¢. 5, declare : χρὴ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς μυστικοῖς μυὴ προδότην εἶναι, GAP. aopary; And, besides many other passages, this application is brought pro- minently forward in the tract de Trinitate, ascribed by Garnier to Theodoret, by Petavius, Combefisius — - + > ae CHAP. VII. VERSE 6. 977 and Dupin, to Maximus, and by others to Athana- sius. This is done at the commencement of the first dialogue, where the orthodox speaker replies to the question of the Arian, whether he is a Christian affir- matively; but when asked what Christianity is, refuses to answer, saying: τὸ μὲν γὰρ εἰπεῖ, ὅτι Χριστοῦ δοῦλός εἶμι, ἀνωγκαῖὸν εἰπεῖν" τὸ δὲ, τί ἐστιν ὑ χριστιανισμὸς, οὐκ ἀσφαλὲς, ἐὰν μὴ γνῶ, τίς ἐστιν ὁ ἔρω- τῶν, μήποτε εὑρεγῶ βάλλων τὰ ἅγιω τοῖς κυσίν ἢ τοὺς WHE γαρίτας ἔμπροσδεν τῶν χοίρων. Compare other passages, in Suicer Thes. T. II. 301. This view is embraced by Grotius, who under the ἅγια understands the in-- teriora praecepta sapientiae Christi, and by Vitringa, Obs. sacrae |. VI. ο. 20, ὃ 7, who willhave the allegori- cal interpretation understood by it. Several of the fathers comprised under the word, besides the higher doctrines, also the sacrament, which, in ecclesiastical language, was called σὰ ἅγιω, or τὼ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων. See Suicer and Fabricius, Cod. apocr. V. T. I. 566. If ἅγιον and μαργαρῖται must be restricted to Chris- tian mysteries, the simplest way is, with Chrysostom, Starke, Olshausen and others, to understand by them the proper saving truth of the gospel in the narrower sense, comparing Mat. xiii. 46. To offer this before the preaching of the μετάνοια has gone before, and a desire of salvation been awakened, is always baneful. But what entitles us to restrict τὸ ἅγιον and ai μαργαρῖται in this manner ὃ The pearls, and that one pearl of great price, mentioned Mat. xiii. are not the same, as the more general +) ἅγιον itself shews. Of those who, at 2 Pet. ii. 22, are called κύνες and des, it is said, that 978 CHAP. VII. VERSE 6. _ it would have been better for them not to have known the ayia ἐντολή, and parallel with that stands the more general ὁδὸς δικαιοσύνης, under which the μετάνοια is one of the things comprised. And just as in Mark xvi. 15. Matt. x.27. 2 Tim. iv. 2, it is enjoined re- specting the gospel in the narrower sense, to proclaim it to all without distinction, so, on the other hand, it cannot be said of the preaching of μετάνοιο, that it is to be addressed indiscriminately to all, ὁ. e. without distinction of time and circumstances. Accordingly, the exposition which has become the prevailing one in the Protestant church is undoubtedly to be prefer- red. We find it given by Zwingli, Luther, Calvin, Chemnitz and Rus as follows: ‘‘ A priori, it cannot be said even of the most abandoned person, that he belongs to the κύνες and χοῖροι in the sense meant by Christ. From the depths of a soul the most lost, a confession like that of the thief upon the cross, may break forth. The treatment shewn to divine grace when offered is what first, a posteriori, is alone able to decide and manifest who belongs to the κύνες and χοῖροι, and it is subsequent to this way of receiving the holy gift, that the decision must be made, as to whether the divine truths should be further communicated, or whether the impenitent and hardened sinner is to be given over to the judgment of obstinacy, that that sentence may be fulfilled, He who hath not, from him shall _ be taken even that which he hath.” That such is the meaning of Christ is confirmed by Matt. x. 12—14, according to which the salutation of peace ought to be addressed, even to him who is unworthy of it, and only when the words are not embraced, is the CHAP. VIL. VERSE 8. 979 hardened person to be given up to self- condemnation ; just as St. Paul says of such that they are αὐτοκατά- xeiros, if once they do not obey the repeated admoni- tion, Tit. iii. 11. Acts xiii. 46.2. We may accord- ingly regard as parallels, Prov. ix. 8; xxiii. 9. V.8. The connection with the preceding context is usually so stated, it is so by Chrysostom and Luther, as that, after bringing forward the great and difficult commandments of the Christian law, the Sa- viour now lays down in what way we may obtain strength to keep them. Augustine says more speci- fically, that Christ wishes to anticipate the question of the disciples, how they might acquire that pearl of true doctrine spoken of in v. 6. Now, this nexus is not satisfactory; but it must still remain very doubtful, whether, as even Maldonatus supposed, the saying was originally annexed to the form of prayer and the parable at Luke xi. 1—8. See Introd. vol. i. p. 17. One might rather suppose, that Matthew has left out some connective sayings. Another question respects how we are to conceive the relation of the three members of the sentence, viz. whether they all relate exclusively to prayer, or likewise extend to other sorts of endeavour on the part of man. Seeking seems to denote an action dif- ferent from asking, hence in homiletical use, αἰτεῖτε, is not unfrequently referred to prayer, ζητεῖτε to the investigation of truth, and κρούετε to the careful me- ditation of the truth laid down in the letter of scrip- a Pellicanus: Quando autem et guibus loquendum verbum Dei cum incremento gloriae Dei, nemo sine spiritu patris recte intelliget. 980 CHAP. VII. VERSE 8. ture. Augustine referred aireire to the desire after strength, ζητεῖτε to that after wisdom. He says, how- ever, in his Fetractiones : ““ Operose quidem, tria ἰδία quid inter se differant, exponendum putavi, sed longe melius ad instantissimam petitionem omnia referun- tur ;” and not without good grounds, founds this upon the circumstance, that the figure treats merely of supplication. We shall hence take ζητεῖ, like wp2, in the sense of an anxious imploring and wishing to have, Jer. xxix. 13, 14, εὑρίσκειν in the sense of ob- taining, 2 Tim. i. 18. The knocking at the door, however, denotes the perseverance of the desire even then, when the answer is delayed or appears difficult, Luke xviii. 1. Similar was the view of Chrysostom even in his day, “« He who seeks,” he says, “ thinks on that one thing which he is seeking, and leaves all else out of view, ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ κρούειν τὸ wera σφοδρότητος προσιέναι καὶ μετὰ ϑερμῆς διανοίας ἐδήλωσς ---- παραμένειν δεῖ, κἀν εὐδέως μὴ ἀνοίξῃ τὴν Sveav.” The object which ought to besoughtis not specially mentioned. Verse 11, only says that it is aya3¢, for which Luke xi. 19, substitutes spiritual blessings, πνεῦμα ἅγιον. The dya- Ja are to be sought nowhere else but in-God, from whom every δόσις yay is derived, Jas. i. 7. And now with respect to the application of Christ’s saying, we have again a case in which restrictions must be made to what is declared generally. See vol. I. p- 223, and supra, p. 4. In similar promises, some sort of conditions are everywhere laid down, under which the favourable hearing of prayer is insured. These are usually, if prayer be made in the name of Christ, if CHAP. VII. VERSE 8. 981 it be made in faith, if with proper confidence, Matt. xxi. 22. Mark xi. 24. John xiv. 13; xv. 7; xvi. 28, 24, 1 John iii. 22. When the commandment laid by Christ upon ws, “ Give to him that asketh thee,” necessarily has its limitations, (See vol. I. p. 223), this must also be the case with the answer of our prayers to God. Now, let the conditions on which the answer of our prayers depends, be collected into one, and they will be found to consist subjectively in the cir- cumstance, that we must pray in faith, Matt. xxi. 22. Mark xi. 24. Jas. i. 6, objectévely, in that our prayer must be agreeable to the will of God, 1 John ν. 14. James iv. 3. The subjective condition of faith, as well as the objective, involves, also, the qualification, that it be offered ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου, for in the name of the Lord does that man pray, who, on the one hand, believes in and trusts upon him, and, on the other, prays with a regard to him; so that what he prays for may serve to advance his kingdom. The subjec- tive condition is implicitly expressed in the present passage, by the requirement of earnest and continued prayer, which cannot be supposed without faith, (Luke xviii. 1), as is alsothe objective, inasmuch as the figure treats. only of δόματω ἀγαθά, of bread and fish, the necessary and therefore the wholesome means of subsistence. The subjective condition is requisite, because without the believing disposition, a commu- nication of spiritual blessings is impossible. Accord- ing to Mark vi. 5; ix. 28, the cure of the body de- pended upon the existence of the organ of faith. The objective condition has its basis on the being of God, as nothing else but good, (we have here to remark, 982 CHAP. VII. VERSES 8, 9. that even God’s punishments are so), can proceed from him, James i. 17. Seeing that, from the nature of God as our Father, it follows, that to him who asks for bread he does not give a stone, so does it likewise follow, that to him who asks for a stone, he does not really give the stone he asks. Chry- sostom: εἰ γὰρ καὶ vids εἶ, οὐκ ἀρκεῖ τοῦτο εἰς τὸ λαβεῖν ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸ μὲν οὖν τοῦτο κωλύει τὸ λαβεῖν, τὸ υἱὸν ὄντα ἃ μὴ συμφέρει αἰτεῖ. This being established, however, it is also to be inferred that all, without exception of the prayers of the right suppliant, are answered. So far as spiritual blessings are concerned, every prayer, in pro- portion as it is of faith, serves the purpose of awakening spiritual life ; and, as for temporal things, the believ- ing suppliant only asks for this world’s good in the name of the Lord, which involves that his chief prayer is, Thy kingdom come! and that he only prays for earthly things in so far as they are a means to- wards what is spiritual. Now, supposing God to refuse him this world’s good, because it would prove hurtful to his soul, by the very refusal he fulfils the chief petition of the Christian, to the fulfilment of which temporal things ought to be merely subservient. Augustin, ep. 34, ad Paulin.: Bonus autem dominus, qui non tribuit saepe, quod volumus, ut, quod mallemus, at- tribuat, and serm. 5, De verbis dom. secund. Matth. : Cum aliquando tardius dat, commendat dona, non ne- gat; din desiderata dulcius obtinentur, cito autem data vilescunt. With this we have to compare the admirable passage in Augustine’s Confessions, where he relates that his pious mother, dreading the seduc- tions which threatened him in the capital, supplicated CHAP. VII. VERSE 9. 983 of God not to permit her son to go to Rome. To Rome however he went, and it was just in Italy that he found Christ. Here the great father observes, Quid a te petebat, Deus meus, tantis lacrymis, nisi ut navigare me non sineres? Sed tu alte consulens, et exaudiens cardinem desiderit ejus, non curasti, quod tunc petebat, ut in me faceres, quod semper petebat, he Vie. 15. V. 9. Confidence in the promise vouchsafed is raised still higher by a similitude. A contrast is drawn betwixt wicked and sinful man,?* and the holy and spotless God, betwixt the human father, subject to wickedness and sin, and the Father who is in heaven. If the former give to his children, when they suppli- cate, what is good, how much more shall the latter do the same! And even although, says Luther, ‘ we had no motive and no incentive, (he means to prayer), except this kind and precious saying, it should be enough, of itself, to induce us. I will say nothing of his admonitions and commands, at once so awful and affectionate, and of our many serious necessities.” Here, too, let the appropriateness of the similitude, even to the nicest point, be remarked. Bread has some resemblance to a stone, and a fish to a serpent.® The opposite conduct would not merely be severe but cruel. Luke, ὁ. xi. 12, has, moreover, added the ἃ Tis ἄνθρωπος is not, as is supposed, pleonastic, but just as at Luke ii. 15, where the same supposition was likewise falsely made, it forms the counterpart to the ἄγγελοι; so does it here to God. > Phedrus : Qui me saxo petierint, quis panem dederit. Plau- tus: Altera manu fert lapidem, panem ostendit altera. 284 CHAP. VII. VERSE 9. contrast of the egg and the scorpion, which gives Augustine opportunity to make the ingenious appli- cation, ““ The fish means faith in the ocean-billows of the present life; the bread, the nutritive power of love ; the egg is believing hope, which anticipates the future.” Tlovygo/ is not here the designation of human nature in certain cases, so that the ὄντες would have to be re- solved by an τῇ; still less has it, as Rosenmiiller and Kuinol pretend, the sense of avaricious. But, as’ Jerome and Chrysostom, even in their day, observe, the nature of man is represented in its general anti- thesis to the being of God. Job xv. 14,15. Matt. xix. 17. Οἴδατε. The verb signifying to understand how, includes in it the ability, Luke xii. 56. Phil. iv. 19. Jas, iv. 12. It is curious that the interpreters here, and at Matt. xii. 29, have experienced difficulty in the construction of 7, seeing that in so many passages it is used in precisely the same way, and has, in these, been cor- rectly expounded. In the text last quoted, however, Erasmus has rendered it, alioquin, Beza, nam; and, in that before us, the former says, an quisquam vestrum, consequently taking ἤ as interrogative par- ticle, and τίς as the indefinite pronoun. Beza wavers as to whether he should render it num or nam. Luther has left it untranslated. Quite correctly did the Vulgate, in its day, conceive the ἤ as disjunctive — particle, and Er. Schmid asserts that it has vimr enu- 4 Rosenmiiller and Kuinél explain τίς as put, per Hebrais- mum, for εἴ ris and 4 in the sense of γάρ. CHAP. VII. VERSE 12, 285 merativam in congerie argumentorum. So likewise Piscator. This use is very frequent, e. g. just before in v. 4, and in like manner 6. xii. 29; xvi. 26; xx. 1Son Romie in); x1, 2. As for the construction of the sentence, the figure anacoluthon, common in most languages, in interroga- tions, here occurs, 6. g. 6. xii. 11, V. 12. This, too, is a proposition where it is not easy to perceive the connection with the preceding context. It so happens, however, that the evangelist himself uses the inferential ody, which has occasioned great difficulty to expositors. The easiest way to escape, is with Wolzogen’s observation upon the matter: Vocula ergo nullam hic vim habet inferendi, sed redundat. From Chrysostom’s time, the connection has been conceived as follows, Seeing, then, your heavenly Father so graciously hears your prayer, and gives you strength, do you likewise, on your part, manifest love to your brethren. If οὖν is to be taken as inferential, it will, doubtless, be impossible to appre- hend it in any other way. Natural, however, this view is not; and hence were we to be enabled to point out some other part of the sermon on the mount as the original place of the saying, it would be a wel- come discovery ; For toassert that it has wandered from other of the discourses of Christ into this sermon, is what none have here ventured to do, and the reason has been, that Luke, too, gives it a place in the sermon on the mount, although, in connection with the sayings which we read in the 5th chapter of Matthew. Ought we then, perchance, to hold that in that gospel, viz. Luke vi. 31, we are to seek for 286 CHAP. VII. VERSE 12. the proper place of the saying, as has been maintained by Maldonatus? This is a very doubtful point. The less exactness of Luke’s report of the sermon on the mount is mainly proved by this, among other facts, that the sayings regarding the behaviour of Christians, in cases of violence, and towards enemies, which ap- pear in Matthew so relevant, as a more profound de- velopment of the Mosaic commandments, and which, in this connection, acquire quite a definite meaning, are, by Luke, introduced as isolated moral precepts, without sufficient reason appearing for their being so. And, indeed, it is only in case of their having been actually delivered in this isolated way, that we can suppose our sentence to have occurred among them. Assuming, however, these sayings to have been, what Matthew instructs us they were, delivered as expository of the two precepts, “ an eye for an eye,” and so on, and “love thine enemy,” the saying before us does not then fit into the connection. We have to add, that, according to its position in Luke, it would, likewise, merely convey an isolated exhortation to good-will towards our neighbour, whereas, even a priori, it announces itself to be a general rule, designed to comprehend in one, the particular cases. In the same way, the Rabbins calla similar saying of Hillel, 455, rule, summary. This very circumstance, how- ever, viz. that the saying shews itself to bea comprehen- sive formula, makes us disposed to consider the place which it here occupies as the original one. For we have to observe that, with these words, the didactic part of the discourse comes to a close, and it is easy to conceive the Saviour to have placed a general CHAP. VII. VERSE 19. 287 precept, at its termination, in order to sum up what he had said from the opening of the seventh chapter. In favour of this supposition, the οὖν would also speak, being, as is well known, used like the Latin igitur, to denote a resumption, or summary. Doubtless, we should then have to hold, that in the immediately previous context, several members of the discourse have been dropped from the report of the Evangelist. Now, this precept has been highly extolled as an admirable moral rule, especially by those who make the distinction of Christianity consist in its popular morality, whereas others have collected passages from the Rabbins and classics, in order to shew that the praise of the precept does not exclusively belong to the Rabbi of Nazareth. Gibbon, in his History, B. x. 6. 04, an. 36, after giving free course to his wrath at the execution of Servetus, adds, ‘ Calvin violat- ed the golden rule of doing as he would be done by; a rule which I read in a moral treatise of Isocrates, (i Nicole T. I. p. 93), four hun- dred years before the publication of the Gos- pel. “A πάσχοντες ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρων ὀργίξζεσλε, ταῦτα τοῖς ἄλλοις μὴ ποιεῖτε. In point of fact, it may here, as formerly, ὁ. v. be clearly shewn, what an ambiguous reputation it is which redounds to Christianity from its moral rules, whenever these are not taken up in connection with the whole system of gospel truth. Christ’s precept is a sort of form, so that any one may introduce into it what he pleases ; and, consequently, the import of it depends solely upon the character of the person addressed by Zhou. Let once a man have discovered, in Helvetius’ school, that self-love, not 288 CHAP. VII. VERSE 12. merely de facto, is, but likewise can alone be, the motive ofall human actions, then may the gross egotist admit the excellency of this rule equally with the loving and self-denying disciple of the Saviour. Nay, even were we to put the maxim of Kant, “ act in sucha way as that thy maxim may become the maxim of all,” (whereby Kant did not, as is frequently thought, mean, properly speaking, to improve upon Christ's precept but merely to evince the necessity of some objective legislation), the case would not be altered, seeing that the selfish morality of Helvetius and Diderot knows how to deduce from egotism, the in- terest of the social community, no less than the welfare of the individual; And, in proportion as states break loose from a religious and moral basis, the egotistical maxim of “ whatsoever thou wouldst not that men should do to you, do not ye so to them,” becomes the only link of society. Let it be well observed, how- ever, that even in this egotistical sense, the proposition is expressed negatively, and it is solely in the negative form that it is found in the parallels from the Rabbins and Classics, which Grotius, Priceeus, Alberti and Wetstein, have collected, also in Tob.iv. 16. That self- love, however, shows itself more under the negative form is plain; and if, on that account, several of the paral- lels which have been quoted must at once be discarded, still less can we understand how Wetstein could ad- duce as parallel the following grossly selfish epitaph : Apusulena Geria vixi ann. XXII, quod quisque ves- trum optaverit mihi, illi semper eveniat vivo et mor- tuo. But even when the saying is taken in a positive point of view, all depends upon the character of the CHAP. VII. VERSE 12, 989 Thou, who is addressed, viz., upon whether he isa Hel- vetius, who, conscious in himself of no other rule but that of self-interest, likewise expects no more from other men; or whether he is a υἱὸς “)εοῦ, (compare c. v. 45), who, desiring on the one hand that all mankind should reciprocally sacrifice themselves in self-deny- ing love for each other, just as the Son of God loved his own, even unto death, requires the same of himself, and who, equally desirous, on the other, that the love of the brethren should not wax cold at his cold-heart- edness and indifference, does not, on his own part, grow cold at their coldness and ingratitude, but en- deavours to overcome evil with good, according to Rom. xii. 21. | That Christ, as remains to be observed, did not mean to bring forward this saying as a new discovery, is shewn by the οὕτως ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται, on which compare what we have said above, Vol. I. p. 177. In the same way, he had, at Matt. xxii. 40, traced ‘back the sum of the moral law generally to the an- cient covenant. EPILOGUE. ‘v. 138—27. Just as was the case in the prologue, we meet in the epilogue with the closest and most appropriate connection, whereas in neither, as given by Luke, can the progress of the thought be pointed out. 1. Admonition to a serious seeking of the right way, vers. 15,14. 2. Warning against the false guides to that way, who have the appearance of godliness, but VOL. It. υ 990 CHAP. VII. VERSES 13, 14. deny its power, v. 15—23. 3..Concluding. exhorta- tion to confirm faith by works, ν. 24—27. V. 18, 14. This admonition leads in the most suitable way to the termination of the discourse. To remove it from this, and assign as its original place, Luke xiii. 24, would in fact amount to foreing out a well-jointed.stone from some edifice, thereby des- troying it. Just as little, however, can we allow that, at Luke xiii. 24, the saying is not original. [Ὁ much rather belongs to the class of those, which have been several times repeated in different connections, as was natural to happen with.a saying of the kind. How similar, e..g. even to the parable in Luke, the certain- ly different and original text, Matt. xxv. 10—12? Before we enter more closely into the exposition, we require to notice the readings. The Recepta has ὅτι, although Beza himself confessed it to be unfounded, and, in the 3d and 4th eds. of his New Tes- tament only says, quia tamen in codicibus zmpressts legimus ὅτι, nihil mutandum putavi, This reading has merely the Cod. Vat. in its favour. It is true, that in it the 6 of the ὅτι is erased, but, as Birch declares, by some modern hand (Birch proleg. in quatuor evangel. p. XV.*) Other testimonies, as that of Origen, of the Coptic and Armenian translations, a Griesbach,.Comm. crit. p..80, says: Tacente Birchio non liquet, prima manu utrum é7,an xa}, an aliud yocabulum quod- cunque scripserit. But Birch says quite decidedly in the place quoted : Ita etiam Matt. vii. 14, ubi noster a prima manu ha- bet ὅτι στενή, librarius litteram ¢ novo colore non pinxit, sed lineola subtili-a dextra ad sinistram transfixit, quod lectio τί στενή ipsi-magis probaret..[?] CHAP. VII. VERSES 13, 14. 291 are doubtful,” (Griesbach Comment. crit. p. 79.) It is true, that some codices of the Vulgate also, though of a later date, have quoniam instead of quam. We have to add, that several authorities read χαὶ τί, others merely καί, which last Luther haslikewise followed. Al- though Bengel, Mill and Wolf have retained the re- cepta, still, according to the external evidences, it cannot be once doubted that τί is the correct read- ing. So far, indeed, as internal evidence is concerned, ὅτι recommends itself as preferable to vi. True that modern expositors are of a different opinion, but for no other reason, except that ὅτι has not, even by its defenders, been conceived with grammatical accura- cy- Bengel, who is followed by Kuinol, suffered himself to be misled into taking ὅτι in the adversative signification of sed, referring to Heb. viii. 106, Beau- sobre is of opinion, that ὅτι στενή may be tantamount to τί στενή, How narrow / and appeals in proof to 1 Mace. vi. 11. It was deemed impossible to allow a co-ordination with the first ὅτι, as this caused the sen- tence greatly to trail. It would then only remain to subordinate the second ὅτι, and connect it with the πολλοί εἶσιν εἰσερχόμενοι διὰ τῆς πλατείας, as a Specifica- tion of the reason why so many choose the broad way. Now, doubtless this construction would also be admissable, although then the 14th verse, the thought of which is at least equally forcible with that of the 15th, receives much too secondary a position. A thing the most obvious of all, however, has been 4 Fritzsche says: Deinde ede mihi, quid hoc loco ors signiti- care possit, ad quod haud ita expedita erit responsio, nisi ὅτι sed significare cum quibusdam ridicule opineris. 292 CHAP. ὙΠ. VERSES 13, 14. overlooked, viz. that where we say, because—and, the Hebrew repeated his ‘>, especially in impassioned diction. See Gesenius, Latin ed. of the Dictionary, p. 475, where are cited as examples, Is. vi. 5; i. 29, 30; π|. 1,65 ix. 3—5. Job ili. 24, 253 viii. 9; xi. 15, 16, and several others. By this the construction is vindicated in the most satisfactory manner; nay, as we shall see, after considering the meaning of τῇ, ὅτι has more to recommend it than τί. For supposing we read τί, then might the signification why be adopted, as is done by Fritzsche. Bornemann has undertaken to defend this, even at Luke xii. 49, and Wahl does the same here. It appears to us, however, to be quite correctly remarked by Meyer in opposition, that the saying thereby acquires a certain softness, which does not suit the context. We might go still farther, and affirm that the saying is made to savour of hu- man sentimentality, and takes the appearance, as if the Saviour complained of the inscrutability of the divine counsel. We have no hesitation, there- fore, in assenting to the common opinion, that the ri, as even Salmasius observes, according to the Alex- andrine usus loquendi, stands as adverb of admira- tion, in place of the ὡς of classical Greek, after the Hebrew wm. This use is perfectly demonstrable, and. * When they press, as many do with all strictness, the ex- clamation of the Saviour upon the cross, Matt. xxvii. 46, and infer from it an inward desertion of him by God, the following ° among other scraples forces itself upon my mind; in that case the interrogation why must likewise be taken strictly. When so taken, however, it involves a murmuring at, or at least an ignorance of, the reason of the expiatory death. CHAP. VII. VERSES 19, 14. 293 admits of no question. See 2 Sam. vi. 20. Song of Sol. vii. 7. So likewise Luke xii. 49. In Ps. xxxi. 19, the LXX. have ὡς πολύ, whereas Symmachus has τί πολύ. Suidas quotes the phrase: ὡς καλὴ ἡ τάξις. (Schleusner, and others after him, falsely cite ἡ λέξις), and expounds the sense of τί correctly by λίαν. Even Theophylact says: Sauwacrindy ἐστι τὸ τί, γαυμάζει γὼρ βαβαΐ πόσον ἐστὶ στενή The passage, according- ly, belongs to the few sayings of Christ, where, in the very form of the diction, the expression of feeling is perceptible, as is also the case with Mark ix. 19. Luke xii. 49. It cannot, however, as appears to me, be denied, that this is just a passage, where, after the previous mention of the broad way, and the many who go into destruction, the impassioned exclamation would be less in its place, and where one would rather look for the simple za. We think accordingly that, on internal grounds also, the ὅτι, which, as we saw, would in point of import be equivalent to the καὶ, shews itself preferable to the τί. Let us now turn to the exposition of the saying in detail. First of all, εἰσέλθετε is to be taken in the sense of ζητεῖν ciozADciv and dywiGeodus εἰσελιλεῖν, which stands Luke xiii. 24. The reason of the exhortation stated by the ὅτι, consists in the circumstance that the way leading to destruction has much to make it inviting, and likewise does, in point of fact, seduce many. The next question which meets us, relates to the ἃ Erasmus did not think of the Hebrew usus loquendi, when fre wanted to aceount for the Latin translation quam, by the fact that the translator read as. 294. CHAP. VII. VERSES 13, 14. right way of conceiving the figure. The gate, it is to be remarked, stands foremost, and it is after it that the way comes to be mentioned, so that we might thus be led with Bengel to conceive the gate as something anterior te the right way, viz. the resolution to belong to the kingdom of God, and to live decidedly for heaven. This view is ingenious, but by no means tenable. In the first place, the image would not then be taken from the life, inasmuch as ways to which a gate leads are very rarely to be met, whereas in scripture, the king- dom of heaven and the world below are often com- pared to closed palaces and towns, Rev. xxii. 14. Matt. xvi. 18. We have to add, that εἰσέλθετε is used absolutely, and hence in this passage, just as at Luke xiii, 24; xi. 52, refers to the εἰσελθεῖν into the βασιλεία itself. This absolute use might easily become the customary one, as the various phrases, εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν, Matt. xix. 4. Luke xviii. 17. John iii. 5. εἰς τὴν ζωήν, Matt. xviii. 8. Mark ix. 43. εἰς τήν χα- cay, Matt. xxv. 21, 23, were so current. We may also, though the same saying there occurs differently modified, appeal to the fact, that the Svea, at Luke xill. is the Svea to the βασιλεία τῆς δόξης. With this is connected the question, whether the ζωή and ἀπώ- Aci are to be regarded as something on this side of the grave, or on the other? In the former case, the straight gate and narrow way would relate to the struggles which precede conversion, and the wide gate and broad way to the enjoyments and satisfactions which precede the death in sin, the inward ἀπώλεια. One would be again disposed to consider the πύλη as indicating the resolution. Partly, how- ever, the parallels which have been adduced speak CHAP. VII. VERSES 13, 14. 295 against this view, and partly it is likewise in a general respect contrary to experience, to place the struggle of the Christian solely in the period anterior to conversion, just as if already upon this earth the ζωή were introduced in perfection. Much rather does the Saviour here, as in Luke xiii. and likewise subsequently in vers. 21, 22, of the present chapter, admonish persons already of the number of his disciples, in order not to trifle away their interest in the future glory of his kingdom, to strive with the due earnestness. Compare the parables of the vir- gins, of the talents, &c. We will accordingly have to understand by the gate, the entrance to the glory to come, and by the way, the course of life which leads to it. The fact of the gate’s being put first, is to be explained by the circumstance of its forming the chief idea. Thus we hear, on the one hand, the way of life, the way of truth; on the other, the way of uurighteousness spoken of, Prov. xv. 24. Wisd. v. 6, 7. When v. 14, it is said, ““ Few there be that find it,” this is to strengthen the thought pre- viously expressed, that “ Few there are that walk therein.” We have now to inquire what is. signified by the breadth and straightness of the gate, the width and narrowness of the way. According to Grotius, whom, as it appears, Clericus follows, the strazéness of the one and the narrowness of the other, just as on the opposite side, the wideness of the gate and the breadth of the way denote different things. Πλατύς, to wit, and στενός signify merely the contrary of room, εὐρύ- xweos and τεϑλιμμένος the antithesis of even and un- even, open and encompassed with crags, so that the 296 CHAP. VII. VERSES 13, 14. former figure would refer to the small number of tra- vellers, the latter to the hardship of self-denial. From the τεϑλιμμένος, however, as Grotius takes it, con- Jined by rocks, we can only deduce the idea of xar- row, so as that it would still coincide with στενός. Whereas, on the other hand, straitness of room is also an image for troublesomeness, and in this way the two figures do not admit of being kept apart. Just as little shall we be able to do what Beza thought of, take τεϑλιμωμένος in the engrafted sense of causing JAMpes = equivalent to 3A/Souen, in which case the perf. pass. would stand for the middle. This is to be discarded were there no other reason, except that εὐρύχωρος would not then be parallel. Straitness and narrowness rather denote primarily that the way to life is hemmed in on both sides by the divine com- mandment, admitting for this reason of no aberra- tion.2, Hence the exhortation of the Old Testament to turn aside neither to the righé nor to the left, Deut. v.32. Prov. iv. 27. Is. xxx. 21. Secondly, con- nected with this is the fact, that this way is rendered troublesome by persecution, both from within and from without, Acts xiv. 22 ; whereas the travellers upon the broad way are described as merry, Luke vi. 25. Wisd. ii. 6—9. Thirdly, on that very account there are but few that walk in it, not because the way itself does not admit, but because it does not please them. @ Clem. Alex. Strom. V. p. 664: δύο ὁδοὺς troriSeutvou σοῦ εὐαγγελίου καὶ τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων — thy μὲν καλούντων σαενὴν καὶ τεϑλιμμένην, τὴν κατὰ τὰς ἐντολὰς καὶ ὠπαγορεύσεις περιεσταλμέ- Ἐ Ν δὲ > / Ν > > ͵ ͵ ' ~ \ mt ᾿ »ην᾽ TAY ὃς ἐναντίων THY εἰς ὠπώλειῶν φέρουσαν, πλατείῶν KA εὑρύχω- δον ἀκώλυτον ἡδοναῖς καὶ ϑυμῷ. CHAP. VII. VERSES 19, 14. 297 Few find it, because a way so humble does not at-- tract notice, whereas the broad road, on which the multitude walk, is ever the first to present itself to the eye of man. The saying is so solemn and so severe, that it can create no surprise to find expositors endeavouring to dilute it with the water of shallow interpretation. The much hackneyed and convenient expedient offered it- self, of saying that Jesus is speaking of a period when Christianity was not as yet become the dominant re- ligion, and when accordingly it had, on the one hand, many persecutors, and few professors on the other. Even Episcopius observes, according to the lax view of the Arminians on the word ὀλίγοι, Ex his verbis videtur, servator potissimum de statu illius temporis loqui. Measuring the extent of Christianity in the world by the number of its professors, one would certainly judge in this way. But whosoever believes that the kingdom of God is only come in the propor- tion in which, according to Rom. xiv. 17, righteous- ness, peace, and joy reigns in Christendom, will easily perceive that the words apply to all times. Con- nected with this subject, however, is the question, Whether what Christ says of the few who find the way of life is limited solely to the period of the pre- sent αἰῶν, or is spoken with reference to all the ages of futurity? It is a question closely connected with that respecting the admissibility of an intermediate state, upon which we cannot here further enter. It is however remarkable, that Christ, when asked by the disciples, Luke xiii. 23, Are there few that be 298 CHAP. VII. VERSES 13, 14. saved? evades the direct answer. Respecting the selection of the image of the way and the gate, Ols- hausen correctly observes: “ It is so natural, so true, that we find it repeated at every serious effort made even upon subordinate stages of the religious life.” The ground type of it was given in the following lines of Hesiod: Τὴν μὲν γὰρ κακότητα καὶ ἰλαδόν ἐστιν ἑλέσϑαι “Ῥηΐδίως" λείη μὲν ὁδὸς, μώλα δ᾽ ἐγγύϑι ναίει. Τῆς δ᾽ ἀρετῆς ἱδρῶτα deol πρηπάροιδεν ἐϑηκαν ᾿Αϑάνατοι" μακρὸς δὲ καὶ ogds0¢ οἶμος ex αὐτήν κτλ. Very similar is Virgil’s description of Tartarus, Zin. 1, VI. v. 548: Moenia lata videt triplici cireumdata muro, on which Servius observes: quod ait data, no- centium exprimit multitudinem ; and, on the other hand, of Elysium: paueique per amplum Mittimur Elysium et pauci laeta arva tenemus. See other pa- rallels in Priczeus, Raphel and Wetstein. We have still to touch the apparent contradiction between this and similar declarations, respecting the troubles of the Christian life, and those, such as Matt. xi. 29, and 1 John v. 3, which speak of its easiness: The difficulty and the hardship extend so far as the old man has not as yet been put to death, the easi- ness takes place in proportion as the new man gains the ascendant. Both classes of texts have found their expression in Christian sacred poetry. V. 15. With this difficulty of entering upon the way to life, it is particularly important that the right guides should point it out. Such is the’ transi- CHAP. VII. VERSE 15. 999 tion to the present admonition.2 The προφῆται hav- ing generally been the teachers under the Old Testa- ment, according to its usus loquendi, the ψευδοπροφῆται here mean false teachers. Compare 2 Pet. ii. 1. 1 John iv. 1. 2 Cor. xi. 13. Inasmuch, however, as each individual member of the church has a sphere in which he acts the part of teacher, and especially as in the church’s infancy that office was not yet so distinctly marked off, what is here said also applies to all in membership with the church, just as v. 21 speaks more of Christ’s disciples in general, although the προφητεύειν of v.22 shews, that there, too, it is chiefly teachers who are spoken of. The image cho- sen by Christ, and known even from sop, is the hostility inspired by nature betwixt wolf and lamb. It pervades the symbolical language of all nations, and likewise frequently occurs in scripture, Is. xi. 6; Ixv. 25. Sir. xiii, 17. Matt. x. 16. On the natural dispositions of the two animals, their antipathy, and its symbolical signification among the different na- tions, see Bochart Hieroz. ]. 11. 46; III. 10. In par- ticular, the New Testament calls false teachers and se- ducers, wolves, John x. 12. Acts xx. 29; and this is always done with reference to the comparison made of the church to a flock. The predicate ἅρπαγες, ra- paces, was currently applied even by classical authors to wolves, see Priceeus. The ἐνδύματα τῶν προβάτων," accordingly, denotes the dissembled appearance of being a member of the Christian church. Under this a Chrysostom: xa) γὰρ πρὸς τὸ σσενὴν αὐτὴν εἶναι πολλοὶ οἱ ὑποσκελίζοντές εἰσι τὴν ἐκεῖσε φίρουσων εἴσοδον". 900 CHAP. VII. VERSE 15. appearance, false teachers obtain admission, and then become destructive to it, like wolves, when, in the form of sheep, they mix with the flock. Jn what the dis- sembled appearance consists depends upon how the καρποί, ν. 16, is to be explained, for the evduwa must be the antithesis to the καρποῖς. If the καρποί are works, the conversation, the sheep’s clothing must mean the seemingly true doctrine, which in substance appears to be pure, but yet has some foreign ingre~ dient of error. If the καρποί are-doctrines, then must the sheep’s clothing be an apparently good conversa- tion. See also on this subject v. 16. Taking up the comparison in the way we have stated, there appears to be an incongruity; we expect that the false teach- ers shall assume the dress of the true ones, (compare 2 Cor. xi. 13,) in place of which it is affirmed, they take the garb of members of the church. This scru- ple has, as it seems, been the chief cause why seve- ral have understood the ἐνδύματα προβάτων, not figu- ratively of the moribus personatis, but of the μηλω- ταῖς, clothes of sheep skin, which the prophets were ac- customed to wear, Heb. xi. 572. So Maldonatus, Bo- chart, Grotius, A. Schott,? Er. Schmid, Krebs, Rosen- miller, Kuinol. We would in that case have to sup- pose, that Christ ascribed to this dress of the prophets a symbolical signification, and has made an allusion to it. Now, against this it cannot be objected, that one would not look for προβάτων, as the Gen. of substance, but for μηλωτῶν, not for clothing of sheep, but of sheep skins. Even when construed in this as well as in the common way, we may expound ἐνδύματα προ- @ Adagia sacra N. T. p. 19. —_—_- i er. CHAP. VII. VERSE 18. 30] Saray, * clothing which the sheep have,” that is, their skins. Against the exposition, however, speaks partly the circumstance, that nowhere else was raiment of sheep skins in the prophets regarded as symbolical of purity and innocence, at least I am not acquainted with any instance of the sort ;? partly that in those days prophets did not make their appearance, inasmuch as from the time of Malachi till John the Baptist, no prophet had arisen, 1 Mace. ix. 27. Comp. iv. 46; xiv. 41, so that the symbol would have had no signi- ficance for the men of that age; and, in fine, that the figure is far more forcible and striking, when we conceive wolves wishing to appear as if they were in- nocent sheep. It is to be added, that the passage was always so understood in the ancient church, so that upon the ground of it there was even form- ed the word προβατόσχημος, which is not to be found in the dictionaries, but occurs in Chrysostom, ep. 125. The scruple of which we speak may, however, be done away quite simply, inasmuch as every false teacher, who wishes to obtain admission into the church, must first assume the appearance of being a member of it. V. 16—20. The train of thought in these senten- ces is as follows: The ἄραγε, itaque, in v. 20, resumes v. 16. That in the case of the thorn and the thistle, 4 Had such been the case, it must have been the constant apparel of the prophets, whereas they have just as often rai- ment of goat’s skin. John the Baptist wears a ἔνδυμα ἀπὸ τρι- χῶν καμήλου, Matt. iii. 4, by which we are not to suppose, as the painters represent, a camel’s fur, but a coarse stuff made of camel’s hair. 302 CHAP. VII. VERSES 16—20. the fruit answers to the tree isa well known fact, and in the same way, it never happens (οὕτω) that a good tree produces worthless and uneatable fruit. Now, it seems that v. 19 does not fit into this train. But Stark, Doddridge and even Fritzsche have observed, that it is primarily an allusion to the fact of daily ob- servation, viz. that bad trees, on the supposition that they never will produce any other but worthless fruit, are cut down. Now, beyond all doubt, the passage involves a reference to the judgment of the false pro- phets, and that reference appears here to pave the way for what is afterwards, v. 23, said of the divine judgment upon the unfruitful trees in the church of Christ. The image which Christ employs we find repeated under manifold variations in the classics. (In Ger- man, Die Eule heckt keinen Falken. From scripture we have to compare Sir. xxvii. 6, and Jas. iii. 11.) Luke vi. 44, has connected the axavSas with the σῦ- χα, and in place of the τρήβολοι, βάτος with σταφυλή. Here, too, the image is very exact. .” AzavSus, or ἄκανϑα, is the general name for all thorn plants, among which the principal is the buckthorn ἼΩΝ; which bears small black-berries, resembling grapes. The τρήβολοι have a head of flowers which may be compared with figs. We have to add, that of all others these unfruitful plants bear the most bean- tiful blossoms, the flower of the buckthorn being like that of the oriental hyacinth. © Theophylact makes the thorns allude figuratively to the secretly wounding power of the false teachers, the thistles to the indoles versatilis. It is however obvious, that these CHAP. VII. VERSES 16—20. 303 plants have only been selected in consequence of their unfruitfulness. It is an important question, whether the fruits men- tioned in this passage relate to the doctrine or to the walk of the false teachers—a question which was dis- cussed by all more ancient interpreters, but has not been once mentioned by the more modern, not even excepting Olshausen himself. The most obvious reason for understanding under καρποί, the doctrine, lay in the circumstance, that even experience ap- peared to contradict the saying. Sectarians have at all times been considered as Ψευδοπροφῆται. Among these, however, there have been separatists in every age, who broke. their connection with the church just because of its corruption, and who were distin- guished by the purity of their walk. Now, when such persons quoted the saying before us in their fa- vour, the teachers of the church were perplexed, in- asmuch as the walk of the Sectarians put the church- members to the blush. This was the case with Jovi- nian, with the Waldenses, and the Separatists from the Protestant church during the seventeenth and at the commencement of the eighteenth century. Hence, their purity of conversation was represented as an artifice of the devil. (See Jerome cont. Jovin. and the Romish Inquisitors against the Waldenses.) Still less did the criterion of the walk appear to suit, when the requirement as to that fell so low, as only to include honesty between man and man. Hence, even in his time, Jerome understood by the fruits, the nequitia dogmatum, and by the sheep’s clothing, the vita bona by which the heretic deceives. Even 304 CHAP. VII. VERSES 16—20. so, the Auct. op. imp. Chrysostom and Hilary, how- ever, wanted to apply the saying not to heretics, but hypocrites (οἱ ériJeror), who delude by the sem- blance of a good life, and seduce the flock not hy doctrines, but a pernicious example, (2 Tim. iii. 5.) The exposition of Jerome met with approbation like- wise among the reformers. Calvin, Bucer and Pelli- canus refer the καρποί to the doctrine, the evduun προ- ϑάτων to the fucata pietas. So also Chemnitz, Ger- hard, (loci, T. XI. p. 198,) Erasmus Schmid, Raphel.,* Calov, and others, and in the contest with the Pie- tists this explanation became a shibboleth of the or- thodox.® Apart altogether from the argument drawn from experience, there is another ground which may strongly dispose the interpreter to understand by καρποί, doctrines. In all likelihood, the figure was so understood by Luke, or the person who reported to him the Sermon on the Mount, as is shown by the * Raphelius in the Annot. ex Pol. compares with σαπρὸν δέν- δρον the phrase σαπρὰ δόγματα in Arrian, 1. II. ο. 22. > Spener himself, who, when he can, so gladly justifies the orthodox, follows this explanation, and says with Chemnitz: “¢ The fruit is that which is brought forth by him whose fruit it is. Itis accordingly, a teacher or prophet’s fruit, that which in these capacities, he produces ; and this is, of course doctrine ; thereby, according to Christ’s words, do we know him. If, however, we speak of a Christian in general, his fruit is faith and life.” Theolog. Bedenken, Th. IV. p. 201. Bengel says quite the contrary. Ingenious, but to be sure, artificial, was Piscator’s attempt to reconcile the two opinions. He refers xaemoi to the fruits of the walk which the doctrine produces in others ; and on this Eras. Schmid also lays the greatest weight, eomparing John vi. 39, 40. 1-Tim. ii. 4. CHAP. VII. VERSES 16---90. 305 addition in Luke vr. 45, which does not appear in our context. Now, this explanation might be vindicated in the following way. The Ψευδοπροφῆ- ras are men who have the μόρφωσις τῆς εὐσεβείας with- out the δύναμις, (2 Tim. iii. 5,) as was the case with the Pharisees, Matt. xxiii. 14, 23. Just as Moses, Deut. xiii. 2, 4, had warned against trusting to the miracles of the prophets, when they did not, along with these, publish the pure truth of God, Christ does the same here. At Matt. xii. 383—35 too, he used the image in such a way, as that fruits denote doc- trines, which is also done, Sir. 6. xxvii. 6. Were the objection to be made, that still at v. 21 and 22, the antithesis to the λέγειν" κύριε and to the προφητεύειν is ποιεῖν τὸ JéAnua τοῦ κυρίου, it might be answered, that v. 21 begins an entirely new section, that the warning to beware of false prophets is still coupled with the saying about the narrow way, and amounts to ἃ warn- ing against such as were the teachers of a wrong way, for which reason it must have been against doctrine that it was directed. Whereas, with verse 20, begins the warning to the hearers of Christ’s discourse, not merely to profess connection with him outwardly, but also to practise what they heard,—consequently, that here the exhortation to good works is in its right place. Hardly, however, will any man be able to convince himself that no association exists be- twixt ver. 20 and 21. Rather is it quite obvious to suppose, that Christ, ver. 21—23, is speaking of no other class than those before discoursed of. When Jerome, even in his day, observes to the contrary, that here unquestionably the persons spoken of are VOL. II. x ‘ 906 CHAP. VII. VERSES 16---90,. those who make a true confession in the name of Christ, and who, consequently, cannot be false teachers, we have to answer, that even the false teacher, in order to obtain admission into the church, must as- sume the appearance of a follower of Christ, and that confessing the xame of Christ is very far from exclud- ing every false doctrine. We hence suppose that in ver. 2123, the same class of seducers is spoken of as previously, and that the ἔνδυμα προβάτων of the «νευδοπροφῆται, consists partly in the semblance of pure doctrine, partly in that of a blameless walk, that the καρποί however, mainly refer to the ἔργα, and find their explanation in the ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίων of ver. 93. If there be, at the same time, an allusion to doc- trine involved, this is at most, merely collateral, for, in the wider sense, heresies doubtless, also belong to the ἔργω πονηρά. Compare 2 John xi. with verse 9 and 10. Accordingly, we too are of opinion, that the saying, Luke vi. 45, was not originally delivered in this connection, but in that in which Matthew com- municates it, chap. xii. As Matthew gives the say- ing about the fruits twice in his gospel, we must sup- pose Christ to have used it on two several occasions, the second time with reference to the fruils of the lips, that is doctrines. The informant of Luke less exactly coupled the application he has here in the sermon on the mount, with the saying about the fruits. In favour of referring, as we have done, the καρποί to the ἔργα, the usus loquendi of the N. Testament moreover speaks, Luke viii. 15. John xv. 2, 4, 5, 8. Compare ver. 14, 15. Gal. v. 22. Eph. v. 9. Phi. i. 11. Jas. iii. 18, and the analogia fidei in Jas. ii. and in Paul, Gal. v. 6. 1 Cor. vii. 19. Compare | ee ee | CHAP. VII. VERSES 2]1—923. 307 likewise John vi. 29. Olshausen observes that 1 John iv. 2 delivers a profounder criterion, but one does not see how. It is indeed, self-evident, as Lu- ther finely adduces on the passage, that there must exist an objective touch stone for the confession as well as for the walk, and that that is scripture. But, in that case, it would perhaps be easier to prove the soundness of the faith by the walk in light and love which John also proposes as touch-stone, (1 John i. 6; ii. 5, 9,) than by the confession of the mouth. This saying served the Manichees as a prop for their doctrine of a double origin and empire of things. Hence the Fathers vindicate it in opposition to them. See Origen, Opp. T. I. p. 820, Jerome and Chry- sostom in ἢ. I. V. 21—23. A further extending of the judgment pronounced in ver. 19. The οὐ σᾶς gives the dis- course a more comprehensive application than to the προφῆται and διδάσκαλοι. The προφητεύειν in v. 22, however, refers back to it. We already observed, that the antithesis betwixt teacher and member of the church, especially in the church’s infancy, was, as indeed it alwaysis, transient. Now, this saying forms a very appropriate introduction to the concluding words in ver. 24, In our opinion accordingly, the same persons are mentioned, ver. 21—23, as before. So likewise Chrysostom, Zwingli, Wolzogen, Chem- nitz, Rus, Paulus, and properly too, those among the moderns, who, like Michaelis and Meyer, place the difference solely in the circumstance, that previously the doctrines of the Old Testament alone were spoken of, whereas now it is the doctrines of the New, which 308 CHAP. VII. VERSES 21—238. observation however, is to be corrected by what we have said, Vol. I. p. 249. According to Jerome moreover, and the rest above mentioned, a quite dif- ferent class of persons from the former are mentioned. The βασιλεία denotes here exclusively the βασιλεία τῆς δόξης. See above, Vol. 1. p. 106. Κύριε is partly the title Fabbz, for which we have elsewhere in the New Test. ἐπιστάτα or διδάσκαλε. It is also, however, as among the Greeks and Jews, a ge- neral title of honour, John iv. 11; xii. 21. Acts ix. 5, the same as it was in the Old Testament and among the Romans, Persians and Arabians, &c. In Christian phraseology its import more and more increased with the growing insight of the disciples into the dignity of Christ, up to the point intimated in Phil. ii. 11, as is also the case with υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ. Christ extracts from it the fundamental idea, as previously 6. vi. 24 was involved in the κύριος. Whomsoever I call mas- ter, him must I obey. To call a person master there- fore, and yet not to obey him, denotes an inward in- consistency. It is true Christ does not here mention his own will as that which must be obeyed, but the will of his Father; Still, according to John xv. 15; viii. 28, it is just the Father’s will which he declares. In the form in which Luke gives the words, the in- ward discord is still more clearly brought out: τί δέ με καλεῖτε" κύριε, κύριε, καὶ οὐ ποιεῖτε, ἃ λέγω. The diplasiasmus denotes here and at ver. 22, not thoughtless uttering, as Erasmus and Eras. Schmid suppose, that is battology, but zeal, heart-felt emotion. Compare also the repetition of ἐπιστάτα, and ῥαβββ, Luke viii. 24, (xiii. 25.) Matth. xxiii. 7. Mark xiv. CHAP. VII. VERSES 21—28. 309 45. See above, p. 33. The duplication is meant to shew how ready they are to confess Jesus as their master. Οὐ πάντες has, with few exceptions, been by all ex- positors? and translators rendered, not every one, which is quite correct, in conformity to the remark made by Beza on Rom. iii. 20, and by Eras. Schmid on the passage before us, (Flacius and Glassius have less correctly conceived the rule. See the grammar of the latter, 1. iii. tr. 5, 6. 21.) The remark is, that οὐ coupled with πᾶς negatives the πᾶς, as it negatives the verb with which it is coupled. See Winer, p. 146. It is remarkable that the structure of σᾶς with the negative should have escaped so acute ἃ philolo- gist as Grotius. He observes upon this passage: quamquam ista locutio Hebraeis universaliter neget, hic tamen manifestum est, negationem esse particula- rem. There have however, been some who take the λέγειν" κύρις, κύριε as fawning and hypocritical language, and hence the οὐ πᾶς as absolute negation. So Rus, Elsner and Fritsche, who translate: non illud genus hominum, quotquot sunt, qui ita me salutant, sed illa classis, qui meis praeceptis parent, regni coelestis fient compotes. This scholar founds his exposition upon the following arguments: 1. “ Supposing the expo- sition to be, Mot all Herr-herr-sager, ‘ that say * Even Justin, in his day, App. I. c. 16, expounds as follows : of δ᾽ ἂν μὴ εὑρίσκωνται βιοῦντες ὡς ἐδίδαξε, γνωριζέσϑωσαν μὴ ὄντες χειστιωνοὶ, κἄν λέγωσι διὰ γλώττης τὰ ποῦ Χριστοῦ διδώγματα" οὐ A Ἂν ΄ , > ἣ Ν Ἁ \ Ρ ΄ yue τοὺς μόνον λεγοντῶς, ἀλλῶ TOUS καὶ TH ἐργῶ πράσσοντας σωϑήσεσθυκι ἔφη. Leven so Clemens, Rem. ep. Il. ad Cor. c. 4: xX ΄ s 2 Ν ~ / (4% μόνον οὖν αὑτὸν κώλωμεν κύριον ATA. 310 CHAP. VII. VERSES 9--.98, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, (but some.) An importance not belonging to it, and repugnant to the spirit of Christianity, is assign- ed to the saying of Lord, Lord.” Here however, the German version uses an expression,which, through the medium of this very passage, has acquired a bad collateral sense, viz. Herr, Herr-sagen, to say Lord, Lord, which bad sense does not intrinsically belong to the κύριε κύριε λέγειν, but is derived from the sequel. Christ says to his disciples, John xiii. 19, ὑμεῖς φωνεῖτε με" ὁ διδάσκαλος καὶ ὃ κύριος" καὶ καλῶς λέγετε εἰμὶ γὰρ. The ἐξομολογεῖν, ὅτι κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς is, according to Phil. ii. 11, the highest point to which the exaltation of God and Christ can be carried. To say it az truth, i. e. truly to acknowledge Christ as sovereign, is agreeably to 1 Cor. xii. 3, the work of the Holy Spirit. We must also suppose, that the persons who here perform miracles in the name of Jesus, are not to be considered as destitute of all in- terest in him. 2. “ The limitation ποέ all (but some) that say Lord, Lord, shall . . . . would here have no meaning, because, in the second member (ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ποιῶν τὸ ϑέλημα τοῦ πατρός μου) the admission into the king- dom of heaven is made to depend upon the fulfilment of the divine commands, which does away the idea, that the saying of Lord, Lord, can contribute aé ali to that effect.” This idea, however, far from being done away, is rather presumed by the doing of the will, inasmuch as the will of Christ, and indirectly of God, is only performed by the man who acknowledges him as sovereign. 3. “ Were it admissible to couple οὐ closely with σᾶς, the whole sentence would have CHAP. VII. VERSES 91--98. Sit been differently constructed by so precise a writer as Matthew, viz. as follows: οὐ πᾶς 6 λέγων mor κύ- ale κύριε, εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, ἀλλὰ πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὸ ϑΔέλημα τοῦ πατρός μου----γιοξ every ONE that sayeth Lord, Lord, but every one that doeth the will of God, shall enter into the kingdom of hea- ven.” If this scholar imagines that, supposing such structure of the sentence, od πᾶς might signify not every one, the observation destroys the second objec- tion. For if, on the sentence being constructed: in that manner, the οὐ 7% can mean not every one, how much more may it do so, the structure being what we actually find it to be. The repetition of the σᾶς would just mislead us into the belief, that the class of the ποιοῦντες τὸ γέλημα τοῦ ϑεοῦ was quite different from that of the Ἀέγοντες" κύριε. 4. “ Finally, from the lo- cation of the words οὐ πᾶς ὁ λέγων urd, there follows no contrary. The negation must needs stand here at the head of the first clause, the whole sentence being adversative, (ods—caAAd.)” Here vouchers are awant- ing. Let examples be brought forward, that in other passages, οὐ σᾶς, with ἀλλά in the after clause, bears the meaning no one. We are not however, even under the necessity of appealing to the invariable usus loquendi in vindica- tion of the generally received explanation. That ex- planation is justified by the context; for οὐ πᾶς, in the sense not every one, is explained in the πολλοὶ ἐροῦσί wor xU212, κύριε which immediately follows. The ἐκείνη ἡμέρα is the day of judgment, as at Luke vi. 23. The expression-is to be explained by the 919 CHAP. VII. VERSES 21—93. Nir ova of the prophets. Of the dialogue form, Olshausen very pertinently remarks, “ The lively picturing of the situation here is the language of reality.” So likewise the dialogues at the judgment, Matt. xxv. Storr intended to say the same (Opuse. III. p. 3), but without finding the exact expression, when he explained: Sermo non exponit, quid illi re- vera sint dicturi, sed quid accommodate ad perso- nam, supra (v. 21) iis impositam, dicere possint. Just as he afterwards does in the description of the general judgment, Christ represents himself here as the Judge of the world. When, for this reason, it is asserted, as has recently been done, that something has here been transferred from his later to his more early doctrine; this is the extravagance of arbitrary criticism. Let us once form no loftier conception of Christ than that he was a highly gifted and reli- gious Jew, who, conscious of the endowment of ge- nius, afterwards gave himself out for the Messias, and taking advantage οἵ the general expectation, that the Messias would conduct the judgment, as- cribed this office also to himself, there really exists no ground for not referring the innocent fanaticism to the opening of his office as teacher. Does he at the very outset announce: ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν ἤγγικε, in which he designated himself as the Messias, why might he not even then have yielded to the delusion, that he would one day aet the part of Judge of mankind. If, however, this pseudo-cri- ticism be persisted in, it is probable that John v. will also be rejected as not historical, where, however, at a period not greatly later than the delivery of the CHAP. VII. VERSES Z1—23. 313 sermon on the Mount, the Son of God in like man- ner says, that all that are dead in their graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth to judgment.* 4 There is scarce one document of history in which the in- terpreters have treated historical evidence with such unbound- ed levity, as our more modern rationalists have shewn to that of the New Testament, and if it has ever been elsewhere done, it has not escaped the severest censure. of contemporaries or posterity. Upon the Old and New Testament alone has eriti- cism been allowed to perpetrate such enormities with impunity. Let one example suffice, which the subject of the text too strongly recalls. On 6. v. 17, Dr. Fritzsche makes the re- mark: “5 As Jesus appears in this passage to utter Messize potius quam doctoris verba, and yet Matt. xvi. 17, (it ought to be xvi. 20,) forbids the disciples to tell, that he is the Christ, (And this is an argument !), Matthew may well have modified the words spoken, and have borrowed something from his later style of expression.”” Now, at this passage it is said, there arises the difficulty, that Christ affirmed he meant to alter nothing in the Old Testament worship, and yet that the disciples made so many changes. The difficulty is solved as follows: Evanes- cet difficultas, si, quz [9] in quibus recedit a lege Mosaico Chris- tianorum disciplina, ea non Jesu consilio, sed post ejus mortem suadentibus temporum rationibus novata esse meminerimus. We are, therefore, to believe, that Christ never entertained the idea of effecting the overthrow of the ritual laws, and was wholly and trulya Jew! Such, indeed, is the inference which the Wolfenbuttel fragmentist has drawn from that declaration of Christ. (See Vol. I. p. 176.) Let us, however, hear the his- toricalevidence. And so Johniv. 23, and Matt. ix. 16, 17, con- tain really no intimation that the ritual worship was one day to cease? Or have these sayings also perhaps been put by the dis- ciples into the master’s mouth ? But how can an assertion so monstrous, and affecting so deeply the whole view to be taken of Christianity, as that Jesus wished his disciples to adhere to the ritual worship, be advanced without any proof, or the slightest 314 CHAP. VII. VERSES 2]_—23. We come now to consider what these Ψευδοπροφῆ- ται boast of. As in the parable, Luke xiii. 26, the speakers represent themselves as more than disciples, so do they in this passage as more than teachers. The appellation κύρις is here, too, doubled, to denote zeal. They have performed great works, and that not in their own name, or in the name of another teacher, but in the name of Christ. Hence, the σῷ σῷ ὀνόματι three times repeated, and always, for the sake of emphasis, placed first in the sentence. The works are of the kind which, in the infancy of the church, distinguished the Christian, especially the Christian teacher, and they are brought forward in a climax. Προφητεύειν cannot be just equivalent to docere, nor ge- nerally throughout the New Testament does it entire- ly correspond with it. The evangelical idea it denotes may be inferred, specially at 1 Cor. xiv. from the notice taken of those two contrary declarations? And suppo- sing Christ actually to have wished to retain the ritual wor- ship, what is to be said of those among his disciples who call him their Lord, and yet do not do what he has commanded them? Luke vi. 46. Over such points as these, decisive with regard to the whole substance of Christianity, authors pass with haste, and then dispute, along whole pages and quires, whether we ought to accent 7 or ἰδέ, whether, Luke v. 6, διεῤῥήγνυτο πὸ δίκτυον means it was about to tear, or it got a tear, or, as the imperf. and not the aorist, is used, whether it may not be, ἐξ got several tears. The Saviour once said in righteous an- ger to the Scribes: “* Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye pay tithe of mint and annise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith: These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.” CHAP. VII. VERSES 2]—23. 315 eontrast in which it stands to the γλώσσαις λαλεῖ. We there, from v. 24, perceive, that even in the pas- sages in which προφητεύειν signifies a διδώσχειν, that διδάσκειν still takes place in a state of inspiration of a lofty kind, in which, as we read, the secrets of the hearers’ hearts are made manifest, so that the un- believer is smitten, and falling down on his face, wor- ships God, and reports to them that are without, that God is of a truth among the Christians. It is a teaching of this inspired sort, involving the deep vi- sion of a prophet, that we are here to conceive. A still greater power is requisite for the δαιμόνια ἐκβάλ- rev. We may with certitude suppose, that in those cures of insanity, effected by the spiritual force of the will on the part of the bodily physician, who in the benighted soul can catch the point, whence light may be again diffused in it, we have something ana- logous to the cure of demoniacs. The worker of mi- racles accordingly requires in this case a higher power of soul than for the σροφητεύειν. In fine, all other sorts of miracles are comprised in one class.* How have we here to explain the thrice-repeated σῷ σῷ ὀνόματι᾽ The exposition of the formulas ἐν ὀνόματι, ἐπ᾿ ὀνόματι and ὀνόματι, has always been very variable. The reason of this was, in the first place, that authors neglected to acquire a clear apprehen- sion of the fundamental meaning. Secondly, that, in particular cases, the meanings were too much sub- divided. Wahl has avoided the first error, but not a Bengel subjoins an adde ! adde: commentarios et obser- vationes exegeticas ad libros et loca V. et N. T. scripsimus, homilias insignes habuimus etc. 916 CHAP, VII. VERSES 21—23. the second. ονομα, in the Old Testament, denotes originally, as was said, p. 160, that which an object is im a man’s conception. By the name which he gives to it, aman seeks to express the entire import of the thing named; hence 45} is used synonymously. Accordingly, to teach in the name of any one, means ἐς to teach with a regard to all that he is in our con- ception.” Now, this can be analyzed into a variety of ideas, such as ‘“ instigated by the remembrance of him—under a sense of what he has done for us— we coming forward in his stead, accordingly jussu et auctoritate ejus.” This last and narrower meaning has grown to be the predominant one, so that the phrase became equivalent to ἐν δυνάμει, καὶ ἐξουσίῳ τι- vos. Compare Actsiv.7. In the same way does ex ὀνόματι and ἐξ ὀνόματος likewise occur in Josephus, Antiqa,J..1V..c..1.§ 1; 1. Vlg. Sh pile Mee. 19. 8 8; 1. ΧΙ]. ο. θ.8 12. Just, however, as when we say, “ I command thee in God’s name,’’ (or “ Go in God’s name”); this does not originally amount to «« by commission from God,” but “ placing myself in, or realizing, God’s presence,” so likewise in Greek. This greater comprehensiveness is especially manifest in such formulas as παρακαλεῖν ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ Θεοῦ, and δι’ ὀνόματος τοῦ Θεοῦ. At the passage before us, most take it up auctoritate et jussu tuo, with which Beza substantially agrees, when he makes it vice Christi. We have to observe, that here there is neither ἐσέ nor ἐν, which is elsewhere coupled with διδάσκειν and δαιμόνια ἐκβάλλειν, Luke xxiv. 47. Acts iv. 17, 18; v. 28. Mark xvi. 17. We have merely the dative, as, according to Griesbach, is also the case, Mark ix. CHAP. VII. VERSES 21—23. 317 38, where Fritzsche wants to read éi, and Lach- mann ἐν. Now, when ἐπί and ἐν are used, there still is involved the idea, that the name is the means. In the dative by itself, however, the idea of means is brought still more definitely forward, see Matthiz Gram. § 396. 2. It is, therefore, tantamount to “ by virtue of thy name.” Connected with this subject is the inquiry, how the Ψευδοπροφῆται were able to perform such extraor- dinary works. Many exegetical authors make the distinction betwixt diabolical and divine miracles. This, however, is irrelevant. The ψευδοπροφῆται here mentioned did not work miracles deliberately to pro- mote the cause of the devil. They meant to serve the cause of Christ, and hence come to him fuil of self-confidence, and with hope of reward, just like the persons mentioned, Luke xiii. 26. Much rather must the question be put in the following form: ‘* Can the Christian power of working miracles ema- nate even from a faith so troubled andimpure?” The want of faith is indeed the cause, Matt. xvii. 19, why the disciples are unable to work miracles, and when, Acts xix. the unbelieving sons of Sceva wish to drive out the evil spirits, they refuse to obey. Here, however, . we have not to think of persons altogether destitute of faith, like the sons of Sceva, nay not even of such as had faith in the same slender degree as the disci- ples at the time Christ addressed to them that re- proof. It is impure persons who are spoken of. With impurity, however, as experience teaches us, there may be united a very strong faith in the divine dignity of the Saviour, and in the miraculous power 918. CHAP. VII. VERSES 21—23. emanating from him. There are, to wit, persons to be found at all times, who, influenced by a certain conceit, are particularly wrought upon by the mys- terious aud magical side of Christianity, and who strive with greater zeal to obtain, through the me- dium of faith, dominion over nature, than dominion over themselves. Now, in persons of this class, if the natural endowment of energy of mind be asso- ciated with faith, they will be able, with their origi- nal susceptibility for the χάρισμα τῶν ἰαμάτων, to effect under certain circumstances, much more in this way, than simple, genuine and pure Christians. Hence it may be sufficiently explained how, in that earliest period, when the birth of Christianity into the world, impregnated with miraculous powers the first of its children, and even persons more remotely con- nected with it, Christians of inferior purity, appeared as the performers of works out of the usual course of nature. This to be sure, is the point where the transition from the effects of the kingdom of light, to those of the kingdom of darkness, lies close at hand. Preternatural power associated with an unclean mind, is just what constitutes the devilish nature, and there _is nothing more dangerous for the yet unpurified disciple of Christ, than by means of his natural disposi- tion, combined with faith, to be able to exercise sway @ In this way, will we have to explain the passage in Origen, so important for apologetical theology, c. Cels. 1. I. c. 6, where Celsus admits that Christians performed preternatural works, deducing them, however, from witchcraft. Origen, alluding to this passage of the sermon on the mount, declares, that even φαῦλοι in his days, had expelled demons with their miraculous powers. CHAP. VII. VERSES 21—23. 319 over men and nature around him, while he is as yet destitute of an earnest desire to govern himself? Even that person of whom we read, Luke xix. 49, 50, that he cast out devils in Christ’s name, although not attached to his cause, is to be regarded as a man who had already attained to belief in Christ, but whose belief was as yet deficient, both in purity and strength. Christ. expressly testifies concerning him, that if he really did miracles in his name, it was not to be ex- pected that he would ever turn against him, Mark ix. 39. Upon ἐργάζεσθαι τὴν ἀνομίαν, See above p. 97. It is an allusion to Ps. vi. 8, ἀπόστητε ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ πάντες οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν. The old French translation, according to Beza, renders the meaning quite literally, vous, qui faites le métier de Viniquité. Τιγνώσκω, is to be taken according to that usus loquendi of the N. Testament, observed by Augustine and Chrysostom of old, by which the idea of knowing includes that of © loving. See the Dictionariesunder ys and γιγνώσκω, 2 Tim. ii. 19. Οὐδεπώποτε, hence also, not at a former period. On the quotation of these words in Clemens Rom. ep. II. ad Cor. Ὁ. 4.: gay ἦτε μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ συνηγμένοι ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ μου (properly a mere circum~ locution for φαγεῖν καὶ πίνειν ἐνώπιον τινός in Luke, and * From this moral point of view, and if conducted with Christian sagacity, the inquiry as to the various phenomena of second sight and theurgy might still lead to many important results. How closely moreover, the night-life of Somnambulism, even in its own nature, is connected with moral depravation, is a subject on which many extremely interesting remarks may be found in Kieser System des Tellurismus, Leipz. 1822, 11. p. 227, § 241, sqq. 320 CHAP. VII. VERSES 24—927. for which, Justin M. has φαγεῖν καὶ πίνειν ἐν ὀνόμωτι Χριστοῦ) καὶ μὴ ποιῆτε τὰς ἐντολάς μου, ἀποβαλῶ ὑμᾶς καὶ ἐρῶ ὑμῖν ὑπάγετε ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ, οὐκ οἶδα ὑμᾶξ, πόϑεν ἔστε ἐργάται ἀνομίας, see Olearius Obs. XXIII. - V.24—27. The conclusion, in parabolical language the most overpowering! Introduced by the warning, to beware of false guides, whose impure walk affords evidence of at least a partial impurity of doctrine, and by the remembrance of the judgment awaiting them, there now comes an admonition to convert into deeds, the truth which has been heard. Appended to the texts, Jer. xvii. 6, 8, we find in the mouth of R. Eleasar Ben Asaria, in the Tr. Pirke Aboth, ec. 3, § 22, asimilar saying, with reference to the 1nnsnw ywynn m2 “ whose knowledge is greater than his works.” In order to obtain a right conception of the image, we must represent to ourselves the natural phenomena as taking place with that violence which is peculiar to them in the East. Compare for this purpose, a passage from recent Travels, Rae Wil- son's, in the Holy Land, 2d ed. p. 310. “ I en- joyed yesterday a delightful prospect of the whole plain, and the surrounding scenery, under a glorious sun, with a most serene atmosphere ; but to day, I be- held it in the wildest and most terrific grandeur. I was unluckily overtaken by a storm, as if the flood-gates of heaven had been set open, which came onin a moment, and raged with mighty fury, conveying a just idea of the end of all things: during this time there was a solemn gloom, and darkness spread over the whole Jand.” It is by no means a rare occurrence, for the walls of the weakly built houses of the East, to be in these cases beaten down. CHAP. VII. VERSES 24—927. 321 To account for the futures ὁμοιώσω, ὁμοιωθήσεται, has perplexed interpreters. By far the greatest number, and among théirest, De Wette, render it in the pre- sent, without stating why. Kuinol makes the un- founded observation : Futura indicant continuationem, atque adeo accipienda sunt ut praesentia. Fritzsche says: Futurum ὁμοιώσω, ut v. 26, ὁμοιω)ήσεται, aquoquam non potuisse percipi, vehementer miror, quum pateat, propriam ei vim salvam manere, comparabo, assimila- bo. Istam enim similitudinem non praemisit, sed sub- junxit. The comparison, however, does not first begin with v. 25, but began already at v. 24, and at the time Jesus pronounces the ὁμοιώσω, he is even in the act of comparing. The case is different with the interrogative formula, which precedes the citation of parables τήν; ὁωσιώσω αὐτόν; Matt. xi. 16. Mark iv. 30. Luke xii. 18. There, moreover, the future, cor- respondingly with the phrase which the Rabbins place before parables, W248 77> or 717 NIT 7104, is to be understood as deliberative. See Winer, Gr. p. 235. We must rather take up the future here as previously in ὁμολογήσω, and refer it to the ἐκεήη ἡμέρα. On that day, which as is said, 1 Cor. iii. 13, shall declare (δηλώσει), whether any man has built upon the founda- tion, gold and silver, or hay and stubble, it will also be manifest, on what foundation every man has built, and whether he is a wise or a foolish builder. Here too, the ὁμοιώσω as we said v. 21—23, is the language of reality. Soonly can we find the ὁμοιωθήσεται intelli- gible. The fut. pas. is to be taken as middle, similis esse, just as in the parables the acrist ὡμοιώθη. VOL 11. Υ 322 CHAP. VII. VERSES 28, 29. φρόνιμος has here too, as at Matt. xxv. 2. Luke xvi. 8. Matt. x. 16, the signification peculiar to it. The copes has the right end in view, which the persons here δ. ‘mentioned also have, viz. the στὸ εἰσέρχεσϑαι εἰς τὴν ασιλείαν, the φρόνημος chooses for the right end, like- wise the right means, he builds his house upon a firm foundation. Bengel: In novissemis hominis et mundi concur- runt tentationes, pluvia in tecto, flumina in imo, venti ad latera. Many have referred every particular of the comparison specifically to the spiritual sphere. The rock, according to Hilary, Jerome and Theo- phylact, is Christ, according to Euthymius, firmness of resolution, according to Zwingli, God. The rain is thought by Theophylact, to mean the Devil, the storms, offences on the part of men, and so on. V. 28, 29. The impression made by the discourse is such as might have been expected, especially consi- dering the affecting conclusion. As descriptive of its peculiarity, it is said, that he taught, not like the yeau- ματεῖς, but ὡς ἐξουσίων ἔχων. This contrast denotes the distinction betwixt divine and mere human authority. ᾿Εξουσία signifies the plentitude of the divine commis-- sion, such, for instance, as the prophets possessed. So Luke iv. 82: ἐξεπλήσσοντο ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ" ὅτι ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ ἦν ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ, andibid. v.36. In Jamblich. Vita Pyth. ed. Kiister ο. 32, p. 177 : ἐξουσιαστικῶς λέγειν. With much greater propriety may the words used by Philostratus of the babbler Apollonius be ap- plied here, (Vita Apoll. 1.17): ὥσπερ ἐκ τρίποδος, ὅτε δια-- λέγοιτο, O10, ἔλεγε, καὶ δοκεῖ μοι, καὶ ποῖ DEgedte, CHAP. VII. VERSES 28, 29. 323 καὶ χρὴ εἰδέναι" καὶ δόξαι βραχεῖαι καὶ ἀδαμάντινοι͵ κύριώ τε ὀνόμωτω καὶ προσπεφυχότα τοῖς πράγμασι καὶ τὰ λεγόμενα ἠχὼ εἶχεν, ὥσπερ ἀπὸ σκήπτρου “γεμυιστευόμιε The discourse bore the indubitable impress of consciousness of an authority superior to that of an ordinary Jewish teacher, which came out most strongly in passages such as ¢. v. 17, and vii. 21—23 PARAPHRASE. ACCORDING TO LUKE. Jur Saviour having spent the night in solitude upon the Mount near Capernaum, and the multitudes having again assembled around him at the early dawn, he calls forth the twelve, descends along with them to a more level place, takes his seat, forms them into a narrower circle around him, and, directing his eyes chiefly to them, but partly also to the larger crowd, he begins to speak. In order fully to realize the impression of the dis- course, we must remember that the scenery around was of the most charming description, resembling the environs of the Lake of Geneva. Before him lay the Sea of Galilee, encircled by the finest landscapes and fruitful heights ; on the north the snow-clad Her- mon, and on the west the woody Carmel. Add to this, the cloudless sky of the south, and the solemn si- lence of the early dawn. 996 PARAPHRASE. ACCORDING TO MATTHEW. CHAPTER Υ. BiessED—he began—are they who feel that they are poor inwardly ; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that, under a sense of their poverty, mourn ; for they shall be comforted. Blessed are they who, conscious of their poverty and distress, are meek and humble ; claiming nothing, they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they, the hunger and thirst of whose souls is after righteous- ness; for they shall be satiated. Blessed are they whom the attainment of righteousness has filled with com- passion towards their brethren; for they shall, in their turn, meet with compassion. Blessed are they whose heart has become a pure mirror ; for therein shall the divine Being reflect his image. Blessed are they who diffuse around them in the world the peace which they carry within their own breasts ;for they shall be extolled as the children of God, the God of peace. The world, to be sure, will judge otherwise; but blessed are they that, for righteousness’ sake, are per- secuted upon the earth, they have a home in the king- dom of heaven. Yea, blessed are ye when men shall revile you to your face in words, and by deeds per- secute you, and falsely speak ill of you behind your back, provided that the cause is your union with me. On these occasions rejoice, yea, exult aloud! The re- ward destined for you in heavenis great ; You thereby join the ranks of those messengers of God, who have gone before you. ᾿ PARAPHRASE. 327 Let not such treatment drive you into solitude, your vocation, is too important. What salt is asa seasoning to food, aco ective ofitsinsipidity and putrefaction—what salt is as a seasoning to a sacrifice for God, that are ye to the world, otherwise the prey of moral corrup- tion. Were the salt itself to loose its savour, where- with could it be salted? No longer good for any thing, it would have to be cast out from the house- hold, and trodden under foot of men. And so should you also, excluded from God’s church, become objects of contempt. What the light of the sun is to this ter- restrial world, viz. the medium of all perception, that are ye to the world spiritual. So exalted is your po- sition that you must needs draw upon you the eyes of mankind ; for ye are as a city situate upon a hill. Having once lighted a candle, the master of a house does not cover it with a bushel ; he puts it upon the candlestick, so that it gives light to the whole family. Now, in the same way, ought the light imparted to you to shine before all, that your good works may be seen, and that glory may be given to your Father in heaven, who from the fountain of light in himself, has imparted the light unto you. Do not suppose the purpose of my coming to have been to abrogate the law and the prophecies ; { have not come to abrogate, but, on a far nobler en- terprise, to fulfil and realize. For I solemnly assure you, that till the period when the course of the world shall terminate, and the heaven and the earth itself shall assume a new form, not even the most minute particular of the law shall perish in an outward way, without the spiritual fulfilment thereof having suc- 328 PARAPHRASE. ceeded into its place. Whosoever, therefore, de- clares the least of these commandments to be invalid, and teaches men so, that man shall be accounted little in the kingdom of heaven: But hostile, con- formably to the end and aim of the law, which is but a prefiguration of spiritual blessings, fulfils all in a spiritual way, shall be reckoned great in the king- dom of heaven. Hitherto you have never heard of any other fulfilment of the law, than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, but the man whose righteousness does not exceed theirs, shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. What I mean by this higher fulfilment of the law, I shall explain. When listening to the reading of the law, you have heard that it was said to the ancient race, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill, shall be amenable to the under-court. You have sup- posed that the transgression of this command begins with the hand being put forth to slay: but I will disclose to you its deeper import. Whosoever is even inwardly angry at his brother, (without a cause), - is liable to capital punishment, by the under-court; and whosoever, giving vent to passion, says to his brother, Thou simpleton, is liable to be stoned to death by the Sanhedrim. But whosoever, with still stronger passion, says to him, Godless man, is liable to be burned to death in the vale of Gehenna. Such is the standard by which God shall one day judge the transgression of that commandment! If then, thou hast violated it, and hast brought thy vic- tim to the altar, and there, on the spot where thou supplicatest the pardon of sin, rememberest that thy PARAPHRASE. 329 brother hath aught against thee, this do, interrupt the service, all-sacred though it be. Let the victim wait; Go first of all and seek to be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer it, for then only is thy gift acceptable to God. Agree quickly with thine adversary, whilst thou art yet on the way to Court with him; otherwise he may deliver thee up to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and thou mayest be cast into prison. I tell thee, thou shalt not get out until thou hast discharged thy debt to the last farthing. Ye have heard that it was commanded, Zhou shalt not commit adultery ; And this too, you understand of nothing but the finished act of adultery. But I say unto you, the commandment is transgressed in many other ways besides. He who yields to lust so far as but to look upon a woman with inten- tion to gratify his desire, has already in mind com- mitted adultery with her. ‘Thus easy is it to fall into sin. But if what you best love, give occasion for you to do so, sacrifice it at once; better it is for you to lose the dearest of all you possess, than that your whole man should go to perdition. It has also been declared, “ Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorce- ment.” Even in this respect, ye transgress the law which forbids adultery. For I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, save on the ground of fornication, thereby authorizing her to marry again, causeth her to commit adultery, and whosoever marrieth a woman divorced, doth commit adultery. So sacred, according to its original institution, at the 330 PARAPHRASE. creation, Matt. xix. is marriage to be reckoned, that except when dissolved de facto, by adultery, nothing but death can separate the parties. Again ye have heard, that it was said to the an- cient race, “ Zhou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths.” When ye have fulfilled that, ye think ye have done enough for the honour of God, although, times without number, yethoughtlessly use the name of God in true assevera- tions. But I enjoin upon you a far higher sort of veneration for the Lord your God. Not merely must you, from reverence towards him, not swear falsely, but not swear in any way,—I allude to those oaths which, in common life, ye are accustomed to swear by the creatures,—lest you thereby sin against God himself. For all the grandeur and sublimity which the creatures possess, and on whose account you invoke them in your oaths, is derived from him. Accordingly, you must not swear by heaven, for therein God is enthroned ; not by the earth, for it is his footstool; not by Jerusalem, for the Great King has declared it to be his dwelling place. Nay, not even by your head, for so much does it belong to him, that thou canst not make one hair white or black. Let your discourse consist in simple affirmation, with Yes or No, for whatsoever is superadded to that, be- longs to the kingdom of Satan. Ye have heard that it hath been said, “ Az eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,” and this com- mandment which Moses delivered for the magistracy, you make the rule of your intercourse with your PARAPHRASE. 991 brethren, and when you have restrained the passion of revenge to the point of not retaliating more evil than you have suffered, ye think ye have fulfilled the law of God: But I say unto you, “ So far ought you to restrain your passion as not even to resist evil.” Much more, whosoever smiteth thee on the right cheek turn to him the other also. Whosoever begins a law suit with thee in order to get possession of thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. Whosoever assesses thee in a mile, go with him two. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee, turn not away. So totally ought ye to master your revenge. 3 Connected with this ye have also heard that it hath been said, ““ Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy,” But I say unto you, So far must ye rule your hatred as rather to love your enemies; if they curse you, bless them; if they shew their hatred to you, do them good; and in case you cannot reach them with your deeds, pray for them who injure and persecute you; In this way ye will shew your- selves to be the children of your heavenly father, for he does good to the wicked and unrighteous, making the beams of his genial sun to rise even on them, and even on them sending the rain from heaven. If ye Jove them which love you, what is your reward? [5 not that virtue to be met with even among those who, according to your estimate, stand the lowest in the scale of morality, viz. the publicans? And if to friends alone ye shew kindness, is that uncommon? Do not even the publicans the same? You, how- 332 PARAPHRASE. ever, according to my command, ought to take not publicans and heathens as the model of your perfec- tion, but the perfection of your father which is in heaven. CHAPTER VI. Such, then, let your righteousness be! In prac- tising it, however, take heed that it be not before men, in order to be admired of them; otherwise ye have no reward of your father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest alms, do not sound ἃ trum- pet before thee, as the hypocrites do, when they dis- tribute their charity in ‘the synagogues and streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, with the human praise after which they strive, they have obtained all the reward which they can ever expect. But when thou givest alms, let not thy very left hand know what thy right hand has been em- ployed in doing, in order that thine alms may remain secret. Thy father who seeth even in secret will one day recompense thee publicly. Likewise when thou prayest, be not like the hypocrites; for they love to stand praying in the corners of the synagogues and streets, with the view of drawing the attention of men to what they are about. Verily I say unto you, that all the reward they have to look for, they have already received in receiving the praise of men. But when thou prayest, go into thy closet in order more securely to withdraw from every human eye, and having shut the door, so pray to thy father which is in secret ; but PARAPHRASE. 999 thy father who seeth in secret shall reward thee open- ly. When you pray, take heed also not to use many vain words, as is the custom of the heathen ; for they believe that they shall be heard for their much speak- ing. Now, you must not be like them. You have no need to force by such means an answer to your prayers. He whom you call your father, knoweth, as you are aware, what things you have need of, be- fore ye ask him. In the following manner, accord- ingly, ought ye to pray, each supplicating at the same time for all what he asks for himself: “ Our fa- ther, thou who hast begotten us into this hodily and spiritual existence, and who art for us, and that transcendently, ali that we behold imaged forth in the earthly father, but exalted above all human and ter- restrial limitation and infirmity ! Let thy glory be ac- knowledged and revered among men! Ever more and more do thou bear rule within us all! Let the time come when thy will shall be done on earth, as it is among the unfallen spirits !—What we need for our temporal existence give us this present day! The guilt that weighs us down do thou forgive us, as we too in the strength of thy love forgive our debtors! In the future protect us from all that tries our weak-: ness, and deliver us from sin and evil!” For if it be that ye live in love, so as in the strength of it to for- give men, your heavenly father will also forgive you. But if you approach him with prayer for forgiveness, without being yourselves willing to forgive, neither will he forgive you, for then your prayer is like a mockery of God. 9934. PARAPHRASE. Moreover, when ye fast, put away the rueful ex- terior, and be not as the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces, in order to shew to men that they are fasting. When they have obtained praise of men, they have obtained all the reward they have to ex- pect! But thou, when thou fastest, assume rather the marks of joy, anoint thine head and wash thy face, that thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father who seeth in secret; He will reward thee. Let all that you do be done with a regard to the in- visible world! Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust corrupt, and where thieves break in and steal them. But lay up for your- selves treasures in the invisible world, where neither moth nor rust corrupt, and where thieves do.not break in nor steal. For towards the place where ye have laid up your treasures, will the bias of your heart be turned. The eye is a light to the whole body; if therefore the eye be sound, the whole body will have a share in the light; on the contrary, if the eye be diseased, the whole body will be dark. Now, thou hast also an eye within, which ought to be a light for thy whole inward man; Take good heed how it is directed, and whether it be light, for if, being intend- ed as it was by nature to be light, it is dark, how dark will then be the part of thy being which by nature is darkness, and ought to be enlightened by that eye. Do not imagine that it is possible to make the trea- sure in heaven and the treasure on earth equally the object of your aim. No man can at one and the PARAPHRASE, 335 same time acknowledge and serve as master two persons whose wills are contrary, for then he will either prefer the one and despise the other, or despise the one and prefer the other. In the same way, ye cannot serve both God and temporal good at once. God ought to be your only Lord, and every other service not co-ordinated, but swb-ordinated to his. Therefore ye ought not soto take thought for your life, as if God did not do so,—viz. what ye shall eat or drink, or for your body, what ye shall put on. He who has given the greater, without care of yours, can likewise certainly give the less. Having received both soul and body without your own care, how should you not receive those things, without which soul and body cannot subsist? Would ye perceive how ~ little the solicitude of the creature is needful for its sup- port. Behold the fowls that fly about in the air, without any to provide for them. They sow not, neither do they reap or gather into barns, as men who are provident for the future, do, and yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? And how very little can your care accomplish? Which of you can add so much as a cubit to the length of his life? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, cultivated by no hand of gardener, how they grow! They practice no tillage, they neither raise nor spin flax for their clothing; and yet I say unto you, that even Solomon himself, when he appeared in all his glory, was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the field-plant which 306 PARAPHRASE. springs up to-day, and even to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith! Torment not yourselves therefore with such cares as these,—saying, what shall we eat? or what shall we drink? or with what shall we be clothed? On temporal good of this kind it is that the Gentiles fix their care. But He whom you acknow- ledge as your heavenly Father, knoweth that ye have need of all these things. Strive first of all after the kingdom of God and the righteousness necessary for belonging to it. All these things will then be vouch- safed to you as a surplus. Let not your care then be directed to the morrow. According to the divine ordinance, the morrow will take care for itself. It is enough that every day brings along with it its own evil. & Judge not that ye be not judged, for according to the judgment ye pronounce, shall ye yourselves be judged; and by the measure with which ye mete, shall ye also be measured. Too often is your judg- ment a blind one. Why lookest thou at the chip in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how canst thou say to thy brother, let me pull out the chip out of thine eye, and lo the beam is in thine own eye. Thou hypo- crite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the chip out of thy brother’s eye. CHAPTER VII. PARAPHRASE. 337 Give not the flesh of sacrifices to the dogs, who cannot distinguish it from ordinary meat. Neither east ye your pearls, in place of acorns, before swine, lest they trample the gift under their feet, and, turn- ing upon you, the givers, tear you to pieces. Ask and it shall be given you; seek and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth ; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or, if ye have doubt of that, is there a man among you, who, if his son ask bread, gives him a stone ; or if he ask a fish, gives hima serpent? If, then, ye men, being as ye are of evil nature, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him f To sum up the whole precepts that concern your behaviour towards a neighbour, all things what- soever ye, as genuine children of the Father in heaven, would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them. For in this is the whole doctrine of the law and the prophets comprised. Enter ye in at the strait gate! Needful is this admonition, for wide is the gate and broad and easy, _ and hence enticing, the way that leadeth to destruc- tion; and there is a vast multitude that pass by it. O how strait is the gate—how narrow and full of privations the way which leadeth unto life, and how few those that are able to find it out! That you may not be here led astray, beware of false teachers, who come to you in the dress of true members of VOL. II. Z 998 PARAPHRASE. the flock, but inwardly they are ravening wolves which devour it. Look to the fruits which they produce, for by these ye shall know them. Even thorns bear berries, but do men gather grapes of them? Thistles, too, bear fig-like fruit, but do men gather figs from them? As in this, so in all cases, does the good tree bring forth good fruit, answerable to its kind; but every bad tree, bad fruit. By the laws of nature, it is impossible for a good tree to bear bad fruit, or a bad tree, good. Every tree, ac- cordingly, that bringeth not forth good fruit, is hewn down and cast into the fire. Therefore, by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one who, with how much soever zeal, calls me Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but among them, they only who, after having called me Lord, conform to the will of my heavenly Father, which I declare. For on the great day of separation, many, the vic- tims of self-delusion, shall say to me, Lord / Lord ! was it not thy name, by whose power we prophe- sied, thy name, by which we cast out devils, thy name, by which we wrought many miracles? And then will I profess unto them, I never acknowledged you as mine! Begone from my community, ye workers of unrighteousness. When, at the judgment, inquiries come to be made as to practical obedience, then shall I liken him who heareth these sayings of mine, and in prac- tice is obedient to them, to the wise man who built his house upon a rocky site. The rain poured upon the roof, the floods rushed against the foundations, PARAPHRASE. 339 the storms raged and beat upon the walls, but it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock. But whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doth not observe them in practice, shall be likened unto the foolish man, which built his house upon a sandy bottom, and the rain poured upon the roof, and the floods rushed against the foundations, and the storms raged _and beat upon the sides, and it fell; and great was the fall of it. ὁ FINIS. J. THOMSON, PRINTER, MILNE SQUARE. ΤΊΟΤΩΖ 0 1145 372 Ν ; | | 9 | ἮΝ, Ἀν Ὁ. i") λον δ τότες eaccete δὴν ἢ Ses eSeheSe oc Res τίς « «ἐς 252 wee %