προσ χα, OPE SR ΣΆ ΚΑ δ σε τις A eee PRE TER TOS ee ee = ee ? ὝΕΣ χχικναχνχ aie! a Χο. teers ror or Re Ke Fp ae eet atreyeen er te oe ν. LER -ὶ ᾿ τος ον λυ κυ Tee SNS Se eres ee ewe Te oe Se ee erin a. eon POON. RAS SAAS SO ae τι ΡΨ, - :» ΤΡ ΝΥ ees ry RR RES OS, SE RI RRL ς te EERE CR πο ατας Res ou; Sere <= oe oo ae ς oe oe oe % bbe os —, “χ' Crs ha ag Η ate ἘΝ + WOES th): Keats rae 4949 Y eee 4, Ak, om 3 ν᾽ ἐοξ σαι a Aen os FA RSPEI OOO AR A A eae SaaS EO atl νασασσοπιαυ at oe 5 a - : ad eight nak 2 TT ahs "ἢ ὃ CD03) ¢ Ap 0. ΟἹ PRINCETON, ‘Part of the Res wee R. La ὡς »οὐιξξξξο ᾿ ἡ Gheological Seminary, 4 N. J. ADDI8ON ALEXANDER*LIBR47* , which was presented ἢ ‘ AT. ες 4 = = a) Case. Division. ἢ -.. δ ΠΡΟ ἢ f PS - or Shelf, πε τ Ν Boor, > Cae S S ae ~ eS = ee NS, τρεςκονετέσενοέ---- “BSAA 946 vy. | 7. a. Way ance~ May uy a ee sie ANALECTA THEOLOGICA - A CRITICAL, PHILOLOGICAL, AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT: ADAPTED TO THE GREEK TEXT; COMPILED AND DIGESTED FROM THE MOST APPROVED SOURCES, BRITISH AND FOREIGN; AND SO ARRANGED AS TO EXHIBIT THE COMPARATIVE WEIGHT OF THE DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON DISPUTED TEXTS. - i BYYTHE REV. WILLIAM TROLLOPE, M.A. OF PEMBROKE COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, AND FORMERLY ONE OF THE MASTERS OF CHRIST'S HOSPITAL. ᾿Εγκύπτετε εἰς Tas γραφὰς, Tas ἀληθεῖς ῥήσεις Πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου. - CLEMENT. Epist. AD CorinTH, § 45. “ΑΚ drink is pleasant to them that be dry, and meat to them that be hungry; so is the reading, hearing, searching, and studying of the Holy Scripture to those that be desirous to _ know God or themselves, and to do his will.”—Homi ty I. IN TWO VOLUMES. VOL. _L. NEW EDITION. LONDON: PRINTED FOR T. CADELL, STRAND ; W. BLACKWOOD, EDINBURGH ; AND R, MILLIKEN, DUBLIN. MDCCCXLII. LONDON: | Gitberr & RIVINGTON, PRINTERS, ST. JOHN’S SQUARE. THIS COMMENTARY, ORIGINALLY DEDICATED TO WILLIAM VAN MILDERT, D.D. LATE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM, 1S NOW RE-INSCRIBED TO THE REV. . THOMAS DALE, M.A. VICAR OF ST. BRIDE’S, FLEET STREET, &e. &e. &e. WITH MINGLED ESTEEM, AFFECTION, AND GRATITUDE, BY THE AUTHOR. FEBRUARY, 1842, PREFACE. Tue ANALECTA THEOLOGICA are now again submitted to the indulgence of the reader, and offered for the assistance of the Student in Divinity, with a title more accurately _ descriptive of the compilation, its nature, and design. As the changes which have been made in the body of the work are exceedingly few and unimportant, it will suffice to repeat, with little variation, the remarks with which it was first introduced to public notice. The study of the Holy Scriptures naturally divides itself into two parts;—general and particular. Under the former are included the several important subjects of the Genuwineness, Authenticity, Credibility, and Lnspi- ration of the entire contents of the Sacred Canon; the languages in which they were originally composed ; the rules and principles of Scripture Interpretation ; the Geography of the Holy Land; and the history, habits, customs, and opinions of its inhabitants: toge- ther with a variety of collateral and inferential testi- mony from Heathen writers, in corroboration of the whole. The latter consists in a close and careful exami- vi PREFACE. nation of the Scriptures themselves; in applying to them the rules of critical investigation previously established ; in observing their peculiar phraseology and idiomatic expressions; in comparing one scripture with another, for the purpose of substantiating doctrines, and illustrating precepts; in detecting the minutize of verbal forms and usages, and the comparative value of various readings; and in exemplifying, by philological research, the language, sentiments, and allusions of the inspired penmen. So far as the general subject is concerned, a work has now been for many years before the public, of which the extensive circulation and numerous editions sufficiently attest the great utility, and the high reputation in which it is deservedly held. It has long been the standard - text-book of our universities; to the student, who is anxious to make any proficiency in Theology, it is altogether indispensable; nor is it less valuable, as a book .of almost incessant reference, to the more matured divine. I allude to the Rev. T. H. Horne’s “ Jntroduc- tion to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures.” With respect, however, to the particular study of. the Sacred Writings, the means of its prosecution are not so attainable. There are, it is true, numerous Commentaries; any one of which would be sufficient of itself to supply that portion of information, which is absolutely required from the candidate for holy orders. Indeed, we might attempt in vain to specify any class of literary labour which exhibits more sound learning, and more extensive and accurate research, than PREFACE. Vii the several Commentaries of our own divines. This, however, is not the point. The opinion of any one, or even several of the best interpreters, especially in passages of difficulty and doubt, can lay but a super- ficial foundation for a professional knowledge of divinity, and, as such, unsatisfactory even to the student him- self. The references too, which are continually made to other interpretations, naturally induce an anxiety to procure a closer insight into their respective merits, and to have the option of forming his own opinion on the matter in debate. It is clear, however, that the limited interval between the time of taking his acade- mical degree and of entering the Church, renders it impossible to wade through the voluminous folios of the various Commentaries on the Scriptures: and the enormous expense of procuring them is no less a bar to his wishes, even if he had leisure for their gratifi- cation. Several attempts have been made to facili- tate this branch of Theological Study, by means of abstracts or summaries of the principal Commentaries on the New TrEsTaAMENT; but none of them appear to have answered the end proposed. From the want of perspicuity in their arrangement, they are calculated to perplex rather than assist. No order or uniformity is observed in the connexion of the different exposi- tions ; their comparative probability is entirely over- looked; and the enquirer is left in a maze of conflicting opinions, without any guide to direct his escape from the labyrinth of uncertainty, in which he finds himself bewildered. Such at least were the difficulties, with which my own entrance on the study of the New Testament was Vill PREFACE. encumbered. The work, in which I had hoped to find at least a useful compendium of the most received authorities, proved to be most unsatisfactory, even on points of minor importance; and a reference to such of the quoted Commentaries, which I had the means of consulting, attested the meagre outline, into which they had been reduced. In many instances, the heads of an argument only were to be found; sometimes, nothing more than a reference to a particular writer; and seldom, if ever, sufficient to dispense with the necessity of fur- ther enquiry. In short, a fair idea of the work in ques- tion may be gathered from the fact, that the Preface to St. John’s Gospel, and the all-important subject of the Locos, are passed over without a single word. Some years have now elapsed since I conceived the design of a work which should remedy these defects, of which the student has such reason to complain. To smooth the path of learning in one branch of Theology, as Mr. Horne had done in another, was indeed a task of no small labour. Something, however, might be done; and I thought that my time could not be ill spent in removing out of the way of others those obstacles, which I had been obliged to encounter myself. It appeared to me, that by collecting into one point of view the several opinions of the best Commentators, British and Foreign, on the Nrw Testament, condensed into as small a compass as was consistent with perspicuity, and exhibiting the relative weight of the arguments by which they were supported, the object, which I proposed to myself, would be effectually attained. The student would thus be presented with a comprehensive digest of the criticism, philology, and exposition of the sacred text, PREFACE. ix and enabled to judge of the merits of each particular comment, without any reference whatever to the Com- mentators themselves. My plan being thus developed, and some progress already made, I was deterred from proceeding for a time by the announcement of a work, from which I augured the fulfilment of the very task which I had imposed upon myself. In this, however, I was greatly disappointed ; and the publication of the work in question induced me to take up my pen afresh. While speaking of the imperfections of others, how- ever, 1 would by no means be considered insensible to my own. In a work of this nature, the labour of which can be duly appreciated by those alone who have been engaged in similar undertakings, improvements will con- tinually suggest themselves; and I shall be ever ready to receive, with gratitude, the friendly hints either of public or private criticism. In the mean time, it will be sufficient to say a few words concerning what has been hitherto attempted. Whether I have always suc- ceeded in directing the reader’s attention to the best solution of a difficulty, it is not for myself to judge; but Tam not conscious of having shrunk from the task, or of leaving the matter in the dark, in a single instance. The several interpretations of any disputed or doubtful passage have been arranged in the order of their respective merits, beginning with that which has the least, and ending with that which has the greatest, degree of pro- bability. Every argument of weight, adduced in support of each opinion, is concisely stated; objections are con- futed or confirmed; and the principal authorities in favour of the adopted exposition are given at the end of the note, distinguished from those on the contrary side, 8 Χ - PREFACE. which are enclosed within brackets. It would have been manifestly impossible to subjoin the name of every com- mentator, who may have been consulted on any given passage ; but it is at the same time unnecessary, as they frequently tread in the same steps, and employ the same or similar illustrations. I have taken for granted, that every student pos- sesses, or has the means of access to, Mr. Horne’s Introduction. All points, therefore, which he has han- dled, are purposely omitted; except in some few in- stances, which seemed to require a fuller investigation than the nature of his work would admit. To him, then, the student is referred on all points connected with the Geography, Institutions, Sects, Customs, and Antiquities of the Jews; for an account of the several Writers on the New Testament, the Dates of their several Books, and Analyses of their Contents; and on all other subjects of general information connected with their critical study. Since, however, the Chronology of the New Testament has lately been the subject of much diligent and learned investigation, it has been deemed expedient to prefix to the Commentary three Tables, compiled from Greswell’s Dissertations, and a fourth from the calculations of the late Dr. Burton. In conclusion, I have merely to express my thanks to those Reviewers who have spoken favourably of the work, and to those private friends whose opinions, though perhaps less impartial, have not been less gratifying and encouraging. Nor would I omit to repeat my prayers to Almighty God for increased success in facilitating, by means of a laborious, and, I trust, useful undertaking, PREFACE. ΧΙ the effective study of the Gospel of hisSon. δ sz ea, que in his libris exponuntur, tantopere eligenda fuerunt quanto studio electa sunt, profecto neque nos neque alios industri nostre penitebit. (Cic. de Invent. II. in Procem.) i ah abd) ail hu oat . AT SRO} A OREN SN Af oi δύων Ny OE MYHG, MALS NR, ee i ΜΑΣ ὙΠ “Huot. Mr, at): CaN ast é Fa =. 4 Ἧς VT aay ne Sith + Ze) ame ms te oi TABLE I. CHRONOLOGY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. A.D. . 26 Commencement of the ministry of John the Baptist, October 5. 27 Baptism of Jesus, in the end of January. Commencement of Christ’s ministry, and the first cleansing of the Temple, Monday, April 5 (Nisan 10). First Passover, Friday, April 9 (Nisan 14). Arrival of Jesus at Sychar, Thursday, May 13. Imprisonment of the Baptist, Sunday, May 16. First feast of Pentecost, Sunday, May 30. Call of the four disciples, Friday, June 4. First preaching of Christ at Capernaum, Saturday, June 5. First circuit of Galilee, Sunday, June 6. First feast of Tabernacles, Monday, October 4. First feast of Dedication, Sunday, December 12. 28 Miracle at the Pool of Bethesda, Saturday, March 25 (Nisan 10). Second Passover, Wednesday, March 29 (Nisan 14). Second feast of Pentecost, Friday, May 19. : Ordination of the Twelve. ; Second general circuit of Galilee. Second feast of Tabernacles, Saturday, September 23. Death of John the Baptist. Third general circuit of Galilee. ‘ Second feast of Dedication, Friday, December 1. 29 Mission of the Twelve, February. Feeding of the five Thousand, Thursday, April 5. Discourse in the synagogue of Capernaum, Saturday, April 7. Third Passover, Monday, April 16. Confession of Peter, Sunday, May 20. Transfiguration, Sunday, May 27. Third feast of Pentecost, Wednesday, June 6. Third feast of Tabernacles, Thursday, October 11. Appearance of Jesus at the feast, Monday, October 15. Miracle on the man born blind, Thursday, October 18. Third feast of Dedication, Wednesday, December 19. 30 January. Raising of Lazarus, retreat-to Ephraim. February. Return to Capernaum, and mission of the seventy. March. Fourth general circuit of Galilee. Passage through Jericho, Friday, March 29 (Nisan 7). Arrival at Bethany, Saturday, March 30 (Nisan 8). Anointing at Bethany. Resort of the Jews to Bethany, Sunday, March 31 (Nisan 9). ᾿ Procession to the Temple, Monday in the afternoon, April 1 (Nisan 10). Second cleansing of the Temple, Tuesday morning, April 2 (Nisan 11). Close of our Lord’s public ministry, Wednesday evening, April 3 (Nisan 12). Prophecy on the Mount. Agreement of Judas with the Sanhedrim. The last Supper, Thursday night, April 4 (Nisan 13). The fourth Passover, Friday, April 5 (Nisan 14), The Crucifixion. The Resurrection, Sunday, April 7 (Nisan 16). The Ascension, Thursday, May 16 (Zif, or Jar, 26). A.D. 30 TABLE II. CHRONOLOGY OF THE ACTS, AND OF SUBSEQUENT EVENTS TO A.D. 116. Descent of the Holy Ghost, Pentecost, Sunday, May 26. About 32. Council of Gamaliel. 36 37 40 41 42 43 44 Removal of Pilate, Autumnal quarter. Death of Tiberius, March 16. First year of Herod Agrippa I. Appointment of Deacons, Passover, March. Martyrdom of Stephen, Pentecost, May. Preaching of the Gospel to the Samaritaiis, May. Conversion of the Eunuch, May. Preaching of the Gospels to native Jews out of Juda, May. Conversion of St. Paul, Autumn. Return of St. Paul from Arabia to Damascus. Commencement of Si. Paul’s ministry, Passover, April. Beginning of the fourteen years (Gal. ii. 1), April. Deprival of Herod Antipas, Winter. Fourth year of Herod Agrippa, Spring. Attempt of Caius Cesar to erect his statue in the Temple, Spring. Beginning of the rest to the Churches (Acts ix. 31), Autumn. Death of Caius, January 24. First visit of St. Paul to Jerusalem after his conversion, Passover, April 4. Date of the Ecstasy (2 Cor. xii. 2), April. Departure of Paul to Tarsus, about April 19. Conversion of Cornelius, May. Preaching of the Gospel to foreign Hellenistic Jews, May. Mission of Barnabas to Antioch, Midsummer. Arrival of Paul at Antioch, Autumn. Appointment of James, first Bishop of Jerusalem. Departure of the Apostles from Judza. Prediction of the famine by Agabus, Autumn. Death of James the elder,and imprisonment of Peter, about the Passover, April 12. Second visit of St. Paul to Jerusalem, with the contributions from the Church at Antioch, April or May. Commencement of the famine, Midsummer. Return of Paul and Barnabas to Antioch. Death of Herod Agrippa. Mission of Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles, Pentecost, May 21. About 45. Return to Antioch. About 48. Council at Jerusalem, third visit of St. Paul. 49 St. Paul’s second journey, Pentecost, May 26. His first visit to Galatia, Summer or Autumn. Famine in Greece, Autumn. Disturbances in Judea, September and October. Arrival of Paul at Athens, Winter. Edict of Claudius, Winter. First visit of St. Paul to Corinth, Spring. TABLE II. xv 51 Gallio, proconsul of Achaia. 52 St. Paul’s first visit to Ephesus, Winter. His fourth visit to Jerusalem, close of the fourteen years (Gal. ii. 1), Passover, April 3. ; Η Return of Paul to Antioch, Spring. Beginning of St. Peter’s circuit, Pentecost, May 24. Rebuke of St. Peter at Antioch, Summer. St. Paul’s second visit to Galatia, Autumn. Preaching of Apollos at Ephesus and Corinth. 53 Commencement of St. Paul’s residence at Ephesus, Winter. Arrival of St. Peter at Corinth, Spring or Sumner. 54 First arrival of St. Peter at Rome, Spring. Collections in the Churches of Asia and Greece, Autumn. Death of Claudius, October 13. δῦ Letter of the Corinthians to St. Paul, Winter. Arrival of Titus at Ephesus from Galatia, Spring. His mission to Corinth, Spring. Mission of Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia, Summer. Departure of Paul from Ephesus, Summer. His circuit of Macedonia, Summer and Autumn. 56 His second visit to Corinth, Winter. Death of the High Priest Jonathan, Passover. Departure of St. Paul from Philippi, Monday, March 27. His trial before Felix, Sunday, May 21. Defeat of the Egyptian impostor, Midsummer. 58 Mission of Paul to Rome, August. His shipwreck on the island of Malta, November. 59 His arrival at Rome, March. 60 Arrival of Timothy and Epaphroditus, Midsummer. 61 St. Paul’s liberation and visit to Spain, Spring. Imprisonment of Timothy at Rome. 62 Martyrdom of James the Just, Midsummer. 63 St. Paul’s return from Spain, and Timothy’s liberation, Spring. 64 St. Peter’s second visit to Rome, Spring. Circuit of Crete, Spring or Summer. Commencement of Nero’s persecution, July. 65 Wintering of St. Paul at Nicopolis, in Epirus. Circuit of Dalmatia, Spring or Summer. Martyrdom of St. Peter at Rome. 66 Apprehension of St. Paul in Asia, Winter. Second arrival of St. Paul at Rome, and his appearance before Nero, Spring. Martyrdom of St. Paul, Summer. 67 Commencement of the Jewish war, Spring. Defeat of Cestius Gallus, October. 68 Death of Nero, June 9. 09 -———— Galba, January 18. Otho, April 17. Vitellius, December 21. 70 Commencement of the siege of Jerusalem, Sunday, April 13. Cessation of the daily sacrifice, Sunday, July 13. Burning of the Temple, Sunday, August 3. Destruction of Jerusalem, Sunday, August 31. 73 Recapture of Massada, Tuesday, April 11. 74 Insurrection of Jonathan. 75 Suppression of the Temple of Onias, Spring. 94 Writings of Josephus. About 107. Death of Simon, the Canaanite. About 116. Martyrdom of Symeon, Bishop of Jerusalem. TABLE III. DATES OF THE GOSPELS AND EPISTLES, AND THE PLACES WHERE THEY WERE WRITTEN. e PLACE. DATE. Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew .....cccccscccccsecss a) die hts os Judea | A.D. 42 Greek ‘Goapel-of St. Matthew dieters Το ast cee δὴ sos οὐ ddiewles Rome 55 Gospel ΟΣ ΒΟ Mark ...06 «+ «00:0 Splowne ττὸ selec ἐτοῖν ἐῤίοινῖ, ἐσὲ Rome 55 Gospel'of St. Luke ... ρῶν δὸς veccvevesccccccocsccoeseoss| Rome 60 GORPEMOLIStIONN, as ραν ον cnt sissee αν οὖν οἰ δοῖν ὁ οὐ desist) ἘΠΡΒΒΒΗΒ | ΓΝ Acts of the Apostles......... iso bo dele Δὲ δ' τὴν Sele Pe doe phic Se δὲ Rome 60 Ehessalonians ἔς 80 DL. 5 ΒΞ Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, Philippians, from Rome .........+eeseee+2 58 Hebrews, uncertain whence written ......eeeccecccecs Pe ory ΝΥ 58 eet Ls, SOM: ROME «- os «soos nine waco oe bike Cc oe χ & 65, or 66 Peter I. and II., shortly before the Apostle’s s martyrdom, ANALECTA THEOLOGICA. INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. --Φ-- On the Title ; and on the Words ΔΙ ΑΘΗΚΗ and ΕΥ̓ΑΓΓΈΛΙΟΝ. I. Tue collection of writings composed after the ascension of Christ, by the Apostles and Evangelists, under the acknowledged influence of divine inspiration, was, in a very early age, formed into one series, with the general title of H KAINH AIAOHKH, or, as it is found in some copies, ΤῊΣ ΚΑΙΝΗ͂Σ AIAOHKHS AIIANTA. The word ἅπαντα, in the latter form, seems to have a marked reference to the prevailing consent of the Christian Church, that these, and these only, compose the entire code of writings which are to be received as Canonical; i. e. which were unquestionably written by the disciples of our Lord, to the complete exclusion of those which are apocryphal, or of uncertain authority. The pre- cise time, at which this collection was made, is uncertain; but it should seem to have been during the second century, immediately after the death of the Apostles and their immediate successors ; when the early Christians, deprived of the benefit of instruction from themselves, sought it more eagerly from their writings and histories. It appears also from Tertullian, adv. Marcion. IV. 1. that the Latin Christians used the word Testamentum, in rela- tion to these writings, before the close of that period, though the words καινὴ διαθήκη are not found in that acceptation till the time of Origen, who so employs them in his Treatise περὶ ἀρχῶν, IV. 1. The appellation thus given evidently arose out of several passages of Scripture, more particularly 2 Cor. iii. 14. 16.—where St. Paul denominates the religious institutions of Moses and of Christ respectively παλαιὰ διαθήκη and καινὴ διαθήκη, --- Θοιηραγοά with Jerem. xxxi. 31. where the Septuagint version uses the words καινὴ διαθήκη, ina prophetic announcement of the dispensation of the Messiah. Compare also Matt. xxvi. 28. Mark xiv. 24. Luke xxii. 20. Gal, iii. 17. Heb. vill. 8. Hence the words, by a com- VOL, I. B 2 INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. mon metonymy, came at length to signify the Books, wherein the writings relating to the religion of Christ were contained; and the Sacred Scriptures of the Jews being called ‘H παλαιὰ Διαθήκη, those of Christians were superadded under the title of Ἢ καινὴ Διαθήκη. In the time of the Maccabees, however, the Penta- teuch, or probably the whole of the Jewish Scriptures, were known under the name of βίβλιον διαθήκης. 1 Mace. i. 57. LXX. II. The word Διαθήκη signifies literally an arrangement, from διατίθημι, to set in order; and may therefore imply either an arrangement to take place immediately (fwdus), or at one’s death (testamentum). In the latter sense the word διαθήκη generally occurs in the classic writers. Suidas: διαθήκη" ἡ ἐπὶ θνήσκοντος διάταξις. Throughout the O. T., however, the word 42, which invariably signifies a Covenant, is always rendered διαθήκη by the LXX; nor is this latter word ever em- ployed in the N. T., with one single exception, in Hed. ix. 15—20. (see note én loc.) in any other acceptation than that of Covenant; and such is probably the notion which the early Greek disciples always attached to it. We, on the contrary, are accustomed to render the word by Testament; and since it would be absurd to speak of the testament of God, who, as a Being incapable of death, cannot have made such an instrument, we generally understand the Testament of Christ. But this expla- nation evidently removes but half the difficulty; and, in respect to the Jewish dispensation at least, the word is wrongly trans- lated. It may be inferred, therefore, that as in Galat. iv. 24. δύο διαθῆκαι are mentioned, where the Law and the Gospel are evi- dently intended, since the former was confessedly a covenant, the latter must be so also. And it is clear also, that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper being sacraments of this καινὴ διαθήκη, as circum- cision was of the παλαιὰ διαθήκη, these are faederal rites and cere- monies, stipulations and promises, which again refer to a Covenant, not toa Well or Testament. In neither case, therefore, does Tes- tament afford the proper meaning of the word. ‘The error evidently originated in the ignorance of the Latin translator, who, mistaking the meaning of διαϑήκη, rendered it by testamentum, which, though it corresponds to the Greek in one sense, is an improper translation in the present instance. Jerome, in cor- recting the old Latin version, altered testamentum in the O. T. into either faedus or pactum; and he expressly states in his Commentary on Malachi, Ch. II. T. III. p. 1816. that ¢esta- mentum, as used in the old version, must be understood to signify a covenant. Notandum, says he, quod Berith, verbum Hebrai- cum, Aquila συνθήκην, id est, pactum, interpretatur; LXX sem- per διαϑήκην, ἡ. e. testamentum: et in plerisque Scripturarum locis, testamentum non voluntatem defunctorum sonare, sed pac- tum viventium. Our translators have retained Testament, as far 10 INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 3 as regards the title of the Scriptures; but they have properly translated the Hebrew word Covenant, in the O. T., retaining Testament generally in the N. T., except in relation to the Jewish dispensation. It is not improbable that the propaga- tion of the error may have been in some measure furthered by the train of the Apostle’s reasoning, in the passage already alluded to in his Epistle to the Hebrews. And indeed, upon the ground of this reasoning, it may not be amiss to include both _significations of διαθήκη in the rendering of the title; that of Covenant, as being most agreeable to the scriptural use of the word, and to the nature of the Gospel, as promising mercies upon certain conditions ; that of Testament, wherein the death of Christ, the testator, is recorded as the seal and earnest of the Christian’s inheritance. Micuarnis, Marsu, Hammonp, Larp- NER, &c. III. With respect to the titles of the several books which compose the N. T., the word Εὐαγγέλιον, which we translate GosPEL, seems alone to require explanation. The word, as well as the verb εὐαγγελίζω, is clearly derived from the adverb εὖ and ἀγγελία, a message; and in strict accordance with this derivation, it always, in classie writers, denotes either good tidings, or the reward given to the bearer of good tidings. The latter of these significations is to be met with in Hom. Od. 2.152. 166. εὐαγγέλιον δέ μοι ἔστω. ~Eustath. ἀγαϑῆς ἀγγελίας δῶρον. In other authors the former meaning is almost universal. Compare Aisch. Agam. 20. 253. 255. Eur. Med. 941. Arist. Plut. 764. Equit. 643. 647. 656. Xenoph. Hellen. I.6. 29. In the Septuagint it corresponds throughout to the Hebrew word MwA, beshreh, which signifies good news. Compare 1 Sam. xxxi. 9. 2 Sam. i. 20. xviii. 20. 27. Lsatah |xi. 1. Jerem. xx. 15. Hence, from being used in several prophecies relating to the Messiah’s advent, as expressive of an eminent quality of the Christian dispensation, it became by degrees to serve as a name for the dispensation. Hence Theodoret observes upon Romans, I. 1. T. II. p. 10. Β. Εὐαγγέλιον δέ τι κήρυγμα προσηγόρευ- σεν, ὡς πολλῶν ἀγαϑῶν ὑπισχνούμενον χορηγίαν. EvayyeXt- ζεται γὰρ τὰς τοῦ Θεοῦ καταλλάγας, τήν τε δια[ϑδόλου κατάλυσιν, τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων τὴν ἄφεσιν, τοῦ ϑανάτου τὴν παύλαν, τῶν νεκρῶν τὴν ἀνάστασιν, τὴν ζώην τὴν αἰώνιον, τὴν βασίλειαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. To this sense of the word, the English Gospel precisely corres- ponds, being compounded of two old Saxon terms, God, i. e. good, and spel, tidings; though we never attach to it its simple derivative meaning, as in the Greek. Hence, therefore, as Camp- bell justly observes, the word εὐαγγέλιον should not be rendered Gospel, when it is contained in a quotation from, or an allusion to, the prophets; as, for instance, in Matt. ix. 5. Luke iv. 18. vii. 22. Rom. x. 15. Heb. iv. 2. since this application of the word was not then in use. Other cases will also frequently occur, in ΒΦ 4 INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. which the word should evidently be retained in its simple meaning of good tidings; for instance, where the sense is limited by a second substantive; as in several of the examples adduced by Mr. Horne: Introduction; Vol. ΓΝ. p. 240. In St. Paul, however, the word is frequently used in its derived sense, as implying the religious institution of Christ, whence it sometimes also signifies the ministry of the Gospel. See Rom. i. 9. 1 Cor, ix. 18. 2 Cor. viii. 18. and elsewhere. Hence also, in very early times, it was employed to denote the entire history of the life, actions, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ : in which sense it is used in the title of the four narratives, which were written by Mat- thew, Mark, Luke, and John; who, from this circumstance, are called EvayyeAtorat, Evangelists. These titles, however, though very ancient, and doubtless added by those who were well ac- quainted with the authorship of the respective histories, were not prefixed to the Gospels by the writers themselves. Still the usage seems to be sanctioned by St. Mark, who has used the word in the same signification in ch. i. 1. xiv. 9. See note on the former passage. Hammonp, CampsBeti, Wuirsy, Farner Simon, &c. In the inscriptions of the Gospels, (Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον, κατὰ Μαρκὸν, &c.) the preposition should not be rendered juata, or secundum, as in the old Latin versions ; after which our transla- tors have translated it according to. The proper translation is that of Castalio, who has Authore Mattheo, &c.; since the true import of the titles is, the Gospel written by Matthew, Mark, §c. Thus Polyb. Hist. III. 6. ai κατ᾽ ᾿Αννίβαν πράξεις, i. 6. the ex- ploits of Hannibal. ABlian. V. H. 11. 41. ἡ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν ἀρέτη. So also in Acts xvii. 28. τίνες τῶν KaY ὑμᾶς ποιητῶν. Nor does this at all invalidate the claim of the Evangelists to inspiration. Paul does not hesitate to call the Gospel with which he was inspired, his Gospel; nor does any one scruple to call the Epis- tles written by St. Paul, Paul's Epistles. It may be observed, that in some of the less esteemed MSS. and EDD. the epithet ἅγιον is joined with Εὐαγγέλιον, which is evidently a refinement, and not in good taste, of a recent date. The word εὐαγγέλιον occurs in the N. T. upwards of seventy times, and never with this epithet attached to it. CampBEeLL, ExsNerR, WETSTEIN. Note.—On the general design and importance of the Gospels, on their authenticity, genuineness, dates, authors, contents, Xe. ; and on the sources of the three first Gospels, the reader is referred to Mr. Horne’s Introduction, Vol. IV. Part 2. On the Analysis of the New Testament. With respect to St. Matthew in particular, the questions respecting the language in which he wrote his Gospel, and the Socinian objections to the genuineness of the two first chapters, are discussed at large in the same inva- luable work. ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. CBAP TER I. Contents :—The Genealogy of Christ by his supposed Father, vv. L—17. The miraculous Conception and birth of Jesus, 18—25. [Enlarged account in Luke 1, 26.—ii. 39. ] Verse 1. Βίβλος γενέσεως. Some commentators understand an ellipsis of the words, ἡδ᾽ ἐστὶ, This is the book, &c. So also in Mark i. 1. Compare Gen. ii. 4. v. 1. LXX. But whether the words are considered as the title of the whole Gospel, with some; or of the first sixteen verses only, with others; it is clear that no such addition is necessary. Of the import of the words them- selves, the more probable opinion is, that they extend only to the genealogy of our Lord, with which the Gospel opens. The word γένεσις, indeed, in one of its derived senses, is used to imply “fe, i. e. the duration of life; asin Judith xii. 18. LXX. παρὰ πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς γενέσεώς μου. Compare Wisd. vii. 5. Epist. James iii. 6. Hence βίβλος γενέσεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ may be understood to comprehend the entire history of the Life and Ministry of Jesus Christ; as the corresponding words in the Hebrew, MTN 75D, Sepher Toldoth, Gen. v. 1. xxxvii. 2. are ’ sometimes supposed to embrace the entire histories of Adam and Jacob, with their descendants, respectively. It is by no means clear, however, that such an extensive signification is admissible; and in Gen. ii. 4. LX X, the expression βίβλος γενέσεως οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, bears much nearer relation to origin and genealogy than to an entire history. Compare also Haod. vi. 24, 25. Numb. i. 18. 1 Chron. iv. 58. where γένεσις is evidently used in this simple sense. In short, the title γένεσις is affixed to the opening of the Gospel, in the same signification as’ it is affixed to the first book of Moses, or the opening of the Penta- teuch ; and so it was clearly understood by Owen, the well-known epigrammatist, in the following couplet, written about two centuries ago. Epigr. ad Princ. Henric. 11.76. Haplicat hic Christi Genesin liber, alter Adami ; Incipit a Genesi Lex et Evangelium. Homer has employed the word in a somewhat analogous, though not pre- cisely similar, signification; 1], =. 246, The word βίβλος, which 6 MATTHEW I. 1. properly signifies a written book; as in Mark xii. 26. Luke iii. 4. Acts xix. 9. may also be rendered a register or table, as in the passages above cited, and in the phrase ἡ [βίβλος ζωῆς, i. 6. the register of those who shall inherit eternal life: Philip. iv. 5. Revel. iii. 5. and elsewhere. Compare saiah xxxvii. 14. Jerem. xxxii. 12. Mark x. 4. Schleusner cites Herod. II. 100. κατέ- λεγον οἱ ἱρέες ἐκ βίβλων ἄλλων βασιλέων ὀνόματα. But here the true reading is βύβλου. Grotius observes, that there are several ἐπιγραφαὶ μερικαὶ, or titles of detached passages, in the O. T. and properly renders the words in question Descriptio Originis. _Brza, Grotius, Ligutroor, Macxnieut, Dop- DRIDGE.—[Hammonp, A. CLARKE, Beausosre, GiLPiIn, &c.] Whitby understands the phrase to signify the Narrative or re- hearsal of the generation or birth of Christ. With respect to the Genealogy itself, great questions have been founded upon the disagreement which exists between it, and that which is given by St. Luke, ch. iii. The earliest solution of the difficulty is that which is given by Africanus, in an epistle to Aristides, preserved by Eusebius: Eccles. Hist. I. 7. and strongly advocated by Whitby. He observes, that the discre- pancy may be accounted for by supposing that the pedigree in Matthew is that by the natural, and in Luke by the /egad father of Joseph. See on Matt. xxii. 24. Thus in reckoning the gene- rations according to Matthew, from David by Solomon, Matthan will be found the third from the end, who begat Jacob, the father of Joseph; but in reckoning with Luke, from David by Nathan, the third from the end is Melchi, whose son Heli is also stated to be the father of Joseph. Hence it should seem that Matthan and Melchi successively married the same wife, whose name, according to Africanus, who says that he received his account from the relations of our Lord, was Estha; so that the children of each marriage were brethren by the mother. Thus Matthan descending from Solomon, begat Jacob; and Melchi, descending from Nathan, having married the widow of Matthan, begat Heli. Again, Heli married, and dying without issue, Jacob took his wife, and begat Joseph, who, because the law required the seed to be raised to the deceased brother, was accounted the son of Heli. It is obvious, however, that there are great objections to this solution of the case. For the natural and legal fathers of Joseph, who should have been brothers, do not appear to have been more nearly connected than as descendants of David, by lines diverging from each other in an unknown degree. It re- mains to be proved also, that children were said to be sons of their legal, as well as of their natural fathers ; an assumption, with which the opinion of Maimonides is directly at variance. This author observes: Fratres uterini nequaquam habebantur fratres, sive in causa hereditatis cernende, sive in causa ducende fra- trie, sive exeundi caloci. Lamy, Harm. p. 3. Dr. Barrett, the MAT THE WI. 1. 7 substance of whose deep and learned investigations are given by Adam Clarke, in an Appendix to Luke iii. has examined the difficulties of this hypothesis, and gives it up on the principle, that it leaves us entirely in the dark, as to the lineage of Mary, from whom alone Christ really sprung; and proves nothing more of his relation to David, than that his mother was married to one of the descendants of that prince. It is evident to the most cur- sory observer, that this can never come up to the import of the passages of Scripture, which tell us that Christ was made of the seed of David, Rom. i. 3. and that according to the flesh he was made of the fruit of his loins, Acts ii. 80. The best solution of the difficulty is that of Lightfoot, who supposes that Matthew, writing more immediately for the Jews, proves Christ to be their Messiah, and heir to the throne of David, by legal descent from Abraham and David; whereas the object of Luke, in writing for the Gentiles, to whom the promise was given before the Mosaic dispensation, was to prove the same Christ to be the predicted seed of the woman, who was to bruise the serpent’s head; for which purpose it was necessary to trace the descent from Adam. In St. Luke’s genealogy, therefore, Joseph, whom Matthew expressly states to be the son of Jacob, is represented as the son of Heli, by virtue of his marriage with Mary; since the Jews excluded the names of women from their tables of descent. Or it may be, that Jesus himself is called the son of Heli, being really his grandson; in which case we have a parallel example in Gen. xxxvi. 2. where Aholibamah’s pedigree is thus deduced: Aholibamah, the daughter of Anah, the daugh- ter of Zibeon. Now it appears by νυ. 24, 25. that Anah was the son, not the daughter of Zibeon; so that Moses calls Aho- libamah the daughter both of Anah and Zibeon, precisely as Luke calls Jesus, the son both of Joseph and Heli. In confir- mation of this theory, it may be remarked, that the Talmudists speak of Mary as the daughter of Heli; and though she is also represented as the daughter of Joachim and Anna, there is little doubt that Joachim is a name of like import with Hel, Luke iii. 23. or Heliakim, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 4. each being derived from Hebrew names of the Deity. There is reason to suppose also, that had Luke intended to give the pedigree of Joseph, and not of Mary, the two tables, which correspond exactly between Abraham and David, would not have varied from David to Christ. One point at least, with respect to these genealogies, is indis- putable ; viz. the accuracy of the Evangelists. Tables of pedi- gree were kept among the Jews with the greatest punctuality and exactness, and laid up in the secret archives of the temple. See Euseb. Eccl. Hist. I. 6. It was, doubtless, from these registers that St. Matthew and St. Luke compiled their genealogies; for Josephus, after a recital of his own pedigree, informs us that he derived it from the same source: De Vita Sua, p. 998, τὴν piv: {2 8 MATTHEW I. 1. οὖν τοῦ γένους ἡμῶν διαδόχην, we ἐν ταῖς δημοσίαις δέλτοις ἀνα- γεγραμμένην εὗρον, οὕτως παρατίϑεμαι. Hence any flaw in the documents themselves cannot be attributed to the Evangelists ; and as no charge of infidelity in the transcription was brought against them either by the Jews, who would have anxiously detected any accuracy, as impugning the title of Christ to the Messiahship ; or by any of the early enemies of the Gospel ; we may fairly conclude that their honesty could not be questioned. In preserving the line of David, indeed, the Jews were more especially careful, as upon this their hopes of tracing the Messiah depended; so that St. Paul confidently appeals to the lineage of Christ in Hebd. vii. 14. Compare 2 Jim. ii. 8. The insertion, therefore, of these tables proves, beyond all doubt, the belief of the writers that the Messiah was to be of the lineage of David; and that Jesus, in fulfilling this particular, was the expected Redeemer. Several genealogies, similar to those of the Evangelists, are to be found in the Ὁ. T. Among others also, quoted by Wetstein, there are three in Herod. IV. 147. VII. 204. VIII. 131. remarkably parallel with that of St. Luke. An inscription, found at Palmyra, and supposed to be nearly cotemporary with the Apostolic age, is cited by Harmer from Mr. Wood's work, which rendered literally into Latin runs thus: Senatus Populus- que Abialamenem, Puri filium, Mocimi nepotem, AZranis pro- nepotem, Matthe abnepotem, et AXranem patrem ejus, viros pios et patrie amicos, et omni modo placentes patrie patriisque Diis, Flonoris gratia. Anno 450, mense Aprili. LiguTroot, CLARKE, MacxnicutT.—[ WHITBY. | Ibid. ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. See on ν. 16. Ibid. υἱοῦ AafRne, υἱοῦ ᾿Αβραάμ. The son of David, the son of Abraham. The Evangelist here states what he is going to prove; viz. that Jesus Christ, in accordance with the prophe- tical character of the Messiah, was descended from Abraham and David. See Gen. xii. 3. xxii. 18. 2 Sam. vii. 16. Psalm lxxxix. 4. Isaiah ix. 7. Jerem. xxiii. 5. Ezek, xxxvii. 24. Amos ix. 11. and compare Acts iil. 25. Luke i. 33. That the Jews expected their Messiah to answer this character is evident from Matt. xii. 23. xxi. 9. xxil. 42. and from the Talmudic writings. David is mentioned first in order, though last in time, as the promise to him was more explicit, and would naturally be fresher in the memory of the Jews. The word υἱὸς is here applied, after the Hebrew custom, to any descendant, however remote. Hence Grotius observes: Non tantum pater filium, sed pronepotem pro- avus genuisse dicatur. So also γεννᾷν, v. 8. Compare Gen. xxix. 5. with xxiv. 47. Nepos is used in the same extensive applica- tion in Latin. Wuitsy, Licutroot, Grorius, Macknieut, &c. Campbell and Wakefield understand υἱοῦ indefinitely, and trans- late a son of David, a son of Abraham. But, even without con- sidering the passage as a translation from a Hebrew original, the MATTHEW’ 1.1. 9 Greek usage will readily admit υἱοῦ to be anarthrous. The want of the article before γενέσεως is nearly similar. Mipp.eron. As we shall have frequent occasion to speak of the use of the article in the Greek text, it may be adviseable to present the reader, in this place, with [A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE GREEK ARTICLE. The Greek article is undoubtedly a definitive. The nature and use, however, of this part of speech was but little ascertained, till it was illustrated and explained by the late learned Bishop of Calcutta, who has shown that it is the pronoun relative 6, which together with its adjunct forms a proposition by means of the participle of existence expressed or understood. The pronominal nature of the article is proved at once by the following instance in Homer, I. Π. 793. TOY & ἀπὸ μὲν κρατὸς KYNEHN βάλε Φοῖβος ᾿Απόλλων᾽ Ἢ δὲ κυλινδομένη καναχὴν ἔχε ποσσὶν UP ἵπ- πων. Had the sentence ended here, Ἢ would be a pronoun relative referring to κυνεὴν, exactly as τοῦ refers to Patroclus; but it hap- pens that the poet has added in the next verse αὐλῶπις τρυφάλεια ; so that in fact the difference between the article and pronoun is merely accidental. Hence it appears that the proposition formed by the article and its adjunct differs from ordinary propositions only as assumption differs from assertion, i. e. as the participle ὧν differs from the verb ἐστί. Thus ὃ ἀνὴρ must sigmfy he, or the male, being, or assumed to be, a man. Sometimes indeed the participle is expressed, as in Aristot. de Mor. IV. 2. οἱ μάλιστα ἄξιοι ὌΝΤΕΣ ἥκιστα πλουτοῦσι; where the participle might have been omitted without affecting the author’s meaning. Such being the nature of the article, its ¢nsertion or omission will in general be found to be regulated by the following rules. I. The article is énserted, 1. when the same noun is repeated, or a synonymous one is used, in reference to the same person or thing, or even when no such person or thing has been mentioned, provided its existence may be inferred from what has been said. fEschin. in Ctesiph. §. 56. οὗτος ΠΡΟΔΟΥΣ τοῖς πολεμίοις Νύμ- φαιον φυγὰς ἐγένετο, ΤῊΝ κρίσιν οὐχ ὑπομείνας. Here τὴν κρίσιν is the trial to which the traitor would have been subjected, and the article is sanctioned by the preceding mention of προδούς. 2. Before nouns employed κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, in reference to some object familiar to the mind of the hearer; and that not only in cases of preeminent worth, but wherever the person or thing spoken of is, for some cause or other, well known. 3. With monadic nouns, i. e. nouns indicating persons or things where one only can be the subject of discourse. Thus Lysias, Orat. Gr. T. V. p. 139. ᾽᾿Εκκόψας TAS θύρας, εἰσῆλθεν εἰς THN γυναικωνῖτιν. This case is nearly allied to the preceding. 4. Where the article is used for a pronoun possessive, as in Theoc. Idyl. 111, 52. ἀλγέω TAN 10 MATTHEW I. 1. κεφαλὰν, i.e. my head. 5. Before the names of the great ob- jects of nature, as 6 οὐρανὸς, ἡ γῆ; &c. except in some cases Ἥλιος, which is considered a proper name. 6. Before adjectives in the neuter gender, used to denote some attribute or quality in its general or abstract idea: thus τὸ σόφον for σοφία, and the like examples abound. 7. Words in regimen either both take or both reject the article; as λέοντος σκυμνίον, or TO TOY λέοντος okuuviov. So also do, 8. Partitives, between which and their re- spective wholes a like mutual relation subsists. Upon the same principle depends, 9. The use of the article with μὲν and δέ. 10. In all the preceding instances the article and its adjunct together recall some familiar idea; but cases occur in which the article can refer to nothing in the mind of the reader. Thus Demosth. de Coron. ὃ. 71. πονηρὸν Ὃ συκοφάντης ἀεί. Here the allusion is general, and examples occur continually, especially in the plural number, so often as an affirmative is true alike of all persons or things in question. ‘The reference in these cases, though not familiar to the reader, is undoubtedly perceptible to the mind of the writer. II. The article is omitted, 1. In propositions which merely affirm or deny existence, in which, from the nature of the article, it would be superfluous. Ausch. c. Ctes. §. 26. ἔσται μὲν εἰρήνη. 2. Before nouns preceded by verbs or participles, substantive or — nuncupative; in which case the verb or participle in question precludes its being again expressed or understood, which is es- sential to the nature of the article. Demosth. de Cor. §. 23. αἴτιος εἴμι τοῦ πολεμοῦ. 3. After verbs of appointing, choosing, creating, &c. Demosth. de Cor. ὃ. 59. ἡγέμων καὶ κύριος ἡρέθη Φίλιππος ἁπάντων. This case is nearly analogous to the last. 4. With nouns in apposition, denoting the object of the preceding noun. Demosth. de Cor. δ. 69. δύναμιν εἶχεν ἡ πόλις τοὺς νησιώ- τας. ὅ. [ἢ negative propositions, involving wniversal exclusion in the objects spoken of. Demosth. de Cor. ὃ. 28. οὐ ναῦς, οὐ τείχη, τῆς πόλεως τότε κεκτημένης. Here the orator could not have said τὰς ναῦς, since the article necessarily implies an existence, which is inconsistent with the nature of the proposition. 6. Before nouns in regimen, of which the former is indefinite, and conse- quently the latter, philosophically speaking, must be indefinite also: for instance, in the example given in art. 7. of the last sec- tion, of an indefinite λέοντος, there can be no definite σκυμνίον. The converse is also true. III. Besides the above instances of znsertion and omission, the two are sometimes combined ; for instance: 1. The subject is generally found with the article, the predicate without it; as in Aristot. Anal. Post. 11. 3. οὐ yao ἐστι TO ἐπίπεδον σχῆμα, οὐδὲ TO σχῆμα ἐπίπεδον. 2 When two or more attributives, such as adjectives, participles, and nouns expressive of character, rela- tion, and dignity, joined by a copulative or copulatives, are as- sumed of the same person or thing; before the first the article is. ν᾿ τι bh “« --- we MATTHEW I. 2, 3. 1] inserted, before the others omitted. This is Mr. G. Sharpe's rule, and it is illustrated in Mr. Horne’s Introduction, Vol. 11. . 538. It is not, however, without three exceptions,—of names of substances considered as substances—of proper names—and of abstract ideas: such as Ὁ λίθος καὶ χρυσός. Aisch.c. Ctes. ὃ. 81. rov Αλέξανδρον καὶ Φίλιππον. Plato, τὴν ἀπειρίαν καὶ ἀπαιδευσίαν. In these cases the substances, persons, and qualities are evidently distinct, so that the repetition of the article is unnecessary. IV. The principal difficulty with respect to the Greek article relates to its use with proper names, and before abstract nouns. 1. In the former case it appears that the article is frequently used before proper names of celebrity, before those which have been previously mentioned, and those which are familiar to the hearer; generally also before the names of Deities and places. 2. The use of abstract nouns in Homer is extremely rare. Where, how- ever, they do occur, it is always without the article. There is considerable doubt as to the principles upon which it is used before these nouns in other writers; it seems, however, to be usually prefixed when the noun is used in its most abstract sense—when it is personified—when the article is employed as a possessive pronoun—when there is any reference, either antici- pative or retrospective. There are, of course, anomalies to be met with in every application of the rules which have been laid down ; particularly in the occasional insertion or rejection of the article after prepositions: and there are some other minutiz which it is here impossible to investigate. Such as occur in the N. T. of any material importance will be noticed in their places. Mup- DLETON. | Ver. 2. τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ. The brethren of Judas are men- tioned, because, though they were not the Messiah’s progenitors, they were on an equal footing with Judas in respect of religious privileges. Their names may also have been added to comfort the dispersed tribes, who were not yet so fully returned out of cap- tivity as Judah was, with an assurance of their interest in the promised blessing. The case was otherwise with Ishmael and Esau, whose posterity were excluded from the privileges of the covenant; and therefore, though the sons of Abraham and Isaac respectively, their names are omitted in the Genealogy. Licur- root, Macxnicut, Wuitsy. Wetstein is of opinion, that the brethren of Judas are named in consequence of the Jewish pre- judice against Christ’s being preferred to his brethren. See Matt. xiii. 55. sqq. But in all probability the Apostle transcribed the Genealogy precisely as he found it in the public registers. Ver. 3. τὸν Φαρὲς καὶ τὸν Zaga. Mentioned together as being twin brothers, and striving for primogeniture: Gen. xxxvili. 28. 12 MATTHEW IL. 5, 6. sqq- Also to identify Pharez; for, unless Zara had been spoken of, considering the infamy of Pharez’ birth, we might have ima- gined that some other son of Judas, called also Pharez, was our Lord’s progenitor, as the Jews frequently had several children of the same name. Hence Thamar is likewise mentioned. It may ~ also be remarked that only four women are mentioned in this Genealogy; most probably because in them only was the law departed from, which enjoined the heirs of the promised blessing to take to them wives of their nearest kindred. It has been thought by some that they are inserted as being respectively no- torious for some infamy; Thamar for zxcest, Rahab for fornica- tion, Ruth for Heathenism, and Bathsheba for adultery ; so that an answer would here be afforded to the cavils of the Jews against the mean condition of the mother of our Lord, since some of their most distinguished countrymen were descended from women, whose qualities rendered them meaner than she was. Wuitsy, MacknicutT, WETSTEIN. Ver. 5. Ῥαχάβ. There is considerable doubt whether this Ra- hab was the harlot of Jericho, mentioned in Josh. ii. 1. and whose extraordinary faith is applauded by St. Paul, Hed. xi. 31. or some other person of the same name. Theophylact embraces the latter opinion, and he is followed by many modern commentators. The Jews indeed have a tradition that Rahab the harlot was mar- ried to Joshua, by whom she became the mother of eight priests ; (see Kimchi on Josh. zz loc.) This, however, cannot be true, whether she be considered the wife of Joshua or Salmon, since neither of them were of the tribe of Levi. But it is objected that the Rahab in question could not have been the mother of Booz, and the wife of Salmon, since the Israelites were forbidden to intermarry with any of the idolatrous nations of Canaan, (Hod. xxxiv. 16. Deut. vii. 3.) not to mention that she must have been nearly one hundred years old at the time of the birth of Booz, since there are only four descents from Salmon to Jesse, in near four hundred years. But though Rahab was originally a Heathen, she may have become a proselyte, (which is highly probable from the manner in which she is mentioned by St. Paul,) as Ruth, the Moabitess, whom Booz, (dtwth iv. 13.) and Maachah, the daughter of the King of Geshur, whom David married, (2 Sam. iii. 3.) undoubtedly were. With respect to the age of Rahab at the birth of Booz, it is answered from the Targum, that Salmon, Booz, and Obed were men of extraordinary piety, so that God may be supposed to have vouchsafed to them a longer life than ordinary, and strength, as in the case of Abraham, to beget chil- dren in their old age. Ligurroot, Wuirsy, Mackxnicur, &ce.— [Marsu, &c. ] Ver. 6, Δαβὶδ τὸν βασιλέα, David has the title of Aing given MATTHEW Ff. 8: 13 him because he was the first king of his family, and because he had the kingdom entailed upon his children, whence the reign of the Messiah was to spring: thence called the throne of the house of David. Ezek. xxxvi. 35. Psalm exxii. 5. Macknicut, Wuitsy. Ibid. ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Οὐρίου. E.T. Of her that had been the wife of Uriah: i.e. Bathsheba. Τ is to be observed, that Solomon was not born in adultery, but after the second marriage of Bathsheba. The crime of David having been repented of, it pleased God to fulfil the promise made to him, by means of this very woman. Wuirsy. There is here an ellipsis, not only of γυναικὸς, but of πότε. The omission of the adverb is not unfrequent: thus in Matt. x. 3. 6 τελώνης. Ephes. iv. 28. 6 κλέπτων. James v. 11. τοὺς ὑπομένοντας. With respect to the other omission, the words γυνὴ, μήτηρ, πατὴρ, υἱὸς, and the like, are continually dropped before proper names in the genitive case, and must be supplied in any particular case from the reader’s knowledge of the subject. Compare Matt. iv. 21. xxii. 25. xxiv. 41. Mark ii. 14. xv. 40. 47. xvi. 1. Luke vis 16. John vi. 7]. xii. 4. xix. 98: xxi. 2.15. 17. -Aets i. 18. vii. 16. xii. 22. The present ellipsis is sanctioned by the fol- lowing: Eurip. Orest. 1702. τῇ “HoaxAgove “Hy. Arist. Lysist. 63. ἡ Θεαγένους. and particularly Virg. En. III. 319. Hectoris Andromache. Lucan. Phars. 11. 383. liceat tumulo scripsisse, Catonis Marcta. In these last olzm, as well as wxor, must evi- dently be supplied. Ver. 8. τὸν Ὀζίαν. Uzziah; 2 Kings xv. 32. This prince was in fact the great-grandson of Joram, three kings being omitted in the Genealogy, viz. Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, who was really the father of Uzziah. See 1 Chron. iii. 12. 2 Chron. xxvi. 1. The most probable reason for this omission was the curse twice denounced against the idolatry of the house of Ahab, (1 Kings xxi. 21. 2 Kings ix. 8.) to which these princes be- longed; since the mother of Ahaziah was Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab. This supposition is greatly confirmed by the extent of the curse to the third generation; and it is certain that the Jews frequently omitted names in their genealogical records, and more especially on account of wickedness andidolatry. Thus five de- scents from Meraiah are omitted; Ezra vii. compared with 1 Chron. vi. and the whole tribe of Dan is omitted for idolatry in Rev. vii. Simeon is passed over in the blessing of Moses, Deut. xxviii. for his cruelty at Sychem; and Joab, in the account of the worthies of David, 2 Sam. xxiii. for his cruelty to Amasa and Abner. Some commentators, however, would insert the names omitted, but without any authority. The omission cannot in the least affect the design of the Apostle, since by passing from Joram to Ozias he still keeps in the same line, which is sufficient to shew that Jesus was of the lineage of David. Licurroor, Watt, Wuitsy.—[NEwcomeE. | 14 MATTHEW I. 11. Ver.11. τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ. Josias had three sons who sat on the throne of Judah, and are therefore mentioned with Jecho- nias, who was the eldest. The second son, Jehoahaz, was elected by the people to succeed his father, but being quickly removed, Jechonias or Jehoiakim was placed on the throne. Zedekiah, the third son, succeeded his nephew Jehoiakim, the son of the pre- sent Jechonias. See 2 Kings xxiii. 31. sqq. xxiv. 15. sqq. It will be observed that the fourteen generations from David to the cap- tivity are incomplete, which is readily accounted for by Jerome on Dan. i. who observes that the Jechonias in this verse and the next are different persons, the latter being the abovementioned son of the former. In the Hebrew the names of the father and son are respectively Jehoiachim and Jehoiachin, in which the difference is so trifling that the Greek names can scarcely have been otherwise than the same. The former was called Eliachim before his accession to the throne, and Jechonias not only by Matthew, but in 3 Esdras i. 84. Josephus has also given these two kings one common name, Antiq. x. 12. [ἢ some copies, in- deed, arising most probably from some over zealous transcriber, the number of generations is filled up thus: from 1 Chron. iii. 15, 16. τὸν Ἰωαχείμ' ᾿Ιωαχεὶμ δὲ ἐγέννησε x. τ. X. This cor- rection, however suspicious, is at least a guide to the solution of the difficulty; and although it is the only instance throughout the Genealogy in which the name of the same person is not re- peated, the particularity is not without example. In the account of Jonathan’s posterity, 1 Chron. ix. 41. there is a similar omis- sion, which the translators have supplied from ch. viii. 35. With respect to the prophecy of Jeremiah, (xxii. 30.) Write ye this man childless, &c. it should be observed that the Hebrew ἽΝ should rather be rendered stript or naked, 1. 6. deprived of his kingdom. That he had children is evident from Jer. xxii. 28. compared with 1 Chron. iii. 17. and so the LXX translate the word ἐκκη- ρυκτὸς, ejected by an herald; i. e. abject. Salathiel, however, seems to have been only the legal successor of Jechonias, being really the son of Neri, as stated in Luke ii. 27. Lightfoot is of opinion that Jehoiachim did actually die childless, and that his name was properly omitted by St. Matthew, as having been de- nied a kingly burial, and therefore unfit to be mentioned in the lineage of Christ. See Jer. xxii. 19. In this case the difficulty may be obviated, but far less satisfactorily, by supposing that David not only closes the first class but begins the second; as the ancient physicians compute weeks of sickness, (see Galen on Hippocrat. de Prenot. 1. 3.) or as the Jews calculate the double vow of a Nazarite, making the 30th day the last of the first, and the first of the second period. Wuitrsy, Wetts, Macknicur, Bravusosre, Grotius.—[Liantroot, WeTsten, Bowyer, &c. } Ibid. ἐπὶ τῆς μετοικεσίας. Some suppose there were three, others only two removals of the Jews to Babylon: the former MATTHEW I. 12, 13. 16. 15 is the more probable and received opinion; according to which the first took place in the fourth reign of Jehoiachim, son of Josiah, B. C. 606, the second under his son Jehoiachin, B. Ὁ. 598, and the last eleven years afterwards, under Zedekiah, B. C. 588. The second opinion is founded upon the assumption that the two first coincide, and that Jehoiachin, the son of Je- hoiachim, is intended in Dan. i. 1. as well as in Jer. xxii. See Horne’s Geographical Index, art. Babylon, in fine. The word μετοικεσία, which signifies properly a migration, or change of abode, seems to have been used for the purpose of avoiding any unnecessary offence to the Jews, for whom the Evangelist more especially wrote, and to whom the more expressive word aixpa- Awria would have been peculiarly ungrateful. Ligntroor, Camp- BELL.—[MAckNIGHT. | Ver. 12. Σαλαϑιὴλ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ζοροβάβελ. Zorobabel is called the son of Pedaiah, 1 Chron. iii. 19. It seems, therefore, that Pedaiah raised up offspring to his elder brother Salathiel. NEWCOME. Ver. 13. >ABv0t8. Among the sons of Zorobabel, 1 Chron. iii. 19. Abiud is not mentioned. Probably he was the same as Meshul- lam, as many persons about the time of the captivity had different names in Babylon from those used in their own land. Hence, as Jechonias was called Shallum, 1. 6. finished, because the race of Solomon ended in him: so Abiud may have been called Me- shullam, i. e. requited, because in him the glory of the house of Solomon was renewed, after their return from Babel. Zorobabel had another son, Rhesa, Luke 111. 27. who probably corresponds with Hananiah mentioned in the Chronicles. Licutroor, Wuitsy. Ver, 16. τὸν ἄνδρα M. That is, the betrothed husband of Mary. See v.18. The titles of husband and wife are given in Scripture to those who are only betrothed: thus Rachel is called the wife of Jacob, Gen. xxix. 21. See also Deut. xxii. 94, Brausosre. Ibid. ᾿Ιησοῦς, 6 λεγόμενος Χριστός. Either, Jesus who is called Christ, that being a surname which, when Matthew wrote, was frequently given him; or, Jesus who is accounted, i. e. who as the Christ, or Messiah. 'The latter seems to be the more pro- bable interpretation, and the idiom which it involves is not only familiar to the Hebrews, but of frequent occurrence in classic writers. Compare Matt. v. 19. Luke i. 76. John xxvii. 17. 29. 1 John iii. 1. also Hom. Il. B. 260. Τ᾿. 138. and elsewhere; and see my note on Eur. Phoen. 10. Pent. Gr. p. 304. It must be confessed, however, that λέγεσθαι is far less usual in this sense than κέκλησθαι. The name ᾿Ιησοῦς corresponds with the Hebrew Joshua, YIN, which signifies a Saviour, Compare Acts vii. 45. 10 MATTHEW I, 117. Heb. iv. 8. It was generally applied by the Jews as a distin- guishing title of conquerors and public benefactors; (see Obad. 21.) and thence, by divine injunction, transferred to the Messiah, who was to save his people from their sins, v. 21. The name admits of two Greek derivations, viz. from ἰάομαι, sano, or from ἴημι, mitto ; but these are mentioned as mere matters of curiosity, as the name is essentially Hebrew. Alb. Gloss. Gr. p. 199. e cod. Coislin. XXIV. τὸ Ἰησοῦς ὄνομα οὐκ ἔστιν Ἑλληνικὸν, ἀλλὰ τῇ Ἑβραίων φωνῇ οὕτω λέγεται" ἑρμηνεύεται γὰρ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἡ σωτηρία. The word Χριστὸς is properly an appellative, signifying anointed, and corresponding with the Hebrew Mw, Meshiach, which was applied by the Jews to their kings, high-priests, and prophets, who were admitted, with the ceremony of anointing, into the exercise of their holy functions. Thus it is applied to Saud, 1 Sam. xxiv. 6. and to Cyrus, Isa. xlv. 1. Compare also 1 Kings xix. 16. Ps.cv.15. Hence in the Prophets, the mediator of the new covenant is sometimes pointed out under this title, as in Psal. ii. 2. Isa. \xi. 1. Dan. ix. 25, 26. and so, at length, it was used κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, of our blessed Lord. In the O. T. the word is always translated anointed, except in Dan. ix. cited above: and in the N. T. the corresponding Greek word is invariably rendered Christ. It will be readily seen, however, that in the generality of instances where it is not used as asurname of Christ, the article should be inserted, as the word is clearly indicative rather of the office than the person of Jesus. Compare, for instance, Ps. ii. 2. with Acts iv. 26, 27. E. T. It is true, however, that the word Christ, though originally an appellative, became at length, from its frequent application to one individual, to supply the place of a proper name; an effect which was considerably hastened by the commonness of the name Jesus among the Jews. ‘This practice was already in use at the time when the Evangelists wrote; as is evident from the openings of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark; and by degrees the name Jesus was very much dropped, till at length our Lord was known only by that of Christ. See Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny, passam. It may be observed generally, that when applied in this way, Χριστὸς is without the article. Gro- τιῦϑ, CAMPBELL. Ver.17. πᾶσαι οὖν ai γενεαὶ x. τι A. The succession of Christ’s ancestors is divided by the Evangelist into three classes, each of which produced a change in the government of the Jews. In the first they were under judges and prophets, in the second under kings, and in the last under the Asmonzan_ princes. The first brought them to glory in the kingdom of David, the second to misery in the captivity of Babylon, and the third to glory again in the kingdom of Christ. The first begins with Abraham, who received the promise, and ends with David, who received it again more clearly; the second begins with the build- MATTHEW I. 18, 17 ing of the Temple, and ends with its destruction; the third begins with the return from captivity, and ends in the spiritual delivery of Christ. It seems to have been a custom with the Jews to divide their genealogical computations, &c. into classes for the sake of memory. Ligurroor, Wuirsy, MAcKNIGHT, Grorius, &c. The word γενεὰ occurs in the sense in which it is here used. to denote family succession, in Numb. xiil. 23. Jer. vil. 3. LXX. The usage is sanctioned also by Herodotus, Isocrates, and Po- lybius. So also in Josephus, Antiq. I. 10.3. V. 9. 4. VII. 5.2. Philo de Vit. Mos. p. 603. E. Wersrein, Kress, LoEsner. Ver. 18. μνηστευθείσης γὰρ τῆς μητρός. Among the Jews some time usually elapsed between the espousals and the consummation of the marriage. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. P. IV. ch. 3. §. 3. p. 423. The verb συνελθεῖν is understood by some to refer simply to the removal of the bride to her husband’s house; by others, to sexual intercourse. In the former case it is synonymous with παραλαβεῖν, vv. 20. 24. Kypke is in favour of the former opinion, but the latter is more probable, as the examples adduced in sup- port of it are far more decisive. Strabo XV. p. 1068. τούτοις, i.e. Persis, καὶ μητράσι συνέρχεσθαι νενόμισθαι. Compare Plutarch. de Fort. Rom. p. 320. Joseph. Ant. I. 19. XII. 4. Philo de Char. p. 706. C. de special. legg. p. 780. B. Diodorus Sic. writes at length, συνελθεῖν εἰς ὁμιλίαν, Lib. I. p. 49. In the same sense the Latins use convenire. ELsNER, Kress, LOESNER.— [Κυρκε. The verb, however, may probably include both senses. Of the particles γὰρ and πρὶν ἢ, see Hoogeveen de Particulis, p. 88. Viger. de Idiom. Gr. p. 352. — Ibid. εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα. For ἦν ἔχουσα, i. 6. εἶχε. The verb εὑρίσκεσθαι, in the sense of εἶναι, occurs in Luke xvii. 18. Rom: vii. 10. Gal. ii. 17. 1 Pet. ii. 22. Itis generally explained. as an Hebraism, (compare Gen. ii. 20. Exod. xxxv. 23.) but the usage is sanctioned also by classical authority. Eurip. Iph. T. 777. ποῦ ποτ᾽ ὄνθ᾽ εὑρήμεϑα; so Joseph. Antig. VII. 7. μὴ βοη- Sela τῶν φίλων εὑρίσκοιτο τοῦ κινδύνου διαφυγών. The phrase ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχειν, involving an ellipsis of the word βρέφος, is found in Pausan. Messen. 33. Attic. 6. Athen. X. p. 453, Artemid. Oneirocrit. II. 18. III. 32. Compare also Luke i. 31. xxiv. 19. 1 Thess. v. 8. Sirac. XL. 1. LXX. Some understand an ellipsis of ἔμβρυον rather than βρέφος, but the latter is sanctioned by Luke i. 41.44. and βρέφος is used of an unborn child in Homer, Il. Ψ. 266. The perfect phrase, however, is thus employed by Palephatus de Incred. 11. 3. οὐδὲ φέρειν ἠδύνατο γυνὴ ἔμβρυον ἔχον γε κέρατα. ΚΎΥΡΚΕ, ELSNER. - Ibid. ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου, Wakefield translates, a holy spirit, probably from the omission of the article; but after pre- positions, anomalous cases of this kind frequently occur. There are six meanings of the word πνεῦμα, clearly distinguishable in: VOL. I. : Ὁ 18 MATTHEW I. 19. the N. T.—1. Breath, or wind; inwhich sense it rarely occurs: Matt. xxvii. 50. John iii. 8. Rev. xiii. 15.—2. The éntellectual or spiritual part of man, as distinguished from σὰρξ, his carnal part.—3. Spirit, as abstracted from body or matter : whence is deduced the idea of zmmaterial agents. Compare Luke xxiv. 34. John iv. 94. Acts xxiii. 9. The πνεύματα of the demoniacs belong to this head.—4. The Spirit, κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν ; i. 6. the Third Person in the Trinity: in which acceptation, except in anoma- lous cases like the present, it is never used without the article. It may be observed, however, that in all the passages where per- sonal acts are attributed to the πνεῦμα ἅγιον, and which are, therefore, adduced to prove the personality of the Holy Ghost, the article is invariably prefixed. See Matt. xxviii. 19. Mark i. 10. Luke iti. 22. John i. 31. Acts i. 16. xx. 28.—5. The tnflu- ence, not the Person, of the Spirit; in which sense, except in cases of reference or renewed mention, the article never appears. —6. The effects of the Spirit. From the fourth and fifth heads we may at once refute the notion of those, who pretend that the Holy Spirit is merely an influence ; since the sacred writers have © clearly, and in strict conformity with the analogy of language, distinguished the influence from the Person of the Spirit. As to Mr. Wakefield’s translation of the present passage, which implies a plurality of Holy Spirits, the ordinary ministers of Almighty Providence, it is irreconcileable with the phraseology of the N. T., in which πνεύματα ἅγια are not once mentioned. Bp. MrppLE- TON. Some have supposed that the words ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου, were originally merely a marginal gloss, which, at length, found its way into the text; since the revelation of the virgin’s miracu- lous conception has not yet been made. But the words are found in all the MSS., and it is very natural for the historian to speak by anticipation of an event, the circumstances of which were passing in his mind. [Beza, MarKkLAnD.] Ver. 19. δίκαιος. Chrysostom explains this word by χρηστὸς καὶ ἐπιεικὴς, and many of the best commentators are disposed to render it in the sense of merciful, lenient; and that it will bear such a signification, may be proved from the best autho- rities. Compare Eurip. Med. 722. Asch. Choeph. 759. and see Wakefield’s Silv. Crit. §. 164. Soalso in Latin; Horat. Od. III. 18. 3. parvis Afquus alumnis. The Hebrew ΓΝ is used in a similar sense. Compare Psalm cxlv. 17. with vv. 16, 18. 9. See also Matt. xx. 15. 1 John i. 9. and also on Matt. vi. 1. It is by no means necessary, however, m the present instance, to depart from the ordinary acceptation of the word, which seems to have been used at this time as a vox signata for a strict ob- server of the Law. Compare Luke xx. 20. There is nothing in Joseph’s conduct which militates with this signification. See next note. Ligurroot, Macxniaut,—[Grorius, Hammonp, MATTHEW I. 20. 19 MicHaE.is, ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ, &c.] In general, however, the word δίκαιος admits of two sENsEs ;—1. strictly observant of justice in our dealings, and particularly in our judicial proceedings; e. ¢ Matt. xx. 4. Philip. iv. 8.—2. righteous, upright; in relation to the general tenor of our life: as in Matt. v. 45. et passim. Hence Campbell adopts a middle course, and renders it worthy. Ibid. παραδειγματίσαι. E.T. to make her a public example. This is the true meaning of the word, as it appears from A. Gell. VI. 14. where three degrees in punishing offences ‘are enume- rated: the first, νουθεσία, admonition ; the second, τιμωρία, fine ; and the third, παραδεΐγμα, when punishment is used for example sake, that others may be deterred from the like offences. Hence the term was usually applied to capital punishment; as in Polyb. Hist. II. 60. VI. 36. So also exemplum is used by the Latins. Tacit. Annal. XII. 20. 4. Sontes et novissima exempla meriti. Cesar B. G, I. 31. In eos omnia exempla cruciatusque edere. Compare Terent. Adelph. V. 1. 10. Plaut. Mostell. V. 1. 67. In a similar acceptation the expression adopted by our translators is generally understood by ourselves. Such, however, does not seem to be the extent of the meaning in this place ; but simply, fo expose. It was the wish of Joseph to injure the reputation of Mary as little as possible; and this more especially in a case so extraordinary. Mary had, doubtless, in her own vindication, informed him of the vision of the angel; and though he might not be wholly satisfied with her account, the strength of his attachment, and the possibility that her statement might be true, would deter him from proceeding to extremities; at the same time that his strict observance of the law would prevent his mar- riage with one who had the least stain upon her chastity. Thus Chrysostom evidently understood the passage, in reference to which he clearly distinguishes between παραδειγματίζειν and κολάζειν; and Polybius also uses the former verb in a sense entirely distinct from punishment. (Legat. 88.) Had Joseph accused her of adultery before the priests, the punishment would have been lapidation; Deut. xxii. 23. He therefore gave into her bosom a bill of divorce, before two witnesses only, without assigning any reasons for the measure which he adopted. And this was all which the law required; as Buxtorf observes, de Divort. pp. 76. 125. upon the authority of Maimonides and Abarbanel. ULicutroot, Macknicut, Wuirsy, CAMPBELL, Hammonp, Grorttius, &c. Ibid. ἀπολῦσαι. To divorce; as Matt. v. 31. xix. 7. Mark x. 4. Luke xvi. 18. Licurroor, CAMPBELL. Ver. 20. ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐνθυμηθέντος. Hoc cum animo cogita- ret. Kurnorn. The verb ἐνθυμεῖσθαι properly signifies to desire, to wish for ; as in Deut. xxi. 11. Josh. vii. 21. LXX. But it is also used to denote any action of the mind; thus to form an σῷ 20 MATTHEW TI. 21. opinion of one ; Matt. ix. 4. and here, to deliberate, or meditate. So again in Acts x. 19. In the sense of this passage it occurs in Thucyd. II. 40. Aristoph. Eccles. 138. Joseph. Antiq. XV: 5. 8. ScHLEUSNER, WETSTEIN. Ibid. Αγγελος Κυρίου. Most probably, Gabriel: as in Luke i. 19. The word ἄγγελος in the N. T. is used both as an appel- lative, denoting an office; and also as the title of a particular class of beings, in which case it closely approximates to a proper name. In the latter usage it corresponds precisely with the English Angel; but in the former it should be, though it is not in the E. T., always rendered messenger. With respect to pro- phetic dreams, it may be observed, that the ancients in general put great faith in them; in reference to which belief the phrase kar ὄναρ φανῆναι, and the like, are frequently found in the classic writers. But see especially Hom. 1]. A. 65. The super- stition had doubtless its origin in primitive revelation. God in early times frequently adopted this method of manifesting himself to his chosen people; and sometimes also, for especial purposes, to distinguished Heathens; as Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, and others. But it is generally believed, that prophecy in general, except in the case of Simon the Just, ceased in the Jewish Church since the time of Malachi, who closes the Canon of the O. T. By the prophetic dream of Joseph, another species of communication was now re-opened between God and his faithful servants, in addition to those more direct revelations which had already been made to Zacharias and Mary; recorded in Luke i. As dreams of this nature were clearly distinguishable from those of ordinary occurrence, Joseph was at once convinced of the approaching birth of Christ, and of the spotless purity of his Virgin-Mother. WersteIn, CAMPBELL, Macknicur. Ibid. παραλαβεῖν. Scil. from her parents, at whose hands the husband received his bride. There is an ellipse of the words εἰς οἰκίαν. So Joseph. Antiq. I. 19. 7. διελθούσης ἄλλης ἕπτα- etéac τὴν 'Ραχήλαν παρέλαβεν. Compare Lucian. Toxar. 24. Arrian. de Exped. Alex, VII. 4. Joseph. Ant. IV. 8. The omission is supplied in Lucian. Timon. 17. γυναΐκα εἰς οἰκίαν παραλαβεῖν. ELSNER. : Ibid. τὸ γεννηθέν. The neuter is generally used of an unborn child; of which the sex is yet unknown. So τὸ γεννηθὲν, Aris- tot. Polit. I. 8. Plutarch. Thes. p. 40. E. de Anim. Tranq. p. 467. Dionys. Ant. Rom. III. 10. τὸ γεννηθησόμενον, Lucian. Tim. 52, τὸ τεχθὲν, Lucian. Dial. Mer. 2. Compare Luke i. 35. Herod. I. 29, 30. Joseph. Ant. II. 5. ILI. 10. IV. 8% WETSTEIN, ΚΥΡΚΕ. Ver, 21. αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει κι τ. X. Dr. Maltby observes, (Sermons, Vol. II. p. 546.) that there are four distinct significa- tions of the verb σώζειν in the N. T.—1. 70 preserve generally, MATTHEW. I: 22, 29. 21 from any evil or danger whatsoever.—2. To preserve from sick- ness; to heal.—3. To preserve from the temporal anger of the Almighty; a notion founded upon expressions in the Jewish prophets; and exemplified in the events attending upon the de- struction of Jerusalem.—4. To give future salvation in heaven. The word occurs more than one hundred times in the N. T. and the different senses are easily discernible.—Of the name JEsus, see on v. 16, Ver. 22. ἵνα πληρωθῇ. The conjunction ἵνα denotes that there was as exact a conformity between the event, and the passage quoted, as there would have been, if the former had been effected, merely for the accomplishment of the latter. When there is a direct prophecy in the O. T., the event did not take place for the mere purpose of fulfilling it; but God pre-determined the event, and foretold it by its prophet. Sometimes, indeed, it must be considered as representing not the consequence or design, but the event only; as in Matt. xxi. 26. Luke ix. 45, xi. ὅθ, The phrase ἵνα πληρωθῇ, therefore, should rather be translated; so that it was fulfilled. Compare Matt. xxi. 4. xxvi. 56. John xix. 24, The words are not to be understood as spoken by the Angel, but as an observation of the Evangelist: and the words τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον, all this, comprehend not only what is men- tioned in the preceding verses,.but the whole particulars of the transaction; and, among the rest, the circumstance, that Joseph knew not Mary till after her delivery, upon which the accom- plishment of the prophecy depended, no less than her miraculous conception. Prarce, NeEwcome, CAMPBELL, WuitBy, &c.— For a general view of the prophecies relating to the Messiah, see Horne’s Introduction, Vol. I. pp. 563. 641. sqq. See also Vol. BYP Cue, Ibid. διὰ τοῦ προφήτου. Lsatah vii. 14. The application of this passage is a remarkable instance of double sense in prophecy. In the first sense, it applied to a child to be born in the time of Isaiah, and to be a sign to Ahaz of his deliverance from two invading kings: in the latter it referred to the Messiah. In the former birth, there was nothing miraculous: the child was to be born of one who was a virgin when the prophecy was given, but who did not remain so afterwards. In the second, the mother was to be still a virgin when the child was born. The first ap- plication was marked by the limited time fixed by the prophet for the deliverance of the land: Jsaiah vii. 15. The second appli- cation was marked by the name Immanuel; which had no refer- ence to the first child. R. Narres. The Evangelist cites no more of the prophecy than relates to the miraculous birth of Christ ; the remainder being solely applicable in its primary acceptation. Ver. 23. ἡ παρθένος. The Jews endeavour to evade this pro- 22 MATTHEW I. 25. phecy by asserting, that the Hebrew πον, Olma, is not rightly translated virgin. The ancient Targumists, however, agree in referring the prediction to their Messiah ; and the word is trans- lated παρθένος, in their own Septuagint Version, which was made three hundred years before St. Matthew wrote his Gospel. Its derivation is also from DY, to hide or cover, in allusion to the Eastern custom of keeping their virgins apart from the company of men. Thus 2 Mace. ili. 19. ai κατάκλειστοι τῶν παρθένων. Compare Philo; Orat. in Flace. p. 757. A similar custom is well known to have prevailed among the early Greeks. It may also be observed, that the promise is given as a sign, in order to confirm the hopes of the house of David; to which a natural conception would scarcely amount. Licutroot, WuitTBy, Gro- TIUS. Ibid. καλέσουσι. They shall call; i. 6. it shall be called, oy it shall be: a personal for an impersonal verb. So Gen. xvi. 14. Exod. xv. 23. Isaiah ix. 6. Jerem. xxiii. 6. Neh. ii. 7. Micah 11. 4. Amos iv. 2. 4. and Luke xii. 20. See also above on v. 16. whence it will appear that the fulfilment of the prophecy depends not upon Christ’s being literally called Emmanuel, but upon his being so; i.e. God with us. Now such he really was, by ap- pearing on earth in his human nature, (John i. 14.); and that this is the true design of the application, is evident from the Evangelist himself, who has interpreted both the names, Jesus as well as Emmanuel ; to shew that the prophecy was fulfilled, not in the names themselves, but in the application of them. Some, indeed, have thought the word 177 and WN, Aish, and Jehovah, enter into the composition of the word YW; so that Jesus will signify the man Jehovah, or the Lord incarnate. But there can be no doubt, that the true derivation is that given under v. 16. Wuitsy, Licnutroot, Macknicut, Grorius. Ver, 25, ἕως οὗ ἔτεκε x. τ. X. We learn from the Rabbinical and Talmudistic writers, that the Jews applied the title of first- born to their Messiah. But from certain prerogatives attached to primogeniture, this title was equally given to those entitled to such prerogatives, whether the parents had issue afterwards or not. Compare Ewod. xiii. 2. xxxiv. 19. Neither does it follow, from the words of the Evangelist, that Joseph had any know- ledge of Mary, subsequent to the birth of Christ; although the turn of the expression clearly suggests the affirmative rather than the negative. For examples are to be found, in which the phrase of doing or not doing a thing, ¢é// some other thing come to pass, is used in cases where it also could not have been done after- wards: as, for instance, in Gen. viii. 7. 1 Sam. xv. 35. 2 Sam. vi. 23. Isaiah xxii. 14. It is clear, however, that these are not cases in point, inasmuch as they relate to things not done after- wards, because they could not be done afterwards; which is not MATTHEW II. 1. 23 so in the matter before us. At all events, it is in no wise impor- tant, perhaps it is impertinent to inquire, whether Mary had any other children besides Christ. The voice of antiquity speaks in the negative; and upon this supposition, that Joseph had no connexion whatever with his wife, somewhat of similarity has been observed in the conduct of the peasant of Colonus; (Eurip. Elect. 43. sqq.) and of Alexander towards Olympias, as related by Plutarch. Still the contrary opinion seems to have greater probability on its side, as the laws enjoined a strict fulfilment of _ the duties of the marriage-bed, (Exod. xxi. 10.); so that, as the angel imposed no restriction in this particular, it is not easy to conceive that he would have neglected them. See Selden de Uzxor. Hebr. III. 4. If they had no issue, which was probably the case under any consideration, wherever our Lord’s brethren are mentioned, the term must be understood of his near relations. — Wuitsy, CampseLtt.—[Licutroot, Grotius, Macknicur, WetstTeE1n.] The euphemism used in this passage is frequent in the O.T. See Gen. iv. 1. 17. 9ὅ, xxxviii. 26. Judges xix. 25. I Sam. i. 19. So the Greeks use γινώσκειν. See Callim. Epigr. 58. and Plutarch. passim. Thus also in Latin: Catull. Carm. LXXII. 1. Dicebas quondam solum te nosse Catullum, Lesbia. —E.sner, Kypxe, &c. | CHAPTER Il. ConTENTS:—Visit of the Eastern Magi, vv. 1, 2. Herod’s Suspicion, 83—8. Departure of the Magi, and the Flight of Joseph with the Child into Egypt, 8—15. The Murder of the Innocents, Herod's Death, Joseph's Return, and Change of Residence, 15—23. Ver. 1. τοῦ δὲ ᾿Ιησοῦ γεννηθέντος x. τ. A. When Jesus was born; i. 6. shortly after his birth. It will here be advisable to offer a brief statement upon the subjects of [THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE VISIT OF THE MAGI, AND THE NATIVITY OF CHRIST. The precise date of the arrival of the Magi is not agreed upon by ecclesiastical writers. Some fix it one, and others nearly two years after the Nativity; but the most probable opinion is that of Mr. Benson, who supposes that it took place between the 39th and 42d day from the birth of Christ. The impression which naturally arises from reading the narrative of Matthew, is the 10 a4 MATTHEW II. 1. close proximity of these occurrences; and this impression is strongly confirmed by the use of the aorist γεννηθέντος, followed by the word ἰδού. Compare vv. 13. 19. where precisely the same construction is employed, in relation to events immediately succeeding each other. To this effect is the express testimony of Justin; A. Ὁ. 150. in his Dialogue with Trypho; 303. ἅμα yao τοῦ γεννηθῆναι αὐτὸν, Μάγοι ἀπ᾽ ᾿Αραθίας παραγενόμενοι προσε- κύνησαν αὐτῷ. ἴῃ this view of the case, however, an objection arises from the unnecessary wantonness of Herod's cruelty, in extending the massacre of the Innocents to children from two years old and under, when he must have known that the object of his suspicion could not be more than two or three months old. It might be replied, that the character of Herod, as pourtrayed. by Josephus, would fully justify a belief in the extent of his barbarity, however ageravated. It appears, also, that the word διετὴς, v. 16. which occurs no where else in the N. T. or the LXX, admits of a sense which confines the murder to those who had completed their first year only; thus diminishing the enor- mity of the act by one half. Hesychius explains it, δύ ὅλον τοῦ ἔτους. The word διετήσιος also, according to the Lexicons, signifies qnnual; and διετίζω is used by Aristotle, Hist. Anim. IX. 5. of living a whole year. See also Horne’s Introd. Vol. lil. p. 177. This, however, is by no means decisive against the ordinary use of διετής ; and it is by no means improbable that the authorized translation is correct. It appears from a comparison of v. 7. with v. 16. that Herod’s edict was regulated by the answer of the Magi to his inquiry respecting the time at. which the star appeared. This we may easily believe to have happened some considerable time before they undertook their journey: during which time they may have been employed in meditating upon so singular an occurrence; and in making ar- rangements for their departure. It is evident that the visit of the Magi must have been after the presentation of Christ in the Temple; otherwise, their costly presents would have enabled Mary to have made the greater offering at her purification, in- stead of the lesser one, Luke ii. 24. The danger, also, of pre- senting Christ, after the alarm which was excited in Herod’s mind, and communicated to Joseph in the dream which warned him to fly into Egypt, is sufficient proof that the purification took place before that event. The wonders, however, which took place in the Temple at the presentation, and the prophetic declaration to Simeon and Anna, would have rendered Herod’s charge to the Magi useless, and the murder of the Innocents nugatory ; as the publicity which must have been given to those events, would have acquainted the Sanhedrim, whom Herod summoned upon this occasion, with the parents, condition, and abode of the child Jesus. Hence it is reasonable to conclude, that the Visit of the Magi was nearly cotemporary with the Presentation; and that, in all pro~ MATTHEW II. 1. 95 bability, these Eastern sages arrived at Jerusalem, and were sum- moned before Herod, a little before, and proceeded to Bethlehem, a little after the latter event. The child might have been presented in the morning; then returning to Bethlehem, a distance of little more than five miles, have received the Magi in the evening ; and set off for Egypt at night. Hence, as there is no reason to suppose that Mary delayed her purification beyond the legal period; i. e. after forty days from her delivery, the Visit of the Magi occurred between the thirty-ninth and forty-first day after the Nativity. [ - With respect to the Nativity itself, we are told in this verse that it happened in the days of Herod the king. Now Herod began his reign, according to Josephus, (Ant. XIV. 26.) in the consulship of Pollio and Calvinus, which corresponds with the year A. U.C. 714. J. P. 4674. It appears also from the same his- torian, (Ant, XIV. 24.) that he did not leave Jerusalem for Rome, where he was made king, till after the Pentecost of that year, which is fixed on the 9th of June. Hence the commencement of his reign must be between July and December ; J. P. 4674. Now he reigned thirty-seven years ;. (Joseph. Ant. XVII. 10. B. J. 1. 21.) 1. 6. more than thirty-six and less than thirty-eight years. Hence July, J. P. 4674+36—July, J. P. 4710. Again, Dec. J. P. 46744+38— Dec. J. P. 4712. Therefore, the latest period to which we can assign the death of Herod, is Dec. J. P. 4712; and the earliest is July, J. P. 4710. Now Josephus (Ant. XVII. 8.) mentions an eclipse of the moon, as happening at the time of the execution of the Rabbis, who pulled down the eagle which Herod had set over the gate of the Temple, which, by astro- nomical calculations, is fixed to the night of Mar. 13, 4710. It is certain that Herod was alive at this time, though, from the reports which prevailed, that he was either dying or dead, it is equally clear that his disease had made some progress. It may also be collected from the historian, that he died before some Passover. This, however, could not be the Passover which fell on Apr. 11, 4710, as he could not then have entered the thirty- seventh year of his reign. Neither could it be the Passover J. P. 4712, for, in this case, the banishment of Archelaus, which is fixed by Josephus (B. J. II. 7. 3.) to the ninth year of his reign, could not have happened J. P. 4719, as stated by Dio Cass. IV. p. 567. B. Hence, therefore, the death of. Herod, and, consequently, the birth of Christ, must have taken place before the Passover J. P. 4711. Further, in Matthew’s account of the Visit of the Magi, and the Massacre at Bethlehem, there is no allusion to Herod’s being, at that time, ill ; and Josephus in- forms us, (Ant. XVII. 8.) that popular opinion attributed his last illness to the vengeance of God, in consequence of his unparal- lelled cruelties and crimes, in the number of which the Massacre of the Innocents could not be omitted. -Hence, in the absence. 26 MATTHEW 11. 1. ef direct testimony, we may conclude, that this massacre pre- ceded the commencement of his disease. It is also deducible from the train of events in the narrative of the Jewish historian, that his affliction commenced no long time before the execution — of the Rabbis, on the 13th of March, J. P. 4710. Since, how- ever, it had made some progress at that time, a fair hypothesis will, perhaps, fix it about a month earlier; i. e. about Feb. 13th, J. P. 4710. Placing, therefore, the arrival of the Magi on or before this day, and reckoning forty days backwards, for the period of Mary’s purification, we fix the birth of Jesus on or before Jan. 3, J. P. 4710, i. e. rather more than a year before the death of Herod. Benson. See further on Luke iii. 1. Of the history and characters of Herod the Great, and others of his family mentioned in the N. T., see Horne’s Introduction, Vol. III. P. 11. Ch. 9. The dates of our Saviour’s Baptism and Crucifixion will be considered in their proper places. | Ver. 1. Βηθλέεμ τῆς Ἰουδαίας. See Horne’s Geographical Index; v. BETHLEHEM. Ibid. Μάγοι ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν. E. T. Wise properly, Eastern Magi. The term wise as the persons here spoken of were a particule mor Orientals, no less distinguished by their peculiar habits and pur- ria and Arabia, bordering upon Judea on the see Plin. N. H. XXX. 1. They constituted the p od, and were collected into colleges; devoting their tim exclusively to astronomy, or rather astrology; for whic kept a originally derived from the Institutions of Abraham, who purified them from the superstitious errors of the Zabian idolatry. This purity, however, became again corrupted; and was again re- stored by Zoroaster, who is supposed to have been an attendant upon the prophet Daniel, from whom he probably obtained that perfect acquaintance with the Mosaic writings, which his religion exhibits. It has been supposed that Zoroaster was divinely inspired; and that it was in consequence of a prediction, which he had delivered, that the Magi recognised the star which appeared at the Nativity. See Prideaux, Connection; Vol. I. B. IV. Hyde, de Relig. Vet. Pers. XXXI. It has been generally supposed, however, that they derived their information from the prophecy of the Arabian prophet, Balaam; Nemnb. xxiv. 17. which the Chaldee Paraphrast and Jewish commentators agree in referring to Christ) This prophecy might possibly suggest MATTHEW II. 1. 97 the enquiry which they made on their arrival at Jerusalem; ποῦ ἐστὶν ὃ τεχθεὶς βασιλεὺς τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. IV. p. 18. But from whatever source it originated, certain it is, that at this time a general expectation prevailed in the East, that a remarkable person would shortly be born, who would obtain the universal empire of the world. See Sueton. in Vespas. c. 4. Tacit. Hist. V. 13. Joseph. B. J. VI. 5.4. If, as is more generally believed, upon the authority of Justin Matryr, Tertullian, and Epiphanius, the Magi were Arabians; this ex- pectation was doubtlessly derived from the promise made _ to Abraham, whose descendants they were by Ishmael. It has been inferred, however, from Dan. v. 11. that they were CHAL- , DANS; but Chaldeea is always described as lying to the North, not to the East of Judza. Compare Jerem. i. 14, 15. vi. 22. Joel ii. 20. Alberti and others think that they were learned Jews, many of whom were resident in various parts of the East ; being the posterity of those who did not return home after the captivity. But if this had been the case, they could not have been ignorant of the prophecies respecting the place of their Messiah’s birth; and the Gentile world would have been left without any intimation of the approaching light of the Gospel, which was eventually to shine upon them, as well as upon the Jews. The opinion that they came from Arabia is confirmed by the circumstances that this country is called the East in Scrip- ture, as Judg. vi. 3. Job i. 3. and that it produces the gifts which the Magi offered to the infant Jesus; gold, frankincense, and myrrh. See Psalm Ixxii. 13. Virg. Georg. I. 57. AEn. I. 416. The Hebrew name of the Magi, O°, Mahghim, which occurs once in the O. T. in Isaiah viii. 19. is derived from the ΓΔ, hagah, to mutter; and, in a metaphorical sense, to medi- tate. 1e LXX render it by of ἀπὸ τῆς κοιλίας φωνοῦσι, in reference, as Le Clerc supposes, to their custom of muttering their prayers in a low voice, which seems to be alluded to by Herodot. I. 131. Macknight rather deduces it from the secondary sense of the verb. It is evident from the tenor of the passage, that the word is used by Isaiah in a bad sense, similar to the word magician, which has been derived from it. That the Magi, however, were originally persons of the highest repute, is evident from various ancient writers. See Xenoph. Cyrop. IV. 5. 16. Diog. Laert. I. 1—9. AZlian. V. H. 11. 17. IV. 20. Porphyr. de Abstin. IV. 16. Cicer. de Div. I. 23. Justin. I. 9. 7. XII. 13. 4. Q. Curt. V. 1.—The expression ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν is similar to of ἀπὸ τῆς Θεσσαλονίκης Ἰουδαῖοι, Acts xvii. 13. οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας, Heb. xiii. 24. So Virg. Georg. III. 2. Pastor ab Amphryso. Instead of the plural ἀνατολαὶ, which is more usually employed to signify the East, as in Matt. viii. 11. xxiv. 27. Luke xiii. 29. the singular ἀνατολὴ occurs in the next verse, as in Rev. xxi. 13. It is to be remarked, that the words ἐν τῇ 28 MATTHEW II. 2, 3. ἀνατολῇ refer to the situation of the Mag, not of the star ; unless we understand them, with some of the critics, of the rising of the star. In this case, however, the pronoun αὐτοῦ would properly have been added ; and ἀνατολὴ is not elsewhere used in this sense, except in reference to the sun or moon; asin Luke i. 79. Isaiah lx, 19. LXX. Ver, 2. αὐτοῦ τὸν ἀστέρα. There is a great diversity of opi- nion respecting this star. Lightfoot supposes that it was the glory of the Shechinah, and the same which appeared to the shepherds: Luke 11.9. Some of the ancients were of opinion, that it was the Holy Spirit; others suppose it was an angel; others a new star; others a comet; and others a meteor. ‘The latter opinion is most probable; and there is no doubt that the appearance, of whatever nature it might be, was miraculous, and that the course which the Magi were to pursue, was explained to them by revelation. The Jews had a very early tradition that a new star would appear at the coming of the Messiah; in accord- ance with which, the impostor in the time of Adrian took the name of Barchobas; i. e. the son of a star. The heathens thought that the rise of a new star portended the birth or death of a great personage. An opinion also prevailed among them that stars were sent by the gods as guides to their favourites in perplexed situations. Compare Apoll. Rhod. IV. 294. 564. Diod. Sic. XVI. p. 460. Plutarch. in Timoleon, p. 239. Virg. fEn. II, 692. sqq. See Virg. Eclog. IX. 47. Lucan. Phars. I. 527. Juven. Sat. VI. 407. Sueton. Cas. 88. Claud. 46. Vesp. 23. Tacit. Annal. XIV. 22. Ξ Ibid. προσκυνῆσαι αὐτῷ. Of the Eastern custom of prostra- tion before superiors, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 440. sqq. The same custom is also recognised in Greek and Latin authors. See Eurip. Phoen. 300. Helen. 275. Hence Cornel. Nep. Conon. 3. Necesse est enim, si in conspectum veneris, venerari te regem; quod προσκυνεῖν illi vocant. The verb προσκυνεῖν is also applied in a more exalted sense to the homage paid to God: as in Matt. iv. 9, 10. Luke iv. 7. John xii. 20. So also in Joseph. Ant. VI. 7. 5. προσκυνεῖ τῷ Θεῷ. In both senses the word is found both with a dative and an accusative; as Herod. I. 134, Arist. Plut. 771. Instead of προσκυνεῖν in a religious sense, the synonymous verb προσπίτνειν is sometimes used. _ Compare Matt. viii. 2. ix. 18. with Luke v. 12. viii. 48, Origi- nally the English word worship was applied in the double sense of adoration and respect. Ver. 3. πᾶσα ἹἹεροσόλυμα. As Ἱεροσόλυμα is always neuter in the N.T., it is clear that ἡ πόλις is here understood. Kypke, however, adduces two passages from Josephus, in which he sup- poses it to be feminine: but in the first, Cont. Apion. I. p. 1047, MATTHEW II. 4, 5, 6. 29 the true reading is Ἱερουσαλήμ; and in the other, B. J. VIT: 18. the participle ἁλοῦσα is referred to Ιεροσόλυμα, by the figure πρὸς TO σημαινόμενον, which is common in the best writers. An ellipsis of πόλις is not unusual; more particularly when the name of the country follows in the genitive; as in vv. 1. 5. The verb ταράττειν, in this passage, has been supposed to be applied in senses somewhat different to Herod and Jerusalem respectively, but without reason. The same emotion was excited in both cases, though from different causes. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 98. It may be observed also, that the consternation of the Jews may have arisen from a traditional belief, which appears to have prevailed among them, that the reign of the Messiah would be preceded by a long series of national calamities. M1pDLETON, SCHOETGEN. Ver. 4. ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ γραμματεῖς. That is, the Sanhedrim. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. Part II. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. §. 3. Also Part III. Ch. II. Sect. 2. and Ch. VI. Sect. II. Ver, 5. διὰ τοῦ προφήτου Micah ν. 2. This prophecy cor- responds neither with the Hebrew original or the LXX. Micha- elis supposes that the Scribes gave an explanation, rather than a literal translation, of the passage to Herod, for the incorrectness of which, if it be incorrect, the Evangelist is in no ways answer- able. But see Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. pp. 396. 443. note ; and Vol. IV. p.-181. Ver. 6. γῆ Ἰούδα. City of Judah. The E. T. translates as if the reading were γῇ in the dative. Of γῆ in the sense of πόλις, we have frequent examples in the Greek tragedians. Asch. Theb. 101. προδώσεις τὰν τέαν γᾶν. Schol. πόλιν. So also Eurip. Pheen. 6. 252. Ion. 264. Suppl. 399. compare v. 405. The Hebrew WY, is also rendered γῆ in Jerem. xxix. 7. xxxiv. 22. and elsewhere. KuInoEL, KyYPKE. Ibid. ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν. The Hebrew is 398, Alphi, which is rendered by the LXX χιλίασιν, the thousands. “Some have supposed that the true reading of the Hebrew is ON, Alufi, which is derived from the same verb, and translated ἡγεμόνες in Gen. xxxvi. 15. Exod. xv. 15. 1 Chron. i. 51. LXX. But the Jews being divided into thousands, the word is often used to signify a tribe, or family, as in Judg. vi. 15. and as over each of these thousands a prince or chief presided, (Ewod. xviii. 25. 1 Sam. x. 19.) the heads of such families may here imply, by synecdoche, the families themselves. The verb ποιμαίνειν in the sense of regere, originated in the days of primitive simplicity, and is amply illustrated in Homer’s ποιμὴν λαῶν, 1]. A. 265. et passim. Hence Maxim. Tyr. Diss. XL. p. 406. Κῦρος μὲν γὰρ ἡγεῖται Περσῶν ὡς ποιμὴν θρεμμάτων. See also Lzek, xxxiv. 90 MA TEE EW dh: 7,°6.' 10) M, 12, 23, 24. It is here well applied to the pastoral nature of the Messiah’s kingdom, John x. 14, xxi./6, Ver. 7. ἠκρίβωσε παρ᾽ αὐτῶν. Obtained from them exact in- formation. So again νυ. 16. The phrase ἀκριβοῦν τι is used in this sense in Herodian. I. 11. 14. AZlian. Hist. An. III. 9, Schleusner understands the expression in this sense only in v. 16, making it here synonymous with ἀκριβῶς ἐξετάζειν. So also the E. T. in both places, but improperly. Ver. 8. πορευθέντες ἐξετάσατε. Infra v. 23. ἐλθὼν κατῴκησε. The participles of verbs of motion are frequently used ρ]θοπαβίῖ-᾿ cally with finite verbs. So Xenoph. Mem. III. 9.9. σύ γ᾽ ἰὼν τὴν κατὰ σαυτὸν ἔλα. Thucyd. III. 73. ἐσηγεῖται ἐλθὼν τοῖς ἐν τέλει οὖσιν. Compare also Hom. Il. N. 9. Herod. VIII. 225. Arist. Νὰ. 99. Vesp. 789. Soph. Phil. 353. But although in these expressions the participle seems to convey no peculiar sense, it is to be remarked that the idea of quickness is meant to be conveyed by it, See Matt. Gr. Gr. 8. 557, Ver. 10. ἐχάρησαν χαράν, See my note on Soph. Ant. 551. Pent. Gr. p. 247. Ver. 11. θησαυρούς. Caskets. The word is used in this sense in Herod. 11. 51. 121. 150. 111. 37. IV. 162. (See Valck. in loc.) Xenoph. Anab. V. Pausan. VI. 19, X. 11. Herodian. IJ. 6. 11. III. 18. 9. Joseph. Ant. IX. 8. 2. Hesych. θησαυρός" εἰς ἀγαλμάτων Kal χρημάτων ἢ ἱερῶν ἀπόθεσιν οἶκος. In the same sense we have γαζοφυλάκιον, 1 Mace. iii. 28, 29. ἀποθήκη, zek. xxvill. 18, LXX. Scuieusner, Werstein. Of the custom which prevailed in the East, of never approaching their kings without a present, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 90. It has been supposed that the gifts which the Magi brought to Christ were emblematic of his character: gold being offered as to a king, frankincense as to a God; and myrrh, being principally used in embalming, as indicating his death. The occurrence itself seems to have been peculiarly providentiz , as furnishing eir journey to his parents with the means for undertaking th Egypt. Doppriner. Inthe beginning of the verse some copies have εὗρον instead of εἴδον, but all the old MSS. and EDD. have zidov, which is unquestionably the true reading. Ver. 12. χρηματισθέντες. The verb χρηματίζεσθαι, in the passive, signifies, throughout the N. T. divénitus moneri. Hence Theophylact on this passage: χρηματίζεσθαι" παρὰ Θεοῦ ἀποκά- λυψιν δέχεσθαι. Hesych. ἐχρηματίσθη" προεφητεύθη. Sometimes the source of the revelation is specified; and here also ὑπὸ Θεοῦ is evidently understood, though not expressed. Compare Luke ii. ΜΑΤΤΗΒΕΎῪ 1]. 18. 1, 16. 31 26. Acts x. 22. Heb. viii. 5. xi. 7. xii. 25. So also Joseph. Ant. X. 1. 3. χρηματίσαντος αὐτῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ. In classic writers the verb χρηματίζειν signifies to transact, or debate on public busi- ness; from χρῆμα, negotium; as Thucyd. V. 5. ἐχρήματισε περὶ φιλίας τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις. Compare Arist. Thesm. 377. Elian. V. H. II. 15. Ill. 4. 1X. 3. Polyb. Hist. 27. Hence, so to act, as to acquire a name thereby; and so to be surnamed, or called, generally. So Diod. Sic. p. 761. διάδημα περιέθετο καὶ τὸ λοιπὸν ἐχρημάτιζε βασιλεύς. The active verb occurs only twice in the N. T. and in this signification: Acts xi. 26. Rom. vil. 3. In other writers the verb yoaw signifies oraculum edo. Ver. 13. εἰς Αἴγυπτον. Egypt was pitched upon as the place of Christ’s refuge, from its proximity to Bethlehem, and its being at the same time out of Herod’s jurisdiction. Besides, there were many Jews in Egypt, (Jerem. xliii.) particularly in Alexandria, where they had built a temple; so that Joseph would reside among them in perfect safety. Wertstemn, Macknicut, Licutroot. In the end of the verse ἕνεκα is understood. Ver. 15. ἕως τῆς τελευτῆς. Scil. τοῦ βίου. The same ellipsis occurs after the verb τελευτᾷν, infra ν. 19, Luke vii. 9, So also frequently in the classics. The omission is supplied in Eur. Hee. 419. wot τελευτήσω βίον ; In the same manner jfinis is used elliptically for Μηδ vita in Tacit. Annal. VI. 25. and the verb finire, ibid. 51. Τρία. ἐξ Αἰγύπτου κι τ. Δ. These are the words of Hos. xi. 1. not of Balaam, Numb. xxiv. 8. They are not cited by St. Mat- thew merely by way of application or accommodation: but, re- ferring primarily to the deliverance of the children of Israel out of Egypt, they were secondarily and figuratively fulfilled in the person of Christ. That Israel was a type ‘of Christ appears from Exod. iv. 22. where he is called by God his son, his first born; whence also Israel is put for Christ, Isa. xlix. 3. Now as a prophetical prediction is then fulfilled, when what was foretold is come to pass, so a type is then fulfilled, when that is done in the anté- type which was before done in the type. [0 is no objection that the remainder of the prophecy does not belong to Christ, as Matthew only notices the resemblance between the type and anti- type, in that both were called out of Egypt. Wuirsy. Ver. 16. ἐνεπαίχθη. Was mocked; i. 6. deceived. The Jews generally characterized any disrespectful treatment as mockery. Compare Gen. xxxix. 14, 17. Numb. xxii. 22./ Judg. xvi. 10. After ἀποστείλας there is an ellipsis of the word τινας, scil. officers, or soldiers. Bos supplies ἀγγέλους. The same con- struction occurs in Plutarch, de Educat. XIV. 80. καὶ ὁ μὲν πέμψας ἀνεῖλε τὸν Θεόκριτον. Inthe same manner the Latins omit 92 MATTHEW II. 17, 18. 20. quendam or quosdam. Justin. V. 9. miserunt, qui eum intercipe- rent. The example from Acts xix. 31. and the like, cited by Bos, are not precisely analogous. In rove παῖδας the masculine article plainly denotes that the male children only were slain. Instances indeed occur where the masculine article is used with nouns of the common gender in reference to the whole species, both male and female; but in these cases the application is ge- nerally manifest from the subject or occasion. Besides, the his- torian seems purposely to have changed the word παιδίον, which is also used for εὐδία in this chapter; as that word, being neuter, could not mark the distinction of sex. Neither would it have fur- thered Herod’s purpose to have slaughtered female children, as they could not have become kings of Israel. The term ἀπὸ διετοῦς is considered in v. 1. Of the motives which induced Herod to issue this barbarous order, and of the silence of Jo- sephus upon the subject, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 98. and Vol. I. p. 629. (Append. No. 3. §. 7.) respectively. Ver. 17. τότε ἐπληρώθη. This citation is evidently only an accommodation of the prophecy of Jerem. xxxi. 15. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. p. 458. The prediction itself applies only. to Nebuzaradan at Ramah, the only place named by the peor te whereas the massacre of the infants was at Bethlehem. Besides, the persons to whom the prophecy applies were not slaughtered, but, on the contrary, their return from captivity is expressly fore- told, vv. 16, 17. The adaptation, however, of the prediction to the murder of the innocents, has a peculiar beauty in it. Rachel being: buried in the fields of Bethlehem, (Gen. xlviii. 7.) is re- presented, in a poetical hyperbole, as awaked by the cries of her children, who were slaughtered near her. Others have sup- posed that the prophecy is not simply accommodated by St. Mat- thew, but that it received a second and more perfect fulfilment in the event here recorded. Marsu, Macxnicut, Licurroor, Grortius.—[Wuirsy, MicHakLis. | Ver. 18. θρῆνος καὶ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὀδυρμός. In some of the copies the words θρῆνος καὶ are wanting, and the Vulgate has only Ploratus et ululatus multus. The LXX has the passage in full, though there are but two corresponding words in the original. The accumulated expression, which Matthew adopted from the Greek translation, beautifully expresses the aggravated grief of the mourners. Of the expression οὐκ εἶναι, signifying to be dead, see my note on Hom. 1]. B. 641. τὰ Ver. 90. τεθνήκασι γὰρ οἱ ζητοῦντες x. τ. Δ. The same words. are used of Moses in Ewod. iv. 19. Licurroot, Grorius. It is evident that Herod only is intended; the plural instead of the singular, in cases of emphasis, being frequently employed by the ΜΑΙ. 99. }ΠῚ. 1. 90 best writers. See my note on Soph. Cid. T. 336. Pent. Gr. peok: Ver. 22. ᾿Αρχέλαος. He had the government of Judea, Sa- maria, and Idumza, under the title of Hthnarch. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. I. p. 204. III. p.98. The adverb ἐκεῖ is sometimes used, which Gataker denies, to denote motion ¢o a place, for ἐκεῖσε. Herod. I. 121. ἐλθὼν δὲ ἐκεί, πατέρα τε καὶ μητέρα εὑρή- σεις. Compare Arrian, Epict. III. 96. Achil. Tat. II. 89. Polyb. I. 26. Thucyd. III. 71. Xenoph. Cyrop. VII. 1. 16. WetsteIn, Eisner, ΚΎΡΚΕ. Ver. 23. εἰς πόλιν. For ἐν πόλει. 80 Joseph. Ant. XX. 1. τοὺς εἰς τὴν Περαίαν κατοικοῦντας ᾿Ιουδαίους. ‘The true reading is Ναζαρέθ. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 341. Ibid. ὅτι Ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται. In order to illustrate this passage, some of the commentators have found a coincidence be- tween the gentile noun here employed and the Hebrew name for a Nazarite ; and others derive it from: a word: signifying branch, in reference to the prophecy of Lsazah, xi. 1. But the most probable interpretation is that given in Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. p. 391. note. Dr. Middleton would translate the Nazarene κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν- The article could not be inserted in the Greek. See on Ch. I. 1. on the Greek article, ὃ. 11. 2. p. 10, CHAPTER III. ConTENTS:—JoHN THE Baptist; his Manner of Life, and Ministry, vv. 1—12. [Mark i. 2—8. more fully Luke iii. 1—19.] The Baptism of Christ, vv. 13—17. [Mark i. 9—11. Luke 1. 21—23. ] Verse 1. ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις. In those days, i. e. some time before Christ left Nazareth, the last thing mentioned being his residence in that city; and the events in this and the preceding chapter being connected by the particle δέ, The particle indeed is wanting in several MSS., but it is nevertheless undoubtedly genuine; as it is far easier to account for its omission than its insertion. Now John was about six months older than Christ, and as each most probably entered upon their ministry in his 30th year, according to the practice of the Levitical law, (Nemb. iv. 3.) it may fairly be conjectured that the former entered upon his ministry so much earlier. See on Luke iii. 1. The use of ἡμέραι in the plural is not unusual in the N. T. as, for instance, VOL. I. D 94 MATTHEW III. 1. in Matt. xxiii. 30. Luke ii. 6. xix. 42. et passim; but it is ex- tremely rare in Attic. We have, however, ἐν ὑστέραισιν ἡμέραις, /Esch. Agam. 1656. for which Sophocles says ἐν ὑστέρῳ χρόνῳ, CEd. C. 641. Also Thucyd. VII. 33. περὶ τὰς αὐτὰς ἡμέρας. Pind. Ol. 1. 3. ἁμέραι δ᾽ ἐπίλοιποι μάρτυρες σοφώτατοι. See Blomfield’s Gloss. on Aisch. 1. 6. In the same sense we find allis diebus, Virg. Ain. 11. 340. Liv. XX VII. 15. Campsext, SCHLEUSNER. Ibid. ὃ Βαπτιστῆς. A title of his office, not a proper name, but equivalent to ὃ βαπτίζων, Mark vi. 14, That baptism had been in use among the Jews as a religious ordinance, before the ministry of John, has been disputed by the learned; though it should seem without reason. The fact is not expressly asserted | in Scripture; but there is still very little doubt that it formed part of the ceremony of the admission of Gentile proselytes into the Jewish religion. The Persians were not only acquainted with the rite, but practised it upon infants. Pro infantibus utun- tur Baptismo, seu lotione, ad anime purificationem internam: Hyde de Rel. vet. Pers. c. 34. It is therefore highly probable that the Jews, with whom several Oriental customs prevailed, re- tained this among the rest. The Talmuds indeed affirm that ὦ person is not a proselyte till he be both circumcised and bap- tized, and a convert to Judaism is expressly called by Arrian βεβαμμένος, (Epict. II. 9.) which seems decisive on the subject. Besides, there is allusion to the use of baptism in the consecra- tion of priests more than once in the O. T. (Levit. viii. 6. Exod. xxix. 4.) and it was confidently expected from a passage in Zech. xiii. 1. that it would form part of the office of the Messiah, or those connected with him. See John i. 25. In short, the very manner in which the account of John’s baptism is introduced by the Evangelist is alone sufficient to prove that its use was already familiar to those for whom he wrote. The term itself is used without the slightest explanation; his disciples make no enquiry respecting the nature of the rite, and the only doubt that seems to have arisen in their minds relates to the authority of John in administering it. It must be allowed that they had a very poor idea of the real intent and signification of the ceremony, from which they ought to have inferred the necessity of a change in their opinions and practices, similar to that required of the bap- tized proselyte, together with an entire and exclusive reception of the religion of the Gospel, into which they were received with the same forms as those with which the Jewish converts renounced the errors of Heathenism and Idolatry, and conformed to the Mosaic dispensation. Licurroor, Macxnicut, Wairsy. Ibid. ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ τῆς lovdaiac. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. Part I. Ch. 11. δ. 8. The participle κηρύσσων is here pro- perly applied to the Baptist as the herald or harbinger of the Messiah ; and wherever the verb or its derivatives are used in the MATTHEW III. 2. 35 N. T. or the LXX, it is almost universally in reference to a thing published or proclaimed. In the present instance the Baptist’s proclamation is contained in the words of the succeeding verse. Compare Matt. iv. 17. x. 7. Luke xxiv. 47. Acts xxviii. 31. Jonah iii. 2. LXX. Hence the word is distinct from εὐαγγελίζω, to preach the Gospel, καταγγέλλω, to announce, λαλέω, to speak, διαλέγομαι, to discourse, ana διδάσκειν, to teach; all of which are rendered ¢o preach in the Εἰ. T. CampBe.t. Ver, 2. μετανοεῖτε. E. T. Repent ye. In this translation no great impropriety exists, as it is generally agreed among theolo- gians that the repentance inculcated in the Gospel comprehends such a reformation of life as will be permanent and lasting. The verb μετανοεῖν includes this comprehensive sense, denoting a change for the better; in which it differs essentially from perapé- λεσθαι, which implies simply a change, whether it be for the better or the worse. Inthe LX X indeed the two verbs are synonymously employed; but there is a marked distinction between them in the N. T. the first corresponding more nearly with the English to reform, the latter with to repent. The difference is obvious: every one who reforms repents; but every one who repents does - not necessarily reform. Hence, wherever the change of mind, which the preposition μετὰ denotes, is inculcated as a duty, or the necessity of it stated as a doctrine of Christianity, the terms are invariably μετανοεῖν and peravora. Compare Mark vi. 12. Luke xiii. 3. 5. Acts ii. 38. xxvi. 20. and elsewhere. On the other hand, whenever a mere sorrow is intended, which does not necessarily imply reformation, these terms are never used, but always μεταμέλεσθαι and μεταμέλεια. Thus, the repentance of Judas, which drove him to despair, is expressed by μεταμεληθεὶς, Matt. xxvii. 3. In 2 Cor. vii. 10. St. Paul has employed both words, so as clearly to mark the difference: ἡ κατὰ θεὸν λύπη μετάνοιαν εἰς σωτηρίαν ἀμεταμέλητον κατεργάζεται. Had the two words been convertible the Apostle would doubtless have used the adjective ἀμετανόητον, as in Rom. ii. 5. in order to preserve the paranomasia, which is given, but improperly, in the E. T. It is the opinion of Grotius that this distinction is not well founded, but the passages upon which he forms his judgment, viz. Matt. xxi. 29. Heb. xii. 17. are not to the point. CAMPBELL. Ibid. ἤγγικε yao κι τ. X. The synonymous expressions ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, and ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, which recur per- petually in the N. T. are not only used to denote in their most direct sense, the regions of endless felicity in heaven, as in Matt. v. 10. 12. vii. 21, 22, 23. Mark ix. 46, 47. and elsewhere, but also, in manifest allusion to the prophecies of the O. Τ᾿. and par- ticularly Dan. ii. 44. vii. 13, 14. to represent the spiritual king- dom of Christ, or the Gospel dispensation. This latter sense evidently belongs to this place; and so also Matt. iv. 17. x. 7. D2 90 MATTHEW III. 3, 4. Luke x. 9. xvii. 21. and elsewhere, where it is said to be at hand; again, when Christ is said to preach the Gospel of the kingdom, as in Mark i. 14. Luke xvi. 16. and elsewhere ; in almost all the parables that speak of it, and probably in Matt. xi. 11, 12. xiii. 11. 19. 52. xvi. 19. xx. 21. xxiii. 13. Mark xii. 34. _ Luke xiv. 15. In some places it is doubtful which of the two senses is to be affixed to the term. See Matt. v. 3.19, 20. vi. 33. viii. 11. xix. 12.24. Markx. 14, 15.23. sqq. Luke xviii. 29. xxii. 29. That the two expressions are synonymous is evident from Matt. iv. 17. v. 3. xi. 11. xiii. 11. xix. 14. with Luke vi. 20. Marki. 15. Luke vii. 28. Mark iv. 11. x. 14. respectively. It is clear that the English word singdom does not clearly designate the latter of the two acceptations in which the phrase is used, as denoting the epoch or era of the Gospel dispensation, which would be more correctly expressed by the word reign. It is proper to remark that the form, ἤγγικε yao, used first by the Baptist, then by our Lord himself, and lastly by his disciples in his life-time, is never re- peated after his resurrection. It is also to be observed, that ov- ῥανὸς in the singular implies simply ¢he sky, whereas οὐρανοὶ, in the plural, is equivalent to the Hebrew reduplication DYIW Iw, i. e. the heaven of heavens, the throne of God, and thence meta- phorically, God himself; as in Dan. iv. 26. Psal. \xxiii. 9. Wuitsy, Licurroot, Camppett. The perfect ἤγγικε is here used for the present. See Matt. Gr. Gr. ὃ. 500. Viger, de Idiom. p. 166, and Hermann ad loc. Ver. 8. Ἡσαίου τοῦ προφήτου. Chap. xl. 3. The words of the Evangelist agree in sense, though not exactly in terms, both with the Hebrew and the LXX. Instead of αὐτοῦ the LXX reads τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν, with which the Hebrew agrees, and adds in the desert. We have the same citation in Mark i. 3. and more at length in Luke iii. 4—6. The custom to which the prophet alludes is amply illustrated in Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. pp. 92, 93, . Ver. 4. ἔνδυμα ἀπὸ τριχῶν καμήλου. There were two species of cloth made of camel’s hair: of the finer hair a beautiful stuff was manufactured, similar to that which is now, though made of wool, called camlet ; and of the long shaggy hair a much coarser material was made, of a texture somewhat like that of the cloth now used to lay over goods. Of this latter, no doubt, was the garment worn by the Baptist, and the like, as Chardin assures us, together with great leathern girdles, are worn by the Eastern dervises to this day. According to the Rabbinical writers, the Nazarites wore a similar garment: but though John was a Nazarite, it is more probable that he used the habit in question in imitation of the prophets, (Zech. xiii. 4.) and more especially of Elijah, who was clad in precisely the same way. See 2 Kingsi. 8. In the MAY Th EW: TLE ὅ. 1. 37 austerity of his life also he closely resembled his illustrious proto- type. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. IV. p. 148. And it was the idea which prevailed among the Jews, that John was a prophet, toge- ther with the prevailing expectation of the Messiah’s approaching advent, which was mainly instrumental in drawing their attention to his ministry, (Matt. xi. 16. xxi. 25.) In concurrence with this belief his divine commission is opened in the same form as that with which the prophets in the O. T. asserted their authority. Compare Luke 111. 2. with Jerem. 1. 94. Ezek. i. 3. vi. 1. vii. 10, Joseph Ben Gorton expressly calls him a prophet; and from the habit which he assumed, the austerities which he practised, and the office which he filled, he revived in every respect the spirit of prophecy, which had been lost to Israel for a space of 400 years. Licutrroot, CAMPBELL, GRoTIUS. Ibid. ἄκριδες. Locusts. Bochart mentions ten different kinds of these animals in the Scriptures. Some of these were permitted by the law to be eaten, Levit. xi. 22. and there is no doubt that they were used for food by several of the Eastern nations, and are so still to this day. Diodorus Sic. XXIV. 3. mentions a people of “Ethiopia who were called Acridophagi ; and Bochart observes, Hieroz. II. 4. 7. that locusts were a common meat in Palestine. See also Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 71. There is no sufficient reason for supposing that John’s food consisted of any other than these insects; or that the fruit of the locust-tree, or wild pears, are here intended. In support of these conjectures, which have been supported by Dr. W. Knatchbull and others, much learned research has been wasted, and alterations in the text proposed, which are wholly unnecessary, and not very probable. Wurrtsy, Macxnicut.—[Hammonp.] The wild honey, μελι ἄγριον, which constituted another part of the Baptist’s food, was procured from the clefts of rocks and hollow trees, where it had been depo- sited by immense swarms of wild bees, and whence in hot weather it bursts from the comb, and flows down in great purity and plenty. Josephus calls the country near Jericho χώρα μελιττό- toopoc. See also Shaw’s Travels, p. 337. Maundrell, p. 24. Reland’s Palestine, p. 374. Some have supposed that the honey here meant is a sweet syrop procured from dates, mentioned by Joseph. B. J. V. 3. and called by some writers palm honey. See Bochart Hieroz. Vol. III. p. 377. But it appears from Pliny, N. H. XXIII. 4. and other writers, that this was not altogether wholesome, and sometimes attended with unpleasant effects, so that the honey of bees is doubtless to be understood in this place. Ligurroor, Macknicut, WETSTEIN, &c. Ver. 5. ἡ περίχωρος τοῦ Ιορδάνου. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. IIL. p. 54. Ver. 7. γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν. In allusion, probably, to Gen. 98 MATTHEW III. 8, 9. iii. 15. where wicked men are called the seed of the serpent, i. e. of the Devi; unless the use of the plural seems rather to imply _ sinners in general. The word ἔχιδνα is employed in a meta- phorical sense, closely analogous to that of the Scriptures, in the classic authors. Compare Asch. Choeph. 243. 981. Soph. Ant. 531. Phil. 1106. Eurip. Alcest. 309. Androm. 271. Ion. 1262. The expression employed by the Baptist is evidently opposed to their presumptuous boast, of being the children of Abraham, v. 9. It is supposed by some that the question contained in the words τίς ὑπέδειξεν ὑμῖν x. τ. A. implies a strong negation ; but it is rather expressive of admiration that men should do things so contrary to their natural tempers and inclinations. It is probable that the Pharisees and Sadducees offered themselves to John’s baptism, with a view of escaping that punishment, φυγεῖν ἀπὸ τῆς μελλού- σης ὀργῆς, which they expected to fall on the enemies of Christ, in the approaching establishment of his kingdom. Malach. iv. 6. {t has been supposed, however, that they intended to obtain sub- jects of information against the Baptist, for the purpose of ac- cusing him to the Sanhedrim. Of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and Jewish sects in general, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. Part 3. Ch. vi. §. 2. The verb ὑποδείκνυμι properly signifies to shew, and thence to énstruct, to advise. Compare Luke vi. 47. xii. 5. 2 Chron. xv. 3. Job vi. 24, Prov. iv. 4. LUXX. A difference has sometimes been supposed to exist between the simple participle μέλλων and μέλλων ἔσεσθαι. But where μέλλων is placed by itself, the verb ἔσεσθαι is always understood. Instances of each usage are without number: 6. g. Demosth. c. Mid. 8. 33. τὸν μέλλοντα ἀγῶνα. Wuitsy, MackNIGHrT. Ver. 8. καρπὸν ἄξιον. This is doubtless the true reading. It is found in the old EDD. and best MSS. Some copies have καρ- ποὺς ἀξίους in the plural, as in Luke iii. 8. whence it was most probably inserted by some ignorant transcriber in this place. The expression καρπὸν ποιεῖν is generally considered an Hebraism. Compare Gen. i. 11. It is found, however, in some classic writers; and the metaphorical use of καρπὸς, which frequently recurs in the N. T. is sanctioned by Demosthenes, p. 328. ed. Reiske, ταύτης (τῆς μελέτης) τοὺς καρποὺς ἔδει καλοὺς καὶ γενναίους καὶ πᾶσιν ὠφελίμους εἶναι. WETSTEIN, SCHLEUSNER. Ver. 9. πατέρα ἔχομεν τὸν ᾿Αβραάμ. The Jews at this time were immersed in the lowest depths of moral and religious de- pravity. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. Part III. Ch. 6. §. 3. This degeneracy was materially owing to the strength of certain prejudices, to which their traditions and their perversions of the Scriptures had given rise. Among these in particular may be noticed the persuasion which they had imbibed, and to which the Baptist here alludes, that they were irreversibly certain of the MATTHEW III. 10. 39 divine favour, from which they totally excluded the Gentiles, in consideration of their descent from Abraham. The benefits de- rived from their patriarchal ancestor were considered as uni- versal, and extending alike to saint and sinner. They enter- tained a ridiculous notion, a perversion probably of Jerem. xxxi. 35. that Abraham sat by the gates of Hell, and permitted no wicked Israelite to descend into tt. See Talmud. ‘The Chaldee paraphrasts also assert that Hell fire hath no power over sinners of Israel, because Abraham and Isaac descend thither to fetch them thence.- Pococke’s Miscel. pp. 172. 227. The belief of these absurd doctrines had taken such fast hold upon their minds, that it was necessary for Justin Martyr, in the second century, to dissuade them from listening to their Rabbins, who told them, that being Abraham's seed, the kingdom of Heaven would be given to them, even though they continued in disobedience and unbelief: Dial. Tryph. From whatever sources they derived these opinions, they clearly overlooked the conditionalturn of the promise, (Gen. xviii. 19.) with which the declarations of the Bap- tist exactly coincide. Wuitsy, Ligntroot, Doppripce. The phrase δοκῶ λέγειν occurs in Xenoph. Mem. IV. 2. 20. Itseems to be pleonastic, as we have δοκεῖν εἶναι for simply εἶναι. So also δοκεῖν φαίνεσθαι, Xen. Mem. II. 1. 22. Cyrop. VIII. 3. 24. It may also be considered as an Hebraism, for the same form occurs frequently in the Talmud. So also the expression λέγειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, which is found in Esther vi. 6. LXX. Licutroort, Grotius, KuINoEL. Ibid. ἐκ τῶν λίθων τούτων x. τ. A. The early fathers seem to have understood this expression figuratively, in reference to the idolatry of the Gentiles, who worshipped stones, (Clem. Alex. Prohept. p. 3.) or from the hardness of their hearts, (Jerome,) so that the Baptist meant to assert that God could raise up chil- dren to Abraham even from among the heathen, who, as the spi- ritual seed intended in the promised blessing, would be received into God’s favour instead of the rejected Jews. It has also been supposed that John meant to designate the multitude around him; the uneducated vulgar being frequently compared to stones. Thus Plaut. Mil. Glor. II. 2. 81. neque habet plus Sapientie, quam lapis. Other instances are cited by Wetstein. The most pro- bable opinion seems to be, that the words are a general affirmation of the omnipotence of God, who had originally created man from the dust of the earth, and had already given a child to Abraham miraculously, and could therefore raise up children to the Patri- arch, even from the dust under their feet. See also om. iv. Wuirtsy, Licutroot, MacknicutT. Ver. 10. ἤδη δὲ καὶ x. τ. XA. And even now, 80. The powerful language in which John delivers this declaration, and the forcible construction of the passage, seems to point to a period of desola- 40 MATTHEW ΠΠ. 11. tion which was at no great distance. It was a warning, therefore, which would fall in with their apprehensions of impending danger, and would naturally induce them to adopt the means of deliverance. ‘The construction of the verse is in the present tense, κεῖται, ἐκκόπτεται, βάλλεται. In v. 12. it changes to the future, διακαθαριεῖ, συνάξει, κατακαύσει. It may, therefore, be in- ferred that the denunciation is twofold, referring, primarily, to the approaching destruction of Jerusalem, and, finally, to the day of judgment. There is, probably, an allusion in this passage to Lsad. x. 33. xi. 1. which the Jews applied to the Messiah, and thence inferred that he would come immediately upon the destruction of Jerusalem. Scumipius, Ligutroot, Grorius, Ver. 11. ἐν ὕδατι. The preposition is redundant, or equiva- lent with σὺν, as in Soph. (4. T. 821. Hom. Il. A. 586. See Matt. Gr. Gr. §. 401. Obs. 2. Campbell renders it in, and com- pares ἐν τῷ ᾿Ιορδάνῃ, v. 6. observing also that the verb βαπτίζειν means to dip, or immerse, and that the baptized are said ἀναβαί- νειν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος, v. 16. But the cases are not exactly in point, since to zmmerse in fire, or in the Holy Ghost, is neither intelligible nor possible; nor is the rendering altogether recon- cileable with his own opinion, which seems to be extremely just, that the present verse represents the manner in which Christ will admit his disciples, and the next that in which he will judge them at the end of the world. The baptism ἐν τῷ 1ορ- δάνῃ designates the place, and ἐν τῷ ὕδατι the manner of the ceremony. The words καὶ πυρὶ are wanting in many MSS. but they are doubtless genuine, being found in some of the older versions and MSS. and having been probably rejected because they are wanting in Mark i. 8. Wakefield and others translate with a holy wind and with a fire ; urging that the article is gene- rally used when the Holy Spirit is meant, and that the following verse, which he considers as an illustration of the present, re- quires such an interpretation. But the ensuing verse is a con- sequence, and not an illustration of the present, and the article can decide nothing in the present instance. See on Mat, i. 18, where the fifth sense adduced is that which applies here. ‘The Holy Spirit in his personal acceptation cannot, but his énfluence may, be associated with fire. MIDDLETON. [on THE BAPTISMS OF JOHN THE BAPTIST AND THE MESSIAH. It is plain from this passage that John’s baptism was not the same in substance with that of Christ. As John was sent to make ready for the appearance of the Messiah, so may the rite which he admi- nistered be considered as preparatory to the more efficient ordi- nance of our Lord. The Baptist himself did not affirm that any of those spiritual gifts were annexed to his ministry, which certainly were conferred upon the disciples of Jesus by the descent of the MATTHEW 19: 41 Holy Ghost. He baptized with water only, thereby affording an emblematic representation of that internal purity which would be required in every member of the Christian covenant. His was only the outward visible sign; Christ's was the inward spiritual grace, openly shed upon the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, when this declaration of John respecting the Messiah’s baptism was fulfilled. Besides, if the baptism of John were equivalent with that of the Messiah, whence arose the necessity of re-baptizing those, who had already partaken of his rite? Acts xix. 1—6. The baptism of John may, probably, have been the same with that of the dis- ciples of Jesus before his ascension: but be it remembered, that during his ministry Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples ; (John iv. 2.) and it was not till the miraculous descent of the Holy Ghost, in the shape of fiery tongues, that the fulfilment of John’s prediction, as stated above, took place. This is evident from the promise of our Lord himself, in Acts i. 5. and to this the words καὶ πυρὶ manifestly refer, and are to be rendered exe- getically, (Spiritus, qui est ignis: ELSNER,) as representing the symbol of the Holy Spirit. It must be remarked, however, that these words of the Baptist are so constructed, that they would naturally be referred to a transaction of the Messiah’s life; and that they might at first sight appear to affirm, that he would not adopt a baptism with water for the admission of his disciples. But it cannot be supposed that John would heedlessly have ha- zarded._a prediction of this extraordinary nature; and still less, that events would subsequently arise, and unexpectedly coincide with what he had foretold. Their fulfilment, therefore, must be an ample proof that the word of the Lord directed his prediction ; and, as an obvious inference, that the record which he bore to the mission of Christ is indisputably true. ] Ibid. τὰ ὑποδήματα βαστάσαι. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. Ρ. 415. In Mark i. 7. and Luke iii. 16. it is λῦσαι τὸν ἱμάντα τῶν ὑποδημάτων ; but the expressions are clearly synonymous. Among the Jews, the office alluded to, though of a servile descrip- tion, was also performed by disciples. for their instructors, as it appears from the Talmudists, and Euseb. Hist. Eccl. IV. 15. The adjective ἰσχυρὸς here signifies powerful in the highest sense, as in Rev. xviii. 8. and ἱκανὸς, in the sense of ἄξιος, is sanctioned by Herod. VIII. 36. Dion. Hal. Ant. R. II. 65. Aristenet. III. 19. ΚΎΡΚΕ, ScHLEUSNER. Ver. 12. οὗ τὸ πτύον x. τ. X. The allusion in this passage is to an ancient process in agriculture, by which the chaff was driven towards a fire prepared for burning it, in order that it might not be blown back, and mixed again with the wheat. There is a similar description in one of the Jewish expositions 42 MATTHEW III. 13. of Psalm ii. Then comes the threshing; the straw they throw into the fire, the chaff into the wind ; the wheat they keep on the floor. So the nations shall be burnt, but Israel preserved. Midres Tillin. The πτύον was properly a winnowing shovel, of very ancient use, and extremely simple ; the fan, by which it is impro- perly rendered in E. T. was more cumbersome, contrived for raising an artificial wind by the help of sails, and therefore unfit to be used by the hand. There is mention of both these imple- ments, πτύον and λίκμων, in Isai. xxx. 24. The whole passage will be fully understood by referring to Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 457. sq. We meet with the verb διακαθαίρω in the sense which it bears in this passage in Xenoph. Cicon. 24. καθαροῦμεν τὸν σῖτον, λικμῶντες τὰ ἄχυρα. After ἀποθήκην many MSS and the Syriac version add αὐτοῦ; but the article alone has the - form of the possessive pronoun, ignorance of which has given rise to several various readings of the same kind. Lieurroor, Camp- BELL, MACKNIGHT, MIDDLETON. Ver. 13. τότε παραγίνεται κι τ. X. The particle τότε does not define the exact point of time at which the baptism of Christ took place, but simply fixes it to the time when John was baptizing. The same latitude is observable in Matt. iv. 1. The question of the date of Christ's baptism, and the time which elapsed between the commencement of John’s ministry and that of Christ, is dis- cussed under Luke ii. 1. It may be observed, that by his bap- tism in the Jordan, Christ entered upon the work for which he came into the world precisely upon the same principles, on which the priests were dedicated to the Temple service. Compare Exod. vill. 6, xl. 12. Heb. ii. 117. This seems to be the primary force of the reason with which he obtained the acquiescence of John in his baptism; though it also comprehended the propriety and necessity of justifying all the counsels of divine wisdom. Though the law was now to be abolished, it had originally been estab- lished for wise and indispensable purposes; and it was therefore advisable that the Messiah should acknowledge its divine insti- tution, and sanction its ordinances. The selection of the Baptist for the performance of the ceremony was obviously intended to answer the most important purposes. The numbers which daily flocked to his preaching would thus be witnesses of the wonderful scene which followed; and the superb testimony to the divine mission of the Messiah, attended by the manifestation of the whole glory of the Trinity, and the express declaration of the Father to the dignity of the Son, delivered by the voice from heaven in the ears of the assembled multitude, established at once in the most public manner the authority both of Christ and his forerunner. The voice from heaven was a completion of 2 Sam. vii. 14. Psal. \xxxix. 26, 27. Isaiah xlii. 1. and the title, Son of God, belongs, as the Jews themselves allow, to their Messiah. See MATTHEW III. 15, 16, 17. 43 Psal. ii. ‘7. Isaiah vii. 14. and compare Matt. xxvi. 63. Luke xxil. 67. 70. John i. 41. 49. also Matt. xvi. 16. 20. Mark viii. 29. Luke ix. 20. This appellation, therefore, bestowed upon him in a manner so august and solemn, ought to have been de- cisive in convincing them of his divine pretension. ΓΙΘΗΤΈΟΟΥ, Wuirtsy, MackNIGuHT. Ver. 15. ἄφες ἄρτι. Schleusner renders these words permitte queso; observing that ἄρτι is here an hortative particle, equiva- lent to δὴ, or the Hebrew NA, but the usual import of the adverb is equally applicable. With respect to the Baptist’s hesitation in complying with the request of Jesus, it could only have pro- ceeded upon a certainty that he who stood before him was the very person, of whom he was the forerunner. This, however, appears at first sight to contradict an assertion of the Baptist himself made shortly after the event in question. But see on John i. 33. Ver. 16. The adverb εὐθὺς, though joined with dvé3n, belongs properly to ἀνεῴχθησαν. Instances of this construction recur in Mark i. 29, xi. 2. Grorrus, Campspett. Rosenmuller does not understand the words τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ in a personal sense, but simply as signifying a strong emotion in the mind of our Saviour, now entering on his ministry. But Luke, iii. 22. says τὸ πνεῦμα TO ἅγιον σωματίκῳ εἴδει, which gives the personal sense of πνεῦμα in the most unequivocal terms. MippLeton. The de- scription, however, of this circumstance is ambiguous. Tertullian and Augustin supposed that the symbol of the Spirit’s presence was a material dove, and others are of opinion that it had both the shape and motion of a dove, thereby representing that in- nocence and meekness, which were so clearly exemplified in the character of Christ. But the more probable supposition is, that the Holy Spirit, in some visible form, probably that of a flame or body of fire, descended with an hovering motion like that of a dove; the peculiarity of which is noticed by Virgil, En. V. 216. Fertur in arva volans ; mox aére lapsa quieto Radit iter liqui- dum, celeres neque commovet alas. Had it been a dove in shape as well as in motion, the expression, instead of ὡσεὶ περιστερὰν, ~would have been ὡσεὶ περιστερᾶς, as ὡσεὶ πυρὸς, Acts ii. 3, Wuitsy, Hammonp, Mackxnicut, WETSTEIN, LiGHTFOOT. Ver. 17. οὗτός ἐστι k. τ. X. In Mark i. 11. these words are addressed to Christ himself: od εἶ 6 vide x. τ. A. Hence it has been supposed that both forms were pronounced ; first while the Spirit was descending, directly to Christ himself; and again after the Spirit had lighted upon him, to the Baptist and the multi- tude. This supposition would, undoubtedly, render the miracle very remarkable, ut as the two forms are precisely the same in 44. MATTHEW IV. 1. sense, the difference in the words is very immaterial. The ex- pression εὐδοκεῖν ἐν tux is a Hebraism, as in Psal. exlix. 4. LXX. εὐδοκεῖν ἐν τῷ λαῷ. The aorist εὐδόκησα is not here used simply for the present, but it has the signification which it regularly bears in the best Attic writers, of the Latin so/eo, in- cluding the past, present, and future. See Zeune and Hermann on Viger, p. 164. Matt. Gr. Gr. §. 503. 3. Of the adjective ἀγαπητὸς see my note on Homer Il. Z. 400. Its true sense is clearly deducible from John xvii. 26. Macxnicut, Gro- TIUS. CHAP Tit Ἐν: ConTENTs :— The Temptation of Christ, vv. 1—11. [Mark i. 12, 13. Luke iv. 1—13.] Imprisonment of John ; Christ teaches én Galilee. vv. 18—25. [Mark i. 16—21. Luke iv. 14—382.] Verse 1. εἰς τὴν ἔρημον. The people of Palestine shew the wil- derness in which our Saviour is supposed to have been tempted, and from the forty days, during which the temptation lasted, it has acquired the name of Quarantaria. It is a rugged and_wild ridge of mountains to the north of the road which leads from Je- rusalem by the Mount of Olives to Jericho. It seems more pro- bable, however, that the scene of the temptation was the great Desert of Arabia, in which Mount Sinai is situate, of which see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 55. Not to mention that Jesus would not have been entirely in solitude in the former retreat, and that provisions would be easily attainable, the fast of our Lord has an evident reference to those of Moses and Elias, which took place in the Desert of Arabia, (Hod. xxxiv. 28. 1 Kings xix. 8.) The word διάβολος signifies properly a calumniator, traducer, false accuser, from éaBadXr\av. In the N. T. it is sometimes an appellative, as in 1 Tim. iii. 11. 2 Tim. iii. 3. Tit. ii. 3. and probably John vi. 70. but more generally it is used to denote κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, the great enemy of God and man, whom we call the devil; and as such, it is the word by which the Hebrew wow, Satan, which signifies an adversary, (Numb. xxii. 22. 1 Sam. xxix. 4.) is translated by the LXX, in Jodi. and ii. Zech. iii. 1. 1 Mace. i. 36. As proper names, the Hebrew and Greek words readily convey the same idea, since the notion of an enemy and a calumniator are closely allied; and the verb δια- [βάλλεσθαι also signifies to hate, as employed by Strabo, p. 792. See Casaubon én loc. It is observable also that in this sense it generally takes the article, and is never used in the plural. In the same manner we have ὁ πειράζων, ὁ πονηρὸς, ὁ ἀντίδικος, ΜΆ ΉΨΥ IV. ἡ. 45 and the like terms, by which the devd/ is designated κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν. The words ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος are evidently to be understood of the Holy Spirit. ‘There is no ground, either from the expression or the context, to interpret it of the devil. The expression in Luke iv. 1. is ἐν τῷ πνεύματι, where the preposition ἐν with the dative is used for ὑπὸ, or διὰ, with the genitive, in which sense it is occasionally used by the best writers. See Matt. Gr. Gr. §. 577. 4. The compound ἀνήχθη has only the force of the simple verb. Luke has ἤγετο. Micuarris, MippLteron, CAMPBELL, Kuinoet. It will be proper to make a few general remarks upon [THE TEMPTATION OF CHRIST IN THE WILDERNESS. The Unitarians assert, in the Notes to their Improved Version of the N. T. that the form of expression, ἀνήχθη ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύ- ματος, denotes that the historian is about to describe a visionary scene, and not a real event, in confirmation of which they refer to Rev. i. 10. Acts xi. 5. In the first of these passages St. John’s expression is ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι; and in the latter St. Peter describes his vision as ἐν ἐκστάσει ὅραμα. It is clearly discernible that the latter of these forms is entirely distinct from that of St. Matthew, and that while in its plain and obvious sense it describes a visionary scene, the natural impression which arises from those of the Evangelist is that of a positive action of our Saviour, viz. his going into the desert at the suggestion of the Spirit. In Matt. xii. 28. Luke ii. 27. Acts vii. 29. x. 19. where similar expressions occur, it cannot be supposed that the actions described are merely imaginary. ‘The citation from the Revelations indeed nearly coincides with that employed by St. Luke in the parallel passage, ἤγετο ἐν τῷ πνεύματι, chap. iv. 1. but with this material difference, that it wants the article. Inthe Gospels, therefore, τὸ πνεῦμα evidently denotes the influence of the Spirit; in the Revelations it must be referred to the second sense of the word noticed under Matt. i. 18. At the same time it must be confessed, that several of the commentators, both an- cient and modern, without any leaning to Socinian tenets, have thought that the temptation was simply a vision, and some diffi- culties may doubtless be removed by this supposition. But these difficulties are merely theoretical, arising from the mysterious nature of the transaction; which, therefore, like all other myste- ries, is beyond the reach of human investigation. Now, there is not the slightest intimation throughout the narrative, that the temptation is merely a vision; and the reasons for adhering to a literal interpretation amount almost to demonstration. [{ is cer- tain, for instance, that the feeling of hunger could not have been ideal; and that a vision of forty days’ continuance is beyond the bounds of credibility. Some weight, also, is due to the observa- tion, that all the prophets of the Ὁ, T. except Moses, saw 46 MATTHEW IV. 2, 3. visions and dreamed dreams; and that St. Paul and St. Peter, the prophets of the N. T. did the same. Hence, Moses being a type of Christ, it is reasonable to expect, that in this, as in other particulars, the resemblance would be preserved between them. Besides, the thing is in itself extremely probable, that there should be a real and personal conflict between Christ and Satan, when the former entered upon his ministry. He had ruined the first Adam, and he might, therefore, hope to be equally successful with the second. It is the ingenious observation of a learned friend of Bishop Porteus, that the Temptation of Christ in the Wilderness, bears an evident analogy to the Temptation of Adam in Paradise. The suggestion has been followed up by Mr. Townsend in several points of similitude, which are closed by a curious tradition, that the temptation of Adam and Eve in Paradise was of forty days’ duration. We may also remark farther, that the character and design of the temptation, will be considerably illustrated by a comparison with the Crucifixion. (See Encyclop. Metropol. Vol. X. p. 604.) Each was the hour of Satan; at the commencement, and the close, respectively, of the work of Christ. Now Satan had brought into the world sin, as well as death: and the temptation appears to have been with regard to stm, what the crucifixion was with regard to death. It was, therefore, a vicarious transaction. Christ was first tempted instead of his Church, and afterwards died instead of it. But as his death did not imply that his Church should not afterwards be subject to mortality, but only that the great ‘‘ sting of death” should be subdued; so his temptation did not deliver his Church from being subsequently tempted, but only indicated, that with the temptation there should always be a way to escape, so that it would not be necessarily fatal. It is observable also, that. there 15 ἃ singular coincidence between the petitions of the Lord’s Prayer and the temptation. See on Matt. vi. 9. Licurroor, Wuitsy, Grorius, Porreus, &c.—[F armen. ] Ver. 2. τεσσαράκονται. The number forty is marked by several occurrences. The flood lasted forty days; so did the fasts of Moses, Elijah, and the Ninevites. The days of purifi- cation after child-birth were the same in number. It is recorded also by Diog. Laert. VIII. 40. and others, that Pythagoras took no food for forty days before his death. Grorrus, ΝΥ ΕΎΞΤΕΙΝ. Ver. 3. ὃ πειράζων. This use of the participle with the article has been improperly considered an Hebraism, as it is to be met with continually in the best Greek authors. Thus Herod. I. 120. οἱ γεινάμενοι, parentes. Xenoph. Apol. Soc. 20. of φυ- λάσσοντες, for of φύλακες. Thucydides abounds with examples. See Matt. Gr. Gr. §. 570. Another Hebraism has also been Ψ MATTHEW ΙΝ, 4. 47 noticed in this verse; viz. the use of εἰπεῖν in the sense of jubere ; which, however, it bears also in Eurip. Hec. 552. Iph. A. 95, Iph. T. 85. So also dico, in Latin; Sil. Ital. 1X. 474. Kurnoert, ALBERT, Pauarret. In the words εἰ vide εἶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, both Campbell and Wakefield translate a Son of God; but there are instances which prove incontestibly, that neither of the expres- sions, υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, or vide Θεοῦ, were ever meant to be taken in a lower sense than 6 υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, which is always allowed to be meant in the highest sense. Thus in Mark i. 1. vide τοῦ Θεοῦ, is spoken by the Evangelist himself of Jesus; and in John x. 36. by Christ himself, of himself. Again, in Matt. xxvii. 48, the form υἱὸς Θεοῦ, without either of the articles, occurs in refer- ence to the crime laid to Christ, that he said, Iam the Son of God. Compare also Matt. xxvii. 40. Luke i. 35. Rom. i. 4. The words Θεὸς and Κύριος, in the sense of God, either take or reject the article indiscriminately; a license, which these words derive from their partaking of the nature both of appellatives and proper names, (see on Luke i. 15.); so that it is allowable to write either ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, or vide Θεοῦ, indifferently. The reason why we meet with σὺ εἶ 6 υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, and σὺ εἶ vide τοῦ Θεοῦ, is, that here two principles interfere; after verbs sub- stantive the article should be omitted ; but where a pronoun pre- cedes, it is not unfrequently inserted. In such instances, the existence is assumed, the purport of the proposition being to identify the predicate with the subject. Thus in Plato, Vol. Χ. p- 89. εἰ εἰσὶν αὐταὶ ai ἰδέαι τῶν ὄντων; where that these are ἰδέαι τῶν ὄντων, is the basis of the inquiry; and the only doubt is, whether these be they. The argument of Campbell, founded upon the degradation of our Saviour’s character, arising either from the ignorance or the malignity of Satan, and supposed to be implied in the absence of the article, has no great weight in it, Ignorance is no where in Scripture ascribed to the Evil Spirit; nor is it probable that he should be unacquainted with Christ’s pretensions; and malignity would rather have prompted him to exaggerate those pretensions, at a time when he was endeavouring to shew their futility. The expression, 7f thou be, can only be understood as a sneer at our Saviour’s known pretensions. Mrp- DLETON. It is observable, that ἄρτοι, in the plural, should be rendered loaves ; not, as in Εἰ. T., bread ; being opposed to λίθοι, stones. Luke i. 3. has λίθῳ and ἄρτος, in the singular; but the mere difference in the turn of the expression is of no moment. Besides, these stones may mean simply, one of these stones; as the cities of Gilead, Judg. xii. 7. mean only one of the cities. So in Reuben’s speech, Gen. xlii. 37. the words slay my two sons, must be interpreted, two of my sons; as Reuben had four sons at this time. See Gen. xlvi.9. CampBeLt, Licurroot. Ver. 4, γέγραπται. Deut, viii. 3. The allusion is to the many 10 48 MATTHEW IV. 5. great blessings, particularly the gift of manna, which God had bestowed upon the Israelites in the wilderness. In this tempta- tion, Christ had been solicited to doubt the evidence of his mis- sion, and to distrust the divine power, as insufficient to sustain him without food; although a virtual promise had been given him of support, in the Spirit's suggestion to undertake the fast ; just as a promise of sustenance was made to the Israelites, when God commanded them to go into the desert. Hence the tempta- tion is properly repelled by citing the words of Moses, in which he assures them, that it is a far less important concern to provide for the wants of life, than to maintain a rational and religious trust in God’s providence. There is a parallel sentiment in Wisd. xvi. 26. LXX. Οὐχ αἱ γενέσεις τῶν καρπῶν τρέφουσιν ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ τὸ ῥῆμά σου τούς σοι πιστεύοντας διατηρεῖ. The phrase ἐπ᾿ ἄρτῳ ζῆν is found in Polyb. Hist. VI. 7. Max. Tyr. Diss. XIX. So also Diss. XXVII. 6. βιοτεύειν ἐπ᾽ οἴνῳ. Alciphron. III. 7. ἐπὶ θύμοις καὶ ἀλφίτοις διαβόσκειν τὴν γασ- τέρα. Demosth. Orat. Fun. p. 153. without the preposition: τοὺς καρποὺς οἷς ζῶσιν ἄνθρωποι. WETSTEIN, MacKNIGHT, Κυρκε, Kurnort.—The article is omitted before ἄνθρωπος on the principle of exclusive prepositions. See on Matt. I. Sect. IT. §. 5. The LXX have the article, which, no doubt, originated in the 7] emphatic of the Hebrew. MippLeton.— We may observe, that ζήσεται, in the middle voice, is here very expressive: Man shall not support himself; i. 6. without a religious dependence upon the goodness of God. The future, signifying to be wont, is a usual idiom. See Matt. Gr. Gr. §. 503. 4. Ver. 5. ἁγίαν πόλιν. Jerusalem. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 18. The verb παραλαμβάνειν does not signify sublimem rapere, i. e. to transport through the air, as some have supposed ; but merely, to take with one, to take as a companion. In this sense it is evidently used in Newmnb. xxiii. 14. LXX. Matt. xvii. 1. Soalso Alian, V. H. 11. 18. παραληφθεὶς ὑπὸ Πλάτωνος εἰς τὸ συμπόσιον. Anton. de Seipso: c. 21. παραλαβὼν τὴν κόρην. Hence the verb ἵστησι merely implies persuasion or assistance, and may be rendered, induced him to stand. Compare Matt. xviii. 2. Apert, Kurnoet, Macxnicut.—[Grortivus.] The commen- tators are greatly at variance on the meaning of the word πτερύ- yov. There is little doubt that it was something Monadic, and that the E. T. improperly renders τὸ πτερύγιον, a pinnacle ; since, if there had been several πτερύγια, we should probably have read τι πτερύγιον. Now, there is no instance in any author, where πτερύγιον is applied to a building: but Wetstein has collected some passages, in which the cognate word πτερὸν is synonymous with ἀετὸς or ἀέτωμα, a term appropriated to the roofs of tem- ples. See Schol. Arist. Av. 1110. Dion. Hal. A. R. Vol. II. p. 789. ed. Reisk. Joseph. Ant. XV. 11. in which last place it is MATT HE ΙΝ. 6,.7. 49 spoken of the tabernacle; and is applied, as it should seem, on account of the figure, which the transverse section of a pointed _roof, or the gable, presents. Hence, if the pointed roof of the temple be πτέρον, the πτερύγιον may be a similar kind of pointed roof, of smaller dimensions; probably that of the great eastern porch; which is the opinion of Lightfoot. However, Wetstein and Michaelis understand it of the royal porch, which over- looked the precipice at the East and South of the temple. This situation is, perhaps, better suited to the history; but the matter is to account how the roof of this building could be called τὸ πτε- ρύγιον τοῦ ἱεροῦ. The question, doubtlessly, involves a case of great difficulty. MippLeton. Of the temple, its courts, &c. see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. P. III. Ch. I. §. 2. Ver, 6.. γέγραπται yao" Ὅτι x. 7. X. In the former tempta- tion the devil had endeavoured to make our Lord distrust God’s promise and providence; in this he attempted to make him pre- sume too much upon them. In order more effectually to throw him off his guard, the very reverse of the means before applied are resorted to, and backed by a quotation from Psa. xci. 11. most ingeniously and subtilly perverted to further his design. It has been thought that the passage is mutilated as well as per- verted; but in Luke iv. 10. the insertion of the words τοῦ δια- φυλάξαι σε, which are omitted in Matthew, renders the citation complete. The passage, however, is merely a conditional pro- mise of God to protect his servants while they continue in the path of duty; but it does not allow them to expose themselves to unnecessary danger, with the vain presumption that God will interfere to deliver them. The words ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσί σε are a metaphor taken from a nurse’s attention to a child: in teach- ing it to walk, she lifts it over the stones and obstacles which occur in the path, that it may not fall over them. Xenophon has a similar allusion in Cyrop. VII. 5. 50. ὥστε μόνον οὐκ ἐν ταῖς ἀγκάλαις περιεφέρομεν αὐτοὺς ἀγαπῶντες. The phrase προσκόπτειν πρὸς λίθον τὸν πόδα is proverbially expressive of any great difficulty or danger. Of the adverb μήποτε, in the sense of the simple μὴ, we have examples in Matt. vii. 6. xiii. 29. xv. 52. xxv. 9. xxvii. 64. MacknicuT, ΚυΊΝΟΕΙ, ΒΑΡΗΕ- Lius, Grotius, A, CLARKE. Ver. 7. οὐκ ἐκπειράσεις x. τ. A. The verb ἐκπειράζειν in this passage does not mean fo ¢empt in its ordinary acceptation, but to make trial of, to put ta the proof. Soin Gen. xxii. 1. LXX, ὁ Θεὸς ἐπείρασε τὸν ᾿Αβραάμ. Compare also Exod. xvii. 27. Numb. xiv. 22. Psal. \xxviii. 18. evi. 14. and see Limborch, Theol. V. 22. 16. The import then of the passage, which is cited by our Lord from Dewdé. vi. 10. is this: that having had sufficient proof of the power and veracity of God, particularly in VOL. 1. E 50 MATTHEW IV. 8. the miraculous testimony of the Spirit at his baptism, it would be idle and presumptuous to require more. Some of the commenta- tors, however, suppose that our Saviour warns, not against pre- sumption, but distrust and want of confidence, which would identify this temptation with the preceding. RosENMULLER, Dop- DRIDGE, CAMPBELL.—[Hammonp, Wuirsy, Grorius.] It has been proposed to point after πάλιν instead of 6 ᾿Ιησοῦς, thus re- ferring the adverb to ἔφη instead of γέγραπται. This method, however, renders the sentence very awkward and abrupt; and πάλιν may be well rendered insuper, preterea, in which sense it occurs in Rom. xv. 10, 11. 2 Cor. x. 7. Heb. i. 5. and else- where. Compare also Soph. Phil. 342. The notion of con- tra, which some have attached to it, does not suit the passage. It is so explained, however, by the Scholiast on Soph, ΕἸ. 1046. πάλιν" εἰς τὸ ἐναντίον. ΚυΊΝΟΕΙ,, Patarret.—[Camp- BELL, ALBERT. | Ver. 8. πάσας τὰς βασιλείας τοῦ κόσμους It has been ob- served, that if these words are to be understood in a literal sense, the transaction described by them is impossible. Hence, some commentators, who admit the reality of our Lord’s temptation in the main, are disposed to consider this incident as merely vi- sionary, and in support of this opinion the words ἐν στιγμῇ χρό- νου, which are added in the parallel passage of St. Luke, have been particularly insisted upon. But on this, as on other occasions, there is clearly no middle course to be taken; and the event was either altogether real or altogether imaginary. Not to mention, however, that the occurrence has every appear- ance of a real action, it is evident that had it been simply a vision, there would have been no occasion to ascend a lofty mountain. Now the term ἡ οἰκουμένη, employed by St. Luke, iv. 5. appears to have been used in a restricted sense to denote only the Land of Palestine. See on Luke ii. 1. Hence, if the corresponding word κόσμος be here limited to this signification, which it clearly bears in Rom. iv. 13. the prospect afforded to our Lord was no more than was presented to Moses from Mount Nebo, Deut. xxxiv. 1.; and it is highly probable that this same mountain was also the scene of the temptation. . What renders this more pro- bable is, that Judeea was at this time divided into several princi- palities, some of which are mentioned in Luke iii. 1. and that the governors of these divisions, whether ethnarchs or tetrarchs, are dignified with the title of βασιλεῖς, kings. See Matt. ii. 22. xiv. 9. It is to be observed also, that the verb δεικνῦναι does not necessarily imply to exhibit to the sight, it may mean simply to point out ; so that the Tempter may be understood merely to have described the several situations of the different kingdoms, and to have stated their relative importance, wealth, and magnitude, which is the import of ἮΝ word δόξα. In this sense the verb 1 i) ΜΑΤΤΗΕΡ, ἹΥ. 9, 10, 11]. 51 occurs in Herod. III. 18. 9. AHlian. V. H. III. 1. There is, in fact, an ellipsis of τῷ λόγῳ, which is supplied in Eurip. Here. F. Δόγοισι τὴν τοῦδ᾽ ἀμαθίαν ὑπὲρ σέθεν Δεῖξαι. AXlian. Hist. Anim. XVII. 8. δεῖξαι τῷ λόγῳ, ὡς ἐκεῖνος γράφει. Hence, it is not absolutely necessary to limit the sense οἵ κόσμος as above; but the Roman empire may possibly be intended, in which accepta- tion ἡ οἰκουμένη also is frequently employed. Macxnicut, Mr- CHAELIS, A. CLARKE, KuINoEL, PALairet.—[Grortus, Licut- Foot, WuiTBy.| Beza supposes that the power of vision was miraculously extended both in the case of Moses and of Christ. But there is no necessity for such a notion. Modern travellers observe, that from several of the mountains of Palestine the view is exceedingly beautiful and extensive. Ver. 9. ἐὰν πεσὼν προσκυνήσῃς μοι. See on Matt. ii. 2. The προσκύνησις of the Greeks was paid only to their gods. See Herod. VII. 136. Hence the distinction observed by the early Christians in this custom. They did not scruple to pay the re- verence which was offered, κατὰ τὸ νενομισμένον, to the Eastern princes, but resolutely refused to prostrate themselves before the images of the Pagan divinities. This fact is grossly underrated by Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. 23. Grortus. Ver. 10. ὕπαγε ὀπίσω pov. E. T. Get thee hence. In some MSS. the words ὀπίσω pov are omitted, but they are in all probability correct. In Luke iv. 8. the whole clause is an inter- polation. The object of this temptation was idolatry. Indignant, therefore, at the consummate impudence of the Tempter, Christ spurns him from him, and silences him at once by a quotation from Deut. vi. 13. x. 20. The verb λατρεύω signifies properly to serve simply; as in Soph. Trach. 40. Xenoph. Cyrop. III. 1. 20. Hesych. λατρεύω" δουλεύω. And so the Lexicographers generally. In the LXX, and in the N. T., however, the word is confined to the notion of divine worship. See Luke i. 74, 11. 37. iv. 8. Acts vii. 42. et passim. SCHLEUSNER. Ver. 11. The verb διακονεῖν signifies properly ¢o serve at table, and we have the complete phrase διακονεῖν τραπέζαις in Acts vi. 2. Hence Eurip. Cyclop. 31. δειπνῶν διακόνος. Anacr. Od. IV. μέθυ μοι διηκονείτω. Compare Matt. xxii, 13. Luke x. 40. John ii. 9. It is clear, therefore, that Jesus was supplied by the angels with food and such other necessaries as his present situation required. Macxnicut, WerTsTEin. It is observable, that the order in which the temptations are recorded by St. Matthew is different from that in which they occur in St. Luke ; the two last being transposed by the latter Evangelist. Now it so happens that Matthew uses the adverbs τότε and πάλιν, wy. 5. 8. which seem in a manner to fix the order of his narratives, whereas E2 52 MATTHEW IV. 12, 13. Luke has merely employed the connecting particle καί, The de- parture of Satan also after the last temptation is expressly noticed by Matthew, and not by Luke. Hence, although it is a matter of little importance, the order of Matthew may fairly be adopted as that in which the events actually took place. Some commen- tators, however, in order to reconcile the two Evangelists, sup- pose that the temptation to idolatry was twice repeated; and others, with no greater probability, that the order of Luke ori- ginally coincided with that of Matthew, but was afterwards dis- turbed by some careless transcriber. The only authority is that of Ambrose, who, in his fourth book on Luke, has explained the temptation in Matthew's order. Macxnicut. Mr. Townsend, in his Chronological Arrangement of the N. T., conceives that the difference in the order of the two accounts originated in the dif- ference of purpose for which the Evangelists respectively wrote. In repulsing the third temptation, as it stands in St. Matthew, our Lord shewed his contempt of all worldly power, and inti- mated that the expectations which the Jews entertained of the Messiah’s temporal kingdom were altogether unfounded. The Evangelist, therefore, who wrote expressly for Jewish readers, placed this temptation last in the series, as more important than the preceding. For the like reason, Luke, in writing for the Gen- tiles, concluded his narrative with Satan’s attempt to make Christ throw himself from the pinnacle of the temple. So great a de- monstration of divine power would undoubtedly have been immor- talized, and honoured with the highest worship of Pagan super- stition. Christ’s refusal, therefore, to avail himself of this homage, would, in the opinion of a heathen, be the highest pitch of virtue. It should seem then, that in both instances the climax is preserved according to the opinions and prejudices prevalent among those whom the writers respectively addressed. Ver. 12. παρεδόθη. Scil. εἰς φυλακήν. The ellipsis is sup- plied in Acts viii. 3. xxii. 4, So also Diod. Sic. p. 195. Rhod. παραδίδοσθαι εἰς φυλακάς. See Bos. Ellips. p. 321. For the particulars of John’s imprisonment see Matt. xiv. 3. sqq. There is here a chasm in the history, which is supplied in the opening of St. John’s Gospel. Ver. 13. καὶ καταλιπὼν τὴν Ναζαρὲτ, x. τ. X. From this time our Lord seems to have made Capernaum his ordinary place of residence, and to have entirely forsaken Nazareth, where he had spent the first thirty years of his life. Hence Capernaum is called his own city, Matt. ix. 1. and here, as a citizen, he paid tribute, xvii. 24. [1015 worthy of remark, that a regular tradition { prevailed among the ancient Jews, that their Messiah would begin his ministry in Galilee. Johar. Genes. 6. 74. 290. Revela- bitur Messias in terra Galilea. The reason which may have a Θεὲ Sle Ave, Letcee if 4 Le Cf: ae fac lice Os Fates ye $e oe MATTHEW. ΙΝ. 15, 16. δῶ determined him to devote so much of his ministry to this part of Galilee, seems to have been the extensive population, and the multitude of villages of which it consisted; together with its distance from Jerusalem. A wide theatre would thus be opened for the propagation of his Gospel, and he would be less liable to the opposition of the Scribes and Pharisees, who had evinced the most decided hostility to him from the very commencement of his preaching. A. CLARKE, Macknicut, SCHOETTGEN. For the situation, &c. of Nazareth, Capernaum, &c. see Horne’s Geographical Index. Ver. 15. γῆ Ζαβουλὼν κ. τ. A. Isaiah ix. 1. Of the difference between St. Matthew’s citation of this prophecy and the Hebrew original see Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. p. 510. The division of the words there proposed is confirmed by the Chaldee Para- phrast and the Latin Vulgate. The countries here mentioned were those which principally suffered in the Assyrian invasion, under Tiglath Pileser, 2 Kings xv. 29. To compensate for these afflictions the Prophet consoles them with the prospect of glory in the latter days ; and accordingly they were the first to receive the light of the Gospel. By some this prophecy is considered only in the light of a simple accommodation, but improperly. Mepe. The expression ὁδὸν θαλάσσης seems to involve an ellipsis of the preposition κατὰ, but it is somewhat obscure and indefinite. Its true meaning seems to be near the sea, or to- wards the sea; i. 6. the lake of Tiberias. The article before θαλάσσης seems to have been omitted by the LXX from consi- dering ὁδὸν in the light of a preposition. The words are literally translated from the Hebrew OY ὙΥΤ, which would properly be rendered versus mare. It is observable, also, that the Hebrew ἽΣΨΩ, mdber, rendered πέραν by the LXX, signifies indiffe- rently on this side, and on the other side. Compare Deut. i. 1. iv. 49. Numb. xxxii. 19. Now Zabulon and Napthali were on the same side of the Jordan with Jerusalem and Judza, where Isaiah exercised his prophetical office. CAMPBELL, MIDDLETON, BEAUSOBRE. Ver. 16. καθημένος ἐν σκότει, κι τι AX. The Hebrew would have been more closely rendered πορευόμενος, and some have supposed that the Evangelist used the participle καθημένος as more expressive of the degraded and miserable state of the people in question. But the verb καθῆσθαι, both here and in the end of the verse, signifies simply degere, versari, which is all that the original is meant to convey. So also in Judith v. 3. 1 Mace. ii. 1. 29. Grorius, Ligurroot, KurnoeL.—[ALBERT, A. Cuarke.] The metaphorical use of σκότος and φῶς, in re- ference to the darkness of heathen idolatry, and the light of the Gospel, occurs repeatedly in the Scriptures. The latter word in ve B+ MATTHEW IV. 1, 18. 34 “ this passage seems rather to designate the minister of the Gospel than the Gospel itself. Compare Rom. ii. 19, 20. Somewhat analogous is the use of the verb φωτίζειν, in the sense of docere, Judg. xiii. 8. For similar instances in classic writers see my note on Hom. 1]. Z. 6. In continuation of the same mode of speech, the verb ἀνατέλλειν, which is properly used of the rising sun, is here applied to the advent of the Messiah. Compare Heb. vii. 14. The expression χώρᾳ καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου is also meta- phorical, and represents the spiritual darkness in which these people lived before they received the light of the Gospel, being dead in trespasses and sins. Inthe LXX the words are χώρᾳ σκιᾶς θανάτου, which correspond exactly with the Hebrew. Both forms, however, are equivalent, and are indifferently used for ἐν χώρᾳ σκιόεντι. We have the phrase mortis umbra in Ovid. Met. V. 191. Virg. En. VI. 268. The pronoun αὐτοῖς at the end of the verse is redundant. Compare Matt. viii. 5. ix. 97. John xy. 2. xviii. 11. So Xenoph. Cyrop. I. 3. 15. πειράσομαι τῷ πάππῳ, ἀγαθῶν ἱππέων κράτιστος Ov ἱππεὺς, συμμαχεῖν αὐτῷ. 11. 3. 4. τοῖς μὴ θέλουσιν ἑαυτοῖς προστάττειν ἐκπονεῖν τἀγαθὰ, ἄλλους αὐτοῖς ὁ θεὸς ἐπιτακτῆρας δίδωσι. See Viger. p. 134. Weiske, de Pleonasm. Gr. p. 45. considers the redundance as a mere Hebraism. WertsTeIn, Kurnoet, Eusner, CAMPBELL, RaPpHELIvs. Ver. 17. μετανοεῖτε" κι τι Δ. See on Matt. iii. 2. The same had been the proclamation of John the Baptist, urged by the same motives. The same also was the injunction of the Apostles and their immediate successors, and must ever continue to be enforced by the faithful ministers of the Gospel, as the ground- work and foundation of true Christianity. Ver. 18. δύο ἀδελφούς. Simon and Andrew, formerly inha- bitants of Bethsaida, but now of Capernaum, (Mark i. 29.) had become our Lord’s disciples upon a former occasion. See John i. 41. sqq. The calls given to the disciples at the commence- ment of Christ’s ministry seem to have been only temporary; or at least, admitting of their ordinary pursuits and occupations : till at length twelve were chosen to be with him always, (Mark iii. 13.) an expression which plainly implies that till then they had only attended him occasionally. From the ready compliance of James and John, v. 22. it may be inferred that they also had been pre- viously acquainted with him. Theophylact observes: οὗτοι τοῦ ᾿Ιωάννου ἐγένοντο μαθηταί: ζῶντος δὲ ἔτι τοῦ ᾿Ιωάννου, προσῆλ- θον τῷ Χριστῷ" ὡς δὲ εἶδον τὸν Ιωάννην δεσμευθέντα, πάλιν ἐπέστρεψαν εἰς τὴν ἁλιευτικήν" καὶ οὕτως ἐλθὼν 6 Χριστὸς ἁλιεύει αὐτούς. It seems at least probable that their attendance upon Christ was less constant just at the time of John’s imprisonment, — as one of the pretexts for his apprehension, mentioned by Jo- — MATTHEW IY, 19. 23, 24. 55 sephus, was the danger to be dreaded from the number of his disciples. Wuirsy, Macxnicut, Licutroot. Of the twelve Apostles, see Matt. x. 2. Ver. 19. ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων. The meaning of this expression is sufficiently clear: it has been supposed that Christ alludes to the prophecy in Ezek, xlvii. 10. The following a person, in the Jewish phrase, signifies becoming his disciple; hence the terms δεῦτε ὀπίσω μου, in this, and ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ, in the next verse. Compare 2 Kings vi. 19. A. CLARKE. Ver, 23. συναγώγαις αὐτῶν. Scil. of the Jews settled in Ga- lilee. Pronouns demonstrative are frequently referred to words implied in a preceding word either from the sense or the compo- sition. See Matt. Gr. Gr. ὃ. 435. Of the Jewish synagogues, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. Part III. Ch. 1. δ. 4. The words κηρύσσων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας are explained above on Matt. iii. ἢ. Between the words νόσος and μαλακία there is a material distinction: the former is a confirmed or chronic dis- order, the latter only a temporary malady. Euthym. νόσος μέν ἐστιν ἡ Xoovia παρατραπὴ τῆς τοῦ σώματος ἕξεως, μαλακία δὲ ἀρχὴ χαυνώσεως σώματος. Nearly to the same purport is the Gloss. of Theophylact. Ver, 24, δαιμονιζομένους. Those which were possessed with devils. EK. T. It should rather be, by demons ; for though there are multitudes of demons, there is but one κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, the devil. See above on Matt. iv. 1. In reference to the former the word invariably used is δαίμονες or δαιμόνια, Of these two, however, though the diminutive δαιμόνια occurs repeatedly, the noun itself occurs only five times throughout the N. T., viz. once in each of the three first Gospels, in reference to the Gadarene maniac, and twice in the Apocalypse. The subject of demoniacal possession is briefly touched upon by Mr. Horne, (Introd. Vol. III. p. 476.) but as it involves a question which has been more discussed than almost any other point of Scripture criticism, it should seem advisable to state the arguments somewhat more at length. [on THE D2 MONIACS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. The word Δαίμων is applied by the old Greek poets to the Su- preme Deity; and by the philosophers to the gods in general, and their descendants. Deified heroes also, and the spirits of departed friends, were included under the same name. It is evident that none of these modifications of the term have any affinity with the case in question; nor, in fact, does the Heathen mythology present any idea of dzmonism, at all analogous with that of the Gospels, with one apparent exception, perhaps, in the 56 τ οὔ MATTHEW Iv. 94. well-known instance of Socrates. It was the opinion of Cicero, in which he was preceded by Xenophon and Plutarch, that the dzmon of this philosopher was nothing more than an innate prin- ciple of action and disposition, which developed the character of its possessor. See Cic. de Div. I. 53. The Jews, however, always understood the word in a bad sense. They are also said to have attributed several kinds of diseases, and other calamities, to the agency of malignant spirits :—a notion which they, in all probability, derived from the Chaldeans and other nations around them, as it is no where sanctioned in the O. T. Hence it has been affirmed, that the Evangelists, in relating our Saviour’s miraculous cures of dzemoniacal possession, merely adopted the popular language of the time, in the same manner as the term ** bewitched,” and others of a similar nature, are used by our- selves, without implying any belief in the beings, in whom they originated. This argument is supported by the peculiar character of the Eastern language, which is in itself highly figu- rative and metaphorical; and it is further added, that the daemo- niacs in the N. T. discover no symptoms which are not incidental to epilepsy and insanity at present. Our Saviour also, it is urged, attributes a sort of personal agency to other diseases which he cured, as well as to the demoniacs. Thus, for instance, he re- buked a fever, Luke iv. 39. But against these arguments, which are the strongest that are adduced in favour of wnreal possessions, the proofs which are alleged in favour of a literal interpretation of this important class of our Lord’s miracles, amount almost to demonstration. In the first place, the Evangelists affirm in the plainest language, that the deemoniacs were possessed with devils; and our Lord is represented as addressing them, as separate and individual beings, distinct from the bodies of the persons into whom they had entered. They are represented as performing personal actions, as addressing Christ, and acknowledging his cha- racter, his office, and authority, and as passing from one body into another. Numbers also are said to take possession of the same object. Neither is it true that our Saviour employs the same terms in the removal of these and other diseases; but makes a constant distinction between curing or healing the one, and casting out the other. Is it probable, then, that Christ would have combined all these striking particulars, for the mere purpose of falling in with a popular opinion, which he must have known to. be incorrect ? Surely such a practice would have been wholly inconsistent with the dignity of a divine agent; not to mention that the propagation of a confessed error would ill suit with the character of inspired writers, in a work intended for the spiritual improvement of every age and nation of the world. It cannot be objected that daemo- niacs were confined to the time of Christ’s ministry, as accounts of them are on record both before and after the Gospel era. See Joseph. Ant. VIT. 2, Iren. II. 2. Just. Mart. Dial. p. 311. The ..* Sed > MATTHEW V. 1. 57 probable reason of their extraordinary power during this period is well stated by Mr. Horne.—Wuitsy, Macxnieut, A. Ciarxe, Dopprivce.—[Mepr, ΟΡ ΕΠ, Farmer, WeETSTEIN, Larp- NER, &c. | CHAPTER V. ConrTENTs :— Commencement of the Sermon on the Mount. [Luke vi. 20. sqq. and elsewhere. ] Verse 1. εἰς τὸ ὄρος. It is generally supposed that some par- ticular mountain, well known in the neighbourhood of Caper- naum, is here intended; and Mount Zabor is that which has been fixed upon as the most probable. But though the article is undoubtedly definite, it does not necessarily direct us either to Mount Tabor, or elsewhere. Reland observes, (Palest. Vol. I. p- 306.) Judei in Talmude terram suam in tria dividunt, respectu montium, vallium et camporum. Hence τὸ ὄρος may mean no more than the mountain district, as distinguished from the other two; in which sense the LXX have so employed the term in Gen. xix. 17. and more clearly in Josh. ii. 22, 23. And, indeed, it seems more probable that our Saviour would not have led the multitude so far as Mount Tabor, as a part of the ridge lay much nearer to Capernaum, and would equally answer the purpose of retirement, which he seems to have had in view. MIDDLETON. There is a considerable diversity of opinion respecting the iden- tity of this discourse with that recorded in Luke vi. 20. sqq. The healing of diseases, which is described by St. Luke as imme- diately preceding the delivery of the discourse, is stated to have taken place in a plain; and the precepts recorded by St. Luke form a portion only of those delivered by Christ on the Mount, varying in the order in which they are here given, and frequently differing in the turn of the expression. The events preceding and following them are differently arranged with respect to the time of the discourse, as it stands in the arrangement of the two Evangelists respectively. Thus the naming of the Apostles, which stands in St. Matthew in chap. x. 1. is recited by St. Luke only a few verses before the commencement of the discourse. Still it should seem that the two Evangelists refer to the same event. It is recorded by both, that immediately after the sermon Christ returned into Capernaum, and healed the servant οἵ ἃ cen- turion; a cure which was attended with such remarkable circum- stances, that it can hardly be supposed to have been repeated in the same city. With respect to the disagreement in the place of delivery, Luke mentions that diseases were healed in the plain, 58 MATTHEW Υ. 3. but it is not clear that he records the sermon in the same continued context. It may be, that in his way to the mountain, Christ stood in the plain, and healed the diseases, and sat down to teach upon a more elevated spot. With respect to the portion which St. Luke has selected from the discourse, it seems to be that which was more expressly intended for the disciples ; an opinion which is supported by the altered form in which the beatitudes, of which he recites but two, are given:—Blessed are ye, &c. The difference of expression is readily attributed to the style of writing, peculiar to each historian respectively. Licurroor, Gro- tius, MicuaE.tis.—[Breprorp, Doppriper.] With respect to the subject matter of the sermon on the Mount, it may be consi- dered as the most comprehensive and, at the same time, the most simple epitome, of moral doctrine, which was ever delivered. It embodies the whole practice of Christianity. As it was necessary that the great articles of faith should be represented by facts rather than by words ;—by the incarnation and crucifixion, resur- rection and ascension of our great high priest,—these are, of course, unnoticed in this discourse. But he instructed his disci- ples in those essential qualifications of a true believer, which are not only the ornaments and graces of a Christian life, but the evi- dences of that faith which the Gospel requires. The injunctions are, in a great measure, directed against particular errors of the Jews, and their more immediate reference can only be investigated by an acquaintance with the Rabbinical doctrines and writings ; but they apply in their general tone and spirit to all ages and denominations of Christians. Ligntroor, Micuar.is, Le CLErc. Ver. 3. οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι. In the parallel passage of St. Luke, it is simply of πτωχοί. Wetstein would refer the words τῷ πνεύματι to μακάριοι. But this would evidently violate the uniformity of expression observed throughout the beatitudes, even if it were clear that the position of the words would admit of such a construction. It is, nevertheless, supposed by some, that the poor, simply as such, are intended ; and Campbell has translated, the poor, who repine not ; a rendering, of which the original will surely never admit. At all events, it is clear that our Lord never intended to attach a blessing to the state of poverty itself, other- wise than as humility of condition seemed the most natural source of humility of mind. Thus the Gospel is said to be preached to the poor, not to the exclusion of the rich, but because they would be less encumbered by the vanities of the world, and there- fore more accessible to the plain and simple truths of Christi- anity. In like manner the term rich, which is opposed to poor, in Luke vi. 24. does not signify the rich without limitation ; but, as our Lord himself elsewhere restricts it, it denotes those only who trust in riches, and are proud and arrogant in the possession oe them. (Mark x. 23, 24.) The connexion between poverty and — »2 . MATTHEW V. 4, 5, 6. 59 piety is illustrated in the Latin proverb: Bone mentis soror pau- pertas. So also Menander: ἀεὶ νομίζονθ᾽ οἱ πένητες τῶν θεῶν. It seems, then, that S¢. Luke has recorded the beatitude pre- cisely as our Lord recited it ; whereas Matthew has explained the metaphor by the addition of the words τῷ πνεύματι. With the same view he has also added the words τὴν δικαιοσύνην, in v. 6. as an explanation of the metaphor contained in the expression, πεινῶντες καὶ διψῶντες. The article in τῷ πνεύματι is used in the sense of the possessive pronoun; as also in τῇ καρδίᾳ, inv. 8. A similar form is ζέων τῷ πνεύματι, Acts xviii. 25. The text, moreover, exactly corresponds with the Hebrew, M7 >5w, She- pal Ruach, which the LXX translate ὀλιγόψυχος, in Lsaiah Wii. 15. ‘The Jewish Rabbins have some good sayings on the dispo- sition recommended in this text: among others, that of Rabbi Chanina: Why are the words of the law compared to water ; because, as waters flow from heights, and settle in low places, so the words of the law rest only with him who is of a humble heart. Wuitsy, A. CLarke, &c.—[Grorius, WETSTEIN, Camp- BELL.] The expression βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, in this passage, embraces both the significations noticed on Matt. iii. 2. Ver. 4. οἱ πενθοῦντες. Those who mourn; scil. after a godly sorrow unto repentance. This beatitude, as well as the last, will be illustrated by a comparison with 2 Cor. vii. 10, Of the verb παρακέκλησθαι, see on John xiv. 16. Ver. 5. οἱ πραεῖς. The meek. It was this character which our Lord inculcated above all others in his followers; and it seems to combine those dispositions of gentleness, inoffensiveness, and forgiveness, which are recommended in almost every page of the N. T. as the proper feelings with which we ought to meet our fellow-men. In this respect it is distinct from the first beati- tude, which seems to relate more especially to the relation in which we stand to God; and hence it probably arises, that the ‘blessing assigned to this Christian grace is primarily an earthly, as that of the former was a heavenly one. ‘The promise of znhe- riting the earth, is cited from Psalm xxvii. 11. where the refer- ence is undoubtedly to the possession of the promised land of Canaan, which is repeatedly called γῆ in Scripture. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 1. Inasmuch, however, as the earthly Canaan was a type of heaven, the beatitude also points to a spi- ritual, no less than to a temporal, inheritance. Wuuirsy, Bravu- SOBRE. Ver. 6. οἱ πεινῶντες x. τ. AX. This beatitude refers to those who have formed such a habit of piety in their minds, that it acts spontaneously like their appetites. ‘The metaphor employed needs no explanation, being of frequent occurrence in writers of 60 MATTHEW V. 7, 8. all ages and nations. In the Scriptures it occurs in Psalm xvii. 15. Isaiah xli. 17. li. 1. xv. 13. John vii. 37. and elsewhere. So Phil. Jud. de Allegor. λιμὸν ἀρετῆς. Xenoph. Cyr. IV. 6. 7. ἐγὼ ὑμῖν διψῶ χαρίζεσθαι. VIII. 8. 16. πεινήσας χρημάτων... Virg. Ain. III. 57. Auri sacra fames. Horat. Epist. 1. 18, 99, Quem tenet argenti sitis importuna famesque. Cic. Tuse. IV. 17. sitienter expectabo. The verbs πεινᾶν and διψᾶν are found with an accusative in the LXX, as also in Philo and Josephus ; but there is no classical authority for the usage. Griprn, Gro- tTius, Kurnoet. The verb χορτάζεσθαι, which is properly used in relation to brutes, is sanctioned in its present usage by Arrian. Epict. I. 9. ὅτε χορτάσθητε σήμερον, κάθησθε κλαί- ovrec περὶ τῆς αὔριον, πόθεν φάγητε. Meander ap. Athen. XV. 14. ἀπενεγκάτω μοι τὴν τράπεζαν, ἱκανῶς κεχόρτωσμαι άρ. Hence Priscian. Ζ7η1|. Gram. XVIII. p. 103. notices the follow- ing Attic forms: χορτάζω σὲ ἄρτῳ, χορτάζω σε ἄρτον, ἐχορτάσ- θην πολλοῖς ἀγαθοῖς. WEeETSTEIN, ELsNeR, Kypxe.—| Gata- KER. | Ver. 7. ἐλεηθήσονται. Shall obtain mercy; scil. from God in the day of judgment ; though the beatitude may also involve the promise of similar merciful treatment from our fellow-men. Com- pare Matt. v. 45. vi. 14. Mark xi. 25. James ii. 13. Eccles. xxvili. 2. Under the idea of mercy, the Jews included the pardon of injuries, and alms-giving. In the tract Shabbath, p. 151. there is a saying very like this of our Lord; He who shews mercy to men, God will shew mercy to him; but to him who shews no mercy to man, God will shew no mercy. 'The English reader will immediately remember that beautiful delineation of mercy, inferior only to inspiration, in our immortal Shakspeare : Merchant of Venice, Act. ΤΥ. Sc. I. Grorrus, Beausosrg, A. CLARKE. Ver. 8. οἱ καθαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ. The pure in heart. This is di- rected against the Pharisees, who affected outward purity, and laid great stress upon the constant washings and cleansings, in which their religion principally consisted. God, says Origen, has no body, and, therefore, is invisible ; but men of contemplation can discern him with the heart and understanding. But a defiled heart cannot see God; and he must be pure, who wishes to enjoy a proper view of a pure Being. A similar remark is made by Seneca: Nat. Quest. Lib. 1. Malo caruisse, animum preparat ad cognitionem Dei, dignumque efficit, qui in consortium Dei veniat. So again, Epist. 87. Animus nisi purus et sanctus Deum non capit. The expression τὸν θεὸν ὄπτεσθαι may, however, be an Hebraism, signifying to possess God; i. 6. to enjoy his feli- city, especially in the life to come. For to see a thing was used among the Jews for possessing it. Compare Psalm xvi. 10. MATTHEW V. 9, 10. 61 John iii. 3. 16, and see Isaiah xxxiii. 15. sqq. Possibly our Lord alludes to the advantages possessed by those who were legally pure, of entering into the sanctuary, from which those who had contracted any legal defilement were excluded. This was obviously typical of admission into the presence of God. Beausospre, MicHaE is, A. CLARKE. Ver. 9. υἱοὶ Θεοῦ κληθήσονται. Shall be called; i.e. shall be, the sons of God. See on Matt. i. 16. God is called the Father of Peace in Rom. xy. 30, 2 Cor. xiii. 11. and elsewhere fre- quently in the Epistles. Hence, those who cultivate the dispo- sition here recommended, imitate God in this respect, and are, therefore, represented as his children ;—as those, whom he will love with a father’s affection, and bless with everlasting peace in heaven. The εἰρηνοποιοὶ, however, are not merely those who are peaceably inclined themselves, and of a pacific and forgiving disposition, but they endeavour also to promote peace among others. The word itself does not occur elsewhere, either in the LXX or the N. T. but the cognate verb εἰρηνοποιεῖν, occurs in Col. i. 20. where, from the context, it evidently signifies to re- -concile those at variance, to make peace. Etymology also, and classical usage, concur in affixing this sense to the word. Iso- crat. de Pace: φημὶ δὲ χρῆναι ποιεῖσθαι τὴν εἰρήνην πρὸς ἅπαν- τας ἀνθρώπους. Pollux, I. 152. περὶ συμμάχων εἰρηνοποιῶν καὶ πολεμοποιῶν. Compare also Xenoph. Hellen. VI. 8.4. So itis likewise explained by Chrysostom. Indeed, if nothing more were intended, than those who were peaceably disposed, this beatitude would nearly coincide with the third; whereas, though closely related, they are certainly distinct. Grotrus, Wuitsy, CAMPBELL, Kur1noret.—[ WALL. ] Ver. 10. μακάριοι of δεδιωγμένοι κι τ. A. Sol Pet. 11. 14. ἀλλ᾽ εἰ καὶ πάσχοιτε διὰ δικαιοσύνην, μακάριοι. The word διώ- κειν is rendered by Beza, in its well known forensic sense, judi- cio persequi; in reference to the judicial informations with which the early Christians were incessantly persecuted. But it seems rather to signify, in this verse at least, venar?, exagitare. Thu- eyd. I. 137. πάρειμι διωκόμενος ὑπὸ τῶν Ἑλλήνων διὰ τὴν σὴν φιλίαν. The persecution here mentioned, includes all outward acts of violence; such as martyrdom, imprisonment, and the like. In the next verse our Lord alludes to the persecution of the tongue; as slander, reviling, ridicule, &c. so that διώ- kev may there include its Jegal acceptation. In Clem. Alex. Strom. IV. 6. there are three various readings of the conclusion of this beatitude: 1. ὅτι αὐτοὶ ἔσονται τέλειοι. 2. ὅτι ἕξουσι τόπον ὅπου οὐ διωχθήσονται. 3. ὅτι αὐτοὶ υἱοὶ Θεοῦ κληθή- σονται. The two first are, probably, the substitutions of some injudicious copyist, in order to remove the supposed inelegance 62 MATTHEW V. 13, 14. of a repetition; and the latter clearly arose from a confusion of this verse with the preceding. Grorius, Micuarnis, A. CLARKE. Ver. 13. ὑμεῖς tore τὸ ἅλας τῆς γῆς" κι τ᾿ A. For the meaning of this passage see Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. p. 665. Maundrell, in his Travels, speaking of the Valley of Salt, states that he tasted some, which had been exposed to the atmosphere, and had entirely lost its savour. It is probable, however, that our Lord here alludes to a bituminous and fragrant species of salt, generated at the Lake Asphaltitis; great quantities of which were thrown by the priests over the sacrifices, to counteract the smell of the burning flesh, and to hasten its consumption. This substance, however, was easily damaged by exposure to the atmosphere; and the portion of it thus rendered unfit for the purpose to which it was ordinarily applied, was strewed upon the pavement of the temple, to prevent slipping in wet weather. A. CLARKE, ScHorTTcEN. With respect to the construction, the verb ἁλισ- θήσεται must be referred to ἅλας, as a nominative: How (ἐν rin, sc. τρόπῳ,) shall it, i. 6. the salt, recover its savour. In the parallel passage, Mark ix. 50. the precept is differently modelled ; and the verb μωραίνεσθαι is there supplied by its equivalent ἄναλον γενέσθαι. This use of the word, which is derived from μῶρος, foolish, is analogous to that of the adjective fatuus, in Latin, which is applied to food in the sense of insipid. Martial. Epigr. XIII. 101. fatua beta. XI. 32. 8. fatua placenta. Hence both the Greek and Latin terms correspond exactly with the Hebrew 55n, which signifies both foolish and unsavoury. Compare Job i. 22. vi. 6. xxiv. 12. Jerem. xxiii. 13. Lament. ii. 14, Licgurroot, ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ,. Ver. 14. τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου. The light of the world; 1. 6. the instruments, whereby God has chosen to illuminate the minds of men, and to enlighten the world by the publication of the Gospel. The title OY 3, ner olam, i. e. light of the world, was one which the Rabbis arrogated to themselves; and from them transferred by Christ to his own disciples. It was also one of the designations of the Messiah, so that Christ may be under- stood to mean: Ye have heard that the Messiah is called the ** Light of the world,” as indeed he is: but I say unto you, that ye are also so: and, therefore, as a eity, ὅς. The first part of the simile, which runs through the two following verses, was probably suggested to our Lord by the city Bethulia, situate a few points to the north of Mount Tabor, and distinctly visible from the spot where the sermon was delivered. In the next verse, the verb καίειν, signifying properly wrere, is used in the sense of accendere. ‘The proper expression would have been λύχνον ἅπτειν, as in Luke viii. 16. The other form, however, is not unsupported by classical authority. Xenoph. Hellen. VI. MATTHEW V. 17. 63 ὁ μὲν λύχνος ἐκαίετο. Artemid. II. 9. λύχνος δὲ καιόμενος ἐν οἰκίᾳ λαμπρός. Themist. Orat. 4. τὰ λύχνα καίοντες. The modius, (bushel, E. T.) was a measure, both among the Greeks and Romans, containing, in fact, a little less than an English peck ; but it is clear that nothing here depends upon the capa- city of the measure. It appears from Fulgentius, (Mythol. III. 6.) that those who had bad designs, frequently concealed a lamp under a modius, or elsewhere, that they might have light at hand, when the time arrived for the execution of their purpose. In the last clause of the simile, v. 16. the more classical form would have been ἰδόντες δοξάσωσι; not to mention that the verb δοξά- Cew signifies opinari, sentire, rather than laudare. The latter meaning, however, is sanctioned by Diodorus Siculus, Polybius, and other writers. Lastly, it is observable that the word φῶς, is transferred, by an easy change in the metaphor, from the teachers themselves, to the doctrine which they delivered. A. CiarkeE, WeTSTEIN, KuInoEL, ΚΎΡΚΕ, SCHOETTGEN, &c. The article is inserted before μόδιον and λυχνίαν, upon the principle of monadic nouns; as one only of each would probably be found ina house. MippLetTon, CAMPBELL. Ver. 17. καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον. In St. Paul’s Epistles the word νόμος is used in various senses, but in the Gospels and the Acts it always means the Law of Moses. See on fom. ii. 13. That the Mosaic dispensation was introductory to that of the Gospel; see Horne’s Introd. Vol. I. p. 429. VI. Judaism was never intended to have been of perpetual obligation, but to give place to the Gospel as soon as it had answered the purposes for which it was originally designed. It is to be considered as a portion of one great scheme of Revelation, every part of which, like the parts of a well-constructed machine, is admirably calcu- lated to answer its destined end. But though the introduction of Christianity abolished, as a natural consequence, the external forms and ceremonies of the Jewish law, it is evident from the whole tenor of the sacred writings, that while the ceremonial law alone was repealed, the moral precepts are still of perpetual obligation. It is not to be supposed, indeed, that an all-wise God would have prescribed a law, considered as a rule of life, under one dispensation, which should be at variance with his established regulations under another. Now the verbs καταλῦσαι and πληρῶσαι, which are here opposed to each other, evidently signify to render inefficient and efficient respectively. This is the sense which the context requires, and it is sanctioned by the usage of various authors. Thucyd. VIII. 76. τοὺς πατρίους νό- μους καταλύσαντας. Heliod. AXthiop. V. 15. καταλύεις τὸν νόμον τὸν ληστρικόν. Philost. Vit. Apollon. c. 40. νόμους μὲν καταλύεσθαι. The simple verb λύειν is used infra y. 19. ina less extensive sense than the compound. So in Latin, solvere. 64 MATTHEW V. 18. Q. Curt. X. 2. 5. solvendarum legum id principium esse cen- sebant. Liv. VIII. 7. disciplinam militarem solvisti. Compare also John xi. 35. With respect to the verb πληρῶσαι, its sense is sufficiently marked by the opposition. See also Matt. iii. 15. Acts xiii. 27. Rom, xiii. 8. Gal. v. 14. vi. 2. So Herod. I. 199. ἐκπλῆσαι τὸν νόμον. Hence it is inferred, that the moral law alone is here intended, the precepts of which our Lord ex- alted into a higher degree of excellence, and freed from the false glosses and erroneous interpretations of the Scribes and Pharisees. It is to be observed, however, that in answering the types, and fulfilling the prophecies, He perfected also the ceremonial law: the retention of which was absolutely unneces- sary, after that the shadow of the things which it represented was supplied by the substance. Wuirsy, Hammonp, Licut- FOOT, GROTIUS, Ver. 18. ἀμήν. Verily. This word, which is Hebrew, is either affirmative or precative: in the former sense it is equi- valent to the Greek ἀληθῶς, and so it is rendered in Jer. xxviii. 6. LXX. Compare Matt. xvi. 28. with Luke ix. 27. In the latter sense it is rendered yévorro. Thus the five books of Psalms, according to the Hebrew division, end each with Amen, Amen; which the LXX translate γένοιτο, γένοιτο ; and the Latins fiat, fiat. Suidas: ἀμήν" ἀληθῶς, ἢ ἀντὶ τοῦ γένοιτο. In reference to the proper signification of the word, our Saviour is called tHE AMEN; the true and faithful witness, Rev. iii. 14. Grotius, Catmet. The expression ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ κ. τ. A. 15 proverbial, denoting an impossibility, as in Matt. xxiv. 35. Mark xiii. 31. Luke xvi. 17. xxi. 3. Compare Psal. |xxii. 7. Isaiah liv. 10. Jerem. xxxiii. 20. So Dion. Halicarn. VI. 95. “Ῥωμαίοις καὶ ταῖς Λατείνων πόλεσιν ἁπάσαις εἰρήνη πρὸς ἀλλή- λοις ἔστω, μέχρις ἂν οὐρανός τε καὶ γῆ τὴν αὐτὴν στάσιν ἔχωσι. Grotius, WETSTEIN. Ibid. ἰῶτα ἕν ἢ μία κέραια. The ota, or Hebrew yod (δ), was the smallest letter in the alphabet, and thence it was sometimes - employed by the Jews to denote a short precept of the law. The κέραια, or téttle, has been supposed by some to denote the vowel points of the language; but, not to mention that these are supposed to have been introduced at a much later period, it is amply proved, by several passages in the Rabbinical writers, that it refers to the apices, or small points, which distinguish several of the Hebrew letters from each other. In Shir Hashirim Rabba are these words: Should all the inhabitants of the earth gather together in order to whiten one feather of a crow, they could not succeed ; so if all the inhabitants of the earth should unite to abolish one (*) yod, which is the smallest letter in the whole law, they would not be able to effect it. In Vayikra Rabba, §. 19. it is said: Should any person, in the words of Deut. vi. 4. MATTHEW V. 19. 65 Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is (108, achad,) one Lord, change the 7 into a he would ruin the world ; because the word INN, achar, signifies a false God. Again: Should any one, in the words of Exod. xxxiv. 14. Thou shalt worship no (ANN, achar,) other God, change the \ into a, he would ruin the world; because the commandment would then run thus: thou shalt not worship the only, i. e. the true God. These instances, selected from a variety of a similar nature, are sufficient to ex- plain the import of the passage. Our Lord asserts the eternal obligation of the moral law, the precepts of which he enforced in their strictest sense, and explained them (v. 21. sqq.) as extending to purity of thought, as well as innocence of action. Licurroort, A. CLARKE, SCHOETTGEN. Ver. 19. τῶν ἐντολῶν τούτων τῶν ἐλαχίστων. The Pharisees were remarkable for making distinctions between weightier and lighter matters of the law; and for giving loose interpretations to the precepts contained in it. They had distorted the meaning of many passages in the O. T., according to their own notions of easy morality; and the sanction of the Scribes, who belonged chiefly to their own sect, and whose decisions were esteemed weighty, even above the words of the law itself, had enabled them to give to their pretended sanctity a faint shadow of con- formity with the precepts of the Levitical code. In the Jeru- salem Talmud, p. 8, 2. is the following declaration: The words of the Scribes are lovely above the words of the law ; for the words of the law are weighty and light, but the words of the Scribes are all weighty. Hence, therefore, and from the tenets of the Scribes and Pharisees, as explained in Horne’s Intro- duction, the import of our Lord’s denunciation against them in this and the following verse, is sufficiently apparent. The king- dom of heaven may here mean the Christian Church; and. those whom he describes as being greatest and least therein, are those professors of his religion, who do, or do not, respectively act up to their profession. The meaning, however, may also extend to the Church, in its state of glory in heaven. Macxnicut, Wuirsy, Grotius. It is evident that the verb λύειν, in this verse, is less extensive in signification than the compound καταλύειν, v. 17. The verb here opposed to λύειν is ποιεῖν, which fixes the sense of each verb respectively to simple neglect of, and obedience to, the precepts in question. CampBeLL. The positive adjective μέγας is here put for the superlative μέγιστος, in opposition to ἐλάχιστος, in the preceding clause. This is a very familiar Hebra- ism; (compare Nehem. viii. 17. 1 Sam. viii. 14. Matt. xx. 26.) but it is not exclusively so. Soph. Ant. 72. καλόν μοι τοῦτο ποιούσῃ θανεῖν. Schol. εὐκλεέστατον. Diodorus has μεγάλην βασιλείαν for μεγίστην, p. 544. B. Munrue, Κυιϊνοει. Of VOL. I. EF 00 MATTHEW YV. 21, 22. the omission of τῆς δικαιοσύνης before τῶν γραμματέων Kai Φ. in y. 90, see my note on 1]. P. 51. Ver. 21. τοῖς ἀρχαίοις. E. T. By, and in the margin, To them of old time; i. e. those who lived under the patriarchal and Jewish dispensations. See Gen. ix. 6. Exod. xx. 13. Many commentators are in favour of the latter rendering, as in 2 Sam. v. 6. LXX. ἐῤῥέθη τῷ Δαβίδ. Compare also Rom. iv. 12. 26. Gal. iii. 16. Rev. ix. 4. vi. 11. At the same time the dative is frequently used instead of the genitive with ὑπὸ or διά. Dion. Halic. A. R. 11. p. 103. ὡς εἴρηταί μοι πρότερον. It is highly probable also, that the passage corresponds with the common Talmudic expression, Déxerunt majores nostri. SCHLEUSNER, ScHOETTGEN, ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ, PaLatret.—[CampBeLL, RosENMUL- LER, DoppripvGe.| Kypke and Kuinoel understand the oi ἀρ- χαιοὶ to be the Jewish teachers immediately preceding the Gospel age, during the period in which the spirit of the moral law had been most shamefully perverted. There is no doubt that our Lord alludes to these corruptions; in opposition to which he pointed out the true scope and intention of the law, which had been made of none effect by their traditions. This is evident from the transgression in question being amenable τῇ κρίσει, to the Judgment, i. e. to one of the inferior courts of judicature among the Jews; probably that which consisted of twenty-three judges; of which, and of the Council or Sanhedrim, τῷ συνεδρίῳ, mentioned in the next verse, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. Ch. III. Sect. I. §. 3. Moreover, the words ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐῤῥέθη can scarcely apply to a written law; so that the opposition is not between the precept of the law and the Gospel, but between our Saviour’s explanation of the law, and that of the Jewish doctors, which they pretended to have derived from Moses by tradition, LicutTroot, Wuitspy, Grotius, MAckNIGHT. Ver, 22. τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ. That is, with any one. Compare Gen. xxvi. 21. Joel ii. 8. The Jewish Church consisted of two denominations of men; viz. brethren, or Israelites, who were all of one blood; and neighbours, or proselytes. Thus, every Israelite was called AIA 33, Ben Berith, a son of the covenant. This distinction is removed under the Gospel, under which we are all brethren. Grorius, Ligntroot, Macxnieut. The ad- verb εἰκῆ is wanting in the Vatican MS. and two others, in several versions, and in Justin M., Origen, and Tertullian. Hence it has been supposed by some to be merely a marginal gloss, which, by degrees, has found its way into the text. The word, however, is found in the Syriac, and most of the ancient MSS., supported by the authority of Irenzeus, Cyprian, Chry- sostom, and others of the early fathers. Besides, as αὐ anger is not unlawful, but only that which is causeless or immoderate, to ΜΑΤΤ ΗΕ ν. 292. 67 which restriction the adverb pertains, the sense evidently re- quires its insertion. Grotius, Wuitsy, Brausopre.—[MuI1, A, CLARKE. | Ibid. paxa. Heb. Tp, from P, rak, to be empty. The word is a term of great reproach among the Jews, signifying a person of weak understanding, and consummate vanity. In the ensu- ing clause, the idea attached to the word μωρὲ is evidently intended to rise a degree higher in reproach and malevolence. Hence it has been conjectured, that it is not the Greek μωρὸς, but the Hebrew 113, rebellious apostate, which is here in- tended; and which was expressive among the Jews of the most aggravated guilt. Licurroot, A. CLARKE. Lhid. τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός. The Gehenna of fire. E. T. Fell-fire. ‘The word yéevva is composed of two Hebrew words, ΩΣ δ, gig, Hinnom, i. 6. the valley of Hinnom, a place near Jerusalem, mentioned in Josh. xv. 8. where the LXX have εἰς φάραγγα Evvdu. It was here that children were sacrificed by fire to Moloch, the Canaanitish idol; whence the place was also called Tophet, which signifies a drum, from the noise which was raised by that instrument, in order to drown the cries of the help- less victims: 2 Kings xxii. 10. From these barbarities the place Degame in time to be considered as an emblem of the place of torment, reserved for the punishment of the wicked in a future state; and in this sense the word γέεννα is used invariably, or, at least, with no decisive exception in the N. T. In the O.T. it is not so mentioned, and, accordingly, the word yeévva does not occur in the LXX, but the Hebrew is literally rendered as above. In Joshua xviii. 16. the MSS. vary between yatevvou and yaievva. The Targums employ the word in the sense of Hell, on Ruth ii. 12. Psalm οχ]. 12. Gen. iii. 24. and elsewhere. Lientroot, CAmppetL. Mr. Hewlett, however, supposes that the word is here employed in its literal sense, without any refer- ence to its metaphorical meaning. Our Lord has mentioned three gradations of crime, and annexed to each its appropriate punishment. In the two former cases the punishments are tem- poral, and such only as the judicial tribunals, which were now deprived of the power of life and death, could award. Hence Mr. Hewlett infers, from the analogy of our Saviour’s reasoning, that the punishment annexed to the last crime would also be of a temporal nature; more particularly as the offence can only be considered as an abuse of speech, like the preceding, though in a more aggravated form. It is to be observed, however, that our Lord is speaking with reference to the law respecting murder, and that the consequences of anger, attended with abuse of speech, may lead eventually to crimes of the deepest dye; so as to bring the sinner into imminent danger of the divine vengeance. In the two preceding casés also, it is possible that Christ intended to intimate a certain analogy between the tribunal of the Jewish F2 68 MATTHEW V. 25. 27. courts and that of our heavenly Judge. At all events, the con- nexion of the declaration with the succeeding admonitions evi- dently points to this interpretation of the word; at the same time that forgiveness is offered upon reconciliation with the injured party. The necessity of a peaceable disposition is first enforced by the assurance that God will not accept the offerings made to him, in compliance with the Levitical law of restitution, unless such compliance proceeds from the heart; and the exhortation is then enforced by the consideration of what is reckoned prudent in ordinary law-suits. The import of the precept contained in the two following verses is fully explained in Horne’s Introd. Vol. ITI. p. 392. Ver. 25. ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ. Heinec. Antiq. Rom. IV. 6. 18. Sole- bant etiam reus et actor nonnunquam transigere ingpia, et tune quoque dimittebatur, qui in jus fuerat vocatus. The Romanists have pressed this passage into their service, for the purpose of supporting the doctrine of purgatory. For the true interpreta- tion of it, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. p. 596. and for a full account of the judicial terms employed in it, the reader will consult the second part of the same work; Vol. III. Ch. 3. Sect. I. The guadrans (κοδράντης) was a Roman coin, value about three half-pence. Ver. 27. ov μοιχεύσεις. This precept the Rabbis interpreted literally, as merely forbidding to lie with another man’s wife : and it appears from the Targum on Ewzod. xx. 13, that they were very loose moralists in this respect. Our Lord there- fore asserts, that it is not only the act, but the wnchaste desire. also,—the adulterous eye, as it is called, 2 Pet. ii. 14. which is included in the precept. The verb ἐπιθυμεῖν, in this sense, is sanctioned by Herod. I. 216. τῆς yao ἐπιθυμήσει γυναικὸς Μασ- σαγέτης ἀνὴρ μισγέται ἀδεῶς. M. Antonin. c. 1. ταύτην ἰδὼν, ἐπεθύμησεν αὐτῆς. It is to be observed, that our Lord here speaks of married women : the words μοιχεύειν and μοιχεία being used chiefly in this sense. See ony. 32. The word γυνὴ is limited to the sense of γυνὴ ἀλλοτρία in Clem. Alex. Strom. VII. 13. Theoph. ad Austol. III. 13. Origen. Hom. in Gen. i. 17. It may be curious to subjoin a few passages from heathen writers of a somewhat similar character with the precept of our Lord. /Blian. H. V. XIV. 28. οὐ μόνον ὁ ἀδικήσας κακὸς, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὃ ἐννοήσας ἀδικῆσαι. Juven. Sat. XIII. 208. Has patitur poenas peccandi sola voluptas ; Nam scelus intra se tacitum qui cogitat ullum, Facti crimen habet. Senec. de Ira, 1. 3. Injuriam qui Jacturus est, jam facit. Epist. 51. Projice, quecunque cor tuum lanient; que, si aliter extrahi nequirent, cor ipsum cum iis revellendum erat. In the following verses there is allusion to the amputation of diseased members of the body, in order to MATTHEW V. 61. 69 prevent the spreading of the complaint. By the offending eye, and the offending hand, are evidently meant the eye of concu- piscence, and the hand of violence, which it is necessary to re- strain by a powerful resolution, lest the gratification of impure desires endanger our salvation. This, says Chrysostom, zs a mild and easy precept ;—it would have been much more hard to have been commanded to gaze familiarly upon women, and then to abstain from impure connexion with them. ‘The Rabbins have a saying similar to this of our Lord’s: Χ 25 better to be scorched with a little fire in this world, than to be burned with a devouring fire in the next. The verb σκανδαλίζειν signifies, to put a stumbling block in one’s way ; from σκάνδαλον, a stumbling block, or as it is explained by Suidas, atrap. Judith v. 1. UXX. ἔθη- Kav ἐν τοῖς πεδίοις σκάνδαλα. Hence, to tempt, to lead astray, to cause to offend. Wuirsy, LicutrooT, Macxnieut, Kut- NOEL. ο Ver. 31. ἀποστάσιον. A writing of divorce. The following is a common form of such a document; Ox the day of the week , «n the month , n the year , from the beginning of the world, according to the common computation in the pro- vince of ; I, N. the son of N. by whatever name I am called, of the city , with entire consent of mind, and without any compulsion, have divorced, dismissed, and expelled thee, M. the daughter of M., by whatever name thou art called, of the city , who wast heretofore my wife ; but now I have dismissed thee :—thee, I say, M., the daughter of M., by whatever name thou art called, of the city ; so as to be free, and at thy own disposal, to marry whomsoever thou pleasest, without any hind- rance from any one, from this day for ever. Thou art there- Sore free for any man. Let this be thy title of divorce from me, a writing of separation and expulsion, according to the law of Moses and Israel.—This writing was sealed with the hus- band’s seal, and signed by two witnesses.—Of the reason which rendered this indulgence necessary, and the shameful abuse which was made of it by the Jews, see Horne’s Introduction, Vol. III. p. 428. ; and of the controversy between the schools of Schammai and Hillel, on the subject of divorce, see ibid. p. 576. The grand subject of dispute was the word NYY, oruth, rendered uncleanness, in Deut. xxiv. 1. which Shammai held to mean whoredom ; and Hillel, any defect whatever, whether of person or disposition. When, upon another occasion, (Matt. xix. 3.) our Lord was consulted upon this subject, with the secret inten- tion of eliciting from him an offensive answer, he first enforced the solemn obligation of the marriage contract, by a reference to its original institution ; and upon the law of Moses being objected in reply, he limited the license of divorce, by a repetition of the precept which he has here delivered. 70 MATTHEW V. 32, 33. Ver, 32. παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας. E. T. saving for the cause of fornication. Kuinoel considers λόγου to be redundant, and analogous to the Hebrew 7237 by, which is put for ὅν. Com- pare 2 Macc. iii, 6. Tob. xii. 6. There is considerable differ- ence of opinion with respect to this clause of exception; some interpreting the word πορνεία, of fornication before marriage ; others of adultery; and others of vice generally. The more general opinion is that which understands the term of adultery, properly so called. But the word employed in this sense throughout the N. T. is μοιχεία, and there are several passages in which μοιχεία is distinguished from πορνεία in such a manner, that if the two words be equivalent, one of them would be most unnecessarily redundant. Thus in 1 Cor, vi. 10. where Schleus- ner remarks that πορνοὶ a μοιχοὶ diserte distinguuntur, Com- pare also Matt. xv. 19. Mark vii. 21. Gal. v. 19. Heb, xiii. 4. Hence commentators have imagined πορνεία stands for a class of crimes, of which μοιχεία is a particular offence. Thus Selden affirms, that it is equivalent to ΠῚ), oruth, and was used by our Lord in reference to Deut. xxiv. 1. But it was the object of our Lord not to confirm but to restrict the abused law of divorce. Mr. Morgan, in his elaborate appendix to his work on Marriage, Adultery, and Divorce, has thoroughly investigated the meaning of the word by a careful examination of the passages in which it occurs, not only in the N. T. and the LXX, but in Josephus, Philo, and the early fathers. The result of this examination is, that πορνεία, in its primary acceptation, and in accordance with its derivation, παρὰ τὸ πόῤῥω νεύειν, given by Suidas after Theo- doret and Athanasius, signifies religious apostacy οὐ idolatry ; and thence any specific act of idolatry, and more especially the intermarriage of a Jew with an idolatrous Gentile. Schleusner, among other interpretations of the word, includes incest; a no- tion which the Jews extended to all intermarriages with heathen or strange women, as they were called. Hence the same lexico- grapher explains one text, Job. iv. 13. de conjugio cum muliere aliena, i. 6. Gentili, Such marriages are expressly forbidden in Exod, xxxiv. 12. 15, 16. Deut, vii. 1—4, and the violation of the commandment, during the captivity at Babylon, was a source of the deepest affliction to Ezra and Nehemiah, who considered it in the light of a rejection of God’s covenant. Adultery, in fact, was a capital crime; and therefore our Lord can scarcely be sup- posed to have ordained a divorce against those, who were to be strangled to death. The question is undoubtedly one of consi- derable difficulty, and those, who would wisl ; Ὁ er iter deeply into its merits, will find it amply and ably discussed in the work above referred to. Ver. 33. οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις. Levit. xix. 12. The morality of the Jews on this point was truly execrable. They maintained 10 MATTHEW V. 34. 71 that a man might swear with his lips, and annul the oath in the same moment with his heart; a doctrine below the standard even of heathen rectitude. See Hom. 1]. I. 312. They held also that oaths are obligatory according to the nature of the thing by which a man swears; asserting that the law, which our Saviour here cites, referred to those oaths only which were of a binding nature. Instances of this distinction, which they made between oaths that were and were not binding, are expressly cited and con- demned by our Lord in Matt. xxiii. 16. and the injunction here given against swearing by Heaven, by Jerusalem, &c. is in rela- tion to a variety of frivolous adjurations which were constantly in their mouths. Numberless forms of these oaths are to be met with in their writings. Maimonides observes that it was customary with them to swear by the creatures; and that if any man swore by the Earth, by Heaven, by the Sun, &c. although the mind of the swearer be under these words to swear by him who created them, yet this was not an oath. The Mischna as- serts, that if any man adjures another by Heaven or Earth, his oath is not binding ; but of he adjure him by the Almighty, or any other title of God, then his oath was binding. ‘This doctrine is also recognised by Philo, de Legg. Spec. p. 770. Ed. Pay. Martial seems to allude to this as a notorious opinion of the Jews, Epig. 11. 95. Ecce negas, jurasque mihi per templa To- nantis: Non credo: Jura, Verpe, per Anchialum. ‘The word Anchialus is supposed to be formed from the Hebrew name of God; so that the oath proposed was of all others the most so- lemn and binding. Their judicial oaths were always in the name of God, Exod. xxii. 10. To these, therefore, our Lord’s prohibition evidently does not extend. See Deut. vi. 13. Heb. vi. 16. Under the following reference the student will find a variety of Pagan adjurations not unlike those of the Jews. Apoll. Rhod. I. 699. Virg. Ain. IX. 300. 429. XII. 176. 197. Ovid, Trist. V. 4. 45. Catull. LXVII. 40. Juven. Sat. VIII. 106. Horat. Od. II. 8. 5. Wuuitsy, Ligutroot, ScHOETTGEN, A. CLARKE, MAcKNIGHT. Ver. 34. θρόνος ἐστὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Herod. IV. 68. τὰς δὲ βασι- ληΐας ἱστίας νόμος Σκύθῃσι τὰ μάλιστά ἐστι ὀμνύναι τότε, ἐπεὰν τὸν μέγιστον ὅρκον ἐθέλωσι ὀμνύναι. This passage will farther serve to illustrate the proper classical government of the verb ὀμνύναι, which is regularly followed by an accusative, as in James v.12. So again in Soph. Menalip. fr. "Opvupe δ᾽ ἱερὸν αἰθέρ᾽, οἴκησιν Διός. The preposition ἐν is added Hebraice. Compare Gen. xxii. 16. Jos. ii. 12. Inv. 35. εἰς is substituted for ἐν, as in Matt. ii. 23. The inference which our Lord would here establish is, the solemn obligation of oaths of every descrip- tion, and the consequent impiety of employing them in common conversation, and upon every trifling occasion. In swearing by 72 MATTHEW Υ. 37, 38. God’s inanimate creatures, who are incapable of witnessing or avenging perjury, we are no less guilty of the crime, and no less amenable to punishment. The oath is a virtual appeal to the Creator himself, who is the Lord of Heaven and Earth, and all things therein: not to mention that the oath implies a solemn imprecation, that we may be deprived of the benefits we derive from those creatures, by which we rashly swear. The expres- sions employed in this and the following verse are from Isaiah Ixvi. 1. Psal. xlviii. 1, 2. xcv. 3. A. CLARKE, MACKNIGHT, KUINOEL. Ver. 37. vat ναί" οὗ ov. In James v. 12. this sentiment is more fully expressed thus: Let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay. ‘The first yea and nay therefore signify the promise or as- sertion, the second its fulfilment, according to this construction: ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν ὃ ναὶ, ἔστω val? ὁ δὲ λόγος 6 οὗ, ἔστω οὔ. Accord- πον the word yea is used as a promise in Rev. i. 7. and as the Sulfilment of a promise in 2 Cor. i. 10. On the other hand, it is said of those who do not fulfil their engagements that their word is yea and nay; 2 Cor. i. 18, 19. Macxnieut, Kurnoe.. In the words ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ the article determines nothing, as has been supposed, respecting the question, whether the meaning be of evil, or of the evil one. The neuter adjective with the arti- cle may doubtless be used in the place of a substantive, and so τὸ πονηρὸν 15 found in one indubitable instance, (tom. xii. 9.) where it is opposed to τὸ ἀγαθόν. The latter interpretation, however, is more probable, and it is sanctioned by the declaration of our Lord in John viii. 44. One of the MSS., indeed, and Gregory Nyssen, a commentator of the fourth century, read ἐκ τοῦ δια[βό- Aov: and the Syriac translator has used the same word in this place which he has employed for ὁ πονηρὸς, Matt. xiii. 19. and other undoubted cases; and also for τοῦ διαόλου, Acts x. 88. In the Lord’s Prayer, again, he has used the same word; and there the fathers almost unanimously so understood it. Mup- DLETON, Wuitspy.—[CampBELL, Grortius.] In v. 39. τῷ πονηρῷ signifies not the evil one, κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, but the evil person; i. 6. him from whom injur y h s been received. The case comes under the first rule of insertion, noticed on Matt. i. ie 1 5p... 50 ἢ Bese Ver. 38. ὀφθαλμὸν ἀντὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ, κ. τ. ΓᾺ Scil. ώ FELC. Our Lord refers to the law of retaliation, mentioned in Levit. xxiv. 19. Deut. xix. 21. of which, and its abuse in our Saviour’s time, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 137. and for an exposition of the doctrine laid down in this and the following verses, Vol. II. p. 636. sqq. The law of Solon on this point enacted, that if a man had put out the eye of another who had but one, the offender was condemned to lose both his eyes, inas- MATTHEW V. 39, 40, 41. 73 much as the loss of one would not be an equivalent misfortune : Diog. Laert. zn Solon. I. 57. Ver. 39. The verb ἀντιστῆναι here signifies not only to resist, but to repay, to retaliate. A similar admonition to this of our Lord is given, but from a different motive, by Seneca, de Ira: II. 34. Cum pare contendere anceps est, cum superiore furio- sum. Percussit te? Recede : referiendo enim occasionem sepius Seriendi dabis. Several of the Heathen philosophers also repre- sented revenge as a weak and degrading passion. So Juven. Sat. XIII. 199. Infirmé est animi, exiguique voluptas Ultio. The contempt attached to this passion might sometimes probably pre- vent its effects ; but it is easy to perceive the superiority of motive which is held out by the Gospel to the opposite virtue, forgiveness of injuries. Smiting on the face is a proverbial ex- pression denoting contumely and insult. Liv. iv. 35. prebere ad contumeliam os. ‘Tacit. Hist. III. 31. preberi ora contumeliis. See Lament. iii. 30. 2 Cor. xi. 20. Grotius, Kurnoret, LE CLERC. Ver. 40. .θέλοντί σοι κριθῆναι. E. T. Sue thee at the law: Vulg. judicio contendere. In this sense the verb κρίνεσθαι oc- curs in Job ix. 3. Joei iii. 2. Hos. ii. 2. LXX, and elsewhere. From its forensic signification, however, the word sometimes passes, by an easy transition, to denote a dispute or contention of any kind. Hesych. κρινώμεθα: ἀντὶ τοῦ μαχώμεθα καὶ διαλεγώ- μεθα. Hesiod. Theog. 535. ἐκρίνοντο θεοὶ ὑπ τὰ τ᾽ ἄνθρωποι. If the primary sense of the word be retained, our Saviour will be understood as speaking of litigious characters, who vex others with iniquitous and unfounded suits of law, for the purpose of unjustly depriving them of their property. The participle θέ- λοντι is here redundant, as Deut. i. 5. Hos.,v. 11. So also in Hom. I. H. 375. Longin. de Sublim. XX XVIII. 2. Xen. Cyrop. I. 1. 3. Anab. VI. 2. 6. Mem. II. 6. 27. Of χιτὼν, the upper, and ἱμάτιον, the under garment, see Horne. Wuirsy, ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ,. Ver. 41. ἀγγαρεύσει. This verb is derived from the Persians, among whom the king’s couriers, or messengers, were called "Ayyapo.. Hesych. ἄγγαρος" ἡ λέξις Περσίκη᾽ σημαίνει δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐκ διαδοχῆς βασιλικοὺς γραμματοφόρους. So also Suidas. These messengers had the royal authority for pressing horses, ships and men, to forward them in the service on which they were employed. The custom still prevails; and there is no pardon for him who refuses a chappar, as he is now called, the use of the best horse in his stable. See Herod. VIII. 98. Xenoph. Cyrop. VIII. 6. 17. Arrian, Epict. HI. 18. Joseph. Ant. XIII. 8. The Jews also, and other provinces, were com- pelled by the Roman governor, to furnish their posts with horses, 74 MATTHEW V. 49. and to accompany them on the road: an exaction which was afterwards remitted by Demetrius. See Plin. Epist. X. 14, 191, Joseph. Ant. XIII. 5. From this usage the verb came to denote any act of oppression and compulsory violence. It occurs again in Matt. xxvii. 32. Mark xv. 21. and frequently in the Talmudic writings. Muicuaents, Ligntroot, Grorius. Of the μίλιον, or Roman mile, and other Latinisms in the N. T., see Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. p. 30. Ver. 48. καὶ μισήσεις τὸν ἐχθρόν cov. Of the extreme de- testation and abhorrence which the Jews entertained for the Gen- tiles, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. pp. 376. 387. The passage to which our Lord refers is Levit. xix. 18. where this last clause does not appear, nor is it to be found in the Law. The doctors, however, pretended that it was deducible from the first part of the precept, which seems to limit forgiveness to Israelites; and they supported their opinion by an appeal to tradition, and by the precepts concerning the idolatrous nations. To some of these nations, indeed, enmity was authorised, more especially the Canaanites, Deut. vii. 1. the Midianites, Namb. xxxi. 2. the Amalekites, Hwod. xvii. 14. As for the Moabites, they were never to receive them into their communion, Dewt. xxiii. 3. and the same command extended to the Edomites and Egyptians, but to the third generation only, Deut. xxiii. 7. Such, therefore, being their situation with respect to the nations in and near Canaan, they looked upon every heathen in the same light, and considered them as enemies upon whom it was lawful to avenge themselves, if they had an opportunity. Their aversion to the Samaritans was equally powerful; so that they would not condescend to salute either the one or the other. But the precepts cited above evidently had no reference to the disposition with which particular persons among the Jews were to meet particular persons among the Heathens, but merely described the manner in which they were to treat them as bodies politic, in which capacity it was most just to destroy them because of their abominations and idolatries, (Levet. xviii. 25—28.) but not till the measure of their iniquity was completed. The Jews were God’s ministers, and they were to punish without hatred: but overlooking the reason and intent of these precepts, they absurdly extended them to heathens in general; in direct opposition to the express injunc- tion of the Law, that they were to love the stranger that dwelt among them as their own people, Levit. xix. 34. In fact, they did not hesitate to indulge private enmities against their brethren. Macknicut, Wuitsy. Instead of πλήσιον the codex Grevii reads φίλον, and in v. 47. instead of ἀδελφοὺς, a great number of MSS. have φίλους. In either case the sense is the same; but the received readings are more conformable to the Jewish mode of address. See above on v. 22. MATTHEW V. 44, 45. 48. we Ver. 44, ἐπηρεαζόντων. E. Τὶ Despitefully use; Vulg. Ca- lumniantibus. The verb signifies generally, to injure, either by word or deed; to threaten, to maltreat, to calumniate. Com- pare Herod. VI. 9. Thucyd. I. 27. Frequently, however, it has a forensic signification, for bringing a criminal charge, or false accusation, against any one: and so it is used in the only other place of the N. Τ᾽, except the parallel passage of Luke, where it occurs: 1 Pet. ii. 16. So also Pollux, VIII. 30. Philost. Viz. Apollon. VIII. 4. Joseph. Ant. XVI. 4. Hence its connexion with διώκειν has induced some commentators to affix to it the same meaning here also. But διώκειν is not used in a judicial sense; and as our Lord has already spoken of those who perse- cute with their words, it seems probable that he here alludes to those who injure by their actions. The clause is wanted in some MSS. and versions: and Origen has cited the verse five times with the same omission. ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ, Kypxe.—[E.sner. | Ver. 45. ὅτι τὸν ἥλιον x. τ. A. The immortal gods, says An- toninus, de Sezpso, VII. 70. not only patiently bear with wicked men, but take all manner of care of them; and shalt thou, a mortal man, be weary of bearing with them? So Seneca, de Benef. IV. 26. Si Deos imitaris, da et ingratis beneficia. Nam et sceleratis sol oritur, et piratis patent maria. Compare Job xxv. 3. The neuter verb ἀνατέλλω is here used in an active signification for ἀνατέλλειν ποιῶ ; and verbs not regularly transi- tive are frequently employed in this manner, to express the He- brew conjugation Azphil. Thus in 1 Sam. viii. 22. Psalm cxlvii. 8. LXX. 2 Cor. ii. 14. et passim, The same idiom is also em- ployed by the best Greek writers. See my note on Eurip. Phcen. 233. Pent. Gr. p. 317. In the next verse there is an ellipsis of the adverb μόνον, which is supplied in v. 47. So also in Matt. xxiv. 8. Mark ix. 37. Luke xiv. 12, 13. John xii. 44. Acts v. 4. Rom. iii. 28. iv. 9. 1 Cor. xiv. 22. 1 Tim. v. 23. Philem. 17. For classical authorities, see Bos Ellips. Gr. p. 482. Of the τελῶναι, publicans, and of the Jewish modes of salutation, see Horne. Wuitsy, Grortius. Ver. 48. ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑμεῖς τέλειοι. Future for imperative. See my note on Hom. Il. K. 88. It is evident that the precept here given cannot be understood in that latitude, of which the words would literally admit. The perfection of the divine goodness is absolutely universal and infinite ; and, consequently, unattainable by the most active human exertion. The meaning is, that we are to form our principles of duty as near as possible upon the divine pattern; and, by a contemplation of his perfections, to strive to imitate our Creator, more especially in acts of benevo- lence and good-will towards our fellow-men. The particle ὥσπερ does not always denote equality; but only such a degree of 76 MATTHEW. VIE1. analogy, however imperfect, as is pointed out in the things com- pared. The word τέλειος, also, is frequently to be understood in Scripture of such perfection merely as human virtue can attain. See Coloss. i. 28. iv. 12. James iii. 2. Justin M. (Dial. Tryph.) calls the mere embracing of Christianity, τέλειον yevéo- Oa. Inthe parallel passage, Luke vi. 36. the word is not ré- λειοι, but οἰκτίρμονες, which limits the precept more expressly to the duty of Christian love, one with another. Wuuirsy, Gro- TIus, MACKNIGHT. CHAP VI. ConTENTS :—Continuation of the Sermon on the Mount. Verse 1. προσέχετε. Scil. τὸν vovv.. So also Acts xvi. 14. Heb. ii. 1. The omission is supplied in Arist. Νὰ. 1010. Pac. 174. The construction is: προσέχετε τὸν νοῦν, ὥστε μὴ ποιεῖν x. το AX. In the latter clause of the verse there is also an ellipsis, which must be filled up from the preceding sentence: εἰ δὲ μήγε, scil. προσέχετε x. τ. X. Similar instances will be found in my note on Hom. 1]. A. 135.—The MSS. Edd. and versions vary be- tween δικαιοσύνην and ἐλεημοσύνην. Our translators have adopted the latter, and it seems to have been very commonly received. It is highly probable, however, that the true reading is δικαιοσύνην, instead of which ἐλεημοσύνην, which was originally only a mar- ginal gloss, has, by some careless copyists, been substituted in the text. Our Lord, in all probability, used the word APTS, Tsadekah, which was used to denote not only r7ghteousness, ge- nerally, but more especially, alms-giving. ‘This latter meaning is confirmed by a variety of passages in the Talmudic writings, and the Hellenists frequently employ δικαιοσύνη in the same signification. In the O. T. however, MPT8 always imports righteousness ; and it was only afterwards that it became in po- pular language to mean alms; in giving of which, the Jews con- sidered that a great part of religion consisted. But though δικαιοσύνη sometimes implies alms, it does not always do so; just as τέλειος, which seems to convey the idea of merciful, in the last verse of chap. v. is not confined to perfection in that point only. The fact is, that our Lord delivers his precept generally, using the word δικαιοσύνην, righteousness ; of which he immediately specifies the several particulars of alms, v. 2. prayer, v. 6. and fasting, v. 16. The Jews were addicted to an ostentatious display in all and each of these legal observances; and the similitude of the form in which the rational discharge of them is inculcated, together with the change of number from the plural to the singular after the general exhortation, evidently proves that they are all included in the first general term δικαιοσύνη. MATTHEW VI. 2, 3. 77 Those interpreters, on the contrary, who read ἐλεημοσύνην, or limit δικαιοσύνην to alms-giving, confine the import of the first verse to the three which succeed it. Griesbach has restored δικαιοσύνην in his edition; and he is supported by the Vatican MS. and the Codex Beze. 'The Latin vulgate has justitiam ; and so Tertullian, Augustin, and most of the Latin Fathers. The verb θεαθῆναι, spectari, is widely different from ὀφθῆναι, vidert. Our Lord does not forbid public almsgiving, any more than he forbids pubic prayer ; but an ostentatious desire of gain- ing the applause of men, rather than the inward satisfaction of an approving conscience. Cicero has a parallel sentiment in Tusc. Quest. II. 26. Mihi quidem laudabiliora videntur omnia, que sine venditatione, et sine populo teste fiunt. Nullum thea- trum virtuti conscientia majus est. Breza, Mity, Doppriper, Wuirsy.—[Lieutroot. | Ver. 2. μὴ σαλπίσῃς ἔμπροσθέν cov. It has been thought by some that the Pharisees literally sounded a trumpet before them, under pretence of collecting the poor to receive their alms, but really for the purpose of ostentation. Others again suppose, that a custom prevailed among the Jews, similar to that of the Per- sian Dervises, who carry horns with them, and blow them upon receiving alms, in honour of the donor. To neither of these customs, however, is there the most distant allusion in any of the Jewish writings; and, at all events, our Lord clearly addresses the giver, and not the receiver. It is most probable, therefore, that sounding a trumpet is merely a proverbial phrase for courting publicity: in reference to the custom, both among Jews and Heathens, of making proclamations, and summoning the people, by a trumpet. Cicero has an expression somewhat similar ; Epist. ad Divers. XV1. 21. Buccinator existimationis. Grotius, Licutroot, Wuitrsy, Kurnoet.—{[Macxnicut, Harmer. | Ibid. ἀπέχουσι τὸν μισθὸν αὑτῶν. They have their reward : viz. the empty praise, which they are so eager to obtain from men. In this sense ἀπέχειν is used Phil. iv. 18. Gen. xliii. 43. LXX. So Callim. Epiz. 54. ἡ γρῆυς μασθῶν we ἀπέχει χάριτας. Suidas: ἀπέχον" τῇ αἰτιατικῇ, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀπέλαβον. Some would translate, fall short of their reward ; but in this sense ἀπέχειν is always constructed with a genitive. Ver. 3. μὴ γνώτω ἡ ἀριστερά σου x. τι A. This is a prover- bial expression, indicating so strict a secrecy as to avoid, as it were, the observation even of ourselves. The ellipsis of the word χεὶρ with ἀριστερὰ, δεξιὰ, and the like adjectives, is copi- ously illustrated in Bos Ellips. Gr. p. 327. In the next verse, ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ, and ἐν τῷ φανερῷ, (scil. τόπῳ,) are put for the adverbs κρυπτῶς and φανερῶς respectively. There may be an allusion in the former to the secret chamber in the Temple, in 78 MATTHEW VI. 5. 7. which pious persons deposited their alms privately, for the relief of the poor. The promised reward is chiefly in reference to a future life, when it will be delivered openly, in the presence of saints and angels, and the spirits of just men made perfect. See Matt. xxv. 34. Luke xiv. 14. 1 Pet. 1. 7. Rom. ii. 7. 10. From the omission of ἐν τῷ φανερῷ, in this verse and v. 18. in a great number of MSS., Griesbach supposes that it was only once written by St. Matthew, in v. 6. and thence supplied in the other places by some copyist. ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ, Wuirsy, GILL. Ver. 5. ἑστῶτες. Standing. Of the Jewish attitudes, places, times, and forms of prayer, see Horne. Their phylacterial prayers were extremely long; and if they were overtaken in the street by the canonical hours, they were still called upon to repeat them; so that the Pharisees continually availed themselves of this opportunity of displaying their pretended sanctity. The Jeru- salem Talmud has the following: I observed the Rabbi Jannai standing and praying in the street of Trippor, and repeating an additional prayer at each of the four corners. The early Christians always kneeled in prayer, (Acts ix. 40. xx. 36. xxi. 5.) except on the sabbath-day, and between Easter and Pentecost, when they stood, for the purpose of testifying their joy at the resurrection of Christ. See Tertull. de Coron. c. ὃ. Just. Mart. Resp. ad Quest. 115. Licutroot. In the next verse, ταμιεῖον is an upper chamber, sometimes called ὑπερῶον, which was set apart for the purposes of retirement and prayer. It answers to the Hebrew My. Kournoet. Ver. 7. BarroXoyhonte. ἘΝ. T. Use vain repetitions. The word is found in no ancient writer. Suidas, after explaining it by πολυλογία, gives its derivation from one Battus, a king of Lydia, who is said to have written some tedious odes, or hymns, addressed to idols, full of repetition and tautology. So also Hesychius, Eustathius on Hom. Od. Q. p. 833, 43. and others. Compare Herod. IV. 155. The repetitions here al- luded to abound in Heathen writers, and the Scriptures also afford us examples; as, for instance, in the prayer of the priests of Baal; (1 Kéngs xviii. 26.) and of the Ephesians, (Acts xix. 54.) Hence Terent. Heaut. V. 1. 6. Ohe jam desine Deos, uxor, gratulando obtundere, Tuam esse inventam natam ; nisi illos ex tuo ingenio judicas, Ut nil credas intelligere, nisi idem dictum sit centies. 'The Jewish Rabbins laid it down as a maxim, that he who multiplies prayer shall be heard; and that a long prayer shall not return empty. And, indeed, our Lord must not be understood to forbid any repetitions in prayer whatsoever, for such may frequently be the result of earnestness and fervour: as in our Lord's prayer in the garden, which was thrice repeated ; that of the prophet Daniel, ch. ix. 3—20; and MATTHEW VI. 9. "9 some others in Scripture. The injunction is directed against such long and pathetical entreaties, wherein words of the same meaning are multiplied, not only tending to the fatigue and care- lessness of the worshipper, but implying, as our Lord remarks in the next verse, a degree of ignorance and want of attention in the Deity. Examples, however, of short and comprehensive prayers may be found even among the Heathen. Thus Socrates, in Xen. Mem. I. εὔχετο πρὸς τοὺς Θεοὺς ἁπλῶς τἀγαθὰ Sidova, ὡς τοὺς θεοὺς κάλλιστα εἰδότας, ὁποῖα ἀγαθά ἐστι. See also the prayer cited from Plato in my note on Hom. Il. A. 20. and compare Juvenal, Sat. X. 344. sqq. Licurroot, Wuirspy, WAKEFIELD, GROTIUs. Ver. 9. προσεύχεσθε ὑμεῖς. The pronoun is emphatic, in op- position to οἱ ἐθνικοὶ, v. 7. The form of prayer which our Lord here gives to his disciples, in conformity with the practice of the public teachers of the Jews, who generally gave a set form to their respective flocks, is compiled from the nineteen prayers of their Liturgical service: at least, the substance of each petition is to be found in them, with the exception of the clause, as we for- give our debtors. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 306. There is also a coincidence, somewhat remarkable, between the Lord’s Prayer and the circumstances of his Temptation. Thus in the prayer: Give us this day, 8... Temptation: Command these stones, §c.—Prayer: Lead us not into temptation: Temptation: Thou shalt not tempt, §c.—Prayer: Thine is the kingdom, §c. Temptation: He shewed him all the kingdoms, §c.—The peti- tion: Forgive us our trespasses, §c. which here also wants a counterpart, is exemplified in the prayer for his murderers during his last trial upon the cross. See Encyclop. Metropol. Vol. X. p- 605. note. In giving this form, our Lord by no means in- tended to exclude all other devotional addresses to the Almighty. His meaning is, that we frame our prayers after this model, and introduce the prayer itself into our public and private services. It has been thought that the word οὕτως does not imply a com- mand to utter the precise words, but merely a form similar to that of our Lord. But in Luke xi. 2. the command is express: When ye pray, say, Our Father, §c. and the word οὕτως is used to prescribe a set form in several places. Thus in Numb. vi. 23. LXX. οὕτως εὐλογήσητε, in reference to the Aaronical Bene- dictions. Compare also Numb. xxiii. 5. 16. and God’s words, as directed to the prophets, οὕτως λέγει ὁ Κύριος, Lsazah viii. 11. et passim. We find, indeed, in the Acts, prayers made by the Apostles, under particular circumstances, without any direct inti- mation of the use of this form; but, at the same time, it is more than probable that it always formed a part of their devotions. See Acts i. 24. ii. 42. iv. 24.30. The prayer consists of a Preface, six Petitions, and a Doxology. Licutroor, Wuirsy, Grorttvus.. 80 MATTHEW VI. 9. ON THE LORD'S PRAYER. The Preface. Πάτερ ἡμῶν, 6 ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. This address is often found in the Jewish Seder Tephiloth, or Form of Prayers, and is expressive of the highest reverence for the attributes of the Deity. It does not confine his presence to Heaven, but in- dicates at the same time his omnipresence, his omniscience, his majesty and dominion, his purity and holiness; as will be seen at once by a comparison of the following texts: 1 Aéngs viii. 37. 2 Chron. xx. 6. Psalm xi. 4. xxxiii. 13. exv. 3. Deut. xxvi. 15. Isaiah Wii. 15. The use of ἡμῶν in the plural is also in ac- cordance with a maxim of the Jews, that a man should not pray alone, but join with the church, i. e. whether in public or private, he should always use the plural number, as including all the chosen people of God. As Christians, we pray for our brethren, i. e. for all mankind, who are equally children of the same com- mon parent: and we address God as our Father, since he is such by right of creation, providence, and preservation; and more especially by right of adoption and grace. Compare Mal. ii. 10. Deut. xxxii. 6. John i. 12. Rom. viii. 15, 16. Gal. iii. 26. Erasmus has a beautiful comment upon this portion of the prayer: Pater vocatur, ut clementem et benignum intelligatis: In ceelis esse dicitur, ut illic sustollatis animos vestros, neglectis bonis terrenis: Vestrim appellatur, nequis sibi proprium aliquid vin- dicet, cum ex unius beneficentia proficiscatur omnibus, quicquid habeant, et hac in parte sit Regum et Servorum equalitas. Licutroot, WuitBy, MAcKNIGHT. Petition 1. ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά cov. This and the following petition are found in the Jewish Kaddish Magistrorum, or Forms of Prayer, which the doctors taught their disciples. By the name of God is to be understood God himself, as manifested to us in his attributes and perfections. Similar instances of me- tonymy will be found in Acts i. 15. Ephes. i. 21. Heb. i. 4. The commentators describe this use of ὄνομα as a Hebraism, but it is found also in Greek writers. Thus in Eurip. Orest. 1080. ὦ ποθεινὸν ὄνομ᾽ ὁμιλίας ἐμῆς, for ὦ ποθεινὴ ὁμιλία. See Matt. Gr. Gr. §. 430. 6. The verb ἁγιάζειν signifies properly to set apart from common, and to appropriate to sacred purposes. So 2 Tim. ii. 21. ἔσται ἐκεῖνος εἰς τιμὴν ἡγιασμένον. Hence it has various derived senses, and amongst the rest, to worship, to adore, as in 1 Pet. iii. 15. Θεὸν ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν. Compare Isaiah viii. 13. Strac. xxxvi. 4. LXX. Chrysostom Hom. XIX. on this passage: ἁγιασθήτω" δοξασθήτω. Hence the meaning of the petition is, May thy existence be universally believed, thy perfections loved and imitated, thy works admired, thy supremacy over all things acknowledged, and thy providence reverenced and confided in. The use of the imperative ἁγιασθήτω for the optative is remarkable. Macknicut, Wuitsy, A. CLARKE, MATTHEW VI. 10, 11. 81 Ver. 10. Petition 2. ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία cov. The import of these words may be readily deduced from the notes on Matt. 11. 2. The Jews considered that no prayer was available unless it mentioned the Azxgdom of God; in accordance with which maxim the following petition formed a part of their daily prayers: Let him make his kingdom reign ; let his redemption flourish ; and let his Messiah come and deliver his people. See Vitringa de Synagog. Vet. 11. 3. 8. p. 962. The origin of these supplications will be found in Jsatah ix. 7. Dan. vii. 14. 27. Psalm \xx. 11. and elsewhere. It has been said that the hing- dom of God, in the sense in which it is commonly used in Scrip- ture of the Gospel dispensation, is already come, and therefore, that it is superfluous to pray for it. But in this petition we are taught to pray that the knowledge of the Christian faith may come to all nations of the world; that his kingdom may be ad- vanced by the coming in of the Jews and the fulness of the Gen- tiles; and that finally, through the obedience of faith, all man- kind may become partakers of his kingdom of glory in heaven. Wuitsy. a Petition 3. γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. It is not the import of this petition, that God may do his own will, for that would be needless, (Eccles. viii. 3. Isaiah xlvi. 10. Rom. ix. 19.)—nor that the will of Providence may be done upon us—nor that we may on earth be equal to the angels ‘in the perfection and alacrity of our obedience—nor that God will compel us to do his will. ‘The meaning is, that we may endea- vour to imitate the angels in their ready and constant obedience to the will of God, and willingly submit to the dispensations of his providence, at all times, and under all conditions whatsoever. The substance of the request is found in the Seder Tephiloth of the Jews, and sentiments somewhat similar in expression are to be met with in heathen writers. Arrian, Epict. 11. 17. μηδὲν ἄλλο θέλε, ἢ ἃ ὃ Θεὸς θέλει, τὴν ἐκκλίσιν τῷ Θεῷ χαρίσαι, ἐκείνῳ παραδὸς, ἐκεῖνος κυβερνάτω. Senec. Epist. 74. Placeat hominé, guicquid Deo placuit. The omission of the particle οὕτω before ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς in the second clause, is sanctioned by Thucyd. VIII. 1. καὶ we ἔδοξεν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἐποίουν ταῦτα, 1. 6. οὕτω καὶ ἐποίουν. So also in Latin, Virg. Eclog. V. 33. Ut gregibus tauri, segetes ut pinguibus arvis, Tu decus omne tuis. 'The same ellipsis is in Luke vi. 31. John xx. 21. Acts vii. 51. Rom. i. 28. Ephes. iii. 5. 1 John ii.-18. See Bos Ellips. Gr. p. 486. Wuirsy, Mack- NIGHT, GROTIUS. Ver. 11. Petition 4. τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν κι τ. Δ. As the three first petitions of the prayer relate to the glory of God, the three last involve the consideration of our own wants and infirmities. Here, under the word bread are included all the necessaries of life. So Abraham, in Gen. xviii. 5, after saying, I will fetch a S VOR: ¥. G 82 MATTHEW VI, il. mors ad to ΜῊ your hearts, brought out also butter, and mil ἃ the calf which he had killed. In this place, how- ever, the term extends its signification to the supply of our spi- ritual wants. Wuirsy, Macxnieut. With respect to the import of the word ἐπιούσιος, the commentators are greatly divided in their opinions. It is to be found in no Greek writer, and throughout the- O. and N. T. only in this passage and the pa- rallel place of Luke xi. 3. Origen observes, de Orat. 16. πρῶτον δὲ τοῦτ᾽ ἰστέον, ὅτι ἡ λέξις ἡ ᾿Επιούσιος παρ᾽ οὐδενὶ τῶν ΕἙλληνῶν οὔτε τῶν σοφῶν ὠνόμασται, οὔτε ἐν τῇ τῶν ἰδιώτων συνηθείᾳ τε- τρίπται, ἀλλ᾽ ἔοικε πεπλάσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν Ἐῤαγγελίστων. Hence — the variety οἵ significations that have been affixed to it, accord- ingly as it is differently derived. Some have explained it as signifying ὁ τῆς ἐπιούσης ἡμέρας, so that the petition will be, Give us this day our bread for the morrow. Michaelis, among others, is in favour of this interpretation; and it is somewhat sup- ported by the word Wd, mecher, signifying dies crastinus, which supplies the place of ἐπιούσιος in the Nazarene Gospel. It is “true, also, that ἡ ἐπιούση, scil. ἡμέρα, is a classical elliptic ΠΟ phrase, denoting the morrow; and so it occurs in Acts vii. 26. But this interpretation is too obviously at variance with the com- mand of our Lord, vv. 25.34. to take no thought for the mor- row. The Fathers Jerome and Ambrose translate the word sw- persubstantialis, by which the latter understands the bread of life, John ν. 48. Erasmus also takes the petition in a spiritual sense: Ale, Pater, quod genuisti: prospice nobis, ne nos deficiat panis alle tuus doctrine ceelestis, ut eo quotidie sumpto confirmemur, et adolescamus, et vegeti reddamur ad tua jussa perficienda. In the Latin Vulgate, however, Jerome has given panem quotidia- num, which our translators have followed, and which seems to have arisen from the addition of τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, in Luke xi. 3. Elsner supposes that ἄρτον ἐπιούσιον means our promised bread; i.e. that portion of good things, which as God’s children, we have right to, as by inheritance. But the word οὐσία, the usage of which in Luke xv. 12. is thought to warrant this interpreta- tion, does not signify an inheritance, but simply substance, or property, however obtained. Compare zbid. v.15. The term, however, is in all probability a derivative of οὐσία, and the mean- ing assigned to it by Theophylact seems to be correct; viz. ἐπὶ τῇ οὐσίᾳ καὶ συστάσει ἡμῶν αὐταρκὴς, that which is sufficient for our maintenance and support. 'To the same effect are the glosses of Basil, the Etym. M. Suidas, and others: and the interpreta- tion exactly corresponds with the prayer of Agur for ra Soe καὶ τὰ αὐταρκῆ, Prov. xxx. 8, LXX. Wakefield is of opinion that the word was originally separated into ἐπὶ οὐσίαν, till at length it coalesced, and became the ἐπιούσιον of the text. But Kuinoel has pointed out a similar import of the preposition ἐπὶ in such compounds as ἐπιλήνιον and ἐπιτάφιον: answering at MATTHEW ‘VI. εἰ 15. 83 “ἢ the same time an objection of Scaliger, that the word should be ἐπούσιος, by producing the adjectives ἐπιεικὴς, ἐπίορκος, and others, in the composition of which the «is not sunk. It may be observed, in conclusion, that there is probably a reference to the daily supply of manna in the wilderness, of which a suffi- ciency for the day was collected every morning, a double portion being given on the sixth day to prevent a breach of the Sabbath. In this view, also, the petition is in strict accordance with that in the Jewish formularies: Lord, the necessities of thy people Israel are many, and their knowledge small, so that they know not how to disclose their necessities: Let it be thy good plea- sure to give to every one what sufficeth for food. Brza, Mrpr, Macknicut, Doppriper, Ros—ENMULLER, Kurnoet.—{ WeEr- sTEIN, Ligutroor, Grotius, &c. | Ver.12. Petition 5. ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν, K.7.rA. Obe- dience is a debt we owe to God, in which we daily fail, and there- fore stand in need of daily forgiveness. Hence the use of the word _ ὀφειλήματα, which answers to ἁμαρτίας, in the parallel place of Luke. It has been already observed, that the last clause of this pe- tition is not to be found in the Jewish formularies: it is, therefore, a peculiar feature in the Christian religion, and our Lord accord- ingly enforces it again at the conclusion of the prayer, vv. 14, 15. as the only ground upon which we can expect the forgiveness of our Maker. Upon other occasions also he dwells strongly upon the necessity of mutual forgiveness; and more especially in the . parable of the unforgiving servant, Matt. xviii. 23. which may be considered as a practical comment upon this petition. The subjoined declaration is evidently connected with this verse by the causal particle γάρ ; and it is remarkable what a difference exists between the mild word παραπτώματα, (skips, failings, from πίπτω.) which is employed in reference to the injuries we receive from our fellow men, and the strong term ὀφειλήματα, which in- dicates our sins against God. We are not to infer, however, that forgiveness of injuries alone will ensure our pardon. The negative declaration of v. 15. is undoubtedly true, but the af- firmative precept requires the limitation, that no other condition be wanting: and the same is true of all other direct promises. Wuirsy, A. CuarkeE. : ΄ = Ver. 13. Petition 6. μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς κι τι A. That is, suffer us not to be led, &c. ‘Tertullian, Cyprian, and others of the early fathers render the clause Ne nos patiaris induct ; and some of them explain the word temptation, as that quam ferre non possumus. Compare 1 Cor..x. 13. The petition does not im- plore an entire freedom from temptations, but that God would grant us his grace that we may be able to overcome them, and thus be delivered from the wiles and malice of the devil. We GR 84 MATTHEW VI. 49. ᾿ are taught to consider our own inability to stand without God’s assistance ; but in humble assurance of his aid and deliverance, co-operating with our own exertions, we ought to rejoice when we fall into divers temptations, for the reasons assigned by St. James, i.2.12. That τοῦ πονηροῦ is here masculine, and to be understood of the devil, see on Matt. ν. 37. The opinion is confirmed by the Jewish formularies. Thus, in the Miéschna, Tit. Beracoth, we have this prayer of the Rabbi Judah, Let ἐέ be thy good pleasure to deliver us from Satan the destroyer, from a hard judgment, and a hard adversary. Wuitsy, Ligut- _ FooT, GROTIUS. The Doxology. ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία, x... This Doxo- logy is wanting in the Vatican and several other ancient Greek MSS. It is also variously written in other MSS., and is omitted by most of the fathers, both Greek and Latin. Now the Jews usually closed their phylacterial prayers by repeating, Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever ; and a similar custom prevailed among the early Christians, various forms of whose doxologies are extant in the writings of Poly- carp, Clement, and other fathers. Hence it is supposed by some of the most eminent critics, that it never made a part of the ancient text, but was interpolated from the early Liturgies, in which it formed the response of the people, the prayer alone being uttered by the priest. On the contrary, it is observed, that the Alexandrian and many other Greek copies have the doxology, together with the Syriac version, which was probably made in the first century, and several early Eastern transla- tions. Neither is it probable that the Greek church would pre- sume to add from their own Liturgies to a form composed by our Lord himself: and that only in Matthew, and not in Luke, where the doxology is wanting. It is not unlikely, therefore, that the prayer was delivered on two several occasions, upon one of which the clause was omitted; and that the Latin copies, in which it is chiefly wanting, and which are in other respects fre- quently faulty, left it out altogether, lest the Evangelists should appear to be at variance on a point so important. ‘The objection that its insertion interrupts the connection between vy. 12 and 14, is not removed by its omission; and it is clear that the enforcement of a special precept was necessarily deferred till the conclusion ‘of the prayer. In a word, the doxology is so simple, appropriate, and sublime, that its non-appearance in some MSS. can never be looked upon as sufficient for rejecting it. Ina few copies only the word Amen is also wanting; and our Lord can scarcely be supposed to have omitted it, as it is found at the foot of several prayers in the O. T. Compare Numb. v.72. Nehem. ν. 18, viii. 6. Psalm \xxii. 19. Wuuirsy, Licurroot, A. Cxiarxe, Dopprince.—[Mimt, WETSTEIN, Grirespacu, CampBELL.] The term εἰς rove αἰῶνας, as derived MATTHEW VI. 16. 85 from αἰεὶ ὧν, semper existens, implies in its primary sense ab- solute eternity : this is Aristotle’s definition. Sometimes, how- ever, the words αἰὼν and αἰώνιος denote only a finite period, when the duration is of long and unknown continuance, or such as the thing spoken of is capable of admitting. Thus αἰὼν sometimes signifies the life of man, the duration of the world, &e. Compare also Gen. xlix. 26. Prov. xxii. 28. LXX. 2 Tim. 1. 9. In reference to God it is necessarily understood in its primary and grammatical sense. A. CLARKE, MACKNIGHT. - Ver. 16. ὅταν δὲ νηστεύητε, x. τ. X. Several fasts, upon especial occasions, besides those of Moses and Elijah, are men- tioned inthe O. T. as that of Joshua and the elders, Josh. vii. 6. of the eleven tribes, after their defeat at Gibeah, Judg. xx. 26. of David, over his sick child, 2 Sam. xii. 16. of Ezra, ch. vii. 2. and of Daniel, ch. ix. 1. Compare also Jerem. xxxvi. 9. Joel i. 14. Zech. viii. 19. The only fast, however, appointed by divine command, was that of the Feast of eapiation, Levit. xvi. 29. so that all the rest must be considered as merely of private institution. In later times the Jewish fasts increased in number to a great extent, and Maimonides has given a list in which three or four are assigned to each month of the Jewish Calendar. Besides these, private fasts were enjoined upon individuals, in behalf of any of their friends or relations who were sick, or lost in the wilderness, or imprisoned, or otherwise afflicted. If no calamity called for this observance, persons frequently devoted themselves to stated fasts merely for the cause of religion, in which hypocrisy frequently took so great a part as to call for the severe animadversion of our Lord. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 324, note, and p. 378. The outward expression of hea- viness and sorrow which they exhibited is here marked by the adjective σκυθρωποὶ, (E. T. of a sad countenance,) properly sig- nifying one who contracts his eye-brows, which usually indicates moroseness or sorrow. _ Hence, in Xen. Mem. 11. 7. 12. it is opposed to ἱλαρός ; and ibid. III. 10. 4. to φαιδρός. Phavori- nus: σκυθρωπός" στυγνὸς, λυπηρός. The verb ἀφανίζειν signi- fying to cause to disappear, to spoil, to destroy ; in which sense it occurs infra v. 20. Suidas: ἀφανίσαι ὅλως τὸ ἀνελεῖν Kat ἀφανὲς ποιῆσαι. Compare Xen. Mem. I. 2. 58. Arrian. Exped. Alex. I. 9. Joseph. Ant. I. 11. 1. Hence, it here implies fo dés- figure, to soil, to defile, as a part of the ceremony of fasting consisted in sprinkling ashes and clay upon their heads, and leaving their faces unwashed, squalid, and neglected. See 2 Sam. i. 2. Esther iv. 1. Isaiah \xi. 3. Ezek. xxvii. 30. Dan. x. 3. In opposition to this custom our Lord’s injunction is, to appear as usual, that our fasting may not merely consist in outward show. Ligutroot, Kurnoet, Dopprince, ΜΑΟΚΝΙΘΗΤ. With respect to Christians, neither our Saviour nor his Apostles 80 MATTHEW VI. 19. have left any positive precept in regard to fasting ; but it is clear, both from the example of Christ himself, and his admonition in this place, that he considered it as a devout exercise, and as such it was very early practised in the Christian church. See Bingham’s Orig. Eccles. xxi. 1,2. Hence the Church of England has appointed certain fixed seasons, such as Lent, the Ember-days, &e. for fasting; and other days are sometimes set apart for the purpose, upon occasion of any national calamity or distress. The act, properly considered, is undoubtedly beneficial, and it is re- commended in the Homily of Good Works; first, in order to chastise the flesh, that ἐξ be not too wanton, but tamed and brought in suljection by the spirit ; secondly, that the spirit may be more fervent and earnest in prayer; and thirdly, that our fast be a testimony and witness with us before God of our hum- ble submission to his high majesty, when we confess and acknow- ledge our sins unto him, and are inwardly touched with sorrow- fulness of heart, bewailing the same in the affliction of our bodies. The Church of Rome distinguishes between days of fast- ing and days of abstinence, for which there is not the slightest authority in Scripture. The word νῆστις, as derived from νὴ ἐστίειν, clearly denotes a total abstinence from food for an ap- pointed time; and, consequently, the mere abstaining from flesh, and living on fish, is in fact no fast. It is clear, however, that in the discharge of this duty regard must be paid to men’s con- stitutions, for it may happen that a rigorous fast would, in some cases, render us wholly incapable of the exercise of piety, which it-is intended to promote. Wuitspy, Macxnieut, A. CLARKE. Ver. 19. μὴ θησαυρίζετε x. τ. X. Of the scope and proper interpretation of this part of our Lord’s discourse, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. 11. p. 636. sqq. of tropes and figures, δ. 8. The allusion is to the oriental custom of laying up treasures of various kinds, but especially garments, which formed a principal part of the wealth of those times: of this also see Horne, Vol. III. p- 419. Ibid. βρῶσις. Whatever eats into any valuable substance. The word exactly expresses the Hebrew Son, from DM, to consume or eat; rendered by the LXX κατέδεται in Deut. xxviii. 51. and applied to locusts, Joel i, 4. Hence it has been by some translated canker, (E. T. rust ;) but the words always used in this sense by Greek authors are ἰὸς and εὔρως ; so that a species of worm is probably intended, called in Greek βρῶσις, and in Latin eurculio, which derives its name in both lan- guages from its voracious feeding. In Isaiah 1. 9. Aquila has (βρῶσις, andthe LXX σὴς for the Hebrew word WWY, osis, ren- dered moth. In St. Luke the moth, σὴς, only is mentioned ; and Casaubon is of opinion that σὴς καὶ βρῶσις is here an hen- diadys for σὴς βρώσκουσα, a devouring moth; but this interpre- 10 MATTHEW. VI. 22. 24, 87 tation is refuted by the use of the disjunctive particle οὔτε in the next verse. Kurnoret, WAKEFIELD, Ros—ENMULLER.—[KyPKE.] The verb διορύττειν signifies to dig through; and it is clearly used with reference to the manner in which Eastern houses were constructed. See again Horne. Aristoph. Plut. 565. κλέπτειν καὶ τοὺς τοίχους διορύττειν. WETSTEIN. Ver. 22. ὃ λύχνος τοῦ σώματος κ. τ. A. Chrysostom: Ὅπερ γάρ ἐστιν ὀφθαλμὸς τῷ σώματι, τοῦτο ὃ νοῦς τῇ ψυχῇ. “Ὥσπεῤ γὰρ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν τυφλωθέντων, τὸ πολὺ τῆς τῶν λοιπῶν μελῶν ἐνεργείας οἴχεται, τοῦ φωτὸς αὐτοῖς σβεσθέντος" οὕτω καὶ τῆς διανοίας διαφθαρείσης, μυρίων ἡ ζωή σου κακῶν ἐμπλησθήσεται. The same similitude is to be met with in various authors. Arist. Topic. I. 14. ὡς φῶς ἐν ὀφθαλμῷ, νοῦς ἐν ψυχῇ. Ovid. Met. XV. 63. Que natura negavit Visibus humanis, oculis ea pectoris hausit. Cic. Tuse. I. 15. Cum antea homines nihil animo videre possent, sed omnia ad oculos referrent. So our own Shakspeare, in his Hamlet (Act 1. Sc. 2.), speaks of the mind's eye. It is supposed by the generality of commentators that the ὀφθαλμὸς ἁπλοῦς is intended to designate Liberality of disposition, in opposition to covetousness, which is denoted by ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρός. The import, therefore, of the precept is this: —that as the body will be enlightened if the eye be sound and good, or darkened if the eye be diseased, so the mind will be full of light if the reason be unimpaired, and full of darkness if it be perverted by covetousness and too great a love of worldly trea sures and enjoyments ; but with this difference, that mental dark- ness is infinitely more dangerous and destructive in its conse- quences than natural blindness. This interpretation is sanctioned by a variety of passages, in which ἁπλότης is used to denote liberality; and an evil eye, ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρὸς, to indicate a grudg- ing and avaricious disposition. Compare Prov. xi. 25. xxiii. 6. xxvii. 20. Eeclus. xiv. 10. xxxv. 10. Tob. iv. 16. Rom. xii. 8. 2 Cor. viii. 2. ix. 11. 18. James i. 5. The Jews also had a fami- liar saying: He that gives, let him do it with a good eye; 1. e. freely, liberally. Some understand the terms more generally ; but the context, both in what precedes and follows, is evidently in favour of the more received interpretation. _Theophylact ex- plains ἁπλοῦς by ὑγιὴς; and πονηρὸς by νοσώδης. Hammonp, Licutroot, Wuitsy, Le CLerc.—[Doppriner, Kurnort.] Ver. 24. δυσὶ κυρίοις. Euthymius adds ἐναντία ἐπιτάττουσιν. And so Chrysostom, Hom. 22. The word μαμμωνᾶς is of Syriac origin, denoting riches, as it appears from that version in this place. In this sense the same word, N2?313, is used in Lwod. xxi. 30. and 329, mammon, in the Targum of Onkelos, Lwxod. xviil. 21. and of Jonathan, Judg. v. 19. 1 Sam. viii. 3. Compare also Luke xvi. 9. 11. Hence Jerome: Gentili Syrorum lingua Mammona divitie appellantur. And Augustin : Lucrum Punice VOL. I. G 4 «- 88 ΜΓ HE W VI 26. 27. Mammon dicitur ; the Carthaginians being originally from Syria and Phoenicia. NHesychius explains it by θησαυρὸς, and it is supposed by some to be a corruption of the Chaldee ὩΣ. Castel, however, derives the word from YON, aman, to trust, to confide, because men are apt to trust in riches. [ is to be ob- served that Wealth is here personified, unless, as some suppose, there was an idol of this name among the Syrians, identical with the Plutus of the Greeks. With respect to the construction of the passage, it is evident that the verse contains a simile, in which the comparing particles ὥσπερ and οὕτως are to be sup- plied: 4s ye cannot serve two masters, &c. so ye cannot serve God and Mammon. The verbs μισεῖν and ἀγαπᾷν are to be understood as simply meaning to love less, and to love more, respectively ; in which sense they are repeatedly used in Scrip- ture. See Gen. xxix. 31. LXX. Luke xiv. 26. John xii. 25. Rom. ix. 13. With the sentiment we may compare Pers. Sat. V. 154. En quid agis? duplict in diversum scinderis hamo. Hunccine, an hunc, sequeris? Subeas alternus oportet Ancipiti obsequio dominos, alternus oberres. WerrsterN, PARKHURST, Grotius, MacKNIGHT. Ver. 25. μὴ peomvare. Be not anxiously solicitous. Vulg. Ne soliciti sitis. The E. T. take no thought, which does not now give the sense of the original, fully expressed it at the time when our translation was made. Thus Holinshed, a. Ὁ. 1140, writes, “ Taking thought for the losse of his houses and monie, he pined away and died.” Thus again in Phil. iv. 6. μηδὲν μεριμνᾶτε cannot possibly enjoin carelessness, respecting what is the object of a prayer to God. Compare also Dan. iii. 16. 1 Pet. v. 7. and see 1 Tim. ν. 8. 2 Thess. iii. 8. This inter- pretation is confirmed by the parallel passage of St. Luke, who uses the word μετεωρίζεσθαι, to be of an unsettled and doubtful mind. Intwo MSS., in most of the ancient versions, and in some of the early fathers, the clause καὶ τί πίητε is wanting, and its authenticity is suspected by Griesbach. It recurs, however, in v. 31. where there is not the slightest variation in any of the copies ; and it was the general custom of the Hebrews to mention meat and drink, hunger and thirst, and the like, in conjunction. Grotius, Beausopre. The adjective πλεῖον should be rendered of more value; in which sense it is used in Numb. xxii. 15. LXX. Matt. xxi. 36. and the best Greek writers. A. CiArKe. In the next verse ἐμβλέψατε is explained by κατανοήσατε in Luke xii. 24. Ver. 27. ἡλικίαν. E. T. stature; and this is doubtless one sense of the word, as in Luke ii. 52. whence some would retain it in this place also, and in Luke xii. 25. But it signifies also age, or life-time, John ix. 21. 23. Heb. xi. 11. It is clear, therefore, that in any case the meaning of the word must be determined by the context. Now the admonition of our Lord is MATTHEW VI. 28. 30; 32, 33. 89 given in regard to an over-anxiety respecting food and raiment, which, though necessary to the preservation and convenience of life, can have no connection with growth or stature. It is true, indeed, that πῆχυς is properly a measure of extension, but fre- quent instances occur of the metaphorical application of this and similar words to denote the duration of time. Compare Psalm xxxix. 5. Mimnermus (ap. Stob. p. 158.) says of leaves in spring, Τοῖς ἴκελοι, πήχυιον ἐπὶ χρόνον ἄνθεσιν ἥβης Τερπόμεθα. Diog. Laert. VIII. 16. σπιθαμὴ τοῦ Biov. Besides, the addition of a cubit to a man’s stature would be something considerable, amount- ing to nearly the fourth part of the height of some men, which is clearly at variance with the scope of the passage. CAMPBELL, Macxnieut, HamMonp.—[Beza, Grotivs. | Ver. 28. κρίνα. Plin N. H. xxi. 5. Hsé et rubens lilium, quod Grect Crinon vocant. The white lily does not grow wild in Palestine. Probably the amaryllis lutea is intended, as Sir J. E. Smith supposes. The verb αὐξάνειν has a transitive and intransitive sense; and awgere is used intransitively in Catul. Ixiv. 323. Odecus eximium, magnis virtutibus augens. Solomon is probably mentioned in preference to any other prince, as exceeding in power, wealth, and magnificence all the kings who went before, or came after him. Macxnienr. The whole vege- table system is comprised by the Hebrews under the two classes, YY, ots, and AWY, osheb. See Gen.i. 11. ‘The latter of these is rendered χόρτος by the LXX, and includes all herbs whatso- ever; the withered stalks of which the Jews employed for heating their ovens, &c. In ver. 30. the word evidently includes the lilies mentioned above, and is not, therefore, correctly rendered in the E.T. grass. Hence there is no authority for translating κλίβανον, a still; nor is there the slightest evidence from any ancient author, that the art of distillation was then known. Grovrius, CAMPBELL. The word ὀλιγόπιστοι is by Campbell properly rendered distrust- ful, scil. of the care of Providence. Ver. 82. ἔθνη. The Gentiles. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p- 3. It is the general character of the Heathens that they prayed to their gods, and laboured themselves, for no blessings but the temporal ones here mentioned, as is plain from the tenth Satire of Juvenal. Macknicur. Ver. 33. τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ. His righteousness, i. 6. the holiness of life which he requires in his creatures. So in Rom. iii. 21, 22. x. 3. the righteousness of God is opposed to that of the unconverted Jews, where in neither case is personal righte- ousness intended. The righteousness which the Jews are de- scribed by the Apostle as being desirous of establishing, was a system of morality, fabricated by themselves, and consisting chiefly in ceremonies and mere externals. Compare also Micah 90 MATTHEW VI. 34 VII. 1. 3. v. 5. James i. 20. Camppett. Some of the Fathers ascribe the following saying to Christ:—aircio8e ra μεγάλα, καὶ τὰ μικρὰ ὑμῖν προστεθήσεται. It is probably a gloss upon this verse. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. p. 328. ; Ver. 34. ἡ κακία. That is, troubles and vexations; in which sense the word is used in Eccles. xii. 1. LXX. Chrysostom: κακία᾽ ταλαιπωρία. With the sentiment we may compare Eurip. Helen. 338. Μὴ πρόμαντις adyéwv Προλάμβαν᾽, ὦ φίλα, γόους. Mosch. Idyl. IV. 65. Ἢ οὐχ ἅλις οἷς ἐχόμεσθα τὸ δεύτατον αἰὲν ἐπ᾿ ἦμαρ Γιγνομένοις ; κι τ᾿ Δ. See also Soph. Trach. 960. Anacr. Od. xv. 1. Of the construction see Matt. Gr. Gr. §, 489. Obs. CHAPTER VII. ConTENTs :— Zhe Sermon on the Mount concluded. Verse 1. μὴ κρίνετε, x. τ λ. Luke adds, ch. vi. 37. μὴ κατα- δικάζετε, Kal ov μὴ καταδικασθῆτε. Hence it appears that our Lord here reproves the rash judgment, which men are so apt to pass upon others, condemning them precipitately, and frequently when they are themselves more guilty than those whom they think fit to censure. Compare James ii. 13. where ἔλεος is op- posed to κρίσις. The Jews were highly criminal in this respect, though many excellent maxims in regard to the error are to be found in the Talmudistic writings. There is also a similar sen- timent in Isocrat. in diginet. p. 778. καὶ τοιούτους μοι γενέσθαι δικαστὰς δέομαι, οἵων περ ἂν αὐτοὶ τυχεῖν ἀξιώσητε. So Cic. in Ver. 111. 1. Qué sibt hoc sumpsit, ut corrigat mores aliorum, atque peccata reprehendat, huic quis ignoscat, si qua in re ipse a religione offictt aberraverit? It is clear that forensic judgment is not included in our Lord’s admonition. Macknieut, Wuitsy, Kuinoet. Of the various readings in v. 2. see Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. p. 849. The clause is proverbial. Compare Hor. Epist. 1. 7798: Ver. 8. τὸ κάρφος. E. T. the mote, i. 6. an atom, such as those which float in the sun-beams. But it should rather be rendered a splinter, by which means the analogy between κάρ- φος and δοκὸς is preserved. Hesych. κάρφος" κεραία ξύλου λεπτή. The expression is proverbial, and of frequent occurrence in the Talmud, so that there is no authority for the supposition that the words are employed to denote certain disorders of the eye. The classical student will recognise the following parallels. Menand. Fragm. p. 214. Οὐδεὶς ἀφ᾽ αὑτοῦ τὰ κακὰ συνορᾷ, Πάμφιλε, Σαφῶς, ἑτέρου δ᾽ ἀσχημονοῦντος ὄψεται. Plutarch. de Curiosit. p. 515. Τί ἀλλότριον, ἄνθρωπε βασκανώτατε, κακὸν ὀξυδερκείς, τὸ δ᾽ ἴδιον παραβλέπεις ; Sosicrates, ap. Stob. ᾿Αγα- Bot δὲ τὸ κακόν ἐσμεν ἐφ᾽ ἑτέρων ἰδεῖν, Αὐτοὶ δ᾽ ὅταν ποιῶμεν, οὐ « MATTHEW VII. 4. 6. 91 γιγνώσκομεν. Horat. Sat. 1, 9, 9ὅ, Cum tua pervideas oculis mala lippus inunctis, Cur in amicorum vitiis tam cernis acutum, Quam aut aquila, aut serpens Epidaurius. Seneca, de vita beata, δ. 27. Papulas observatis alienas, obsiti ulceribus, Cic. Tuse. Quest. 111.80. Proprium est stultitie, aliorum vitia cernere, oblivisci suo- rum. Grotius, LicnhtrooT, ΚΟΌΊΝΟΕΙ,, ALBERT.—[Dopprincr. ] Ver. 4. ἄφες, ἐκβάλω. For similar instances of the omission of ἵνα before the subjunctive, see my note on Eurip. Pheen. 734. Pent. Gr. p. 346. , Ver. 6. μὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον κι τ. A. The connection between this verse and those which precede and follow it, if, indeed, any such connection exists, is not very discernible. It has been conjectured from the circumstance that most of the precepts contained in this Sermon are found scattered throughout St. ~ Luke’s Gospel, that no such Discourse was ever delivered by our Lord, but that it was compiled by St. Matthew from the various sayings of Christ which he uttered during his ministry. But the opening and closing declarations of the Evangelist are in direct opposition to such a conclusion, and it will readily be admitted, that occasions would arise in which precepts of such. general importance might advantageously be repeated. Neither is it to be expected, that in admonitions of such extensive appli- cation each would arise immediately out of the preceding, in an uninterrupted connection; and, accordingly, many of them may perhaps be considered as detached rules of Christian conduct. In the present instance, indeed, the dogs and swine have been supposed to mean those censorious and harsh judging persons against whom our Lord’s last admonition is directed. But it is better, perhaps, to understand the terms of those who resist and despise the Gospel generally; as the Jews, Acts xiii. 41. 46. and the Scribes and Pharisees, Matt. ix. 34. xii. 24. Luke vi. 11. John xi. 47. et passim. Such symbolical expressions are frequent in the N.'T. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 483. Clement Alex. supposes that they were originally so employed by the Oriental sages, and thence adopted not only by the He- brews, but transported by Pythagoras, who had studied in Egypt, into Greece. Homer has employed several terms of re- proach of the same description. See Il. Z. 344. and elsewhere. The Epanodos in this verse is illustrated in Horne’s Introd. Vol. 11. p. 490. We have other instances in Matt. xii. 22. xxiii. 16. 20. 25, 26. Rom. ii. 12, 13, 14. xiv. 3, 4. 10. 1 Cor. vi. 11. Philem. 5. Heb. x. 33, 34. 2 Pet. iii. 4—8. Wuuirsy, Grotius, Hammonp. The E. T. renders τὸ ἅγιον that which is holy generally; but, as used in conjunction with μαργάριτας, the pearls which are cast to swine, it should seem to denote more particularly something which may be thrown to dogs; a portion probably of the flesh of a sacrificed victim. Awznoel in- 92 ΠΕ VII. 2.19.1. deed supposes, with Eichhorn, that the word in the Hebrew Gospel was originally NW7), which signifies an ear-ring, Exod. xxxil. 2. and would, therefore, be well opposed to pear/s in this place. The Orientals attributed a degree of superstitious sanc- tity to these jewels, which may have given rise to the substitution of τὸ ἅγιον in the Greek. At all events, it is clear that the doc- trines of the Gospel are represented under a metaphor, which was often similarly applied by the Jews. Compare Prov. ii. 4. xxv. 22. Matt. xiii. 45. Kutnort. Ver. 7. αἰτεῖτε, καὶ δοθήσεται ὑμῖν" κι τ. λ. Ask, and it shall be given you; that is, as we learn from vv. 9, 10. if we ask those things which are expedient, seek what is just and proper, and knock with earnestness and faith. We have a similar sen- timent in Arrian, pict. 1. 28. ILI. 26. ζήτει καὶ εὑρήσεις. Soph. Fragm. ap. Plutarch. de Fortun. p. 98. Ta μὲν διδακτὰ μανθάνω, τὰ δ᾽ εὑρετὰ Ζητῶ" τὰ δ᾽ εὐκτὰ παρὰ θεῶν ἠτησάμην. Kypxe. After the verb κρούετε there is an ellipsis of τὴν θύραν. The omission is supplied in Luke xiii. 25. Xen. Sympos. 1. 11. Compare Rev. 11. 20. The same ellipsis occurs with ἀνοίγειν in Matt. xxv. 11. Acts xii. 16. “a Ver. 9. ἢ τίς ἐστιν κι τ. X. The particle ἢ is used in this place simply to mark the continuation of the same subject: as is clear from the parallel passage, Luke xi. 11. where δὲ is em- ployed. The word ἄνθρωπος is evidently emphatic, and in- tended to illustrate the goodness of our heavenly Father by a comparison drawn from the conduct of hwman parents. That it is not redundant, as is sometimes the case, appears from its situation at the end of the clause. Inthe end of the sentence the adverb μὴ is simply interrogative, without implying a nega- tion, as in Gen. xviii. 14. xxviii. 37. Judg. ix. 9. 11. 138. 2 Sam. xiv. 19. Jerem. xxxii. 27. and elsewhere. The illus- tration here employed is proverbial, and not confined to the Hebrews. A benefit grudgingly given is called by Seneca, de Benef. \1. 7. panis lapidosus ; and hence Plautus: Altera manu - Sert lapidem, panem ostentat altera. Erasmus has also pre- served a Greek proverb, ἀντὶ πέρκης σκορπίον, which is ana- logous with that in the following verse. This latter, however, is a little varied in Luke xi. 12. The verb αἰτεῖν, it may be ob- served, should properly be joined to a genitive of the person with the preposition παρὰ or ἐκ; so that the double accusative is a Hebraism. Compare Josh. xv. 18. Ezra vii. 21. LXX. Wuuirsy, CAMPBELL. Ver. 11. πονηροί. Some render this adjective wicked gene- rally, others avaricious, which latter sense it frequently bears, as in Prov. xxiii. 6. and elsewhere. See above, on Matt. vi. 22. Perhaps this is preferable; but, at all events, it is justly ob- MATTHEW VII.°12, 13. 15. 93 served by Chrysostom: ταῦτα δὲ ἔλεγεν οὐ κακίζων τὸ γένος, ἀλλὰ πρὸς ἀντιδιαστολὴν τῆς ἀγαθότητος τῆς αὐτοῦ, 5651]. Θεοῦ. The expression οἴδατε διδόναι is a paraphrasis for δίδοτε. So Julian. in Anthol. I. 15. 12. πολιὴ φρένας οἶδεν ὀπάζειν. Pro- pert. I. 11. 12. Sctat currere. In the parallel passage, Luke xi. 12. for δόματα ἀγαθὰ we have πνεῦμα ἀγαθόν. ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ,, PALAIRET. Ver. 12. πάντα οὖν ὅσα κι τ. X. The particle οὖν does not connect this verse with the preceding. Phavorinus observes that it is sometimes an expletive, and merely used to de- note transition. It sometimes also indicates a recurrence to a subject which has been for some time discontinued ; and may, therefore, refer to the injunction delivered in y. 1. which is here enlarged and generalized. See Hoogeveen. With respect to the precept itself, compare Tobit iv. 15. Strac xxxiv. 15. In the Talmud we find the Rabbi Hillel exhorting a Gentile proselyte to do not that to another which he would hate to be done to himself. Kor this, says he, is the whole law, and all else merely an explanation of it. See also Horne’s Introd. Vol. I. p. 480. The same rule of conduct is also to be met with in heathen writers; among others, Isocr. ad Nicocl. Or. 3. “Ὅπερ σὺ μισεῖς παρ᾽ ἑτέρων σοι γενέσθαι, εἰς ἑτέρους μὴ ποίει. Symma-~ chus: ἃ πάσχοντες ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρων ὀργίζεσθε, ταῦτα τοῖς ἄλλοις μὴ ποιεῖτε. Compare also Herod. I. 142. VII. 136. Wuirsy, WETSTEIN. Ver. 13. εἰσέλθετε διὰ τῆς στενῆς πυλῆς" κι τ. A. Luke xiii. 24, ἀγωνίζεσθε εἰσελθεῖν. Under the figure of a gate, opening into a road, which leads to a distant citadel, our Lord represents the dangers and difficulties which attend the Christian in his entrance upon, and during his progress through, his course of earthly probation for the kingdom of heaven. We have a pas- sage closely parallel in Cebet. Tab. 12. Οὐκοῦν ὁρᾷς καὶ θύραν τινὰ μικρὰν, καὶ 6ddv τινα πρὸ THE θύρας, ἥτις οὐ πολὺ ὀχλεῖται, καὶ πάνυ ὀλίγοι πορεύονται, ὥσπερ δι᾿ ἀνοδίας τινὸς τραχείας καὶ πετρώδους εἶναι δοκεῖ. Αὕτη τοίνυν ἐστὶν ἡ δδὸς ἡ ἄγουσα πρὸς τὴν ἀληθινὴν παιδείαν" καὶ μάλα γε χαλεπὴ προσιδεῖν. Compare Diod. Sic. p. 296. Β. Hesiod. Op. D. 285. Xen. Cyrop. II. 2. 24. AXlian. V. H. XIII. 32. Οἷς. Offic. I. 32. Senec. de Vita Beata, c. 1. Sil. Ital. VI. 120. XV. 101. . In the next verse, for ὅτι, some MSS. read τι, which Grotius, Campbell, and Griesbach, prefer in the sense of ὥς. So the Vulg. Quam an- gusta porta, §c. supported by several of the early Fathers. If the vulgar reading be correct, it should be rendered but; in which sense it occurs in Numb. xxvii. 3. 1 Kings xxi. 15. 2 Kings i. 4. Jerem. xxxv. 7. Wurrsy, KurnoEt. Ver. 15. ψευδοπροφητῶν. E. T. False prophets. But προ- ᾿Ξ 94 MATTHEW VII. 16. 19. 91. ἃ φήτης, not only means a prophet, but simply, a teacher of religion. Hence the ὦ ταρύων, νι is convertible with PevdoSiSéexaXoc, 2 Pet. ii. 1. So προφητεύειν is, simply, to teach, infra v. 22. The formula προσέχειν ἀπό τινος is the same with φοβεῖσθαι ἀπό τινος, Luke xii. 4. Compare Deut. xxiii. 9. Strac vi. 13. xi. 33. LXX.—By ἐνδύματα προβάτων, may probably be intended the hairy garment, with which the pro- phets were usually clothed, (see on Matt. iii. 4.) and which is called μηλωτὴς, Heb. xi. 87. or the expression may be taken, metaphorically, to denote an external appearance of inno- cence and piety. The former is the more probable interpre- tation. So Horat. Epist. I. 16. 46. Introrsum turpem, speciosum pelle decora. Compare Acts xx. 29. Ovid. Am. I. 8. 21. Horat. Sat. I]. 1. 65. The preposition ἐν is used in the sense which obtains here, in Herod. II. 159. Joseph. Ant. XVIII. 6. 7. So Ovid. A. A. II. 292. Sive erit in Tyriis, Tyrios laudabis amictus. With the epithet ἅρπαγες, as applied to wolves, compare Lycoph. Cass. 1909, Horat. Od. IV. 4. 50. KurInoeEL, CAMPBELL. Ver. 16. καρπῶν. See on Matt. iii. 8. By the fruits, some commentators understand the doctrine of these false teachers, and others their works. The latter seems the preferable inter- pretation; and the evil designs and actions, to which our Lord alludes, are frequently reprobated by his Apostles. Compare 1 Tm. i. 4. iv. T. vi. 5. 2 Tim. ii. 16. 23. ini. -2. Tete 111. 9. 2 Pet. ii. 3. 10. Jude 4. 8.16. Wuirspy.—[Macxnieut. ] Ibid. μήτι συλλέγουσιν x. τι dX. This illustration is prover- bial. Theogn. 537, Οὔτε γὰρ ἐκ σκύλλης ῥόδα φύεται, οὐδ᾽. ὑάκινθος. Galen. de Curat. ‘O γεωργὸς οὐκ ἂν πότε δυνήσαιτο ποιῆσαι τὸν βάτον ἐκφέρειν βότρυν. Senec. Epist. 87. Non nascitur ex malo bonum, non magis quam ficus ex olea. Ad semen nata respondent. Compare also 'Theocr. Idyl. I. 182. Virg. Kclog. III. 38. VIII. 52. Nemesian. I. 75. Werstern, Kurnogt. Ver. 19. wav δένδρον κι τι X. This verse is repeated from Matt. iii. 10. in which place the connection is clear and intelli- gible. Here, however, it rather impedes the argument, and it is not improbably an interpolation. Bowyer. Ver. 21. ov πᾶς. Not every one; i.e. no_one. So Hom. Od. Z. 240. οὐ πάντων θεῶν. The word κύριος is frequently used in the N. T. in the sense of διδάσκαλος, (John xiii. 13. 14. 16.) as the title by which the Jewish rabbis were addressed by their disciples. It appears, therefore, from this and the follow- ing verse, that the mere outward profession of faith in Christ, as our Master and Redeemer, without an active obedience to his laws, will avail nothing towards obtaining salvation, A. CLARKE, ΚΎΊΝΟΕΙ,, Wuirtsy. mh ° MATTHEW VIL. 22, 23, 24. τς 98 Ver. 22. ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ. Scil. ἐμ the day of judgment. Compare Matt. xi. 24. with Luke x. 12. Many passages may be found in the Talmud wherein the Jews adopt a similar mode of expression. ScHorTTGEN, WeEtTsTEIN. It appears from Origen, contra Cels. I. p. 7. that miracles were performed in the name of Christ during the early ages of Christianity by men whose lives were inconsistent with the doctrines of the Gospel ; nor is there any reason to doubt his testimony ; for though mi- racles cannot be wrought in confirmation of a false doctrine, there is no absurdity in supposing that they may have been per- mitted to be wrought by evil men, not indeed in attestation of the doctrine or piety of the doer, but of the truth of the religion which, however his own practice may contradict his principles, he outwardly professes and supports. Thus God prophesied truly by the mouth of Balaam, Numb. xxiii. and the power of healing diseases was given to Judas, in common with the rest of the twelve, Matt. x. 1. See also Matt. xxiv. 24. Acts xvi. 18. xix. 13. Wuitsy, Grotius. Ver. 23. ὁμολογήσω αὐτοῖς. 77 will plainly declare to them. In this sense the word occurs in lian, V. H. 11. 4. Herodian, Ill. 6. Examples of γιγνώσκειν, and the corresponding He- brew verb 8, signifying to approve, will be found in Psalm i. 6, Ixxix. 16. Amos iii. 2. 1. Cor. viii. 3. 2 Tim. ii. 19, The clause ἀποχωρεῖτε ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ κ, τ΄ A. is from Psalm vi. 9, GrRo- TIUS, KUINOEL. Ver. 24. τοὺς λόγους τούτους. That is, the pure and whole- some precepts contained in this and the two preceding chapters. The simile here employed by our Lord is fully illustrated in _Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. pp. 32. 68. 392.; and several of the same kind, suggested by the peculiarities of the climate of Judzea, are to be found in.the Rabbinical writings. A saying of Elisha, the son of Abuja, will furnish a specimen: The man who studies much in the law, and maintains good works, is like to a man who built a house, laying stones in the foundation, and building brick upon them; and though many waters come against it, they cannot move it from its place. But the man who studies much in the law, and does not maintain good works, is ike to a man who, in building his house, put bricks at the foundation, and laid stones upon them; so that even gentle waters shall overthrow that house. Aboth. Rab. Nath. A. CLARKE. Ibid. ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν. E.T. uponarock. But the article seems to denote something more definite. Now in the parable of the Sower, Luke viii. 6. ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν signifies on the rocky or stony ground; and it is, therefore, more than probable, that in this place also the words have a similar meaning, espe- 96 _MATTHEW VII. 29. ? cially as opposed to ἐπὶ τὴν ἄμμον. In Luke, though the moral is the same, the illustration is somewhat different. There the wise man builds his house, first laying a foundation on the rock; the foolish man builds ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, and that too χωρὶς θεμελίου. MippieTon. In the next verse ποταμοὶ is properly rendered floods, or torrents. So χείμαῤῥοι ποταμοὶ, Hom. Il. Δ. 452, et passim. Hammonp. Ver, 29. ἐξουσίαν ἔχων. Some commentators, after Jerome and Theophylact, refer this authority, with which Christ spake, to his delivering the law in his own name, as the original framer, and not the mere interpreter of it. But this seems to be some- what at variance with the declarations made by him upon several occasions, that his doctrine was not his own, but his that sent him; John vii. 16. xvii. 18. and elsewhere. Hence Lightfoot and Whitby suppose that he spoke as a prophet, having au- thority from God to deliver his message; not as the scribes, who merely interpreted the Scriptures according to the traditions of their forefathers. But the word ἐξουσία seems rather to de- note the force and power with which he spake: his persuasive eloquence, irresistible arguments, and perspicuous statements, so different from the trifling and frivolous disputations of the doctors and scribes. Hom. Il. I. 689. ‘Qe ἔφαθ᾽" οἱ δ᾽ ἄρα πάντες ἀκὴν ἐγένοντο σιωπῇ, Μῦθαν ἀγασσάμενοι" μάλα γὰρ κρατερῶς ἀγόρευσε. A. CLARKE, KurnoeL, Ros—ENMULLER.— [DoppripcE, Le Crerc.] After γραμματεῖς the words καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι are added in several MSS. and Versions, but without any probable authenticity. Note.—It was observed on vy. 6. supra, that many of the pre- cepts in the Sermon on the Mount were delivered by our Lord | upon more than one occasion. The subjoined Table, from Bp. Marsh’s Dissertation on the three first Gospels, represents - parallel passages as they are scattered throughout the Gospel of St. Luke. MATTHEW. LUKE. MATTHEW. LUKE. Viv 88: VI. 20, 21. || VI. 19—21.| XII. 33, 34. 11,12. 22, 23. 22, 23. XI. 34— 36. 15. XI. 33. 24. XVI. 13. 18. ΧΥΓ 25—33.| XII. 29+81. 25, 26. | XII. 58, 59. || VII. 1—5. VI. 37—42. $2. XVI. 18. v—11. xI.9—le 39—42.| VI. 29, 30. re. VI. 31. 44. 27, 28. 15. XIII. 24. 45. 35. 16—21. VI. 43—46. 46, 47. 32, 33. 22, 23. | XIII. 25—27. 48 36 24—27, VI. 47—49. VI. 9—13, | -Χ1.5-- 4. ν᾿ . MAT ΕΗ W VIIE. 3.0; 3. 97 - CHAPTER VJIII. Contents :—A Leper cleansed; vv. 1—4, [Mark i. 40. Luke v. 12.] The Centurion’s Servant healed ; 5—13. [Luke vii. 1.7 Peter's Wife's Mother, Sc. cured; 14—17. [Mark i. 29. Luke iv. 58.] Two Disciples offer themselves ; 18—22. [Luke ix. 57.] The Tempest stilled ; 23—27. [Mark iy. 85. Luke viii. 22.] The Gadarene Demoniac ; 28—84. [Mark v. 1. Luke viii. 21.] - Verse 1. καταβάντι δὲ αὐτῷ. The pronoun is redundant, as in Matt. iv. 16. The construction may also be explained, as a substitution for the genitive absolute. It occurs again infra v. 5. and Matt. xxi. 23. Ver. 2. Κύριε, ἐὰν θέλῃς, κι τι X. The vocative Κύριε was a usual form of address among the Jews, where the person was unknown. Compare John iv. 19. xii. 21. xx. 15. So also among the Latins: Senec. Epist. 3. obvios, δὲ nomen non suc- currit, dominos salutamus. Martial. Epigr. I. 115. Cum te non nossem, dominum regemque vocabam ; Cum bene te novi, jam miht Priscus eris. The leper, therefore, may possibly have looked upon Christ merely as a prophet sent from God, with the power of working miraculous cures, at the same time that he was not certified as to his being the Messiah. Nevertheless, the word is continually employed in the most sacred sense, as equivalent to the Hebrew °378, Adoni, and, consequently, may have been so used in the present instance. Grotius, Le CLerc, Kurnoet. There is a peculiar humility and modesty in the manner of the leper’s address, evincing the highest respect for the character, and the most confident assurance of the power of Christ. Com- pare Wisd. Sol. xii. 18. The following are also instances of similar delicacy ; Arrian, Epict. IIT. 10. Appian, B. G. III. p. 371. Arist. T. I. p. 417. Horat. Epod. XVII. 45. Sat. 11. 6. 39. Wersten. Of the Leprosy, and the Levitical law respecting it, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. Part III. Ch. 5. Sect. 2. §. 4. and note, p. 292. * Ver. 3. ἥψατο. The same legal impurity is attached to those who touched an unclean person, or a dead body, as to those who were actually infected. Hence it has been inferred, in opposi- tion to Gal. iv. 4. that Christ was not under the law. But miracu- lous cures, such as that performed by Elijah, 1 Kings xvii. 19. and Elisha, 2 Kings iv. 34. were clearly exempted from the ritual in- junctions. Besides, the touch and the cure in the present in- stance were simultaneous; so that no impurity could have been incurred. WuitBy, GROTIUS. VOL. I. H \ 98 MATTHEW VIII. 4. “- 5 Ver. 4. ὅρα μηδενὶ εἴπῃς. Of the nature and design of our Lord’s miracles in general, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. I. Ch. IV. Sect. 2. and of his reasons for enjoining secresy in particular cases, ibid. p. 235. In the present instance, it is probable that the injunction only extended till he had submitted himself to the inspection of the priest, whose office it was to declare him clean. The immense multitude which must have been witnesses of the miracle, upon the supposition that it occurred in the order of St. Matthew’s narrative, is wholly inconsistent with any idea of pre- venting its publicity; so that the object in view seems to have been to keep the priest in ignorance of the transaction, lest his jealousy should induce him to deny the reality of the cure. Gro- ταῦθ, Kurnoeu. It has been supposed, however, that the real date of this miracle is prior to the Sermon on the Mount; and that the Evangelist deferred the relation of it, together with that of some others which were performed in the early part of our Lord’s ministry, for the purpose of placing the Sermon in a pro- minent point of view, and of giving in succession, at the close of the discourse, a series of the miracles, of which he had spoken in general terms immediately before its commencement. This supposition is considerably supported by the improbability of meeting with a leper in so great a concourse of people as are said . to have been assembled on the Mount; not to mention that the injunction of secresy, which must otherwise be limited, is given in as general terms, and apparently with the same intention, as upon any other of the occasions when our Lord thought proper to enforce it. The place which the event holds in St. Luke’s nar- rative is also in favour of this conclusion, since there is no reason for supposing, with some commentators, that the Evangelists have recorded two different transactions. LicHrroor, NeEw- comg.—[DopprincE, Macxnicut. | Ibid. εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς. ‘There is considerable differ- ence of opinion respecting the import of these words; some re- ferring the pronoun αὐτοῖς to the priests, and others to the people ; now the priest was but one, ἱερεῖ, whereas αὐτοῖς is in the plural; and though the singular may be explained in a col- lective sense as indicating the whole body, still it is clear that the offering could not be for a testimony to them, since they had ocular evidence of his purity from inspection in private, before the man was permitted to make the oblation in the Temple. The ceremony consequent upon this permission was the public testimony to the people that the man’s uncleanness was removed, and that he was no longer secluded from their society. The an- tecedent, therefore, to the pronoun them, though not expressed, is easily supplied by the sense. ‘This attestation to the cure would also be a testimony to the divine mission of Christ, who had effected it; in which sense the word μαρτύριον is most generally employed τῇ the N, T. Compare Matt, x. 18. xi. 5. 10 MATTHEW VIII. 5, 6. 99 xxiv. 14. Luke ix. 5. It was allowed by the Rabbins that curing the leprosy would be one of the characteristics of the Messiah. CampBeELL, Wuitsy, A. CLARKE, HamMMonD.—[RosENMULLER. | Kuinoel considers that the testimony was intended to be pro- duced against the priests, should they be subsequently induced to deny the cure. Ver. 5. προσῆλθεν αὐτῷ ἑκατόνταρχος, kK. τ. A. Some com- mentators have imagined that this miracle is different from that which is recorded in Lwke vii. 1. but the extraordinary similarity of the circumstances connected with each cannot plausibly be accounted for upon any other supposition than that of identity. The supposed points of difference between the two Evangelists are these: 1. St. Matthew relates the cure of the Centurion’s son, παῖς ; St. Luke of his servant, δοῦλος: 2. The Centurion in St. Matthew is said to solicit for himself what in St. Luke he solicits by the intervention of his friends: 3. It does not appear from St. Matthew that the Centurion was a proselyte. Now, not to mention that παῖς is actually interchanged with δοῦλος in Luke vii. 7. it is well known that the Hebrews were accustomed to soften down the name of servant into that of sen, as in Gen. xxii. 5. Judg. ix. 54. 2 Sam. ii. 14. xv. 14. 2 Kings x. 5. where the LXX have παῖς or παιδάριον. The same usage prevailed also among the Greeks and Romans. Compare Aristoph. Ran. 192, Anacr. Od. XX XVI..9. .Horat.:Od. 1-381 TE. 14218. Propert. III. 25. 25. Pollux III. 8. καλοῦνται παῖδες of δοῦλοι παρὰ τοῖς ᾿Αττικοῖς. With regard to the persons by whom the request was made to Jesus, it is to be observed, that the Jews were wont to look upon a thing which was done at their desire, in the same light as if it were done by themselves. Thus in Mark x. 35. the sons of Zebedee are represented as preferring a request to Christ, which, according to Matt. xx. 20. was really preferred in their name by their mother. Lastly, although it does not im- mediately follow from St. Matthew’s account that the Centurion was a proselyte, there is still nothing from which the contrary can be inferred; so that it may fairly be concluded that one Evangelist has given a fuller account than the other of the same transaction. At the same time, it is sufficiently evident from the declaration of our Lord in v. 10., that the Centurion was not an Israelite by birth. Wuirsy, Grotius, Lignrroot, Hammonp, Kurnoeyt.—[Macknieut. | Ver. 6. βέβληται. Decumbit ; i. e. ts laid forth without power of motion. Compare infra v. 14. Exod. xxi. 18. LXX. There is an ellipsis of ἐπὶ τῆς κλίνης; as appears from Matt. ix. 2. Mark vii. 80. Licutroot, Kuinort. The verb βασανίζειν sig- nifies to torture, from βάσανος, which denotes properly a Lydian stone, upon which metals were proved; (Pind. Pyth. X. 105.) H 2 100 ΜΑΤ ΗΒ ViIL 18,9, 40, 11, and thence, an instrument of torture. It has been observed, however, that the palsy, or paralysis, is not attended with pain, so that βασανιζόμενος should rather be rendered afflicted. But it appears from Celsus and Aretzus, that apoplexy was also classed under the head of paralysis ; and it is certain that there are cases in which the patient suffers considerable pain. Compare 1 Mace. xii. 55,56. LXX. RosenmuLuer, KuinoeL.—[Camp- BELL, HamMonb. ] Ver. 8. εἰπὲ λόγῳ. This is unquestionably the true reading, and it has the support οἵ ἃ very great number of MSS.., versions, and Fathers. Hence, it is received by Griesbach instead of εἰπὲ λόγον. Euthymius explains it by ἐν λόγῳ ψίλῳ. So Terent. And. I. 1. Quin tu uno verbo dic, quid est, quod me velis. WerTsTEIN, KuInoEL. Of ἱκανὸς in the sense of ἄξιος, see on Matt. iii. 11. and compare John i. 27. Ver. 9. ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν. Scil. τασσόμενος. This same participle is omitted in Acts viii. 27. xii. 20. In the parallel passage, Luke vii. 8., the ellipse is supplied: so also in Diod. Sic. p. 201. B. οὐκ ἦσαν ὑπὸ μίαν ἡγεμονίαν τεταγμένοι. The noun ἐξουσία is used in the abstract for the concrete. Compare Rom. xiii. 1. with v. 3. and Luke xii. 11. with Matt. x. 18. Kurnorert. Of the discipline here alluded to, and the argument employed, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. pp. 223. 225. Ver. 10. οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ x. τ. X. The faith of the Cen- “turion, which elicited this declaration from our Lord, consisted in the just conception which he entertained of the miraculous power with which he was endued. It is probable that the idea which he thus formed of Christ originated in the cure which had been effected some time before upon the nobleman’s son, who dwelt at this same place, Capernaum, at the distance of a day’s journey from Cana, where the miracle was performed. KurnoeL, Mack- ey the various notions affixed to the word πέστις, faith, in the N. T., see, for the present, Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. p. 733. It will be necessary to notice its theological application more particularly in notes on the Epistle to the Romans. With the proper name Ἰσραὴλ there is an ellipse of the word λαῷ. Compare Acts xiii. 23, 24. So also Matt, xv. 24. xxvii. 42. Mark xv. 32. Luke i. 68. vii. 9. et passim. Sometimes οἶκος would be more properly supplied from Matt. x. 6. See Bos Ellips. Gr.p. 153, 66 Ver. 11. ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν καὶ δυσμῶν. Scil. ἡλίου. In Luke ΧΙ, 29, are added the words καὶ ἀπὸ Βοῤῥᾷ καὶ Νότου. Both expressions are equally applied to denote from all quarters of the world. Compare Josh. i. 4. 15. Psal. lvii. Xen. Cyrop. I. MATTHEW VIII. 11. 101 1.3. Of the Jewish custom of reclining at meals, alluded to in the verb ἀνακλίνεσθαι, see Horne, Vol. III. pp. 397. 448. and my note on Hom. Il. I. 218. Judith xii. 15. LX X. ἀνακλίνεσθαι εἰς τὸ ἐσ- θίειν. From the exalted faith evinced by the Centurion, our Lord takes occasion to declare the merciful purpose which God entertained towards the Gentiles, of admitting them on equal terms with the believing Jews, into a participation of the pro- mises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, from which the un- believing Israelites would be excluded. This he expresses under the familiar representation of a sumptuous feast, agreeably to the custom of the Jews, who were wont to pourtray the rewards of the righteous by the same figure. Compare Matt. xxii. 1.- Luke xiv. 15. Rev. xix. 9. So in the Talmud: Thus saith the God of Israel: Ye offer me shew-bread and sacrifice in this life : and in the world to come I will spread for you a great table, which the Gentiles shall see and be ashamed. And though. the joys of heaven be all of a spiritual kind, the metaphor is not only appropriate, but necessary ; since it is only by similitudes taken from this life, that our condition in the next can be brought to the level of our understanding. ‘The same manner of speaking was also in use among the Greeks, who represent ‘Tantalus and [xion as feasting with the gods, thereby denoting the height of human felicity. Hence Empedocles, speaking of the state of the just : ᾿Αθανάτοις ἄλλοισιν ὁμέστιοι, ἐν δὲ τραπέζαις Εὔνιες. Epictet.. Enchirid. 21. ἔσῃ ποτὲ τῶν θεῶν ἄξιος συμπότης. But in order to understand more fully the figure here employed, it is to be observed, that these banquets were usually made at night, and thence called cane convivales. They were frequently pro- tracted to a late hour, and the houses were accordingly illumi- nated with great splendour. See Athen. XV. p. 699. and Plu- tarch, Symp. IV. 93. While the guests, therefore, were sur- rounded with a blaze of light, those who were excluded were in darkness without, which was rendered more abundantly . gloomy by the profusion of light within. It is necessary to observe, further, that the guests entered by a gate which was closed as soon as the company invited had arrived; nor was it re-opened to any who came too late. Compare Matt. xxv. 11. Luke xii. 24, 25. John x. 1. Hence it should seem that those who were shut out were not only involved in darkness, but exposed to hunger, cold, and mortification, which our Lord represents by weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, as emblematic of the wretched state of those who are excluded from the privilege of the Gospel here, and its promises hereafter. We may ob- serve, lastly, that the assurance here held out to the Gentiles was in direct opposition to the Rabbinical doctrine that adi Israel should have a portion in the world to come ; but that the heathen should be fuel for Hell fire. Pirk Eliezer, IX. 4. Wuirsy, Macxnicut, Le Cierc, Scuorrrern. Another in- 102 MATTHEW VIII. 12. 14, 16. terpretation is given in Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 433. which is rather applicable to Matt. xxii. 13. See also Vol. III. P NMIsCh. 2... Sect. 1. §. 1. 7 Ver. 12. οἱ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας. The Jews; who were the chosen people of God, and to whom an admission into the Gospel kingdom was first offered. The word υἱὸς is here used, like the Hebrew 32, ben, to denote a person possessing some kind of property in the thing denoted by the noun to which it is pre- fixed. So Luke x. 6. 6 vide τῆς εἰρήνης. Compare Psalm xl. 10. Ixxxviii. 12. οἷ]. 21. Kurnorn. At first sight, the insertion of the article before κλαυθμὸς and βρυγμὸς may appear arbi- trary, but the expression occurs in the N. T. seven times in the same form, and the reason is easily discovered. The weep- ing and gnashing of teeth spoken of is that of the persons last mentioned ; and the sense is, There shall they weep and gnash their teeth. Without the article the preposition would have asserted only that some persons should there weep, which is all that the E. T. expresses, but which falls short of the real mean- ing. Mrppteton. The word ὥρᾳ in v. 13. signifies a moment, or instant of time. ‘The expression is equivalent to εὐθέως, supra v. 3.: with a numeral adjective, however, it means an hour, properly, as in John xi. 9. Acts ii. 15, CAMPBELL. ϑι Ver. 14. βεβλημένην. See on v. 6.---πενθεράν. See the Lexicon to my Pent. Gr. v. γαμβρός. Peter was a native of Bethsaida, from whence he removed, with his brother Andrew, to Capernaum, probably in consequence of his marriage with a woman of that place. Of the several particulars of his life, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. IV. p. 445. We have no positive evi- dence in the N. T. that any other of the Apostles were married, except Peter; though it seems highly probable from 1 Cor. ix. 5. that such was the case. Ignatius, in his interpolated Epist. ad Phil. §. 4, speaks of Peter and Paul, and other Apostles; and St. Basil, περὶ ἀποταγῆς βίου, T. 11. p. 234. of St. Peter and the rest of the Apostles, as being married. Omnes Apostoli, says St. Ambrose, on 1 Cor. xi. exceptis Johanne et Paulo, uxores habuisse dicuntur, Other testimonies might also be adduced; but the single instance of St. Peter is sufficient proof that the Romish Church have no apostolical authority for imposing celibacy on their priests. It is the observation of Theophylact, that marriage is no hindrance to virtue, since the chief of the Apostles had his wife. Wuitsy. Of the verb διακονεῖν, in the next verse, see on Matt. iv. 11. For αὐτοῖς, a great number of MSS. read αὐτῷ, and they are supported by the principal versions, and several of the Fathers. ν Ver. 16. ὀψίας γενομένης. That is, after sun-set; for at εἰ MATTHEW VIII. 17. 108 that time the sabbath, on which day these events happened, (Mark i. 21.) ended. See Horne, Vol. III. p. 304. Hence the Rabbins say: the sabbath doth not enter, but when the sun is set. Wuitsy, Ligutroot. The expression ἐκβάλλειν λόγῳ, may be aptly illustrated by Cic. Catil. Or. 2. Ego vehemens ille consul, qui verbo cives in extlium ejicio. KUINOEL, Ver. 17. ὅπως πληρωθῇ κ. τ. X. The citation is from Isaiah 1111. 4. in which sublime chapter are prophetically described the propitiatory sufferings of Christ for the sins of the world. But because the Apostle has applied the words more immediately to the healing of the sick, some commentators have concluded that they were merely cited as an accommodation, and not accord- ing to the sense of the prophet. Since, however, the Jews con- sidered sickness and disease as the temporal punishment of sin, and our Lord himself, in accordance with this opinion, frequently said to those whom he healed, ‘ Thy sins be forgiven thee,” the prophecy may have had its first fulfilment in the removal of bodily infirmities, and have been more completely accomplished in the full remission of our sins, by the sacrifice on the cross. Wuirtsy, Grotius. The Socinians have made use of the passage, as cited by St. Matthew, to invalidate the doctrine of the Atone- ment; asserting, that it simply relates to the removal of diseases, without any reference to a propitiatory sacrifice. In support of this assertion, they argue that the word ἐβάστασεν signifies he bore away, he removed ; without the idea of bearing in person ; and the word αὐτὸς, himself, is entirely overlooked in the Uni- tarian version. Schleusner also, though he has rightly inter- preted the passage, has attempted to give ββαστάζω the sense of tollo, upon the authority of John xii. 16. xx. 15. where porto is clearly the more suitable interpretation. The other instances which he has cited, do not apply: and, if they did, βαστάζειν is expressed in Isaiah liii. 4. by the Hebrew 53D, which occurs only six times in the O. T. in the active voice, and always in the sense of portare. It should seem also, that ἀσθενείας and νόσους, as well as their corresponding Hebrew words, may be under- stood to relate to bodély infirmities, and mental maladies respec- tively, so that the first clause will relate to diseases removed, the latter to sufferings personally endured. Nor is it surprising that so distinguishing a character of the Messiah, as that of his healing all manner of diseases with a word,—a character too, which Isaiah himself has depicted so strongly in chap. xxx. 5. that our Saviour quotes his very words in proof of his Messiah- ship, (Matt. xi. 4.)—should be introduced in a place where his main object was to represent the plan of our redemption by means of Christ’s sufferings; more particularly as the Jews connected the ideas of sin and disease, so that an allusion to the one would naturally suggest the mention of the other, That the Evangelist, 104 - MATTHEW ὙΠ. 18, 19. on the other hand, though speaking more immediately of bodily diseases, should, at the same time, cite the latter member of the prophecy, which relates to the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, will appear equally reasonable from the consideration, that the healing of bodily distempers, would naturally suggest the more important object of the Messiah’s mission; that of saving men from their sins. RENNELL, MAGEE. a ial Ver. 18. εἰς τὸ πέραν. To the opposite side ; scil. of the lake of Gennesareth, (Luke viii. 22.): whence he proceeded to the country of the Gergesenes: v. 28. Let it be remarked, that crossing this lake does not always denote sailing from the east side to the west, or inversely; though the river Jordan, both above and below the lake, ran southwards. The lake was of such a form, that, without any impropriety, it might be said to be crossed in other directions, even by those who kept on the same side of the Jordan. Camppett. Upon the present, and other occasions, our Lord seems to have avoided keeping the multitude together, in order to prevent any appearance of sedition; a cau- tion, which Pilate’s readiness to receive any information relative to tumultuary proceedings rendered highly necessary. See Joseph. Ant. XVII. Le Cuerc. we od Ver. 19. εἷς γραμματεύς. The numeral εἷς is here used for ¢ the indefinite pr noun τὶς, as in Luke v. 12. xxi. 19. John vi. 19. xx. 7. The usage is explained as an Hebraism; (seé~Gen. xxvii. 44. LXX.) but it is sanctioned by the best Greek writers. ἡ Plutarch. de Audit. p. 46. εἴς ἐγέλασεν. Lucian. in Demonact. p- 1012. ἕνα γὰρ ἰδὼν κυνικόν. So wunus in Latin: Terent. And. I. 1. 91. Forte unam aspicio adolescentulam. KYPKE, WertsteIN. It should seem that this Scribe was induced by interested motives, and with a view to the pleasures and profits of Christ’s kingdom, the nature of which he did not comprehend, to become his disciple. Our Lord at once checks his ardour, by assuring him that he was not likely to better his worldly condition by following one, who had not where to lay his head. ‘This ex- pression the reader will find illustrated in Horne’s Introd. Vol. IT. ‘ (a) p- 334. The forwardness of the Scribe, however, though froma Δ wrong motive, appears to have aroused the negligence of a par- ticular disciple, who would have excused himself from attending upon Jesus, till the death of his father. Now the duty of supe highest importance by the Jews, and, indeed, by the ancien intending the obsequies of a parent was considered of ra general. See Tobit vi. 15. Joseph. adv. Apion. 11. 27. m Od. B. 201. The disciple’s father, therefore, though probably advanced in years, was not so near his end, perhaps, as his son imagined; so that the case was not so urgent, as to interfere with the more important concerns of the Gospel. Compare > = ‘ - MATTHEW VIII. 20. 105 Sd Kings ix. 90. Clemens Alex. has preserved a tradition, that Philip was the person here alluded to; but the name of disciple was common to all who professed to believe in Christ; so that it _ may have been merely one of those, who were constant attendants ~ upon his preaching. See John vi. 66. Macxnicut, Le CueErc, Grotius. The history here recorded is related by St. Luke, during our Lord’s journey through Samaria: ch. ix. 57. It seems, however, to have happened in the order of St. Matthew’s narra- tive; and to have been introduced by St. Luke into the place which it holds in his Gospel, on account of its agpity to the subject. Grotius.—[Macknieur. } Ver, 20. ai ἀλώπεκες x. τ. X. Plutarch has a similar senti- ment in T. Gracch. p. 828. C. τὰ piv θηρία τὰ τὴν ᾿Ιταλίαν νεμόμενα καὶ φωλεὸν ἔχει, Kal κοιταῖον ἐστὶν αὐτῶν ἑκάστῳ, Kai καταδύσεις" τοῖς δὲ ὑπὲρ ᾿Ιταλίας μαχομένοις καὶ ἀποθνήσκουσιν ἀέρος καὶ φωτὸς, ἄλλου δὲ οὐδένος, μέτεστιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἄοικοι καὶ ἀνίδρυτοι μετὰ τεκνῶν πλανῶνται. The noun φωλεὸς signifies a den, or lair, of a wild beast. Hesych. φωλεός᾽ σπήλαιον, οὗ ta θηρία κοιμᾶται. Compare Theocr. Idyl. I. 115. XXIV. 83. Pausan. VIII. 16. Apoll. Bibl. I. 9. 11. Adlian. V. H. VI. 3. Also, κατασκήνωσις does not imply a nest, but simply a place of shelter; a perch, or roost. Thus the verb κατασκηνοῦν is used in Matt. xiii. 32. Luke xiii. 19. of birds perching, and taking shelter upon branches. WetsTEIN, KurnorL, CAMPBELL. Ibid. ὃ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. This title, as applied by Christ | to himself, occurs seventeen times in St. Matthew, twelve times in St. Mark, twenty-one times in St. Luke, and eleven times in St. John; in all, sixty-one times, and always with this pecu- larity, that it is always so used by Christ himself, and never by any other person. ‘There is a single exception, in Acts vil. 56. where it is so applied by the martyr Stephen. In the O. T. two of the prophets, Daniel and Ezekiel, are called or of mén; by which they were reminded, that, although they were instruments in the hands of God, and had obtained great favour in his sight, still there was an immeasurable distance between them and their Maker. But in the N. T. the title belongs to Christ, κατ᾽ ἐξο- χὴν, as is clear from the corresponding term, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, (see on Matt. iv. 3.) in connexion with which, it clearly proves, that after some manner or other, to us unknown at present, he united in his person the human and divine natures; thus entirely _ subverting the directly opposite tenets both of Gnostics and Soci- nians. The title itself is evidently taken from Dan. vi. 13. where eternal dominion is ascribed to Christ, as being the Son of Man; and from this prophecy, the Jews expected that their Messiah would assume the appellation. Aben Esra has this saying of the Rabbi Joshua; He, who cometh as the Son of Man, is Messiah; and this is a sure thing. UWence it appears, 100 MATTHEW VIII. 22. 24, 25. Β' that although the name is assumed by Christ, in reference to his humiliation, in taking upon him our flesh, it was still in itself an appellation of the most exalted dignity. Patey, Macknicut, ScHOETTGEN, &c. oat “ Ver. 22. ἄφες τοὺς νεκροὺς κ. τ. X. The dead, οἱ νεκροὶ, are frequently in Scripture those, who are dead in trespasses and sins: as Eph. ii. 1. Col. ii. 18. 1 Tim. v. 6. Rev. iii. 1. The same metaphor was employed by the Grecian sages. Clem. Alex. 4. ἐν τῇ βαρβάρῳ φιλοσοφίᾳ νεκροὺς καλοῦσι τοὺς ἐκπε- σόντας τῶν δογμάτων, καὶ καθυποτάξαντας τὸν νοῦν τοῖς πάθεσι ψυχικοῖς. Hence Soph. Ant. 1165. τὰς γὰρ ἡδονὰς Ὅταν προδῶσιν ἄνδρες, οὐ τίθημ᾽ ἐγὼ Ζῇν τοῦτον, ἀλλ᾽ ἔμψυχον ἡγοῦ- μαι νεκρόν. In the present passage, the word, by a common rhetorical figure, bears a different meaning in the beginning of the sentence, from that which it bears in the end; so that the import is: Let the spéritually dead, who are insensible to the concerns of the soul and eternity, employ themselves in burying those who are naturally dead. Of this figure, which is called antanaclasis, there are seyeral instances in the Scriptures. See Psalm xviii. 26. Isaiah \xv. 11. Jerem. xxxiv. 17. Matt. ν. 19. xl. 50. Rom. xiv. 13. 1 Cor. viii. 2. Gal. iv. 9. Rev. xxii. 18, 19. Juvencus, in his Hist. Evang. 11. 23. thus translates this passage: | Et sine defunctis defunctos condere terra. The expression was probably proverbial. Wuirsy, Grorius, ALBERT, PALAIRET. Ver. 24. φεισύξ, A tempest. So Jerem. xxiii. 19. LXX. The word more properly denotes an earthquake ; as in Luke xxiv. 7. Xen. Hellen. LV. 7. 4. but it is also used of a storm at sea, and is convertible with λαίλαψ. Compare Mark iv. 37. Luke viii. 23. Virg. Ain. I. 135. Motos componere fluctus. Grotius, Kuinort. The sudden squalls, and as sudden calms, with which the lake of Gennesareth is visited, (see Horne’s In- trod. Vol. III. p. 40.) have tempted some of the German com- mentators to hazard an opinion, that there was nothing miraculous in the transaction here related. But though the wind may cease on a sudden, the agitation of the water will not immediately subside: so that the instantaneous calm was an undeniable proof of the miracle. It remains also for such reasoners to prove, that our Lord was aware that the tempest was then about to cease in the instant ; and to account for the terror of his disciples, and their consequent wonder at the cessation of the storm. To still” \ ΑἸ the raging of the sea, was always looked upon as an operation — of the Deity: and it was doubtless the decisive exercise of this power, that called forth the expression of admiration in vy. 27. Compare Psalm Ιχν. 7. cvii. 25. Wutrsy, Kurnoet, Jortin. ° = © Ver, 25. ἤγειραν αὐτόν. Scil. ἐξ ὕπνον. The ellipsis is com- MATTHEW VIII. 28. 107 pleted in Hom. Il. E. 422.—In several of the best MSS. αὐτοῦ is wanting, nor is it required, as the article of itself involves the sense of the possessive pronoun. The Vatican also, and some versions, omit μαθηταὶ, probably from a like omission in Mark ivy. 38. Luke viii. 24, Werste1n, Griespacu.- In the following verse the word ὀλιγόπιστοι seems to imply a want of confidence, which his disciples ofan not to have entertained, after witnessing the divine power which he had already exercised. Since his miracles had previously been confined to the cure of diseases, they probably feared lest he should be unable to subdue the fury of the elements. Hence, we perceive an additional cause for the exclamation, ποταπός ἐστιν οὗτος, x. τ. Xs Qualis quantusque sit, §c. The verb ἐπιτιμᾷν, it may be remarked, signifies not only to rebuke ; but to restrain, to quell. Compare Luke iv. 35. Psalm xviii. 17. \xviii. 51. civ. 7. LXX. Luke iv. 35. 39. In the parallel passage of Mark, the expression is: εἶπε τῇ θαλάσσῃ, σιώπα. MAcCKNIGHT, KUINOEL. Ver, 28. Γεργεσηνῶν. It is not improbable that Origen intro- duced this reading upon mere conjecture. Before his time, the copies, for the most part, varied between Γερασηνῶν and Γαδα- onvev. Now Gerasa, according to Origen, (T. ΓΝ, p. 140.) was a city of Arabia, οὔτε θάλασσαν οὔτε λίμνην πλησίον ἔχουσα. Several of the commentators are in favour of Παδαρηνῶν, as in Mark vy. 1. Luke viii. 6.; and the distance of Gadara from the border of the lake was not so great as to authorize its rejection. According to Joseph. B. J. V. 3. from Gadara to Tiberias, which lay on the opposite side of the lake, was a distance of sixty stadia; and the width of the lake, on the same authority, was forty stadia; so that the distance of the city from the water- side, will be less than two and a half English miles. Where, then, is the improbability, allowing it were even twice that distance, that the news of the miracle here recorded, should be carried thither immediately? . Still Γεργεσηνῶν may be the true reading, without producing any discrepancy in the narratives of the Evan- gelists ; Matthew giving the general name of the country, in which Gadara was comprehended. See Horne’s Geographical Index. Somewhat similar is the promiscuous use of the names Argos and. Mycene by the Greeks; and the confusion of the neighbouring towns of Pharsalia and Philippi by the Latins. See Elmsley on Eurip. Herac. 188. Heyne on Virg. Georg. I. 489. Wuuirsy, Kurnort. Of the nature and design of this miracle, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. I. p. 246. With respect to its moral application, it is well observed by Mr. Jones, of Nayland, that sin in man, is what the devil is in ἃ demoniac: and it is clear that a man may be under the dominion of a Iegion of evil passions at once. It is supposed by those who deny the reality of demoniacal posses- sion, that the person here cured was merely a maniac, labouring, 108 MATTHEW VIII. 29. perhaps, under the disease called Lycanthropia; of which see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 515. But it seems impossible to apply the terms which the Evangelist employs in any other than a personal sense; and, at all events, the effect produced upon the swine, cannot be explained upon any such hypothesis. It is worse than idle to talk of gregarious animals being seized with sudden panics; and with respect to the opinion, which has been . maintained by some, that the swine were driven down the pre- cipice by the maniacs, it is sufficient to reply, that the words of the Evangelists will not bear the construction. Indeed, it is more than probable, that part of our Lord’s object in consenting - to the request of the demoniac, was to prove the reality of such possessions, and to shew the power and malignity which the _dzmon exercised over the possessed. In addition to what has __ been said before (p. 55.) of damonism in general, we may observe, ‘that the witnesses of our Lord’s miracles entertained no doubt as to its true character; since they looked upon the devils as a set of inferior agents, of whom Beelzebub was chief. Matt. xii, 24. Wuitsy, Dopprince.—[RosenmuLter.] With respect to the apparent discrepancy between St. Matthew, who mentions ¢wo dzmoniacs, and Mark and Luke, who mention only one, it is probable that one was more fierce than the other, or that there was some circumstance in the cure, which rendered it more re- markable. There is a rule of Le Clerc, which may here be ap- plied: Qui plura narrat, pauciora amplectitur ; qui pauciora memorat, plura non negat. Nerwcomre, Hammonp. Ibid. μνημείων. Of the tombs of the Jews, which were situated chiefly in desert and mountainous places, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 526. An opinion prevailed among the Jews and early Christians, that the departed souls of wicked men seized upon the bodies of the living, and made them dzmoniacs. See Joseph. B. J. VII. 23. Hence it has been imagined, that the demons probably frequented the tombs, in order to confirm this vain persuasion. But it is more probable that the dzemoniac took refuge in them as a place of shelter; as it is known that wretches in extremity sometimes did the like. Compare Arist. Equit. 790. Eisner, Doppripge.—[Hammonp, WetTSsTEIN. ] Ibid. χαλεποί. Fierce, terrible. Hesych. χαλεπός" σκληρός. Hom. Od. T. 201. χαλεπὸς δέ τις ὥρορε δαίμων. Aristot. H. A. VI. 18. οἱ ὕες οἱ ἄγριοι περὶ τὴν ὀχείαν χαλεπώτατοι. Of the verb ἰσχύειν, in the sense οἵ δύνασθαι, we have an example in Gen. xxxi. 29. LXX. WerstTern, Kurnoet. Ver. 29. πρὸ καιροῦ. Before the time ; i. 6. before the day of judgment; at which time it was supposed that evil spirits would be deprived of their power, and confined for ever with encreased torments in the bottomless pit. See 2 Pet. ii. 4. Jude 6. The words καιρὸς and χρόνος differ in this, that the latter designates MATTHEW VIII. 30. 109 any period, however indefinite ; whereas the time denoted by the former is definite and fixed. The import of the word βασανίσαι in this place, is illustrated by the expression εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον ἀπελθεῖν, Luke viii. 31. Of the phrase τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοὶ, see Matt. Gr. Gr. ὃ. 385. 10. It occurs frequently in the O. T. in refer- ence to the troublesome interference of one person in the affairs of another. Compare Judg. xi. 12. 2 Sam. xvi. 10. 2 Kings ix. 18. Ezra iv. 3. John ii. 4. In some MSS. the word ‘Inco is omitted. Kurnornt, A. CLARKE. Ver. 30. μακράν. Scil. ὁδόν. E. T. a good way off. Vulg. Non longe; probably from some MS. of which the reading was ov μακράν. Mark and Luke read ἐκεῖ. In discrepancies of this nature, there is more of appearance than reality. In such gene- ral ways of speaking, there is always a tacit comparison; and the same thing may be denominated far, or not far, according to the extent of ground with which, in our thoughts, we compare it. The word μακρὰν may, therefore, be very properly rendered αὐ some distance ; in which sense the adverb μακρόθεν is used-in Luke xviii. 13. where the Pharisee and Publican could not have been very considerably asunder. Compare also Ewod. xxxiii. 7. ~ LXX. Diod. Sic. p. 558. E. Rhod. In the same indefinite manner the Latins employ procul. Terent. Hecyr. IV. 3. 1. Quem cum istoc sermonem habueris procul hine stans accept. See also Liv. X. 8. Virg. Ain. VI. 10. where Servius observes : procul, non longe; procul enim est, quod pre oculos, et quod porro ab oculis est. CAMPBELL, KuINOEL. Ibid. πολλῶν. About 2000; according to Mark v.13. In the following verse, for ἐπίτρεψον ἡμῖν ἀπελθεῖν, several MSS. have ἀπόστειλον ἡμᾶς, which is probably correct; the vulgar reading having been substituted in the text, from Mark and Luke, in order to sanction the opinion, that our Lord’s answer implies assent only, and not command. The same arguments, however, which vindicate the justice of the miracle upon the former supposition, are equally conclusive in either case; and the power of Christ is certainly more clearly demonstrated by understanding the words in the sense of a positive mandate. Griespacu, A. CLarKE. Of the name of the demonize (Legion ), and other circumstances of the miracle, which Matthew has omitted, see the parallel passage in Mark. 110 MATTHEW IX. 1, 2. - é CHAPTER ΙΧ, Contents :—The Cure of the Paralytic, vv. 1\—8. (Mark ii. 1. Luke v. 17.) Zhe Call of Matthew, and the Answer to John’s Disciples respecting Fasting, 9—17. (Mark ii. 14. Luke v. 27.) The ruler Jairus’s Daughter raised, and the Issue of Blood stopped, 18—26. (Mark ν. 22. Luke viii. 41.) Two blind Men restored to sight; a dumb Demon ejected; and the lamentable state of the Jewish nation deplored, 2188. Verse 1. τὴν ἰδίαν πόλιν. Capernaum ; where he seems to have commonly resided in the house of Peter. See on Matt. iy. 13. and compare Matt. viii. 13. Ver. 2. ἀφέωνταί σοι ai ἁμαρτίαι cov. It has been already observed, on Matt. viii. 17. that the Jews looked upon diseases as the temporal punishment of sin. In reference to this opinion, they had a maxim, that no diseased person could be healed, till all his sins had been remitted ; which seems to have been founded on Psalm ciii. 3... Compare also Deut. xxviii. 21. Isaiah xxxiii. 24. Psalm xli. 3, 4. See Kimchi zz loc. Hence some com- mentators have supposed, that Jesus here speaks not of the remission of eternal punishment; but merely of some particular offence, probably drunkenness, the penalties of which the paralytic was now suffering. In support of this interpretation it is urged, that the cure was not performed in consideration of the faith of the paralytic himself ; but of “ their faith ;” i. 6. the faith of those who brought him. But the faith of the sick man was unques- tionably included in the pronoun ¢heir; nor is it to be supposed that his persuasion of the power of Christ was less firm, than that of his supporters. Besides, if the removal of temporal punishment only were intended, that and the removal of the disease would have been identical ; so that, on this supposition, the words only imply a promise of forgiveness, since the cure was not immediately consequent upon the declaration. Nei- ther would there have been any ground for the imputation of blasphemy, which our Lord read in the thoughts of the Scribes ; since the performance of a mere miracle did not necessarily imply an assumption of divinity; whereas the remission of eternal punishment is an operation of God alone; and the inference of the Jews was justly drawn, but perversely applied. See Exod. xxxiv. 7, 2 Sam. xii. 23. Isaiah xliii. 25. Matt. xxvi. 65. This ο΄ perversion,-indeed, was to be expected from their prejudices ; by which they were also prevented from acknowledging another proof of the Godhead, which Christ exhibited on this occasion; viz. his knowledge of their hearts; a knowledge, the want of MATTHEW IX. 8. ὅ. 111 which was objected by the Rabbis to the impostor Barchochebas: and which the Scriptures themselves esteemed, no less than the remission of sins, to be peculiar. to the Deity. See 1 Sam. xvi. 7. 1 Chron. xxviii. 9. 2 Chron. vi. 30. Psalm vii. 9. Jerem. xvii. 10. It is probable that our Lord preceded the cure of the disease by the assurance of forgiveness, in order to raise the hopes of the paralytic, who, from a consciousness of the enormi- ties of his past life, thought that Jesus might pronounce him unworthy of mercy, at. the same time that he had a perfect con- fidence in his power to afford it. With regard to the objection, that the words, whether is tt easter, §c. imply that it is equally easy to do one as the other; whereas, the disciples could cure diseases, but could not forgive sins; (John v. 14. ix. 2.) it is re- plied, that our Lord uses the words in relation to his own omni- potence, and not of miraculous agency in general. See note on v. 5. infra. We may, therefore, fairly conclude, that the forgive- ness here offered extended to the remission of eternal punish- ment, in respect to the transgressions of the convert, to the time of this first manifestation of his faith. Liagnurroot, Grorius.— [Wuirsy.] It has been disputed, whether the verb ἀφέωνται is the aor. 2. subjunctive, or the perf. pass. indicative. The latter seems to be correct: so that ἀφέωνται is put for ἀφεῖνται, as in Luke vii. 47,48. 1 John ii. 22. See Matt. Gr. Gr. 8. 206. II. 2. Kurnoex. Of the evidence in favour of the reality of this miracle, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. I. p. 254. Ver. 3. βλασφημεῖ. Lmpie loquitur ; injurius est in Deum. In this sense the word is generally employed by the Evangelists : though it more properly signifies to revile, to calumniate ; in accordance with its derivation, παρὰ τὸ τὴν φήμην βλάπτειν ; (ledere famam; Cic. Cluent. 5.) So it occurs continually in Demosthenes ; and it retains its true signification also in Mark vii. 22. Coloss. iii. 8. Ephes. iv. 581. Plato has used the word ina religious sense; Alcibiad. I. and de Repub. 11. in fine : and so Menander: Ὁ λοιδορῶν τὸν πατέρα δυσφημεῖ λόγῳ Τὴν εἰς τὸ θεῖον δὲ μελετᾷ βλασφημίαν. GRrotius, KuINoEL. Ver. 5. εἰπεῖν. That is, to say with effect. Merely to pro- nounce the words of either sentence is equally easy to all; and to say both with effect were equally easy to our Lord. In the former case, however, the effect was invisible, and the multitude might question the effect altogether; but the immediate conse- quence of the order in the latter case was an ocular demonstra- tion of the power with which it was accompanied, and to say the one with effect, which effect was visible, was a manifest proof that the other was said also with effect, though the effect was in- visible. And this is the use which our Lord makes of the cure. ε CAMPBELL. ef... . te , wc, ΚΑΙ 112 MATTHEW IX. 6. 9, 10. 12. Ver. 6. τότε λέγει τῷ παραλυτικῷ.. These words are evidently parenthetical: and mark the change of our Lord’s address from the Scribes to the paralytic. The expression ἄραι τὴν κλίνην is illustrated in Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 397. The word ἐξουσίαν, in v. 8. is repeated in reference to its use here; so that it cannot be understood, as some have suggested, as an ab- stractum pro concreto, in the sense of ἐξουσίαν ἔχοντα. By a common enallage the plural τοῖς ἀνθρώποις is put for τινὶ av- θρώπῳ, i. 6. Χρίστῳ. KuINoEL. Ver. 9. ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον. At the toll-office, or custom-house ; which was probably a kind of booth erected on the side of the lake for collecting the toll of passengers. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 185. Porphyry and Julian, two of the earliest and most inveterate enemies of Christianity, have accused Matthew of rashness and indiscretion, in thus hastily following one, of whom he could have little or no knowledge. But as it is evident that this publican lived in or near Capernaum, which was the prin- cipal scene of the early part of our Lord’s ministry, he may indeed have been his disciple long before, though he had not yet received permission to follow him. Macxnieut, Le Crierc. It is observable, that the Evangelist speaks of himself in the third person, after the manner of historians in general, and more especially Caesar in his Commentaries. See also Dan. 1. 6. Jerem. xxxii. 27. John xiii. 23. This way of writing is adopted to avoid egotism and ostentation. KurmNoEL. Ver. 10. ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ. That is, in his house; scil. of Matthew. See Mark ii. 14. Luke vy. 29. It has been doubted, indeed, whether Matthew and Levi are the names of the same individual; but the account of the feast, and subsequent events, as given by the three Evangelists, are so closely analogous, and it was 8. usual with the Jews to have two names, as in the cases of Simon, who was also called Peter, and of Lebbeus Thaddeus amo > Apostles, that there can be no reasonable question of thei ἕω tity. See Horne, Vol. III. p. 272. Rosenmutiter. The word ᾿ ἁμαρτωλὸς, sinner, is generally used in the Gospels, and indeed throughout the N. T. either to signify a Heathen, or such of the Jews who, from their illicit practices, were looked upon in the same light with the Heathen. Of this latter class the Talmud enumerates dicers, usurers, plunderers, publicans, shepherds of lesser cattle, (i. 6. swine,) those that sell the fruit of the seventh year, &c. Compare Matt. xi. 19. xxvi. 45. Mark ii. 15—17. xiv. 41. Luke v. 30—82. vi. 32—34. vii. 34. 37. 39. xv. 1, 2. 7. 10. John ix. 16, 24, 25,31. et passim. A. CLARKE, GRotius. Ver. 12. οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσιν κι 7. A. This is a common pro- verb, which no one could possibly misunderstand or misapply. MATTHEW IX: 13. 113 Diog, Laert. VI. 6. ᾿Αντισθενὴς ὀνειδιζόμενός ποτε ἐπὶ τῷ πονη- ροῖς συγγενέσθαι, Καὶ οἱ ἰατροὶ, φησὶ, μετὰ τῶν νοσούντων εἰσὶν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πυρέττουσι. Sayings to the same effect are recorded of Diogenes, ap. Stob. XI. and of Pausanias and Phocion, by Plutarch. Hence Ovid, de Pont. 111. 4. 7. Firma valent per se, nullumque Machaona querunt ; Ad medicam dubius confugit eger opem. In Luke ν. 31. the word ὑγιαίνοντες is substituted for ἰσχύοντες. A. CLARKE, WETSTEIN. Ver. 13. πορευθέντες δὲ μάθετε. This phrase is equivalent with the Hebrew 715) N88, tsa velimed, a form in frequent use among the Rabbins, when they referred their disciples to the sacred writings. The words τί ἐστιν are also an instance of the mode of citation, without any direct reference, employed by the Jewish doctors. The passage here quoted is from Hos. vi. 6. and our Lord refers to it in proof that deeds of charity, and par- ticularly the conversion of the sinner, are more acceptable than sa- crifice ; i. e. than the greatest duty of the ceremonial law, and con- sequently than the most punctual observance of the entire ritual. The word ἔλεος is here used in its more extensive sense of wnié- versal benevolence, as in Tit. iii. 3. Heb. iv. 6. It is clear, however, that the import of the passage is comparative, not absolute ; for sacrifice, though of less importance than mercy, was still a duty of the first importance. The LXX, indeed, for καὶ μὴ read ἢ, subaud. μᾶλλον, as in Hom. 1]. A. 116. not to mention that καὶ μὴ is used for μᾶλλον ἢ in classic authors; unless μόνον be un- derstood, which may also be the case in the present instance. Isocrat. ad Nicocl. p. 42. ἐλλείπειν aipov, KAI MH πλεονάζειν" ai γὰρ μετριότητες MAAAON ἐν ταῖς ἐνδείαις, Ἢ ταῖς ὑπερβο- λαῖς ἰσχύουσιν. Compare Gen. xlv. 8. Exod. xvi. 8. Prov. viii. 10. Joel ii. 13. LXX. John vi. 27. 1 Cor.i. 17. By the righte- ous, δικαίους, are not meant, as some have supposed, those who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, (Luke xviii. 9.) for such are more especially called to repentance by the Gospel. See Matt. iii. 8. Rev. ii. 17. Neither are those intended who are entirely free from sin, for where is the man that sinneth not? James iii. 2. 1 John i. ὃ. but those who strive, so far as human nature is capable, to abstain from all known sin, praying for the assistance of God’s grace to cooperate with their own imperfect - endeavours, and “‘ walking in all the commandments of the Lord blameless.” Such were Zacharias and Elizabeth, Luke i. 6. and Simeon, Luke ii. 25. The words εἰς μετανοίαν are omitted in several of the best MSS. and versions, and some of the ancient Fathers: they are found, however, in Luke v. 32. and it is agreed on all hands, that if they are not expressed in this place, » they must be understood. With respect to the sentiment, a very similar one is ascribed to Zaleucus in Diod. Sic. p. 299. Ὁ. οἱ θεοὶ οὐ χαίρουσι ταῖς τῶν πονηρῶν θυσίαις τε Kal δαπαναῖς, ἀλλὰ WOE; 1... | I 114 MATTHEW ΙΧ. 15, 16. ταῖς τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀνδρῶν δικαίαις τε καὶ καλαῖς ἐπιτηδεύσεσι. Wuirsy, Grotius, Macxnieut, A, CLARKE, ΚυΊΝΟΕΙ, ΜΌΝΤΗΕ. Ver, 15. οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ νυμφῶνος. The sons of the bride-cham- ber : i. 6. the personal friends of the bridegroom, (John iii. 29.) who formed the marriage procession, and were admitted to a par- ticipation of the seven days’ festivity, consequent upon the mar- riage. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 416. They were called by the Greeks παράνυμφοι; by the Latins pronubi; and by the Hebrews Schoshbenim. Of the Jewish fasts see on Matt. vi. 16. It is remarkable that our Lord does not here either enjoin or forbid fasting; though it is clear from his manner of expression that he approved of it as a religious exercise at proper seasons. He did not mean, as the Montanists affirm, that the Pharisaical fasts would ever be introduced into his Church, but that his dis- ciples would fast and mourn on account of the various calamities which would befal them after his departure, and as often, in after times, as any particular circumstance of danger and distress might require it. Instances of such fasts occur in Acts x. 30. xiil. 2,3. xiv. 23. 1 Cor. vii. 5. The force of our Lord’s answer will ap- pear more appropriate from the fact that John was now in prison, so that his followers were fasting in consequence of their master’s removal from them. Wuitsy, Grotius, Macxnicut. The particle μὴ is simply interrogative, implying a negation of the question proposed; and the verb δύνανται is redundant. So also in Gen. xlili. 32. John xii. 39. (comp. v. 37.) Xen. Aicon. XI. 11. Kurnokt. * Ver, 16. ἐπίβλημα paxove ayvapov. A ie of undressed cloth; i. e. of cloth which has not passed through the hand of the fuller, (yvapeic.) Luke has καινὸν, which, however, does not affect the sense of the passage. The éi/3Anua, after it is sewed in, becomes πλήρωμα αὐτοῦ, scil. ἱματίου ; and the words αἴρει ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱματίου are equivalent to αἴρει μέρος τι τοῦ ἱματίου. Compare Levit. x. 18. LXX. and see Matt. Gr. Gr. ὃ. 574. Hence, the meaning of the passage is, that the patch of new cloth, being of a harsher texture and less yielding than that which has been frayed and worn, will eventually tear away the edges of that to which it is sewed, and encrease the rent. The inference which our Lord intended to deduce from this similitude, and that to the same effect in the next verse, was the inexpediency of im- posing too severe restrictions upon his followers in that early stage of his ministry. It has been objected, however, that al- though the Pharisees were trained to frequent fastings, the same was not the case with John’s disciples; and that, therefore, the followers of Christ might fast as well as they. But it is not im- probable that many of John’s disciples were of the sect of the Essenes, (see Horne) whose habits of abstinence were as severe MATTHEW IX. 18. 20. 115 as those of the Pharisees themselves: not to mention that the peculiar austerities of the Baptist might have influenced the cha- racter of those who attended him. ALBert, Wuirsy, Dop- DRIDGE. The word ἀσκὸς should be rendered a leathern flash, or skin. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 466. Ver. 18. ἄρχων εἷς. For ric, as in Matt. viii. 19. The name of this wer was Jairus, whom Mark (v. 22.) calls ἕνα τῶν ἀρ- χισυναγώγων, and Luke (viii. 41.) ἄρχοντα τῆς συναγωγῆς. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 253. and of the miracle itself, and the Jewish customs illustrative thereof, see the same work, Vol. I. p. 259. III. p. 524. and my note on Hom. Il. 3. 339. The words ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησε are wrongly rendered in the E. T. is even now dead ; since it appears from the other Evange- lists, that at the time the ruler left his house, his daughter was still alive; and it was not till after the cure of the infirm woman that his servants met them with the news of her death. The proper translation would be, she és by this time dead; a very natural conjecture respecting one whom he left in her last extremity. Mark’s expression is ἐσχάτως ἔχει, and Luke’s ἀπέθνησκεν. This sense of ἄρτι is sanctioned by Philostratus, who explains it περὶ τὸν καιρὸν τῶν ῥημάτων. With respect to the verb ἀποθνήσκειν, employed by Luke, it is sometimes used like the Hebrew 1D, of those at the point of death; as in Joseph. Ant. V. 1.1. Com- pare Gen. xx. 3. xlviii. 21. Deut. v. 22. Isaiah xxxviii. 1. Wuitsy, CAMPBELL, KUINOEL. Ibid. ἐπίθες τὴν χεῖρά cov. Imposition of hands was usually employed by the prophets and men of God for the purpose of conveying their divine influence to the bodies or souls of men. Compare Numb. xxvii. 18. 20. 2 Kings v. 11, Matt. xix. 13. Acts iv. 30. Grortus. Ver. 20. γυνὴ αἱμοῤῥοοῦσα. The disease, with which this woman was afflicted, was most probably that which Hippocrates (de Morb. I. 3.) designates as the ῥόος αἱματώδης ; the nature of which it is unnecessary to describe. Suffice it to say, that the complaint appears to have been exceedingly inveterate, and to have baffled every attempt of medical skill.. See the parallel pas- sage in Mark vy. 25. sqq. The κράσπεδον τοῦ ἱματίου was one of the JSS, tsitsith, or tassels, which the Jews were com- manded to wear on their garments, for the purpose of reminding them of the commandments of the Lord. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 403. Hence a peculiar sacredness was attached to them, (Matt. xxiii. 5.) which seems to have led the woman to touch them rather than any other part of Christ’s dress; not to mention that touching the hem of the garment was looked upon as a mark of reverence and respect. ‘The nature of her disease, which was considered unclean, (Levit. xv. 25.) and the delicacy 12 a” 116 MATTHEW ΙΧ. 24. 27. 30. which forbad her to make any public acknowledgment of it, were the probable motives which induced her to approach our Saviour in secresy. CAMPBELL, KurnoeL. Of the verb σώζειν, which is used in the next verse in the sense of sanare, see on Matt. i. 21. and compare Mark vi. 56. Luke viii. 36. xvii. 19. xviii. 42. John xi. 12. Acts ix. 9. DoppRinGeE. Ver. 24. οὐ yao ἀπέθανε κι τ. Δ. The verbs καθεύδειν and κοιμᾶσθαι are frequently used in the sense of ἀποθνήσκειν ; a Euphemism common to the ancients generally. Compare John xi. 11. 13. and see my note on Hom. Il. A. 241. Here, how- ever, the two verbs are directly opposed to each other, so that each must undoubtedly be used in its proper signification. It has been argued, indeed, that the girl was not really dead, but that she had merely fallen into a trance or swoon; but the whole tenor of the narrative is directly at variance with any such conclu- sion. Our Lord evidently intended to signify that she was not dead, so as to continue under the power of death; since he was about to raise her as from a natural sleep. This interpretation is in itself a sufficient reply to the casuistical sophistry of the Jesuits, who adduce this passage in defence of their principle of mental reservation. Le Cierc, Werstern, Wuitsy.—[MiIcHar.is, Kurnoet.] In the next verse the verb ἐκβάλλειν is to be under- stood in a milder sense than that usually applied in the N. T.; it signifies merely to dismiss or exclude; scil. from the damsel’s apartment, into which he entered unattended, except by Peter, James, and John, and the parents of the deceased. See Mark v. 37.sqq. Had the crowd been admitted indiscriminately, the press would have prevented a close examination of the miracle, and un- founded reports might have arisen, so as to invalidate the credi- bility of the transaction. Instances of the use in which ἐκβάλλειν is here employed, may be found infra v. 38. Matt. xii. 20. 35. xill. 52. Mark i. 48. Luke x. 35, John x. 4. Acts xvi. 37. Rev. . xiv. 16. Inv. 25. the gender of αὐτῆς is referred to the sex implied in κοράσιον, and not to the noun itself. Compare Matt. xxvill. 19. Hammonp, Ros—ENMULLER, ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ,. Ver. 27. vit Δαβίδ, This title was a most decided acknow- ledgment of our Lord’s Messiahship ; and it is probable that the men were induced to make it from the convincing proof which his miracles afforded of the fact. See on Matt. i. 1. and com- pare Matt. xii. 23. John iv. 29. Grorrus, Licurroot. The restoration of sight is one of the most prominent of the cures effected by Christ; and it is attested by modern travellers, that blindness is a calamity of unusual frequency in the East. Ver, 30. ἐνεβριμήσατο. He strictly charged. Suidas: μετ᾽ αὐστηρότητος ἐπετίμησεν. Chrysostom, Hom. 13. οὐχ ἁπλοῦς MATTHEW IX. 382. 34. 36. 117 κελεύει, ἀλλὰ Kal μετὰ πολλῆς σφοδρότητος. Compare Mark i. 48. with Luke v. 14. John xii. 16. The expression ἀνεῴχθησαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ is an Hebraism of the same import with ἀναβλέπειν. - Compare Isatah xxxv. 5. Matt. xx. 38, 34, Kurnoen. Ver. 32. κωφὸν δαιμονιζόμενον. It is evident from the con- text, that the demon by whom the man was possessed, had de- prived him of the power of speech, for as soon as the ejection was effected the dumb spake. The expression of admiration in v. 33. was naturally elicited by the number and variety of mi- racles, and those too of the most extraordinary kind, which Jesus had exhibited in the course of a few hours: such as the greatest of the prophets, and not even Moses himself, had ever performed. The adverb οὕτως is there employed instead of τοιοῦτό τι, or τοῦτο. So 1 Sam. xxiii. 17. LXX. Σαοὺλ ὁ πατήρ μοι οἶδεν οὕτως. Psalm xlvii. 6. αὐτοὶ ἰδόντες οὕτως ἐθαύμασαν. Ver. 84. ἐν τῷ ἄρχοντι κ. τ. A. That is, Beelzebub. See on Matt. x. 25. This imputation is refuted by our Lord in Matt. xi. 24, Ver, 36. ἐσπλαγχνίσθη. Was moved with compassion. The verb σπλαγχνίζεσθαι is met with only in the N. T. and LXX, where it always signifies to be moved with pity or compassion. Its derivation is from σπλάγχνα, viscera; but it is perfectly dis- tinct from the sacrificial term σπλαχνεύειν, which occurs in 2 Mace. vi. 8. in the sense of sacrificare. The Jews looked upon the dowels as the seat of love and sympathy, and so applied the organ to the sense, as in Psalm li. 3. and elsewhere. In Wisd. x. 5, UX X. the word σπλάγχνα 15 so employed. The read- ing ἐσκυλμένοι is that of a great number of MSS., versions, and fathers; and Griesbach has adopted it instead of the old word ἐκλελυμμένοι, for the very probable reason that a more difficult reading is not likely to be substituted in the place of one, of which the meaning is evident. Now the verb ἐκλύεσθαι is used either of mental or bodily fatigue, instances of which in either acceptation are of frequent occurrence. See 2 Sam. xvi. 2. 1 Mace. iii. 17. Mark viii. 3. Gal. vi. 9. Heb. xii. 8. With respect to σκύλλειν, its primary meaning is to tear the hair ; (Hesych. σκύλλειν᾽ τὸ τοῖς ὄνυξι σπᾷν.) Hence, to afflict, or torment, as in 3 Mace. iii. 25. iv. 6. LXX. and so generally, to tire, to fatigue. In this latter sense the verb is found in Herod. IV. 13. 8. VII. 3. 8. with which we may also compare the usage of the Latin vexare in Q. Curt. V. 10. Ut vexatos milites quiete Jjirmaret. It is not improbable, therefore, that the old reading may have been originally a gloss, which at length found its way into the text. The participle ἐῤριμμένοι, signifying properly thrown down, may be rendered neglected, unprotected, as in 118 MATTHEW IX. 37, X. ‘1. Herodian, II. 6. ἐῤῥιμμένην τὴν ἀρχὴν ἁρπάζειν. Under the figure, therefore, of a flock without a shepherd, fatigued with wandering, and exposed to danger, our Lord depicts the wretched state of the ignorant Jews, whom the Pharisees considered as accursed, (John vii. 49.) and treated with the most unpardonable neglect. Hence they are called the lost sheep of the house of Israel, Matt. x. 6. Similar images are employed in 1 Kings xxi. 17. Judith xi. 19. Kurnoret, Grotius, Kypxe, Dop- DRIDGE. Ver. 37. ὃ μὲν θερισμὸς x. τ. X. The expression is proverbial. Our Lord’s meaning is, that the immense multitudes which fol- lowed him, although neglected by their spiritual guides, were desirous of receiving instruction; and the prayer, which he now puts into the mouth of his disciples, is well connected with their mission as Apostles, in the opening of the next chapter. The comparison is borrowed from agricultural pursuits, as are many others which are found in the Scriptures. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 469. In the Rabbinical writings also the doctors are represented as reapers, and their work of instruction as the harvest: thus in Idra Rabba, §. 2. The days are few ; the cre- ditor urgent ; the crier calls out incessantly ; and the reapers are few. The word ἔργον and its derivatives are continually em- ployed by the classic writers in relation to husbandry. Grortius, KuINoEL, A. CLARKE. CHAPTER X. ConTENTs :— The names and mission of the twelve Apostles ; and the instructions, exhortations, and promises with which they are sent forth. [Mark vi. 7. Luke ix. 1.] Verse 1. ἐξουσίαν πνευμάτων. The preposition κατὰ is in- serted in several of the best MSS. and versions, and in Luke ix. 1. the expression is ἐξουσία ἐπὶ πάντα τὰ δαιμόνια. But πνευμάτων may here be considered as what the grammarians call the genitive of the object. So Ecclus. x. 4. LXX. ἐξουσία τῆς γῆς. Matt. xx. 31. βλασφημία τοῦ πνεύματος. Compare Isaiah iil. 14. Joel iii. 19. 1 Cor. ix. 19. In communicating to others the power over evil spirits, and of working miracles in his name, (compare Luke x. 17.) our Lord has given an unanswerable proof of his omnipotence. None but God could bestow this power ; and in this respect is Christ distinguished from all the prophets of the O. T., of whom, though some worked miracles themselves, none enabled others to do so. Joshua, indeed, received ‘ the 10 MATTHEW X. 2. 119 spirit of wisdom” from Moses, Deut. xxxiv. 9. and the spirit of Elijah rested on Elisha, 2 Kings ii. 15. But in the first instance the communication was made by the immediate command of God, and in the other, Elijah’s reply to the request of Elisha evidently implies that the thing prayed for was not at the prophet’s disposal. Arnobius, (adv. Gent. I. p. 50.) in applying this argument to the Gentiles, asks, Alicuine mortalium Jupiter ille Capitolinus hujus- modi potestatem dedit? In the commission here given to the twelve Apostles was laid the foundation of the Christian ministry, and the first authority given to the establishment of a regular priesthood. The commission was enlarged just before our Lord’s ascension into heaven, when the Gentiles were admitted to an equal share with the Jews in the privileges of the Gospel. The office of the seventy disciples, whom our Lord subsequently discharged to preach to those cities which he was shortly about to visit, (Luke x. 1.) was subordinate to that which is here assigned to the twelve; a distinction in which we recognise the sanction of the great Author and Finisher of our faith to a triple order in the ministry. Christ, as the head, commissioned twelve apostles and seventy disciples to work with him in the first preaching of the Gospel ; and the Apostles, Presbyters, and Deacons of the pri- mitive Church, presignified by the High-Priest, Priests, and Levites of the Jewish temple, have been followed in uninter- rupted succession by the Bishops, Priests, and Deacons of our own establishment. Kurnort, Wuirspy, HOLDEN. Ver. 2. δώδεκα ἀποστόλων... The word ἀποστόλος signifies, properly, a messenger dispatched upon some business of import- ance, as in 1 Kings xiv. 6. which is the only place where it occurs in the LXX. Among the Jews it denoted an officer, commissioned by the high priest to collect the tributes due to the temple, from the Jews who lived at a distance from Jerusalem. The office originated with the Patriarchs, and continued to exist even after the destruction of the temple, and the dispersion of the people by Titus Vespasian. Jerome, in accounting for the expression used by St. Paul in Gal. i. 1., says, Usque hodie a patriarchis Judeorum Apostolos mitti constat. Ad distinctionem itaque eorum qui mittuntur ab hominibus, et sui, qui sit missus a Christo, tale sumpsit exordium: Paulus apostolus, non ab hominibus, neque per homines. In the N. T. it is used more especially as the designation of those disciples whom our Lord commissioned to preach the Gospel; and in one place (Heb. iii. 1.) it is applied preeminently to Christ himself. In 2 Cor. viii. 23. we meet with the expression ἀποστόλοι ἐκκλησίων, but the denomination Apostles of Christ seems to have been given to none but the twelve, to Matthias, who was substituted in the place of Judas, and to Paul and Barnabas, who were commissioned to the Gen- tiles. It has afforded subject for speculation to discover the 190 MATTHEW Χ. 2. reason of Christ’s limiting the Apostles to twelve ; probably he had the twelve Patriarchs in view, or the twelve tribes of Israel; such a conclusion, at least, may fairly be drawn from Matt. xix. 28. CAMPBELL, GROTIUS. Ibid. πρῶτος. This word, though found in all the MSS., has been supposed to be interpolated by some zealot who wished to establish the Pope’s primacy; but there can be no doubt of its authenticity. Still there is nothing in it to support the preten- sions of the prelates of Rome. It is a sufficient explanation of the passage, that Peter was the Apostle first called to the mi- nistry; and the same interpretation will apply to the assurance that Peter was the rock on which Christ would build his Church, especially if we recollect that the same Apostle was commissioned to the Jews, to whom the covenant of salvation was first to be proposed. It is evident also from the different order in which they are enumerated by the several Evangelists, that they were all placed on the same footing in respect of rank. Theophylact, προτίθησι δὲ Πέτρον καὶ ᾿Ανδρέαν, διότι καὶ πρωτόκλητοι. Mrp- DLETON, RosENMULLER. Of the name of Peter see on Matt. xvi. 18.; an account of his life, as also of the other Apostles, whose writings are contained in the Canon of the New Testa- ment, and some others incidentally, will be found in Horne’s Introduction: it will therefore only be necessary to notice briefly those whom his plan did not embrace, leaving those of whom he has spoken with a simple reference. 1. Perer. tet ai \ Horne, Vol. II. p. 445, pate oe: } Sons of Zebedee. Ibid, pp. 811. 441. 5. Putte. This Apostle was a native of Bethsaida, John i. 44. By some he is supposed to have been called to the apostle- ship after Andrew and Peter, who were natives of the same place; and by others before them. It was to him that our Lord proposed the question, whence they should buy bread to feed the 5,000 in the wilderness, John vi. 5. He was the person to whom the Greeks applied for admission to an interview with the Mes- siah, John xii. 20. and it was he who was gently rebuked by Christ for his too great inquisitiveness respecting the divine na- ture, John xiv. 8. According to Clement he was a married man; and Papias, an early writer cited by Eusebius, mentions that he had two unmarried daughters residing with him at Hierapolis, a city of Phrygia, where he abode after our Lord’s ascension. _ It seems that he was very active in preaching the Gospel in Asia - Minor, where it is said, that among other miracles which he per- formed, he raised a dead man to life. ‘The manner of his death is uncertain: by some he is supposed to have been crucified ; but Clement enumerates him among those of the Apostles who did not suffer martyrdom. Cave, LARDNER. —_ Sees a MATTHEW xX. 2. 121 6. BarTHoLtoMEw. It is generally supposed that this disciple is the same with Nathanael, whom Philip first introduced to Christ, as related in Johni. 45. This identity is amply confirmed by the fact, that Bartholomew is not mentioned as an Apostle by St. John, nor Nathanael by the other Evangelists, and that the former speaks of Philip and Nathanael in conjunction, the latter of Philip and Bartholomew. Besides, unless Nathanael had been already among the twelve, it seems strange that he should not have been considered a qualified candidate to supply the place of Judas. He was undoubtedly called Bartholomew, as the son of Tolmat, just as Peter was called Barjona, and Joses Barnabas. He was a native of Cana in Galilee, and it is pro- bable that before his call to the ministry he followed the occupa- tion of a fisherman, John xxi. 2.; but the Gospel account of him contains little else than the history of his first introduction to Jesus, and the statement by St. Luke that he was one of the witnesses of the resurrection. After this event he is said to have been engaged some time with Philip at Hierapolis, and also to have laboured in India and among the Lycaonians; according to Jerome he finished his life by crucifixion, at Albanopolis, in Armenia. Cave, LARDNER. 7. Tuomas, called also Didymus, John xx. 24. The two names are alike in signification, the one being Hebrew and the other Greek for a twin; whence it is probable that he was a native of Decapolis, or some other place which was inhabited both by Jews and Greeks, who called him each by their national appellation respectively. He also’seems to have been associated with the sons of Zebedee and Nathanael as a fisherman. Of his first connexion with our Lord we have no information, and the only remarkable point in his history is his extreme want of faith, related in John xx. 24. His ministry, subsequent to our Lord’s ascension, is said to have been exercised chiefly in Parthia; and it has been supposed.by some that he was the founder of a race of Christians who have been discovered to exist near the coast of Malabar, with the name of the Christians of St. Thomas ; but others attribute their origin to a Syrian bishop, who flou- rished considerably later than the apostolic age. ‘The place and manner of his death are equally uncertain, though a tradition exists that he was killed by a lance at the instigation of the Brahmins, near Malipar, a city of Coromandel. Cave, LARDNER. 8. Mattuew. See Horne, Vol. III. p. 261. 9. James, the son of Alpheus. © Lbzd. p. 441. 10. Lesseus, surnamed Thaddeus. Ibid. p. 490. 11. Srvon, the Canaanite. There is nothing of any import- ance concerning this Apostle to be found in the Gospel narrative. Some have inferred from the distinctive appellation here given to him, that he was born at Cana in Galilee, and probably the bridegroom at whose house our Lord performed his first miracle. 122 MATTHEW X. 4. But it is more correct to derive the word from the Hebrew Np, Kana, signifying zealous ; so that it is precisely equivalent wit the Greek ζηλωτὴς, by which he is designated in Luke vi. 15. This title, which was probably intended to distinguish him from Simon Peter, either denotes the warmth of his zeal in support of the Gospel, or which is more likely, implies that he was origi- nally a Pharisee, a portion of which sect, from their intemperate zeal in maintaining their religious observances, had acquired the name of Zealots. See Joseph. B. J. LV. 12. and Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 381. After preaching in Egypt, Africa, and Mauri- tania, Simon is said to have visited Britain, and there to have suffered martyrdom. Hammonp, Licurroot.—[MacknienT, DopprIDcE. | 12. Jupas Iscartor. The sum of the history of Judas is contained in the words subjoined to his name by the Evangelists, ὃ καὶ παραδοὺς αὐτὸν, who even betrayed him; for such is the true rendering: not as the E. T. who also betrayed him. He was the son of one Simon, John vi. 71. and he was called Iscariot to distinguish him from Judas Thaddeus; but the commentators are by no means agreed in respect to the meaning and origin of the name. It is supposed by some that it has reference to the town of Kerioth, in the tribe of Judah, mentioned in Josh. xy. 25. where Judas was probably born: and this is somewhat con- firmed by a various reading of John vi. 71., where some MSS. read ἀπὸ Καριώτου. But there is another derivation of which the word admits, in relation to the death of Judas, who hanged himself, since the Hebrew NDDDN, ascara, denotes strangulation or suffocation. ‘This idea is considerably strengthened by the circumstance, that, wherever the word occurs, it is almost always without the article, or at least with a variation in the MSS. Now if a place of birth or residence were denoted, the article should be prefixed, as in Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνή ; not to mention that the participle ἐπικαλούμενον, which is affixed in Luke xxii. 3. seems to indicate strictly a surname, as in this very place, ἐπι- κληθεὶς Θαδδαῖος. Compare Acts i. 23. x. 5. xii. 12. The article in this place is omitted, and it should seem correctly, in many MSS. Licutrroot, MippLteron.—[Scuieusner.] Of the treachery of Judas, as an evidence of the truth of Christianity, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. I. p. 404. Ver. 4. παραδούς. The verb παραδοῦναι is to deliver up, προδοῦναι, to betray; so that the former simply expresses a fact, but the other marks the fact as criminal, and is properly a term of reproach. Hence we cannot but remark the candour and ingenuousness of the Evangelists, who content themselves simply with relating facts, without any expression either of cen- sure or commendation. Surely this is an unquestionable proof of veracity. Wrrstrern, CAMPBELL. See Horne, Vol. I. p. 139. sqq. MATTHEW X. 5. 8. 123 Ver. 5. εἰς ὀδὸν ἐθνῶν. For εἰς ὁδὸν ἣ ἄγει ele τὰ ἔθνη. So Jerem. ii. 18. LXX. ἡ ὁδὸς Αἰγύπτου. Compare Numb. xxi. 88. Kurnoet. We may observe, that the preference here given to the Jews is founded upon the gracious promises of God to their forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; whence they became the children of the kingdom (Maf#t. viii. 12. xv. 24.) to whom the adoption and promise more especially belonged. See Luke 1. 54. Acts xii. 46. Rom. ix. 4. xv. 8. It was expedient, more- over, that Christianity, considered as the perfection of that grand scheme which the Patriarchal and Jewish dispensations had begun and matured, and receiving its chief support from its connection with these dispensations by type and prophecy, should first be established among those people, among whom the records re- specting it were preserved. ἢ is clear, also, from the inveterate hatred which the Jews entertained for the Heathen and the Sa- maritans, that had the Gospel been preached to them all simul- taneously, the former would have rejected it universally. The prejudices of the Apostles themselves ran so high on this head, that it was not till some time after our Lord’s ascension that they could persuade themselves of the fact, that the Gentiles were to be admitted to equal privileges with themselves. We see also a regular gradation, which will be noticed more particularly in the Notes on the Acts, in the method adopted by them, under the direction of the Spirit, in the discharge of their commission. The appeal was made in regular succession to Jews, to prose- lytes, to devout Gentiles, and lastly to idolaters; and in the various cities which they visited, it was not till the Jews had re- jected the Gospel that they turned to the Heathen. See Acts xiii. 46. Wuirsy, Macxnieut. Of the expression πρόβατα ἀπολωλότα, in the next verse, see on Matt. ix. 36. Ver. 8. νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε. (These words are found in the com- mon Greek copies, but they are omitted in a great number of the most valuable MSS. and versions, and unnoticed by several Fathers. Griesbach argues for their authenticity, but at the same time he admits it to be extremely doubtful; and unless we allow that the commission here given contains many articles, which extend to the more comprehensive charge with which the Apostles were entrusted after Christ’s resurrection, the clause must unquestionably be rejected. This, indeed, has been denied; but compare infra vv. 18. 21. 23. From the fact, however, that the Apostles did not exercise this power during our Saviour’s life, and that no allusion is made to it in the beginning of the chapter, or in the parallel place of St. Luke, the weight of argument seems somewhat in favour of interpolation. It is also remarkable, that in John vy. 25. our Lord evidently speaks of this power as pe- culiar to himself, which he would scarcely have done, if he had previously communicated it to his disciples. Neither is it probable 124. MATTHEW X. 9. that their boast of having the devils subject to them in Luke x. 17. would have been limited to this inferior gift, had they been in possession of one so much more valuable. Grorius, MILL, ᾿ CamMpPBELL, Ros—ENMULLER.—[WuitBy, Macxnieur. | Ibid. δωρεὰν ἐλάβετε, δωρεὰν δότε. These words have been perverted into an argument against the maintenance of the mi- nistry. But that the direction relates solely to the miraculous cures which the Apostles were empowered to perform, and not to the stated offices of their function, is evident from Luke x. 7. where our Lord, in giving alike commission to the seventy, bids them eat and drink what was set before them, because the la- bourer was worthy of his hire. For the very same cause he here ‘forbids them to provide gold for their journey, intimating, that while they were preaching the Gospel they had a right to main- tenance fom those who enjoyed the benefit of their labours, and that Providence would take care that they should be supplied with necessary support in fulfilling their commission. Accord- ingly we find the Apostles receiving maintenance as their due, 1 Cor. ix. 4, 5. 14. Gal. vi. 6. The injunction, therefore, forbids them to make a trade of the miraculous gifts, similar to that of the Jewish exorcists. See Joseph. Ant. VIII. 11. Wuuirsy, Macknieut, Le Cierc. The accusative δωρεὰν is used ad- verbially, κατὰ being understood, as a gift, gratuitously, freely. Compare Herod. I. 70. and see Matt. Gr. Gr. ὃ. 423. Ver. 9. εἰς τὰς ζώνας. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 402. and of the extent of our Lord’s command see the same work, Vol. 11. p. 319. also Vol. III. p. 8611. The Romans also seem to have applied their girdles to the purpose of purses. Compare Liv. XX XIII. 29. A. Gell. XV. 12. Sueton. Vitell. 16. The serip, πήρα, was a leathern bag in which shepherds and travellers carried their provisions, such as that in which David is said to have collected the stones with which he slew Goliah. By com- paring this passage with the parallels in Mark vi. 8. Luke ix. 3. there is a trifling diversity in the form of our Lord’s injunction. This is easily removed by reading ῥαβδοὺς in Matthew and Luke, upon the authority of a great number of MSS. and ver- sions. At the same time there is no absolute necessity for any alteration, since the import of the precept is not affected by the form which it assumes in the different historians. The Apostles are ordered to set out on their journey without making any ad- dition to the apparel with which they were supplied, and to trust to God for whatever else might be necessary for their support. Their Master’s object in giving the command was partly to free them from any incumbrances which might retard their progress, and partly to convince them of the singular care that would be taken of them while engaged in the work to which he had ap- pointed them, Macknigut, ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ,. 4 ΜΑΠΤΉΒΝ ΣΟΙ, 12,11. 125 Ver. 11. ἄξιος. Scil. ὑμῶν, as ἄξιός μου, Acts xxxvii. 38. or the words παρ᾽ ᾧ ἂν μείνητε may be supplied from what follows. So in ν. 13. ἡ οἰκία ἄξια, where οἰκία, the house, is put for the inhabitants. The word ἄξιος is thus put absolutely, so that the sense is to be gathered from the context, more frequently than has been imagined. Demosth. Epist. 3. p. 115. ἀφεῖσθαι δὲ καλῶς ποιοῦντι" ἄξιος γὰρ ἀνήρ. Adv. Leptin. p. 377. τιμᾷν τοὺς ὄντας ἀξίους. In this place, compared with v. 14. it clearly implies not only a person of good reputation, but of an honest, sin- cere, and pious disposition, who would be ready to attend to the terms proposed to him, and not reject the Gospel without a candid examination of its proofs. Some have understood it to mean hospitable, but without any sufficient authority. With respect to the injunction itself, we may fairly infer from it, that the acceptance or rejection of the Gospel by those to whom it is offered, depends upon no exclusive partiality in its Author, but solely in the disposition with which the offer is regarded. ΚΎΡΚΕ, Wuitsy.—[Licutroot, Macknicut. | Ver. 12. ἀσπάσασθε αὐτήν. The Vulgate adds Dicentes, Pax huic domui; and the corresponding words are in some Greek MSS., but not in so many as to authorise their reception into the text. That such was the Jewish form of salutation is well known, and the word εἰρήνη, in v. 13. naturally refers to this form as understood in the verb ἀσπάσασθε. The clause was, no doubt, inserted from Lwke x. 5. and many such interpolations seem to have been made by some over zealous copyists, in order to render the Gospels more conformable to each other. The ex- pression πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐπιστραφῆναι is proverbial, denoting that no benefit should result from the benediction pronounced. Compare Psalm xxxv. 18. Isaiah lv. 11. It may be observed, that under the word peace, rdw, the Jews included all blessings, whether spiritual or temporal. Hence the saying of their Rabbins: Great is peace, for all other blessings are comprehended in it. CampBELL, Grotius, Wuirsy, A. Crarke. Of the custom alluded to in the next verse see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 3. Ver. 15. ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως. The Unitarian version renders ὦ day of judgment ; and so also Mr. Wakefield, though not with the Socinian intention of denying the existence of a future judg- ment. In order to support this doctrine it is necessary to refer the declaration of our Lord to the destruction of Jerusalem, so as to contain a denunciation of greater severity than that which had already been inflicted upon Sodom and Gomorrah, for refusing to attend to the preaching of Lot. But the punishment here threat- ened against these cities is evidently future. In Luke x. 14. the expression employed is ἐν τῇ κρίσει, which is too plainly definite to admit of any doubt ; and it cannot be supposed that people pol- 126 MATTHEW X. 16, 17. luted with such unnatural lusts can escape the judgment of that great day, the certainty of which is so clearly made known in John v. 28. Rom. ii. 16. and other passages of the N. T. as to defy the contradiction of any but the most determined unbeliever. With respect to the aggravation of sin in the Jews, which is here represented as obnoxious to greater punishment than that which will be allotted to Sodom and Gomorrah, it consisted in its being committed against greater light, and a clearer revelation of the will of God and his divine perfections. Wuitsy, MIppLeTon, GRotius. . Ver. 16. ἰδοὺ, ἐγὼ κι 7. Δ. Two similes are united in this verse, of which, the one indicates the danger to which the Apostles would be exposed, and the other the means of avoiding them. There is a beauty in the latter which is very striking; the pru- dence and sagacity of the serpent, which is represented as φρονι- μώτατος πάντων τῶν θηρίων τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς In Gen. iii. 1. has been recorded by naturalists ; and the dove has ever beenesteemed as the emblem of innocence, harmlessness, and simplicity, Hos. vii. 11. Our Lord, therefore, advises his disciples προσέχειν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, to beware of men, by means of the union of the two qualities, so as to abstain from provocation on the one hand, and to escape from persecution on the other. The Talmud attributes a saying somewhat similar to the Rabbi Jehuda: The holy blessed God said to the Israelites, Ye shall be towards me as upright as the dove, but towards the Gentiles as cunning as ser- pents. WerrtsTEIN, RoseNMULLER, Dopprince. Instead of ἀκέραιοι the Codex Bezz reads ἁπλούστατοι, which is evidently derived from an ancient Gloss. Etym. M. ἀκέραιος" 6 μὴ κεκρα- μένος κακοῖς, ἀλλ᾽ ἁπλοῦς καὶ ἀποίκιλος. But perhaps the true derivation is from κεραΐζω, ledo, rather than from κεράω, misceo. See my note on Hom. Il. B. 861. Kurnorx. The various trials for which our Lord here prepares his disciples did not befal them during their first mission; but the prediction was fully accom- plished after his ascension. Thus we find Peter and John called before the Sanhedrim, Acts iv. 6. and beaten, Acts v. 40. James and Peter before Herod, Acts xii. 3. and Paul before King Agrippa; before the Roman governors Gallio, Felix, and Festus ; and last of all, before the Emperor Nero, and his Prefect, Helius Cesarianus. MAcKNIGHT. Ver. 17. τῶν ἀνθρώπων. That is, the men, who had just been represented under the designation of wolves. The article, there- fore, is prefixed upon the principle of renewed mention, and not to particularize the Jewish nation, although in this instance it is clear, from the context, that the Jews are more especially in- tended. Markland can scarcely have been aware of the diffi- culties which would arise from adopting the distinction which he MATTHEW X. 18. 20—23. 127 has proposed between ἄνθρωποι and of ἄνθρωποι in the three first Gospels, referring the former exclusively to the Heathen, and the latter to the Jews. This distinction, as he allows, va- nishes in the Acts and the Epistles, because it had ceased before the writing of those pieces; and that there is no reality in it whatever, will readily appear from Matt. vi. 14. vil. 12. xiii. 25. xv. 9. xix. 6. In this very chapter, v. 32. the meaning of οἱ ἄνθρωποι is adequately expressed by our English phrase, the world, as opposed to God, who is mentioned in the same verse. MrppteTon. By the synagogues here mentioned, some have un- derstood the councils of twenty-three judges, others the Sanhedrim, and others again, certain large assemblies of the elders, which were sometimes held for special purposes, as that which Josephus mentions to have been summoned by Herod the Great. But there is no reason why the common synagogue should not be in- tended, the rulers of which were invested with the power of scourg- ing the delinquents who fell under their cognizance. Compare Matt. xxiii. 94. Acts xxii. 19. and see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. pp. 119. 253. Licurroor, WetsTeIn.—[Brza, Grortus. ] Ver. 18. εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς. Scil. of the truth of the Gos- pel; which would be confirmed by the readiness and fortitude with which they suffered in defence of it. See this argument applied in Horne’s Introd. Vol. I. p. 138. ° Ver, 20. οὐ γὰρ ὑμεῖς ἐστεκ. τ. X. The inference which the Romanists, Quakers, and others, have drawn from this verse, in favour of their doctrine, that the divine influence operates in the same manner at present, is altogether unfounded. They may as well claim to themselves the miraculous powers with which the Apostles were endowed. Wuitsy. Ver, 21. ἐπαναστήσονται. Shall rise up; i. e. as witnesses. Compare Hist. Susan. ν. 51. LXX. In Matt. xii. 41. ἐν τῇ κρίσει is added. ‘There seems to be no doubt that all the terms in this and the preceding verses are forensical. Of the verb πα- ραδίδοναι, subaud. cic φυλακὴν, see on Matt. iv. 12. unless we understand εἰς συνέδρια from vy. 17. The verb θανατώσουσιν must be understood of the endeavour, not of the act. KuINoEL. Ver. 22. ὑπὸ πάντων. By all; i. 6. by the generality of men. This limited sense of the adjective is not unfrequent. Compare Exod. ix. 6. xiv. 7. 1 Chron, x. 6. xiv. 17. John xii. 82. Phil. ii. 21. Rom. ν. 18. Macknicut, DoppRiIpGE. Ver. 23. ὅταν δὲ διώκωσιν x. τ. A. There is a curious repeti- tion of this clause in several MSS. which is adopted by Origen and others of the Fathers. Some copies also, for ἐν τῇ πόλει 128 MATTHEW X. 24, 25. ταύτῃ read ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ταύτης. The former variation probably arose from negligence, and the latter from the ignorance of some copyist, who understood διώκειν in the sense of ἐκβάλλειν, for- getting that it also signifies generally to persecute. Ku1InoEL.— [ GRIESBACH. | Ibid. τελέσητε τὰς πόλεις. Some render τελεῖν to instruct ; the adjective τελείων is certainly explained by μανθανόντων pint Chron. xxv. 8. LXX. Compare 1 Cor. ii. 6. So also _ Ovid: Phillyrides puerum cithara perfecit Achillem. The ~Greek fathers call baptism τελείωσις. See Leigh’s Critica Sacra: p. 326. But the expression here used is elliptic for τελέσητε ὁδὸν διὰ τὰς πόλεις. ‘There is, indeed, no classic authority for this use of the phrase τελεῖν πόλιν, but we find the verb ἀνύειν and its compounds employed in a similar manner. Thus Polyb. p. 330. ed. Gron. διανύσας τὴν τῶν ᾿Ισόμβρων καλουμένην χώραν. Ibid. p. 437. ἀνύσας τοὺς προειρημένους τόπους. In the same sense Florus I. 18. 1. consummare Italiam. A, CLARKE, Kut- NOEL. By the coming of the Son of Man, here mentioned, some understand his resurrection from the dead, others the miraculous effusion of the Spirit, called by our Lord himself his coming, John xiv. 18. and others again, the destruction of Jerusalem, which is unquestionably signified by the same expression in Matt. xxiv. 30. xxv. 18. Mark xiii. 26. Luke xviii. 8. and else- where. : The latter seems to be the most probable, inasmuch as the sufferings here predicted had not reached any height till after the ascension. Wuirsy, Ligntroot, Macxnieut. Hence the word τέλος, in the preceding verse, may refer to the completion of the destruction predicted, and the salvation promised be no other than deliverance from the calamities which attended that dreadful event. Some commentators, however, understand eternal salvation, taking τέλος in the sense of τελευτὴ, which constantly denotes death. So Theophylact on this passage: σώζεσθαι" τῆς αἰωνίου μετέχειν ζωῆς. Our Lord’s meaning may probably in- clude both; but the fleezng to the mountains, mentioned in con- nection with the same promise delivered upon another occasion, (Matt. xxiv. 16. Mark xiii. 14. Luke xxi. 21.) can only extend to a temporal escape. HamMMonD, WETSTEIN. Ver. 24. οὐκ ἔστι μαθητὴς κ. τ. λ. This is a Hebrew pro- verb, indicating that a disciple could not reasonably expect to meet with better treatment than that which his master had ex- perienced. It is quoted by Aben Ezra on Flos. i. 2., and, like many others of a similar description, applied by our Lord to illustrate the subject of his discourse. Hammonp. Ver. 25. Βεελζεβούλ. This is the reading of almost all the best MSS. The E. T. follows the Vulgate, into which Jerome introduced Beelzebub, probably from the idea that the Ekronite MATTHEW -X. 26. 129 idol, called in 2 Kings i. 13} by, is intended, the termination 2 being changed into A, in accordance with the nature of the Greek language, in which no word is found to end with 3. Now the meaning of this title is, the Lord of flies, and was evidently intended by the Ekronites, as an appellation of honour, similar to that under which the early Greeks sacrificed to Hercules, as Ζεὺς ᾿Απόμυιος, the banisher of flies. See Pausan. Arcad. VIII. Ρ. 653. ed. Lips. and compare Plin. N. H. XXIX. 6. But’ whatever be the true reading, it is clear that the name was applied to our Lord as a title of contempt; whence it is highly probable that the name is, in fact, that of the idol above men- tioned, which the Jews had altered, by a change of the last letter, into an appellation of the most odious import; signifying the god of dung (5)33). This supposition is considerably supported by the fact, that the custom of altering names, in order to dese- crate idols, was very common with the Jews. Thus the town which was called Bethel, i. 6. the house of God, was afterwards called Bethaven, or the house of vanity: and the name of For- tune, iT), gediyah, was changed into 87), geliya, signifying a stink. It is also remarkable, that the most ignominious name which could be bestowed upon idols, was 212], zebul. So the Jerusalem Talmud; Tit. Beracoth, p. 12. Even to those who have stretched out their hands in a dunghill, i.e. in an idol’s temple, there ts hope. Again: He that sees them dunging, i.e. sacrificing, fo an tdol, let him say; Cursed be he that sacri- fices to a strange God. Licutroot, Grotivs.—[Wuirtsy, Le. CLERC. | Ver, 26. μὴ οὖν φοβηθῆτε κι 7. λ, These words admit of two senses, gach of which a equally good :—(1.) Let not the malice of these persecutors deter you from preaching the Gospel, or make you despair of its success: for though it will be ob- scured by the calumnies and opposition of unbelievers, it shall at length enlighten the whole world. Or, (2.) Fear not the calumnies with which they load you, for I will make your inno- cence and integrity, as well as the excellence of your doctrine, as clear as the light; especially in the face of men and angels at the last day. - Of the custom alluded to in the following verse, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 258. It may be added, that the latter clause of the verse has a probable reference to the pro- clamation made by the minister of the synagogue on the Sabbath- eve, who sounded a trumpet six times from the roof of a lofty house, to announce the approach of the Sabbath. See Bab. Talmud: Tit. Schabbath, p.35. Other proclamations also were made from the house-tops ; and Hegesippus, ap. Euseb. 11. 53. mentions the preaching of James the Just from the roof of the Temple at the Passover. The flat roofs of the Jewish houses were rendered serviceable to a variety of purposes. Compare VOL, I. K a — 130 MATTHEW X. 28, 29. Deut. xxii. 8. Josh. ii. 6. Judg. ix. 51. Nehem, viii. 16. 2 Sam. xi. 2. 2 Kings xxiii. 12. Isaiah xv. 5. Jerem. xxxii. 29. Acts x. 9. Our Lord here intimates the future promulgation of those doctrines, which were at present concealed, and of which, in fact, the Apostles themselves did not fully comprehend the nature till after his ascension; such as the abolition of the Jewish law, the call of the Gentiles, &c. &c. Wuirsy, Lignurroor, Gro- Tius, A. CLARKE. Ver, 28. καὶ μὴ φοβεῖσθε x. τ. A. This passage is strongly illustrative of the existence of the soul in a separate state after death, and its perception of that existence ; since the soul would otherwise be as properly killed as the body. In respect to their resurrection and re-union, men can no more kill one than the other; so that the death of the soul here spoken of, can be no other than its privation of that sensation, which it enjoys after its separation from the body. In this sense, the Jews would certainly understand the words of Christ, since it was one of their distinguished tenets, which had obtained among them from the time of Ezra, that the soul, after the death of the body, was capable of bliss or misery, and therefore of sensibility. Hence Wisd. xvi. 13. LXX. od γὰρ, (Κύριε,, ζωῆς καὶ θανάτου ἐξουσίαν ἔχεις, καὶ κατάγεις εἰς πύλας ἄδου, καὶ ἀνάγεις" ἄνθρω- πος δὲ ἀποκτείνει μὲν τῇ κακίᾳ αὐτοῦ" ἐξελθὸν δὲ πνεῦμα οὐκ ἀναστρέφει, οὐδὲ ἀναλύει ψυχὴν παραληφθεΐσαν. A similar argu- ment is used in the treatise περὶ αὐτοκρατόρος λογισμοῦ, ἃ. 15. ascribed to Josephus, by Aben Ezra on Ewod. xx. 3. and Arrian. Epict. I. 9. Compare 1 Sam. ii. 6. Lsatah li. 7. With respect to final retribution, the Rabbins do not seem to have been agreed in opinion. While some of them advocate the annihilation of the souls of the wicked, others are of opinion that they will be doomed to exist for ever in wretchedness: each party, of course, including the whole Gentile world in their damnatory decision. See Kimchi on 2 Sam. xxv. 29. Psalmi. and οἷν. ‘Tacitus re- lates, that the Jews coincided in opinion on this point with the Egyptians: Hist. V. 5. Now the Egyptians believed that the duration of punishment varied in proportion to the aggravation of crime; and from them Homer and Plato, and subsequently Virgil, seem to have derived their opinions. ‘The observation of Philo on this subject, in his treatise on rewards and punishments, is very just: Men think, says he, that death is the end of their troubles, whereas it is only the beginning of them. It is the lot of the wicked, that they live in death, and suffer as tt were con- tinual death. Wuitsy, DoppripGr, Grorius. Ver, 29. δύο στρουθία. This probably alludes to the sparrows and other small birds, which were sold in the Temple-courts for the purpose of sacrifice, Some, indeed, have supposed that our MATTHEW X. 99, 34. “191 Lord had particularly in view the two birds, which made a part of the leper’s offering, (Levit. xiv. 4.); inferring that Providence determined which of the two should live, and which be killed. But as five sparrows are mentioned in Luke xii. 6. it is merely intended, perhaps, to signify the universality of the divine provi- dence, without any particular reference whatever. Of the Gre- cian sages, Plato and Athenagoras admitted, and Epicurus denied, the interference of the Deity in the concerns of his crea- tures; others believed in his care of the creation generally, but not of its constituent parts ; and others again allowed it in the © case of men, but not of the inferior animals. This latter doc- trine was also maintained by some of the Jewish Rabbins, from whom, perhaps, it was adopted by Pythagoras, and by him intro- duced into Greece. The Jews, however, for the most part, were of opinion, that a superintending Providence protected the most insignificant objects in creation; and sentiments to this effect are frequent in their writings. Thus in Bereschith Rabba, §. 79. p. 77. Even a bird is not taken without heaven, i. e. without the will of God; how much less the life of man. Again, in Schabbath, p. 107. God nourishes all things, from the horn of an unicorn to the eggs of a louse. Compare 1 Cor. ix. 9. The expression in the next verse, which is illustrative of the same doctrine, is manifestly proverbial. Compare 1 Sam. xiv. 4, 2 Sam. xiv. 11. 1 Kings i. 51. Acts xxvii. 34. So in Perikta, p- 18. Do I not number every hair of every creature. ScHOETT- GEN, Grotius, DopprRIDGE. Ibid. ἄνευ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν. Origen inserted τῆς βουλῆς, which is also found in some MSS. and versions. But there is no good authority for the authenticity of the reading; and the ex- pression in the text is idiomatic Greek. Compare Hom. Od. B. 372. Pind. Olymp. IX. 156. and see my note on Il. 1. 49. PatatretT. Of the ἀσσάριον, or Roman as, see Horne. Ver. 82. ὁμολογήσει ἐν ἐμοί. The verb ὁμολογεῖν is properly construed with an accusative, as in Acts xxiii. 8. xxiv. 14. The dative with ἐν is an Hebraism. See 1 Kings viii. 33. and com- pare Luke xii. 8. Rom. x. 9. The verse contains a promise of eternal reward to the faithful followers of Christ, whom the terrors of persecution cannot tempt into a denial of the faith, or deter from maintaining the truth of the Gospel. Kurnoet. Ver. 34. μὴ νομίσητε, κι τ X%« The Jews had indulged them- selves in a persuasion, derived from their ancient prophets, and more especially Isazahix. 6. xi. 6. that the coming of their Messiah would be attended with peace and prosperity throughout all the land of Judea. But though the nature of that religion which he came to establish was such as to produce the most beneficial results, and though his government will finally be settled in K2 152 MATTHEW X. 35, 36. 38. universal peace, still those effects would be prevented by the wick- edness and the ignorance of men from being immediately accom- plished. The sword to which our Lord more especially alludes in this verse, is the Roman sword, which about forty years after his ascension laid Jerusalem in ruins; and the dissensions which he mentions in the parallel passage of Luke xii. 51. and which are particularized in the following verses, are those which so sadly marked the first ages of Christianity. But the declaration extends to the various divisions and persecutions which the adver- saries of the Gospel have raised in the world, from that to the present time. The expression which our Lord employs, denotes no intention on his part of producing this result; but is merely predictive of the fact. It is an energetic mode of declaring the certainty of a foreseen consequence of any measure, by repre- senting it as the purpose for which the measure was adopted. The idiom is familiar to the Orientals, and not unfrequent in writers of other countries. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. pp. 655. 644. Wuitsy, Ligntroor, CAMPBELL. Ver, 35. διχάσαι ἄνθρωπον. The verb διχάζειν signifies pro- perly, to divide into two parts ; whence it is here employed in the strong metaphorical acceptation ; to disunite, to set at variance. In the parallel place Luke uses διαμερίζειν. So Gen, x. 25. 1 Chron.i. 19. LXX. Kurtnoet. Ver. 36. ἐχθροὶ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. E. T. a man’s foes ; in which the force of the article is not apparent. Now the passage is taken from Micah vii. 6. where the words of the LXX are ἐχθροὶ πάντες ἀνδρὸς of ἄνδρες οἱ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ. If for πάντες we read πάντος, which is not improbably correct, the passage in Micah and Matthew will be equivalent: for τοῦ av- θρώπου will mean every man, or men generally, coinciding exactly with πάντος ἀνδρός. Otherwise there must be a renewed reference to οἰκοδεσπότης preceding. Mrppieton. ‘The decla- ration in v. 387. implies the unworthiness of those who prefer the religion in which they have been brought up, and which their nearest relatives still embrace, be it Jewish or Heathen, to that of Christ. Le Cierc. Ver. 38. λαμβάνει τὸν σταυρόν. This is an allusion to the custom of the Romans, who compelled the criminal to bear the cross, on which he was to suffer, to the place of execution: John xix. 17. Hence Plutarch, p. 554. A. ἕκαστος τῶν κακουρ- γῶν ἐκφέρει τὸν αὐτοῦ σταυρόν. The figure, therefore, expresses with great energy the readiness which every Christian ought to exhibit, in enduring the severest reproaches, cruelties, and even the most ignominious death, for the sake of Christ. MackNIenrT, WETSTEIN, MATTHEW X. 89, 40. 42. 133 Ver. 39. ὃ εὑρὼν τὴν ψυχὴν κι τ. Δ. There is in this sen- tence a kind of paronomasia, whereby the same word is used in different senses, in order to convey the sentiment with greater energy. He, who by weakly betraying the charge with which he is entrusted, preserves his temporal life, shall lose eternal life : and the converse. The same figure is employed in Matt. viii. 22, xiii. 12, In the present instance the antanaclasis is con- tained in the double meaning of the word Ψυχὴ, which signifies both ἠδ and soul. Examples of the latter meaning are unneces- sary; the former is illustrated by Matt. vi. 25. xvi. 25. John x. 11. Xen. Cyrop. VI. 4. 3.. Mem. III. 12. 2. Isocr. Paneg. ὃ. 24. So Horat. Od. I. 12. 57. anime prodigus. The participle εὑρὼν is used in the sense of σώζων, or rather of σώζειν θέλων. Compare Mark viii. 35. Luke ix. 24, xv. 24, 32. xvi. 33. With respect to the sentiment, the student will scarcely fail to compare the noble parallel in Juven. Sat. VIII. 83. Summum crede nefas animam preferre pudori; Et propter vitam vivendi perdere causas. GRotius, CAMPBELL, KuINOEL, WAKEFIELD. Ver. 40. ὃ δεχόμενος ὑμᾶς x. τ. A. In v. 14. supra, Christ had prepared his disciples for the rejection of themselves and their doctrine, and stated the penalty annexed to such con- duct; he now proceeds to apportion the rewards of the contrary part. These rewards have been supposed by some to be merely temporal, consisting in a participation of those gifts, with which the Apostles were endued. But there seems to be no just ground for this limitation; for although an act of kindness, such as pre- senting a disciple with a cup of cold water, may be occasionally performed by a wicked man, it is clear from Christ’s own words, that a Christian motive, as well as the act itself, is essential to ensure the reward. The prophet or teacher (see on Matt. vi. 15.) must be received én the name of a prophet ; i. 6. because he is a prophet, and for the sake of him that sent him. This import of the expression εἰς ὄνομα is confirmed by that of the Hebrew Ow), deshem, as employed in the Talmudical writings. Thus in Sanhedr. Berach: Whoso studies the law, in the name of the law, i. e. because it is the law, he, fc. The assurance which Christ holds out to his disciples, is very analogous to certain sayings, which are common among the Rabbins. Thus: He who receives a learned man or an elder into his house, receives the Shechinah. And again: He who speaks against a faithful pastor, speaks against God himself. WuirBy, SCHOETTGEN.— [Macknicur. | Ver. 42. ἕνα τῶν μικρῶν τούτων. It has been supposed that some very young persons were present, to whom our Lord more particularly pointed. Others have imagined that there is an oppo- sition between the μικροὶ, δίκαιοι, and προφήται, intended to desig- 194 MATTHEW XI, 1. nate three different degrees of perfection in the Christian character: the first, those who have only just embraced the Gospel ; the se- cond, those who have made some progress in Christian holiness ; and lastly, the perfect men of God. Clement Alex. has observed a similar gradation between the called, the elect, and the perfect, (κλητοὶ, ἐκλεκτοὶ, τελείοι.) But this is mere conjecture: and it is probable that this verse is simply a more energetic repetition of the sentiment contained in the preceding. From the similar construction throughout it is evident that ἕνα τῶν μικρῶν is iden- tical with ἕνα τῶν μαθητῶν, and consequently, that μικρῶν must either agree with μαθητῶν understood, in reference to the humble condition of the disciples, or is used substantively, like the He- brew PUP, seton, which signifies both parvus and discipulus. The term μαθητὴς will thus include both προφήτης and δίκαιος, of which the former denotes a teacher, the latter merely a pro- fessor, of the Gospel. Kurnort.—[Nrwcome, Grorivs. | Ibid. ψυχροῦ. Scil. ὕδατος. So Arist. Nub. 1040. θερμῷ λούεσθαι. See also Bos Ellips. Gr. p. 313. In Mark ix. 41. the ellipsis is supplied. We have the verb ποτίζειν with a double accusative in Numb. vy. 6. Analogous with the sentiment is the saying of the Rabbins: He that gives food to one that studies in the law, God will bless him in this world, and give him a lot in the world to come. WKurnori, A. CLARKE. CHAPTER XI. ConTENTS:—John’s Message to Jesus, and the testimony of Jesus concerning John, vv. 1—19. [Luke vii. 18.] Con- demnation of the Galilean cities, and the blessings of the - Gospel announced; vy. 20—380, [Luke x. 15. 21.] Verse 1. πόλεσιν αὐτῶν. Scil. of the Galilzans; for Christ was now in those parts. It is not uncommon in the Oriental dialects to employ a pronoun, where the antecedent to which it refers is not expressed, and must be supplied from the context. So Matt. xii. 9. Luke iv. 15. In the next verse, for Χριστοῦ some few MSS. read Ἰησοῦ, but the received text is unquestion- ably correct. The word Χριστὸς, when alone, and with the article, is always in the N. T. the name of an office; and there- fore the import of the sentence is: When John had heard that those works were performed by Jesus, which were characteristic of the Messiah, he sent, §c. CAMPBELL, Kurnoret. Of John’s imprisonment see Matt. xiv. 8, MATTHEW XI. 3. 135 Ver. 3. σὺ εἶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, κι tr. AX. The title He that is com- ing, or He that is to come, (the present being put for the future, to denote the certainty of the event) was that under which the Jews designated their expected Messiah, and which they had adopted from Habak. 11. 3. Dan. vii. 13. Compare Matt. iii. 11. xxi. 9. xxii. 39. Luke xix. 38. John i. 15. 27. vi. 14. Heb. S77. [or THE MESSAGE OF JOHN THE BAPTIST TO CHRIST. Commentators are greatly divided in opinion respecting the import of this message, and the motive of the Baptist in sending it. According to some, who have followed in the steps of Justin and Tertullian, it was suggested by a desire to satisfy some scruples which existed in his own mind respecting our Lord’s divine mission; and a few have even gone so far as to imagine, that these doubts originated in a disappointed expectation of de- liverance from the confinement to which he was now subjected. But the descent of the Holy Ghost at the baptism of Christ in Jordan, and the testimony from heaven, Matt. iii. 17. the divine impulse by which he had previously recognized him as the Mes- siah, (see on John i. 33.) and his own repeated testimonies to his being the Lamb of God, John i. 15. 26. 33. 1. 28. sqq. are en- tirely at variance with such a supposition. At all events, it is - altogether incredible that the question implies a fretful remon- strance, that no miracle had been performed by Christ in the Baptist’s behalf. A man of John’s severe habits, who had spent his life in the most rigid and secluded manner, practising every species of austerity and self-denial, would never have been in- duced, by the circumstances of his present imprisonment, which does not appear to have prevented an intercourse with his friends, to send a peevish and impatient message of complaint; implying at least, in this view of the case, that he was wavering in his belief of the Messiah’s claims. These opinions, however, are not without learned and excellent advocates, who have main- tained that, inauspicious as they must appear, they cannot affect the evidence for the truth of the Gospel. Buta far more satis- factory solution of the difficulty is that which is adopted by those commentators, who think with Euthymius and Theophylact, that the doubts, which it was the object of the message to remove, existed in the minds of John’s disciples. This explanation de- rives considerable support from the dispute which had actually arisen in that quarter with respect to the baptism of Jesus, and their master: and there are many other considerations which will here have weight, that could not apply to John himself. The notion which they had in common with the rest of their countrymen in regard to the temporal nature of the Messiah’s kingdom, might have made them hesitate in admitting his claims ; 136 MATTHEW XI. 5. and although John himself could never have sent an angry mes- sage to Jesus, it is not impossible that his disciples may have been offended at their master’s continued confinement, without any endeavour on the part of Jesus to release him. It should seem, therefore, that it was the Baptist’s design to refer them to Christ himself for the removal of their scruples, and afterwards to adapt the lesson which they might receive from him, to the purpose of future instruction. Our blessed Lord, perceiving at once the intention of his forerunner, afforded him the most effec- tual means of performing it. By an extraordinary display of his supernatural endowments he exhibited before their eyes a splen- did and complete fulfilment of a most remarkable prophecy, and sent them back to their master for the application. The caution with which he concluded his answer, vy. 6. will thus apply to the messengers themselves, and would induce them to give a ready assent to the Baptist’s admonitions. It appears, therefore, that the message, instead of arguing the existence of any doubt in the mind of John, which would naturally invalidate his former tes- timony, was, in fact, intended to establish his disciples in_ the belief of that testimony. Limborch, indeed, contends that John had no other view than a direct affirmation of the Messiah’s claims; which, as he was prevented by his imprisonment from delivering in person, he determined to effect by means of his disciples. In conformity with this conjecture, he would render the passage without an interrogation: Thou art he that should come; and do we look for another? This notion, however, at the same time that it entirely destroys the force of our Savyiour’s reply, is inconsistent with the grammatical construction of the sentence. An hypothesis has also been started, that John, en- tertaining no doubt of Christ’s pretensions, intended to urge him to a more speedy establishment of that kingdom, the nature of which he did not himself entirely comprehend. But John was a prophet of mere than ordinary qualifications ; and it cannot be conceived, even though the full spirit of his declaration were un- known to himself, that any thing would proceed from him di- rectly or indirectly at variance with the commission, to which he was divinely appointed. Hammonp, Wuirsy, DopprinGe.— [Licurroor, Werstetn, Macknicut, ΚΟΌΊΝΟΕΙ,.] Ver. 5. τυφλοὶ ἀναβλέπουσι. Our Lord here plainly alludes to the prophetic descriptions of the Messiah delivered by Isaiah, thus indirectly asserting his divine commission. ‘The allusions are more particularly to Zsatah xxxy. 5, 6. Ixi. 1. There is no place in the Prophets which predicts the cleansing of lepers, or raising the dead, among the characteristics of the Messiah, but the latter, as well as the former, of these tokens (see Matt. viii. MATTHEW ΧΙ. 7. 137 4.) was traditionally expected to distinguish his reign. The Rabbins affirmed, that zx the land where the dead should arise, the kingdom of the Messiah would commence ; and it is clear from John vii. 31. that the most astonishing miracles were looked for at his hands. Upon this, therefore, as upon other occasions, our Lord not only appealed to the evidence of prophecy, but realized the expectations which their traditions had led them to encourage. WHITBY, SCHOETTGEN. Ibid. πτωχοί. This may include the poor in spirit; but there is, at the same time, no reason to depart from the obvious sense of the word. The prophetic declaration, to which our Lord alludes, seems to have had a special reference to the Scribes and Pharisees, who neglected and despised the poor as people of the earth, (John vii. 49.) and held it as a maxim, that the Spirit would only rest upon the rich. The verb εὐαγγελίζεσ- θαι implies not only the act, but the effect, of preaching; i. e. the conversion of those to whom the Gospel is addressed. It frequently happens that verbs are so used as to denote the full effect of the action which they represent. Compare Lsazah |xv. 1. Rom. x. 20. Gal. vi. 1. Tit. iii. 11. So in the next verse, σκαν- δαλισθῆναι is to be ensnared into sin, by reason of the scandal or offence set before him; i. e. by any thing which obstructs the Christian course, or causes to fall from the faith. See on Matt. v. 27. and compare Matt. xiii. 21, 57. xv. 12. xvii. 27. xviii. 6, 7. xxvi. 81. Mark iv. 17. xiv. 27. Luke vii. 23. John xvi. 1. Rom. ix. 33. xiv. 13. 21. and elsewhere. ΒΥ, Hammonp, Grotivs. Ver. 7. κάλαμον ὑπὸ ἀνέμου σαλευόμενον. It is supposed by some that these words are to be taken in their natural sense ; and that the interrogative form of the sentence implies a nega- tion, to the effect that it was not the sight of a trifling thing, such as a reed, with which the wilderness abounded, that induced the multitudes to resort thither during the time of John’s ministry. But it is far preferable to understand the expression as meta- phorically descriptive of a weak unsteady mind, yielding from side to side as a reed shaken by the wind. So Euthymius: κοῦφον καὶ εὐρίπιστον ἄνθρωπον. ‘This import of the words is fully authorized by what follows in v. 8. where our Lord intends to eulogize the austere and mortified life of the Baptist, as he here proclaims the steady consistency of his conduct. The force of the allusion, indeed, is contained in the agitation of the reed, rather than in the reed itself, and the words ὑπὸ ἀνέμου σαλευό- μενον are altogether unmeaning upon any other supposition. Compare Ephes. iv. 14. Heb. xiii. 9. This view of the case is further confirmed by the observations on y. 3. Wuirsy, Mack- NIGHT, KurnoEL.—[Grotius, CAMPBELL, RosENMULLER. | 198 MAT TH EWR ΘΝ. Ver. 9. περισσότερον προφήτου. See the next note. The | citation in v. 10. is from Mal. iii. 1. of the difference between which and the original Hebrew see Horne’s Introd. Vol. 11. p. 208. It may be remarked, however, that this difference does not affect the correctness and veracity either of the Prophet or the Evangelist. For though Christ be a distinct person, yet he is one and the same God with the Father; so that with the Evange- lists the persons are not confounded, and with the Prophet the Godhead is not divided. The fulfilment of the prophecy in John is a convincing evidence of his heavenly commission, and, by consequence, of the truth of the Christian religion. Some, in- deed, have asserted its completion in Malachi himself, arguing from the signification of which his name admits, and from his being the last prophet before the Messiah’s advent. But the length of time which intervened between Malachi and Christ cannot be reconciled with the sudden coming of the Lord to his Temple, foretold in the prediction; not to mention that the de- claration of the Evangelist is an unanswerable proof that the Baptist alone can be the object of the prophecy. Compare also Mal. iv. 5, 6. with Matt. iii. 10. Luke i. 17. Jones. Of the custom alluded to, see Horne, Vol. III. p. 92. Ibid. ἄγγελον. This term was not confined to those who were sent on more important commissions, as Moses, Numb. xx. 16. but applied generally to prophets, and those who held any sacred office. Maimonides: Propheta non raro vocatur angelus. The high-priest is so called in Mal. ii. 7. and so Diod. Sie. (speaking of the Jews,) ᾿Αρχιερέα νομίζουσι αὐτοῖς ἄγγελον γε- νέσθαι τῶν τοῦ θεοῦ προσταγμάτων. Compare Judg. ii. 1. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 15, 16. Isaiah xliv. 26. Hagg.i. 18. In Rev. ii. 1. it would be well rendered bishop, or president. BEausoBRE.— [Grorius.] Campbell would here translate angel, although a human messenger is intended, from the idea that there is a com- parison between the two titles Prophet and Angel, with a view to exalt the latter. But the comparison does not consist in the name, but in the office; and the English word angel is confined to a peculiar class of heavenly beings, which is not the case with the Greek. See on Mait. i. 20. Ver. 11. μείζων. Luke vii. 28. μείζων προφήτης. As a pro- phet, John the Baptist excelled in every thing which belonged to the character. He was commissioned by God, and had im- mediate communication with him, John i. 33. He foretold that the kingdom of heaven, spoken of by Daniel, was at hand; and he predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, as a punishment for the impenitence of the Jews, and their obstinate rejection of the Messiah, Luke iii. 17. But the preeminence which our Lord declares him to have possessed above the prophets of the O. T. seems to have consisted in the clearness and precision, with which MATTHEW XI. 12. 139 his predictions were delivered, and in the superior dignity of his office, as the immediate forerunner of Christ. The time of his appearance also was in those days which ‘‘ many prophets and righteous men had desired to see, and had not seen them.” The prophets of old had only foretold the Messiah’s advent as a dis- tant event, but it belonged to John to introduce him personally to the world. Hence, he was looked upon in early times as the grand connecting link between the Jewish and Christian dispen- sations. Tertull. adv. Marc. IV. 88. Quast non et nos limitem quendam agnoscamus Johannem constitutum inter vetera et nova, ad quem desineret Judaismus, et a quo inciperet Christianismus. In his character too of the Messiah’s harbinger he was_ himself the subject of prophecy, and he was ushered into the world by a train of the most miraculous events. It may be inferred, also, from the strong expression of our Lord in the next verse, that the effects of his ministry were in perfect accordance with the superior importance of his office. Still every teacher of the Gospel, though much inferior to John in those points which distinguished himfrom the ancient prophets,—for this seems to be the import of the com- parative μικρότερος, scil. "Iwavvov,—is greater than he. ‘The Apostles, for instance, excelled the Baptist in their more intimate acquaintance with the real extent and design of Christianity; they were employed in erecting the kingdom, of which John had only announced the beginning ; they preached Christ crucified, his re- surrection and ascension, and were endued with more abundant light to make known the blessing of the covenant which he sealed with his blood; they were endued also with supernatural powers, whereas ‘‘ John did no miracle,” John x. 41. and they were filled with the Holy Ghost, which had not fallen upon him, John yii. 39. This reasoning extends in part to Christians in general; but it is clear that the greatness alluded to is that of knowledge and illumination with respect to the kingdom of grace, and not of recompence in the kingdom of glory. Wurirsy, Macknicur, Licutroot, Grotius. The verb ἐγείρεσθαι, and its synonym ἀναστῆναι, are used especially of illustrious characters, whose superior qualifications raise them above the ordinary level of mankind, The corresponding Hebrew word is DY, kum. Com- pare Ewod. i. 8. Deut. xiii. 1. xviii. 15, 18. xxxiv. 10. Judg. xxiv. 24, John vii. 52, KutNoeEt. Ver. 12. ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν βιάζεται, x. τ. A. The verb βιάζειν signifies to assault, to attack with violence ; and it here contains a metaphorical allusion to a siege. Hesych. βιά- ζεται" [βιαίως κρατεῖται. Erasmus: vi énvaditur, sive occupatur. Compare Exod. xix. 24. LXX. With respect to the meaning of the latter clause, which is evidently a more forcible repetition of the former, there are two opinions, which are essentially dif- ferent from each other, According to one of these opinions, the 140 MATTHEW XI. 13, 14. βιασταὶ are those who, by their continual attendance on the doc- trine of the Gospel preached to them, their care to understand it, and their readiness to receive it, evince their eager desire to be made partakers of the Messiah’s kingdom. On the other hand, it is contended that our Lord alluded to the publicans and sinners, and the meaner crowd of the Jews, who had formerly lived by rapine and violence, and were looked upon by the Scribes and Pharisees as persons unworthy of the blessings of the Messiah ; but who, in consequence of John’s preaching, had been induced to embrace the Gospel, and amend their lives in conformity with its precepts. This latter interpretation is not only abundantly confirmed by Matt. xxi. 31. Luke vii. 29. xvi. 16. but is exactly what one would expect from the absence of the article before [3.aoraé. Had the article been inserted, of βιασταὶ would have included a whole species or class, and would therefore have been the reading on the first supposition; but βιασταὶ, (as μάγοι, Matt. ii. 1. ἄγγελοι, iv. 11.) denotes only certain individuals of a class; those, namely, who had attended to the Baptist’s call to repentance ; since it is too much to expect that all the violent would do so without exception. It is re- markable that Schleusner, who adopts the other explanation, has twice quoted the passage, (viz. under βιαστὴς and ἁρπάζω) and in both instances with οἱ [θιασταὶ, upon the authority, unless alto- gether from accident, of a single MS. To return to the verb βιά- ζεσθαι, we may observe, that as force is repelled by force, there may be a further allusion to the obstacles which were raised against the reception of the Gospel by the Scribes and Pharisees; and, in fact, by the passions, prejudices, opinions, and autho- rities of every human institution whatsoever. Licurrootr, Gro- TIus, RosENMULLER, MIDDLETON, SCHOETTGEN, WETSTEIN, &c. Ver. 13. πάντες γὰρ οἱ προφῆται x. τ. A. The causal particle yao marks the reason of the wonderful success which attended the Baptist’s preaching. The dispensation of the Law was now passing away, and the events predicted by the prophets were now passing before their eyes, John being in fact that prophet whom Malachi had foretold under the name of Elijah, as ap- pointed to introduce the promised Messiah to the world. It was a common saying with the Jews before the birth of Christ, that the prophets prophesied only until the times of the Messiah. MACKNIGHT, SCHOETTGEN. Ver. 14. δέξασθαι. Credere; as in Luke viii. 13. Acts viii. 14. Soph. Cid. T. 217. τἄμ᾽ ἐὰν θέλῃς ἔπη Κλύων δέχεσθαι. The pronoun τοῦτο is evidently understood; and so in Eurip. Hipp. 694. ἔχω δὲ κἀγὼ πρὸς τάδ᾽, εἰ δέξει, λέγειν. In the same sense is used the Hebrew 75)», caphal, which is rendered by πείθεσθαι in Esth. iv. 4, LXX. Werstern, ΚΎΡΚΕ, ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ,. MATTHEW XI. 14. 141 [on THE TYPICAL RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN JOHN THE BAPTIST AND ELIJAH. Our blessed Lord in this place declares the fulfilment in the person of the Baptist of the celebrated prophecy in Mal. iv. 5. Behold I will send you Elijah the Prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. Nevertheless, objec- tions have been raised against its accomplishment in John, rest- ing chiefly upon the answer which he returned to the enquiry of the Priests and Levites, who were sent to examine into the nature and design of his mission. Upon his candid disavowal of any claim to be received as the Christ, they immediately demanded of him, Art thou Elias? and he saith, I am not: John i. 21. This question was doubtless suggested by a tradition which generally prevailed at the time,—founded in all probability upon a misin- terpretation of the LXX translation of this very passage in Malachi, and strengthened by the belief which the Jews seemed to have imbibed during the Babylonish captivity, of the Pagan doctrine of the Metempsychosis,—that Elijah would be restored to life, and precede their Messiah in person. This expectation may be traced in several passages of the N. T. (Matt. xvi. 14. xvil. 10. xxvi. 49. Mark ix. 12. 15.) and Trypho, the Jew, affirms his persuasion that the Tishbite would appear to anoint the Messiah, and manifest him to the people. Justin M. Dial. pp. 153. 235. ed. Thirlby. There seems also to be an allusion to the same opinion in the beautiful eulogium which is passed upon Elias by the son of Sirac, Hcclus. xlviii. 10. 6 παραγραφεὶς ἐν ἐλέγμοις εἰς καιρούς. Perhaps, however, the words will admit of a different version from the E. T., so as to represent Elias as the type or exemplar (ἔλεγμος) of what the Baptist would be in after times. In the Talmudistic writings there are many passages to this effect, and prayers abound in their Liturgies, of which the following is a specimen from the Dictionary of Elias the Levite : Elias was in the days of Gibeah: so let it be God’s good will that he may be with us in this time, and let that verse be accom- plished upon us, Behold I send you Elias. So ¢s. the prayer of Elias the author. The modern Jews, to this day, pray for the appearance of Elijah; in hopes that he will be immediately fol- lowed by the Messiah. Now it is very clear that the Baptist was not Elias, according to the sense in which he was expected by the Jews; and, conse- quently, his answer to the messengers cannot invalidate the asser- tion of Jesus, that he was Elias which was for to come. ‘That the figurative adoption of a name by no means argues an identity of person, is admitted by the Jewish Rabbins; and in reference to this very fact Maimonides delivers his opinion to this effect, in which he is supported by R. Tachuma, a commentator of consi- 142 MATTHEW XI. 14. derable note. ‘ Doubtless,” says he, ‘‘ here ts a promise of the manifestation of a prophet in Israel a little before the appear- ance of the Messiah, whom some of the learned would have to be Elias, the Tishbite; but others, and among them the great Dr. Maimonides, think this prophet shall be of equal degree with Elias, for the knowledge of God, and reverence of his holy name; and that he is therefore called Elias.” Indeed, nothing can be objected to this explanation of the prophecy, which would not have the same weight in regard to others, where the same mode of designation is used. In several places where the Mes- siah is spoken of under the title of David, as Hos. 111. 5. Jerem. xxx. 9., it has never been doubted to whom the appellation is applied: and the Jews themselves called this very Elias by the name of Phineas, in allusion to some. faint resemblance between the two persons. See Levi Gershun on 1 A7ngs xvii. Most of the Jewish expositors acknowledge that the prophecy under consideration regards the Messiah; and even those who refer it to the restoration of the Shechinah, virtually concede the same point. For the want of this symbol of the divine pre- sence in the second temple was supplied by the personal glory of the Son of God. It is true they deny that the Messiah and his forerunner have appeared, and consequently assert the non- fulfilment of the prophecy. But with those who are free from their prejudices, it is not necessary to adopt the interpretations which depend upon them; more especially as the true import of the typical character of Elias is fully explained in the Gospel. The angel, in manifest allusion to the prediction of Malachi, ex~ pressly told Zacharias that his son would be endowed with the spirit and power of Elias, Luke i. 17. and these qualifications were communicated to the Baptist as the spirit of Moses was given to the Elders, Numb. xi. 25. and as the spirit of this same Elijah was shed upon Elisha, while he witnessed the ascent of his teacher into Heaven, 2 Kings ii. 15. Now, although the re- semblance between John and Elijah is observable in their rigid austerity of life and manners, and extended even to the external _ peculiarities of dress, in the discharge of their respective offices it was still more conspicuous. In the spérdt of Elias the Baptist fearlessly stood forward in the cause of expiring religion, and in his power he rekindled the dying embers of piety and virtue. In his spirit he was exceedingly jealous for the Lord of Hosts, and in his power he turned many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, Luke i. 16. In the spirit of him who shrunk not from the threats of Ahab and Jezebel, he boldly reproved the incestuous intercourse of Herod and Herodias; and in his power he struck terror into the heart of the guilty monarch. One point at least is clear, with respect to John’s answer to the messengers :—it must at once remove all suspicion of impos- ture and deceit. Had he been a deceiver, he would instantly ΜΆ We Xie OS, 916; 17. 143 have adopted any measure, which, by flattering the prejudices of the people, would have tended to ensure his success. It cannot, therefore, be supposed that he would have neglected the oppor- tunity which now presented itself; when they wanted but his own sanction to receive him as the forerunner of their expected Messiah. His outward appearance, his apparent zeal, and his severe religion, were all in unison with their most favourite no- tions. ‘The opportunity was suggested by themselves, and suc- cess was certain. Imposture never could have disregarded so favourable an occurrence. Ligutroort, Wuirsy, Mepr, Mack- NIGHT. | Ver. 15. ὃ ἔχων ὦτα ἀκούειν, ἀκουέτω. That is, Let him hear and understand: and not like the Jews, and especially the Pharisees, (ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη, v. 16.) who rejected the counsel of God against themselves, (Luke vii. 30.) by perversely resisting the evidence of the Gospel, in whatever shape proposed. The verb ἀκούειν is used in the sense of intelligere in Mark iv. 33. 1 Cor. xiv. 2. and the expression ἀκούετε καὶ συνίετε occurs in Luke xv. 10. The admonition is a strong and general appeal to the reason and understanding, demanding an impartial and un- prejudiced examination of the doctrines proposed for our recep- tion: it is repeatedly used in the N. 'T’. after prophetic declara- tions figuratively expressed, or after parables descriptive of im- portant truths, and demanding the more especial consideration of mankind. Compare Matt. xiii. 9. Mark iv. 9. Luke viii. 8. Rev. ii. 7. 11.17. 29. Macknieut, Kurnoei, CAMPBELL. Ver. 16. τίνι ὁμοιώσω. This is the usual form of introducing a parable; and it is frequently found in the Talmud. So Mark iv. 30. Luke xiii. 18. 20. For παιδαρίοις ἐν ἀγοραῖς many MSS. read παιδίοις ἐν ἀγορᾷ, probably from Luke vii. 32.; but which- ever be the true reading, any public place, and not the forum or market in particular, is evidently intended. See Prov. i. 20. Isaiah xv. 3. Amos v. 16. Zech. viii. 5. LUXX. in all which places the Hebrew word denotes a market-place; and in the last, where the Greek is ἐν ταῖς πλατείαις, there is an allusion, as here, to the sports of children. In the same sense ἀγορὰ is also used in Tob. ii. 3. 3 Esdr. ti. 18. 2 Mace. ii. 10. LXX. The verb καθῆσθαι signifies generally versar?, as in Matt. iv. 16. KUINOEL. Ver. 17. ηὐλήσαμεν ὑμῖν, κι τι Δ. In Judea it was usual at feasts to have music of an airy kind, accompanied with dancing ; and at funerals melancholy airs, while the friends of the deceased testified their grief by striking their breasts, and uttering doleful lamentations, See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. pp. 480. 524, 10 144 MATTHEW XI. 19. Among parties of children, imitating these things in their diver- sions, while one set performed the music, if the other refused to answer them by dancing or lamenting, it naturally gave rise to the complaint, We have piped unto you, §c., which at length passed into a proverb. Epictet. 35. we τὰ παιδία ἀναστραφήσῃ, ἃ νῦν μὲν παλαιστὰς παίζει, νῦν δὲ αὐλητὰς, νῦν δὲ μονομάχους, εἶτα σαλπί- ζει, εἶτα τραγωδεῖ. See Arrian, Epict. II. 16. III. 15. There is a saying of R. Passa in the Gemara exactly parallel to this: I lamented to you, and you did not attend; I smiled to you, and you did not regard it; alas! that you will not decide between good and evil. In applying the proverb to the Pharisees, our Lord intimated that the divine wisdom had employed every method proper for converting them, but in vain. By the mournful airs he represented the severe austerities of the Baptist, which so utterly eclipsed their own hypocritical mortifications, that they attributed his conduct to madness and demoniacal possession. The cheerful music, on the other hand, fitly pourtrayed the mild and engaging manner of our Saviour’s instructions, which he im- parted to all, even publicans and sinners, and drew down the Pha- risaical insinuation of gluttony and intemperance. It is obvious that the comparison extends to the whole parable ; and that the children complained of, not those who made the complaint, are meant to represent the Jews. Macxnicut, Grotius. Of the verb ηὐλήσαμεν, it may be remarked that the ¢2bza or pipe was used both at feasts and funerals by the Greeks and Romans, as well as by the Jews ; and it is to this double use of the #béa that our Lord refers. Compare Isatah xvi. 11. Jerem. xlviii. 36. Luke xv. 25. 7Esop. Fab. XXXIX. 94. Propert. El. III. 10. 23. Ovid. Heroid. XII. 139. The verb θρηνεῖν here signifies to chaunt a dirge. So 2 Sam. i. 17. LXX. ἐθρήνησε τὸν θρῆνον. In Jerem. ix. 17. the prefice, or women hired to sing at fune- rals, are called ai θρηνοῦσαι, as they are also designated in AEsop. Fab. CX XII. Compare Hom. 1]. Q. 722. After ἐκόψασθε there may be an ellipsis of στέρνα or στήθεα, the former of which is supplied in Lucian. Dial. Meret. and the latter in Dioscor. Epig. VIII. 9. Perhaps, however, the middle verb is sufficient, which, of itself, denotes κόπτειν ἑαυτόν. The same use of the verb occurs in Rev. i. 7. xviii. 9. In Luke vii. 32. the word employed is κλαίειν. Grotius, ΚΟΌΊΝΟΕΙ,, CAMPBELL. Ver. 19. καὶ ἐδικαιώθη ἡ σοφία k. τ. X. There is considerable difference of opinion among the commentators respecting the meaning of this passage. E/sner thinks the clause was spoken by the Pharisees, and maintains that ἐδικαιώθη should be ren- dered ts condemned, in accordance with the sense which the word is explained to bear in Eurip. Herac. 191. Thucyd. III. p. 200. so that the sense would be, the doctrine is condemned by its dis- ciples, But it is far more natural to take the sentence as our MATTHEW XI. 21. 145 Lord’s reflection on the conduct of the Jews, the particle καὶ being understood in the sense of ἀλλὰ, but, as in Gen. xxxi. 7. Exod. i. 7. Psalm iv. 5. LXX. Matt. xii. 43. xiii. 22. John v. 40. and, indeed, admitting that the sense assigned to δικαιοῦν is warranted by the passages cited in support of it, it is highly impro- bable that such is its meaning here, since in every other passage where the word occurs in the N. T. and the LXX. it is inva- riably employed in a favourable meaning, to justify, i. e. to ac- count just or righteous, to acquit, to absolve. Others sup- pose that our Lord applies σοφία to himself; others, again, that under the word τέκνων he includes himself and the Baptist; and it has also been thought that by the chéldren of wisdom are meant the fructs or effects of wisdom, probably from the circum- stance that the Vatican MS. reads ἔργων instead of τέκνων. But the best interpretation seems to be that which depends upon the ordinary sense of δικαιοῦν in the N. T., the aorist being used, as elsewhere repeatedly, for the present, and the preposition ἀπὸ being placed for ὑπὸ, as in Isatah xlv. 25. LXX. 1 Mace. viii. 6. Acts x. 21. The counsel of God, i. 6. the method which he adopted to reclaim the Jews, is here denominated Wisdom, (com- pare Luke vii. 30. 35.) and her children are those who humbly and piously embrace the all-wise dispensations of God. In this acceptation the words τέκνον and υἱὸς are frequently used in Scripture. Compare Luke xvi. 18. Eph. ii. 2. v. 6. and see note on Matt. viii. 12. The passage, therefore, may be thus para- phrased:—The conduct of John the Baptist and myself, how- ever different, are alike conformable to the divine wisdom; and those who are enlightened by this wisdom will justify both, i. e. will vindicate the propriety of both, as the result of different cir- cumstances. Grotius, MacknicgHT, CAMPBELL, JoNES, KuI- NOEL.—[ELsNER, MarkLAnpD, A. CLARKE. | Ver. 21. οὐαί σοι, Χοραζίν" x. τ. Δ, E.T. Woe to thee! ὅς. But the exclamation is rather indicative of pity than of anger, and would be better rendered by the interjection alas! Of the towns here mentioned see Horne’s Geographical Index. Chorazin is not elsewhere mentioned, except in the parallel place of Luke x. 13. and the only account of it is to be found in Jerome, de locis Hebr. p. 4. C. who places it two miles from Capernaum. Some have thought with Origen in Philocal. δ. 27. p. 109. ed. Spencer. that it should be written Χώρα Ziv, the region of Zin; and_ that χώρα is added to distinguish it from the wilderness of the same name. But our Lord speaks expressly of τὰς πόλεις, cities, v. 20. and it is mentioned in connexion with Capernaum and Bethsaida, and in opposition to Tyre and Sidon. There is no MS. authority for Origen’s conjecture. Our Lord alludes in this verse to the prophetic denunciations against Tyre and Sidon in Isatah xxxiii. 1. Jerem. xxv. 22. xlvii. 4, Ezek, xxvi. xxvii. VOL. ‘I. L 140 MATTHEW XI. 23. xxviii. Zech. ix. 2. and asserts, that if these denunciations had been accompanied with miracles, such as he exhibited in the cities of Galilee, they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes; which were the usual token of the bitterest grief. See on Matt. vi. 16. Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 503. and my note on Hom. 1]. =. 27. The same sentiment extends through the following verses, except that Capernaum seems to be mentioned separately, as being the constant residence of our Lord, and the more favoured witness of his miracles and discourses. Hence, also, it is compared with Sodom, which afforded the most terrible example of divine vengeance which the world had ever beheld. A. CuarkeE, Kuinoet, Macxnicut. Of the declaration in the following verse see on Matt. xv. 2. Ver, 23. ἕως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὑψωθείσα. Euthymius: διὰ τὸ κατ- οἰκεῖν ἐν αὐτῇ τὸν Χριστὸν, καὶ τὰ πολλὰ τῶν θαυμάτων ἐν αὐτῇ τελέσαι. The expression is occasionally used as hyperbolically descriptive of lofty buildings, trees, &c. as in Gen. xi. 4. Dan. iv. 8. and thence metaphorically applied to represent a state of prosperity, and the enjoyment of the greatest privileges. Compare Isaiah xiv. 13. sqq. 2 Mace. ix. 10. So Hom. Od. I. 20. καί μευ κλέος οὐρανὸν ἵκει. Horat. Od. I. 36. Sublimi feriam sidera vertice. It is clear, therefore, that the opposite expression ἕως adou κατα[θδιβασθῆναι is similarly proverbial of a state of despair and desolation. Compare Isaiah xiv. 15. lvii. 9. Tob. xiii. 2. Both are united in Epigr. Incert. ap. Anthol. 1. 80.15. ad Fortunam : τοὺς δ᾽ ἀπὸ τῶν νεφελῶν εἰς aldnv κατάγεις. Compare Job xi. 8. Psalm οχχχῖχ. 8. Amos ix. 2. The word aéne occurs eleven times in the N. T. where, in the E. T. it is invariably rendered Fell, except in one instance, (1 Cor. xv. 55.) where it is trans- lated grave. In the Greek poets it is used as the proper name of Pluto, the god of the Infernal Regions, though it more cor- rectly imports the Infernal Regions themselves, answering to the Latin, Orcus, or rather Infernus, comprehending the recep- tacle of all the dead, and including both Elysium, the place of the blessed, and Zartarus, the abode of the miserable. The derivation of the word is from a priv. and εἴδω, video, evidentl originating in the notion which was entertained both by Cocke and Hebrews, and indeed by the ancients in general, that the ies repository of departed souls is under ground. Such being the import of the word ὕδης, it is evident that it is improperly ren- dered Hell in the sense which is now affixed to the word; and for which the Greek appellation is yéevva. See on Matt. v. 22. In the O. T. the corresponding word is NW, sheol, which sig- nifies the state of the dead in general, without any distinction of good or bad; and in translating the word, the LX X have almost | invariably used gene. Neither can the word with any propriety be rendered grave, although there are some places in which the hoe: live Spc ate Ζ ΑΞ PA dian: leit (Da, i e- | ἰῶτα ΚΟ δ if- ζι: εἰ ἠυειήξοι 7:1 σεν γί ΄΄ . MATTHEW Xf. 25. 147 term would express the purport of the sentence with sufficient clearness, as in Gen. xxxvii. 35. xlii. 38. But the Hebrew word for grave or sepulchre is 3p, keber, corresponding with the Greek τάφος; and although the word would occasionally suit the sense equally well with dnc, in particular instances, it is clear from other passages that the two are not identical. CampBELL. Ver. 25. ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν. This phrase is often used in the N. T. where nothing has gone before to which an answer could be accommodated; in which case it must be referred to some λόγος ἐνδιάθετος, or tnward conception, in connection with what is passing in the speaker’s mind. In the present instance our Lord’s ejaculation is evidently the consequence of his reflection upon the infidelity of those cities, among which he had done his mighty works, and of those Pharisees who rejected the doctrines both of himself and the Baptist. In other places the answer is directed to the thoughts of those around him, as in Mat#. xxii. 1. Luke v. 22. vii. 39, 40, or to their actions, Mark xiv. 48. or to some subject or circumstance which naturally elicits the observation. Compare Matt. xvii. 4, xxvi. 63. xxviii. 5. Mark ix. 38. Luke i. 60. xxii. 51. The Hebrew ΓΔ) is used in the same manner. Compare Gen. xviii. 27. Deut. xxi. 7, xxvi. 5. xxvii. 14, Job iii. 2. Cant. i. 10. Dan. ii. 387. Wuirsy, Kurnorr. The words ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ evidently fix the order of the narrative, and conse- quently prove that Luke x. 21. is a repetition of the same words upon another proper occasion. Besides, the relative ταῦτα can only refer to those doctrines of divine wisdom, the rejection of which by the Pharisees had just been the subject under consi- deration. DoppriDGE. Ibid. ἐξομολογοῦμαι. This verb sometimes denotes to con- Jess sins, sometimes to acknowledge favours, and sometimes also to adore or venerate. In this last sense it is to be understood when followed by a dative, as in Luke x. 21. Rom. xiv. 11. Philo Alleg. I. p. ὅδ. A. 6 τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ φρονησέως ἀσκητὴς ἐξο- μολογεῖται εὐχαριστικῶς τῷ τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἀφθόνως δωρησαμένῳ. Euthymius explains it by εὐχαριστῶ. Compare Gen. ix. 33. Psalm xxviii. 7, The terms wise and learned, σοφοὶ καὶ συνετοὶ, must be understood as equivalent to the Hebrew O37, haca- mim, and DNA, nebonim, (Deut. i. 138. Prov. iii. 7.) which, after the establishment of academies in the country, were often used to denote those who had the superintendency of these semi- naries, or a principal part in teaching. Hence they are here applied to the Scribes, who had acquired considerable learning and skill in tradition, and thence became, as St. Paul describes them in 1 Cor. 111. 18. οἱ δοκοῦντες σοφοὶ εἶναι. Accordingly, they are contrasted not with μωροὶ, fools, but with νηπίοι, babes, i. e. illiterate persons, whose minds had not been cultivated in the schools of the Rabbins; and who were, therefore, from a L2 148 MATTHEW XI. 26, 27. modest consciousness of their own inferior acquirements, more readily disposed to cultivate the spiritual wisdom of the Gospel. There are some remarkable sayings in the Talmudists, somewhat -similar to this. Thus in Bava Bathra, p. 12. R. Jochanan said, From the time in which the Temple was destroyed wisdom was taken away from the prophets, and given to fools and children. Again, Synop. Sohar. p. 10. In the days of the Messiah, every species of wisdom, even the most profound, shall be revealed ; and this evento children. It is to be remarked that our Saviour does not praise God, because he had hid these things from the wise, but, that having done so, he revealed them to babes. Chrysostom: οὐ τοίνυν διὰ τοῦτο (scil. τὸ ἀποκρυφῆναι ἀπὸ σο- φῶν) χαίρει, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἃ σοφοὶ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν, ἔγνωσαν οὗτοι. We have the same idiom in Lsatah xii. 1. Rom. vi. 17. Neither can he be said to have hidden these things at all, otherwise than that he foresaw and permitted the consequence of Pharisaical obstinacy and pride. A similar remark will apply to a variety of passages in Scripture. Compare Hod. vii. 3, 4. 2 Sam. xii. 11, 12. xxiv. 1. 1 Kings xxii. 23. CampBeLt, KurnoeL, Wuirtsy, DoppripceE, A. CLARKE. Ver, 26. οὕτως ἐγένετο εὐδοκία xk. τ. XA. That is, εὐδόκησας οὕτως ποιῆσαι. The word εὐδοκία corresponds with the Hebrew 787, and denotes the decree or determination of the divine will. Compare 1 Sam. xii. 22. 2 Mace. xiv. 35. 1 Cor.i. 21. This verse, it may be observed, is an energetic repetition of the. pre- ceding, the words ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι being understood to com- plete the sentence. KurnoeL, Grorivs. Ver. 27. πάντα μοι παρεδόθη x. τ. X. Some have supposed that by πάντα, all power, is intended, as in Matt. xxviii. 18. and others that persons are meant rather than things, in reference to the babes of which our Lord had just been speaking. The pas- sage is unquestionably attended with difficulties, but it may be fairly gathered from the context that the counsel of God is still the subject of the discourse, with the furtherance of which Christ was commissioned by the Father. The verbs δοῦναι and παρα- δοῦναι are frequently used in the sense of tradere or docere, as in Mark yi. 18. Luke i. 2. 1 Cor. xv. 8. Plato Phileb. p. 374. Hence, παράδοσις, | pod eae institutum, Matt. xv. 2. 1 Cor. xi. 2. The sense of the passage therefore will be, The doctrines which I deliver I have received from my Father. Compare John xvii. 7, 8. In this text there is an evident intimation of a certain distinction and subordination in the persons of the Godhead ; and that though the glory is equal in all, and their majesty co-eternal, still the attributes of divinity mysteriously originate with the Father. The clause immediately following asserts a reciprocal knowledge of the Father and Son, which is beyond the compre- MATTHEW ΧΙ. 28, 29. 149 hension of every human being, such knowledge as we possess of the Father being obtained by communication from the Son. With this declaration our Lord naturally introduces the invita- tion which he is about to offer to those, who were inclined to come to him, and to learn of him those precepts of divine wisdom which it was his office to reveal. Kurnoet, Beausopre.—|[ Ham- MOND, DoppRIDGE. | Ver. 28. κοπιῶντες καὶ πεφορτισμένοι. The labours and burdens to which Christ primarily alludes, are the ceremonial observances of the Jewish law, rendered yet more irksome by the false interpretations of the Scribes, and thence called φορτία (βαρέα, δυσβάστακτα, Matt. xxiii. 4. Compare Acts xv. 10. The expression may also be extended metaphorically to those who laboured under the weight of their sins. Every Jew was under an obligation of appearing in the Temple at Jerusalem at least three times every year; and it is not improbable that the tenor of our Lord’s discourse was here suggested by the con- course of people who were assembled upon one of these occa- sions ; many of whom came from a considerable distance, some laden with burdens, and all fatigued with their journey. Kur- NOEL, Grotius, Hammonp, JorTIN. See also Horne’s Introd. Vol. 11. p. 490. Ver. 29. The expressions ἄραι tov ζυγὸν, and μαθεῖν ἀπ᾽ zuov,-are nearly equivalent, the latter being simply explanatory of the former; and both, like δεῦτε πρὸς μὲ in the preceding verse, containing an invitation to become the disciples of Christ, and to embrace the Gospel. The Hebrew word Day, oval, which signifies properly a yoke, by which oxen are harnessed to their work, is used metaphorically to denote any bond, or obligation, and thence applied by Christ to his religion, in opposition to Judaism, which is called ζυγὸς δουλείας, Acts xv. 10. Compare Gal. vy. 1. The same meaning is expressed without a metaphor in 1 John v. 3. τηρεῖν ἐντολὰς ov βαρείας. The figurative sense of ζυγὸς is exemplified in Deut. xxviii. 47, 48. 1 Kings xi. 4. Psalm ii. 8. Lament. iii. 27. Isaiah x. 27. So especially in Ecclus. li. 26, 1 ΧΧ. τὸν τράχηλον ὑμῶν ὑπόθετε ὑπὸ ζυγὸν, καὶ ἐπιδεξάσθω ἡ ψυχὴ ὑμῶν παιδείαν" ἐγγύς ἐστιν εὑρεῖν αὐτήν. In the Talmudists we meet with the yoke of the law, of the pre- cept, of the Kingdom of Heaven, of repentance, of faith, and the like; and in Shemoth Rabba it is said, Because the ten tribes did not take the yoke of the holy and blessed God upon them ; therefore Sennacherib led them into captivity. The same meta- phor is also employed by Grecian philosophers. Thus Cleanthes in Diog. Laert. VII. 5. 4. αὐτὸς μόνος δύνασθαι [βαστάζειν τὸ Ζήνωνος φορτίον. Compare Pind. Pyth. I]. 172. Campsetr, Ligutrootr, Kurnoget, A. CLARKE. 150 MATTHEW XI. 30. XII. 1. Ibid. ὅτι πρᾷός εἰμι x. τι X. Parallel to the sense in which these words are sometimes understood is Senec. Consol. ad Polyb. §. 36. Discat ab eo clementiam, atque a mitissimo omnium principe mitis fiert. But it does not appear to be so much our Lord’s aim to recommend his virtues to the imitation of the people, as himself to their choice as a teacher. The whole is to be explained, therefore, as having a view to this end: Be in- structed by me, whom ye will find a meek and condescending teacher, not rough, haughty, and impatient, lke the Scribes ; but one who can bear with the infirmities of the weak, and will adapt his lessons to the capacities of the learners. The adjective πρᾷος denotes meld, gentle, as in Matt. xxi. 5. and so Herodian, IV. 3. μέτριόν τε kal πρᾷον ἑαυτὸν τοῖς προσιοῦσι παρεῖχεν. In James iv. 6. ταπεινὸς is opposed to ὑπερήφανος, and therefore may be rendered wnassuming. The noun ἀνάπαυσις, as the verb ἀναπαύειν in ν. 28., are properly opposed to ζυγὸς, and indicate relief from the burden of the Jewish ceremonies, and thence, in an extended sense, the rest of heaven. Xen. Cyrop. VII. 5. 47. δοκεῖ μοι καὶ ἡ ἐμὴ ψυχὴ ἀναπαύσεώς τινος ἀξιοῦν τυγχάνειν. Compare Ecclus. li. 26, 97. CAMPBELL, KuINoEL, ELSNER, KYPKE. Ver. 50. χρηστός. Properly useful; and so it is understood by some in this place: but as applied to @ yoke, it is well ren- dered in the E. T. easy, i. e. adapted to the strength of those who bear it. Compare Ephes. iv. 32. 1 Pet. ii. 3. It is opposed to βαρὺς in Joseph. Ant. VIII. 8.1. The adjective ἐλαφρὸς also is properly translated ight. Lucian. de Merced. Cond. §. 13. ζυγὸν ἐλαφρόν τε καὶ εὔφορον. Diog. Laert. in Vit. Solon. 1. 2.15. εὖ γὰρ θῆκε νόμους αὐτοῖς ἄχθεα κουφότατα. Wert- STEIN, KYPKE. CHAPTER XII. Contents : — Christ defends his disciples from an imputed breach of the Sabbath, in plucking ears of corn; vy. 1\—8. [Mark ii. 23. Luke vi. 1.] He restores the withered hand, and the Pharisees seck his life ; vv. 9—14. [Mark iii. 1. Luke vi. 6.] A prophecy fulfilled ; vv. 15—21. A demoniac cured, the calumnies of the Pharisees refuted, and the Scribes re- proved ; vy. 22—46. [Mark iii. 19. Luke xi. 14.] The faith- ful disciples of Christ declared to be his kindred; vv. 46—50. (Mark iii. 31. Luke viii. 19.] Verse 1. ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ. The time is more definitely marked in Luke vi. 1. By the plural σάββασι nothing more is MATTHEW XII. 2, 3. 151 understood than if the singular had been employed. The He- brew MAW is sometimes rendered σάββατον, and sometimes σάβατα, by the LXX. Compare Hwod. xxxi. 14. Levit. xxiii. 32. Joseph. Ant. IIT. 10. κατὰ δὲ ἑβδόμην ἡμέραν, ἥτις σάββατα καλεῖται. Horat. Sunt hodie tricesima Sabbata. See also Horne’s Introd, Vol. III. p. 171. With the adjective σπορίμων we must supply χωρίων. The same ellipsis is found in Xen. Cyr. . 4, 16. τὰ ἐργάσιμα, seil. χωρία. It is clear, from the Jewish writings, that there were public paths through their fields. Kut- NOEL, Grotius, LiguTFoorT. Ver. 2. ὃ οὐκ Escort. τ. X. In the time of our Lord the Jewish traditions respecting the observance of the sabbath, were excessively minute and tedious. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 302. sq. It was mainly owing, indeed, to their super- stitious notions respecting the legality of self-defence on this day that Pompey was enabled to take Jerusalem. See Dion. Cass. XXXVI. With respect to the profanation here charged upon the disciples, it has been thought that it consisted in breaking their fast before the performance of their morning service. See Acts i. 15. Butthe objection is not confined to this particular, being delivered, as well as our Saviour’s reply, in general terms. It appears from the Rabbinical writings that the Jews divided sab- batical violations into two classes, the first of which contained thirty-nine principal offences, each of which included a variety of subdivisions. Hence, in reference to the injunction against reaping, Exod. xxxiv. 21. it was ordained in one of their canons, that he that reapeth on the Sabbath, even to the quantity of a fig, is guilty ; and Maimonides affirms, that plucking ears is reaping. 'That this, however, was contrary to the spirit of the law is evident from Ewod. xii. 16. and our Lord, in proof of this, refers them to the example of David, and the practice of the priests ; and adduces a declaration of the Almighty, which he had already cited upon a similar occasion, (Matt. ix. 13.) dis- pensing with the ritual observances of the law in cases of ne- cessity, or for purposes of charity. Wuirsy, Licutroor, A. CLARKE. Ver. 3, οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ. From the words of Ahimelech to David upon this occasion, 1 Sam. xxi. 1. it appears that he was alone, and had no man with him; but this must be understood comparatively, with regard to the train of nobles with which he was usually attended. The aptness with which our Lord applied this story in vindication of his disciples will readily appear from the interpretation of the ancient Rabbins, produced by Kémechi on the passage: It is a small thing to say that it is lawful for us to eat these loaves taken from before the Lord, when we are hungry; for it would be lawful to eat this very loaf, which 152 MATTHEW XII. 5, 6. is now set on, which is also sanctified in the vessel, (for the table sanctifieth ) ; it would be lawful to eat even this when another loaf is not present with you to give us, and we are so hunger bitten. Again: There is nothing which may hinder taking care of life beside idolatry, adultery, and murder. If, therefore, hunger were a sufficient justification in the case of David, it was no less so in the case of the disciples. Lignrroor, Wuirsy. Of the next verse see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. pp. 235. 296. It is clear that it was not the holy place into which David went, for the loaves of which he partook had been removed from before the Lord, and new bread had been placed in their room. See 1 Sam. xxi. 6. CAMPBELL. Ver. 5. ἀνέγνωτε ἐν τῷ νόμῳ. It is not meant that these words are to be found in the Law, but that the priests are en- joined in the Law to perform such servile works in the Temple on the Sabbath, as considered separately from the end of it, were a profanation; but no accusations were preferred against them, because it was necessary to the public worship, for which the Sabbath was set apart. From Numb. xxviii. 9. it appears that two additional lambs were sacrificed on the Sabbath, by which the ordinary work of the week was doubled. Compare Exod. xxix. 38. Inthe Talmud, Schabbath, p. 17. it is stated that the servile works which are done about holy things are not ser- vile ; and Maimonides affirms that there is no Sabbatism at all én the Temple. Macxnicut, Licutroot, Wuirsy. It is ob- servable that the Hebrew word for Sabbath signifies also rest, and it is used in both senses in this verse. The Evangelist seems to indicate this difference of meaning by varying the Greek inflection of the word, using σάββασι, from σάβ)βας, for _the day, and σάββατον for the sabbatical rest. CAMPBELL. Ver. 6. τοῦ ἱεροῦ μείζων. In this declaration our Lord anti- cipates an objection that the service of the Temple, which ren- dered the duties of the priests a labour of necessity, was no excuse for the disciples. Τὸ this it is replied, that they were engaged in the service of one much greater than the Temple, so that any work which was necessary for their support in the pro- secution of that service, was equally allowable with the ministra- tion of the priests; more especially as their’s was an employ- ment of mercy, and therefore of far greater importance than sa- crifice or any other ritual observance. In many MSS. the read- ing is μεῖζον, which is sanctioned by several of the ancient Fa- thers, and is also more conformable to our Lord’s manner upon similar occasions. It must not be referred, however, as some have supposed, to the great work, which was then going on. See on v. 41. infra. Christ may, probably, have alluded to his own body, as being the noblest Temple of the Deity, (John ii. 21.) or MATTHEW XII. 8. 10. 153 rather perhaps to himself, as the Lord of the Temple. Compare Mal. iii. 1. Heb. iii. 8. The Jews esteemed nothing greater than the Temple, except the God who was worshipped in it. Grotius, Macxnieut, A. CLarke, Dopprince.—| KvInoE. | Ver. 8. Κύριος yao ἐστι κι τ. X. The true sense of the pas- sage is declaratory of our Lord’s power, as Lord of the Sabbath, to dispense with the laws relating to its observance. The particle yao is not here causal, but merely transitive ; or rather, the cause to which it refers is not expressed, but to be understood as passing in the mind of the speaker. See my note on Hom. Il. A. 123. In Mark ii. 28. the clause is introduced by the particle ὥστε instead of γὰρ, by which it has been supposed to be con- nected with the observation, that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath, which precedes it in that Gospel. There can be no doubt as to the sense in which our Lord intended these words to be understood, viz. that the rest of the Sabbath, which was instituted for the sake of man, tired with the labours of the week, ought therefore to yield to the good of man. But in order to interpret the succeeding clause as an inference from this declaration, it is necessary that the term 6 υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου should be explained of man generally, in which acceptation it is no where else to be found in the Gospels; not to mention that the inference would be in fact nothing more than a repetition of the premises. It is much better, therefore, to consider the clause as a new argument, and to render ὥστε moreover, in which sense it is sometimes, though not very frequently, employed. We can scarcely suppose that Matthew and Mark intended the words to be understood differently; and little dependence can be placed upon the signification of particles, in the critical employment of which the Evangelists do not appear to have been very exact. With respect to the objection, that the clause taken in this sense is a direct assertion of the Messiahship, which Christ studiously avoided, it is answered, that there were occasions upon which he did not hesitate to avow his pretensions, as in John ix. 35. 37. and elsewhere. Wuitsy, Doppripce.—[Grotius, Κύαινοει, Of the various reading in this verse, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. p- 182. Ver. 10. χεῖρα ἔχων Enodv. Probably through a partial pa- ralysis. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 516. This cure is stated in Luke vi. 6. to have been performed ἐν ἑτέρῳ σαββάτῳ, on another Sabbath, probably on that immediately subsequent to the date of the occurrence in the corn-fields. The relation of time is less distinctly marked by Matthew, but the same order is preserved in the narrative of both Evangelists. Ibid. εἰ ἔξεστι κι τ. X. This question is, in fact, a virtual denial of the legality of healing on the Sabbath day. It was a = 1δ4 MATTHEW XII. 11. 13, 14. canon of the Jews that no medicine should be prepared, or any service done on the Sabbath, which was not actually necessary for the preservation of life, (Tertull. adv. Marcion. 1V. 12.) and a number of cases are enumerated by Maimonides, in Schabbath, ὃ. 21. in which the application of any remedy is forbidden. Among others, pain in the loins, tooth-ache, sore throat, &c. are excluded from relief till the following day. The School of Schammai, how- ever, went so far as to prohibit any attention whatsoever to the sick on the Sabbath, making it illegal even to console or to visit them; Schabbath, p. 12. 1. In opposition to this doctrine our Lord did not hesitate to heal the withered hand, and although the cure was effected by a word, without any medicinal application, and therefore could not really be obnoxious to the Jewish canon, it could not fail to mark his disapproval of their uncharitable deci- sions. The pretended miracle related by Tacitus to have been performed by Vespasian, may be compared with this of Christ's, for the purpose of investigating the degree of credibility to which each is respectively entitled. It is cited and examined by Mr. Horne, Introd. Vol. I. p. 294. Liaurroor, SCHOETTGEN, WETSTEIN. Ver. 11. οὐχὶ κρατήσει αὐτὸ, καὶ ἐγερεῖ; It was a maxim of the Jews to take tender care of the goods of an Israelite, in ac- cordance with which it was lawful, if a beast fell into a ditch or a pool of water, to bring him food in that place if possible, but if not, to bring clothes and litter, and bear up the beast. Hence R. Lazar saith, Jf a beast or its foal fall into a ditch on a holy- day, let him lift up the former to kill him; but let him give fodder unto the latter, lest he die in that place. 'To these maxims Christ very properly appeals in vindication of his intention to restore the man’s hand; arguing a minori ad majus, that it was a greater duty to act for the benefit of man than of beast. In after times the Rabbins denied the legality of these practices; but it is certain that they were allowed in the time of Christ, and in all probability revoked in consequence of his appeal to them. The inference deduced in favour of doing well on the Sabbath day, is also sanctioned by several Jewish canons. WuitBy, LicutTroot, SCHOETTGEN. Ver. 13. ἀποκατεστάθη. This verb properly denotes restora- tion, redintegration ; and so, to restore to health. In this sense it is used in Exod. iv. 7. LXX. Matt. xi. 13. Mark iii. 5. viii. 25. Luke vi. 10. Apollod. Bibl. IIL. 6, ἀποκαταστῆναι πάλιν τὰς ὀράσεις. ELSNER. Ver. 14, συμβούλιον ἔλαβον. This expression is a Latinism, consilium capiebant. Its recurrence is so frequent in Latin writers as to supersede the necessity of illustration. ‘The parti- MATTHEW XII. 18, 19. 155 ciple ἐξελθόντες signifies the departure of the Pharisees from the synagogue, and cannot be understood as denoting ὦ hostile at- tack, in which sense it is sometimes used by Xenophon and other writers. That the construction is συμβούλιον ἔλαθον κατ᾽ av- τοῦ, and not κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐξελθόντες, is clear from Matt. xxvii. 1. Mark iii. 6. Kuryort. Ver. 18. ἰδοὺ, ὁ παῖς pov, x. τ. Xr. This prophecy is cited from Isaiah xlii. 1. as presignifying the quiet and unobtrusive way in which Christ should propagate his religion, abstaining from any violent or clamorous measures, and offering no re- sistance to those who opposed him. The chief import of the prophecy, as far as regards the object to which it is applied by the Evangelist, is laid in the second verse ; which was fulfilled in our Lord’s withdrawing himself from the rage of the Pharisees, and in charging his disciples not to make him known. With this conduct, however, the whole prediction is intimately con- nected, as pourtraying the means by which the Gospel would be published, not only by himself, but by his apostles and ministers, to the end of the world. Christianity was not to be promoted by outward acts of violence, but by meekness and gentleness; and by this means it is to be at length established in all the nations of the earth. With respect to the doubts which have existed as to the true application of the prophecy, it is enough that Matthew has established its Evangelical sense, so that there can be no authority for understanding it either of the exiled Israelites, the prophet himself, or Cyrus, to all of whom it has been referred by one or other of the commentators. The LXX seem to have in- clined to the former opinion, unless, indeed, the version has been corrupted, which is not improbable. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. IT. p- 208. The titles with which the prediction opens are fre- quently applied to the Messiah in the O. T., and appropriated to him in the New. Compare Psalm xl. 7—9. Isaiah xlix. 3. 5. 1.10. lit. 18. ||. 11. Zech. iii. 8. with John xvii. 4. Philip. ii. 7. See also Matt. iii. 17. John iii..35. Ephes. i. 6. Col. 1. 19. The verb aigeriZew signifies properly to select, to choose; as in 1 Chron. xxviii. 4. 6. LXX. and thence, to love, to favour, Numb. xiv. 8. In the LXX translation of the passage of Isaiah the corresponding word is ἀντιλήψομαι, which comes nearer to the Hebrew original: the sense, however, is the same in either case, as indicating the divine favour and protection. Hesych. ἡρετισάμην" ἠγάπησα, ἐπεθύμησα, ἠράσθην. Kurnort. Of the word κρίσις see on v. 90. Ver. 19. οὐκ ἐρίσει, οὐδὲ κραυγάσει. That is, he shall not be contentious, or clamorous, in the discharge of his office, making no ostentatious display of his doctrines. This declaration was fulfilled by his ceasing to dispute with those Pharisees who had 156 MATTHEW XII. 20. been led by the unanswerable reply which he made to their charges, to seek his destruction. The terms employed are sometimes un- derstood in a military sense, in reference to the Jewish expecta- tion of a temporal warrior; but such an interpretation is over- strained and unsatisfactory. Wuitrsy.—[Macknieur. | Ver. 20. κάλαμον συντετριμμένον x. τ. A. A-reed, in Scrip- ture, is an emblem of weakness, as in Ezek. xxix. 6. and conse- quently a bruised reed must signify that state of weakness which borders on dissolution. The expression is obviously metaphori- cal, as also the λίνον τυφόμενον, smoking flax, which is intended to convey a similar idea. Flax was used for the wick of a lamp or taper, and thence by metonymy denotes the taper itself, which, when nearly extinguished, emits more smoke than Light. With respect to the allusion here employed Jerome observes : Qui peccatori non porrigit manum, et qui non portat onus fratris sui, is calamum quassatum confringit ; et qui modicam scintillam fidet contemnit in parvulis, is linum fumigans extinguit. We may observe that there is a stronger import in the prophecy than the words immediately convey. By not breaking the bruised reed, it is intimated that he will thoroughly repair and restore it ; and by not quenching the flax, that he will rekindle and enliven it: in other words, that he will reanimate the almost extin- guished goodness, and strengthen the wavering faith in the heart of the sinner, till, by that means, he fully establishes his Gospel throughout the world, and triumphs alike over Jewish opposition and Gentile idolatry. And, although he removed from the scene of immediate danger, he continued the same acts of charity and instruction as before, so as fully to answer the character which the prediction displayed. Wuirsy, HAmmMonp. Ibid. ἕως ἂν ἐκβάλῃ x. τ. X. Some interpret this clause, T2/ he turns condemnation to victory; and others, Tl he exercise judgment upon the stubborn unbelieving Jews to the uttermost ; understanding εἰς νῖκος, to the end, or for ever. But the most probable interpretation is, {1 1 he make his Gospel triumphant ; i. e. till he fully establish his religion. The word κρίσις, both here, and supra v. 18. is rendered from the Hebrew O5wW%, mishpat ; and may therefore be employed, like that word, to signify a divine law or rule of life. Compare Gen. xviii. 19. 1 Kings ix. 4. Psalm cxix. 108. That the phrase εἰς νῖκος ἐκβάλλειν may mean fo render victorious, is manifest from similar expressions in classic writers, such as εἰς ἀδύνατον ἐκ[άλλειν, to render im- possible; Polyb. I. 68. So Plato, Epict. VIL. εἰς ἀναρμοστίαν καὶ ἀπρεπείαν ἐκβάλλειν. For εἰς νῖκος the LXX read εἰς ἀλη- θείαν, which is somewhat in favour of Dr. Randolph’s interpreta- tion, amounting, in fact, to the same thing: (see Horne, ui supra.) But the above method is more satisfactory, and more generally received; and it is also confirmed by the insertion of MATTHEW XII. 23. 25. 27. 157 the article before κρίσιν, so as evidently to represent the pos- sessive pronoun, GiLL, Rapyenivs, MippLeton.—[Lieur- FOOT. | Ver. 23. ὃ vide Δαυΐδ. See on Matt. i. 1. ix. 27. It was the persuasion implied in this-expression that Jesus was the Messiah, and their fear that their credit with the people would be considerably diminished by the authority of Christ, which in- duced the Pharisees to calumniate the miracles which he per- formed, and attribute them to collusion with the devil. This persuasion had not yet risen into conviction; and it was their wish, by this insinuation, to remove it.. The particle μήτι does not signify nonne, but num, as in Matt. vii. 16. Mark iv. 21. xiv. 19. et passim. 'To render it by a negative would almost in- variably pervert the sense. In the present instance, indeed, there would be little apparent difference whether zs this or és not this were used, except that the former implies that dzsbelief, the latter that belief, preponderates. The verb ἐξίστημι in the beginning of the verse is used generally of any mental emotion. Compare Mark iii. 21. Xen. Mem. I. 3. 12. Here it evidently denotes admiration and astonishment, as in Gen. xlili. 33. Psalm xlviii. 6. Judith xii. 15. xv. 1. Hesych. ἐξίσταντο" ἐθαύμαζον. Wuitsy, CaMPBELL, Kurnoret. Of the name Beelzebub see on Matt. x. 25. Ver, 25. πάσα βασιλεία x. τ. X. The first part of our Lord’s answer to the imputation of the Pharisees, contained in this and the following verse, is a reductio ad absurdum. The safety of a state or family, says he, depends upon its concord and unanimity, and must be at once destroyed by the discords and divisions of its members. It is, therefore, absurd to imagine that Satan would endanger the welfare of his kingdom by assisting me in ejecting his agents from the bodies of men, into which he himself has given them power to enter. The influence which our Lord ex- erted, both by his doctrine and miracles, was in direct opposition to the advancement of the empire of the devil, and, therefore, little likely to be assisted by his connivance and co-operation. A si- milar argument is employed by Seneca, de Ira, 11. 31. Salva autem esse societas nisi amore et custodia partium non potest. Cic. de Amic. 7. que enim domus tam stabilis, que tam firma civitas est, que non odiis atque dissidiis funditus possit everti ? Compare Soph. Ant. 672. KurnoEt. Ver. 27. οἱ υἱοὶ ὑμῶν. Your children; 1. 6, your disciples, scil. of the Pharisees. It was a custom with the Jews to use the terms father and son of a teacher and his scholar. Compare 1 Kings xx. 35. 2 Kings ii. 3. 2 Tim. i. 2. Philem. 10. That many of the Jews did at this time endeavour to cast out demons 158 MATTHEW XII. 28. is evident from Luke ix. 4. Acts xix. 13. From various passages in the Fathers it appears that upon these occasions they invoked the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and Jose- phus states expressly that the art of exorcism was imparted by God to Solomon, who left behind him instructions by which — devils were so effectually cast out as never to return again. See Justin, Dial. Tryph. p. 311. Ὁ, Iren. 11. 5. Origen e. Cels. IV. p- 183. Joseph, Ant. VII. 6. 3, VIII. 2. 5. The argument here employed by our Lord is extremely conclusive :—* If the person who casts out devils proves himself thereby to be in league with Satan, then are your disciples, and you their in- structors, in league with him; and consequently your calumnious charge against me evidently applies equally to them.” It is not necessary to this conclusion, that the demons were actually ex- pelled by these exorcists; although it is possible that the invoca- tions of Jehovah may sometimes have been attended with success. Nothing more is required than that the Jews thought they were expelled, and that they did not attribute their expulsion to the agency of Satan, as they did the miracles of Christ. Wuuirsy, Macknicut, ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ.. Ver, 28. ἐν πνεύματι Θεοῦ. In Luke xi. 20, we have ἐν δακ- τύλῳ Θεοῦ. The expressions are equivalent, and imply simply by divine co-operation; the sense in which πνεῦμα is here used being the fifth assigned to it under Matt. i. 18. Our Lord’s argument proceeds thus: “ It is clear that the kingdom of Satan is overthrown, and the kingdom of God about to be established : for before the goods of a strong man can be plundered, a stronger than he must take possession of his house; so that the kingdom of Satan can only have been overthrown by a more powerful adversary. If then I do not my miracles by Satanic agency, but by divine co-operation, you ought to admit my claims to the Messiahship. And that I am sent to establish the king- dom of God in opposition to the kingdom of Satan is evident, for not only does not Satan cast out Satan, but he will not yield toa power which is not greater than his own, ν. 29. and conse- quently, since I do act by a power superior to him, and in oppo- sition to his dominion, it follows that I am his enemy, according to the maxim, He that is not with me, §c. ν. 30.” Some, in- deed, suppose that Christ intended to apply this proverb to the Pharisees, as indicating their opposition to the kingdom of God, announced in Dan. iv. 34. vii. 14, and their advancement of the interests of the devil. But the pronouns are used indifferently in expressions of this nature, and there is no occasion to refer ἐμοῦ to Christ. The converse of the maxim is equally true with the maxim itself, and it is employed by Christ, without any con- tradiction, in Luke ix. 58. In Prov. xxvi. the proverb in v. 4, is reversed in y. 5, so that both are equally applicable to two dif- , MATTHEW XII. 31. 159 ferent cases. In the latter clause there seems to be an allusion to the amassing of money on the one hand, and its loss on the other. Nothing similar, however, is to be found in the Jewish writings, which might serve as a direction in the application of the maxim. Euthymius observes: δ ἑτέρου λογισμοῦ βεβαιοῖ, ὅτι μᾶλλον ἔχθιστος αὐτῷ ἐστιν 6 ἄρχων τῶν δαιμονίων. Kut- NOEL, ΜΑΟΚΝΙΘῊΤ.--- [8 Cierc, Wuirsy.] In the following verse it has been thought that τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ is written with the article, because it has a more particular reference to Satan men- tioned above. A comparison, however, with Luke xi. 21, 22. will shew that Satan is not here meant, for there we find men- tion of ὁ ἰσχυρότερος, which destroys the notion that ὁ ἰσχυρὸς was meant κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν. The insertion of the article comes under the tenth instance mentioned under Matt. i. 1. p. 10. Mr1pp1eE- TON, WAKEFIELD. Ver. 31. διὰ τοῦτο. This inference is not connected with the member of the discourse immediately preceding it, but it arises from the whole series of the reasoning. Euthym. διότι τοιαῦτα κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ λέγετε. With respect to the nature of the sin, or rather the blasphemy, for it consisted in words not in deeds, which our Lord here declares to be irremissible, great doubts are enter- tained by theologians, and the solution of the point is unques- tionably attended with considerable difficulty. One thing, how- ever, is clear, that it is closely connected with the wilful and malicious perverseness of the Pharisees in ascribing the miracles of Christ, the reality of which they could not deny, to the agency of the devil. This is evident from the whole tenour of the pas- sage, and more particularly from Mark ii. 28—30., where the bearing of the discourse is more distinctly marked. But whether it was the conduct of the Pharisees upon this particular occasion which constituted the sin in question, or whether it consisted in speaking evil of those gifts which would be poured forth upon his disciples by the effusion of the Holy Ghost after the ascen- - sion, and that our Lord was induced, by the proximity which the sin of the Pharisees bore to it, to warn them against it, is the point under dispute. The immediate connexion of the passage seems to decide in favour of the former opinion, and it is easy to discern the reason which should induce so strong and fearful a denunciation. There could be little hope that persons who were so hardened in malice as to deny the evidence of their senses and judgment, would ever be prevailed with to accept the proffered terms of salvation. But the arguments in support of the other interpretation are cogent, not to say conclusive. In the first place, our Lord’s saying immediately that blasphemy against himself was pardonable, seems to point to miracles in which he was not the visible agent; and in accordance with this declaration is his prayer for his murderers on the cross, for 10 160 MATTHEW XII. 32. whom it could only be urged in excuse that the evidence of his resurrection, followed by the descent of the Holy Spirit, had not yet taken place. This glorious manifestation of divine power ought also to be effectual in removing the prejudices which they entertained in respect to the meanness of his birth, the place of his abode, and the spiritual nature of his kingdom. After this display no farther evidence would be afforded them, so that their wilful and perverse blindness would render pardon altogether hopeless. Some understand the words οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται as merely denoting extreme difficulty in obtaining pardon, but this inter- pretation is’ scarcely reconcileable with the strong expression with which it is joined in the next verse. The future is used in the sense of condonari possunt; and so σταθήσεται, v. 25. διαρ- mace, v.29. Wuitsy, Macxnicut, Dopprince.—[WETSTEIN, A, CLARKE, KUINOEL. | Ver. 32. οὔτε ἐν τούτῳ τῷ αἰῶνι, οὔτε ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι. Sins of ignorance admitted of expiation under the Jewish Law, Numb. xv. 28.; but for presumptuous sins, among which must be classed that of which Christ is here speaking, there was no remission under the Mosaic dispensation. See Numb. xv. 30. xxxv. 31. 1 Sam. ii. 25. From a fond imagination, however, of the final happiness of all the seed of Abraham, the Jews had im- bibed a notion that all sins whatsoever were expiated by death, or, at least, would be forgiven after it. Now by the world to come the Jews sometimes meant the state after death; and so Rab. Tancum: The world to come is when a man has departed out of this world. Hence Christ has been supposed to allude to these expectations, and to assure them that in this case at least they were unfounded. But there certainly can be no such allu- sion, for the Scripture acknowledges only two times for the re- mission of sins, one of the penitent sinner here on earth, Matt. ix. 6. and the other at the day of judgment, when sentence of absolution shall be passed upon the imperfections of the faithful servants of Christ, 2 Zim. i. 18. It may be remarked by the way, therefore, that the Popish doctrine of purgatory derives no sanction from this passage. The phrase employed is a common proverb, denoting that a thing should never happen. Thus R. Eleezer declares that the Samaritans have no portion in a future state, because it is said, You shall not build with us, either in this world or the world to come. Compare Mark iii. 29. Luke xii. 10. Others, however, have supposed that by this world and the world to come are meant the Jewish and Christian dispensation respectively. The Jews did certainly call the days of the Messiah the age to come, and the declaration would, under this interpretation, amount to nearly the same; but as the sin under consideration could not be committed till after that age had commenced, this application of the term is here inadmissible. MATTHEW XII. 33, 84. 36. 161 Compare 2 Mace. vi. 26. Wuitsy, Doppriner.—[Licutroor, Grotius, A. CLARKE. Ver. 33. ἢ ποιήσατε x. τ. A. Christ here returns to his argu- ment. ‘* Moreover,” he observes, ‘‘ my doctrine is a sufficient proof that my works are not effected by the agency of Satan; since its goodness marks its divine origin, as good fruit is the produce of a good tree.” But seeing that his reasonings are not likely to influence the evil hearts of the Pharisees, he breaks off again, v. 34., and, declaring that their evil words proceed from evil hearts, assures them, v. 36., that they will be called to ac- count for them at the last day. The passage will indeed admit of another interpretation, by referring the simile in this verse to the Pharisees, but the connexion is more easy according to the above paraphrase. Euthym. καταισχύνει δὲ πάλιν ἑτέρως av- τοὺς, ὡς ἀνάκολουθα καὶ mapa’ φύσιν κατηγοροῦντας. Μαοκ- NIGHT, Grotius, ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ,.. © The word ποιήσατε is here used as the Latin fac, and should be rendered suppose. So Xen, Anab. V.7. 5. ποιῶ δὲ ἡμᾶς ἐξαπατηθέντας. ΚΎΡΚΕ. Ver. 84. ἐκ τοῦ περισσεύματος κι τ. Δ. The expression is proverbial: with the sentiment we may compare the following. Menander: ἀνδρὸς χαρακτὴρ ἐκ λόγων γνωρίζεται. Aristides: οἷος ὃ τρόπος, τοιοῦτος καὶ 6 λόγος. In the next verse, which is merely ἃ repetition of the present, τῆς καρδίας is omitted in most of the ancient MSS., in several versions, and by many of the early Fathers. It was in all probability added as an explana- tion; but it is sufficiently evident that the treasury here meant is the heart, mentioned immediately before, the article plainly indicating a renewed mention. Of the verb ἐκβάλλειν, in the sense of proferre, (προφέρειν, Luke vi. 45.) examples occur in Eurip. lon. 924. 959. Helen. 1563. Herod. VI. 69. Polyb. III. 33. 1. Kurnore., Kypxe, Raruenius, Wetstern. There has been some discussion respecting the insertion of the article before ἀγαθὰ, compared with its omission before πονηρά. It is probable, however, that no such difference, as that which the re- ceived text exhibits, originally existed, and that either both ἀγαθὰ and πονηρὰ had the article, or that both were without it. The latter of these suppositions is by far the more likely, and a variety of MSS. are in its favour. In Luke vi. 45. indeed, we have τὸ ἀγαθὸν and τὸ πονηρόν : but adjectives in the neuter singular, used in the abstract sense, require the article. See under Matt. i. 1, §.6. p. 10. MippLeton. Ver. 36. ῥῆμα ἀργόν. The epithet ἀργὸς is properly applied only to persons, and in its primary acceptation denotes idle. Hence, when applied to words or things, it must be understood to denote such as spring from habitual idleness; just as cruel VOL. I. M 162 MATTHEW XII. 38. hands are the hands of a cruel person, and a contemptuous look the look of one who cannot conceal his contempt. Now in this class the Jews were wont to rank almost all the vices of the tongue, especially dying and defamation. See 1 Tim. vy. 195. In Exod. v.9. the Hebrew ἼΡΦ NIAAA, lying words, are rendered by the LXX κενοῖς λόγοις, which nearly corresponds with the expression under consideration; and in the Targum, the ad- jective employed is 52, which is precisely the same in significa- tion with ἀργός. It appears also from Origen, cont. Cels, II. . 73. that ἀργὸς λόγος, in the language of logicians, is a sophism, or false reasoning, used with a view to deceive. So Chrysostom: ἀργόν" τὸ μὴ κατὰ πράγματος κείμενον, TO ψευδές. It is highly probable, therefore, from the scope of the passage, that such is the meaning of ἀργὸν ῥῆμα here; and that our Lord condemns all falsehood generally, and thence, a fortior?, the calumnious insinuations of the Pharisees in regard to the miracles, of which they could not deny the truth. All vain and unedifying words, however, may possibly be included in the expression, and still the same ὦ fortiort argument will apply. At all events, there can be no doubt of the sinfulness of what is called by the Apostle μωρολογία, foolish talking, Ephes. v. 4. Cicero ob- serves, de Fato, p. 310, 22. Appellatur a Philosophis ἀργὸς λόγος, cui si pareamus, nihil omnino est quod agamus in vita ; and according to Plato, de Legg. 1V. p. 832. E. κούφων καὶ πτη- νῶν λόγων βαρυτάτη ζημία. CAMPBELL, MackNnIGHT, WHITBY, Grotius. With respect to the construction, πᾶν ῥῆμα ἀργὸν is the nominative absolute. See Matt. Gr. Gr. ὃ. 310. In the next verse καὶ must be rendered or, as in Mark iv. 27. Phil. iv. 16. and elsewhere; since both clauses cannot be referred to the same person. KuinoEL, DopprincGe. Ver. 38. σημεῖον. A sign from heaven: in opposition to dv- ναμις, amiracle, of which they had been witnesses to several ; vy. 13. 22. &e. That such is the distinction appears from Matt. xvi. 1. Luke xi. 16. and they seem to have demanded the ap- pearance of some celestial phoenomenon, from an idea that an impostor would have less power in producing such a sign, than in curing diseases and performing miracles upon the earth. See John vi. 80, They were probably induced to make this demand by the fact, that such manifestations of divine co-operation had been afforded by several of the prophets of the O. T., as, for in- stance, by Moses, Hwxod. ix. 22—24. by Joshua, Josh. x. 12. by Samuel, 1 Sam. vi. 9, 10. and by Elijah, 1 Kings xviii. 56—38. 2 Kings i. 10. Compare Isaiah vii. 1. xxxviil. 8 Our Lord was well convinced of the idle curiosity, or even worse motive, with which the demand was made, and refused to gratify it; at the same time declaring that such a sign would be given at his resurrection, typified in the history of Jonah. See Matt. xxiv. MATTHEW XII. 39, 40. 30. xxvi. 64. It appears from Luke xi. 16. that the persons who required the sign were not the same with those who Bs attributed his miracles to Beelzebub; but they were probably some of the same party. Doppripcr, WuirTBy. "τς Pp é ἦ a a Ver. 39. Under the old covenant the Jewish nation were re- presented as engaged in a marriage contract with God; and ¢ sequently any breach of that contract was looked upon i light of a spiritual adultery. Hence it has been supposed by some commentators that the adjective μοιχαλὶς here signifies edolatrous. But it does not appear that the Jews are any where accused of idolatry in the N. T. not to mention that πόρνος, not μοιχαλὶς, would have been the word employed in that accepta- tion. See on Matt. v. 31. Others are of opinion that the © adjective should be rendered spurious, ilegitiniates 1. 6. in outward appearance only, and not really, the children of Abra- ham. Compare Isaiah lvii. 3, 4. Psalm exliv. 7, 8. John viii. 39. But there is no particular allusion in this place to the descent from Abraham, and the word may very well be taken in its proper sense. The crime of adultery was dreadfully prevalent at this time in the Jewish state, and the law of divorce most shamefully perverted and abused; so common indeed had the crime become, that R. Jochanan Ben Zacchai had abrogated the trial by the bitter waters of jealousy, because so many were ob- noxious to it. The Rabbins themselves maintain that a sign was not to be given, except to a fit generation. LigutTroor, Gro- TIus, KurnoeL, DoppripGcr.—[A. CxaRrKeE. ] Ver. 40. τοῦ κήτους. Not necessarily, a whale. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. p. 560. and of the Jewish mode of reckoning time, see ibid. p. 180. The typical character of Jonah is clearly indicated by Christ himself, so as .amply to refute the notion entertained by some, that the book of Jonah is merely a para- bolic history. He expressly states, that the Ninevites were con- verted by his preaching, although unattended with miracles, and declares, that they would rise up in the judgment against the Jews, who refused to hearken to his warnings, accompanied as they were with the most astonishing manifestations of his divine authority. It would, therefore, be as reasonable to look upon the Queen of the South as a fictitious character, whose pious zeal, in taking a long journey to visit Solomon, is contrasted with the careless negligence of the Jews towards Christ, who was inculcating precepts of a much higher wisdom than that of Solo- mon at their very doors, Ibid. ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ τῆς γῆς. That is, simply, zn the earth. So Tyre is said to be én the heart of the sea, Ezek. xxviii. 2. although it was so near the continent, that, when Alexander besieged it, he carried a causeway from the land to the city. The M2 1604 MATTHEW XII. 41, 42, 43. expression is taken from Jonah ii. 4. Compare also Exod. xv. 8. Deut. iv. 11. Psalm xvi. 3. Prov. xxx. 19. Ezek. xxv. 26. Jerem. xxvi. ὃ. KuINOEL, MACKNIGHT. Ver. 41. ἄνδρες Νινευῖται. So ἄνδρες Κυρηναῖοι, Acts xi. 20. ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι, xvii. 22. ἄνδρες ᾿Εφέσιοι, xix. 35. The pleo- nasm is frequent in Demosthenes. Of the verb ἀναστήσονται, with which ἐγερθήσεται, v. 42., is convertible, see on Matt. x. 20. There is a degree of modesty and delicacy in the use of πλεῖον in the neuter gender; by which our Lord means to insinuate, rather than affirm, the dignity of his character, without affording his enemies a handle for contradiction. ΚυΊΝΟΕΙ,, CAMPBELL. Ver. 42. βασίλισσα vérov. The country over which this queen reigned, is called in the O. T. Sheba, and is supposed to be the same with Sabza, a district of Arabia Felix. But Jose- phus, Ant. VII. 2. will not allow her to have been queen of that country, because Arabia Felix lay rather to the east, than to the south of Judea; but derives her title from Saba, a city of Meroe, an island in the Nile ; the queens of which were afterwards called Candace. See Plin. N. H. VI. 29. and compare Acts viii. 27. Her visit to King Solomon is recorded in 1 Kings x. 1. sqq. Macknicut. For βασίλισσα, the Attics used Sa and βασιλίς. The LXX employ the Hellenistic form, which is found also in Diodorus and Josephus. The expression πέρατα γῆς is a common idiom, signifying merely a distant land. So Gen. viii. 9. Deut. xxviii. 49. Psalm \xi. 2. Jerem. xvi. 19. Rom. x. 18. Xen. Ages. 9. 4. συνελκυστέον αὐτῷ ἐκ περάτων γῆς τὰ τέρψοντα. Compare Hom. Od. A. δ64. Aisch. Prom. 425. Eurip. Med. 540. Thucyd. I. 69. Joseph. B. J. V. 1.9. Liv. V. 33. Justin. XII. 5.8. ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ, WerTstTEIN. Ver. 43. ὅταν δὲ τὸ ἀκάθαρτον κι τ. Δ. This parable of the ejected demon has been differently applied by the commentators. Some suppose that our Lord intended to enforce upon those about him, who had lately been brought to believe in his doc- trine, the necessity of a serious amendment of life ; since a relapse into their former course of life would be productive of an increase of guilt and danger. Others refer the allusion more immediately to the Jews, and the destruction which was hanging over them: —that the evil spirits which Christ and his disciples had ejected from the Jews, would seek refuge among the Gentiles: but finding them more ready to receive the Gospel than the Jews, and consequently, less fit habitations for dzemons, would return again to their former possessions, till the measure of their ini- quity was complete, and their ruin inevitable. Those who adopt this solution, by the dry places or deserts, (avédpwv) understand the Gentiles, in opposition to οἶκον, which they interpret of the MATTHEW XII. 44. 46. 165 Jews. Doddridge is of opinion, that the circumstance of the dzmons going into desert places, is beautifully imagined to repre- sent those malignant beings as impatient of the sight of mankind, when restrained from hurting them. But it is needless to strain every minute point of a parable; the end of which is abundantly answered, if the moral intended is clearly expressed; so that a variety of lesser circumstances, which are simply added by way of ornamental amplification, may be fairly neglected, as forming no part of the general design. The circumstance under consi- deration seems to have been adapted, like the other parts of the allegory, to the notion of the Jews, who seem to have imagined, that demons frequented deserts and uncultivated spots. See the LXX translation of Lsatah xiii. 21. and compare Tobit viii. 3. Baruch, iv. 35. Rev. xviii. 2. But, whatever be the application of the parable, it is evident from the concluding sentence, οὕτως ἔσται k. τ. A. compared with v. 39. that it can only be referred immediately to those Pharisees, who demanded of Jesus a sign from heaven. It is, therefore, probable, that our Lord intended to intimate, that the sign they required, would, if granted, be of no avail; and though it might produce a momentary conviction, the demon of infidelity would quickly return, and, seizing upon them with greater violence, increase. their sin, and hasten their . punishment. In a wider acceptation, the parable will afford instruction to every age and description of men. KurnoEL, Mac- KNIGHT.—[WuitBy, DoppRIDGE. | Ver. 44. σχολάζοντα. Untenanted; and therefore ready for the reception of a new inhabitant. The verb σχολάζειν properly signifies vacuum reddere, as in Mal. iii. 1. but here it implies vacuum esse. ‘The same idea is pursued in the participles σεσα- ρωμένον καὶ κεκοσμένον, With which οἶκον must be supplied, meta- phorically denoting the body of the person possessed. So also must we understand ἀνάπαυσις in the preceding verse, which does not signify rest, but a place of rest. The expression ra ἔσχατα κ. τ. A. In ν. 45. is proverbial. Compare Eccles. xxxiv. 30, 31. John v. 14. 2 Pet. ii. 20. Of the number seven, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. p. 416. and my note on Hom. Il. A. 53. Ver. 46. οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ. It seems to have been very gene- rally believed, that the mother of Jesus remained in perpetual virginity ; and upon this supposition, our Lord’s brethren, as they are called, are said to have been really his cousins. ‘That the Hebrews frequently employed the word brother in this and similar acceptations, is clear from Gen. xiv. 14. xx. 12. xxix. 10. Levit. xxv. 48. Deut. ii. 4. 8. Tobit iii. 7. So in Latin frater is some- times used, as in Q. Curt. VI. 10.24. Hence it is clearly pos- sible, that the sons of Mary, the wife of Cleophas, and sister of the blessed Virgin, are here spoken of. See Markiii. 21. John 106 MATTHEW XII. 50. XIII. 2. xix. 25. Still there is no positive authority for the supposition, and there are many who believe, with great probability, that Joseph had children by Mary after the birth of Jesus. To say the truth, it seems rather forced to interpret the question in Matt. xiii, 25, as referring to any other, than the children of Joseph and Mary, in the strictest sense of the word. The former opi- nion, however, is much more generally followed. See on Matt. ° i. 25. There is also another supposition, according to which the brethren of Christ are stated to be the children of Joseph by a former wife. Macxnicut, CaMPBELL.—[Kuinogt, A. CLARKE. ] The motive which brought his family to Christ, may be inferred from Mark iii. 21. 50. Ver. 50. αὐτός μου ἀδελφὸς x. τ. X. It may be, that the par- ticle ὡς is here omitted, as the Hebrews frequently drop the comparative prefix 3. See 1 Sam. xxy. 16. Jerem. xxvi. 18. where the LXX insert we. A similar idiom prevails in other languages. Ovid. Heroid. III. 51. Tu dominus, tu vir, tu mihi frater eras. Compare Il. Z. 429. Martial. Epig. VIII. 81. The sense, however, is equally good without an ellipsis. Our Lord evidently distinguishes between his natural relations, and those who are spiritually so, as children of his heavenly Father; de- claring that his love for the latter is of a nature far more endear- ing than that of any earthly tie. Nor was this the slightest reflection upon his mother and brethren, who were unquestion- ably among the chief of those who did the will of God. Kur- NOEL, MACKNIGHT. CHAPTER XIII. ContENTs :— The parable of the Sower, vv. 1—9. [Mark iv. 1. Luke viii. 4.] Reasons for teaching by Parables, vv. 1O—17. [Mark iv. 10.] aplanation of the parable of the Sower, wv. 18—23. [Mark iv. 13. Luke viii. 9.] Parable of the Tares and Wheat, vv. 24—30. [Mark iv. 26.] Of the Grain of Mustard-seed, vv. 31, 32. Of the Leaven, ν. 33. A Pro- phecy fulfilled, vv. 34, 35. Explanation of the parable of the Tares and the Wheat, vv. 36—43. Parable of the Hidden Treasure, v. 44. Of the Pearl of great price, vv. 45, 46. Of the Net, vv. 47—50. General application, and the parable of the Householder, vv. 51, 52. Christ's return to Nazareth, and his ill-treatment there, vv. 53—58. [Mark vi. 1.] Verse 2. τὸ πλοῖον. Many of the commentators understand any vessel indefinitely, and the instance has been adduced to prove MATTHEW XIII.’ 8. 8. 167 that the article is sometimes used without meaning. But it should seem that a vessel was kept on the lake for the use of Jesus and the Apostles, and that this particular vessel was uniformly spe- cified. At Mark iii. 9. our Saviour directs that a vessel should be constantly waiting for him; and it was probably one which belonged to some of the Apostles, who continued occasionally to follow their former occupation. See John xxi. 3. We find, indeed, Luke ν. 3. that a ship belonging to Simon was employed by our Saviour for the very purpose here mentioned, which is afterwards designated τὸ πλοῖον, in Luke viii. 22. The omission of the article in some MSS. is attributable to some copyist, to whom its force was not apparent. MippLeron, WakEFIELD.— [CAMPBELL, RosENMULLER. | Ver. 3. ἐν παραβολαῖς. For much valuable information re- specting our Lord’s parables, collectively and separately, the reader is referred to Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. pp. 399. sqq. The observations, which it may be necessary to add, will be chiefly such as relate to the grammatical construction, and such minor points of exposition, as may not be gathered from that work. Ibid. 6 σπείρων τοῦ σπείρειν. Subaud. ἕνεκα. It is sup- posed by some critics, that the article is here inserted before σπείρων, after the manner of the Hebrew prefix 7 before verbs and participles, when used in the place of verbal nouns. That these participles, however, do not necessarily have the ΠΤ prefixed, is clearly proved by Psalm cxxix. 7. and Prov. xxii. 8. where the participles ΝΡ and YI are both without it, though the LXX have thought the article necessary in their version. Hence it should seem, that the idiom is Greek, rather than Hebrew; and it is clear that σπείρων without the article, in the place of σπορεὺς, would certainly not be warranted. Instances of the use of par- ticiples with the article, instead of substantives, abound in Greek writers. See Matt. Gr. Gr. §. 269. Neither is the article, in this instance, without its design and use, since the three Evangelists, who record the parable, employ it; and it is clearly intended to fix the sense to a particular person. MippLeron, CAMPBELL, Kurnoet, RosENMULLER. In the next verse, χωρία must be supplied with πετρώδη. See Bos Ellips. Gr. p. 949. Ver. 8. ὃ μὲν ἑκατόν. Of the fruitfulness of the land of Pa- lestine, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. pp. 62. sqq. The produce of the seed which was sown on good ground, however, need not be understood of a field’s yielding a hundred times as much as was sown in it; but a single seed producing a hundred grains, which it might easily do, where it met with a good soil, and was properly nourished. ‘The same, however, will be true, in a great degree, of a whole field, of uniform cultivation and fertility. Ammian. Marcel. XXII. 15. Sementes cum augmento fere 108 MATTHEW XIII. 11. septuagesimo renascuntur. Compare also Cic. Ver. III. 47. Varro, I. 24. Columel. III. 3. Plin. N. H. V. 4. Neither is it necessary to interpret the expression to the full extent of its literal meaning ; an abundant harvest is all that the import of the passage requires. MAcKNIGHT, Kurnoet. Of the sentence with which the parable is closed, see on Matt. xi. 15. Ver. 11. ὅτι ὑμῖν δέδοται x. τ. A. It is not to be inferred from these words, that our Lord’s teaching by parables was the cause of the blindness and perverseness of the Jews, but that their perverseness was the cause of his teaching in parables. They would have been equally obstinate in rejecting his doc- trines had he delivered them in plain terms, and probably have made them an excuse for opposition and violence, for which, among other reasons, our Lord thought proper to adopt the parabolic mode of instruction. See Horne, wbi supra. Those who despise the advantages bestowed upon them, and treat them with neglect and inattention, are deservedly deprived of those advantages ; while those who are rich in religious knowledge, and study to improve it, will find it increase by exercise. This is evidently the intention of the passage. The proverb in the next verse is to be interpreted primarily of temporal wealth, and thence transferred to spiritual possessions. The terms οἱ ἔχοντες and of μὴ ἔχοντες, (subaud. χρήματα,) are frequently used of the rich and poor respectively in Greek writers: and sentiments of a like import are not unfrequent. Juv. Sat. III. 208. Nil habuit Codrus ;—et tamen illud Perdidit infelia totum nil. Mart. Epig. V. 81. Dantur opes nulli nunc, nisi divitibus. By those who were earnest in seeking into the truths of the Gospel, the parables illustrating it, would, with attentive consi- deration, be readily interpreted; while nothing but their own wilful ignorance caused the unbelieving Jews to lose the little knowledge of divine things which they already possessed. It should be observed, that the word μυστήριον does not mean what we called a mystery; i. e. a doctrine totally undiscoverable by the human understanding. In the N. T. the word is always used to denote ὦ secret, any fhing not disclosed to the world, though perhaps communicated to a select number. Thus it is continu- ally joined with the terms ἀποκαλυφθὲν, γνωρισθὲν, φανερωθὲν, plainly denoting that something is intended, which had been concealed for ages, but then revealed, and not any thing in its own nature dark and inconceivable. Compare Rom. xvi. 25, 26. 1 Cor. ii. 7—10. Ephes. i. 9. iii. 3. 5. 6. 9. Col. i. 26, 27. and also Dan. ii. 18—30. iv. 9. LXX. The moral truths alluded to in this place, and employed in explanation of the parable, are very far from being mysteries, in the modern acceptation of the word; and it was wilful blindness alone, which concealed them from the Jews. There is, however, a particular application, MATTHEW XIII. 13, 14. 169 though it can scarcely be called a distinct sense, in which the word sometimes occurs in the N.T. It is sometimes used to denote the figurative sense, as distinguished from the “eral, which is conveyed under any fable, parable, allegory, or the like ; as in Rev. i. 20. xvii. 7. Perhaps there may be some allusion to this import of the word in the present passage. Compare Mark iv. 11. Wuirsy, ΚΟΌΊΝΟΕΙ,, CAMPBELL. See also Horne’s Symbolical Index. Ver. 13. βλέποντες οὐ βλέπουσι kK. τ. A. This is proverbial of those who do not hear and see, so as to improve by the per- ception derived from the use of the senses of hearing and of sight. The verbs βλέπειν and ἀκούειν are used first in their direct sense, and then extended to include the proper effect of the faculty employed. Among a variety of less importance, we have two very striking classical parallels in Asch. Prom. 456. Οἱ πρῶτα piv βλέποντες ἔβλεπον μάτην, Κλύοντες οὐκ ἤκουον. Soph. Fragm. ap. Stob. Tit. ΓΝ. Vol. 2. ᾿Αλλ᾽ οἱ κακῶς πράσ- σοντες, οὐ κωφοὶ μόνον, ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ὁρῶντες εἰσορῶσι τἀμφανῆ. Compare Isaiah xxxii. 8. xxxv. 5. Jerem. v. 21. ΚΎΊΝΟΕΙ;, WETSTEIN. Ver. 14. ἡ προφητεία ‘Hoatov. The citation is from Lsazah vi. 9. wherein the prophet gives a faithful picture of the charac- ter of his countrymen, from his own time downwards. By the compound verb ἀναήἠληροῦται, it is signified, that as these words had already been fulfilled in the days of Isaiah, so they were again fulfilled in the days of Christ. This interpretation is also supported by the concluding declaration of the prediction, that this blindness would continue till the destruction of the Jewish state. The import of the passage is, that the Jews would cer- tainly hear the doctrines of the Gospel! without understanding them, and see the miracles wrought in confirmation of it, without perceiving the finger of God in them; not because the evidences of the Gospel, either external or internal, were insufficient to establish it; but because the corruption of their hearts hin- dered them from discerning those evidences. Two points, there- fore, are clear ; viz. that Christ could not, for cogent reasons, deliver his instructions in plain terms, and that the prejudices of the Jews shut their eyes and ears against the perception of his parables. Why, then, it may be asked, did he deliver them at all? Because it was necessary that he himself, during his life- time, should give some account of the nature of his religion, and of the reception it would meet with; so that from the agreement of his parabolic descriptions with subsequent events, they might be induced to acknowledge his prophetic character, and to acqui- esce more readily in the admission of the Gentiles into a parti- cipation of the divine promises. The phrases ἀκοῇ ἀκούειν and 170 MATTHEW XIII. 15. 19. βλέποντες βλέπειν are well-known Hebraisms, marking a pecu- liar emphasis. Compare il. 17. Luke xxii. 15. Acts iv. 17. v. 28. We have similar instances, however, in Greek authors. Of the different turn of the expression in the Hebrew, and the citation of this prophecy, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. p. 209. note. The imperative form of the original implies no more than a com- mand given to the prophet, to foretel that the Jews would harden their hearts in the way described. So in Gen. xli. 13. Me he restored to mine office, and him he hanged: i. e. he prophesied to that effect. Compare Jerem. i. ix. Ezek. xliii. 8. Mac- KNIGHT, DopDRIDGE. Ver. 15. ἐπαχύνθη γὰρ x. τ. X. A fat heart is a metaphori- cal expression, denoting stubbornness and stupidity. Compare Deut. xxxii. 15. Psalm exix. 70. Hesych. raybvou παχὺν νοῦν ἔχοντες, ἀνόητοι. In Arist. Nub. 840. ἀμαθὴς and παχὺς are used as synonymous; and in Herod. II. 9. 15. ἄνθρωποι τὰς διάνοιας παχεῖς, are explained as μὴ ῥαδίως συνεῖναι δυνάμενοι. The ancients seem to have thought, that a great quantity of fat about the heart stupified the intellectual and sensitive powers. Hence, among the Latins also, persons of the description here men- tioned, are called pingues; Ovid. Met. X1.148. Pers. Sat. III. 32. and so truly characteristic is this prophecy of the Jewish nation, that of all the passages in the O. Τ᾿. it is most frequently quoted in the New. Compare John xii. 40. Acts xxviii. 26. Rom. xi. 8. 2 Cor. iii. 14. For καμμύειν, the more approved authors write καταμύειν, either with or without the addition of ὀφθαλμούς. The proper signification of the word is to squint, and thence, as explained by the Scholiast on Lucian, T. III. p. 414. ὀφθαλ- μοὺς κλείειν. ‘The adverb μήποτε is for ἵνα μὴ, wt adeo non; John xii. 40. Macknicut, Kurnoru. In illustration of y. 17. compare Luke x. 24. Heb. xi. 13. 1 Pet. i. 11, 12. Wurrsy. Ver. 19. μὴ συνιέντος. E. T. understandeth it not. More pro- perly, disregarding tt, not laying it to heart. 'This is frequently the meaning of συνίημι in the LXX and the N. T. Compare Nehem. viii. 10. Psalm ν. 1. xli. 1. evi. 7. Prov. xxi. 12. Rom. iii. 11. Of ὁ πονηρὸς, see on Matt. ν. 357. We have in Mark iv. 15. 6 Σατανᾶς, Luke viii. 12. 6 διάβολος. Wuirsy, Camp- BELL, KUINOEL, HAMMOND. Ibid. ὃ σπαρείς. Some understand σπορὸς, the seed, or the word ; others ἀγρὸς, the ground, or the hearers. The latter was the opinion of our translators, who render, he who receiveth seed ; and this is proved by the next verse to be correct. So in Mark iv. 20. οἱ omapévrec, those which are sown, λαμβάνουσι τὸ σπέρμα, receive seed; the Greek, like the English word sown, being applied equally to the ground or the seed. MACKNIGHT, KuinoreL,—[CampsBe.tt, HAmMMonp. | MATTHEW XIIl. 21. 25. 31. 33. 171 Ver. 21. οὐκ ἔχει ῥίζαν. Cicero: Virtutem altissimis radi- cibus defixam. A like sense is conveyed, without a metaphor, in the words πρόσκαιρός ἐστι. (Luke viii. 13. πρὸς καιρὸν πισ- reve.) The adjective πρόσκαιρος signifies temporary, unen- during ; as opposed to αἰώνιος, everlasting: 2 Cor. iv. 18. Of the verb σκανδαλίζεσθαι, see on Matt. v. 27. xi. 5, Luke paral- lels it with ἀφίστασθαι. KurnoEL, Grortivs. Ver. 25. ζιζάνια. It is not easy to determine what plant or weed is here intended, since the word is mentioned in no other part of Scripture; and the Fathers and lexicographers, who have used it, derived it, in all probability, from this text. Now it appears from the parable, that, whatever plant is meant, it was scarcely distinguishable from wheat, till it had put forth the ear ; and that it was burnt as soon as severed. This could not, there- fore, be the fare, as it is rendered in the E. T. In the Mischna Tit. Kelayim, which treats expressly of seeds, there is mention of a degenerate wheat, called M3}, zunim, which seems, from its sound, to be identical with the ζιζάνιον. Chrysostom also speaks of the ζιζάνιον, as nearly resembling wheat. It is not improbable, therefore, that the plant intended is the darned, or lolium temulentum of Linnzeus, which is precisely of this descrip- tion. It is a noxious weed, terminating, like wheat, in a bearded spike, having the grains in two opposite rows. If the weed happens to be reaped, and ground with the corn, the bread made of the mixture produces sickness and giddiness in those who eat it; and the straw has the same effect upon cattle. Virgil calls it znfelix lolium, Eclog. V. 37. and hence Ovid. Fast. I. 691. Et careant loliis oculos vitiantibus agri. CAMPBELL, LicHT- root. The parable is descriptive of God’s dealings with the wicked, who intrude themselves into the visible Church of Christ. See Horne; whe supra. It is explained by our Lord himself, infra v. 37. Ver. 31. κόκκῳ σινάπεως. Of this parable, see Horne’s In- trod. Vol. II. pp. 404, 405. According to the quantity of a grain of mustard, is a frequent comparison in the Talmud; in which also we have abundant evidence of the size to which the plant grows in the East. In the tract Peah, p. 20, 2. mention is made of one that covered the tent of a Potter; and R. Simeon Ben Chalaphta speaks of one, into which he was wont to climb, as men are wont to climb into a fig-tree. Licutroot. The comparative adjectives μικρότερον and μεῖζον, are used for super- latives. Compare Matt. xviii. 1. Mark iv. 31. Luke vii. 28. and see Matt. Gr. Gr. 8. 457. Obs. 9. Of the verb κατασκη- νοῦν, see on Mai. viii. 20. Kurnort. Ver. 33. ζύμῃ. Leaven; the property of which is to change 172 MATTHEW XIII. 34. 39. and assimilate to its own nature, the meal or dough with which itis mixed. The meaning of this parable is commonly thought to coincide with that of the preceding. There seems, however, to be this difference between the two; the parable of the grain of mustard-seed represents the original omnia of the Gospel, together with its subsequent greatness; whereas this of the leaven expresses, in a very lively manner, the nature and strength of the operations of Gospel-truth upon the mind. Euthy- mius: διὰ μὲν τῆς παραβολῆς τοῦ σινάπεως τὴν αὔξησιν τῆς πίστεως προηγόρευσε, τὴν διὰ τῆς προσθήκης τῶν ἑκάστοτε πισ- τευόντων" διὰ ss τῆς παραβολῆς τῆς ζύμης, τὴν ἰσχὺν αὐτῆς προκηρύττει. Macxnicut.—[Dopprince.] The three mea- sures or sata of meal, were equal to one ephah, which seems to have been the usual quantity kneaded at one time. See Gen. xviii. 6. Judg. vi. 19. 1 Sam. i. 24. In Exod. xvi. 36. the tenth part of an ephah, is rendered by the Chaldee Paraphrast and the LXX, the tenth part of three sata or measures. So also the Targum explains Ruth. ii. 17. Of the capacity of the satum Josephus observes; Ant. IX. 4, 5. ἰσχύει δὲ τὸ σάτον μόδιον καὶ ἥμισυ ᾿Ιταλικόν. Grotius, Licurroor. Ver. 94, χωρὶς παρα[βολῆς κι τ. A. It is supposed by some, that this merely applies to the discourses which our Lord delivered on that day; but the expression is probably nothing more than a colloquial hyperbole, signifying that his parables were extremely numerous. The citation in the next verse is from Psalm |xxviii. 2. which is attributed to Asaph, who must therefore be the pro- phet meant; and, indeed, he is expressly called a prophet, 1 Chron, xxv. 2. In some MSS. the prophecy was attributed to Isaiah ; and Jerome relates, that Porphyry had objected the error to the’ Evangelists. He therefore supposes, that Asaph was first in the text, for which some ignorant copyist, not knowing who Asaph was, substituted Isaiah. But as no trace is to be found of this reading in any of the more ancient copies, and no allusion to it in the Fathers, it is probable that it originated in some corrupt Latin copy; especially as Jerome takes no notice of Porphyry’s objection in his genuine work on St. Matthew. Le Cierc, Wuitsy. The verb ἐρεύγεσθαι is properly used of spouting fluids, as in Pind. Pyth. I. 40. Diod. Sic. p. 181. B. Rhod. Hence it signifies, metaphorically, to speak, to utter ; as Psalm xix. 2. cxix. 171. cxlv. 7. LXX. The LXX have φθέγξομαι, and for κεκρυμμένα, they read προβλήματα, which amounts to the same thing. KurnorL, Grorius. Ver, 39. συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος. Some are of opinion, that this parable refers to the Jewish state and people, and, con- sequently, that these words, which are commonly translated, the end of the world, ought to be rendered, the end of the age, 1. 6, MATTHEW XIII. 41. 44, 45. 173 of the Jewish polity. ‘That these words will admit of this sense, see on Matt. xii. 34. and it may possibly be their primary meaning here ; but it is far better to interpret them of the final consummation of all things, as agreeing more readily with the plain scope of the parable. The word αἰὼν is nearly synonymous with κόσμος, v. 38. which signifies the world, or the visible Church in the world, which shall spread by degrees into all nations. A, CLarkE, Kurnoey.—[CampBELL. | Ver. 41. σκάνδαλα. Properly, whatever ensnares or seduces ; (see on Matt. v. 27.) Here it is used in the abstract for the concrete, and, being joined with τοὺς ποιοῦντας, denotes persons rather than things. It is understood by many, of those who cause heresies and divisions in the Church of Christ. At all events, it is evident that the prerogative of punishing opinions is with God alone, and the day of judgment is to try the hearts of men, where religious opinions, and not crimes, are the subject of enquiry. CAMPBELL, Grotius. In the next verse there is an allusion to the Eastern custom of burning alive. Compare Dan. il. 6. 12. Hos. vii. 4. The expression κάμινος τοῦ πυρὸς isa metaphor identical with yéevva τοῦ πυρὸς, Matt. v. 22. Grotius, Kurnogeu. In the beautiful expression in v. 43. our Lord seems to have had his eye upon Dan. xii. 3. Compare Wisd. iii. 7. Ecclus. ix. 11. 1 Mace. ii. 62. 1 Pet. v. 4. Macxnicut. Ver. 44. θησαυρῷ κεκρυμμένῳ: This has been supposed to mean a mine of gold or silver, which had been hitherto undis- covered; but there is no reason to understand the words in any other sense than their natural meaning conveys. Upon an ex- pected invasion of the enemy, or even for the purpose of general security, it was not uncommon with the avaricious to bury their wealth ; and it is well known that treasures so hidden, have been discovered accidentally long after the death of the person to whom they originally belonged. See Horat. Sat. I. 1. 41. sqq. II. 6. 10. sqq. Virg. Ain. I. 368. Pers. Sat. II. 10. According to the Jewish canons, it appears that the buyer of land was entitled to whatever was so found, by right of purchase. Thus the Mischna, in Baba Metzia, observes, that whosoever buys of his neighbour, if money be found in the article bought, it belongs to the purchaser. WeTsTEIN.—[ WAKEFIELD, A. CLARKE. | Ver. 45. ἀνθρώπῳ ἐμπόρῳ, x. τ. A. The import of this and the preceding parable is generally supposed to be the same; and that both are alike intended to represent the inestimable value of the Gospel, above every other consideration whatsoever. But though both parables are descriptive of the effect of divine truth upon those who find it, there is yet this difference between them, that the former refers to such as embrace it instantly, and the 174 MATTHEW XIII. 47. 52. latter to such as attain to it, after a diligent search, and serious investigation of its merits. Pearls and precious stones formed a considerable article of traffic among the Orientals; and there were merchants who went to a great distance in quest of them. Pliny remarks: Principium culmenque omnium rerum pretii Margarite tenent. Of the comparison, see on Matt. vii. 6. and add Prov. viii. 10, 11. Psalm xix. 10. Macknicut, Grorttus. —[KurnoeEt, A. CuarkE. | Ver. 47. σαγήνῃ. A drag net. In Latin, verriculum, ‘thus explained by Martinus: guod in aquam jacitur ad pisces com- prehendendos ; imprimis, cujus usus est extrahendis tis a fundo. Ulpian. Digest. XLVII. 10.7. Verriculum, guod Grece σαγήνη dicitur. This parable will appear peculiarly proper, if we con- sider that it was spoken to fishermen, who had been called from their occupation with a promise, that they should henceforth catch men: Matt. iv. 19. It differs from the parable of the tares in its extent; representing the final judgment and state of wicked men in general: and intimates, that by the preaching of the Gospel, a visible Church should be formed, consisting both of good and bad men, between whom no distinction could be made in this world; but that, at the last day, the wicked would be separated from the good, and receive sentence according to their works. There may also be a primary reference to the Jewish state, and the means of escape that would then be afforded to the genuine followers of Christ. Mackxnient, A. Crarke. With ἐκ παντὸς γένους we must supply ἰχθύδια, or some like word ; unless, with Kzwznoel, we understand τινὰ, as including other things, besides fish, in the draught. At all events, the ellipsis, whatever it be, recurs with the words καλὰ and σαπρὰ in the next verse. Ver. 52. διὰ τοῦτο. There is some difficulty in ascertaining the premises to which this formula refers. Some consider it as merely denoting transition, like the Hebrew 125, in Judg. viii. 7. Jerem. xiix. 26. and others pronounce it altogether redun- dant. Compare Matt. xxiii. 94. Mark xii, 24. It seems rather to convey an inference from the question just proposed to the disciples, in connection with the doctrines which our Lord had been setting forth in parables. Some of the illustrations which he had employed were taken from customs and habits of old and frequent occurrence, similar to those which they repeatedly heard in the schools of their Rabbis; while others, on the con- trary, were entirely new, but equally adapted to describe the nature of the Gospel kingdom. Hence, it should seem, that our Lord intended to exemplify, in. his own conduct, the means which his Apostles should adopt, as best suited to the propaga- tion of his religion; accommodating their manner of teaching to MATTHEW XIII. 54, 55. 175 the disposition of their hearers, and instructing these by parables, and those by exhortations, according to the tempers, and talents, and necessities of each respectively. Some, however, under- stand by things new and old, an adequate knowledge of the Scriptures of the O. and N. T. interpreting γραμματεὺς of a converted Scribe, who would apply his acquired scriptural and traditional knowledge to the elucidation of the truth of the Gospel. But Christ has evidently transferred the name to his own disciples, as holding in his Church a similar office with the Scribes, who were the authorized expounders of the Scriptures. So Matt. xxiii. 84, The words μαθητευθεὶς τῇ βασιλείᾳ, should be rendered disciplined to the kingdom, 1. 6. thoroughly ac- quainted with the character and pretensions of the Gospel. For although the verb μαθητεύειν, as all others which end in εὔειν, is properly neuter; (discipulum esse, Matt. xxvii. 57.) it is here used actively, discipulum facere, as in Matt. xxviii. 19. Acts xiv. 21. and βασιλείᾳ is not the dative of the izstrument, but of the object. The copies vary between τῇ βασιλείᾳ, εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν, and ἐν τῇ [βασιλείᾳ; but the former is justly preferred by Griesbach. With καινὰ καὶ παλαιὰ, some supply σκεύη, but βρώματα is pre- ferable; i. 6. provisions of various sorts, which the householder produces as the necessities of his family require. Instruction is not unfrequently compared to food; as in Ecclus. xxiv. 23. Theophrast. Char. VIII. 1. Cic. Topic. 5. See Victor. Var. Lect. XXVIII. 23. Kurnoet, Grotius.—[Macknieut, Exs- NER, HAMMOND. | Ver. 54. τὴν πατρίδα αὑτοῦ. That is, Nazareth, where he had been brought up; Zwke iv. 16. and which is called in v. 23. as here, πατρὶς αὑτοῦ, scil. πόλις. Ver. 55. οὐχ οὗτός ἐστι κι τ. A. The pronoun οὗτος is here used, as also in the last sentence, to imply contempt. The low condition of Jesus and his family were a stumbling-block to his countrymen, v. 57. so that, instead of inferring from his miracles, that he was the Messiah, they were induced to reject his preten- sions, and even, as we may infer from v. 58. to abstain from bringing their sick to him, lest he should heal them. It was not the wish of Christ himself, but the unbelief and perverseness of his townsmen, which withheld from them the benefits of his miraculous powers. Compare Mark vi. 5. KurnoreL, Mac- KNIGHT. It is to be observed, that the word τέκτων, like faber in Latin, signifies artificer in general; at least, one who works in wood, stone, or metal. Hesych. τέκτων πᾶς ὁ τεχνίτης. Hence, it is said, that it does not appear that Joseph was a car- penter; and that all the evidence on this point is from tradition. See Justin. Mart. Dial. Tryp. p. 94. Origen, c. Cels. VI. Ῥ. 299. But wherever the word is ued alone, without an adjec- 1 176 MATTHEW XIII. 57. tive to fix its application, it always in the Scriptures denotes a carpenter. This may be proved at once by comparing the following passages from the LXX with the original Hebrew: 2 Kings xxii. 6. 2 Chron. xxiv. 12. xxxiv. 11. Ezra iii. 7. Isaiah xli. 7. Zech. i. 20. There is something analogous in our use of the word smith; which is employed to denote almost every arti- ficer in metal, as goldsmith, silversmith, blacksmith, &c. but when used alone, it always means blacksmith. In Mark vi. 3. Christ himself is called 6 τέκτων. There is in this, however, no incongruity, as it was required of every father among the Jews to teach his son some trade, and it is probable that our Lord, during the thirty years he spent at Nazareth, before he entered upon his ministry, wrought at the same trade with Joseph. It is easy to infer this from Luke ii. 51. CampsBeLt, KUINOEL, LicHTFooT. Ibid. οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ. See on Matt. xii. 46. According to Theophylact the names of the sisters of Jesus were Mary and Salome. The poverty of his mother was one of the objections of Celsus against Christianity ; and it is recorded of her by Ter- tullian, that she obtained a maintenance by needle-work. In this was fulfilled the prophecy of Zsatah, xlix. 7. Grotius. The preposition πρὸς is employed here, and in Mark vi. 3. with an accusative in the sense of apud. So also in Johni. 1. 6 λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. Compare 2 Chron. xxviii. 15. Isaiah xix. 19. Jerem. xli. 17. LXX. The same usage is sometimes, but very rarely, found in classical Greek. CAMPBELL. Ver. 57. οὐκ ἔστι προφήτης Kk. τ. A. This seems to have been a proverbial expression, meaning that a divine teacher was usually treated with less respect and attention by his own coun- trymen and connexions (Mark vi. 4.) than he experienced from strangers. Compare John vii. 5. The general truth of the adage is illustrated in the case of David, 1 Sam. xvii. 28., and the reason is obvious. Superior merit seldom fails to create envy, and the envious are ever ready to detract from the praise of others, and to turn the knowledge which they possess of them some way or other to their disadvantage. Similar sentiments are to be found in profane writers. Plutarch, de Ewxilio, p. 604. D. τῶν φρονιμωτάτων Kal σοφωτάτων ὀλίγους ἂν εὕροις ἐν ταῖς Eav- τῶν πατρίσι κεκηδευμένους. Dio Chrys. XLVII. p. 524. Β. πᾶσι τοῖς φιλοσόφοις ἔδοξε χαλεπὸς ἐν τῇ πατρίδι ὁ βίος. Eurip. Here. F. 186. οὐ γάρ ἐσθ᾽ ὅπου ᾽᾿᾽Εσθλόν τι δράσας μάρτυρ᾽ ἂν λάβοις πάτραν. Senec. de Benef. 111. 8. Vile habetur quod domi est.. Mackniaut, WETSTEIN, KuINoEL. MATTHEW XIV. 1, 2. 177 CHAPTER XIV. Contents :—Death of John the Baptist ; vv. 1—12. [Mark vi. 14. Luke ix. 7.1 Five thousand miraculously fed; vv. 18—21. [Mark vi. 35. Luke ix. 12. John vi. 3.] Christ prays in private; vy. 22, 23. [Mark vi. 45. John vi. 15.] Christ walks upon the sea, and quells a storm; vv. 24—33. [Mark vi. 47. John vi. 16.] He heals the sick at Gennesareth; vv. 34—36. [Mark vi. 53.] Verse 1. Ἡρώδης. Herod Antipas; of whom, and his title, the Tetrarch, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 106. Various conjectures have been started as to the cause of Christ’s fame coming so late to the ears of this prince. Some suppose that he had been at Rome during the early part of Christ’s ministry ; and others that he was engaged in the war in Arabia. But the first of these opinions is altogether unsupported by historical evidence; and it appears from Josephus that the war with Aretas was subsequent to the death of the Baptist. It is stated by the historian that the defeat of Herod’s army was generally believed to be a judicial stroke from Heaven in consequence of the Baptist’s murder: Antiq. XVIII. 7. The more probable so- lution is that the report of Christ’s miracles had not now, for the first time, been carried to Herod, but that his increasing fame ‘had become the subject of more general conversation at the court, and made a more forcible impression upon the prince’s mind, conscience-struck as he was with his late conduct toward the Baptist: in addition to which he had imparted to his dis- ciples also the power of working miracles, which could not fail to elicit more especial attention to their divine Master. KurNoEL, Wuirny.—[Grotivs. | Ver. 2. παισίν. E. T. servants; in which sense the word is frequently used, (see on Matt. viii. 5.); but it is here equivalent to φίλοις, friends, courtiers. So the Hebrew TAY is sometimes rendered by the LXX παῖς, as in 1 Sam. xviii. 22. and some- times φίλος, as in Esth. ii. 19. Compare 3 Esdr. i. 30. 1 Mace. 1. 6. KUINOEL. Ibid. οὗτός ἐστιν Ἰωάννης κ. τ. Δ. This declaration of Herod has been differently understood. Some have supposed that as Herod was one of the sect of Sadducees who denied the immor- tality of the soul, it is an ironical assent to the opinion of those around him. But this is altogether at variance with the per- plexed state of his mind, Luke ix. 3. and the words themselves will scarcely admit of the hypothesis, which ascribes the alarm of Herod to his belief in the Pagan doctrine of the transmigra- VOL. I. N 118 MATTHEW XIV. 4. ὦ tion of souls. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 369. note. Others, again, suppose that the Tetrarch was only politically a Sadducee, without admitting the truth of their religious creed: but it is not at all unreasonable to suppose that the stings of conscience would wring from a Sadducee an involuntary expres- sion of fear, which was in perfect accordance with the vulgar ex- pectation that Elias, or some of the old prophets, would appear again before the advent of the Messiah. Macxnicut, WuITBy, Licutroot.—[Grortus, Erasmus. | Ibid. δυνάμεις ἐνεργοῦσιν ἐν αὐτῷς. The word δύναμις in the N. T. is most commonly used to denote @ miracle, as in Matt. vii. 22. xi. 20. Acts xix. 11. 1 Cor. xii. 28. Gal. iii. 5. Heb. ii. 4. Hence ἐνεργοῦσιν is very generally taken passively, whereas it is every where in the N. T. used in a ¢ransiteve or an absolute sense ; and where the passive is required we have ἐνερ- cost Some of the commentators therefore have interpreted υνάμεις of the power of working miracles, as in Acts vi. 8. x. 38. But it is further observable that the verb ἐνεργεῖν is not only active or absolute, but the action is generally referred to some being of extraordinary power, as God, the Holy Spirit, &c. Compare 1 Cor. xii. 6. 11. Gal. ii. 8. iii. 5. Ephes.i. 11. 20. et passim. We may infer, therefore, that δυνάμεις is here some kind of agent, such as angels or spirits, in which sense it is probably used in Rom, viii. 38. Ephes. i. 21. and certainly in Euseb. Dem. Evang. IV. 9. δυνάμεσι χθονίαις καὶ πονηροῖς πνεύ- μασιν 6 πᾶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων βίος κατεδεδούλωτο. Hence the passage should be rendered the spirits are active in him. The remorse and the fears of Herod for a moment at least shake his infidelity, and he involuntarily renounces his disbelief in the existence of spirits, another leading principle of his sect. Mrp- DLETON, Le CLerc.—[KurinoeL, ΟΑΜΡΒΕΙ,,, SCHLEUSNER, &c. ] The account which follows, of the death of John the Baptist, is introduced epésodically, and the aorist throughout is used for the pluperfect. Hence the verses are parenthetical as far as v. 13. and the reason of Christ's departure to Bethsaida, (Luke ix. 10.) must be sought in this passage. Herod’s opinion that John had risen from the dead, and his wish for an interview with Christ, (uke ix. 9.) induced Christ to avoid him; not from any suspicion of danger to himself, but from a wish to refresh his dis- ciples after the fatigues of their journey, from which they had re- cently returned ; and lest the populace, enraged at the murder of John, should create an insurrection, and involve him in the consequences. WuitBy, ΚυΊΝΟΕΙ,, Grorius. Ver. 4. οὐκ ἔξεστι x. τ. X. Levit. xviii. 16. Hence it is urged in the Mischna, Tit. Certkoth, ὃ. I. 1. there are thirty-six cut- tings off in the law, and among them, he that lieth with his neighbour's wife. There was only one case wherein a man MATTHEW XIV. 6. 179 might lawfully marry his brother’s widow, viz. when he died without issue. But it appears from Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 5. and 7. that Herodias had a daughter by her husband, and that the action was perpetrated during the life of her husband, who lived till the twentieth of Tiberias; so that it was a com- plication of incest and adultery. Compare Luke iii. 19. It is not improbable that the declaration of John was made in reply to some question, or during some conversation, in which Herod had endeavoured to obtain the sanction of the Baptist to his marriage with Herodias. For ἔχειν Mark has γαμεῖν, in which sense the word is used in the Greek authors. Hom. H. in Here. 8. ἔχει καλλίσφυρον Ἥβην. Xen. Cyr. I. 5. 4. τὸν τὴν ἀδελφὴν ἔχοντα. So in Latin, habere. Sueton. Aug. 63. nam tune Agrippa alteram Marcellarum habebat. Hesych. ἔχετο" ἐγαμεῖτο. In the next verse the same verb is used in the sense of putare, existimare, as in Matt. xxi. 26.46. This usage in Greek, and of habere in Latin, writers, is too common to need illustration. Herod’s dread of John is attributed by Josephus, who speaks of the Baptist as a good man, to the influence which he possessed with the people, which seemed to threaten an in- surrection in his favour; but he probably felt that the reproof which his crimes had elicited would bring him into contempt with his subjects. Lignrroot, CAMPBELL, Le CLERC, KuINOEL. Ver. 6. γενεσίων δὲ ἀγομένων x. τ. r. It is not agreed among commentators, whether the festival here mentioned was in honour of the bérth-day of Herod, or of his accession to the Tetrarchy. It is unquestionable that the day of their inaugu- ration was celebrated by kings in ancient times. See 1 Kings i. 8, 9. xviii. 18, Hos. vii. 5. Herod. TX. 110. Plin. Epist. X.61. So Josephus, speaking of Herod the Great, Ant. XV. 11. 6, συνεκπεπτώκει yao τῇ προθεσμίᾳ τοῦ περὶ TOV ναὸν ἔργου, καὶ τὴν ἡμέραν τῷ βασιλεῖ τῆς ἀρχῆς, ἣν ἐξ ἔθους ἑωρτάζεον, εἰς ταὐτὸν ἐλθεῖν. But since there is no authority in any Greek writer of this use of the word γενέσια, the common interpretation is decidedly preferable, especially as it is certain that the ancients kept their birth-days with great rejoicings. See Gen. xl. 20. 2 Mace. vii. 7. and γενέσιος is employed in this meaning in Alciphr. Epist. III. 18. 55. whence it appears γενεσίων is here an adjective, with some substantive understood. Bos supplies συμποσίων, but ἡμερῶν is better; since ἄγειν ἑορτὴν, and ἄγειν ἡμέραν, are phrases ordinarily signifying, to celebrate a festival. Compare Thucyd. V. 47. VI. 6. Xen. Cyr. VII. 2, 3. Esth. ix. 18, 19. 21. 2 Mace. i. 9. ii. 16. LXX. Kutnoer, CAMPBELL. Ibid. ὠρχήσατο. tis well known that dancing was practised by the Jews on occasions of public and private rejoicing. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 480. But it has been thought this would haye been inconsistent with the dignity of Salome ; N 2 180 MATTHEW XIV. 8, 9. and it has been suggested in her defence, that she was but a child, since Herodias had deserted her husband shortly after the birth of her daughter: Jos. Ant. XVIII. 7. But it seems that a sort of pantomimic dance, of a most voluptuous description, had been lately introduced into Judea, similar to that which is repro- bated by Juvenal, Sat. VI. 63. and Horace, Od. III. 6. 21. The court of Herod would be a fit scene for such an exhibition. Kuinoe.t.—[Licutroot, Micnaetis.| The verb ὁμολογεῖν is used in the next verse in the sense of promittere ; as in Platon. Crit. 10. and the phrase ὅρκῳ ὁμολογεῖν is supplied by ὀμνύειν in Mark vi. 23. Kurmnoet. : Ver. 8. προβιβασθεῖσα ὑπὸ τῆς μητρὸς x. τ. A. Compare Mark vi. 24. ‘The verb προβιβάζειν signifies to impel, to urge, to instigate; as in Exod. xxxv. 34. Deut. vi. 7. LXX. Xen. Men. I. 2.17. We meet with πίναξ in various significations. Sometimes it signifies a plate, or platter. Thom. M. πίνακες" Ta ayyéa, ἐν οἷς ἐσθίομεν. In Hom. Od. A. 141. it denotes a basket, and in 1]. Z. 168. a tablet. The first meaning will best suit the present passage; and so the word charger, as the E. T. renders it, was formerly employed, though it is now, in this sig- nification at least, obsolete. ‘The request which Herodias enjoins her daughter to make, was doubtless preferred with a view to gratify her revenge, by insulting, when dead, the man whom alive she feared. St. Jerome says, that when the Baptist’s head came into her possession, she drew out the tongue, and pierced it with a bodkin. A similar instance of female malice is on record in Fulvia’s treatment of the departed Cicero. ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ,, A, CLARKE. Ver. 9. ἐλυπήθη. This verb sometimes denotes anger, as in Gen. iv. 5. 1 Sam. xxix. 4. Nehem. iv. 5. UXX. and so in Matt. xviii. 91. Xen. Mem. III. 13. 1. But there is no necessity for affixing this signification to it in this place, as the causes of Herod’s grief may be readily traced in v. 5. and Mark vi. 20. and although his vexation was infinitely more on his own account, than from regard to the Baptist, the same reasons will prove that his grief was not pretended, as some have supposed. His morti- fication may also have been encreased by the dread, which the Heathen generally entertained of any ill-omened occurrence on a birth-day. Mart. Epigr. X. 87. Natalem colimus, tacete lites. The fluctuation of Herod’s mind between admiration of the Baptist, and the desire to destroy him, is the natural effect of remorse: and the false shame of shrinking from the performance of an ini- quitous promise, carelessly given, and backed by the wiles of a wanton woman, as naturally impelled him, however reluctant, to shed innocent blood. It appears also from the parallel passage in Mark, that his intention of killing the Baptist, originated in MATTHEW XIV. 11. 18. 181 the instigation of Herodias; not to mention that there seems to have been a delicacy with the Eastern princes of refusing a request preferred to them during an entertainment. We have a similar instance in the petition of Amistris to Xerxes, in Herod. IX. 110. sqq. Compare also Esth. ν. 3. With respect to the oath itself, it is observed by Paley, that the guilt of such promises lies in the making, not in the breaking of them; and the obliga- tion ceases, as soon as they are discovered to be unlawful. Ham- MOND, Grotius, WuitBy.—[ KuINoEL. |] The verbs συνανακεῖσθαι, ἀνακεῖσθαι, κατακεῖσθαι, and ἀνακλίνεσθαι, are interchanged with each other, in reference to the custom of reclining at meals. See on Matt. viii. 11. and compare Matt. ix. 10,11. Mark ii. 15. Luke vii. 36, 37. Of the ellipsis in the next verse, see on Matt. ii. 16. Ver. 11. ἠνέχθη ἡ κεφαλὴ x. τ. Δ. According to Joseph. Ant. XVIII. 5. 2. John was confined in the castle of Macherus, at the distance of two days’ journey from Tiberias, where Herod usually resided. It should seem, therefore, from the immediate execution of the Tetrarch’s order, that the affair of the birth-day took place at Macherus; and that this was actually the case, may be inferred from Josephus: a coincidence so undesigned, as not to be discovered without the closest investigation of particu- lars. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. p. 100. It is worthy of remark also, in how dispassionate and candid a manner the Evangelist relates this most atrocious crime. There is no excla- mation, no exaggeration, no invective; and every allowance is made, which even a friend of Herod would have urged in exte- nuation of his guilt. We have similar instances of atrocity in Senec. Octav. 437. Perage imperata; mitte, qui Plauti mihi Sulleque referat abscissum caput. Val. Max. IX. 2. Marius caput N. Antonio abscissum, tactis manibus inter epulas, per summam animi ac verborum insolentiam aliquamdiu tenuit. Com- pare also Diog. Laert. IX. 58. Eurip. Elect. 856. Liv. XX XIX. 43. Sil. Ital. XI. 51. Οἷς. Senect. 13. CAMPBELL, RAPHELIUS, WETSTEIN. Ver. 18. πεζῇ. ἘΦ. T. on foot. It should be rendered, by land. The word is, indeed, used in both significations; but it means on foot, when opposed to on horseback, and by land, when con- trasted with by sea. So Diod. Sic. p. 711. D. πεζῇ καὶ κατὰ θάλασσαν. And again inp. 498. πεζῇ is explained by κατὰ γῆν. The same opposition occurs between πεζεύειν and πλεῖν in Philo, de Temulent. p. 263. D. and in Latin the expression classe et pedibus venire, is found in Οἷς. Att. III. 8 V.9. Campsexy, Kurnoet. The desert to which our Lord removed, is stated in Luke, ix. 10. to have been near the town of Bethsaida; and the reason for this is obvious. Bethsaida was situated beyond the jurisdiction of Antipas, in the territory of Gaulonitis, and there- 182 MATTHEW XIV. 15. 19. fore subject to Philip, by whom it was afterwards called Julias, in honour of the emperor’s daughter; Joseph. Ant. XVIII. 2.1. | It may here be remarked, that this Philip, the Tetrarch, is not the individual who is mentioned above as the former husband of Hero- dias. This latter person is called Herod, not Philip, by Josephus, who states that he was another son of Herod the Great, by Mari- amne, and that Philip, the Tetrarch, afterwards married Salome, the daughter of Herodias: Ant. XVIII. 6.4. With respect to the difference in the names ascribed to him by the Evangelists and Josephus, it is highly probable that the former have given him the appellation by which he was generally distinguished, whereas the latter has merely described him by his family name. There is a similar instance in Acts xii. where the first of Herod’s grandchildren, who is called Agrippa by Josephus, is called HHerod by St. Luke. At all events, there is no just ground to suspect the Evangelist of any mistake in the name of the first husband of Herodias. Certain old Hebrew chronicles are extant, in which, as well as by Gorionides, he is called Philip; and which also agree in substance with the Gospel narrative. Wurrsy, Larpner, Macxnieut. Of the verb σπλαγχνίζεσθαι, in the following verse, see on Matt. ix. 36. Ver. 15. ὀψίας δὲ γενομένης. That is, the first evening, which began at three o’clock: see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 169. The second evening, which began at sun-set, is that mentioned infra v. 23. In reference to the same time, Luke (ix. 12.) has ἡ δὲ ἡμέρα ἤρξατο κλίνειν, and Matthew again in this verse, ἡ ὥρα ἤδη παρῆλθεν, which is unnecessarily understood by some, of the time at which they usually took their meal. The word ὥρα, as in Latin hora, frequently signifies a day. Virg. Georg. I. 425. crastina fallit hora; i. 6. dies postera. Polyb. p. 1040. ἤδη δὲ τῆς ὥρας συγκλειούσης. Hence the rendering should be, the day is far spent. It is probable that the crowds which now flocked to Jesus, were on their way to Jerusalem, to keep the approaching Passover. Wuitspy.—[MackniGur. | Ver. 19. εὐλόγησε. Scil. τὸν Θεὸν, not τοὺς ἄρτους. In the other miracle of the same kind, related in the next chapter, (v. 36.) instead of εὐλογήσας, we have εὐχαριστήσας. See also Mark vill. 6, Luke i. 64, ii. 28. xxiv. ὅθ. John vi. 11. 23. Acts xxviii. 35. James iii. 5. Inthe accounts of the Last Supper also, what one Evangelist calls εὐλογεῖν, another calls εὐχαριστεῖν. The two words are, therefore, plainly synonymous. With regard to the objection, that εὐλογεῖν is applied in Luke ix. 16. and 1 Cor. x. 16. to the things distributed, it is replied, that the ex- pression in those places is elliptical, more Hebreorum. Thus in 1 Sam. ix. 13. LXX. εὐλογεῖ τὴν θυσίαν, for εὐλογεῖ τὸν Θεὸν ὑπὲρ τὴν θυσίαν. Compare Hebd. ii. 17. In Luke ix. 16. indeed, MATTHEW XIV: 90. - 188 some MSS. read εὐλόγησε ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς. The cup of blessing, 1 Cor, x. 16. is the cup for which we give thanks, according to the custom of the Jews, whose beracoth, or benediction of the bread, answering to our Grace before meat, ran thus: Blessed art thou, O Lord, our God, the king of the world, who producest bread out of the earth. 'Their benediction of the wine, i. e. after meat, was as follows: Blessed art thou, O Lord, the king of the world, who createst the fruit of the vine. Wuirpy.—[CAMPBELL. | Of the construction of the sentence, see my note on Hom. 1]. P. 204, Ibid. κλάσας. Having broken them. The Jewish loaves, or rather cakes, were broad, thin, and brittle: so that a knife was not required for dividing them. A. CLarkr, KUINOEL. Ver. 20. δώδεκα κοφίνους πλήρεις. Twelvé baskets full. It was customary with many of the Jews constantly to carry a basket, and by the number here particularized, it should seem that each Apostle filled his own basket. Juvenal speaks of the Jews at Rome as carrying a basket, called as here, cophinus ; Sat. III. 14. Judeis, quorum cophinus fanumque supellex: and again, Sat. VI. 542. Cum dedit ille locum, cophino faenoque relicto, Arca- num Judea tremens mendicat in aurem. By Martial also, a Jew is called cistifer; Epigr. V. 17, Hence some have supposed that the cophinus was generally used for carrying various articles of pedlary ; thus making the Jews, even at that time, a nation of pedlars. Others suppose that they carried the hay and basket, mentioned by the satirist, as descriptive of the abject poverty, to which they were reduced by the destruction of Jerusalem, so as to live upon hay, which they carried as provisions.. It is certain, however, from Deut. xxviii. 5. and other places, that the cophinus was in general use in very early times. Hence there is more plau- sibility in the opinion, that it was carried in commemoration of their Egyptian slavery, when they were accustomed to carry the stubble for making bricks in a basket which was hung about their necks, to which there seems to be an allusion in Psalm Ixxix. 6. where the LXX. ai χεῖρες αὐτῶν ἐν τῷ κοφίνῳ ἐδού- λευσαν. To this Sidonius Apollinaris seems to refer in Epist. VII. 6. Ordinis res est, ut, dum in allegorica versamur Aig ypto, Pharaoh incedat cum diademate, Israelita cum cophino. So also Alcimus Avitus V. 30. Servitit longo lassatam pondere plebem, Oppressos cophinis humeros, attritaque colla. ‘The more simple reason, however, for the practice, seems to be the necessity of carrying their provision with them in Gentile countries, lest they should incur pollution by partaking of the meat of heathens. This also would oblige them to carry hay to sleep on, and it is to this, in all probability, that Juvenal alludes. The capacity of the cophinus, as a measure, was about three gallons. Hesych. κύφινος᾽ μέτρον χωροῦν χοὰς τρείς. WAKEFIELD, SCHOETTGEN, 184 MATTHEW XIV. 92. 24, 25. A. Cuarxe, Kurtnoet. Of the evidence of this miracle, the reality of which is denied by some of the German commentators, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. I. p. 254. It may be added, that as it is one of the most astonishing which our Lord performed, so it is the only one which is recorded by all the four Evangelists; and the account of it was published while many who had been par- takers of the supernatural supply were still alive, none of whom ever expressed a doubt respecting it. In extent, it was far su- perior to that recorded of Elisha, 2 Kings iv. 42. who fed one hundred men with twenty barley loaves. In this case the quan- tity of food was greater, the number fed less, and that which remained to shew that the men were filled was a trifle in compa- rison with the twelve baskets full which were left by the great multitude whom our Lord satisfied. Macxnieut. With the adjective περισσεῦον supply μέρος ; and of the verb χορτάζεσθαι see on Matt. ν. 6. Ver. 22. εὐθέως ἠνάγκασε x. τι Δ. It appears from John vi. 15. that the multitude thus miraculously fed, astonished at see- ing and feeling the t_extend itself in their hands, proposed, in the height of their transport, to take him by force, and make him aking. In order to prevent an insurrection, therefore, in which he and his disciples might appear to be concerned, he per- suaded them to go before him to Bethsaida, (Mark vi. 45.) while he dismissed the people. It has been urged that ἀναγκάζειν im- plies that the disciples expressed great unwillingness to depart, thinking that the favourable moment had arrived for Christ to assert his pretensions, and wishing to join with the multitude in their mistaken design. But this verb, like βιάζεσθαι, in Gen. xix. 8. 1 Sam. xxviii. 23. LXX. signifies simply persuadere, co- hortari, as in Xen. Mem. I. 2. 44. Eur. Hipp. 926. So also the Latin cogere ; Cic. Epist. Divers. V. 6. Horat. Sat. I. 4, 14. Κυτνοει, Grotius.—[Macxnient. | Ver. 24. μέσον. Either κατὰ may be understood, or the ad- jective may be referred to πλοῖον in the nominative, as in Greg. Naz. Carm. 52. we ναῦν μέσην κλυδῶνος. See Hoogeveen on Viger, III. 7. 7. The verb βασανίζεσθαι signifies to be tossed violently. Compare Hod. xii. 18. LXX. Kurnoet. Ver, 25. περιπατῶν ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης. The absurdities of some of the German divines, and their violations of all grammatical rules, in order to get rid of the miracles, need only to be men- tioned in order to expose them. Some assert that Jesus and Peter sustained themselves by swimming ; others, that they waded in shallow water; and others again, which is the opinion more generally adopted by the party, that Jesus was walking dy the sea; i, 6, along the shore. With the first of these interpre- MATTHEW XIV. 26. 185 tations, the verb περιπατεῖν is at variance; the second would require ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ, and the last παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν, as in Matt. iy. 18. xy. 29. or ἐπὶ τοῦ αἰγιαλοῦ τῆς θαλάσσης, as Matt. xiii. 2. John xxi. 4. That the preposition ἐπὶ must be rendered upon, is clear from the following passages. Apoll. Rhod. I. 182. πόντου ἐπὶ γλαυκοῖο θέεσκεν Οἴδματος, οὐδὲ θοοὺς βάπτεν πόδας. Lucian. Philopseud. p. 474. ἐφ᾽ ὕδατος βαδίζειν. 2 Sam. xi. 2. LXX. καὶ περιεπάτει ἐπὶ τοῦ δώματος τοῦ οἴκου. Job ix. 8. περιπατῶν, ὡς ἐπ᾽ ἐδάφους, ἐπὶ θαλάσσης, where the Hebrew is ὃν. In this last place Job is speaking of the things by which the omnipotence of God is demonstrated; and it is not improbable that the Evangelist had the passage in view. The Egyptians represented feet walking on the sea, as the hieroglyphic for im- possibility. The expression in the next verse is, ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασ- σαν, which fixes at once the import of the narrative; since ἐπὶ with an accusative ordinarily signifies wpon. See Matt. Gr. Gr. δ. 386. c. KurnoreL, Wuirsy, DopprinGe. Of the watches of the night, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 169. Ver. 26. φάντασμα. A phantasm, or apparition ; E.T. a spi- rit. A popular belief in the existence of apparitions seems to have been prevalent in almost every age and country. Among the Greeks and Romans, the idea of ghosts is easily recognized in Homer and Virgil. See also Eurip. Hec. 54, Atlian. V. H. XII. 64. Plato de Repub. 11. and Plin. Epist. VII. 27. 1. who employs the word phantasmata. That the Jews entertained a similar notion, is evident from the LXX translation of Psalm xci. 6. Οὐ φοβηθήσῃ ἀπὸ πράγματος (Qu. πνεύματος) διαπορευ- ομένου ἐν σκότει, ἀπὸ συμπτώματος καὶ δαιμονίου μεσημβοινοῦ. See also Wisd. xvii. 3, 4. compared with Psalm Ixxvii. 50. They seem to have thought that God created certain spirits, as instruments of vengeance upon wicked men: (Keclus. xxxix. 28.) an opinion which was also followed by some of the heathen phi- losophers. Plutarch. Probl. An éllud verius est, quod a quibus- dam Romanis dicitur, et Chrysippus opinatur, demonia quedam mala circuire, quibus Dit quasi carnificibus et scelerum ultoribus adversus injustos et impios utuntur? It has been frequently attempted to demonstrate the reality of apparitions from various passages in Scripture, in which God, for special purposes, has permitted or appointed the supernatural appearance of angels or spirits. But such occasions have long ceased; and though the possibility of their recurrence cannot be denied, it is clear that the insufficiency of evidence respecting them strongly argues their improbability. In alledged cases of the kind, the apparition has never been satisfactorily proved by a competent number of wit- nesses. A heated or diseased imagination will frequently give rise to illusions, which the fancy at once embodies into objects of terror and affright; and it requires a vigorous effort to over- 186 MATTHEW XIV. 31. 33. come the impression, which the phantom may produce upon the mind. Wuirsy, Grotius, WETSTEIN. Ver. 31. oAvyomore. Peter’s love for his master was most sincere and ardent, and his temper warm and forward, but rash and inconsiderate. He was fully aware of Christ’s power to sup- port him; but he lost his confidence with the encreasing danger ; and Jesus accordingly suffered him to sink, in order to make him fully sensible of the weakness of his faith, and thereby induce him to recruit it by prayer and industry, and to rest the whole strength of it upon God. The fidelity and candour with which the characters in the Gospel history are pourtrayed, is a striking evidence of the general veracity of the historians. Wuirsy, Grotius. Doddridge supposes, that Peter, being an expert swimmer, as fishermen generally are, trusted more to his art than τ his master; and Jesus, therefore, wisely permitted it to fail im. ᾿ Ver. 88. ἀληθῶς Θεοῦ υἱὸς ci. That the want of the article is no sanction for those who translate a son of God, or, a son of a god, see on Matt. iv. 3. In defence of the former of these translations, however, it is alledged that the mariners only meant to say, that Christ was a prophet, for that such are denominated sons of God ; but no instance is adduced in which υἱὸς Θεοῦ is so used. On the other hand, it is conjectured by some commentators, that the declaration was made by Pagans; so that it is parallel to the common Heathen phrase, προσκυνεῖν ὡς Θεόν. But this is mere conjecture ; and in the expressions ὡς Θεὸν and vide εἶ Θεοῦ, there is clearly no parallelism at all. Admitting, however, that they were Pagans, they might still adopt the language of the Apostles, whose companions they were, upon this extraordinary occasion. Against this it is urged, that the disciples themselves were not yet acquainted with our Saviour’s divinity; a position which, though true on the whole, is yet received with too little restriction. That the expected Messiah would be the Son of God, was a Jewish doctrine; and therefore, however unsettled their faith might be, whenever they did acknowledge him to be the Christ, they must also have regarded him as the Son of God. In their intercourse with Christ, moreover, they had often heard him assume this title to himself; not to announce which to their familiar associates, is scarcely explicable, upon the common principles of human conduct. Even, on this supposition, there- fore, that the mariners were Pagans, their exclamation will easily admit of being interpreted in the highest sense ; not to mention that it is clearly distinct from the expressions, which are com- monly significant of Pagan admiration. Compare Acts xii. 22. xiv. 11. Joseph. Ant. XIX. 8. 2. Mippieron,—[CAMPBELL, WertsteIn.] MATTHEW XvV. 1, 2. 187 CHAE T inh XY. ConTENTs :—Christ converses with the Scribes and Pharisees on the subject of traditions, vv. 1—20. [Mark vii. 1.7 The daughter of the Canaanitish woman healed, vv. 21—28. [Mark vii. 24.] Various other cures on a mountain in Galilee, vv. 29—31. [Mark vii. 33.] Four thousand miraculously fed, vv. 32—s9. [Mark viii. 1.] Verse 1. οἱ ἀπὸ ‘JepocoAbpwv y. καὶ ®. That is, belonging to Jerusalem; in which sense ἀπὸ is frequently used. See on Matt. ii. 1. The most learned of the sect were those of Jeru- salem ;. so much so, that whatever place they visited, a chair was placed for them to deliver instruction; as it appears from Echa R. I. 1. It does not appear that those who now came to Christ were deputed by the Sanhedrim; but there is little doubt that their intentions were insidious, and that they wished to elicit from him some observation, upon which they might form an accusation against him. Euthym. ἐν πάσαις μὲν ταῖς χώραις τῶν δώδεκα φυλῶν ἦσαν γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι" πονηρότεροι δὲ τῶν ἄλλων ἦσαν οἱ ἀπὸ ἱΙεροσολύμων, ὡς τὴν μητρόπολιν οἰκοῦντες καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τετυφωμένοι. ΚΟΎΊΝΟΕΙ,, CAMPBELL. Ver. 2. παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων. The noun παράδοσις signifies generally a precept; and thence, as here, any oral tra- dition. See on Matt. xi. 27. Hesych. παράδοσις" ἄγραφος δι- δασκαλία. Of these traditions Josephus observes, Ant. XIII. 10. 6. νόμιμα πολλά τινα παρέδοσαν τῷ δήμῳ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι ἐκ πα- τέρων διαδοχῆς, ἅπερ οὐκ ἀναγέγραπται ἐν ταῖς Μωῦσέως νόμοις. The νόμιμα here mentioned are now collected into the Talmud : see Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. p. 341. sqq. III. pp. 80. 271. The first part of the modern Cabbala is an extension of these tradi- tions, containing a variety of maxims, expositions, and cere- monies, which the Jews profess to have received from their fathers ; and which, though evidently written posterior to the destruction of the second temple, they pretend to have derived from Adam, through Moses, downwards. ‘The second part, or artificial Cabbala, is nothing more than a system of magic, founded upon the transposition of Scripture names, in which a certain supernatural and mystical science is supposed to reside. In respect to the observance, with the violation of which the Pharisees more immediately charged the disciples of Christ, and which is more fully stated in Mark vii. 3. sqq. it was required by no written law of God, and could not therefore be considered as a transgression. According to Maimonides it depended solely upon the words of the Scribes, who laid down the following canon 188 MATTHEW XV. 4, 5. respecting it: Whosoever despiseth the washing of hands, is worthy to be excommunicated ; he will come to poverty, and will be ex- tirpated out of the world. In the Talmud it is asserted that whosoever eats bread with unwashen hands does as bad as if he lay with a harlot. It is recorded also that R. Eliazer Ben Hazer was excommunicated by the Sanhedrim for contempt of this tradition ; and that R. Akiba died of thirst in prison rather than drink the water provided for him, which was not sufficient for washing his hands previously, some of it having been casually spilt. Indeed, so much stress was laid upon this precept, that in order to enforce compliance they feigned that an evil spirit, called NN2W, shibta, sits at the foot of him who eats without washing his hands, and makes it hurtful to him. ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ; Wuirtsy, Hammonp, LicutTroort. Ver. 4. τίμα τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὴν μητέρα. Exod. xx. 12. The verb τιμᾷν is used with great latitude in the Scriptures: it im- plies not only respect and submission, but also, like the Hebrew J13, nourishment and support. See Numb, xxii. 17. xxiv. 11. Judg. xiii. 17. 1 Tim. v. 17. Ecclus. iii. 8. ἐν ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ τίμα τὸν πατέρας That such was the extent of the command is proved even from their own canons; in which it was ordained that a son is bound ¢o provide for his father meat and drink, to clothe him, to cover him, to lead him in and out, and to wash his Jace, hands, and feet. And again, a son is bound to nourish his father ; yea, to beg for him. Kiddushun, p. 61, 2, 3. Further, as τιμᾶν is not confined to its primary signification, so κακολο- γεῖν means not only to curse, or rather to revile, but to slight, to neglect ; answering to the Hebrew >>p. This clause of the pre- cept is taken from Ewod. xxi. 17. with which compare Deut. xxi. 18. xxvii. 16. Ezek. xxii. 7. LXX. See also Lev. xx. 9. Prov. xx. 90. Of the duty of providing for parents, as incul- cated by Heathens, see my note on Hom. 1]. A. 478. p. 301. The expression θανάτῳ τελευτᾷν is a Hebrew pleonasm. Kur- NOEL, WuitTBy, LIGHTFOOT. Ver. 5. δῶρον, ὃ ἐὰν x. τ. X. It appears from Mark vii. 11. that δῶρον is here the interpretation of the Hebrew 1275, (κορ- Pav) signifying a thing devoted to the service of God; whence the treasury is called κορβανᾶς, Matt. xxvii. 5. Jos. Β. J. I. 9. 4. Of the import of our Lord’s observation, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. pp. 136. 297. That the interpretation there given is the true one there is abundant proof in the Rabbinical writings. When a man had a mind to make a vow against using any particular thing, suppose wine, he said, Let all the wine that 1 shall taste be TNP, conem, a word of similar import with corban. By saying so, however, it was not understood that he devoted any thing to God, but that he bound himself never to MATTHEW XV. 6. 189 taste wine; and if he was induced afterwards to taste it, he in- curred the guilt of sacrilege and perjury. Hence, according to Maimonides, the term came at length to denote any thing pro- hibited. We may remark, further, that the interpretation which has been put upon the passage by some, viz. May every offering which I make to God redound to your advantage, savours rather of reverence than abuse, and is totally at variance with the sense of the passage. With respect to the construction, some have supposed that the apodosis is wanting, and that the reverse of θανάτῳ τελευτᾷν should be supplied either after ὠφεληθῇς, or at the end of the verse. Euthymius suggests ἠλευθέρωται, and so the E. T., who insert he shall be free at the end of the first member. But there seems to be no necessity for any ellipsis whatever. The conjunction ἢ, which creates the difficulty, is sometimes in the N. T. like the Hebrew }, a mere expletive, and sometimes has the power of other conjunctions. Compare Matt. xxvill. 9. Mark xiii. 34. Luke ii. 15. 21. 27, 28. v. 35. ix. 51. xi. 25. xiv. 1. The sentence therefore will run thus: Whoso- ever shall say, &c. he need not honour, ὅς. The same observa- tions will apply to the parallel passage of Mark, where the last words of the sentence are spoken by Christ, and do not, as here, form part of the tradition. It is to be observed, also, that the verb understood with δῶρον is ἔστω in the imperative, not ἔστι in the indicative. The formula ὠφελεῖσθαί τι ἔκ τινος is strictly classical. AEsch. Prom. 229. τοιάδ᾽ ἐξ ἐμοῦ ‘O τῶν θεῶν τύραν- νος ὠφελημένος. Thucyd. VIII. 96. ἐξ ἧς πλείω ὠφελοῦντο. CAMPBELL, GrRoTIUS, KUINOEL, LIGHTFOOT. Ver. 6. καὶ ἠκυρώσατε κι τ. A. It is easy to perceive with what direct force this observation of our Lord bears upon the unauthorised tradition of the Romish Church. The prediction from Lsazah xxix. 13. cited in the next verses, is supposed by the generality of commentators to be merely an accommodation of the words of the prophet to the present character of the Jews, of whom they were equally as descriptive, as of those to whom they were originally directed. In its primary sense it was rather a rebuke than a prophecy; and there seems to be no reason against receiving it in a more enlarged sense, as a prediction re- lating to the times of the Gospel, veiled under a remonstrance with the people to whom it was addressed. Grotrus.—[Micna- ELIS, Hammonp, Wuitsy, &c.] The words ἐγγίζει μοι τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν Kat are omitted by several excellent MSS. ver- sions and Fathers; and Griesbach has, therefore, left them out of the text. But they form part of the prophecy from which they are quoted; in which, however, there is no word correspond- ing with μάτην inv. 9. Hence it has been thought, that the » in the word ὙΠ}, of the original, should be }; since 7) is equi- valent with μάτην in Lsazah xlv. 18, 19. xlix. 4. The conjec- 190 MATTHEW XY. 9. 11, 12, 18, ture is by no means improbable; at the same time, the omission is of no great importance, since all worship is necessarily vain of which God does not approve. Grorrus. On the subject of Critical Conjecture, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. 11. pp. 181. 195. Ver. 9. ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων. The word ἔνταλμα occurs only three times in the N. T. and always joined with ἀνθρώπων; as also in the passage of the LXX here quoted. In all these places also, viz. here, the parallel place of Mark vii. 7. and Col. li. 22. the ἐντάλματα are mentioned with disapprobation, and contrasted, by implication, with the precepts of God, which, in the N. T. are never called ἐντάλματα, but ἔντολαι. To impose these ἐντάλματα upon the consciences of men, as things neces- sary, is assuming an authority for which there is no warrant in Scripture, and, in fact, usurping the prerogative of God; besides that they are frequently productive of the most dangerous con- sequences to the followers of the blind guides, who publish them. CAMPBELL, WHITBY. Ver. 11. τὸ εἰσερχόμενον εἰς τὸ στόμα. Scil. Bread eaten with unwashen hands. Some interpret it of the unclean meats forbidden by the Jewish law: but the allusion is evidently to the cavil of the Pharisees in v. 2. Compare v. 20. This also is the parable or maxim, of which Peter requests an explanation in v. 15. as the connexion clearly indicates. Grotius, A. CLARKE. —[Le Crerc.] The verb κοινοῦν signifies, to make common ; from κοινός. Hence, to pollute, to defile, to desecrate. He- sych. xowdv' ἀκάθαρτον, deAuKrdv. Compare Acts x. 14. ΧΙ. 8. SCHLEUSNER. Ver. 12. τὸν λόγον. The words which Christ had spoken respecting their traditions, which they regarded with greater reverence than the law itself. LEuthym. avérpere γὰρ τὴν παρά- δοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων. Ver. 18. πάσα φυτεία. The noun φυτεία signifies properly, the act of planting ; and thence, by an easy transition, a plant. It is here evidently employed in a metaphorical sense ; but there is some difference of opinion with respect to its precise applica- tion. Some commentators explain it of the traditions themselves, which were the subject in debate; others, of the Pharisees, who insisted upon the necessity of observing them; and others, again, extend the sense, so as to include both the teachers and their doctrine. The first of these interpretations is most in accordance with the figurative language of the Jews, with whom the eman mind is usually compared to a fertile soil, and the precepts, with which it is imbued, to seeds or plants. Compare Matt. xiii. 29. 38. 1 Cor, iii. 6. Similar instances are not uncommon in pro- MATTHEW ΧΥ. 14, 15. 17. 191 fane authors. Plutarch. de Educat. p. 2. γῇ μὲν ἔοικεν ἡ φύσις, γεωργῷ δὲ ὁ παιδεύων, σπέρματι δὲ αἱ τῶν λόγων ὑποθῆκαι. Philo de Allegor. I. p. 44. ὡς γὰρ ἐν ἀγρῷ τὰ χλωρὰ βλαστάνει καὶ ἀνθεῖ, οὕτω βλάστημα τοῦ νοῦ τὸ νοητόν ἐστί. The purport of our Lord’s observations is this :—The anger of the Pharisees is of no avail; their doctrines are not of God, and must, therefore, be rooted out. ‘‘Do you, therefore,’ he proceeds, ‘heed them not; they are blind guides, ignorant of the ways of truth, and thinking to lead their disciples to perfection by idle traditions; so that, unless their mischievous tenets are refuted, both themselves and their followers will inevitably be involved in eternal perdition.” Kurnoet, Grotius, Kypxe.—[Le Currc, Wuitsy. | Ver. 14. ὁδηγοί εἰσι τυφλοὶ τυφλῶν" κ. τι A. This is a pro- verbial expression, the import of which has been given in the preceding note. It occurs again in Luke vi. 39. and similar sentiments are found in profane writers. Sext. Empir. adv. Mathem. 1. 31. οὔτε δὲ 6 ἄτεχνος τὸν ἄτεχνον διδάσκειν δύναται, ὡς οὐδὲ ὃ τυφλὸς τὸν τυφλὸν ὁδηγεῖν. Horat. Epist. I. 17. 4. ut si cecus iter monstrare velit. Under τυφλὸς is evidently represented the animi caligo: Juven. Sat. VI. 613. Ephes. iv. 18. ἐσκοτισμένοι τῇ διανοίᾳ. Compare Rom. i. 21. x. 10. The Jews had a tradition that their Rabbins would become blind, when God came to dwell in his tabernacle. ΚΟΌΊΝΟΕΙ,, GRoTIUS. Ver. 15. παραβολήν. Not a parable, in the ordinary sense of the word; but simply, an apophthegm, or maxim. Etym. M. παραβολή" αἰνιγματώδης λόγος. It is clear from the context, that the reference is to v. 11. and Peter, in all probability, under- stood Christ, as intending to set aside the distinction of meats ; which induced him to ask for an explanation. Kurnoret. In the next verse, ἀκμὴν is used adverbially, subaud. xara. Hesy- chius explains it by ἔτι, οὐδέ; and so it occurs in Xen. Anab. IV. 3. 19. Anacr. XXXIII. 9. Theocr. Idyl. ΓΝ. 60. Anthol. III. 14. 3. Polyb. I. 18. IV. 35. V. 18. Joseph. Ant. XVII. 11. Wersterin, PALAIRET, KYPKE. Ver. 17. εἰς ἀφεδρῶνα. Into a cloaca, or sink. The word is to be found in no Greek author whatsoever ; and the explanations affixed to it by the old lexicographers are not very authoritative. Suidas: ἐστὶ δὲ καὶ εὐθεῖα ὁ ἀφεδρὼν, καὶ σημαίνει τὸ μέρος τὸ περὶ τὴν ἔξοδον. Hence from a misconception of the word εὐθεῖα, i. 6. εὐθεία πτώσις, the nominative case, the word has been supposed to mean the intestinum rectum; as if the feminine adjective εὐθεῖα could possibly agree with ἀφεδρὼν, which is masculine. It amounts, indeed, almost to a certainty, that the 192 MATTHEW XV. 22, 28. 26. interpretation given above is correct; and Suidas himself so ex- ae it in another passage: ἀπόπατον καὶ κοπρῶνα λέγουσι" ὃ 2 ἀφεδρὼν καὶ λουτρὼν, βάρβαρα. So also Stephens, Philoxe- nus, and-others. Our Lord’s argument is very simple :—What goes into the mouth, descends into the stomach, or bowels; and that which is impure, passes into the sink, leaving what is fit for nourishment clear of all impurity. But evil principles, which have their seat and operation in the heart, and to which the mouth gives utterance; these defile aman. Marsu, CAMPBELL, A. Ciarke.—[MIcHac Is. ] Ver. 22. γυνὴ Xavavaia. This noble woman is called in Mark vii. 26. a Greek, a Syro-Phenician by nation. But the Pheenicians generally were descendants of Canaan; Judg. i. 31, 32. whence the Canaanites and Phoenicians have been often con- founded. Compare Gen. xlvi. 10. with Ewod. vi. 15. LXX, and Ewod. xvi. 35. with Josh. v.12. See also Horne’s Geogra- phical Index. It is plain from her being called a Greek, that she was not a Jewish proselyte, as well as from the whole tenour of the narrative. Nor is there any thing at variance with this, in her addressing Christ as the son of David: she might have learnt the appellation from the Jews, and applied it to Christ as - a title of respect. A. CLarKE, Grortius, DoppRIpGE. Ver. 23. 6 δὲ οὐκ ἀπεκρίθη x. τ. A. Our Lord was undoubt- edly acquainted with the virtuous disposition of his petitioner, but it was necessary to make it evident to the bystanders, and to convince her most deeply of the value of the favour which she at last obtained. This was the first instance in which his aid had been implored by one who was neither an Israelite by birth, nor by profession; and the miracle he was about to perform, was to be of the highest importance. It wasa prelude to the admission of the Gentiles to an equal participation with the Jews in the covenant of the Gospel; and as such required some especial solemnity to mark its performance. Jortin, Horstey. Ibid. ἀπόλυσον αὐτήν. Send her away : not, however, with- out granting her request. This is obvious from the answers of Christ in vv. 24. 26. Hammonp, Wuitsy. Of the next verse see on Matt. ix. 36. x. 6. Ver. 26. τοῖς κυναρίοις. Our Lord, in this expression, did but adopt the common language of the Jews in relation to the Gentiles, to whom this woman belonged. In the ‘Talmud, λέγ. Thill. p. 1. 3. all the nations of the world are compared to dogs. Compare also Joseph. Ant. VI. 9. 4. and see on Matt. vii. 6. Christ used this appellation, however harsh it might appear, with a view to make the reflection in v. 28. strike more severely against the Jews. Lignrroor, CAMPBELL. ΜΑΙ EW 2V..27.-60, 67. XVI. 1. 195 Ver, 27. vat, Κύριε" κι τ. X. The particle vai does not here so much imply assent or affirmation; but it rather denotes the fervour and earnestness of supplication, and is nearly equivalent to the Hebrew 83, na, Gen. xiv. 7, 8. xviii. 30. 32. Numb. xii. 13. Compare Philem. 20. Rev. xxii. 20. So also in Eurip. Hipp. 601. vat, πρός oe τῆς σῆς δεξιᾶς εὐωλένου. Arist. Nub. 1471. val, val, καταιδέσθητι πατρῷον Δία. Wuirspy.—[Grortivus.] The particles καὶ γὰρ indicate an ellipsis of a preceding member of the sentence, which may be thus supplied: Yea, Lord; but grant me a small participation in thy mercies ; for even the dogs do gather up, &c. This is well preserved in the E. T. by the word yet. Lr Cierc. er. 30. κυλλούς. This adjective, as distinguished from χωλὸς, lame, i. 6. deprived of, or maimed, in the legs, seems to denote a loss of the arms, or some weakness or injury in them, as from palsy, accident, ὅθ. Compare Matt. xviii. 8. and see Schol. on Arist. Eq. 1083. Hence in the next verse it is op- posed to ὑγιεῖς. Etsner, Kypke. Ver. 37. σπυρίδας. There is a distinction between the κόφι- voc and σπύρις. Compare Matt. xvi. 9,10. The latter was a wicker-basket, which the ancients generally used at meals, like the Latin sportula. Athenzeus, (Lib. 8.) mentions τὰ ἀπὸ σπυ- ρίδος δεῖπνα, and hence Arrian, Diss. IV. 10. σπυρίσι δειπνῆσαι. Sueton. in Neron. 15. Publice ceene ad sportulas redacte. Ibid. Domitian. 7. Sportulas publicas sustulit, revocata caenarum rectarum consuetudine. Rapuetius. The particulars of this miracle are exactly parallel with that related in the last chapter, Of Magdala, v. 59. see Horne’s Geographical Index. CHAPTER XVI. Contents :— The Pharisees require a sign, and are severely rebuked by Christ, vv. 1—12. [Mark viii. 11.] Peter's ac- knowledgment of Christ's Messiahship, vv. 13—20. [Mark viii. 27. Luke ix. 18.] Christ declares to his disciples the necessity and consequences of his death and resurrection, vv. _21—28, [Mark viii. 31. Luke ix. 22.] Verse 1. οἱ Φαρισ. καὶ add. These sects, however at va- riance among themselves, always most cordially united in their opposition to Christ. Theophylact: κἂν τοῖς δόγμασι διίσταντο, ἀλλάγε κατὰ Χριστοῦ συμπνέουσι. Compare Matt. xxii. 34. The same demand of a sign from heaven had been made upon a ¥OL. Ι. oO 194 MATTHEW XVI. 2. former occasion, and our Lord answered it with the same reply as he does here, v. 4. See Matt. xii. 30. To the remarks there made it may be added, that the Jews, understanding the prophecy in Dan. vii. 13. literally, expected that the Messiah would make his first public appearance in the clouds of heaven, and take upon himself the glory of his temporal kingdom. Hence, about this time, various impostors, pretending to inspiration, affected to shew them signs in the heavens (σημεῖα ἐλευθερίας) indicative of their speedy deliverance from the Roman yoke. See Joseph. B. J. If. 12. 4. In asking a sign, therefore, these hypocrites pretended an inclination to admit his claims upon receiving this evidence of his mission, secretly hoping that non-compliance would be con- strued by the multitude, who were ready to acknowledge his pretensions, into a failure of his power, and cause them to forsake his company. That they would still have been equally perverse had our Saviour assented, is clear from the fact, that the same demand was made in the time of the Apostles, when the signs of the crucifixion, the resurrection, and ascension, and the descent of the Holy Ghost had been afforded them: 1 Cor. i. 22, A. CiarkE, Macknicut, DopDRIDGE. Ver. 2, εὐδία. Scil. ἔσται. The Jews were very curious in observing the prognostics of fair or foul weather, and the tempera- ture of the seasons. Thus in the Mischna, Tit. Joma, p. 21, 2. In the going out of the last days of the feast of Tabernacles, all observed the rising of the smoke. If the smoke bended north- ward the poor rejoiced, because there would be much rain the following year ; if it bended southward, 8... The Gloss in this place observes: In the feast of Tabernacles they judged con- cerning the rains ; to which an annual guide was published by the learned in such matters. The Jews, however, were not singular in this respect. Similar presages of the weather were observed also by the Greeks and Romans, as well as in more modern times. Theophrast. Sign. Pluy. ἐὰν ἀκτῖνες ἀθρόαι avic- - χωσιν, ἀνιόντος ἡλίου, σημεῖον ὕδατος" καὶ ὅταν, ἀνίσχοντος τοῦ ἡλίου, αἱ αὖραι οἷον ἐκλείποντος χρῶμα ἴσχωσιν, ὕδατος σημεῖον. Aristot. Prob. XXVI. 8. αἱ μὲν καθαραὶ δύσεις εὐ- διεινὸν σημεῖον, ai δὲ τεταραγμέναι χειμερινόν. Plin. N. Η. XVIII. 13. Sol ventos predicit, eum ante exorientem eum nubes rubescunt. St circa occidentem rubescunt nubes, serenitatem future diet spondent. Virg. Georg. I. 453. Ceruleus pluviam denunciat, igneus Euros; Sin macule incipiant rutilo immisce- rier igni, Omnia tunc pariter vento nimbisque videbis Fervere. Compare Arat. Phoen. 837. 858. Stat. Theb. I. 342. The noun εὐδία, from Δὶς, Jupiter, signifies, a calm and serene sky. Suid. εὐδία' ἡ ἄνευ ἀνέμων ἡμέρα. So Eeclus. iii. 15. LXX. Xen. Hellen. II. 4. 10. AElian. H. V. IX. 18. In the next verse στυγνάζειν signifies properly to grieve ; and thence applied to MATTHEW. XVI_i3. 11. 195 the weather, to be gloomy, to lour. So in Latin: Tibull. I. 2.49. Triste celum. Plin. H. N. 11. 6. Sol coli tristitiam discutit. The verb is extremely rare; but στυγνὸς and its deri- vatives in this sense frequently occur. Licutroor, WETSTEIN, RAPHELIvs. Ver. 3. ὑποκριταί: τὸ μὲν πρόσωπον x. τ. Δ. From this re- proof it appears, that the refusal of the Jews to acknowledge the Messiahship of Christ, was owing neither to the want of evidence, nor to the want of capacity to judge of that evidence. The accomplishment of the ancient prophecies, (Gen. xlix. 10. Isaiah xi. 1. xxxv. 5. Dan. ix. 24.) and the miracles which he per- formed, were proof sufficient, and much more easily discernible than the signs of the seasons. Mackniaut. Among other senses of the verb ὑποκρίνεσθαι, it admits also that of respondere : as in Isaiah iii. 6. LXX. Herod. I. 2. Hence, and from the fact that ὑποκριτὴς ὀνείρων signifies an interpreter of dreams, in Lucian. Somn. ὃ. 17. it has been argued that ὑποκριταὶ should here be rendered énterpreters of the weather; or, according to the English phrase, weather-wise. But as the genitive καιρῶν, which determines this meaning of ὑποκριτὴς, 1s wanting ; and as the character of hypocrisy is so frequently ascribed to the Pha- risees in the N. T., and they are frequently called ὑποκριταὶ, where there can be no possible reference to the weather, this application of the word is very precarious, and there can be no reason for adopting it. Marsu.—[MrcHakE is. | Ver. 11. πῶς οὐ νοεῖτε, x. τ. AX. There were two reasons which led the disciples into a mistaken interpretation of our Lord’s admonition. Although the metaphorical application of the term /eaven was not uncommon among the Jews, still it was rather used to represent evil affections, than evil doctrine. Thus the Gloss in Berachoth, p. 17, 1. observes: The leaven, which is in the lump, are evil affections, which leaven us in our hearts. Still it was used to express doctrine, whether true or false. Compare Matt. xiii. 33. Gal. v. 9. It was also very common with the Jewish doctors to prohibit the use of the leaven of hea- thens and Samaritans, and to forbid their followers to buy the bread of either sect, which they considered as impure. ‘The disciples, therefore, considered our Lord’s observation as an indirect reproof of their carelessness, lest their negligence should reduce them to the necessity of procuring food from heathens. In the construction there is a peculiar ellipsis, which may be thus supplied: ὅτι οὐ περὶ ἄρτου εἶπον ὑμῖν, ὅτε εἶπον προσέχειν κι τ A. So Plat. Theatet. p. 458. τοῦτο μὴν ἔλεγον, ὅτι κι τ᾿ A. which Heindorf explains, τοῦτο μὴν ἔλεγον, λέγων ὅτι κι τ. A. In the similar passage, Luke xii. 1. our Lord addresses the multitude, as well as his disciples, and the Sadducees are not 02 196 MATTHEW XVI. 16: mentioned; so that the two narratives are probably distinct. Licutrroot, Grotius, WHITBY. Ver. 13. τίνα με λέγουσιν x. τ. XA. The Rabbinical writings, compared with the Scriptures of the N. 'T. supply the following summary of the theological opinions of the Jews in our Saviour’s time, relative to the nature and office of their Messiah.—1. They expected him to be of a nature far surpassing that of men or angels. Hence one of the Rabbis says: The Messiah is higher than ministering angels. Compare Heb. i. 4.—2. They considered him to be the Word of God. See on John i. 1.—3. They be- lieved that all God’s transactions with mankind were carried on through the medium of his Word, the Messiah; who delivered the Israelites from Egypt, and brought them into Canaan.—4, They believed that the Spirit of the Lord would be upon him, and manifest itself in miraculous operations. Hence Matt. xii. 28.—5. They supposed, that the Messiah would appear, not in areal human body, but in the semblance of one; ἐν δοκήσει. This was afterwards the heretical dogma of the Docetz, in refu- tation of which see John i, 14. xix. 34. 1 John iv. 3.—6. They - expected that he would not be subject to death ; John xii. 34,.— 7. Yet they thought that he would offer, in his own person, an expiatory sacrifice for their sins: John i. 49.—8. He was to restore the Jews to freedom. Compare Luke i. 68. xxiv. 21. 2 Esdr. xii. 34,—9. To restore a pure and perfect form of wor- ship: Luke i. 73. John iv. 25.—10. To give remission of sins: Luke i. ‘76. Matt. i. 21.—11. To work miracles: John vii. 31. —12. He was to descend into Hades, and to bring back to earth the souls of the departed Israelites, united to their glorified bodies; and this was to be the first resurrection. Compare Ephes. iv. 8, 9. 1 Pet. iii. 18, 19.—13. The devil was to be cast into hell for one thousand years. In relation to this incarce- ration, there are a variety of passages in the Talmud.—14. Then was to begin the Messiah’s kingdom, which was to last one thou- sand years.—15. At the end of that time, the devil was to be released, and to excite great troubles and commotions; but he was to be conquered, and again to be imprisoned for ever.—16. Hereupon the second and general resurrection was to take place, followed by the judgment.—17. The world was then to be re- newed; and new heavens, a new earth, and a new Jerusalem were to appear.—18. Lastly; the Messiah, having fulfilled his office, was to deliver up the kingdom to God, at whose right hand he was to sit for evermore. Br. Bitomrietp. It seems by St. Peter’s confession in v. 16. that the Apostles were thoroughly convinced by the miracles which Christ had performed, that he was the Messiah. At the same time, the various inconsistent opinions enumerated above had necessarily biassed their minds ; and, in particular, they were unable to digest the doctrine of his MATTHEW XVI. 16, 17. 197 humiliation and sufferings, previous to the establishment of his heavenly kingdom, and the assumption of that consummate power and splendour, predicted in Dan. vii. 195. In order, therefore, to remove these prejudices from their minds, our Lord opens a conversation with them on the subject of his death and resurrection, by enquiring into the opinions generally enter- tained of him. The pronoun τίνα should be rendered, what kind of person? in which sense τίς is frequently used, like the Hebrew "9, 1 Sam. xvii. 55. Compare John viii. 53. Wuirsy, Licutroot. There is a difference of opinion respecting the construction of this passage, arising from the absence of punctua- tion in the ancient MSS. While some commentators point as in the E. T. Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man, am ? others double the interrogation: Whom do men say that I am ? the Son of Man? But perspicuity of arrangement, before the use of points, was more especially consulted by writers, in order to make themselves intelligible ; and it is scarcely possible that the sentence would have stood in its present form, had it been intended to convey the sense proposed by the latter punctuation. To soften the abruptness of the interrogation, some interrogative particle, such as μὴ or μήτι, would undoubtedly have been prefixed. Be- sides, the Son of Man isa title, which, though frequently assumed by Christ of himself, as in the present instance, was not applied to him by others till after his ascension. In all probability the reading of those MSS. is correct, which drop the pronoun με, for in Mark and Luke τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου is omitted, and pe properly inserted in its stead. See on Matt. viii. 20. Minn e- τον, Kurnoet.—[Brza, Le Cierc, &c.| Of the origin of the opinions enumerated in the following verses, see on Matt. xi. 14. xiv. 2, Ver. 16. ζῶντος. In opposition to the heathen gods, who are called εἴδωλα ἄψυχα, Wisd. xiv. 29. νεκροὶ, Psalm evi. 28. Wisd. xxiii. 10. Compare Josh. iii. 10. 1 Sam. xvii. 26. 36. Jerem. x. 9, 10. Acts xiv. 15. 1 Thess. i. 9. Kurnort, Gro- TIUS. Ver. 17. σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα. This has been interpreted of human reason, and otherwise; but there can be no doubt that the ex- pression is merely a periphrasis for man. It is so employed con- tinually in the Talmud, as opposed to God. So in Berachoth, Ῥ. 28, 2. If they were about to lead me before a king of flesh and blood, and not before the King of kings, &c. Tanchim, p. 18, 3. The holy blessed God doth not as flesh and blood doth ; flesh and blood wound with one thing and heal with another ; but the holy blessed One wounds and heals with one and the same thing. ‘The phrase occurs no less than five times in this same column. Compare 1 Cor. ii. 14. xv. 20. Gal. i. 16, Ephes. vi. 198 MATTHEW XVI. 18. 12. There may be an allusion to the judgment of the Sanhe- drim, with whom it rested to decide the claims of those who as- sumed the character of prophets. It is to be observed, however, that the revelation here made to Peter was not particularly com- municated; but the result of a conviction, induced by the evi- dence which the miracles and doctrines of Christ had supplied. Jesus always appealed to his works as sufficiently establishing his claims; and there was no further call for an especial revela- tion in the case of Peter than in that of Nathanael, John i. 50. or the Centurion, Matt. xxvii. 54. or any other believer. Com- pare John v. 36. viii. 18, 24, x. 25, 38, xiv. 11... Ligutroor, Macknicut, Wuitsy. Ver. 18. σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, x. τ. X. It is well known that upon the declaration of our Lord in this and the following verse the Church of Rome rests its presumptuous doctrine of supremacy and infallibility. The futility of the Papal claims will appear from the following considerations. [on THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. The discussion of this point involves, (1.) The relative signi- fication of πέτρος and πέτρα: (2.)' Who or what was the rock upon which Christ determined to build his Church; and (3.) To what antecedent the pronoun αὐτῆς should properly be referred. I. It is maintained by some writers that there is no distinc- tion between zérpoc and πέτρα, in’ opposition to the Greek grammarians, who explain the former of a smai/ stone, and the latter a great stone, or rock. Eustath. on Hom. Il. N. 137. πέτρος" τὸ τῆς πέτρας ἀποτμηθέν. That it bears this sense in classic authors is evident from Herod. IX. 55. Callim. Apoll. 22. Soph. Cid, T. 342. Akschin. Socrat. Dial. III. 21. In- stances indeed have been adduced from which it should seem that πέτρος is sometimes used for πέτρα ; but there is no such example in the N. T. or the LXX. and if it be urged that Peter’s Syriac name, Cephas, means both πέτρος and πέτρα, it is replied that the former meaning is unequivocally appropriated in John i. 42. II. By most Roman Catholic writers St. Peter himself is looked upon as the rock upon which Christ was to build his Church ; and in this interpretation they have been followed by some of the leading Protestant divines. But by this application of πέτρα ἃ meaning is affixed to πέτρος contrary to all legitimate authority; and it is therefore urged that πέτρος is changed to πέτρα solely because the former does not signify a foundation- - stone, and therefore could not be so employed. The usage of Scripture, however, plainly proves. that this is not the case, for the term rock is wholly confined to God and Christ. Compare Deut, xxxiii. 4. 2 Sam. xxii. 2..32. Psalm xviii. 3, It should MATTHEW XVI. 18. 199 seem, therefore, that the foundation of the Church of Christ was not Peter himself, but the important truth of which he had just made confession, that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. This interpretation is supported by many of the ancient Fathers, and even by some of the Popes themselves. Chrysos- tom, Hom. XIV. in Matt. τῇ πέτρᾳ" τουτέστι τῇ πίστει τῆς ὃμο- λογίας. Again, Hom. CLXIII. οὐκ εἶπεν ἐπὶ τῷ πέτρῳ, οὔτε γὰρ ἐπὶ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τὴν πίστιν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ὠκοδόμησεν ἐκκλησίαν. Augustin in Tract. X. in Epist. 1 John: Quid est, super hance petram edificabo ecclesiam meam? Super hanc fidem; super id quod dictum est, Tues Christus Filius Dei. So Pope Greg. M. Epist. III. 32. Vitam vestram in petra Ecclesia, hoc est, in confessione B. Petri, solidate. Nor does this inter- pretation destroy the allusion which our Lord evidently intended to make to the name of Peter, but rather preserves it. Basilius Seleuciensis observes: ταυτὴν τὴν ὁμολογίαν πέτραν καλέσας ὃ Χριστὸς, Πέτρον ὀνομάζει τὸν πρώτως ταυτὴν ὁμολογήσαντα, γνώρισμα τῆς ὁμολογίας τὴν προσηγορίαν δωρούμενος. This view of the subject will be considerably strengthened by consi- dering what is meant in Scripture by the Church. The word ἐκκλησία signifies primarily ὦ concourse of people, assembled for any purpose good or bad, (Acts xix. 32. 39.) and therefore re- quires some word to be joined to it to determine its nature, as the Church of God, the Church of Christ. As applied, how- ever, κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, it is well defined in the 19th Article to be ὦ congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly ministered, according to Christ's ordinance. This Church is represented in the N. T. under the figure of a building, of which Jesus Christ himself is the chief corner stone (Ephes. ii. 20. compare Col. ii. 7. Jude 20.) laid by the confession and preaching not of Peter only, but of all the Apostles, who are collectively designated ving stones, ζῶντες λίθοι, of the edifice: 1 Pet. ii. 4. The term λίθος is precisely synonymous with πέτρος, and the former is not em- ployed by Christ, only on account of the allusion of the latter to πέτρα, the rock on which the Church was built. It is one of those instances of paronomasia so common in the Ὁ. T. Com- pare Gen. iii. 20. xxvii. 36. in which Eve has the same relation to living, and Jacob to supplanted, as Peter has here to rock. The Apostle therefore was a wérpoc, and not the πέτρα of the Church. III. The Romanists refer the relative αὐτῆς to ἐκκλησίαν, in which they are followed by almost all commentators, without as- senting however to their explanation, that by the Church is meant the Church of Rome, or to the énference deduced from it, that the Church of Rome is infallible. This interpretation is wholly untenable on the ground of historical fact ; and the gram- matical construction is also against it. For αὐτῆς should un- 200 MATTHEW XVI. 19. questionably be referred not to the Church, but to the Rock upon which it was built; i. 6. the Gospel. It should be ob- served, however, that under either interpretation of the passage, the Papal claims can derive no support from it; as will be fully shewn under the subject of the Keys, in the next verse. [16ητ- FooT, Breza, Gr. SHarre, ΒΡ. Buraess.x—[Grotius, Micwa- ELIS, WuitTBy, ΒΡ. Marsu, &c.] Ver. 18. πύλαι ἅδου. It is contended by some commentators, that the word πύλαι refers to the Oriental custom of meeting and deliberating at the gates of palaces and cities. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 112. sqq. But however plausible may be the interpretation founded upon this notion, it is certain that the phrase adov πύλαι is invariably employed to signify death, as being the entrance into Hades, or the receptacle of departed souls. See on Matt. xi. 23. and compare Job xxxyili. 17. Psalm evii. 18. Isaiah xxxviii. 10, 11. Wisd. xvi. 13. In- stances of the phrase in the same sense in the Greek poets are too frequent to require particular citation. The meaning of the passage is, therefore, that the Gospel of Christ shall endure for ever ; whence it is called the everlasting Gospel: Rev. xiv. 6. Liautroot, MippLeron.—[ Micuac is. | Ver. 19. τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας. This expression is plainly metaphorical. Our Lord’s meaning is, that Peter should open the gates of the kingdom of heaven, or Gospel dispensation, both to Jews and Gentiles. Accordingly, he was the first who preached to them, (Acts ii. 41. x. 44. sqq.): and in this sense he seems himself to have understood the matter: Acts xv. 7. But by the keys, we may understand also power and authority, which is the meaning of the metaphor in Isaiah xxii. 22. Hence, when the Jews made a man a doctor of the law, they placed in his hand the key of the closet in the Temple, where the sacred books were kept, signifying thereby his commission to teach, and explain the Scriptures to the people. In this acceptation, the phrase is equivalent with that of binding and loosing, by which it is accompanied and explained; and the power, though con- ferred upon this occasion more especially on Peter, was after- wards extended to all the Apostles, (Matt. xviii. 18.) and conse- quently gave no cecumenical supremacy to one above another. Simon Peter, it is true, was one of the most distinguished, as well as the first in order, of the Apostles; and he was also the favoured witness of many important facts. But James and John equally participated in these marks of distinction, andJohn more especially enjoyed the peculiar favour of. Christ; John xiii. 25. Wuitsy, Macxnieut, Licutroor. It will be necessary to con- sider more closely in what this delegated power consists. MATTHEW XVI. 19. 201 [oN THE POWER OF THE KEYS. This power, in its more extended sense, was evidently that of declaring the laws of the Gospel, and the terms of the Gospel- covenant. In the language of the Jewish schools, to bind and loose, was a usual phrase for bedding or forbidding, granting or refusing, declaring what is lawful or unlawful. Out of an infi- nity of examples in the Rabbinical writings, a few will suffice for illustration. Jom. Tobb. p. 60,1. Why have ye brought this elder to me? Whatsoever I loose, he binds ; whatsoever I bind, he looseth. Orlah, p. 61, 2. R. Chaiya said; Whatso- ever I have bound to you elsewhere, I will loose to you here. Schabb. p. 16, 4. He asked one wise-man, and he bound; do not ask another wise-man, lest perhaps he loose. Pesachin, ὃ. 4,5. That which the school of Schammai binds until the night, the school of Hillel looseth until the rising of the sun. There are numberless examples also which close with this sentence: The school of Schammai binds it ; the school of Hillel looseth tt. From these instances, and from the almost infinite use of the phrase 13) VON, bound and loosed, in the Talmudic wri- tings, the force of the expression is sufficiently manifest. Hence it appears, that a power of binding and loosing was assumed by the Jewish teachers, in allusion to which our Lord invested his Apostles with a similar authority, in deciding what God should approve or condemn under the Gospel dispensation. We may observe also a further analogy between the form of our Lord’s declaration and the notions of the Rabbis. They considered that every thing done upon earth according to the order of God, was at the same time done in heaven; whence they were accus- tomed to say, that when the priest, on the day of atonement, offered the two goats upon earth, the same were offered in heaven: Sohar, p. 26. The sense, therefore, of the passage is this :—Since the Mosaic law was now to be retained only in part, our Lord granted to Peter and the other Apostles, a power, in the exercise of which they would be directed by the Holy Ghost, of abolishing or retaining such observances as appeared inconsistent or consistent, respectively, with the new order of things, about to be established. Hence they bound, i. e. forbade, circumcision to believers; and they loosed, 1. 6. allowed purifica- tion to Paul, and four other brethren (dcts xxi. 24.) for the shunning of scandal. At the time of using the keys for the first time for the admission of the Gentiles into the Church, (Acts x. 28.) Peter was taught from heaven, that intercourse between Jew and Gentile, and eating any creature convenient for food, which before had been bound, were now loosed; and he accord- ingly loosed them. The words of our Lord, (John xx. 23.) whose sins ye remit, 8.0. convey a similar power as to persons, 202 MATTHEW XVI. ‘20, 21. which that of the keys imparts in respect of doctrine. Instances of this latter authority were manifested by Peter in the case of Ananias and Sapphira; and by St. Paul towards Elymas, Hy- menzus, Philetus, &c. That the power here communicated ex- tends only to things, and not to persons, is evident from the use of the neuter pronoun 6, and of ὅσα, not ὅσους, in Matt. xviii. 18. It may be observed, in fine, that the authority here communicated to the Apostles has been continued, so far as the change of cir- cumstances in the Church requires, through their Episcopal suc- cessors, to the present time. Passages testifying to the belief of the primitive Church on this point, abound in the Fathers. See Chrysost. de Sacerdot. 111. Cyprian. Epist. 27. Irenzeus, V. 20. Tertull. de Presc. 32. Ambros. de Dig. Sacerd. 6. and Jerome on Psalm xlv. Ligutroot, ScHorTTGEN, HamMMonpD, Macknieut, &c. Ver. 20. τότε διεστείλατο «x. τ. Δ. The verb διαστέλλεσθαι signifies to enjoin, to charge strictly; and so in Hod. xviii. 20. 2 Chron. xix. 19. LXX. Acts xv. 24. Some MSS. read ἐπε- riunoev, from Mark viii. 30. In several copies also, the name Ἰησοῦς is inserted before 6 Χριστὸς, but it is evidently redun- dant; and Griesbach has properly rejected it upon the authority of fifty-four MSS. The allusion is manifestly to the confession of Peter in v. 16. Kurnoret, Mint, Grortivus. Ver. 21. ἀπὸ τότε x. τ. X. Although the Apostles were now thoroughly convinced that their master was the expected Mes- siah, they could not divest themselves of those prejudices, which they entertained in common with the rest of their countrymen, respecting the temporal nature of his kingdom; and it may be fairly inferred from Peter’s exclamation in the next verse, and the severe rebuke which it elicited, that he was even then cherishing the expectation of personal aggrandizement. While, therefore, the popular persuasion rendered it advisable that he should charge his disciples to tell no man that he was the Christ, he thought fit, at the same time, to prepare his own disciples for his sufferings and death, in order to bring down the towering notions which they had imbibed respecting him. After admo- nishing Peter, he proceeds to repeat, what he had before stated, (Matt. x. 38.) that instead of temporal honour and dominion, they had nothing to expect but persecution and affliction in this life; at the same time assuring them, that their fidelity would be eventually rewarded, when he should come in the glory of his heavenly kingdom. He then concluded by telling them, that they had no reason to doubt the credibility of these truths; for that. an event would shortly take place, during the life-time of some who were then present, which, by its analogy to his appear- MATTHEW XVI. 22, 23. 203 ance at the last day, would convince them of the certainty of his prediction. This seems to be the connexion of our Lord’s dis- course to the end of the chapter. Macknicut, Porreus. Ver, 21. πρεσ[βυτέρων καὶ ἀ. καὶ y. ‘The Sanhedrim. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 115. Also of the inclusive mode of calculating time, by which Matthew’s τρίτη ἡμέρα is reconciled with μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας, Mark viii. 30. see ibid. p. 180. Ver, 22. προσλαβόμενος αὐτόν. Some interpret, taking him aside ; others, interrupting him; and others again, embracing him. The more probable meaning seems to be, taking him by the hand ;—an action, indicative of affection mingled with sur- prise. There is an example of the use of the verb in this sense in Plutarch: T. V. p. 375. ed. Reiske. Grotius, SCHLEUSNER, Kurnort.—[CampsetL, WaAKkeEFIELD.] The phrase ἵλεώς σοι, (subaud. ὃ Θεὸς εἴη,) is a Hebrew ellipsis: May God be propi- tious to you; i.e. God forbid. The omission is supplied in 1 Chron. xi. 19. LXX. ἵλεώς μοι ὃ Θεὸς τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο. Compare 2 Sam. xx. 20. xxiii. 17, 1 Mace. ii. 21. The Hebrew word in these places is elsewhere rendered μηδαμῶς σοι, as Gen. xviii. 25. 1 Sam. ii. 30. xil. 23. or μὴ γένοιτο, as Gen. xliv. 7. 17. Josh. xxii. 19. and so the expression is here explained: οὐ μὴ ἔσται σοι τοῦτο. Grorius, CAMPBELL, WHITBY. Ver. 23. οὐ φρονεῖς. You do not relish; you are not devoted to. By the exclamation in the last verse, Peter had manifested a more eager attachment to the prejudices of the Jews, and an ambitious desire of earthly advancement, rather than a relish for the divine appointments, and a pious acquiescence in the counsels of God, for the redemption of the world. The phrase φρονεῖν τὰ τινὸς, ab aliquo stare, is sanctioned by the best writers. _He-. rodian. VIII. p. 316. τὰ Ρωμαίων φρονήσαντες. Thucyd. V. p- 141. ra Λακεδαιμονίων φρονεῖν. Demosth. Philip. III, p. 46. Πελοποννησίους τἀκείνου φρονῆσαι. Eurip. Frag. 251. πλούτῳ χλιδῶσα θνητὰ δὴ, γύναι, φρονεῖς. Compare Herod. VII. 102. Herodian II. 12. 4. VIII. 6. 14. Diod. Sic. XIV. 28. XX. 90. Athen. V. p..214, 2. Β. Compare fom. viii. 5. It is remark- able that our Lord, immediately after conferring upon Peter the power of the keys, should now openly, in the hearing of the disciples, rebuke him with ‘such: signal. severity. If the Papists would rightly consider this, they would be less positive in pro- ducing the passage in support of the primacy of Peter, which they build upon it. Wrrstrrn, Kypxe, Macxnieut. Of. the word σατανᾶς, an adversary, see on Matt. iv. 1. ‘The. noun σκάνδαλον is used in the abstract for the concrete, denoting the person instead of the thing. It seems to have been added in order to limit the signification of the word Satan, which was merely intended to represent Peter as an impediment to the 204 MATTHEW XVI. 24, 27. atonement, by increasing Christ’s natural dread of the cross. See Matt. xxvii. 38. Heb. ii. 18. iv. 15. Grortus. Ver. 24. εἴ τις θέλει κι τι Δ. See on Matt. x. 38, 39. The expression in v. 26. is proverbial, importing : It signifies nothing how much a man gains if it be at the expence of his life. ‘That our Lord has a principal eye to the loss of the sowl, or eternal life, there can be no doubt; but the word ψυχὴ includes both meanings, and the sentiment is therefore couched under a pro- verb, which in familiar use concerns only the present life. The Greeks had similar maxims. Hom. Il. I. 401. Οὐ yao ἐμοὶ ψυχῆς ἀντάξιον, οὐδ᾽ ὅσα φασὶν Ἴλιον ἐκτῆσθαι εὖ ναιόμενον πτολίεθρον. Eurip. Supp. 784. τοῦτο γὰρ μόνον βροτοῖς Οὐκ ἔστι τ᾽ ἀνάλωμ᾽ ἀναλχωθὲν λαβεῖν Ψυχὴν ββροτείαν. ‘The phrase ζημιοῦσθαι τὴν ψυχὴν, which Grotius thinks bad Greek, occurs in Herod. VII. 37. Philo de Temulent. p. 243. Agathias III. τί δὲ κερδανοῦμεν ἅπασαν τὴν Περσίδα to0cAauPavortec, τὰς δὲ ψυχὰς ἐζημιωμένοι ; To complete the ellipsis the preposition εἰς should be supplied, as in Themist. Orat. VII. p. 97. οὐκ εἰς χρή- ματα ζημιωθείς. The word ἀντάλλαγμα signifies a thing given in exchange, a ransom. Eurip. Orest. 1155. ἀντάλλαγμα yev- vatov φίλου. So in Joseph. B. J. I. 13. Ant. XV. 13. Camp- BELL, WETSTEIN, ELSNER, KYPKE. Ver. 27. ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ. That is, in the bright glory of the Shechinah, wherein the angel Jehovah was accus- tomed to appear under the old covenant. Compare Matt. xxv. 31. John xviii. 5. Grortus, ScHOETTGEN. Our Lord, in this and the following verse, evidently alludes to two distinct mani- festations of his glory. The first, in which he will pass sentence upon every man according to his works, can be no other than his coming to judge the world at the last day, and the expressions employed are exactly parallel to those which are unquestionably meant of the judgment, as Matt. xxv. 31. Rom. ii. 6. 16. 2 Thess. i. 7. Jude 14, Rev. xxii. 12. whereas the latter was to take place during the life-time of some who were then near him. There are some, indeed, who understand both verses in reference to the same event, viz. the destruction of the Jewish nation, which took place about forty years after. Ifthe words be taken in this signification, the angels must either denote those destroy- ing angels whom he would employ to execute his vengeance upon Jerusalem, or the Apostles and ministers who were to set up the future kingdom of the Gospel dispensation; and the re- tributive justice displayed can be only understood in a limited sense. But the explanation is far more generally received, which refers the two verses to different events, and as the argument is not impaired, or the connection hindered by such an interpreta- tion, there can be little doubt that it is correct. See above, on v. MATTHEW XVI. 28. 205 21. Still there is a question as to the particular display of his glory, which our Lord promises in the last verse. Some refer it to our Lord’s ascension into Heaven, and the first preaching of the Gospel upon the descent of the Holy Ghost; others to the signal display of his power in the destruction of Jerusalem; and others again, to the Transfiguration. In the first of these inter- pretations there is no allusion to our Lord’s coming to judg- ment, so that the connection between the two verses is entirely lost. With respect to the second opinion, it is certain that the divine vengeance, which was shortly to burst upon Jerusalem, is frequently represented in similar terms with those employed in this place. So Mark xiii. 26. Luke xxi. 51. John xv. 22. Heb. x. 37. Rev. i. 7. In Luke xix. 27. also this advent is introduced as a proof of Christ’s second coming to judgment; and in Matt. xxiv. the destruction of the Jews is connected throughout with the proceedings of the last day in the most emphatic manner. Still there are circumstances which seem to decide strongly in favour of the other opinion. Our Lord declares that some of his disciples then present would be witnesses of the glorious appear- ance in question, whereas it is not known that any except St. John survived the fall of Jerusalem. Now, although τινες may be used indefinitely of one individual, still an event took place only a few days subsequent to Christ’s declaration, at which three of his chosen followers were present, and were witnesses to his transfiguration into the glorified appearance which he would assume at his second coming. It is more reasonable, therefore, to refer the prediction to that occurrence, which is described in the same terms as St. John applies to the Son of Man in his state of glory in Heaven, Rev. 1. 13. sqq. His ap- pearance, too, after being transfigured, is called his glory in Luke ix. 32. St. John uses the same expression: We have seen his glory, as of the only begotten of the Father, &c. John i. 14, Compare also 2 Pet. i. 16. sqq. The objection that so short an interval occurring between the prediction and its fulfil- ment, is scarcely consistent with the emphatic assurance, there be some standing here who shall not see death, is of no great weight. The expression is merely a strong affirmative suited to the solemnity of the occasion. MackNIGHT, Portevs.—[Wuitpy, Grotius, Hammonp, &c.] ~ Ver. 28. The expression γεύεσθαι θανάτου is a Hebraism, synonymous with which are θεωρεῖν τὸν θάνατον, John viii. 51. and ἰδεῖν θάνατον, Luke ii. 26. Heb. xi. 5. In the classic writers also the verb γεύεσθαι is employed ina like signification with diffe- rent nouns. Arist. Ran. 465. οὐ μὴ διατρίψῃς, ἀλλὰ γεῦσαι τῆς θύρας. Soph. Trach. 1108. μόχθων μυρίων ἐγευσάμην. Schol. ]. c. ἐγευσάμην᾽ ἐπειράσθην, πεῖραν ἔσχον. Hesych. γεύεσθαι" πειράσαι, ἅψασθαι. Compare also Soph. Ant. 1005. Eurip. 206 MATTHEW XVII. 1, 2. Hipp. 667. Alcest. 1069. Here. F. 1356. Lycoph. Cass. 382. The expression frequently occurs in the Rabbinical writings. So Tertull. adv. Marcion. 111. 149. Qui nondum debita mortis gustavit, quoniam rursum venturus in orbem est. CHAPTER XVII. Contents :— The transfiguration of Christ, vv. 1\—13. [Mark ix. 2. Luke ix. 28.] 4 deaf and dumb spirit cast out, vv. 14—21. [Mark. ix. 14. Luke ix. 37.] Christ again foretells his death and resurrection, vv. 22, 23. [Mark ix. 30. Luke ix. 43.) He procures by miracle the money to pay tribute at Capernaum, vv. 24—27. Verse 1. μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας ἕξ. So Mark ix. 2. but Luke ὡσεὶ ἡμέ- pa ὀκτώ. But, not to mention the latitude allowed by the ad- verb ὡσεὶ, the difference between the Evangelists may be ac- counted for by supposing that the computation of Matthew and Mark was exclusive, and of Luke inclusive. (See Horne.) There is a parallel instance in Sueton. Galb. 17., where we are told that Piso, before he was murdered, lived six: days in the character of Czesar; and Piso himself, in his speech to his sol- diers, mentions the same space of time: Tacit. Hist. I. 29. Sea- tus dies agitur, Commilitones, ex quo, §c. In Tacit. Hist. I. 29., however, it is stated that he was Cesar only four days ; and so also in ch. 19. Macxnicut. ‘The scene of the transfigura- tion was, probably, Mount Tabor. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 50. Ver. 2. μετεμορφώθη. The signification in which this word is applied by Ovid and other writers, as denoting a change in substance, as well as appearance, is well known. It is clear that it is here confined to a change of external appearance only. Luke ix. 28. τὸ εἶδος τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ ἕτερον ἐγένετο. Ina similar acceptation itis used by ΖΕ Πα V. H. 1.1. ὙΥΕΊΒΤΕΙΝ, MackNIGHT. [ON THE* TRANSFIGURATION. Some of the foreign divines have endeavoured to represent this important and wonderful: event as nothing more than an il- lusive vision, which the Apostles saw in their sleep. The inter- pretation is in perfect keeping with the system, which would deny all supernatural agency whatever in the history of the N. T., 11 MATTHEW XVII. 2. 207 but it is so perfectly at variance with the natural sense and con- comitant circumstances of the case, that every candid enquirer will convince himself at once of its fallacy. The transaction itself was intended to effect several most important purposes. In the first place, it was designed as the fulfilment of that pro- mise which our Lord had given to his disciples six days before, that some of them should be witnesses of the glory in which he would appear at the last day, as the universal Judge, and reward every man according to his works. See on Matt. xvi. 27. There is indeed no direct symbol of our Saviour’s resurrection in the transfiguration, but as Jesus is there represented in his glorified state, which he was to reassume after his resurrection, that event must be supposed to have previously taken place ; and those important doctrines which are founded upon it, a general resurrection, and a day of retribution, are expressly represented. In confirmation of these truths, Moses and Elias, who had long before departed out of the world, are brought back to it again, and by the state of glory in which they appeared, (Luke ix. 31.) a glory somewhat similar, we may suppose, though far inferior, to that with which Christ was invested, afforded a visible de- monstration of the rewards which the just would inherit in a future life. It is to be remarked, also, that these great per- sonages were not only seen but heard conversing with Jesus, and it appears from St. Luke that the subject of their conversa- tion was Christ’s death at Jerusalem, including most probably a variety of important topics with which it was connected, such as the nature, cause, and consequence of the atonement, and, in fact, the whole scheme of the redemption of mankind. This would naturally occasion a great change in the sentiments of the Apos- tles respecting the sufferings which Christ was shortly to un- dergo, and soften those prejudices which they still entertained in regard to the nature of his kingdom, and the removal of which seems to have been another of the immediate objects of the transfi- curation. It was farther intended to signify, in a figurative manner, the cessation of the Jewish, and the commencement of the Chris- tian dispensation; and thus to vanquish the prepossessions of the disciples in favour of the perpetual duration of the Mosaic law, the entire constitution of which, ceremonial as well as moral, they placed on an equal footing with the dispensation of the Gospel. We may conceive, therefore, that Moses, as the repre- sentative of the law, and Elijah as the chief of the prophets, came to render up their authority into the hands of Christ, as the end of the law, and to whom all the prophets bore witness. It seems, indeed, from Peter’s proposal in v. 4. that the Apos- tles at first construed the presence of these illustrious personages into a confirmation of their opinions, as if they were of equal dignity and authority with Christ himself: but their immediate departure, and the voice from heayen commanding attention to 208 MATTHEW XVII. 2. Christ alone, in evident allusion to Deut. xviii. 15. tended to undeceive them, and eventually, though not instantly, convinced them, that the Levitical ceremonies were abolished, and the pro- phecies fulfilled. Such appears to have been the design of the Transfiguration : —it remains to notice a few particulars of the transaction.—l. Some fanciful reasons have been assigned by some of the com- mentators, for his taking with him only three of his disciples. But as the law required only two or three witnesses to establish a regular and judicial proof, our Saviour frequently chose to have only this number at some of the most important and interesting scenes of his life. The same three seem to have been always selected upon these occasions; and as they were now witnesses of his glory, so they were afterwards of his agony in the garden; Matt. xxvi. 37. John was his beloved Apostle; James, his brother, would naturally be brought under his more frequent notice ; and the zealous and attached, though rash and inconsi- derate, Peter, could not but hold a high place in his esteem. Upon the present occasion, however, he was the very person who had expressed himself with so much indignation on the subject of our Saviour’s sufferings, and it was, therefore, more especially necessary that he should be admitted to a spectacle, which was so well calculated to remove those impressions from his mind.— 2. It appears from Luke ix. 52. that the Apostles were asleep during the early part of the transaction. This may have arisen from fatigue, more especially as the occurrence seems to have taken place in the night; for it was not till the next day (Luke ix. 37.) that they came down from the mount. At all events, we are told in the same verse, that they were awake, when they saw Moses and Elias talking with Jesus: so that their temporary sleep does not at all favour the idea that the whole representation was a dream or vision. It may not have been proper for them to have seen the manner in which our Lord assumed his glorious form, and therefore the Transfiguration was complete, before they were allowed to witness it.—3. It has been disputed whether the presence of Moses and Elias was a bodily, or merely a visionary appearance. ‘There seems, however, to be no reason to doubt that they actually appeared in their own persons: and it has been affirmed, that their bodies were reserved for this very pur- pose. With respect to Elias, who did not see death, but was taken up into heaven, (2 Kings ii. 11.) there is no difficulty ; nor is there any reason to suppose that the body, in which Moses appeared, was otherwise than real. The place of his burial was indeed unknown, and his body is said to have disappeared, (aga- νισθῆναι, Joseph. Ant. IV. 8.); in accordance with which is the Jewish tradition, that he ascended, and ministered to God in heaven: Pesikta, p. 23, 1. Still it is certain that he was buried in a valley in the land of Moab, Deut. xxxiv. 6. and therefore MATTHEW XVII. 2. 209 must have seen corruption. But it was as easy for Omnipotence to restore life and form to a body mouldered into dust, as to re-animate a body that was preserved uncorrupted and entire ; and this, indeed, would be a much exacter emblem of our own resurrection. It will be readily admitted, therefore, that Elias, having been carried into heaven without undergoing death, was here a proper representative of those who shall be found alive at the last day; as Moses was of those who died, and will be raised to life again. The Apostles were informed of the identity of Moses and Elias, either by revelation, or by the tenor of their conversation, or by the appellations which were given them by Christ.—4. It is not possible, in our present state of existence, to comprehend the nature of the change which took place in our Lord’s appearance upon this occasion. The cloud, which over- shadowed the mount, was the well-known token of the divine presence, which had frequently been seen under the law, more especially at its delivery upon Mount Sinai. But there was one marked difference in these manifestations of the Shechinah. On Mount Sinai, the cloud was dark and thick, and attended with the most awful circumstances, (Hwod. xix. 16.): whereas, at the Transfiguration, it was bright and luminous, and the voice of the Father was heard from it, expressive of the most heavenly bene- volence, and of the mild influence of that dispensation which his beloved Son was about to establish. Still it was the voice of God, full of the divine majesty, and such as mortal ears could not support: and the fear of the Apostles, who fell to the ground in consequence, was analogous to the effect produced upon si- milar occasions upon the prophets of the Old Covenant. Com- pare Gen, xv. 12. Isaiah vi. 5. Ezek. iit. 1. Dan. x. 8. Rev. i. 17.—5. There seems to be a peculiar propriety in the charge which Christ, upon this occasion, gave his Apostles, not to divulge what they had seen till after his resurrection; since the abolition of the Jewish law, which it was one object of the Transfiguration to typify, was one of those truths which the first converts were unable to bear. Great numbers of them, who firmly believed in Christ, were as firmly persuaded of the obli- gation of the Mosaical ordinances; and this prejudice continued in such force long after the death of Christ, as to call for the most laborious exertions of the Apostles to eradicate it. No wonder, then, that at this period Jesus should think proper to prevent the general promulgation of an event, which, by directly opposing this prejudice, was calculated to produce the most unfavourable results. An opinion also prevailed among the Jews, that the Messiah was to abide for ever, (John xii. 34.) ; so that the disciples did not yet comprehend his allusion to his death, and reasoned among themselves what his rising from the dead should mean; Mark ix. 10. But though Christ forbade the immediate disclosure of this transaction, there was still a VOL. I. Ῥ 210 MATTHEW XVII. 4. circumstance, not generally noticed, to which they might after- — wards appeal, in confirmation of the truth of it, at any future period. It appears from Mark ix. 15. that when the people beheld him after his descent from the mount, they were greatly amazed. It is not improbable, that, as the face of Moses shone several hours after he had been with God on Mount Sinai, (Exod. xxxiv. 10.) so something of the glory of the Transfigu- ration remained on our Lord’s countenance, which attracted their surprize and veneration.—6. Lastly, the Transfiguration affords a strong argument in favour of the reality of the world of spirits. It is not possible for man in this state of being to determine the condition of departed souls; but it is not impro- bable that they still exist in a state of consciousness, and take a lively interest in the actions and thoughts of those with whom they were connected in this life. Porreus, Macknicur, Wuitsy, A. CLarkE, &c.] - Ver. 4. Κύριε, καλόν ἐστιν x. τι d. Peter fancied, no doubt, that Jesus had now assumed his proper dignity, that Elias had come according to Malachi’s prediction, and that the Messiah’s kingdom had at length begun. He therefore proposed, in the hurried fervour of his imagination, to provide some accommoda- tion for his Master and the august visitors who had joined him; and whom he believed to be equal in dignity with himself. This seems to be implied in the words not knowing what he said, Luke ix. 57. Peter knew well enough that he said these words, but he was mistaken in supposing that Moses and Elias would remain with them any longer than the object of their appearance was established. It was also in evident allusion to the unex- pected departure of these extraordinary visitants that the dis- ciples put the question to Jesus, on their descent from the Mount, respecting the tradition that Elias would appear before the coming of the Messiah, which they could not reconcile with so short a stay. Of this tradition see on Matt. xi. 14. That a similar persuasion prevailed in regard to Moses is proved from Debarim Rabba, §. 3. p. 255, 2. The holy blessed God said to Moses, As thou in thy lifetime devotedst thyself to the Is- vaelites under the old covenant, so under the new covenant, ἢ. ὁ. in the times of the Messiah, when I send Elijah the prophet unto them, ye too shall appear at the same time. See also Tanchuma, p- 42, 1. Macknieut, Scnorrrcen, Licutroor. The word σκηνὴ, Which the E. T. renders Yabernacle, should be more properly translated tent, or booth. What Peter meant to erect was a sort of temporary shed, made of the branches of trees which abounded in the mountainous parts of Judea, and of which the tents were made at the feast of Tabernacles. CAmp- BELL, KuINOEL. 11 MATTHEW ΧΑ ΤΙΣ 9) 11. 211 Ver. 5. νεφέλη φωτός. This reading is authorised by only a few MSS. but Griesbach has received it instead of the vulgar lection νεφέλη φωτεινὴ, upon the principle that a more difficult construction is seldom substituted for an easier one, though the marginal explanation of an unusual phrase has frequently found its way into the text. There seems to be no great reason for the change, but the meaning is the same in either case. See Matt. Gr. Gr. §. 375, 2. The word ἐπισκιάζειν is not properly rendered to overshadow: it signifies rather to surround, a sense which it also bears in Psalm xc. 4. cxxxix. 7. LX X. where the corresponding Hebrew word is 1D. Some interpreters refer the pronoun αὐτοὺς to Christ, Moses, and Elias; but others, more properly, to all present. Kurnort, Le CuEerc, A. CLARKE. Ver. 9. ὅραμα. This word implies any vision, whether it be represented to the eyes of sleeping or of waking men. The latter sense is plainly appropriated to it in this passage, from Mark ix. 9. where the expression employed is ἃ εἶδον. Luke has ὀπτασίαν. Hesych. ὅραμα θέαμα. Κύτνοει,, WuItTsy. Ver. 11. ἀποκαταστήσει πάντα. E. T. He shall restore all things. 'The verb ἀποκαθιστάναι signifies either to restore, or to complete ; and, in reference to this double meaning, the clause has been variously rendered. Some understand it to imply he shall regulate all things, others he shall finish, or put an end to all things, i. e. the Jewish dispensation; and others, again, in- clude both senses. ‘There seems, however, to be an indirect al- lusion to the prophecy in Mal. iv. 5,6. where the same verb is employed by the LXX; so that our Lord has applied to a general reformation of morals what the prophet illustrated by a particular instance. It has been objected, however, that the success which attended the preaching of John was not adequate to the idea which would be naturally formed from the prophecies concerning him, and this declaration of our Lord, that he would restore all things. It is true, indeed, that he did not effect a complete re- formation in religion and morals, and that his exhortations were insufficient to remove the prejudices of the Jewish nation. But it should rather seem that the design of the Baptist’s ministry, and not its positive effect, is foretold, for the threatening turn of the prophecy will scarcely admit of the inference, that his endea- vours would meet with unlimited success. The effects which did actually attend his preaching will convince every unbiassed en- quirer of the complete fulfilment of the intention of the prophecy. See Matt. iii. 1—7., and especially Luke iii. 3. sqq. where we find that a general reformation had taken place among the com- mon people, the publicans, and the soldiers. To another objec- tion that ἀποκαταστῆσει is in the future, and therefore cannot apply to the Baptist, who had been some time dead, it is replied, P2 912 MATTHEW XVII. 12. 14, 15:17. that in Matt. xi. 14. also the Baptist is designated as the Elias, 6 μέλλων ἔρχεσθαι, in reference to the prediction of Malachi, and the tradition founded thereon. - In the next verse, too, the aorist ἦλθε is used; and it is plain from y. 13. that the Apostles perceived the meaning of Christ; although at a subsequent period, (Acts i. 6.) they appear to have understood the restoration of all things, of the revival of the kingdom of David in their nation, to be accomplished by the assistance of Elias. Macknicut, Hammonp, Grotius, &c.—[Lre Currc, Mens, &c.] Ver. 12. οὐκ ἐπέγνωσαν αὐτόν. They did not recognise him; i. e. they rejected him, viz. the Jewish rulers and Herod; but there were many, on the other hand, who would have even re- ceived him as the Messiah himself. Compare od. ν. 2. 1 Sam. ii. 12. Jerem. ii. 8. The verb ποιεῖν is used both in a good and bad sense, fo treat well, asin Matt. xxv. 4. and to treat ill, as in this place and Gen. xxii. 12. Psalm lvi. 5. LXX. The expres- sion ποιεῖν ἐν αὐτῷ is a Hebraism. Some MSS. omit the prepo- sition, as in Mark ix. 18. An illustration of the words ὅσα ἠθέ- λησαν is afforded by Xen. Cyrop. II. 4. 19. ἀετὸς τὸν λαγὼ ἀπενεγκὼν ἐπὶ λόφον τινὰ οὐ πρόσω, ἐχρῆτο TH ἄγρᾳ ὅ τι ἤθελεν. Compare Luke xxiii. 25. ΚυΊΝΟΕΙ,, MarkKLAND, Ver. 14. γονυπετῶν. Falling at his knees. Compare Luke v. 8. The ancients consecrated the ear to memory, the forehead to genius, the right hand to faith, and the ‘nees to mercy. This advolutio ad genua was distinct from kneeling. Grorttus, WAKEFIELD. See my notes on Hom. 1]. A. 407. E. 357. Ver. 15. σεληνιάζεται. E. T. He ts lunatic. It seems from the effects here described, compared with the additional symptoms men- tioned in Mark ix. 18. that the disease was epilepsy rather than lunacy. Celsus Aurel. de Morb. Chron. i. 4. Illi (epileptici) publicis an locis cadendo foedantur, adjunctis etiam externis periculis, loct causa precipites dati, aut in flumina vel mare cadentes. See also Celsus, de Medicin. III. 25. During the paroxysm those afflicted with this disease are deprived of their senses, neither can they articulate plainly. There is little doubt, therefore, that the young man was thus afflicted, and the word here used is descriptive of the influence which the moon is supposed to pos- sess on this sort of malady. It appears from vy. 18. that the disease in this case was the infliction of a daemon, a power with which evil spirits were especially invested about the period of Christ's ministry. CAMPBELL, KurnoeLt, Hammonp, &c. Ver. 17. ὦ γενεὰ ἄπιστος καὶ διεστραμμένη. There is consi- derable difference of opinion respecting the persons to whom this rebuke was addressed. Some refer it to the disciples, but 10 MATTHEW XVII. 20. 213 although the epithet ἄπιστος may apply to them, (comp. v. 20.) still it is clear that διεστραμμένη cannot: for whatever their fail- ings might be, they were not the result of obstinacy and per- verseness. Others suppose that the father and relations of the possessed are intended; but it is hardly consistent to confine within such narrow limits an expression which our Lord seems to have borrowed from Deut. xxxii. 30. where it is used of the whole Jewish nation, and so applied by St. Paul in Phe. 11. 15. There is also another opinion, which refers the words to the Scribes, who seem to have been present upon the occasion, and it is not improbable that -their artful representations of the inve- teracy of the disorder, had produced that weakness of faith in the disciples which prevented them from effecting the cure. But the more probable solution is that the Scribes were particularly addressed, yet in such a manner thatthe whole multitude were included in the rebuke, not excepting even the disciples. Dop- DRIDGE, BEAUSOBRE, Κυρκε, ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ, &c.—[ Wuirsy, RosEn- MULLER, Macxnicut.| In pure Greek the adjectives πιστὸς and ἄπιστος are properly passive in their signification ; denoting one who may be trusted, and the reverse: and so they are some- times used inthe N. T. Compare Matt. xxiv. 45. xxv. 21. 96.. Luke xii. 46. But the Hellenistic usage is more commonly active; implying, one who believes, or confides, in another. The participle διεστραμμένος signifies perverse, whether in mind or morals; opposed to the sense in which εὐθὺς is sometimes em- ployed. Acts viii. 21. ἡ καρδία σου οὐκ ἔστι εὐθεία ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ. So Psalm vii. 12. x. 2. LXX. Euthym. διεστραμμένη" μὴ νοοῦσα τὸ εὐθύ. The metaphor is taken from distorted vision. Soph. Aj. 446. ὄμμα καὶ φρένες διάστροφοι. GROTIUS, KYPKE. The two interrogative exclamations which follow this address, are strongly expressive of our Lord’s impatience at the continued infidelity and perverseness of the Scribes, after the repeated miracles which he had worked among them. Ver. 20. we κόκκον σινάπεως. From St. Paul’s declaration, 1 Cor. xiii. 2. some eminent critics understand by faith as a grain of mustard-seed, the greatest possible degree of faith ; and others, from the parable in Matt. xiii. 32. a faith, thriving and increasing as that grain. But the evident scope of our Lord’s words is at variance with the former of these interpretations ; and it is not easy to discover the analogy upon which the latter rests ; since the increase in the parable, is that of the éree, not of the seed. It has already been observed on that passage, that a grain of mustard-seed was a proverbial comparison for any thing extremely small.. The Rabbis say; Zhe globe of the earth is but as a grain of mustard-seed, when compared with the expanse of the heavens. To remove mountains also, was an hyperbolical expression, denoting the accomplishment of any 214 MATTHEW XVII. 21. thing, seemingly impossible. Compare Zech. xiv. 4. Hence their most eminent teachers, who were remarkable for the depth of their learning and acquirements, were termed rooters up of mountains. Thus in Beracoth, p. 64, 1. Rabh Joseph is Sinai, and Rabbah is a rooter up of mountains ; which is thus explained in the Gloss: They called Rabh Joseph Sinai, because he was very skilful in clearing of difficulties ; and Rabbah Bar Nehemani a rooter up of mountains, because he had a piercing judgment. Grotius, Licutrroor, Wuitsy.—[ WAKEFIELD, A. CuaRKE. | . Ver. 21. τοῦτο δὲ τὸ γένος x. τ. Δ. Scil. δαιμονίων. Some commentators, however, supply πίστεως, rendering the verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι, for which Mark has ἐξελθεῖν, to advance, or to improve ; so that the sense would be, The faith, which produces these results, is only nourished by prayer and fasting. But the authorities which have been produced to justify the version affixed to these verbs are altogether inconclusive ; whereas they are constantly used in the N. T. in reference to the ejection of demons. Besides, the application of γένος to an abstract qua- lity, such as faith, can scarcely be admitted; whereas its appli- cation to different orders of beings is perfectly common, not to mention that in the parallel passage, Mars‘: ix. 29. there is nothing but the word demon, to which it can refer. To this interpreta- tion it has been objected, that it supposes different kinds of demons. By this kind, however, it is not necessary to under- stand this kind of demons; but this kind, or order of beings, called daemons, as Chrysostom and Theophylact explain the passage. Thus γένος τῶν ἀνθρώπων is used ογ΄ ἄνθρωποι, as in Latin, genus mortalium for mortales ; Pheed. Il. 1. Vipereum genus for vipere ; Virg. Ain. VII. 753. At the same time, we cannot affirm that the daemons were all of one kind; and that some dzmons were more malignant than others, may be in- ferred from Matt. xii. 45.; to expel which a proportionate exertion of faith may have been required. Another objection is, that, whereas in vy. 20. the power of expulsion is attributed solely to faith, it is here ascribed to prayer and fasting. But this is easily reconciled. Prayer and fasting could have no re- lation to the ejection of dzemons, except so far as they tended to encrease the faith of them, on whom that power had been con- ferred: Matt. x. 1. But if prayer and fasting are necessary to the attainment of faith, and the demons could not be ejected without faith, they could not, by consequence, be ejected without prayer and fasting. This is clearly our Lord’s meaning; and it is strictly conformable to the logical rule: Quod est causa cause, est etiam causa causati. As a matter of curiosity, it may be added, that instead of ἐν προσευχῇ καὶ νηστείᾳ, it has been pro- posed to read ἐν προσεχεῖ νηστείᾳ, by constant fasting ; in refer- MATTHEW XVII. 22. 94. 215 ence to the necessity of continued abstinence on the part of the patient, in order to the cure of the disease. But this is mere conjecture; nor is the sense which it yields, either natural in itself, or pertinent to the occasion. Our Lord would scarcely speak of ordinary means of cure, in answer to the Apostles’ demand, why they could not miraculously perform it. 'The whole verse is wanting in the Vatican, and a few other MSS. and Versions ; but is acknowledged by those of greatest authority; nor is there a single copy without it in Mark ix. 29. Doppriner, Ra- PHELIUS, Munroe, ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ, Wuitsy, &c.—[KNATCHBULL, Bowyer, SYKES. | Ver, 22. ἀναστρεφομένων. E. T. While they abode; and such is sometimes the import of this verb, as in Josh. v. 5. LXX; but it should be translated, as they passed through. Hesych. avaoTpepomevoc’ περιερχόμενος. So Polyb. III. 33. καθ᾽ ove καιροὺς ἐν τοῖς κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ιταλίαν ἀνεστρέφετο. WETSTEIN.. The verb παραδιδόσθαι should here be rendered to be delivered up, not to be betrayed ; the agency being referred to God, according to whose counsel Christ was to be made an atonement for the sins of the world: Acts iv. 27. At the same time, the instrumenta- lity of Judas may also be included. See on Matt. x. 4. Ham- MOND, Grorius. It appears from Lwke ix. 43. that the disci- ples were exceedingly amazed at the extraordinary power of their Master, exhibited in the last miracle; and their wonder was, in all probability, accompanied with proportionably high expecta- tions of aggrandizement in that temporal kingdom, the establish- ment of which they could not cease to anticipate. Jesus, there- fore, thought proper to moderate their ambitious hopes, by again predicting his sufferings ; a prediction, which he now frequently repeated, that, when the event took place, they might remember that he prepared them for it. From Mark ix. 32. it appears, that they wnderstood not that saying, and could not reconcile it with their prejudices and expectations ; but they feared to ask an ex- planation, remembering that he had reprimanded Peter for being unwilling to bear it. ΜΑΟΚΝΙΘΗΤ. Ver. 24. οἱ ra δίδραχμα λαμβάνοντες. Those who collect the didrachmas, that is, the tax so called; the plural being used in reference to the numbers from whom it was severally collected. It has been thought that this was the poll-tax levied by the Romans, after Judza had been reduced into the form of a pro- vince, and which was remitted to the Jews by Agrippa, in the reign of Claudius. On this supposition, the import of the ques- tion put to Peter coincides with that put to Christ himself by the Pharisees in Matt. xxii. 17. But it is much more probable that it was the half shekel paid for the service of the temple by all the Jewish males above twenty years old, and which Vespasian 216 MATTHEW XVII. 25. 27. afterwards obliged them to pay to the capitol at Rome. Of both these taxes, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 183. sq. That this last is the true interpretation, is strongly proved by the sum demanded: for the Attic drachma was the fourth part of a skekel, and therefore the didrachma, or half-shekel, precisely the amount which the tax imposed. The LXX indeed, on Eaod. xxx. 13. have ἥμισυ τοῦ διδράχμου, half a didrachm; but the Alexan- drian didrachm was double the common didrachm. Besides our Lord’s argument, that as Son of the Great King, to whom the tribute was paid, he could justly have excused himself, is far more conclusive in reference to the contribution made for the service of God. It seems too, from the question put to Peter, that the tribute in question was voluntary, rather than exacted: and such appears to have been the case from Nehem. x. 82. So also in the Talmud, Tit. Shekel, §. 2. itis said: On the fifteenth day of the month Adar, the collectors sit in the cities to receive this tax, and on the twenty-fifth, they sit in the temple ; they re- ceive from him who gives ; but he that does not give, is not com- pelled. With respect to the objection, that the payment of the half-shekel was made about the feast of the Passover, which was now past: it appears from the Talmud, wbz supra, that the pay- ments were by no means regularly made. The persons who col- lected this tribute, were not publicans; but the ἀποστόλοι, employed by the ‘priests to receive the dues of the temple. Liegutroot, Wuitsy, Grotius.—[Beza. | Ver. 25. εἰσῆλθεν. Scil. Peter. Jesus seems to have en- tered the house previously to the question of the tax-gatherer ; but being aware of what had passed, he anticipated Peter, by opening a conversation respecting it. The word τέλη signifies impost or custom, κῆνσος, poll-tax. Schol. 11. K. 56. τέλος" τὴν ἐκ τῶν ἐπεισαγομένων ὠνίων φοιτῶσαν ταῖς πολέσι πρόσοδον. Hesych. κῆνσος" ἐπικεφαλαῖον. They are here used together for taxes generally. ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ,. Ver. 27. ἵνα δὲ μὴ σκανδαλίσωμεν. Namely, by giving oc- casion to imagine that any slight is intended to the Temple and its service; or lest others, in far different circumstances, should be induced thereby to omit the contribution. ‘The stater, as it appears from this text, was a piece of coin equal in yalue to two didrachmas. 'There is no reason to suppose, with Schmidius, that the piece was created on this occasion, as the fish might have swallowed it accidentally. Instances of coins, jewels, ὅσο. which had been casually dropped into the sea, being found in the bowels of fishes, are by no means uncommon. Herod. III. 42. τὸν δὲ ἰχθὺν τάμνοντες οἱ θεράποντες, εὑρίσκουσι ἐν τῇ νηδύϊ αὐτοῦ ἐνέουσαν τὴν Πολυκράτους σφραγίδα. The om- niscience of Christ, in knowing that the fish had gorged the MATTHEW XVIII. 1. 217 stater, and his omnipotence in directing that particular fish to Peter’s hook, are sufficient evidence of his creative power, had it been necessary to make the money. for his present purpose. At all events, by paying the tribute he gave his disciples this important lesson, that in matters of minor consideration it is better to recede somewhat from their just rights, than by stub- bornly insisting on them to offend their brethren, or disturb the state. DoppripGe, MAcKNIGHT. CHAPTER XVIII. Contents :— The Disciples contend for superiority, vv. 1—6. The evil and punishment of offences, vv. 7—11. Parable of the lost sheep, vv. 12—14. Forgiveness of injuries enjoined, vv. 15—22. Parable of the servant-debtors, vv. 23—85. [Mark ix. 33. Luke ix. 46.] Verse 1. μείζων. The comparative is here used for the po- sitive, τῶν ἄλλων being understood. See on Matt. xi. 11. There is an apparent contradiction in this transaction, as it is related by Matthew and Mark respectively. According to the former, the disciples themselves lay the subject of their dispute before Jesus for his decision, but St. Mark represents them as back- ward to mention it, though Jesus requested it, because they were conscious that it would occasion a reproof. Now all matters of dispute admit, from their very nature, of two different represen- tations: those of the disciples who had laid claim to superiority, and given rise to the dissention, in all probability expected a rebuke, and were therefore ashamed and silent when questioned by Jesus; while those who considered themselves attacked, and only maintained their equality with those who asserted their su- perior dignity, had not hesitated to refer the decision of the case to their Master. Hence arise two different views of the matter, which will at once account for the discrepancy between the Evangelists. St. Matthew, who was probably of the latter class, having been originally a.publican, and never particularly distinguished among the Apostles, relates the circumstance, as he had been more immediately concerned in it. Mark, on the other hand, receiving the account from St. Peter, who, from being one of the disciples more especially favoured by our Lord, had probably been one of the other party, relates it as more di- rectly applicable to his own view of the case. Thus one records one part, and the other another part of the transaction, but 218 MATTHEW XVIII. 5, 6. though neither relate the whole, there is no inconsistency in what they do relate. Other solutions of the difficulty have been proposed, but this seems to be the most satisfactory. Micuaruis. It is worthy of observation, that the ambitious dis- putes of the disciples generally followed the mention of Christ’s death and resurrection. Compare Matt. xx. 18—20. Luke xxii. 22—24,. Now, although they could not suppress their sorrow at the prospect of their Master’s sufferings, still the expectation of the establishment of the Messiah’s kingdom, which they con- nected with the resurrection, (see on Matt. xvi. 13.) induced them to look forward to their own aggrandisement, and to cal- culate upon the respective promotion of each. To check these foolish emulations Jesus upon this occasion adopted a method of teaching agreeable to the manner of the Eastern doctors, who were wont to instruct their disciples by symbolical actions as well as by words. He placed a child before them, as an ex- ample of that humility, meekness, innocence, and docility, which would alone entitle them to the glories of his kingdom. Similar instances of this mode of illustration occur in John xiii. 4, 5. 14. xx. 22. Acts xxi. 11. Rev. xviii. 21. There is a tradition pre- served by Nicephorus, that the child whom Jesus presented to them was the martyr Lgnatius. Licutroot, Macknieut, A. CLARKE. Ver. 5. παιδίον τοιοῦτον. As in the preceding verses our Lord considers a little child as an emblem of a genuine disciple, so by the term in this verse he means a disciple only. Euthym. ἤγουν, ἕνα τινὰ γενόμενον we παιδίον τοιοῦτον, λέγω δὴ ταπεινὸν καὶ εὐτελῆ καὶ ἀπεῤῥιμένον. In the same sense μικροὶ is used in the next verse. See on Matt. x. 40. 42. Grortus, A. CLARKE. Ver. 6. ὃς δ᾽ ἐὰν σκανδαλίσῃ x. τ. A. That is, throw a scandal in his way, so as to cause him to fall off from the faith. See on Matt. v. 27. xi. 5. Hence there is no truth in the doc- trine maintained by some, that those who once truly believe in Christ can never fall short of salvation. In this denunciation against those who cause others to offend, there is an allusion to the punishment of drowning, which was in frequent use among the ancients, and seems to have grown into a proverb for dread- ful and inevitable ruin. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 155. Wuirsy, DoppripGe. Ibid. μύλος ὀνικός. A mill-stone, turned by an ass, and con- sequently much larger than one turned by the hand. Some, however, derive the adjective ὀνικὸς from ὄνος, which was also a common name for the wpper, as μύλη was for the nether mill- stone. Hesych. ὄνος" ὁ ἀνώτερος λίθος τοῦ μύλους But μύλος alone is put by synecdoche for λίθος μυλικὸς, (Mark ix. 42.) so MATTHEW XVIII. 7. 10. 219 that the former interpretation is preferable. Ovid. Fast. VI. 318. Et que puniceas versat asella molas. The phrase συμ- φέρει αὐτῷ is for συμφέρῃ av αὐτῷ, subaud. μᾶλλον. Compare Mark ix. 42. Scuieusner, Kurnory.—[Campsety.] The noun πέλαγος, which generally denotes the sea itself, is here the depth of the sea. Hesych. πέλαγος" μέγεθος, πλῆθος, [βυθὸς, πλάτος θαλάσσης. So Pindar. ap. Plutarch. Sympos. VII. 5. ἐν πόντου πελάγει. Achill. Tat. I. p. 7. τῆς δὲ θαλάττης ἡ χροιὰ διπλῆ" τὸ μὲν γὰρ πρὸς τὴν γῆν ὑπέρυθρον, καὶ κυάνεον τὸ πρὸς τὸ πέλαγος. ALBERTI, ΚΎΡΚΕ. Ver. 7. ἀπὸ τῶν σκανδάλων. On account of offences: such as those, for instance, alluded to in the preceding verses, by which we not only offend ourselves, but lead others into sin. Of this nature are pride, ambition, evil affections, persecutions, and the like. The preposition ἀπὸ is used in the same sense as in this passage in Diod. Sic. p. 131. D. ἀπὸ ταύτης τῆς αἰτίας. Our Lord’s argument is, that from the corruption of nature, the perverseness of mankind, and the abuse of that freedom with which as rational agents we are endowed, offences will na- turally arise; but so great is the punishment attached to those who cause these offences, that it is better to endure the greatest deprivation, such as parting with a limb, than to throw the cause of stumbling in the way of a weak brother. See on Matt. v. 27. MacknicutT, MUNTHE. Ver. 10. ὁρᾶτε, μὴ καταφρονήσητε κι τ. Δ. Froma general admonition, our Lord descends to a particular warning; namely, against contempt or ridicule. This he enforces by two reasons; —l. from the peculiar care and affection with which God watches over his meanest servants, sending his angels to keep them in all their ways; and 2. from the love of Christ towards them, in coming into the world to lay down his life for their sakes. The particle γὰρ in v. 11. introduces the second reason; which must not be understood as a proof of the former. Macxnicut, Kut- NOEL, DoppRIDGE. Ibid. οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτῶν. Some have supposed from this text, that every good man has his particular guardian angel assigned to him: and such was unquestionably the belief of the Jews, in which they were followed by several of the early Fathers. See Origen. Hom. VIII. tm Genes. Tertull. de Baptisma; and Jerome, on this place. The notion is recognized in several pas- sages of Scripture: as, for instance, Gen. xlviii. 16. Psalm xxxiv. 7. Acts xii. 15. and similar notions are found in heathen writers. Apuleius de Deo Socrat. Ex hac sublimiore Demo- num copia Plato autumat, singulis hominibus in vita agenda testes et custodes singulos additos, qui homini conspicut semper adsint. Plato himself, however, (de Legg. X.) maintains that 220 MATTHEW XVIII. 12. 15. every person has two demons, one prompting him to evil, the other to good. Compare also Hesiod. Op. D. I. 121. Dio Cass. XXXVII. p. 75. Plutarch. Anton. 53. Hor. Epist. II. 1. 87. But our Lord here speaks of angels in the plural, which rather intimates that the angels in general are intended, who are employed collectively in this labour of love, in which the highest do not disdain to partake. Compare Hebd. i. 14. Of the cus- tom here alluded to, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 90. Wuitsy, Ligutroot, Doppripce.—[A. CLarKE, Grorius. } Ver. 12. ἐὰν γένηταί τινι κι τ. Δ. In this parable our Lord proceeds to illustrate the arguments which he had just enforced ; and, by declaring his constant and unwearied solicitude for the lost sheep which stray from his fold, and his joy at recovering them, to make his hearers sensible of the sin of causing them to stray. The expression τὸ ἀπολωλὸς, in the preceding verse, seems to be equivalent with τὸ πλανώμενον in this, πρόβατον being understood. Compare Matt. ix. 56. x. 6. xv. 24. A fanciful idea is entertained by some, that there is a mysterious reference in the number ninety-nine to the angels who sinned, the proportion of whom to sinful men is as ninety-nine to one. But this form of speech was very common among the Jews. Thus in Peah. ΤΥ. 2. In distributing grapes and dates to the poor, although ninety-nine say, “ Scatter them,” and only one, ““ Divide them ;’ they hearken to him, because he speaks accord- ing to the tradition. So Schab. p. 14, 3. If ninety-nine die by an evil eye, and but one by the hand of heaven, §c. LigutTroor, A. Cuarke. In the construction, the words ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη should be joined with ἀφεὶς, not with πορευθεὶς, as in the E. T. The allusion is to a shepherd feeding his flock wpon the mountains, which were a frequent pasture for sheep; not to his seeking the lost one among the mountains. Compare 2 Chron. xvii. 16. Job xi. 20. Ezek. xxxiv. 6. 13. So Theocr, Idyl. III. 46. ἐν οὐρέσι μᾶλα νομεύει. Virg. Eclog. II. 21. Mille mee Siculis errant in montibus agne. ‘There is no ambiguity in Luke xv. 4. where ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ is used, for what is here called ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη. CAMPBELL, RosENMULLER.—[Beza, ScHLEUSNER.] Every circumstance in this, as in other parables, must not be too closely pressed. Our Lord did not mean that there is greater joy in recovering one lost sheep, than in the possession of the ninety-nine which had not strayed. He merely intended an emphatic representation of the transport which a man naturally exhibits upon the sudden recovery of a lost possession, and which, for a moment, at least, exceeds the pleasure which he feels in the undisturbed enjoy- ment of one, even of greater value. Porreus. Ver. 15. ἐὰν δὲ ἁμαρτήσῃ κι τ. A. From the offended, our Lord turns to the offending party: pointing out the proper MATTHEW XVIII. 16, 17. 221 means of reclaiming a sinner, and, in case of incorrigible perse- verance in crime, the course to be pursued in regard to him. The first step to be taken is private reproof; in allusion most probably to the Mosaic precept in Levit. xix. 17. to a disregard of which the Jews attributed the ruin of their state. On this point Cicero observes, de Senect. 24. Molesta veritas, siquidem ex ea nascitur odium, quod est venenum amicitie ; sed obse- guium multo molestius, quod, peccatis indulgens, precipitem amicum ferri sinit. So Plautus: Amicum castigare οὗ meritam noxiam Immune est facinus, verum in etate utile. In the ex- pression ἁμαρτεῖν εἰς σὲ, the personal pronoun, if understood definitely, will limit the meaning to personal offences, such as anger, malice, ridicule, and the like: but it is clear that the precept may be extended into a general application. The phrase itself is strictly classical. Thus Thucydides: ἁμαρτάνει πολλὰ εἰς ἡμᾶς. M. Anton. VII. 26. ὅταν τις ἁμάρτῃ τι εἰς σέ. It is also observable, that the verb κερδῆναι does not apply exclu- sively to the reclaiming party, but to God. Compare 1 Cor. ix. 19. Grotius, KurnoeLt, A. CLARKE. Ver. 16. ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀκούσῃ, κι τι X. Tf private reproof fail, the remonstrance should be backed by the authority of one or two persons of weight and reputation ; not in order to bear tes- timony to the offence, but that the proper means have been taken to reclaim the offender. In this passage also, there is an evi- dent allusion to the law of Moses, (Deut. xix. 15.) which re- qnired at least two witnesses for the establishment of any fact; examples of which are found in the Talmud. This law after- wards passed into a proverb. Compare 2 Cor. xiii. 1. John viii. 17. Ligurroot, Grotius, KurNoE.. Ver. 17. εἰπὲ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳς This third step of the proceeding is also in accordance with the customs of the Jews; who, in the case of notorious and obstinate offenders, reproved them pub- licly in the synagogue. Thus in the book Musar, it is said; He that reproves his brother, must do it first without witnesses, betwixt his brother and himself alone ; if he amend, it is well ; if not, take some companions, that thou mayest shame him before them; if neither this way succeed, he ought to shame him, and lay open his fault before many. So Maimonides in Ashuth, c. 12. If any deny to feed his children, they reprove him, they shame him, they urge him: if he still refuse, they make proclamation against him in the synagogue. In a sense analogous to this, therefore, the admonition of Christ must be understood ; so that ἐκκλησία can be no other than the particular congregation to which the parties belong. Such was doubtless the opinion of the primitive Church; and the public admonition (κατὰ κοινὸν) spoken of by Justin M. in Epist. ad Zenam, and 222 MATTHEW XVIII. 18. the consequent excommunication of the offender, took place in the Church, or congregation of which he was a member, accord- ing to the direction of St. Paul: 1 Cor. v. 4. 2 Cor. ii. 6. Hence, no authority can be derived from this passage for the assumed infallibility of the Romish Church, assembled in council ; not to mention the absurdity of supposing, that persons, at what- ever distance removed, could lay their grievances before it. Besides, the precept could not have been obeyed during the three first centuries, since no such council ever met till the time of Constantine. Wuirsy, Ligutroot, Campspett. Of the word ἐκκλησία, see on Matt. xvi. 18. and of the Jewish forms of excommunication, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 149. Ibid. ὃ ἐθνικὸς καὶ 6 τελώνης. The extreme detestation in which heathens and publicans were held by the Jews is welk known ; and the latter, as well as the former, they considered to be without the pale of religious society. Hence, in Demai, p. 23,1. itis said; A religious man, who becomes a publican, ἐδ to be driven out of the society of religion. Again, Maimonides in Geneshun, ὃ. 3. A Jew that apostatizes, or breaks the sabbath presumptuously, is altogether like a heathen. Our Lord’s meaning is, therefore, that no religious communion should be held with a man who refuses to comply with these repeated en- deavours to restore him to a sense of his duty. Liaurroort. Ver. 18. ὅσα ἐὰν δήσητε κι τ. dX. Of this promise, see on Matt. xvi. 19. where it is made especially to Peter, but precisely in the same,terms in which it is here extended to all the Apos- tles. There is some difficulty, however, and some difference of opinion, with respect to the meaning of this and the following verses, as they stand in connexion with what has gone before. The most natural interpretation seems to be this: ‘* Whatever determination you make in conformity with these directions re- specting an offending brother, shall be ratified in heaven; and whatever guidance ye may ask from above in forming these determinations, shall be granted you; for where only two are acting together for my glory, I am present by my Holy Spirit, to answer your prayers, and sanction your proceedings.” It is clear that the prayer, to which our Lord promises his present attention, refers to the binding and loosing, with which it is con- nected: and the consideration that they were to be directed into all truth, in this matter, confines the promise, in its strictest sense, to the Apostles alone, however it may be extended, ina qualified acceptation, to Christians of all ages. Compare Matt. xxi. 21, 22. Mark xi. 23, 24. John xix. 13, 14. 1 John iii. 22. v. 14, 15. James ν. 16. Hence the opinion, that the promise refers to the offended and offending party, as maintained by Origen, Chrysostom, and others of the Fathers; and that it extends the power of absolution and excommunication to the MATTHEW XVIII. 19, 20, 21. 225 successors of the Apostles, is far less probable. The adjective παντὸς must be understood of all cases, in reference to the power conferred in this passage. Ligutroor, A. CLARKE, Porreus, Kur1NnoEL, &c.—[Grorivs. | Ver. 19. γενήσεται αὐτοῖς. That is, they shall obtain it. This is not only a Hebraism, as in Josh. xv. 2. xvii. 6. LXX. but it occurs also in Greek writers. So Atlian H. V. IX. 25. εἰ δὲ ἀπορεῖς σπερμάτων, παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ col γενέσθω. Eurip. Alcest. 70. κοὔθ᾽ ἡ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν σοὶ γενήσεται χάρις. Herc. F. 603. μένοντι δ᾽ αὐτοῦ πάντα σοὶ γενήσεται. In the same manner εἶναι σοὶ is used. Lucian. Pseudom. p. 877. ὅτι ἔσται πάντα, ὁπόταν ἐθελήσω ἐγώ. Compare Mark xi. 24, John xv. 7. Ewsner, KYPKE. Ver. 20. εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα. For ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί pov, i. 6. in my service. Compare John x. 25. xvi. 23. with v. 36. Two or three are here put for any indefinite small number. So Joseph. 6. Apion. 11. 32. ap’ οὖν καὶ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ov λέγω τοσούτους, ἀλλὰ δύο ἢ τρεῖς ἔγνω τις προδότας γενομένους τῶν νόμων. KUINOEL, WETSTEIN. Ibid. εἰμὶ ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν. Scil. with my assistance and sup- port; in the sense of adesse alicui, in Latin. Compare Isaiah xliii. 2. John ii. 2. Acts xvii. 10. In this passage, therefore, our Lord declares his omnipresence and divinity ; and in the same terms as were applied by the Jews to the Schechinah. Thus in Purke Abbot, UY. 1. Where two are sitting at table in discourse concerning the law, the Shechinah is among them ; according to Malachi iii. 16. They had a notion, however, that at least ten should join in prayer, if any extraordinary success was expected. The following is from the Coran; Sura, 58. God knoweth what is in heaven, and what is on earth; for where three are gathered together, he is the fourth ; where there are five, he is the sixth ; and be there few or many, God is among them. Licurroort, ScHOETTGEN, KuUINOEL. Ver. 21. ποσάκις ἁμαρτήσει κι τ. A. This is an Hebraic form of construction for ἁμαρτήσαντι ἀφήσω, scil. τὰς ἁμαρτίας. Compare vy. 35. infra, where, however, the words τὰ παραπτώ- ματα αὐτῶν are omitted in many MSS., and are probably an in- terpolation. Forgiveness of injuries is the most prominent doc- trine of the Gospel; and it was in consequence perhaps of our Lord’s frequent inculcation of it, more especially in Luke xvii. 3. in connection with the subject of discourse in the present chap- ter, that Peter enquired the limits within which this forbearance was to be exercised. He probably imagined that it might be carried so far as to be productive of dangerous consequences to society, by encouraging the ill-disposed to offer repeated in- 224 MATTHEW XVIII. 23. juries in the hope of continued impunity. It is to be observed, however, that sincere penitence on the part of the offender, and an earnest entreaty of forgiveness, are necessary conditions in procuring his pardon. This is evident, not only from the pas- sage of Luke cited above, but from the beautiful and affecting parable by which our Lord makes his reply. In this parable, which may be considered as a practical commentary on the fifth petition in the Lord’s Prayer, there are three things set in oppo- sition, the Lord and his servant, an immense sum to a trifle, and the most extraordinary clemency to the most barbarous cruelty. Its application is easy in respect to each of these particulars. What, in the first place, are men compared with God? se- condly, how great sums do each owe to him? and thirdly, how trifling comparatively are the offences which our brethren commit against us, which many do not hesitate to revenge in the most unchristian spirit of malevolence? It is unnecessary to draw the conclusion. Amidst so much excellence as we meet with in the Gospel, it is not easy to say what is most excellent; but of all the parables of our Lord none is more interesting, more affect- ing, coming more home to the feelings, and pressing closer on the hearts of men, than this of the unforgiving servant. Certain it is, that in all the characters of excellence, in perspicuity, in brevity, in simplicity, in pathos, in force, it has no equal in any human composition whatever. Macknicut, Portrgeus, Grortus. Ibid. ἕως ἑπτάκις. It is not necessary to refer this question to our Lord’s injunction in Luke xvii. 4. since the number seven was usually employed to denote multitude or frequency, as in 1 Sam. ii. 5. Psalm xii. 7. cxix. 164. Prov. xxiv. 16. Hence, in our Lord’s reply, the term employed implies an unlimited for- giveness. Compare Gen. iv. 24. where the same expression is used by the LXX, in which the use of fara for ἑπτάκις is re- markable. From Amos i. 3. the Rabbins collected that three offences should be remitted, but not the fourth. Thus in Joma, p- 36. 2. They pardon a man once that sins against another ; secondly, they pardon him; thirdly, they pardon him ; fourthly, they do not pardon him. It has been suggested that some of the Rabbins put the two numbers together, as the utmost limit of forgiveness; and that Peter’s question is built upon this de- termination. Wuuirsy, Grorius, Licurroor.—[Macknieut. } Ver. 23. διὰ τοῦτο. Euthym. διὰ τὸ χρῆναι πάντοτε συγχω- ρεῖν τῷ πάντοτε μετανοοῦντι. The kingdom of Heaven is here the Gospel dispensation, (see on Matt. iii. 2.) and the conduct of God towards unforgiving Christians is represented by that of the king in the parable, who is called ἀνθρώπῳ βασιλεῖ, as op- posed to the Almighty, unless, indeed, the former substantive be merely redundant, or equivalent to τινί. It is clear that δοῦλος does not here mean ὦ slave, but merely a servant, or minister, MATTHEW XVIII. 24—26. 225 who was entrusted with the management of the royal estate. The phrase συναίρειν λόγον, as in Latin, conferre rationes, is a usual form denoting ¢o settle an account. Compare Matt. xxv. 19. In the same sense. συλλογίζεσθαι is used in Levit. xxv. 50. LXX. KuInoeEt. Ver. 24. μυρίων ταλάντων. Ten thousand talents. The talent of gold was equal to about £5,475 English; so that 10,000 talents would amount to £54,750,000. According to other calculations they amount to £72,000,000, but in either case the sum is so immense, that, although the parable is not affected thereby, it is scarcely possible that so great a debt should have been contracted by any individual. According to Eutropius, indeed, (Hist. Rom. IV. 2.) Antiochus paid this sum to purchase peace with the Romans; but the authority of Livy is much more to be relied upon, who states the fine to have been 15,000 talents of silver, of which 500 only were to be paid immediately, 2,500 more when the peace was ratified by the senate, and the remaining 12,000 as a tribute of 1,000 annually. See Liv. XXXVII. 45. XXXVIII. 38. It appears also from Polyb. Legat. XXIV. p. 817. that these were Euboic talents, each of which were equal to 80 Roman pounds = 80 x 96 denarii of 74 each = 80 x £3 sterling = £240. Hence the whole sum = 240 x 15,000 = £3,600,000; and, according to the same calculation, the sum mentioned by our Lord = 10,000 x 240 = 2,400,000. The more usual method, however, is to reckon by weight, at the rate of 750 ounces of silver to a talent, averaging the value of silver at 5s. per ounce. In this way, 10,000 talents = 10,000 x 750 x 5 = 37,500,000 shillings = £1,875,000. The hundred denarii, v. 28. is equivalent to about £3. 2s. 6d. sterlng. DoppripGce, Hammonp. Ver. 25, ἐκέλευσεν αὐτὸν πραθῆναι, x. τ. XX. This was a custom which prevailed in early times in other countries, as well as among the Jews. See A. Gell. XX. 1. Justin. VIII. 1. With respect to the Jews see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 139. This bondage, however, was not extended beyond six years, Levit. xxv. 39. sq. The verb ἔχειν is here used in the sense of δύνασθαι, as frequently in classic authors. So Plat. Pheed. 21. οὐκ ἔχω ἑλέσθαι. Xen. Cyr. I. 1. 4. παμπόλλων ἐθνῶν, ὧν οὐδ᾽ ἂν τὰ ὀνόματα ἔχοι τις εἰπεῖν. So in Latin, Cic. pro Rose. ὃ. 35. Habeo enim dicere. Compare Luke xii. 4. John viii. 6. Eph. iv. 28. Prov. iii. 27. LXX. With ἀποδοῦναι and ἀποδοθῆναι we must supply τὸ ὀφειλόμενον, as in v. 30. KuINoEL. Ver. 26. The verb μακροθυμεῖν, signifying literally to be long minded, i. e. to wait patiently, as applied to debtors, answers to the Latin indulgere, though eaxpectare is not unfrequently used VOL. I. Q 226 MATTHEW XVIII. 28. 31. 34. in the same sense. Corn. Nep. Attic. 11, 3, 4. Hapectare et sustinere. Mart. Epig. IX. 4. EHapectes et sustineas, Auguste, necesse est, Nam tibi quod solvat, non habet arca Jovis. Compare Heb. vi. 15. James v. 7. It is followed, as in this place, by the preposition ἐπὶ in Wisd. xxv. 18. LXX. In the next verse τὸ δάνειον is understood by some to signify merely the énterest of the debt, and not the debt itself ; but this is plainly at variance with v. 32. where ὀφειλὴ is substituted. It is clear, however, from the sequel, that the remission was only conditional, and was eventually cancelled by his future misconduct. KuINoEL, Hammonp, GrRorius. Ver. 28. κρατήσας αὐτὸν ἔπνιγε. The verbs πνίγειν and ἄγχειν are used by Greek writers of hard creditors, nearly in the sense of the English throttle. Lucian. D. M. 22. καὶ μὴν ἄγξω σε, νὴ τὸν Πλούτωνα, ἂν μὴ ἀποδῶς. Sympos. 32. οὐδὲ ἄγχω τοὺς μαθητὰς, ἢν μὴ κατὰ καιρὸν ἀποδῶσι τοὺς μισθούς. Pollux III. 116. ἄγχων τοὺς χρηστὰς, ἀποπνίγων τοὺς ὀφεί- λοντας. Aristoph. Equit. 772. χρήματα πλεῖστ᾽ ἀπέδειξα ἐν τῷ κοίνῳ, τοὺς μὲν στρεϊλῶν, τοὺς δ᾽ ἄγχων, τοὺς δὲ μεταιτῶν. The participle κρατήσας is a redundant Hebraism, expressive perhaps of more than ordinary violence. A. CLARKE, WETSTEIN, KUINOEL. Ver. 31. ἐλυπήθησαν. Were indignant. See on Mait. xiv. 9. Thus ἄχος and χόλος are interchanged in Hom. 1]. A. 188. 224. ἀχνύμενος and χωόμενος, ibid. vv. 241. 944, The verb διασαφεῖν signifies to detail, to give full information, in which sense the Latin eaplanare is used in Cic. Epist. ad Div. 111. 1.1. Compare 1 Mace. xii. 6. 2 Mace. i. 18. xi. 18. Diod. Sic. p. 23. B. Kurnoet, MunTHE. Ver. 34. rote Bacavoraic. The word βασανιστὴς properly ἡ denotes an examiner, especially one who examines by ἐογέμ) ὁ ; and as torture was usually exercised against greater criminals, it came at length to signify a gaoler generally. ‘This seems to be the meaning here ; unless, indeed, as we may reasonably suppose, the punishment denounced against the servant did not merely regard his insolvency, but the injustice, fraud, and cruelty of which he had been equally guilty. Of the severity with which prisoners were treated, and of the nature of the punishment generally, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 146. sqq. Doppriner, Hammonp. “a MATTHEW XIX. 1. 5. 22 ~ CHAPTER XIX. ConTENTS :—Christ passes from Galilee into Perea, wv. 1, 2. [Mark x. 1. Luke ix. 51.] His reply to the question respect- ing marriage and divorce, vv. 3—12. [Mark x. 2. Luke xvi. 18.] Little children brought to him, vv. 13—15. [Mark x. 13. Luke xvii. 15.] His reply to the young ruler, and cau- tion against the danger of riches, vy. 16—30. [Mark x. 17. Luke xviii. 18.] Verse 1. εἰς τὰ ὅρια τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας κι τ. X. Properly speaking, no part of Judza was beyond Jordan, but it has been supposed that the country of Per@a was sometimes so designated. Jo- sephus indeed observes, in reference to a fortification built by Hyrcanus, Ant. XII. 5. οὗτος 6 τόπος ἐστὶ μεταξὺ τῆς ᾿Αραβίας καὶ τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας πέραν τοῦ ᾿Ιορδάνου, οὐ πόρρω τῆς ᾽'Ἔσσεβωνί- τιδος. But this proves nothing more than that the fort was somewhere beyond Jordan, between Judea and Arabia. Others, therefore, suppose that πέραν should be rendered on this side. See on Matt. iv. 15. But it is more probable that the construc- tion is elliptical, and that it should be supplied from the parallel place of Mark x. 1., where the reading is διὰ τοῦ πέραν τοῦ *Iopdavov. During this journey Jesus was at Bethabara, (John x. 40.) which was certainly beyond Jordan. Macknigur.— [Retanp, Le Cierc. | Ver. 8. εἰ ἔξεστιν ἀνθρώπῳ «x. 7. dX. Our Lord had publicly delivered his opinion upon this point on a former occasion, and there can, therefore, be but little doubt that the principal motive of this insidious question was the hope that a fresh declaration of his sentiments would subject him to the resentment of the school of Hillel, who taught that divorces were allowable upon the most trivial occasions. This is at once apparent from the parallel place in Luke xvi. 18. ‘The judgment of Christ respect- ing the illegality of divorce is there given in illustration of his assurance that the law should endure for ever, and as it stands without any notice of the previous conversation here recorded, appears somewhat abrupt and unconnected. But if the narrative be supplied from St. Matthew, the malevolent intention of the Pharisees is at once apparent: they hoped to draw from him the exposition which he had formerly given, which they knew to be at variance with the then existing law, and consequently, in their view of the case, with his previous announcement of the per- petual obligation of Mosaic institutions. With the most con- summate wisdom, therefore, instead of affording them the desired opportunity of misrepresenting his doctrine, he first refers them Q2 228 MATTHEW XIX. 4, 5. to the divine institution of marriage, as stated by Moses; and only repeats his former declaration, after he had thwarted their aims by this unanswerable appeal to their great Lawgiver him- self. The malignity of the question will be yet more evident from the fact, that it was proposed in the dominions of Herod Antipas, to whom our Lord’s reply would be more especially offensive. Kurnorz, Prrxineton. There is a various reading of some MSS. in this passage which should perhaps be noticed : ἁμαρτίαν for αἰτίαν. It was originally either a marginal gloss, one signification of αἰτία being a crime, as in Acts xxv. 18. or it arose from the supposition that the first syllable being dropped, ἁμαρτία would easily be mistaken for αἰτία. The force of the question, however, as well as the authority of the best MSS., is decisive against any change in the received text. Of the prepo- sition κατὰ, in the sense of propter, we have examples in Levit. xxvi. 98. LXX. Herod. V. 39. Polyb. XV. 11. Joseph. Ant. I. 18. 2.; and of πᾶς, signifying any whatever, in Rom. 111. 20. Gal. ii. 16. Rapuetius, Kress, Muntur, MacknieHT.— [A. CLARKE. ] Ver. 4. οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε. See Gen. 1. 27. i. 24. As ὁ πειράζων is the tempter, Matt. iv. 3. 6 λαλῶν the speaker, Acts vii. 44. so ποιήσας may be the Creator; the word ἀνθρώπους being implied, to which αὐτοὺς is referred. With the adjectives ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ in the neuter γένος must be supplied, and governed by the preposition κατὰ understood. Exsner.—[Kuinoet.] At first sight it may appear that our Lord’s reasoning is inconclusive ; and Campbell maintains that no argument against divorce can be deduced from the simple fact that God at the creation made mankind of different sexes. It should be observed, however, that the inference does not depend upon God’s creating male and female, but upon what he said, or rather what Adam said by divine inspiration, when they were so created. Atthe same time the Mosaic history relates, that at the beginning, am’ ἀρχῆς, only two persons, one male and one female, were created, plainly intimating the nature and intention of the connubial state; and that two, and two only, should be thus indissolubly united. Ver. 5. προσκολληθήσεται. Properly, shall be firmly ce- mented, as by glue: a beautiful metaphor, which forcibly inti- mates that nothing but death should separate them. Both the simple and compound verbs are used in the N. T. in an applied sense, and so also in the LXX, corresponding with the Hebrew pat, dabak. Compare Gen. ii, 24. Deut. xi. 22. xxviii. 60. Josh. xxiii. 8. 2 Kings xviii. 6. Ruth ii. 8. 21, 23. Job xli. 8. Prov. xviii. 25. Ecclus. vi. 36. xiii. 18. xix. 2. Ina sense pre- cisely analogous to that which it bears in this passage we have Plato de Legg. p. 839. τοῖς δὲ προσκολλᾶσθαι, διώκοντα κατὰ 10 MATTHEW XIX. 6. 229 τὰς Evvovelac. So in Latin, Plaut. Menech. II. 2. 67. me- retrices se applicant, agglutinant. In the N. T. the word re- curs in Mark x. 7. Luke x. 11. xv. 15. Acts v. 13. 36. viii. 29. ix. 26. x. 28. xvii. 34. Rom. xii. 9. 1 Cor. vi. 16, 17. Ephes. v. 951. and always in a metaphorical signification. WeETSTEIN, SCHLEUSNER, A. CLARKE. Ibid. εἰς σάρκα μίαν. An Hebraism for σὰρξ pia, as in the next verse. Compare Deut. xxviii. 13. 2 Sam. vii. 14. Psalm Ixix. 11. xciv. 22. There is an old maxim, that friends are, as it were, μία ψυχὴ, and inseparable : how much more then should this be the case with marriage? Antipater de Nuptiis: Αἱ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλαι φιλίαι καὶ φιλοστοργίαι ἐοίκασι ταῖς τῶν ὀσπρίων κατὰ τὰς παραθέσεις μίξεσιν" αἱ δ᾽ ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικὸς ταῖς ov ὅλων κρά- σεσιν, ὡς οἶνος ὕδατι. Οὐ γὰρ μόνον τῆς οὐσίας καὶ τῶν τέκνων καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν σωμάτων οὗτοι μόνοι κοινωνοῦσι. Hierocles: πρώτη καὶ στοιχειωδεστάτη τῶν κοινωνίων ἡ κατὰ τὸν γάμον. Menander: Οἰκεῖον οὕτως οὐδέν ἐστιν, ὦ Λάχης, ᾿Εὰν σκοπῇ τις, ὡς ἀνήρ τε καὶ γυνή. The expression here employed is analogous to that which Plato is supposed to have borrowed from the Hebrews, συντῆξαι καὶ συμφῦσαι εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ, ὥστε δύο ὄντας ἕνα γεγονέναι. To the same effect Tacit. German. 19. Ste unum accipiunt maritum, quomodo unum corpus, unamque vitam, ne ulla cogitatio ultra, ne longior cupiditas sit. GROTIUS, WetsteEIN. It is remarkable, that in this passage there is no word answering to δύο in the Masoretic editions of the Hebrew Bible ; of which see Horne’s Introd. Vol. Il. p. 188. In addi- tion to the authorities there cited, that the Hebrew originally corresponded with the Greek of the N. T., it may be observed, that the only ancient version which accords with the Hebrew is the Chaldee, which the Rabbis have constantly used in their synagogues and schools, and have consequently taken every op- portunity to reduce it into a close conformity with the Masoretic readings. CAMPBELL. Ver. 6. συνέζευξεν. A metaphor borrowed from the yoking of oxen, and constantly applied to the marriage union. Herodian III. 10. οὐ πάνυ τι ἡδόμενος τῷ γάμῳ, ἀνάγκῃ μᾶλλον ἢ προ- αἱρέσει συνεζευγμένος. Aristot. Polit. VII. 16. τὸ νέους συ- ζευγνύναι καὶ νέας. Joseph. Ant. I. 19. 10. τὰς θυγατέρας τὰς ἐμὰς συνέζευξα. Hence ζεῦγος, a married couple, Xen. Cicon. VII. 18. συζυγὴς, a husband, 3 Mace. iv. 8. UXX. It was a custom, in fact, among the ancients, when persons were newly married, to place a yoke upon their necks, signifying thereby that they were closely linked, and bound to pull equally together in all the concerns of life. Isidor. de Origin. 1X. 8. Conjuges appellati, propter jugum quod imponitur matrimonio conjun- gendis. Jugo enim nubentes suljici solent, propter futuram concordiam, ne separentur. Again: Conjugium est dictum, quia 230 MATTHEW XIX. 7. 10—12. conjuncti sunt; vel a jugo, guo in nuptiis copulantur, ne resolvi aut separari possint. Hence also the yoke is mentioned among the symbols of marriage in Achill. Tat. V. p. 315. ἐμοὶ μὲν γὰρ δοκεῖ τὰ παρόντα γάμων εἶναι σύμβολα" ζυγὸς μὲν οὕτως ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς κρεμαμένος, δεσμοὶ δὲ περὶ τὴν κεραίαν τεταμένοι. Κυρκε, WETSTEIN. Ver. 7. τί οὖν Μωσῆς x. τ. λ.. By the manner of putting this question one would imagine that Moses had commanded both the dismission and the writing of divorcement, whereas in fact he had only permitted the dismission; but in case they took ad-. vantage of this permission, commanded the writing of divorce- ment. CaMPBELL, Mackxnicut, &c. Of this and the two fol- lowing verses, see on Matt, v. 31. sq. Ver. 10. εἰ οὕτως ἐστὶν ἡ αἰτία x. τ. X. Tf such be the relative condition of man and wife, &c. The word αἰτία is here used in a forensic sense, as denoting state or condition. So the Latin causa in Cic. Fam. VII. 4. Martial. VII. 92. 5. Kurnoet, GRotIvs. Ver. 11. ob πάντες χωροῦσι κι τ AX. The verb χωρεῖν pro- perly signifies capaa esse; hence, as applied to things specu- lative, to understand, to. comprehend; and to things practical, to obtain, to execute. In the latter of these applied senses it occurs in Plutarch, Cat. Min. p. 791. εἰ Κατῶνες οὐκ εἰσὶν, οὐδὲ τὸ Κατῶνος φρόνημα χώρουσιν, οἰκτείρειν τὴν ἀσθενείαν αὐτῶν. Phocylides fr. 84. οὐ χωρεῖ μεγάλην διδαχὴν ἀδίδακτος ἀκούειν. fBlian. V. Η. III. 9. τοσοῦτον ἀνδρεῖος, ὅσον αὐτῷ καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ χωρεῖ. So also it is used in this passage; not in the sense of intelligere, as some have supposed, probably from mistaking the meaning of the word λόγος, which is to be rendered by res, not by verbum. Antonin. Lib. c. 34. κατήνεσε τὸν λόγον. Compare Mark i. 45. Camrsett, Grotius, WretsTEIN, ELsner. The import of our Lord’s reasoning is this: It is not in every one’s power to live continently ; such, therefore, ought to marry, but with prudence and cireumspection in making choice of a wife. Those, however, who have the gift, and can restrain their appe- tites, commit no sin in remaining unmarried. MAckNIGHT. Ver. 12. οἵτινες εὐνούχισαν ἑαυτοὺς κ. τ. X. That the am- putation of the desire, not of the member, is here intended, is evident from the two species of eunuchism previously mentioned: by the first are signified those who are continent by natural con- stitution ; by the second those whom violence has rendered in- capable of the matrimonial union; and these last are those who, from an ardent desire of promoting the interest of religion, have determined to live in a state of celibacy, unincumbered with the. 1 MATTHEW XIX. 16. 231 cares of the world. Among the Rabbins we find these different kinds of eunuchs described in similar terms; as, for instance, eunuchs of the sun, i. e. by the hand of God, or men born impo- tent; eunuchs of men, or those who have been castrated; and those who make themselves eunuchs, i. e. abstain from marriage, that they may give themselves up to the study of the law. The expression was taken allegorically by Chrysostom, J. Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, and the generality of the Fathers, except Origen, who not only interpreted the words literally, but is said to have exemplified them upon himself. Our Lord is usually supposed to have alluded to the sect of the E'ssenes, of which see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 374. sqq. Mackxnicut, Grorius, A. CLARKE. . Ibid. ὃ δυνάμενος χωρεῖν, χωρείτω. This admonition, like that of St. Paul’s, 1 Cor. vii. 26. has a more immediate reference to the circumstances of the times in which it was delivered. The arguments which the Papists would derive from it in favour of celibacy, as a more honourable state than matrimony, are totally groundless. Marriage is in this very place represented as a divine institution, ordained in the time of man’s innocency, and the Apostle declares it to be honourable in all ranks and condi- tions, provided the duties attached to it are duly and religiously performed. If the early propagation of the Gospel, and the per- secutions to which its professors were exposed, rendered it ad- visable at that particular period to remain unmarried, in order to be free from the unavoidable incumbrances of the married state; the recommendation of this practice for temporary pur- poses cannot surely be construed into a law, binding upon all ages of the world. Besides, our Lord does not recommend celi- bacy, he only permits it as a thing lawful, if a person can so effectually restrain his passions as to keep himself from falling into sin. MAcKNIGHT. Ver. 13. τὰς χείρας ἐπιθῇ. See on Matt. ix. 18. and to the passages cited add Gen. xlviii. 14, 15. from whence it more dis- tinctly appears that imposition of hands was used by persons of peculiar sanctity, in praying for blessings upon children. The parallel passage in Mark x. 1. is very appropriately selected by our church as the Gospel for the celebration of Infant Baptism. It does not indeed directly follow from thence, that infant baptism was an institution of Christ : but since that may be inferred from * other Scriptures, it is not improbable that our Lord intended an anticipative reference to it. The narrative clearly proves that the children who were brought to him were considered capable of participating in the spiritual blessings of the Christian cove- nant, and consequently of being received into the body of his church. Christ did not baptize them, nor order his disciples to do so, because the rite was not. yet instituted; but. they had 232 MATTHEW XIX. 14. 16. already entered into covenant with God by circumcision. Be- sides, though incapable of repentance, infants are as fit to be ad- mitted into Christ’s church as they were into the Jewish church, and therefore, as baptism is the only means of such admission, fit to be baptized. It has been supposed, since Christ called the children to him, (Luke xviii. 16.) that they could walk, and were therefore not of a very infantine age. But the word βρέφος, which Luke employs, is explained by Eustathius and Phavorinus of a child under four years old, and consequently much under years of discretion. So the word is used in 1 Pet. ii. 2. and that it is so here is further manifest from our Lord’s taking them in his arms, (Mark x. 16.) The children were doubtless those of believers, since the unbelieving Jews would scarcely have sought a blessing from Christ; and‘had they been brought to be healed of any bodily distemper, as some have supposed, the disciples would not have repulsed them. It should seem that they considered them incapable of receiving instruction, and con- sequently that their introduction to Christ would only interfere with more important matters, such as the discussion of the sub- ject of marriage, without producing any advantage either to themselves or those who brought them. The ancients, at all events, looked upon this passage as sufficient authority for infant baptism, as appears even from Tertullian, de Baptism, c. 18. though he dislikes the custom. So also the Constit. Apost. VI. 15. p. 280. C. βαπτίζατε ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ νήπια" ΓΑφετε γὰρ, φησὶ, τὰ παιδία ἔρχεσθαι πρός we. Wuitsy, Doppringe, LicuTroort. —[Eusner. ] Ibid. ἐπετίμησαν αὐτοῖς. Scil. τοῖς προσφέρουσι. Compare Mark x. 19. Ver, 14. τῶν τοιούτων. Theophylact: τῶν μιμουμένων τὴν ἁπλότητα τούτων. See on Matt. xviii. 1. Ver. 16. sic. Supply νεανίσκος from v. 22. and ἄρχων from Luke xviii. 18. He may have been either a ruler of the Syna- gogue, (Matt. ix. 18.) or, which is more probable, a member of the Sanhedrim. Compare Luke xxiii. 23. xxiv. 20. 1 Mace. i. 14. 27. Joseph. Ant. XX. 1. 2. It has been supposed, from the sorrow which he exhibited at our Lord’s reply, that there was a degree of hypocrisy in the young ruler’s application; but the earnestness of his appeal, his respectful demeanour, and, in fact, all the circumstances of the case, evidently prove that he fully intended to acquiesce in the decision of Christ whatever it might be. Euthymius: οὐκ ἣν δὲ ὕπουλος ὃ νεανίσκος οὗτος, ὥς φασί τινες ἀλλὰ τῆς φιλαργυρίας ἡ ἄκανθα τὴν λιπαρὰν ἄρουραν τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ διελυμήνατο. He was probably confused by the Pharisaical division of the precepts of the law, some of which they considered weighty, and others “ght, and wished MATTHEW XIX. 17%. 233 to be directed by Jesus, whom he looked upon as a teacher of more than ordinary authority, which of these precepts were preeminently essential to the attainment of eternal life. The young man seems to have been of the particular sect of Pha- risees mentioned in Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 372. Kurnoet. —[Macxnieur. | Ibid. ζωὴν αἰώνιον. The Jews had very imperfect views of a future state; so much so that it has been asserted by War- burton, (Div. Leg. V.) that the doctrine ts not to be found in, and does not make part of, the Mosaic dispensation. Against this assertion, in its full extent, numerous passages may be cited from the O. T., and the question now proposed by the young man is evidently at variance with such supposition, unless, indeed, we suppose that he had previously conversed with Christ or his Apostles on the subject. -Grottus. Ver. 17. τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; This reading is interlined in Griesbach’s first edition, and wholly rejected in the second, in order to make way for τί με ἐρωτᾶς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, which is to be found in several MSS., in conformity with the Vulgate, Coptic, Armenian, Saxon, and other versions, supported by Origen, Eusebius, Cyril, Jerome, Augustin, and others of the Fathers. But the vulgar reading is nevertheless preferable on more accounts than one: the evidence from MSS. is beyond comparison superior ; the versions on both sides nearly balance each other; and the internal evidence arising from the connec- tion of the thoughts is decisive on the point. There are other variations also, such as the omission of ἀγαθὲ in v. 16. and the substitution of εἷς ἐστὶν ὃ ἀγαθὸς for οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς, ὃ Θεὸς, which plainly shew the hand of an interpolator. It is easy to trace the origin of these difficulties in the evidence which the passage is supposed to afford against the divinity of Christ ; and the Socinians have not been backward in appealing to its authority. But if the object which our Lord had in view be well considered, there is no ground for apprehension in this respect. The young ruler had accosted him by the title διδάσ- καλε ἀγαθὲ, a mode of address employed towards their most dis- tinguished Rabbis, and of which they were exceedingly proud : he did not, therefore, mean to assume any imperfection to himself, but to expose and reprove the vain and wicked flattery which the Pharisees courted, and which was in all probability offered to Christ, in conformity with the custom then in use. At the same time, it is well answered by Maresius, that the Father being the fountain of the whole Deity, must in some sense be the fountain of the goodness of the Son: and hence many of the anti-Nicene Fathers owned that the word ἀγαθὸς signally and essentially ap- plied to God the Father, and to Christ only by reason of the goodness derived to him, as being God of God. See Clem. 234 MATTHEW XIX. 18. 20. Alex. Peedag. I. p. 113. 119. ΚΎΊΝΟΕΙ,, Wuirsy, Dopprince, CampPBELL.—[ MILL, GriesBacu, Grortius, A. CLARKE. | Ver. 18. τό: οὐ φονεύσεις" κι 7. A. It is worthy of remark, that frequently in the N. T. when mention is made of the whole Law, the second table only is exemplified, as in this place, Rom. xiii. 8, 9. James ii. 8. 11. and elsewhere. The reason of this is not that the precepts of this table are of more importance than those of the first, but because there is a necessary connection between the duties of piety towards God, and of justice, tem- perance, and charity towards men ; and because these latter are not so easily counterfeited as the former. On this subject it is proper also to observe, that the terms of salvation here offered are not different from those mentioned elsewhere in Scripture. Though faith is declared expressly by our Lord himself to be essentially necessary to salvation, still it is faith working by love ; and it was only this faith that would have influenced the young man to have parted with all that he had for the sake of the Gospel. The condition too of keeping the commandments is that by which pious persons in the O. T. are continually repre- sented as obtaining the promise of eternal life. Compare Levit. xvill. 5. Ezek. xviii. 21. xx. 11. xxxiii. 15. Luke i. 6. At the same time it is certain that the Law could not of itself give life, (Gal. iii. 21.) because it required that perfect unsinning obe- dience of which man is incapable: so that the virtuous could not expect the promised blessings in consequence of their own me- rits, but only from the propitiation and atonement which God had appointed to be made for sin. As, therefore, under the Gospel our justification ariseth not from works, but is by grace through faith, and yet good works and sincere obedience are conditions necessary to salvation, and the means of obtaining it; so the pious under the Law had just reason to expect the pro- mised reward of obedience, by virtue of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Wuirsy, Licurroor, Macxnieut. Of the use of the article in this verse, placed absolutely, see Matt. Gr. Gr. §. 279. Ver, 20. ἐκ νεότητός pov. It is generally thought that νεότης should here be rendered childhood, as relating to an earlier stage of life, than that which the young man had already attained. Several MSS., versions, and Fathers omit the words altogether, whence they have been considered by some as interpolated from Mark x. 20. Luke xviii. 21. But there is little doubt of their genu- ineness, and as little necessity for departing from the ordinary meaning of the noun. Its use appears to imply a slight tinge of arrogance, in a young man wishing to appear older, and conse- quently of higher importance, than his youthful appearance indi- cated. Kurnort.—[Grortus. ] MATTHEW XIX. 21. 98. 235 Ver. 21. πώλησόν σου τὰ ὑπάρχοντα. It is evident that our Lord’s command could only refer to the individual to whom he addressed himself, or, at most, to those who at that particular time became his disciples. ‘The youth no doubt had understood the commandments, in the observance of which he had boasted, in that sense which the Jewish doctors had put upon them, and which Christ had reprehended in the Sermon on the Mount. This recommendation, therefore, was intended to lower the high opinion which he entertained of himself, and to make trial of the sincerity which he professed, and to convince him of the neces- sity of sacrificing every thing most valuable in this life in the cause of the religion of the Gospel. But it cannot be inferred that Christians are hereby bound to sell all their goods and give them to the poor, thereby in effect becoming one οἵ those to be relieved-out_of their_own possessions. That there were rich men in the church even in the apostolic times is clear from 1 Zim. vi. 17. James i. 10. ii. 2. nor does the Apostle require his converts to sell ad/, but merely to give of their abundance, 2 Cor. vill. 12. If, therefore, riches fall into the hands of those who know how to use them to God’s glory, and the relief of their indigent fellow-creatures, there can be no necessity for parting with them, which is only required when they interfere with the duty and profession of a Christian. In the first ages of the Gospel its advancement was attended with persecutions and dangers of every description, which would not admit of the ad- ditional care and concern which the management of great pos- sessions demand, so that an entire renunciation of the world be- came a necessary exercise of self-denial, especially in those who were more immediately engaged in the service of Christ. The case is widely different in these times; though the precept will doubtless apply in a modified sense to every age and every class of believers. We may observe further, that our Lord may have had an eye to the Pharisaical idea of perfection on this point. According to their decision no person was bound to give the poor above the fifth part of his estate, unless in cases of extra- ordinary devotion; but in the Jerusalem Gemara, on Peah I. 1. the example of R. Ishbab is produced, as distributing all his goods in charity. Wuirsy, Licutroot, Macxnicut. Of the word τέλειος see on Matt. v. 48. It may also be applied to a person fully instructed in his duty, in which sense it is opposed to babes in Christ, Heb. v. 12, 13. vi. 1. Compare 1 Cor. ii. 6. xi. 9, 10. Phal. a 15.) SCol, 28. So the word V3, gomar, is used by the Rabbins of a judge fully instructed in the tradi- tions. In Schabbath, p. 31. R. Hillel said to a proselyte, Do not that to another which is odious to thyself ; that ts the whole Law ; and go thy way perfect. WuitBy. Ver, 23. βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. See on Matt. iii. 9, In 236 MATTHEW XIX. 25. whichever sense the phrase be here understood, this declaration will hold equally true. When it was only by persuasion that men were brought into a society, hated and persecuted by all the ruling powers of the earth, Jewish and Pagan, the rich, who had so much to lose, and so much to fear, would not easily be led to embrace the Gospel. Compare James ii. 5,6. As little can there be any doubt of the justness of the sentiment, in relation to the state of the blessed hereafter; when the deceitfulness of riches and the snares into which they lead mankind are duly con- sidered. So close an analogy runs through all the divine dis- pensations, that in most instances such declarations of Scripture will admit of either interpretation. In the proverbial illustra- tion given by our Lord in the next verse, some critics propose to read κάμιλον, or at least to render κάμηλον a cable, upon the authority of Euthymius, Theophylact, and Phavorinus. But this is of little weight against the testimony of MSS. on the one hand, and the frequency of the term in all sorts of writers for the beast so denominated on the other. Besides, there was a proverb in use among the Jews, although not precisely ¢dentical, yet so closely sémélar as to prove beyond a doubt that our Lord intended to express hyperbolically a thing next to impossible. Thus in Talm. Babyl. Tit. Berachoth, p. 55. 2. They do not shew a man a palm-tree of gold, nor an elephant going through the eye of a needle. Again in Bava Mezia, p. 38. 2. R. She- shith answered R. Amram, who had advanced an absurdity : Perhaps thou art one of the Pombedithians, who can make an elephant pass through the eye of a needle. Among the Babylo- nians, with whom perhaps the proverb originated, elephants were not uncommon, but they were strangers in Judea; so that the camel, which was the largest animal known to the Jews, na- turally gave the turn to the expression. The saying, however, according to the Jewish form, occurs in the Koran, Sura VII. 37. The impious, who in his arrogance shall accuse our doctrine of falsity, shall find the gates of heaven shut ; nor shall he enter there till a camel shall pass through the eye of a needle. Camp- BELL, Grotius, Ligutroot, Werste1n, Micuartis.—[ Wuit- By.] Many excellent MSS., followed by some versions, instead of διελθεῖν read εἰσελθεῖν. But the sense is decisive in favour of the received lection. ‘The rich here spoken of are those whe trust in riches, Mark x. 24. See on Matt. v. 3. Ver. 25. ἐξεπλήσσοντο σφόδρα. This alarm was naturally suggested by the general knowledge which the disciples had of the world: they were aware all men were either rich or desired to be so. But the declaration of our Lord is plainly hyperbo- lical, and to be understood within certain limitations, and as de- noting extreme difficulty rather than actual impossibility. It is confined too, as before remarked, in its primary sense, to the MATTHEW XIX. 27, 28. 937 entrance of men into the Gospel kingdom upon earth; so that those who were already Christians, and employed their wealth properly, are excepted: and even those who come under the class to which our Lord more immediately alluded may be in- duced, as he goes on to affirm, by the influence of the Holy Spirit, and the promises which the Gospel holds out, to accept the conditions of salvation proposed to them. Hence the advice of St. Paul in 1 Tim. vi. 17. sqq. Joseph of Arimathea, Nico- demus, Joanna, the wife of Chusa, Herod’s steward, and Manen, Herod’s foster-brother, were remarkable instances of this tri- umphant power of grace. Celsus objected against this declara- tion of Christ, that it was only a poor imitation of the Platonic maxim, ἀγαθὸν εἶναι διαφερόντως, καὶ πλούσιον εἶναι διαφερόν- τως, ἀδύνατον. Of the divine Omnipotence, compare Gen. xviii. 14. Job xlii. 2. Jerem. xxxii. 17. So Homer, Il. T. 90. θεὸς διὰ πάντα τελευτᾷ. See my note én loc. Le CLERc, Gro- TIus, MACKNIGHT. ; Ver. 97. τί ἄρα ἔσται ἡμῖν; What shall we have therefore ? Scil. what reward, what treasure in heaven? ν. 21. The question proposed by Peter does not appear to have been dictated by a feeling of disappointment or dissatisfaction, as some have sup- posed, but from the simple wish, tinged perhaps with a degree of conscious self-applause, of ascertaining the reward, which would be assigned to him and the other Apostles, who had ac- tually done what the young ruler had not the courage and the virtue to do. It is true they had no wealth to relinquish, but what little they had they cheerfully parted with: they gave up their αἰ: they took up their cross and followed Christ. Porrerus. —[Macxnicut.] The expression here employed occurs in Xen. Anab. I. 7. 7. ἀξιοῦντες εἰδέναι τί σφίσιν ἔσται, ἐὰν κρατήσωσιν. II. 1. 8. τί ἔσται τοῖς στρατιώταις. Aristoph. Nub. 490. ἀλλ᾽ ἔσται σοι τοῦτο παρ᾽ ἡμῶν. A somewhat similar example is no- ticed on Matt. xviii. 19. Kypke, WETSTEIN. Ver. 28. The opinions of the commentators upon this passage are widely different, and it is unquestionably involved in consi- derable difficulty. In the first place, as to the punctuation, some refer the words ἐν τῇ παλιγγενεσίᾳ to the participle ἀκολουθήσαν- τες, as denoting the great change which began to take place in manners and doctrine from the preaching of John the Baptist. But the Syriac version has what is equivalent to ¢ seculo novo, which in the Oriental idiom denotes a future state of being. As they were wont to call the creation γένεσις, any remarkable 1 restoration or renovation of the face of things was very suitably, termed παλιγγενεσίας. The return of the Israelites to their own land after the Babylonish captivity is so called in Joseph. Ant. XI. 3. 9. and Cicero adopts the Greek term to denote the re- 238 MATTHEW XIX. 28. stitution of his rights and property after his return from exile : Epist. Attic. VI. 6. Philo also, in his Life of Moses, and Cle- ment, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, call the restoration of the world after the flood by the same name. It is clear, therefore, that the words should be referred to the verb καθίσεσθε in the subse- quent clause, by placing the point at μου. But here again a new difficulty occurs as to the particular period which the word παλιγ- γενεσία is intended to designate: by some it has been referred to the Millenium, and Burnet, in his Theory of the Earth, Vol. II. p. 229. has founded an argument upon this passage to prove the renovation of the earth at that crisis. But this supposition, principally founded upon Rev. xx. 4., like the doctrine of the Millenium itself, is, to say the least, uncertain and precarious. Somewhat analogous, and nearly as unsatisfactory, is the opinion that our Lord alludes to the final conversion and restoration of the Jews after the destruction of Antichrist. The chief support to this hypothesis is derived from the circumstance that the twelve tribes of Israel are the only persons to be judged, which is interpreted to imply that the Apostles, not by a resurrection of their persons, but by a reviviscence of that spirit which resided in them, and chiefly by the Gospel, shall be mainly instrumental in their conversion. But this limitation of the judicial power of the Apostles can only be urged in opposition to another interpre- tation of the passage, which is nevertheless very generally re- ceived, and with great appearance of probability, that the rege- neration in question is that which shall take place at the day of judgment. That this view of the case cannot be admitted with- out some limitations is evident, not only from the fact that both Jew and Gentile shall then be judged, (Atom. 11. 16.) but that the Saints also, as well as the Apostles, shall be concerned in the judgment of the world at the last day, (1 Cor. vi. 2.) so that no peculiar distinction will apply to the latter in this respect. It is more than probable, therefore, that the regeneration here in- tended is that which took place at the first preaching of Chris- tianity after the ascension, and that the kingdom then conferred upon the Apostles, which is here described by their sitting upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, is that minis- terial authority with which they were invested by Christ, and with which he had been previously invested by his Father. Com- pare John xvii. 18. xx. 21. In the very similar passage, Luke xxii. 30. the figure here employed is coupled with that of eating and drinking at the table of Christ, an expression which clearly denotes a participation, inferior only to that of their Lord him- self, in the honours and the authority of his mediatorial kingdom. There is also an evident allusion to the prophecy respecting the erection of the Messiah’s kingdom in Dan. vi. 9—13. I beheld till the thrones were set, §c. for so the passage should be ren- dered, not cast down, asin E. T. Sitting on thrones is, there- MATTHEW XIX. 29. 239 fore, a figurative expression, in allusion to the custom of princes having their ministers ranged round them in council; or, more probably, to the Jewish Sanhedrim, in which the high priest sat surrounded by the principal rulers and doctors of the law. The verb κρίνειν, in the sense of governing or presiding, is sanc- tioned by Gen. xlix. 16. Judg. xii. 7. 1 Sam. viii. 5. Wisd. iii. 8. iv. 14. vy. 17. Artemidor. II. 12. κρίνειν γὰρ τὸ ἄρχειν ἔλεγον oi παλαιοί. Hence the meaning of the passage is, that the Apostles were to rule the Christian Church, of which the Jewish was a type, by the laws of the Gospel, which their Master in- spired them to preach; and by the infallible decisions respecting faith and practice, which he enabled them to give in all difficult cases. To this interpretation it is indeed objected, that the only other text in which Christ is spoken of as s¢tting upon the throne of his glory, (Matt. xxv. 51.) relates certainly to the final judg- ment. But in that place circumstances, which are here omitted, are introduced to define the sense; not to mention that many similar, though not precisely the same expressions occur in rela- tion to the period immediately subsequent to the ascension. Compare Mark xvi. 19. Acts vii. 55, 56. Col. iii. 1. Ephes. i. 20. sqq. Heb. i. 3. viii. 1. x. 12. xii. 2. It is highly probable, also, that the Regeneration here spoken of is identical with the καιρὸς διορθώσεως, which limited the duration of carnal ordi- nances, Heb. ix. 10. and with the μέλλων αἰὼν, Heb. vi. δ. (compare Heb. ii. 5. Ephes. ii. 7.) which relates to the Messiah’s kingdom upon earth, as predicted in Lsazah ix. 6. LXX, where he is called πατὴρ τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος. At the same time the promise may fairly be extended, as that in v. 23., to the general resurrection, so as to include both interpretations. And this conclusion seems to be warranted by the following verse, where our Lord’s declaration relates to all his faithful followers in all times and ages of the world, and the blessing announced is both temporal and eternal. It is no objection that Judas was one of the twelve to whom the promise was made. Our Lord knew that he would fall from his office and dignity, but as Matthias filled his place, and so stood entitled to the promise, it was evi- dently unnecessary to make any particular distinction. Ham- MOND, LiguTroor, Grotius, CAMPBELL.—[ WuitTBy, LE CLERC, Dopprince. | | Ver. 29. ἑκατονταπλασίονα λήψεται. Mark x. 30. ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τούτῳ, μετὰ διωγμῶν, 1. 6. they shall receive more than they part with ; in the inward satisfaction and divine consolations at- tending real religion, in the delights of a good conscience, and the affectionate communion of all good Christians, which shall support them under the persecutions to which they will neces- sarily be exposed. Of this St. Paul was an illustrious example. See 2 Cor. vi. 8. sqq. which may be considered not only as an 940 MATTHEW XIX. 30. XX. 1. admirable comment upon our Lord’s declaration, but as an exact fulfilment of the prediction contained in it. Doppripee, Por- TEUS. Ver. 30. πολλοὶ δὲ ἔσονται x. τ. A. The Jews, who had been the chosen people of God, and who will be first invited to the reception of the Gospel by the preaching of the Apostles, will be the last to partake of it, and to obtain its promises; and the Gentiles, who have had none of the privileges of a covenant with God, and to whom the offer of the Gospel will not be made till the Jews have rejected it, will be the first in the kingdom of grace and of glory. To illustrate this position our Lord deli- vered the parable in the opening of the next chapter, in which, however, the application is not only particular but general, and intended for the instruction of all Christians whatsoever. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. p. 406. Wuirsy, Dopprince. te " try CHAPTER XxX. Contents :— The parable of the labourers in the vineyard, vv. 1—16. Christ again predicts his death and passion, νν. 17—19. [Mark x. 32. Luke xviii. 31.] Ambition of the sons of Zebedee, vy. 20—28. [Mark x. 35.] Two blind men healed at Jericho, vv. 29—84. [Mark x. 46. Luke xviii. 35.] Verse 1. ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδεσπότῃ. This pleonasm is very com- mon. Compare Matt. xi. 19. xiii. 45. xviii. 23. and elsewhere. Of the custom alluded to in this parable, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 432. The scope and design of its principal parts have been variously explained by different commentators. Some imagine that it was intended to teach us that God converts some in childhood, some in youth, some in their riper years, some in the decline of life, and others in old age. But this is altogether at variance with the declaration with which the parable concludes, since all who -are called in this acceptation must be chosen also. It would also follow as a necessary inference that the rewards of the righteous are all equal, and that this equality was the cause of murmuring and discontent among the saints in heaven ; an inference which is directly opposed to other passages of Scripture, as well as to reason and common sense. Others explain the first call of the preaching of the Baptist, and the earlier days of Christ’s ministry, that at the third hour, as re- lating to the first mission of the Apostles to preach among the Jews; those of the sixth and ninth hours of the Apostolic exer- MATTHEW XxX. 2. 241 tions among the Jews in Judea and elsewhere, subsequently to the descent of the Holy Ghost; and that at the eleventh hour of the call of the Gentiles: but the nicety of these distinctions is too laboured and minute. It should rather seem that the parable is entirely prophetical of the extent to which the Jews would carry their prejudices, and the difficulty with which they would be led to admit that Gentile converts were to partake of the same privileges with themselves. See on v. 11. They prided them- selves in their adherence for so many ages to the worship of the true God, and in the great extremities to which they had been sometimes reduced on account of it: and it seems natural to interpret the burning and heat of the day in reference to these, rather than any other hardships which the Jewish converts en- dured, since it does not appear that believing Gentiles met with less ill treatment than the Jews. Macxnicut, DoppripcE.— [Wuitsy. ] Ibid. ἅμα πρωΐ. This is an elliptical form for ἅμα σὺν τῷ πρωΐ. Compare Heclus. xi. 6. Jerem. xx. 16. LXX. So dua τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, Xen. Hellen. I. 6.10. 1 Mace. iv. 6. ἅμα ἕῳ, Thucyd. IV. 32. The phrase here used is found also in Thucyd. IV. 1. ἅμα δὲ πρωὶ ἐσβαλόντες. A similar Latin idiom occurs in Plaut. Mereat. II. 1. 31. Mane cum luci simul. So Cistell. II. 1. 53. cum prima ἐμοὶ, where the dative form is used for the ablative, ALBERT, KyPKE. Ver, 2. ἐκ Snvapiov τὴν ἡμέραν. A denarius was the usual price of a day’s labour among the Romans, as well as among the Jews. Tacit. Annal. I. 17. Denis indiem assibus animam et corpus estimart, hine vestem, arma, tentoria, hine sevitiam cen- turtonum, et vacationes munerum redimi. Compare also Tobit v. 14. It is, therefore, justly mentioned in Rev. vi. 6. as a proof of the great scarcity of provision, that a chenix of wheat, (about an English quart,) which was the usual allowance of one man for a day, was sold at that price. The preposition é is generally omitted before the genitive of the price, as in v. 13. See Matt. Gr. Gr. ὃ. 342. Before ἡμέραν some supply xara, but εἰς is more correct, as denoting only a single day. Polyb. VI. 37. εἰς τὸν μῆνα. So in Latin, im. Ovid. Met. 11. 47. Inque diem alipedum jus et moderamen equorum. We have the same ellipsis in Nwnb. xxviii. 3. LXX. The verb συμφωνεῖν is properly a musical term, expressive of harmony: hence it denotes generally to consent; and so to bargain: as here, and in Acts v. 9. So Diod. Sic. Exc. Val. p. 313. ὃ δὲ τῶν Γαλα- TOV ἡγούμενος συμφωνήσας μισθὸν ἤτει τοῦτον. DopDRIDGE, Kuinort, Kypxe. Various rules and regulations with respect to hired labourers, and the proportion of wages for a day or parts of a day, are laid down with great exactness in the tract of Maimonides, entitled “‘ Hiring,” and in Bava Metzia, §. 7. VOL. I. R 242 MATTHEW XX. 4. 8. 11. There are many similitudes also in the Talmud, closely parallel to this parable of our Lord, and in which the principal part even of the phraseology may be found. The following is from Bera- choth, p. 5, 3. Zo what was R. Bon Bar Chaya like? To a king who hired many labourers ; among which there was one hired, who performed his work extraordinarily well. What did the king ? He took him aside, and walked with him to and fro: and when even was come, the labourers came that they might receive their hire, and he gave him a complete hire with the rest. And the labourers murmured, saying ; We have laboured hard all the day, and this man only two hours, yet he has re- ceived as much wages as we. The king saith unto them; He hath laboured more in those two hours, than you in the whole day. So R. Bon plied the law more in eight and twenty years than another in a hundred years. Some have thought the same turn which is given by the Talmudists, should also be given to the parable of our Lord; but of this it is clear that the scope and design thereof will not admit. It has also been thought, that this and other of the Gospel parables, have been borrowed by the Jewish writers, who came after the time of Christ. But it seems more probable, that our Lord modelled to his own use the maxims and proverbs then in use, since it is scarcely to be ima- gined that the hatred which they bore to Christ and his religion would have allowed them to imitate his sayings. Licurroor, Wuirsy.—[Lr Cuerc. ] Ver. 4. ὃ ἐὰν ἡ δίκαιον. Whatever is reasonable. Compare Phil. i. 7. Col. iv. 1. 2 Pet. i. 13. The same words in v. 7. are omitted in several MSS. versions and Fathers; and for λήψεσθε, some read δώσω ὑμῖν, probably from this place. Kut- NOEL, DoppRIDGE. Ver, 8. τῷ ἐπιτρόπῳ. Of the duties of this servant, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. II]. p. 435. He seems to have been nearly the same with our bazliff. Hesych. ἐπιτρόπος" ὃ προσ- τατῶν χωρίων Kai ὅλης τῆς οὐσίας. .By the Romans he was called procurator. Cic. pro Cecin. ὃ. 20. Procurator dicitur omnium rerum ejus—quast quidam poene dominus, hoc est, alient juris vicarius. In vv. 9, 10. the preposition ava is used adver- bially, stngulatim. So in Rev. xxi. 21. ava εἷς ἕκαστος. Kur- NOEL. Ver. 11. éyéyyvZov. That this was the case of the Jews, upon a general notion of the Gentiles being admitted into the same Church privileges with themselves, is evident from a variety of Scriptures. See Acts xi. 2, 3. xiii. 45. sqq. xvii. 5. 19. xviii. 6. 13. xxii. 21, 22. xxviii. 29. Rom. xi. 28. 1 Thess. il. 16. Doppripee. MATTHEW XX. 13. 16. 243 Ver, 12. μίαν ὥραν ἐποίησαν. ‘These words are sometimes rendered have spent one hour ; as if those who had been first en- gaged, intended to speak slightingly of those who had come last into the vineyard. ‘That the verb ποιεῖν will admit of this sense, is evident from Todt x. 7. LXX. Acts xv. 33. xviii. 23. 2 Cor. xi, 25. James iv. 18. So also Eurip. Hippol. 37. ἐνιαυτὸν ποιεῖν ἔξω τῆς πατρίδος. Lucilius in Anthol. 11. 1. 8. νύκτα μέσην ἐποίησε. Lacio is employed in the same sense by Seneca; Epist. 66. Quamvis autem paucissimos una fecerimus dies, tamen multi nobis sermones fuerunt. In this case, however, the adverb ὧδε, or the words ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι, would, in all probability, have been added; so that it is better to understand ἔργον. Of ποιεῖν in the sense of ἐργάζεσθαι, there are ex- amples in Ruth ii. 19. LXX. Matt. xxi. 28. So Columell. de Re _ Rust. 11. 2. facere agrum. ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ,, Wurrpy.—[WEtTsTEIN, PaLarret. | Ver. 18, ἑταῖρε, οὐκ ἀδικῶ ot. The salvation of the Gentiles is no impediment to that of the Jews; but eternal life is offered to both on the same terms. The gift is God’s, who has therefore a right to bestow it upon whom he pleases, and upon what con- ditions he may choose to appoint.—The word ἑταῖρε is an affable form of address from a superior to one in a lower rank of life; sometimes indicative of a gentle reproof. Compare Matt. xxii. 12. xxvi. 50. The expression ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρὸς, denoting envy or covetousness, is explained on Matt. vi. 22. On the other hand, ἀγαθὸς frequently signifies bountiful or liberal: as Matt. xii. 12. Acts ix. 86. James iii. 17. and elsewhere. See also Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 298. Kurnort, Grorius, Le CLERC. Ver. 16. πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσι κλητοὶ, x. τ. A. In some places of the N. T. as, for instance, Rev. xvii. 14. the terms κλητοὶ and ἐκλεκτοὶ, seem to be nearly synonymous, as applied to those who, being called, obeyed the invitation, and therefore are become the elect; or chosen, of God. The former appellation also, is sometimes used of those who are not only called, but who received the call, and are therefore essentially Christians: as Rom. i. 6. 1 Cor. i. ΠῚ, 2. 24, and elsewhere. But the words are properly distinct ; re- ferring to two different stages in the Gospel dispensation. In fact, the terms were originally Jewish forms of expression, and thence applied by Christ and his Apostles to similar distinctions in his own Church. The Jews had been selected from all other nations, and called to peculiar privileges, as the chosen people of God; whence they were denominated κλητοὶ and ἐκλεκτοὶ indifferently. Thus the whole nation are called ἐκ- λεκτοὶ, Psalm cv. 6. but such as were set apart to any distin- suished office, were more properly so denominated; as Moses, ou: VW 244 MATTHEW XxX. 18. 20. Psalm evi. 23. David, Psalm \xxxix. 3. Saul, 2 Sam. xxi. 6. Hence, in this parable, the κλητοὶ, or called, are those of the Jews who were invited to the marriage-supper of the Gospel, but slighted and rejected it, (Luke xiv. 18.): the ἐκλεκτοὶ, on the other hand, are those who embraced the call, and are therefore denominated by St. Paul, the ἐκλογὴ, and the remnant κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν, Rom. xi. 6, 7. Some would extend the import of the maxim to Christians in all ages; so that the κλητοὶ would be those who are mere professors of the religion of Jesus, and the ἐκλεκτοὶ those who have so received the Gospel, as to be ap- proved and chosen of God. But, in this place at least, the scope of the parable will not admit of such an interpretation. Of the custom to which our Lord alludes, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 200. Wurrsy, Grorius.—[ KvINoEL. ] Ver. 18. κατακρινοῦσιν αὐτὸν θανάτῳ. That is, κατακρινοῦ- σιν αὐτὸν εἶναι ἐνόχον θανάτου, as stated by Mark xiv. 64. The Jews had‘now no judicial power of life and death. By τοῖς ἔθνεσι the Romans are intended, and crucifixion was a Roman punishment. Grorius. This prediction is a remarkable proof of the prophetic powers of Christ ; for, humanly speaking, it was much more probable that he should have been privately assass¢- nated, or stoned, in some zealous transport of popular fury, than solemnly condemned before a Roman tribunal. Indeed, when the Jews condemned him for blasphemy, which was legally punishable by stoning ; and when Pilate at last gave them per- mission to judge him according to their own law, (Matt. xxvi. 65, 66. John xviii. 51. xix. 7.) it is wonderful that this death was not decreed against him. But αὐΐ this was done that the Scripture might be fulfilled. DoppRIDGE. Ver. 20. ἡ μήτηρ τῶν υἱῶν Z. Her name was Salome. Com- pare Mark xy. 40. with Matt. xxvii. 56. The request which she now made to Christ, probably originated in the promise just given to the Apostles, of sitting on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. She seems to have alluded to a custom of the Sanhedrim, in which the two principal officers, called 4b Beth Dit the father of the council, and Chacham, the sage, sate on the right and left hand respectively of the Nasz, or Pre- sident. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. IIT. p. 115. At all events, to sit on the right hand and left hand was always a mark of the most exalted dignity. Compare 1 Sam. xx. 25. 1 Kings ii. 19. Psalm xlv. 9. cx. i. 1. Esdr. iii. 7. iv. 42. 1 Mace. x. 63. Ecelus. xii. 12. Joseph. Ant. XI. 4. According to Mark x. 35. James and John presented the request for themselves: i. e. they presented it through the medium of their mother. See on Matt. viii. 5. _They may probably have been induced to make it, in consideration of their near relationship with Christ, and the MATTHEW XX. 22, 23. 245 peculiar favour and attachment with which he regarded them. Wuitsy, Doppripce, Grorius. Ver. 22. οὐκ οἴδατε, τί αἰτεῖσθε. That is, you do not justly comprehend the nature of my kingdom, which will rather call you to suffer after my example, than to temporal advantage and aggrandizement. Of the metaphorical signification of the word cup, as denoting the portion of good or evil which is assigned to men in this life, see my note on Hom. Il. Q. 527. The meta- phor of baptism also is familiar in Scripture, to signify a person overwhelmed with calamities, as it were with a flood of waters. Compare Psalm xlii. 7. Ixix. 2. [xxxviii. 7. Cant. vii. 7. Jerem. xvii. 2. Ezek. xxvi. 19. Dan, ix. 26. Jon. ii. 3. Christ also speaks of his death, as of a baptism to be baptized with, Luke xii. ὅθ. and the same figure is employed by profane writers. Achill. Tat. III. p. 179. ed. Salm. τί τηλικοῦτον ἠδικήσαμεν, ὡς ἐν ὀλίγαις ἡμέραις τοσούτῳ πλήθει κατα[βαπτισθῆναι κακῶν. Somewhat similar is the expression κακῶν πέλαγος, illustrated in my note on Aisch. Theb. 755. Pent. Gr. p. 457. So Virg. fEn. VI. 512. His mersere malis. It is supposed by some, that our Lord alludes to the cruelty of baptism, as practised by the Jews; the whole body being immersed in water even in the coldest seasons; in consequence of which, as the Talmudists relate in Berachoth, p. 6, 3. the women of Galilee were fre- quently barren. But this is somewhat strained and unnatural. According to the prediction here delivered, James and John were baptized with Christ’s baptism. The former was put to death by Herod, (Aets xii. 2.): and the latter was banished to the isle of Patmos, (Rev. i. 9.) There is also a tradition that John was cast into a cauldron of boiling oil at Rome, which is received by Chrysostom, but rejected by Tertullian. It is not to be doubted, however, that he had his share of the persecutions from which none of Christ’s Apostles were exempted. Wuirsy, DopprincGe, Macxnient, Kutnorit.—[Lieutroor.] It should be observed, thatthe whole clause ἢ τὸ βάπτισμα, κ. τ. A. and that corresponding to it in the subsequent verse, are in this Gospel wanting in several MSS. and some versions and Fathers. But they are found in the greater number of copies, and perfectly coincide with the scope of the passage, nor is there any sufficient authority, as some have thought, to justify their omission. WerT- sTEIN, CamppeLL.—[Grirspacu, Mint, Grorivs. | Ver. 23. οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμὸν κι τ. Δι According to the E. T. and some other versions, there is here an ellipsis of the verb δοθή- σεται, and the sense thus supplied affords some colour to the Arian and Socinian heresies. By disclaiming all discretionary power in the distribution of future rewards, our Lord is thus made to acknowledge his inferiority to the Father, there being 246 MATTHEW XX. 25. some power which the Father has reserved to himself, and not committed to the Son. But the fact is, that there is no ellipsis whatever in the passage; for the conjunction ἀλλὰ, when, as in this place, it is not followed by a verb, but by anoun or pronoun, is equivalent with εἰ μὴ, except. Compare Matt. xvii. 8. with Mark ix. 8. Hence the expression here employed argues no defect in the power of Christ, but merely a perfect conformity to his Father’s will; in accordance with which he can assign the chief places in the kingdom of heaven to those only, whose pre-eminent faith and fortitude deserve them. The Socinian tenets, supported by the received translation of this verse, are in direct opposition to Luke xxii. 29. 1 Cor. xii. 5. Rev. iii, 21. Wuitsy, Macknicut, CAMPBELL. Ver. 25. οἴδατε, ὅτι οἱ ἄρχοντες x. τ. X. It cannot be inferred from this passage, as some have contended, that the exercise of all dominion is forbidden in a Christian community. The autho- rity of parents over their children, of masters over their servants, of magistrates, kings, and ecclesiastical rulers, is enforced in such clear and positive terms in other parts of the N. T. as to set aside any such conclusion. Compare Rom. xiii. 6. 1 Cor. v. 5. xil. 28. 2 Cor. iv: 21. x. 6. 8. xiii. 10. Ephes. vi. 1. 5; Coloss. iii. 22. 1 Thess. v.12. 1 Tim. vi. 1. 2 Tim. i. 20. Heb. xiii. 7.17. It has also been supposed that our Lord employed the compound verbs κατακυριεύειν and κατεξουσιάζειν, in order to express an indirect reprehension of tyrannical and arbitrary power, in which sense they are used in Nehem. vy. 14, 15. ix. 37. Ezra vil. 24. Psalm x. 5. 10. Ecclus. xx. 8. But in Luke xxil. 25. the simple verbs only are used; not to mention that kings and governors among the Gentiles cannot be supposed to have been always guilty of mal-administration. It was simply our Lord’s intention to check the ambitious pride of his disciples, by assuring them that his kingdom was not, as they imagined, of the same nature with the kingdoms of the world; but that the true dignity of the Christian will arise more from the service which he does to others, than the power he possesses over them. In this they were’to follow the example of their Master, whose greatness consisted not in being ministered to by men, but in ministering to them, by healing their sick, feeding the hungry, instructing the ignorant, and giving his life as a ransom for the sins of the world. The request of the two brethren plainly shews that they did not understand our Lord’s declaration to Peter in Matt. xvi. 18. as designed to invest him with any autho- rity over the rest of the Apostles; and the reply which Christ here gives, is decisive on that head. Doppripce, WHITBY, Macknicut. Some have supposed that the pronoun αὐτῶν re- lates to the Gentiles only in the first clause of the verse, and that it is repeated in reference to ἄρχοντες, which is understood to MATTHEW XX. 28. 247 denote the governors of provinces, and therefore holding domi- nion under the Roman emperors, who are termed μεγάλοι. But this is less natural; and the repetition of the same sentiment in different words in this, and again in v. 27. is merely for the sake of emphasis. KurnoeLt.—[Grotivs. ] - Ver. 28. λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν. The word λύτρον signifies a ransom, or price of redemption, whether from death, captivity, or any other state of misery whatsoever. In Hwod. xxi. 30. LXX. it is used for the Hebrew 75D, pedion, the ransom for a man’s life. But it more generally corresponds in the LX X with the Hebrew 95, copher, which signifies a piacular sacrifice ; as in Numb. xxxv. 31. Prov. vi. 35.: in which latter place several other versions use ἐξίλασμα, and the LXX themselves also translate the verb 195, by ἐξιλᾶσθαι, in Levit. iv. 20. x. 17. Psalm cvi. 30. In this sense also the Greek word is employed in Lucian. D. D. p. 125. κριὸν τεθύσεσθαι λύτρα ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ. He- sych. ἐξίλασμα ἀντίλυτρον. With respect to the efficacy of vicarious sacrifices, the whole Gentile world, as well as the Jews, were very generally persuaded that piacular victims were accepted as an atonement for the life of an offender; and that the life of one person was, in some cases, given for the life of another. These persons were called ἀντιψυχοὶ, and there is an oracular response in Aristid. Sacr. V. founded upon this notion, wherein ψυχὴ ἀντὶ ψυχῆς is required. So Virg. Ain. V. 85. Unum pro multis dabitur caput. Compare also Josh. 11. 14. LX X. Joseph. de Maccab. p. 1090. Ὁ. Porphyr. de Abstin. 1V. 15. Eurip. Phoeen. 1011. Alcest. 293. See also Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p- 157. Our Lord, therefore, clearly meant, and was under- stood by the Apostles to mean, that he gave his life instead of the life of others. Some, indeed, have supposed, that the words λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν Mean, one ransom instead of many ransoms ;- i. e. the many prescribed by the Jewish law; and the Socinians affirm, that the death of Christ was not intended as a substitute for that of men, but as the seal and ratification of the New Cove- nant. The criticism, upon which this depends, is supported by Deut. vii. 8. LXX, where the verb ἐλυτρώσατο signifies simply, delivered from captivity. But there no ransom is mentioned ; whereas the death of Christ is here expressly stated as the λύτρον, and the sense of the passage is confirmed beyond all doubt by the use of the preposition ἀντὶ in its strong and original sense of instead, in the place of. The word πολλῶν has also been a stumbling-block, as seeming to imply, that redemption is not wniversal. Some have argued, therefore, that πολλοὶ is used of believers only ; but it is far more satisfactory to understand πολλοὶ in the sense of πάντες, which it clearly bears in a variety of passages. Compare especially Dan. xii. 2. with John v. 28, 29. and Rom. v. 15. 19. with 1 Cor. xv. 12. 22. Again, a 10 248 MATTHEW XX. 29. question has arisen, whether the prevalent opinion respecting the Messiah, that he would not be subject to death, (John xii. 34.) would have allowed the Apostles to understand Jesus as speaking to the effect which his words imply. It is certain, indeed, that they did not altogether comprehend the nature and intent of Christ’s sufferings, even after his repeated declarations on that subject ; still it is equally true that many of the more enlightened Jews expected that their Messiah would make some sort of expi- τ΄ ation for the sins of their nation. He is spoken of, for instance, — as WDD WN, αὐδῇ copher, which is equivalent with ἀνὴρ λύτρου, an appellation which probably originated in Dan. ix. 24. where it is predicted that he should make reconciliation for iniquity. Compare Matt. xxvi. 28. John xi. 51, 52. Ephes. vy. 2. 1 Tim. ii. 6. Heb. ix. 14. 28. Wurrsy, Le Cierc, ΚΎΡΚΕ, KurNoet. —[Grorius, Carvin, WakeEFIELD.] There is a remarkable addition to this passage in the Codex Beze, and some MSS. and Versions; but it is evidently an interpolation from some Apocryphal Gospel. Ver. 29. ἐκπορευομένων αὐτῶν ἀπὸ ἹἹεριχὼ, κι τ. A. The event here related is generally admitted by the commentators to be the same with that recorded in Mark x. 46, Luke xvii. 35. At the same time there are several apparent discrepancies in the three accounts respectively, which have given rise to various methods of reconciling the Evangelists with each other, and have induced some to suppose that two at least, if not three dis- tinct occurrences, are intended. ‘That the cures are the same will scarcely be doubted by any who attentively observe the sameness of the incidents in the three several narratives. ‘Two facts only, of apparently great importance it must be owned, con- stitute the difficulty: 1. Matthew and Mark state the cure to have been effected as Jesus departed from Jericho, whereas Luke relates it as he drew near to that city; 2. Two blind men were cured according to Matthew, while Mark and Luke men- tion only one, whose name, according to the former, was Bar- timeus. In order to account for the first of these discrepancies some suppose that one blind man was cured as Jesus entered, and the other as he left the city; that Luke speaks of the first, Mark of the other, and that Matthew includes both in one nar- ration. But it is scarcely probable that the people would have reproved Bartimeeus for his importunity, if a cure of the same re- markable character had been wrought but a short time before, at the entrance into the town. ‘The same objection applies to the supposition that there were two towns of the same name, but distinguished as Old and New Jericho, and that the cures were performed at the entrance of Christ into one, and his departure from the other, respectively. Others again conjecture that Jesus passed the man as he entered the city without healing him, in MATTHEW XxX. 31. 34. 249 order to try his faith, but cured him on his return, and another who had joined him. This evidently does not remove the diffi- culty, the whole of which in fact resides in the incorrect ren- dering of St. Luke’s expression ἐν τῷ ἐγγίζειν. Not only the E. T., but other versions also have understood this to mean as he drew near, whereas it should unquestionably be translated in- definitely while he was near. It is thus left undetermined at which extremity of the city the miracle was wrought; and that the words will bear this construction is amply confirmed b Isaiah i. 8. Jerem. xxiii. 23. LXX. Luke x. 9. xv. 1. xviii. 4 0. xix. 29, Rom. xiii. 12. With respect to the number of the per-_ sons to whom sight was restored, the opinion of Augustine, Cons. Evang. 11. 124.) is very probable, that one of the beggars was more remarkable than the other, being the son of Timeus, who had formerly perhaps been a person of some distinction, and that having fallen into poverty and blindness he was forced to beg for his bread: he may also have made himself remarkable by the extraordinary earnestness of his application. An instance of similar discrepancy occurs in Matt. viii. 28. Vide locum. Doppripce, Grotius, Newcome.—[Lieutroot, MacknicuT, Carvin, &c. ] Ver. 31. ἐπετίμησεν. E. T. rebuked; but Campbell prefers charged, observing that the historian did not mean to blame the poor men for their importunity, since our Lord both by word and deed was accustomed to commend such application. Now the Evangelist merely records the transaction, stating that the rebuke came from the multitude ; and it does not appear how the conduct of the mob is to be charged upon the historian. It is true, indeed, that ἐπιτιμᾶν is sometimes simply to charge, but it much more frequently means to rebuke in the N. T., as Matt. xvi. 22. Mark ix. 25. and elsewhere; and certainly something stronger than a simple admonition might naturally be expected from a collected multitude. They may have deemed it expedient to impose silence upon Bartimzeus and his companion from fear of the powerful men of the city, in regard to the safety of Jesus, or from a wish to prevent any interruption to his passage, or from impatience at the disturbance by which his discourse may have been rendered inaudible. Of the ellipsis of ἵνα in the fol- lowing verse see my note on Eurip. Phoen. 734, Pent. Gr. p. 347, Ver. 84. ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ. The allegorical reflection which Erasmus makes on this circumstance is beautiful :—Jta sanat animum cupiditatibus mundanis exceecatum suo contactu Jesus, et in hoc datur lumen, ut illius sequamur vestigia. MAcCKNIGHT. 250 MATTHEW XXI. 1. CHAPTER XxXI. ConTENTS :—Christ’s public entry into Jerusalem, and expulsion of the money-changers, §c. vv. 1—13. [Mark xi. 1. Luke xix. 29. John xii. 12.) He heals the sick in the Temple, reproves the chief priests, and goes to Bethany, vv. 14—17. The barren fig-tree blasted, vy. \8S—22. [Mark xi. 12.] The aw νος thority of Christ questioned, and his reply to the chief priests, wy. 23—27. [Mark xi. 27. Luke xx. 1.] The parable of the two sons, vv. 28—382. Parable of the vineyard, its applica- tion to the Pharisees, and their consequent indignation, vy. 33—46, [Mark xii. 1. Luke xx. 9.] Verse 1. ὅτε ἤγγισαν x. τ. Δ. Several particulars not re- corded by St. Matthew occurred between the miracle related in the last chapter and Christ’s public entry into Jerusalem; and among others the raising of Lazarus from the dead, which is de- tailed in John xi. 17. sqq. This display of omnipotence had attracted an amazing multitude around him, and opened the way for the completion of one of the most remarkable prophecies in Holy Writ. It will be necessary to make a few observations [on CHRIST'S TRIUMPHANT ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM. The time was now fast approaching when Christ was to com- plete the office for which he came into the world, by dying upon the cross: previous to this, however, it was. necessary that the people should honour him with the title of Messiah publicly, | and give him the opportunity of accepting that august name in the most avowed manner before he ascended into heaven. The priests, who had issued out a proclamation against him, (John xi. 57.) were to be restrained for a while by the popular emotion from offering him violence, as he had doctrines to teach, rebukes to give, and predictions to deliver, which would otherwise in- evitably have ended in a death at once premature, and of a dif- ferent nature to that which he was ordained to suffer. With respect to the manner of his entry into Jerusalem, it was precisely that which indicated the strongest and most unequivocal persuasion of the attendant crowds that he was their Messiah and their King. The spreading of the garment before him, the carrying of palm and other branches, and the acclamations with which they wel- comed him, are precisely the tokens by which they acknowledged the presence of their princes, and which they expected their Messiah to receive. Compare 2 Kings ix. 13. 1 Mace. xiii. 51. 2 Mace. x. 7. Jos. Ant. 11. 83. Phil. de Legg. 1. AZsch. Ag. 918. Herod. VII. 54. Plutarch, Cat. Min. 12. and see MATTHEW ΧΧΙ. 1. 251 Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. pp. 87. 318. It has been ob- jected, indeed, that there is something mean and ridiculous in the idea of the Saviour riding upon an ass; but it should be remembered, that the unmerited insignificance of this animal in modern times did not attach to it among the early oriental na- tions. The Eastern asses are much larger and more beautiful than ours, and kings and patriarchs did not disdain to ride upon them. Compare Gen. xxii. 3. Haxod. iv. 20. Numb, xxii. 21. . Judg.v. 10. x. 4. 2 Sam. xvi. 2. xvii. 23. xix. 26. and see my note on Hom. Il. A. 557. The circumstance was an exact ful- filment of the prophecy in Zech. ix. 9. and indicative of the meekness and humility of Christ, and the gentleness of his ad- ministration, at the same time that it exemplified, in the most expressive manner, his strict observance of the divine law. God, — that he might keep the people of Israel in a more sensible de- pendence on himself, forbade the use of horses, as also of cha- riots, in their armies, see Deut. xvii. 16. Josh. xi. 6. Judg. v. 15. David therefore rode on a mule, and ordered Solomon to do so, on his coronation day, (1 Kings i. 33, 34.) burnt the chariots he took from the enemy, and ham-strung their horses, (2 Sam. vii. 4.) to make them unfit for war. Afterwards also, when Solomon (1 Kings iv. 26.) and succeeding princes multiplied horses, they were rebuked by the prophets and chastised by God for it. See Isaiah ii. 6, 7. xxxi. 1. Hos. xiv. ὃ. Compare also Hos. 1. 7. Micah v. 10, 11. Zech. ix. 10. Of the completion of the pro- phecy of Zechariah in Jesus Christ there can be no doubt, not’ only from the declarations of the Evangelists, but from its exact application to him, and to no other person whatsoever; for though historians speak of the entrances of several princes and conquerors into Jerusalem, to none of them will it apply in all its minute particulars. It has been supposed, for instance, that it may have referred to Zorobabel, but the prophecy was written sub- sequent to his residence in the city, after the return from the cap- tivity. In its reference to their expected Messiah the Rabbins are almost universally agreed. Thus Midrach Koheleth, p. ΟἹ, 2. Such as our first Redeemer (Moses) was, such also shall be the last, (the Messiah) ;. they first set his wife and children upon an ass, (Ewod. iv. 20.) and so shall it be with the last, of whom it is said, He is poor, and sitting upon an ass. In Sanhedrim, ὃ. Il. p. 98. it is said, Sapores, King of Persia, said to R. Samuel, You say your Messiah will come upon an ass, I will send him a noble horse. To which R. Samuel replied, You have not a horse with a hundred spots like hisass. A variety of citations to the same effect abound in the Talmud; and in the Seder Ha- gada, or Book of Paschal rites, it is related, that during the Paschal feast it was usual for a man, personating the Messiah, to ride into the room upon an ass, in allusion to the manner in which he was expected to enter Jerusalem. There is a story 252 MATTHEW XXI. 2. also in Diod. Sic. Excerp. XXXIV. invented probably by the Greeks in derision of this expectation, that Antiochus Epiphanes, entering the holy place in the Temple, found there the émage of a man with a long beard riding on an ass. There is no doubt, therefore, that the Jews, at our Lord’s public entry into Jeru- salem, were fully impressed with his exact resemblance to Ze- chariah’s description, and hailed him accordingly, upon the faith of this prediction, as their expected king. Wuirsy, Doppriner, Licutroor, ScuorTreen.—[Grorivs. In undertaking this journey to Jerusalem our Lord has been accused of attempting to feel how far the populace were disposed to favour his pretensions in establishing himself as a king in the _ land, or, at least, of giving occasion to popular tumult and sedi- tion. The cavil is completely refuted by every circumstance connected with the transaction: he had previously predicted that he was going up to Jerusalem in order that all things which had been spoken by the prophets concerning him might be ac- complished ; and it was only five days after his arrival that he was condemned and crucified by that very multitude which had so lately hailed him as the Christ. During this five days, which he employed as he was ever wont, in teaching, he uttered no maxim dissimilar to his former precepts, nor said a word which was calculated to produce any feeling in the minds of the people than that of piety towards God. It is true’ that with the cha- racter of the Messiah the Jews had always connected that of secular royalty ; and if Jesus had meditated any ambitious pur- pose he had now the fairest opportunity of accomplishing his design. He received, indeed, for reasons already assigned, the public acknowledgment of his Messiahship, but instead of at- tempting to advance any secular view, he retired, after the labours of the day, to the private seclusion of Mount Olivet, and pre- pared himself by secret prayer and meditation for the awful scene which he knew to be approaching. RosENMULLER, A. CLARKE. ] Ver. 2. πῶλον per αὐτῆς. Mark xi. 2. ἐφ᾽ dv οὐδεὶς ἀνθρώ- πων κεκάθικε. It was usual with the ancients to use for any sacred purpose animals which had not been employed in any ordinary work. See Deut. xxi. 3. 1 Sam. vi. 7. Horat. Epod. 9. 22, Ovid. Met. III. 12. Virg. Georg. IV. 540. 551. There are some trifling difficulties connected with our Lord’s command to his disciples. Mark and Luke, who do not cite the prophecy of Zecharias, represent our Lord as sending for the colt only ; but this very naturally arose from the circumstance that he rode only upon the colt, and though both were brought, in strict accordance with the prophecy, that only may have been mentioned which was the principal feature in the affair. In saying that our Lord MATTHEW XXI. 3. 5. 9. 253 sent for the one, the Evangelists do not say that he did not send for the other. By the use of the plural, however, in v. 7. it has been inferred that both were used by Christ at different stages of the journey: but this is highly improbable, and it is by no means unusual with the sacred writers, when either the nature of the thing spoken of or the attendant circumstances are sufficient for precluding mistakes, to employ the plural number for the sin- gular. The difficulty may also be removed, and perhaps more correctly, by rendering ἐπάνω αὐτῶν upon one of them. See on Matt. iv. 3. It would be a ready solution of the matter, if it were not for the express distinction, to render the conjunction καὶ in vy. 5. 7. merely as an explicative particle ; and so it is in fact rendered by some, an ass, even a colt. Others again, with Euthymius, refer the latter αὐτῶν to ἱμάτια. But this method is — extremely harsh and unsatisfactory, and, at the same time, it ap- pears unnecessary. Kurnorn, Le Crerc, Campsett. In the whole of this transaction we cannot but observe a wonderful in- stance of Christ’s prescience in the minutest matters :—1. You shall find a colt: 2. On which never man sat: 3. Bound with its mother: 4. In bivo: 5. At the entrance of the village: 6. The owners shall at first hesitate: but, 7. Eventually consent to send them. WuiTpBy. Ver. 3. ὃ Κύριος. Some understand the Lord the Messiah ; and others, that Christ claims to himself the title κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, as Lord of all things ; but it is better to take it simply in the sense of the Hebrew 2°, with the article prefixed as a possessive pro- noun. See on Matt. vii. 21. There is no appearance of Christ’s intending to shew his sovereignty in transferring the property of these creatures, nor is such a supposition consistent with the general tenor of his proceedings. ‘The owners, who were near them, were in all probability acquainted with Christ and his dis- ciples; and doubtless, though the Evangelists do not descend to these minute particulars, the asses were properly cared for, and duly returned to their possessors. DoppripeE, KUINoEL. Ver. 5. εἴπατε τῇ θυγατρὶ Σιών. That is, Jerusalem ; so named from Mount Zion, which was in the city, and on which was erected a fortress for its defence. See Joseph. B. J. V. 4. 1. This poetical manner of personifying cities and countries to which they address themselves was familiar to the prophets. Compare Psalm xlv. 13. cxxxvii. 8. Jerem. xlvi. 24. Lam. 1.6. ii. 1. Amos y. 1. This opening to the prophecy seems to have been transferred from Isaiah \xii. 11. CAMPBELL, GLASSE. Ver. 9. εὐλογημένος. Scil. ἔστω. Acclamations of this kind are always of the nature of prayers, or ardent wishes. Thus the preceding words ‘Qoavva τῷ υἱῷ Δαυὶδ are equivalent to God 254 MATTHEW XXI. 12, 13. preserve the son of David! for the Hebrew verb YW, yashang,— of which ‘Qoavva, Hebrew 81 YWIN, hoshiang na, i. 6. save now, is a derivative,—sometimes governs a dative. Compare Josh. x. 6. Judg. vii. 2. x. 14. 1 Sam. xxv. 26. Job xl. 14. Psalm xliv. 4. The phrase ra tora denotes the heavens, so that ‘Qoavva ἐν τοῖς ὑψίστοις is an address to God, ὃ ἐν τοῖς ὑψίστοις, in favour of the Messiah. Of the peculiar import of these ac- clamations, as connected with the Feast of Tabernacles, see Horne. The titles υἱὸς Δαυὶδ and ὃ ἐρχόμενος were well-known appellations of the Messiah. See on Matt. i. 1. xi. 8. Kurnoet, CAMPBELL. Ver, 12. εἰς τὸ ἱερόν. This word comprehends the whole building of the Temple, with all its courts, as distinguished from the ναὸς, or Temple strictly so called, including only the vesti- bule, the sanctuary, and the holy of holies. In illustration of the passage, and the terms employed, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. pp. 185. 239. sqq. It has appeared strange to some that the money-changers and sellers of doves,—for the offerings, it should seem, of the poor, Luke ii. 24.—should make no resist- ance. They were probably struck by the secret energy of Christ’s omnipotence ; and Jerome even supposes that igneum quiddam atque sidereum radiebat ex oculis ejus, et divinitatis majestas lucebat in facie. But without having recourse to any thing supernatural the sellers and buyers may have been inti- midated by our Lord’s numerous train of attendants, who be- lieved him to be the Messiah, and were ready to support any reformation which he should think proper to make. It was ge- nerally believed among the Rabbins that the Messiah would be invested with the power of reforming abuses, and that he would enact divers néw laws. Hence, in Midrasch Schir Haschirim, II. 13. R. Chiyah said, This must be referred to the days of the Messiah. A great event will happen in the world: the Law will be changed, and Israel reformed. So Jalkut Shemuni on Isaiah, p. 46.1. The holy blessed One shall sit and proclaim a new law, which he is about to deliver through the Messiah. KuINoEL, MACKNIGHT. Ver. 13. γέγραπται" x. τ. X. The former part of this Scrip- ture is from Lsaiah lvi. 7. and the latter from Jerem. vii. 11. The word Anorai signifies not only robbers, but generally men . of infamous character, and especially such as lived by extortion and unjust gain. So Jerome in loc. Latro est, et Templum Dei én latronum convertit specum, qui lucra de Religione sectatur, et quibus cultus ejus non tam cultus Dei quam negotiationis occasio est. In John ii. 16. the expression is οἶκος ἐμπορίου. Our Lord’s assertion is fully confirmed by Josephus, By J. V. 9. 4. οὐ τὰ κρυπτὰ μὲν τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων ἠδοξήκατε, κλοπὰς λέγω καὶ n MATTHEW XXI. 16. 255 ἐνέδρας καὶ μοιχείας, ἁρπαγαῖς δ᾽ ἐρίζετε καὶ φόνοις, καὶ ξένας καινοποιεῖτε κακίας ὁδούς" ἐκδοχεῖον δὲ πάντων τὸ ἱερὸν γέγονε. In the expression σπήλαιον ληστῶν there seems to be an allu- sion to the custom which robbers in those parts had of shelter- ing themselves in dens and caves in the wilderness, where great multitudes often joined in sharing their plunder. See Joseph. Ant. XIV. 15. ὅ. The practice, however, was not confined to Judea; a similar account is given of Cacus, in Virg. Ain. VIII. 193. sqq. who stole the oxen of Hercules, and is called by Pro- pertius metuendo Raptor ab antro, Eleg. 1V. 10. Hence also σπήλαιον ληστικὸν in Heliod. AZthiop. V. 2. The allusion is more apparent by comparing Jofn ii. 14. where it is said that Christ found in the Temple those who sold oxen and sheep. Doppripce, Hammonp, WETSTEIN, BowYER. Ver. 16. κατηρτίσω aivov. Thou hast perfected praise. He- sych. κατηρτίσω" ἐποίησας, ἐτελείωσας. The citation is from Psalm viii. 3. where the original is rightly rendered thou hast or- dained strength : implying that the divine perfections are manifest in the providence which God exercises towards even the weakest of his creatures, and consequently that the divine praise is per- fected even by the silent eloquence of the suckling, and the artless cry of the babe. Hence the sense of the Psalm, and of the LXX translation, from which the Evangelist quotes, are pre- cisely equivalent, though the words are somewhat different. Some have supposed that our Lord merely accommodates the passage to the passing circumstance; but that the whole Psalm has a prophetic reference to the Messiah is sufficiently proved by three other places in the N. T. in which it is applied to him. See 1 Cor. xv. 27. Ephes.i. 22. Heb. ii. 6. It may be remarked also, that the babes and sucklings will readily admit of a more extensive meaning, as predicting the triumph of the Apostles, weak as in many respects they were, over all the opposition of the Jews and Gentiles. With respect to the offence taken by the Pharisees, there was nothing uncommon in the children’s joining in public acclamation; and it was thus they were accus- tomed to salute their Rabbins. In addition to the natural ten- dency in children to imitate the actions of others, they were taught from their earliest infancy to take a part in the Hosannas at their solemn festivals. Succah, ὃ. 3. in fine :—A child, as soon as he knows how to wave the bundle, is bound to carry a bundle; i. e. a bundle of palm-boughs, which was called Ho- sanna, from the acclamation of those who carried it. Hence their disregard of the prophecy, and their indignation at the shouts of the children, were the sole effect of their rooted hatred against Christ. Doppriper, Licurroot, A. CLarke.—[Wuir- By.] The verb αὐλίζεσθαι, in the next verse, generally signifies to abide in any place, as the Latin manere. So 3 Esdr. ix. 2. 256 MATTHEW XXI. 18. Ecelus. xxiv. ἢ. Hesych. αὐλίζομαι" μένω, ἐνδιατρίβω. Xen. Anab. IV. 3. 1. ταύτην τὴν ἡμέραν ηὐλίσθησαι. Hence it also denotes to lodge, to pass the night: Lat. pernoctare; and in this sense νυκτὸς is sometimes added, as in Diod. Sic. p. 333. Ὁ. αὐλιζομένους ἐν τῇ πόλει νυκτός. In this sense it is here used: and it seems that our Lord lodged in the house of Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. Compare John xii. 1. KUINOEL. Ver. 18. πρωΐας δὲ ἐπανάγων κ. τ. X. According to Mark xi. 12. Christ cursed the barren fig-tree on the same day that he drove the buyers and sellers from the Temple, but the Apostles did not observe that it had withered till the following morning. The two accounts are easily reconciled by supposing that Matthew relates the occurrence briefly, without distinctly stating all the particulars, whereas Mark has told it precisely as it happened, pointing out the relation which it bore throughout to other events. Some indeed suppose, with great probability, that the buyers and sellers were ejected twice; and that Mark has re- corded a distinct action from that in Matthew and Luke. This is greatly confirmed by several considerations. Both Matthew and Mark distinctly mention that our Lord went into the Temple on the day of his public entry into Jerusalem. Now the latter merely states that he looked round about upon all things on that day, connecting the ejection of the money-changers with the oc- currences of the following day. But Matthew so expressly joins this act with the transactions of the first day, that although it is certain that the Evangelists are not always exact in observing the order of time, it is highly reasonable to suppose that the Temple was purged on this day. In fact, from St. Mark’s expression that he observed what was passing, we may fairly conclude to the same effect, as it is ‘scarcely probable that he would do this without reforming the abuses which presented themselves. At the same time Mark positively asserts that the traders were driven out on the next day after the cursing of the fig-tree; nor is it altogether likely that a single expulsion would be sufficient to abolish their unholy traffic. It should seem also that the second purification of the Temple was more complete than the former, as he then prohibited even the carrying of a vessel through it, (Mark xi. 16.) which is a circumstance unnoticed both by Matthew and Luke in their account of the transactions of the preceding day. Hence the order of events will be, 1. The public entry into Jerusalem, and the first ejection of the traders on the Sunday, with other events related in John xii. and Christ’s retirement to Bethany in the evening; 2. The fig-tree cursed in the morning of Monday; 3. The buyers and sellers again ejected; 4. Christ retires again in the evening, Mark xi. 19,; 5. The fig-tree is noticed to have withered away. Dop- MATTHEW XXI. 21. 98. 257 pDRIDGE, Ligutrrootr.—[Mann.] Of our Lord’s design in cursing the barren tree, and the weakness of the objections raised against the miracle, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. I. p. 247. See also Vol. III. p. 66. and on Mark ix. 13. We may refer also to Heb. vi. 8. as a practical illustration of the miracle. The expression ἐπὶ τῆς ὁδοῦ, by the way-side, proves that Christ was not guilty of private injustice, with which infidels have charged him. The tree belonged to no one; and being barren, was absolutely valueless, except for the purpose to which our Lord so aptly applied it. Euthym. μὴ ἀκριβολογοῦ, διατί τετιμώρηται τὸ φυτὸν, ἀναίτιον ὄν" ἀλλὰ μόνον ὅρα τὸ θαῦμα, καὶ τὸν θαυ- ματοῦργον. Ver. 21. The negative expression μὴ διακριθῆτε, is precisely the same with the positive condition ἐὰν ἔχητε πίστιν, and the two are united, more Hebraico, for the sake of emphasis. Some would render διακριθῆναι, to discriminate ; i. 6. to put a differ- ence between what zs, and is not possible: but the opposition clearly shews that it is the same with διστάζειν. Of the elliptical form τὸ τῆς συκῆς, which is equivalent to τὸ περὶ τῆς συκῆς γεγονός, see Matt. Gr. Gr. ὃ. 984. 1. So τὰ τῶν δαιμονιζομέ- νων, Matt. viii. 33. Of the proverbial expression, removing mountains, see on Matt. xvii. 20. In Luke xvii. 6. instead of mountain, we have sycamore-tree ; which evidently does not alter the import of the proverb. ‘The assurance added in vy. 22. respecting prayer, was intended to enforce it as a fit means of increasing the faith of which he was speaking. See on Matt. xvii. 21. xviii. 18. With respect to this faith, it is impossible for any to know the exact impression which it made upon the minds of the Apostles, or for any words to have described it ; and it is, therefore, an instance of their wisdom, that they never attempted to do so. It is certain, however, that the attempt to perform miracles was a remarkable instance of faith in the divine power and fidelity; and the solemnity with which the Apostolic miracles were attended, clearly evinced their persuasion that the attempt would be attended with immediate success. Compare Acts iii. 6. ix. 84. 40. In pronouncing the healing words, the speaker pawned his credit as a messenger from God; and a single failure would have been decisive against the Apostle and the Gospel together. KurnorL, DopDRIDGE. Ver. 23. ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ x. τ. A. The Sanhedrim, of whom these priests and elders formed a part, were invested with the prerogative of enquiring into the pretensions of a prophet, and the truth of his mission. Thus the tract, Sanhedrim, §. 4. p. 213. A tribe, a false prophet, or a high-priest, are only amenable to the council of seventy-one judges. Since, therefore, the present aspect of popular feeling would not admit of violent mea VOL. I 8 Ὗ ' id 258 MATTHEW XXI. 28. the members of this council, fixed in their determination to destroy Jesus, sought to do it under pretext of law, and enquired respecting the authority by which he had lately acted. They doubtless expected that he would assert his claims to the Mes- siahship, thereby furnishing them with the means of charging him with blasphemy. It has been urged, that Christ evaded the inquiry from fear; but this is a cavil so entirely at variance with the parables which immediately follow, that it requires no farther refutation. His reply evinced the most consummate wisdom; and the confusion of the Pharisees was a tacit admission of our Lord’s pretensions. The people believed John to be a prophet; (see on Matt. iii. 4.) and they dared not deny it, at the same time that the admisssion of his claims would, upon their own princi- ples, have established those of Jesus also. For John had re- peatedly borne the most express testimony to the divine mission of Christ; and, according to a Jewish maxim, the testimony of one prophet was sufficient to confirm the authority of another. Their silence, therefore, was a tacit confession that they were incapable of judging in the matter, and perfectly justified our Lord’s refusal to reply to their enquiry; especially as their uni- form perverseness, and their inveterate hatred, had ever been, and still would have been, insurmountable, had he even condes- cended. to explain and prove his commission. Grotrus, Mac- KNIGHT, Licurroor, Doppripee. In vy. 25. the word βάπτισμα includes, by synecdoche, the whole ministry of John, of which his baptism was the most prominent feature. The substitution of οὐρανὸς for Θεὸς, in the same verse, though somewhat unusual, (see on Matt. iii. 2.) is not without example. Compare 1 Mace. ili. 18. iv. 19. “ix. 46. Luke xv. 18. 21. Κύυτνοβι, Wurrsy. Ver. 28. τέκνα δύο. It is evident from vv. 31, 32. that this parable is directed against the Pharisaical members of the San- hedrim, in consequence of their perverse disbelief in John the Baptist; and that the conduct of the two sons represents that of the Publicans and Pharisees respectively. The publicans and harlots characterized by the first son, and comprehending the profane and wicked generally, did not profess to do the will of God; but they were brought by the preaching of John to think seriously, to submit themselves to Christ, and embrace the Gospel, so as eventually to attain to the kingdom of heaven. The second son, on the other hand, was an exact picture of the Pharisees; for in their devotions they gave God the most honourable titles, and professed the utmost zeal to serve him; but as their religion was merely formal, they refused to hearken to the Baptist’s exhortations, and though they could not disprove his divine mission, disregarded the testimony which he bore to the Messiah. Even the reformation which he effected, v. 32. in the most abandoned characters, which clearly proved that he MATTHEW XXI. 30. 33. 259 was sent from God, had no effect in gaining their attention to his instructions. It has been supposed, that the two sons are intended to represent the Gentiles and the Jews; but, though the parable may admit of such an interpretation, it is clear that it was not so given by our Lord on this occasion. MAcKNIGHT. —[Wuirsy. } Ver, 30. ἐγὼ, κύριε. The pronoun ἐγὼ is supposed by some to correspond with the Hebrew word "2277, hannani, denoting assent to a proposition, and rendered ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ, in Numb. xiv. 40. 1 Sam. iii. 4. LXX. At all events, the expression seems to be an ellipsis, which may in general be supplied by the verb θέλω, or, in the present instance, by ἀπέρχομαι. KurnorL, Grortus. We may fairly infer from this, that the reception or rejection of the Gospel is not the effect of any invisible operation of divine grace; since it appears that the conduct of the two sons was entirely free, and that no compulsion was employed with either of them. Wuuirsy. Ver. 33. ἄλλην παραβολήν. After shewing the rulers the sin of rejecting the Baptist in particular, our Lord proceeds to represent the public crime of the nation in rejecting all the mes- sengers of God generally from first to last, and to warn them of the punishment which was shortly about to visit them. The parable, in which he thought fit to convey these disagreeable truths, was formed upon one which Isaiah had long before made use. of, and with which they were well acquainted. In Isaiah v. 1. the vineyard represents the Jews in their national, here they are represented in their spzritual capacity, as living under the Mosaical dispensation, attended, as it was, with great present privileges, and the promise of many future blessings. The householder and his son, are evidently the Lord Jehovah, and the Messiah ; the husbandmen, to whom the vineyard was let out, are the Scribes and Elders, who were to make the vineyard fruitful, and prepare it for the reception of the servants and the son, when they appeared for the returns due to the householder. The servants were the prophets sent from time to time to warn them of the punishments which awaited their sins, and to urge them to repentance ; of whom they beat Jeremiah, killed Isaiah, stoned Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, and persecuted all. See 2 Kings xxi. 10. 16. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 16. Neh. ix. 26. Jerem. xliv. 4. Acts vii. 52. Heb. xi. 87. Of the Jewish vineyards, with their various appurtenances, &c. see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 465. sqq. See also p. 459. A particular application has been adapted by some paraphrasts to every circumstance in the parable ; but it is probable that the hedge, the wine-press, &c. are merely ornamental appendages, and that in this, as in other cases, minute points are not to be pressed too far. [{ is plain, s2 260 MATTHEW XXI. 35. 41. for instance, from numberless predictions, both in the O. and N. T. that God foresaw the certainty of Christ's death; and, consequently, the implied probability, that the husbandman would reverence his son, cannot without absurdity be applied to the interpretation of the parable. Instead of ληνὸν, the wine- press, it is ὑπολήνιον, the wine-fat, i. e. cavity in which the vessel was placed to receive the liquor pressed from the grapes; but one of these naturally implies the other, and our Lord might possibly have mentioned both. Hesych. ληνός" ὅπου σταφυλὴ πατεῖται. Macknicut, -Wuirspy, Grotius, DoppRIDGE. Ver. 35. ἔδειραν. The verb δέρειν signifies properly to flay, to tear off the skin: as in Hom. Il. A. 459. whence it is also sometimes put as the cause for the effect, denoting to scourge severely: as in this place, Mark xu. 3. Luke xxii. 64. Acts xvi. 37. Soin Aristoph. Vesp. 483. where the Scholiast notes : δέρεσθαι δὲ καὶ δέρειν ἐπὶ τοῦ τύπτεσθαι. There is no necessity, therefore, to read, with some MSS. ἔδῃραν, from δαίρω; as some have wished. Kurnoet, Kypxe.—[Berza, Mitu.] Of the divi- sions, ὃν μὲν---ὃν δὲ, see Matt. Gr. Gr. §. 288. f; of πλείονας, v. 36. on Matt. vi. 25. and of the verb ἐντρέπεσθαι, v. 37. Lex. Pent. Gr. zn voce. Ver. 41. κακοὺς κακῶς ἀπολέσει. This kind of paronomasia is very frequent in the best writers. Soph. Aj. 1409. κακοὺς κακῶς φθείρειαν. Philoct. 1364. ἔα κακῶς αὐτοὺς ἀπόλλυσθαι κακούς. Eurip. Med. 805. κακῶς κακὴν θανεῖν σφ᾽ ἀνάγκη. Aristoph. Plut. 418. ἐγὼ γὰρ ὑμᾶς ἐξολῶ κακοὺς κακῶς. Add Eurip. Med. 1386. Troad. 1055. Cyclop. 267. Arist. Plut. 880. Herod. VI. 9. Hom. 1]. Φ. 459. Od. I. 554. Joseph. Ant. 11. 14. 2. VII. 11.8. XI. 5. 4. Lucian. D. M. V. 2. .D. D. I. 1. Wertsrein, Ra- PHELIUs. The condemnatory inference which our Lord is repre- sented by Matthew and Mark to have elicited from the Scribes themselves, is attributed in Lake xx. 16. to our Lord himself, and the Scribes reply μὴ γένοιτο, God forbid! In order to reconcile this apparent discrepancy, some suppose that after the words μὴ γένοιτο in Luke, the Jews repeated the words of Christ éroni- cally ; others contend that the words in Luke, as well as in Matthew, are the reply of the Scribes in answer to Christ, al- though the former does not expressly say so; and that the words μὴ γένοιτο, also the words of the Scribes, were said in an under tone, as deprecating the evil from themselves: and others, again, adopt a solution directly opposite, that the words in both cases are those of Christ. In support of this last opinion it is urged that in one MS. the words λέγουσιν αὐτῷ are omitted, and as this authority is clearly of little weight, the word in the Hebrew Gospel is conjectured to have been VON", and he said, instead of WAN, they said. The fallacy of all these suppositions is MATTHEW ΧΧΙ. 42. 261 easily discernible, and the last especially, which at first sight may appear plausible, is altogether irreconcileable with the an- swer of Jesus in the following verse. There is little real diffi- culty however in the matter: Christ, in the first instance, may have drawn their self-condemnation from the Sanhedrim, as St. Matthew states; he then, in all probability, repeated their words in confirmation of their decision; whereupon the Sanhe- drim, or perhaps some of its less hardened members, seem to have uttered almost involuntarily the exclamation God forbid! Dop- DRIDGE, Kurnoet.—[Macknieut, Le Crerc, Micuaetis. ] Ver, 42. ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς. The quotation is from Psalm cxviii. 22. It seems to have been originally spoken of David, who, though at first rejected and despised by Saul and the rulers of the Jews, was afterwards chosen by God to ascend the throne of Israel. In a higher and spiritual sense, however, our Lord applies it to himself, and his rejection by the Scribes and Elders of the peo- ple ; and that the Jewish Rabbins understood this stone of their Messiah is admitted by R. Solom. Jarchi on Micah v. 1. and Abarbanel on Zach. iv. 13. The Jewish dispensation in the O. T. and the Christian church in the N. T. are continually re- presented under the figure of a building, and, in reference to this, Jesus Christ is represented as the head stone, or support of the fabric, 1 Cor. ii. 11. Ephes. ii. 21, 22. Some have supposed that there is an allusion to the union of Jews and Gentiles in the Christian church, as a head corner stone unites the two sides of a building, but probably nothing more is intended than the support which this stone affords to the building. Somewhat in this sense the chiefs of the people are called γωνίαι in 1 Sam. xiv. 38. LXX. It is not very clear, however, what this head- stone was. From this place it should seem that it might be added when the building was otherwise complete, that it was so situated that the passenger might fall against it, and also that it might fall upon him, v. 44. so as to answer most exactly to an upright stone or buttress, added for the purpose of strengthening and protecting the corner of the building, where it is most exposed to external violence. The Greek expression is equivalent to the Hebrew 7735 338, or 735 WN; but every rectangular build- ing would have necessarily four such columns, as expressly mentioned in Jodi. 19. whereas Christ is the so/e bulwark of the Christian church. Besides, the κεφαλὴ γωνίας is allowed to be the same with λίθος ἀκρογωνιαῖος, Ephes. ii. 20. which can only be understood of something single and pre-eminent ; and, indeed, we find 25 JAN spoken of as single in a building, Job xxxviii. 6. although nothing can thence be inferred as to its position, form, or height. The common interpretations certainly do not answer the requisite conditions, and so far they are un- founded. Nothing can be drawn from the absence of the article 262 MATTHEW ΧΧΙ. 43, 44. to prove that there was more than one κεφαλὴ γωνίας in an edi- fice. See on Matt. i. 1. (Greek Art. omission 7. p. 10. and ἐμ jine, p- 11.) Hammonp, Grorrus, Mippieton. — [Macx- NIGHT.] The accusative λίθον, instead of the nominative, is a species of anacoluthon, of which see Matt. Gr. Gr. ὃ. 474. ¢. With respect to the pronoun αὐτὴ, and the adjective θαυμαστὴ, it is evident from the sense that they cannot be referred either to κεφαλὴ or γωνίας, and therefore the feminine must be put He- braice for the neuter. This change is common in the original language, and it is imitated by the LXX. in Psalm cxviii. 22. here cited, and also in Gen. xxiv. 14. Judg. xix. 30. 1 Sam. iv. 7. xi. 2. Psalm xxvii. 4. The form ἐγενήθη εἰς is also Hebrew. See on Matt. xix. 5. Κύτνοει, Hammonp. Ver. 43. διὰ τοῦτο. The reference is to the last verse, com- pared with v. 39. The word ἔθνει should not be rendered to the Gentiles, although there can be no doubt that the Gentiles, in conjunction at least with the believing Jews, are intended. Had it been our Lord’s intention to say this distinctly he would have used τοῖς ἔθνεσι in the plural. We may remark that this is one of the clearest predictions of the rejection of the Jews and the call of the Gentiles which we have in this history. CAMPBELL. Ver. 44. καὶ ὃ πεσὼν κι τ. X. Many of the commentators on this verse understand an allusion to the two different ways of stoning among the Jews; the former by throwing the criminal down headlong upon a great stone, and the other by letting a stone fall upon him: but, in point of fact, there does not seem to be any material difference between the two methods, whereas a climax is evidently intended in our Lord’s denunciation. In the first clause he seems to describe the sin of those who are misled by their teachers to oppose Christ; and in the latter the heavier sin and severer condemnation of the Scribes and Pharisees, who obstinately persevere in their disbelief and persecution of the Gos- pel. There is an evident allusion to Zsazah viii. 14, 15. and pro- bably also to the vision of the image in Dan. ii. 34. The verbs συνθλᾶσθαι and λικμᾷν are figurative terms, of which the former denotes simply to beat or bruise, indicating a milder punishment ; and the latter implies a more fearful fate, signifying properly to disperse as chaff, and thence, generally, to destroy utterly, (E. T. to grind to powder.) Hesych. λικμᾷν᾽ ra ἄχυρα ἀπὸ τοῦ σίτου διαχωρίζειν. In the same sense the word occurs in Dan. ii, 44. LXX. It is not unlikely that our Lord intended to represent not only the dreadful crushing of the Jewish state by the Romans, but the general dispersion of the Jews through- out all the nations of the world, which continues to the present day. Doppriper, Macxnicut, Wuirsy, Licutrroor, This verse should properly follow v. 42. as the connection plainly in- 10 MATTHEW XXII. 2. 268 dicates. It is altogether wanting in the Codex Beze, and some other MSS; and Origen has passed it over in his commentary. It is found, however, in the parallel place, Luke xx. 18. from whence it was probably added in this place also. ΚυΊΝΟΕΙ, A. CLARKE. CHAPTER XXII. Contents :—Parable of the marriage feast, vv. 1—14. Christ's reply to the Herodians respecting the tribute-money, vv. 15— 22. and to the Sadducees respecting the resurrection, vv. 23— 99. [Mark xii. 13. Luke xx. 20.] His reply to the Pharisees respecting the great commandment in the law, vv. 34—40. [Mark xu. 28.] His enquiry into the opinion of the Pharisees respecting the Messiah, vv. 41—46. [Mark xii. 35. Luke 1) XX. Verse 2. The primary object of the parable of the marriage feast is to represent the invitation given to the Jews to embrace the Gospel, their rejection of that gracious offer, the severe pu- nishment inflicted upon them for their obstinacy, and the admis- sion of the Gentiles to the privileges of Christianity in their — room. At the same time the rewards of the Gospel are not con- ferred upon mere professors, but upon those only who comply with its ordinances, and cultivate those habits and dispositions which its precepts enjoin. In the comparison itself there is a peculiar propriety, since both the Jewish and Christian cove- nants are frequently represented in Scripture under the simili- tude of a marriagé contract between God and his people. See Isaiah liv. 5. Jerem. iii. 8. Matt. xxv. 5. 2 Cor. xi. 2. It is observable that Luke does not relate this parable here because he had given us one very like it before, which was spoken upon another occasion, Luke xiv. 16. For the same reason he omits the question of the lawyer, infra v. 35. most of the discourse against the Pharisees, Matt. xxxii. and the parable of the ta- lents, Matt. xxv. 14. There isa parable very similar to this in Bereshith Rabba, §. 62. p. 60. and another still more so in Sohar. Levit. p. 40. Porteus, Doppriper, A. CrarKe. The word γάμος is here correctly rendered by the generality of com- mentators a marriage feast. In this sense it is frequently used, in the plural especially, by classical writers, in reference proba- bly to the duration of these festivals, which lasted several days. Compare Hom. Il. 3. 491. Od. A. 226. B. 196. A. 415. Theoph. Char. XII. 1. XXII. 1. Arrian, Exp. Alex. VIT. 4.6. εν 264 MATTHEW XXII. 3, 4. It has been urged, however, that the Hebrew word TNW!, which is rendered γάμος in Gen. xxix. 22. Esth. ii. 18, ix. 22. signifies generally a feast; and that nothing more than a feast is here intended, as in Luke xiv. 8. Others understand an inaugu- ration feast, comparing 1 Kings i. 5.9, 10.19. Out of forty- eight times, however, which the Hebrew word occurs in the O. T., in the above three instances only it is rendered by γάμος in the LXX: inthe two first a marriage feast is particularly de- scribed, and in the last a feast which was held in consequence of amarriage. WetsTEIN, KypKe, Wuirsy, Mant.—{ ΜΙ Ή Δ is, KUINOEL. ] Ver. 3. τοὺς δούλους αὐτοῦ. The early fathers generally in- terpret the servants first sent of the prophets of the O. T., but the parable evidently refers to the time of Christ's advent. It should seem, therefore, that the first mission was that of the Baptist, and the Apostles and seventy disciples, (Matt. x. 5, 6. Luke ix. 2. x. 1.) and the second that of the same Apostles sent with a new commission after the resurrection, Acts i. 8. It was probably usual in early times, though the fact is not absolutely ascertained, to issue two different invitations to a feast, one ata given time previous to the entertainment, and a second shortly before the time appointed for the assembling of the guests. In the old Greek colloquies, edited by Vulcanius, is the following dialogue :—Xhpepov παρ᾽ ἐμοὶ ἀρίστησον χρησίμως. Οὕτω γε- ᾿νέσθω. Ἔν ὥρᾳ οὖν ἐλθὲ πρὸς ἡμᾶς. Ὅτε θέλεις πέμψον πρὸς ἡμᾶς, ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ εἰμι. See also Joseph. Ant. XI. Suet. Claud. 39. and Oudendorp ad loc. So also in Echa R. IV. 2. What was the pride of the inhabitants of Jerusalem? That none went to a feast until twice invited. Wuitsy, Grotius, WETsSTEIN, Pricaus. The verb καλεῖν, signifying to énvite, occurs in 1 Sam. ix. 22. Prov. ix. 3. LXX. Hesiod. Op. D. 342. Theogn. 563. Theophr. Char. 12. 17. 291. So in Latin, Plaut. Menzch. III. 1.11. Qué esum neque vocantur, neque vocant. Hence the ser- vants who carried the invitation were called κλήτορες, Athen. Deipn. II. 8. p. 47. and in Latin vocatores, Plin. XXXYV. 36. _ Senec. de Tra. 111. 37. Kurtnoet. Ver. 4. ra σιτιστά. E. T. Fatlings. The word is derived from σιτίζω, to feed or fatten, thus including rams or wethers, (2 Sam. vi. 13. 1 Chron. xv. 26.) calves, (Luke xv. 23.) &e. Bochart supposes that of ταῦροι καὶ τὰ σιτιστὰ is an hendiadys for ταῦροι σιτιστοὶ, as we have ταῦροι πίονες, Psalm xxii. 12. LXX. Butthisis unnecessary. ΤῸ mention owen and Sailings as the chief part of a royal entertainment is perfectly agreeable to the simplicity of the ancient ages. Thus Homer's princes are repeatedly described as feasting each other upon nothing else than the flesh of oxen, sheep, or swine. Compare Lsaiah xxv. 6. MATTHEW ΧΧΙΙ. ὅ. 7. 9, 10. 265 Kurnoet, Doppripner. The verb θύειν was originally confined to the offerings of flowers, incense, &c. which were customary among the early Greeks; and so the compound ἐπιθύειν is used in Aristoph. Ran. 915. Hence the word was gradually applied to sacrificed victims, and came at: length to signify generally to kill. Compare Deut. xii. 15. with John x. 10, Acts x. 10. GRotTIus. Ver. 5. ἀμελήσαντες. It was considered by the Mahometans, and probably by all the Oriental nations, a peculiar affront to refuse an invitation to a marriage-feast, and even a breach of the law of God. See Hedayah, Vol. lV. p.91. The wickedness of the guests in the parable is thus placed in a more conspicuous point of view. A. Cuarxe. The adjective ἴδιον is equivalent to the possessive pronoun αὐτοῦ : and so the Hebrew affix Ἷ is ren- dered in Job vii. 10. Prov. xxvii. 8. LX X. KurNoe.. Ver. 7. στρατεύματα αὐτοῦ. Some here understand the angels, who are the delegated ministers of God’s vengeance, (1 Kings xxii. 10. Luke ii. 13.) and by whom his judgments of war, pes- tilence, and famine were let loose upon the Jews at the siege of Jerusalem. But the Roman army is certainly intended, which may properly be called the army of God, as executing his will ; whence the Median army is likewise so called, Lsatah xiii. 4, 5. Wuirsy, Le Crerc.—[Grortivus.] This clause must be sup- posed to come in by way of prolepsis or anticipation, for it is plain that there could not be time before the feast already ΠΕ pared was served up to attempt an enterprise of this nature. And this precisely corresponds with historical fact, for the call of the Gentiles took place some time prior to the fall of Jerusalem. Doppripce. Of the adjective ἄξιος, (v. 8.) used absolutely, see on Matt. x. 11. Ver. 9. διεξόδους τῶν ὁδῶν. Some understand country lanes or bye paths, but διέξοδος signifies exitus, and the διέξοδοι τῶν ὁδῶν are, therefore, places where two or more roads terminate in one, called in Latin compita viarum; so that, leading into the city from various parts of the country, they are consequently’ more frequented. Doddridge supposes that our Lord intended to intimate that the Gentiles had as little reason to expect the call of the Gospel, as common passengers or travellers to expect an invitation to a royal banquet. It appears, however, from the Talmud, in Beracoth, p. 43. that it was not unusual with the rich to invite travellers to their feasts. Kypxre, LIGHTFOOT. Ver. 10. πονηρούς τε καὶ ἀγαθούς. This is not the only place in which our Lord has declared that the bad as well as the good would compose the visible church; he intimates the same in the “eo 900 MATTHEW XXII. 12. parable of the ¢ares and of the net, Matt. xiii. 26.48. The privileges of the Gospel, however, belong to the latter only, while the severest punishment is threatened against the wicked : Matt. vii. 21, 22. xiii. 24. Le ὕπο, Ku1nokEt. Ver. 12. ἔνδυμα γάμου. It was usual at publicfestivals, and more especially at marriage feasts, to appear in an appropriate dress, and those who attended in their ordinary apparel were looked upon as highly culpable and deserving of punishment. This dress was usually a white robe, and as it could not be expected that ac- cidental guests should be provided with a marriage garment, it was usual for the donor of the feast to provide them with one. Compare Gen. xlv. 22. 2 Kings v. 22. x. 22. Esth. vi. 8. viii. 15. This custom also prevailed among the Greeks and Romans, as it appears from Hom. Od. A. 48. sqq. Diod. Sic. XIII. p. 375. Steph. Hence Eustath. on Od. Ζ. 28. ἦθος γάρ, φασιν, ἦν τὰς νύμφας τοῖς TOU νυμφίου ἐσθῆτας ἐν τῷ τοῦ γάμου καιρῷ χαρίζεσθαι. Spartianus in Vit. Sev.—Habuit etiam aliud omen émperii. Cum rogatus ad ccenam imperitoriam palliatus venis- set, qui togatus venire debuerat, togam presidiariam ipsius im- peratoris accepit. In this, therefore, consisted the offence of the guest who had entered improperly clothed, that he had neglected to apply for a marriage garment, or had perhaps refused the offer of one. It is still a mark of honour in the East to be presented with a garment, called caftan; and a refusal to accept or wear it is considered a peculiar insult to the donor. Our Lord seems to allude in the parable to Zeph. i. 7, 8. Doppriner, A. Cuarke. It is well observed that Faith alone cannot be repre- sented by the wedding garment, for faith is implied in the simple act of coming to the supper. The intruder, therefore, has been supposed to designate those false brethren among the Jews who upheld the necessity of retaining circumcision and the ritual ordinances in the Gospel covenant. But it should seem rather that the walking worthy of our vocation, (Ephes. iv. 1. 2 Pet. i. 10.) is denoted by the marriage garment. In Rev. xix. 7, sqq. where there is a plain allusion to this parable, the fine linen in which the guests at the marriage supper of the Lamb are clothed, is expressly declared to be the righteousness of the saints. Nothing is more common in Scripture, and indeed in other ancient writ- ings, than to represent the habits and disposition of the mind under the figure of bodily garments. Compare Job xxix. 14. Isaiah \xi. 10, and see my note on Hom. 1]. A. 149. That the ejection into outer darkness is emblematic of the punishment of _ the wicked at the last day there can be no doubt, since it is then only that God will separate the bad from the good. Here then is a conclusive argument against salvation by faith only, and also against the Calvinistic doctrines of election and reprobation. It was in the man’s power to have obtained this garment, and his Ψ MATTHEW XXIL. 14—16. 20. - 967 own neglect was the cause of his exclusion from the feast. Gro- tius. The verb φιμοῦν signifies properly to muzzle, to gag, as in 1 Cor. ix. 9. and thence to make speechless, to silence. Jo- seph. B. J. 1. 20. τάχα καὶ τοὺς ἀπαγγέλλειν προαιρομένους οἱ ἀνῃρημένων δαίμονες ἀδελφῶν ἐφιμοῦν. The word is used by Christ in stilling the sea, Mark i. 25. Luke iv. 35. Kypxe. Of the sentence in v. 13. see on Matt. viii. 11. Ver. 14, πολλοὶ γὰρ x. τ. A. See note on Chap. XX. 16. There are some who would confine the observation, as in that passage, to the Jews only; but it seems here to admit of a wider signification, as including professing Christians in general. LE Cierc, ΤΥ, GrRortius. Ver. 15. The verb παγιδεύειν is properly used of sxaring birds, &c. and thence signifies generally to ensnare, to entrap, i. e. to plot one’s destruction, as the Latin phrase, laqueos alicut tendere. See Eccles. ix. 12. Prov. vi. 2. LXX. The ad- dition of ἐν λόγῳ, in conversation, explains the mode of attack about to be adopted. The verb employed in Mark xii. 12. is ἀγρεύειν. KUINOEL. Ver. 16. The expressions ov μέλει σοι περὶ οὐδενὸς, and οὐ βλέπεις εἰς πρόσωπον ἀνθρώπων, amount to the same thing, so that the repetition of the same sentiment encreases the flattery, and, at the same time, the baseness of the flatterers. Itis for these false and hypocritical compliments that our Lord rebukes them as ὑποκριταὶ, v. 18. Instead of the latter phrase we have λαμ- βάνειν πρόσωπον in Luke xx. 21, Kurnoeu. Of the Herodians, and the insidious nature of the question proposed to Christ, see Horne’s Introd. Vol, III. pp. 83. 184. 380. Ver. 20. τίνος ἡ εἰκὼν αὕτη καὶ ἡ ἐπιγραφή ; The mode of proceeding which Christ adopted upon this and similar occasions is a most striking instance of his consummate wisdom and pru- dence. He thus compelled the tempters to answer the question, removing from himself the odium attending the determina- tion of it, and unmasking the impious motives for which it was proposed. By admitting that the coin was impressed with Ceesar’s image and superscription, and by consenting to receive it as current in Judea, they in fact acknowledged their subjec- tion to his dominion; for it was a tradition of their own Rabbins, that wherever the money of any king is current, the inhabitants acknowledge that king for their Lord: Maimon. in Gezel. 5. Hence the reply of Abigail to the reproaches of David, recorded in the Talmud, Sanhedrim, p. 20. 2. Art thou then a king? the coinage of our Lord Saul is yet current. In the present in- stance this acknowledgment of subjection, which Christ drew 908 MATTHEW XXII. 26. from them, was particularly in point, as the particular coin in which this tribute was paid is known to have borne this remark- able inscription: Καῖσαρ Αὔγουστ. Ἰουδαίας ἑαλωκυίας. It is probable, also, that in asking whose image and superscription the tribute money bore, our Lord intended to distinguish between the half shekel, dedicated to God, as part of the Temple service, and the Roman denarius which was paid in the form of tribute to the Romans. See on Mait. xvii. 94. Ligurroor, Hammonp, RosENMULLER. It is urged by some that Christ after all left the matter undecided, and that his answer does not intimate the right of Czsar to demand tribute from the Jews. But though he does not directly reply to the question put to him, yet the precept in ν. 22. is plainly decisive on the point. Connected by the illative particle οὖν with the preceding verses, it plainly incul- cates the duty of submission to established governments, and is a leading feature of the Christian religion. In perfect conformity with this precept are those of the Apostles, Rom. xiii. 5. 7. Tit. iii. 1. 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14. The right of Cesar to impose tribute upon the Jews had its rise in their own act of submission to the . Roman government, as formerly to the Assyrian, and it had now existed about one hundred years. Upon this ground King Agrippa, and the historian Josephus, insist upon the necessity of a patient subjection to the Roman yoke: Joseph. B. J. 11. 28. VI. 26. Wuitsy.—[Grortius, Le Cierc.] The latter part of Christ's injunction has been interpreted as a caution against omitting the sacred tribute, on pretence of answering the de- mands of Czsar. But he rather cautions the Pharisees against using religion as a pretence to justify sedition, and the Hero- dians against complimenting the Romans at the expense of their religion: he makes a clear distinction between the duties we owe to God and to our earthly rulers, and shews that they do not in the slightest degree interfere or clash with each other. Dop- DRIDGE, Porteus.—[Diopati, RapHeE ivs. | Ver. 23. μὴ εἶναι ἀνάστασιν. Of the opinions of the Sad- ducees see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 372. sqq. Their lead- ing tenet was, that the soul had no separate existence, but was annihilated immediately upon its disunion from the body. Hence a saying of the sect in Tanchun, p. 3. 1. The cloud sails and goes away; so he that descends into the grave returns not from at. ‘The story which they mention here seems to have been a kind of common place objection, since it is to be met with in the Jewish writings ; and as it had probably puzzled some of the Scribes, they hoped that Jesus would have been unable to an- swer it. It was not to be wondered at that they could not satis- factorily solve the difficulty, since their own notions of a future state were little better than those of the Heathen philosophers. Josephus, (B. J. II. 12.) compares their idea of the happiness MATTHEW XXII. 24. 29, 30. 269 of the life to come to that of the Fortunate Isles, as described in Hom. Od. A. 561. Compare Hor. Epod. XVI. 42. 53. With respect to the question proposed to our Lord, they held that if a woman had two husbands in this world, the first only would be restored to her in the world to come: Sohar. Genes. p. 24. Our Lord, therefore, not only refuted the Sadducaical doctrine, but set the Pharisees right in their misconception on the subject : he tells them that the difficulty arose entirely from their inatten- tion to the Scriptures, from their ignorance of the power of God, and of the state of human beings in Heaven. The argument drawn from the Scriptures is contained in y. 52., of which see Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. p. 560. By telling them that they knew not the power of God, our Lord intimates that he could effect, with the utmost ease, what they deemed to be impossible; and that they either did not allow, or could not comprehend his omnipotence in this respect is evident from St. Paul’s question, Acts xxvi. 7. Wuitsy, Lightroot, DoppripGE, GRoTIUS. Ver. 24. Μωσῆς εἴπεν" ἐάν τις x. τ. AX. Deut. xxv. 5,6. The words of the Law are not quoted verbatim, but according to their sense. It was the intention of this injunction that the chil- dren produced by the second marriage should be reckoned in the genealogy of the deceased brother, and inherit his property. A similar law prevailed among the Athenians in respect to heiresses, who were not allowed to marry out of their kindred, in order that their estates might be preserved to their families ; and by the same law, their nearest relations were obliged to marry them. Traces of the same custom are still found in the East, as modern travellers inform us. The verb ἐπιγαμβρεύειν is properly used of the intermarriage of relations, from γαμβρός. Κύυτνοει,, A. CLARKE. Ver. 29. tac γραφάς. It has been supposed that the Penta- teuch only is here intended, but there is no ground for the opi- nion maintained by some commentators, that the Sadducees did not receive the whole of the Scriptures of the O. T. See Horne. The question proposed to Jesus depended upon the injunctions of the Mosaic law, and consequently he chose to reply to it from the same quarter, (Hod. iii. 6.) not, however, because the other books would have had less weight with them. Kurnoet. Ver. 30. οὔτε γαμοῦσι x. t.X. There was considerable dif- ference of opinion among the Rabbins on this point, some main- taining that there was eating and drinking and marrying in heaven, and others agreeing in the statement of Christ. The de- claration that the saints in heaven shall be we ἄγγελοι, or, ac- cording to Luke, ἱσάγγελοι, does not imply that there will be an equality between them and the angels generally, but that merely, 270 MATTHEW XXII. 356. like them, they shall not be subject to bodily appetites, but be- come pure and immortal spirits, so that matrimony will be no longer necessary as the means of repairing the wastes of mortality by the production of new generations. With the argument of our Lord in the next verse, that of Manasse Ben Israel, (de Resur. Mort. 1. 10. 6.) is strikingly parallel: When the Lord first appeared to Moses we read that he said, 1 am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, &c. But God is not a God of the dead, who are not, but of the living, who are: hence we justly infer, that the souls of the Patriarchs are still in exist- ence. Similar modes of reasoning are frequent in the Talmud; and the Jews had a maxim that there was no place for them in the world to come who say that the resurrection cannot be proved out of the law: Avoda Sara, p. 18, 1. Sanhedrim, p. 90, 1. Kurtnoet, WETSTEIN, SCHOETTGEN. Ver. 36. ποία ἐντολὴ μεγάλη ἐν τῷ νόμῳ; Upon this the Jewish doctors were greatly divided, some contending for the law of circumcision, others for that of sacrifices, and others for that of the phylacteries: and though they were for the most part agreed that the law of the Sabbath was to give place to that of circumcision, they were still undecided as to which of the rest the preference should be given, except that they considered the ceremonial observances of the greatest importance. The ques- tion proposed, therefore, is not unlike that of the young ruler, (Matt. xix. 16.) and it may possibly have been dictated by the same motive. The words πειράζων, v. 35. and ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ, ν. 34. seem indeed to intimate that the Pharisees now assembled, with the lawyer in their company, were following up the insi- dious design of entangling Jesus in his talk. At the same time the verb πειράζω does not necessarily require to be taken in a bad sense, as is evident from 1 Kings x. 1. and with αὐτὸ some commentators supply χώριον, so that no evil intention may have existed at all. It is certain, at all events, from the conclud- ing part of the transaction, as related in Mark xii. 32—384. that if it did exist, it was eventually relinquished ; and this is perhaps the more probable supposition. Our Lord in his reply decided in favour of the moral law; and the Lawyer was so fully per- suaded of the truth of his decision as to admit that an adherence to its precepts was more than whole burnt-offerings and sa- crifices. At the same time, with his usual prudence, he did not neglect the ceremonial law, for this very commandment of the love of God was written upon their phylacteries. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 403. In calling it the first and great com- mandment, he intimated that the object of it was the first and greatest of all beings, so that its duties must have the precedence over every other: it was so called, moreover, because the love of God is the source of every other Christian grace, and the only _ MATTHEW XXII. 39, 40. 271 motive sufficiently powerful to subdue our passions, to carry us eee) the trials, and to support us under the temptations by which we are on all sides surrounded. Licurroot, Wuitsy, Porteus, Kurnoet. The citation is from Deut. vi. 5., of the variation from which in the Evangelists and the LXX see Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. p. 211. Of the νομικοὶ also, (Εἰ. T. Lawyers,) see the same work, Vol. III. p. 8376. Observe also that ποία 15 for τίς, as in Matt. xix. 18., and μεγάλη for μεγίστη, as in Matt. v. 10. Ver. 59. ὁμοία αὐτῇ. Is like unto it; i. 6. springs out of it, is closely connected with it, and equally obligatory upon the Chris- tian: and by quoting it with the former our Lord refuted a notion to which the Pharisees were fondly attached, that the observance of one excellent precept of the law would excuse the transgression of therest. The term neighbour, as employed in the Scriptures, is of very extensive import, including not only kindred, friends, and countrymen, but even our enemies, as appears from the pa- rable of the good Samaritan. It has been objected, that in this view of the case the precept is impossible, and contrary to that principle of self-love which God himself has implanted in our breast. Be it observed, that we are not told to love our neigh- bours as much as, but simply as ourselves; the particle ὡς im- plying not equality in degree, but similarity in kind. The pre- cept, therefore, merely enjoins that we treat all men at all times as we would wish under similar circumstances to be treated our- selves; thus exactly corresponding with the divine rule which Christ had before delivered in Matt. vii. 12. Dopprivez, Wuitsy, PorrTevs. Ver. 40. κρέμανται. Some have supposed that this verb has a metaphorical allusion either to the custom of suspending their laws in a public place, or generally, to hanging any thing to a large nail or wooden pin, such as were usually built up at the same time with the wall, in Jewish houses. See Isatah xxii. 23. Ezra ix. 8. But the expression is common in all languages in relation to things closely connected with each other, or originat- ing in another as a first principle. Compare Gen. xliv. 30. Judith viii. 94. So Philo, T. 1. p. 420. ὧν ai τοῦ ἔθνους ἐκρέ- pavro. Cic. in Pison. 41. In sententiis omnium civium famam nostram fortunamque pendere. KuINOEL, Grotius, ELsner, Wertstein.—[Le Cierc, Wuirsy.] It must not be inferred from this declaration of our Lord that these two precepts, great and important as they are, constitute the whole of the Christian system. In that we find many essential improvements of the moral law, as may be seen at once in the Sermon on the Mount. We find also many distinguishing doctrines of Christianity, par- ticularly those of a resurrection, of a day of judgment, of the 272 MATTHEW XXII. 42. atonement made for sin by the sacrifice of Christ, of sanctifica- tion by the Holy Spirit, and of justification by faith in the meri of a Redeemer. We must not, therefore, content ourselves with observing the two leading commandments, of love to God, and love to man, but we must look to the whole of our religion, at- tend to every branch of our duty to God, our neighbour, and ourselves, and finally repose all our hopes of salvation on the merits of Jesus Christ. PorTeus. Ver. 42. τοῦ Δαυΐδ, This was a thing well known among the Jews. See on Matt. i. 1. They expected also that as a temporal prince he would be a much greater:‘man than David, but still that he would be a mere man, possessed of no higher nature than that which he derived from his earthly progenitors. It was the inten- tion of our Lord, in proposing this question to them, to intimate that there was in his character, as pourtrayed by David and the prophets, something more exalted than they were aware of; and though he does not expressly assert his divinity, there can be no doubt as to the inference which must necessarily follow from his reasoning. He may also have intended to put an end to the captious questions of his opponents by exposing their own igno- rance of the Scriptures, and especially of the prophecies relating to the Messiah. Their acknowledged belief that he was to be the descendant of David is a remarkable proof against them that the Messiah is come. Their families are now so perfectly con- fused that they cannot trace back a single genealogy with any degree of certainty, nor have they been capable οἵ ascertaining the different families of their tribes for more than 1,600 years. Why then should prophecy be so clear and distinct on this head, if the Messiah was not to appear till the public registers were all demolished, so as to render it impossible to ascertain the fact? Is it not evident that God had fixed his advent at a time when his descent could be ascertained ; and that the Evangelists Mat- thew and Luke were directed by inspiration to furnish this proof from the public registers, which were in existence at the time when their Gospels were published? No Jewish writer has ever attempted to invalidate this argument, and for this plain reason—because it was impossible. It has been attempted, in- deed, to evade the passage which our Saviour here cites from Psalm cx. 1. by referring it to David himself, to Abraham, or to Ezekiel ; but it is clear that the Jews in our Lord’s time ascribed it to the Messiah, or he would not have alleged it to this end, much less would he have silenced his opponents by so doing. The LXX, it is true, inscribe the Psalm τῷ Δαβὶδ, but other inter- preters, and the Jews themselves, translate 37 in the genitive ; and without this rendering no Psalms whatever can be attributed to David. CampBeLL, A. CLARKE, WHITBY, GROTIUS. ee MATTHEW XXII. 43. 273 Ver. 43. κύριον. This word, corresponding with the He- brew }TX, adon, signifying Lord or Master, was a term imply- ing an acknowledgment of superiority in the person to whom it was addressed, and therefore never given to inferiors, though sometimes perhaps, out of courtesy, to equals: Upon this then the argument of our Saviour depends. An independent mo- narch, such as David, acknowledged no Lord or Master but God; far less would he bestow that title upon a son or descen- dant: and consequently the Messiah, being so called by him under the influence of the Spirit, and therefore acknowledged as his superior, must be divine. In the next verse the same word, Κύριος (in the nominative) is used by the Evangelists to express the Hebrew M1’, Jehovah. Though this is a proper name, and not an appellative, the LX X, from a superstitious notion which the Jews entertained, that it was dangerous to pronounce it, have thought fit always so to render it, and the Jews to this day always read adon,where they find Jehovah. Hence the writers of the N. T., in’ quoting from the O. T., have generally adopted the method of the LXX in this respect, frequently using their very words: nor can any objection be raised against them on this ground. It seemed good to infinite wisdom under the old dis- pensation to distinguish himself as the God of his chosen people by an appropriate name, in opposition to the gods of the sur- rounding nations, all of whom were called indifferently gods and lords ; but under the Gospel, wherein all such distinctions were to be abolished, it was proper that there should remain nothing which might appear to represent God as a national or local deity. It has been proposed, by an alteration of the points, to render "ΣΝ also, to which τῷ κυρίῳ μου answers in the Gospel, to the Lord, instead of to my Lord, as inthe E. T. This, how- ever, would clearly destroy the force of our Saviour’s argument. CampBELL, Grotius, Kurnort. Of the import of the phrase καθῆσθαι ἐκ δεξιῶν see on Matt. xx. 20. VOL. I. ἐδ 274 MATTHEW XXIII. 2. 4. CHAPTER XXIII. Contents :— The disciples warned against the example of the Scribes and Pharisees, and exhorted to humility, vv. 1—12. [Mark xii. 58. Luke xx. 45.] Christ severely reproaches the Scribes and Pharisees for their intolerance, v. 13. rapacity, v. 14. false zeal, ν. 15. superstition in oaths and tithes, vv. 16—23. hypocrisy, vv. 24—28. cruelty, vv. 29—33. Their destruction foretold, vy. 34—36. Christ's lamentation over Jerusalem, vy. 37—39. Verse 2. "Μωσέως καθέδρας. The Jewish doctors always taught sitting. Some understand the chair of Moses of legis- lative authority, but without any sufficient reason. It was pro- bably so called because it was that from which the books of Moses were read and explained, so that he seemed to dictate from thence. There may possibly be an allusion to the pulpits which Ezra made for the expounders of the law, (Neh. viii. 4.) and which were afterwards retained in the Synagogue. It is evident that the injunction given in the next verse must be un- derstood with certain limitations. Our Lord certainly did not mean that the traditions of the Scribes, which they considered superior to the law, were binding upon the people, but simply that they should observe all those things which they read from the Law and the Prophets, and whatever they taught con- sistently with them. Compare infra vv. 16. 18. 23. Matt. xv. 4. sqq. xvi. 6. 12. Had he meant, as the Romanists contend, to assert their infallibility, and to require an absolute submission to their dictates, he must have condemned himself, as it was known he was rejected by them. Doppriper, ΚΥΊΝΟΕΙ, Wuirsy.— [Licutroot.] The name Pharisees being the appellation of a sect, it cannot be supposed that all the party sat in Moses’ chair, but merely the Doctors of the sect. Hence the phrase Scribes and Pharisees must be a Hebraism for Pharisean Scribes. Macknicut. Much information on the subject of this chapter will be found in the account of the Jewish Sects, Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. pp. 367. sqq. See also pp. 253. 403. 482. Ver. 4. φορτία βαρέα. See on Matt. xi. 29. These burdens are also mentioned in the Jewish writers, under the name of strokes or severities. In the Talmudic tract Sotah, III. 4. R. Joshua reckons among the things that destroy the world the strokes (ND) of the Pharisees, and a crafty wicked man; in illustration of which the Gemara observes, By the strokes of the Pharisees he means superfluous worship and troublesome rites, introduced by them underhand into the Jewish religion, and by MATTHEW XXIII. 5. 7. 275 the crafty wicked man some understand one that prescribes light things to himself and heavy to others. So Maimonides: They call the additaments by which they made the law heavy strokes or severities. Hammonp, Licutroot. The verb δεσμεύειν sig- nifies to tie up a bundle, and it is here used in allusion to those who lade and drive beasts of burden: they first make or bind up their loads and then lay them on their backs. Theophrastus (Charact. II.) mentions among the characteristics of a wicked man, τὸ τῷ ἀκολούθῳ ἐπιθεῖναι μείζον φορτίον ἢ δύναται φέρειν. Macknicut, ALBERTI. The phrase τῷ δακτύλῳ κινῆσαι 15 pro- verbial, and of the same import with ἄκρῳ τῷ δακτύλῳ ἅψασθαι, which is frequently used by Greek writers of those who are un- willing to exert themselves in any undertaking. Compare Aris- toph. Lysist. 565. Ailian V. H. XII. 1. Philo. I. p. 297, 32. So in Latin, digito attingere. Some have understood our Lord to allude not to the neglect of the Pharisees themselves in ob- serving these minute precepts, but to their tenaciously exacting them of others: but this is not the force of the proverb, the real import of which is fully explained by the assertion in v. 3. λέ- γουσι γὰρ, καὶ ov ποιοῦσι. WerTSTEIN, ELsNeER, KuINoEL.— [ WuitBy. | Ver. 5. κράσπεδα. We are not to understand our Lord as condemning the use of these fringes, but merely the spiritual pride of those who wore them of an immoderate size for the pur- pose of ostentation. Moses had positively commanded the Jews to wear them, and Christ himself did not hesitate to comply with the law in this respect. See on Matt. ix. 9. Neither are the phylacteries themselves condemned, although it is not so evident that they originated in any divine institution. In Deu. vi. 8. indeed, and Hxod. xiii. 9. 16. God commands the Israelites to bind the words of the Law as a sign upon their hands, and as Jrontlets between their eyes. But although the later Jews, and among them Josephus, understood this precept literally, it was perhaps only a strong metaphor, and so it is explained by Je- rome. Compare Prov. 111. 3. vi. 21. [sazah xlix. 16. The pre- cept, indeed, by a comparison with Dewt. xi. 18. seems to have reference to the whole law, in which case it can only be taken figuratively. Wuirsy, Grorius. Ver. 7. ῥαββί. This was a title which none of the prophets had ever received, nor any of the Jewish doctors, till the time of Hillel and Schammai, but during our Lord’s ministry it was greatly affected by the Pharisees, who wished to be regarded as infallible oracles in matters of religion. See on Matt. xix. 17. Sometimes, also, they were saluted by the disciples with the ap- pellation of father and guide, to which our Lord alludes in vv. 9, 10., and some were even addressed by all the three names T2 276 MATTHEW XXIII. 11. 13. together, as appears from ‘the fiction in Maccoth, p. 44. that when King Jehoshaphat saw the disciple of a wise man he rose from his throne, and embraced him, and said, Abbi, Abbi! Rabbi, Rabbi! Mori, Mori! i. e. Father, Father! Rabbi, Rabbi! Guide, Guide! To these rabbis they ascribed the highest and most incontestible authority, (Atom. 11. sqq.) so high, indeed, as to prevail against that of the king or the high-priest. See Joseph. Ant. XIII. 23. XVIII.2. Inv. 9. there may possibly be an allusion to the father of the Sanhedrim. Wuitsy, Hammonp, Licutroor. The old reading in this verse is καθηγήτης; as in v. 10., but a great number of MSS. and Fathers have διδάσκαλος, which is incomparably the best reading, although Griesbach considers it a marginal gloss. It not only removes an evident tautology, but it is the word by which the Hebrew °2 was always translated by the Hellenists. Compare Matt. viii. 19. xiii. 38. Something more is clearly meant by καθηγήτης, guide, than by διδάσκαλος, teacher. The sentiments, indeed, are nearly allied, but, unless there had been some difference, it would have been no occasion for recurring to a different and even unusual term. In order to enforce the warning against an unlimited ve- neration for the decisions of men, such as the Rabbins expected from their disciples, Christ puts it in a variety of lights, and prohi- bits an implicit reliance upon any human teacher, and the admission of any doctrine which does not emanate from him or from God. The very uncommonness of the word καθηγήτης, which occurs in no other place in the N. T., shews an effort to say something more than is contained in the preceding words. In some MSS, also, 6 Χριστὸς is omitted, and in others the clause πάντες δὲ ὑμεῖς ἀδελφοί ἐστε is found at the end of the next verse, by which transposition the connection of the sentiment is certainly more natural than in the common arrangement. CAMPBELL, GROTIUS. —[GrirsBacu, LoEsNeR. | Ver. 11. ὃ δὲ μείζων x. τ. A. Compare Matt. xx. 25, 26. The sentiment in the next verse was a maxim not only among the Jews, in whose writings it frequently occurs, but also with other nations. Compare Prov. xv. 33. xvi. 18. xxix. 23. So Polyb. V. 26. βραχεῖς yao δὴ πάνυ καιροὶ, πάντας piv ἀνθρώπους we ἐπί- παν ὑψοῦσι, καὶ πάλιν ταπεινοῦσι᾽ μάλιστα δὲ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς βασι- λείοις. By Christ, however, it is applied in a spiritual sense, and there is no one sentiment which is so frequently repeated by him, and enforced with such earnestness, not only upon his Apostles, but upon Christians in general. See Mark ix. 35. x. 43, 44. Luke xiv. 11. xviii. 14. xxii. 26. John xiii. 14. and compare 1 Pet. v. 6. Grotius, RaPpHEetIus, DoDDRIDGE. Ver. 18. Οὐαὶ δὲ ὑμῖν x. τ. Δ. In this and the following de- nunciations our Lord apostrophises the Scribes and Pharisees as MATTHEW XXIII. 14. 2 hid if they were present, though it should seem from v. 1. that they had departed, unable to solve the question proposed to them at the end of the last chapter. At all events, he was now no longer under any restraint from fear of personal violence, as the close of his ministry was approaching; and he did not therefore hesitate, in the most plain and solemn manner, to reprove their excessive wickedness, their gross hypocrisy, and their shameless perver- sion of the law of God to the most abandoned purposes. In the E. T., and in some MSS, this verse is transposed with the fol- lowing, and in others it is omitted altogether. From the change in the construction, which should have been καὶ προσεύχεσθε, it may probably be an interpolation from Mark and Luke; but Griesbach, though he omitted it in his first edition, has been in- duced, by the preponderance of MS. authority, to restore it in his second. In order to give the sense intended by our Lord, the conjunction καὶ must bear the sense of tdque :— Ye devour wi- dows’ houses, and this too under the mask of superior sanctity. Kurnoet, Macknicut, Grorivs. Ibid. ὅτι κατεσθίετε x. τ. X. This sect, says Josephus, (Ant. XVII. 3.) prided themselves in a more exact knowledge of the law, on which account the women were subject to them, we τὸ Θεῖον προσποιουμένων, as pretending to enjoy the peculiar fa- vour of God. The same historian relates (B. J. I. 5.) that they employed the same means to insinuate themselves into the favour of Queen Alexandra. With respect to their long prayers, there is a passage in Beracoth, p. 32, 2. wherein R. Joshua Ben Levi directs the truly religious to pray néne hours a day. See also on Matt. vi. 7. Wuirsy, Ligutroot. The word οἰκία does not here signify merely a house, but generally an estate, property, in which sense οἶκος is used in Hom, Od. A. 248. 251. (compare ν. 375.) B. 64, Ablian. H. V. X. 17. Joseph. B. J. VII. 11. In Gen. xlv. 18. LXX, the Hebrew 1 is rendered by ra ὑπάρ- xovra, and in Esth. viii. 1. by ὅσα ὑπῆρχε. Homer uses pre- cisely the very metaphor employed by our Lord in Od. B. 237, κατέδουσι βιαίως Oikov ᾽Οδυσσῆος. ΚΎΡΚΕ, KuUINOEL. Ver. 14. ὅτι κλείετε κι τι AX. In the parallel passage, Luke xi. 52. the expression is ἤρατε τὴν κλεῖδα τῆς γνώσεως, in allu- sion to the custom of the Rabbins, who carried a key as the em- blem of knowledge and instruction. Hence it is related in Se- machoth, §. 8. that when R. Samuel the Little died, his key and his tablets were hung on his tomb, because he died childless. The Pharisees prevented the reception of the Gospel—for such is the intention of the metaphor—by their misinterpretation of the ancient prophecies respecting the Messiah, and their conse- quent rejection of his claims, (John ix. 16.) by their example, (John vii. 48.) by their authority, (John ix. 22.) and in short, by using their utmost endeavours to hinder the people from repent- 278 MATTHEW XXIII. 15. 23. ing of their sins, and believing the Gospel. ScHoreTresn, Wuirsy, Macxnieut. Ver. 15. περιάγετε τὴν θάλασσαν and τὴν ξηράν. This ex- pression is proverbial, indicative of the most unremitting and in- defatigable exertions. So Philetas ap. Stob. Tit. 250. τῷ αἰεὶ πολεῶ γαιῆς ὑπὲρ ἠδὲ θαλάσσης. Lucan Pharsal. V. 262. queris terraque marique His ferrum jugulis. Somewhat similar is the Latin proverb, Omnem Lapidem movere: Anglice, To leave no stone unturned. With the adjective ξηρὰ, in the feminine, γῆ must be supplied, as πέδον with the more usual ellipsis of ξηρὸν in the neuter. So Herod. II. 68. AXlian. Hist. An. V. 33, Precisely similar is the omission of θάλασσα with the adjective ὑγρὰ in Hom. Il. K. 27. See my note in loc. So we find sie- cum, subaud. solum, in Virg. Georg. I. 363. and lquidum, subaud. mare, in Horat. Sat. I. 1.54. The zeal of the Jews in making proselytes was so remarkable that it passed into ἃ pro- verb among the Heathen. Hor. Sat. I. 4. de veluti te Judai cogemus in hane concedere turbam. Of the different kinds of proselytes see Horne. Muntur, Patarret, Kurnoret, Mack- NIGHT. Ibid. υἱὸν γεέννης. A child of Hell; i. 6. in the Hebrew idiom one deserving of, or doomed to, Hell. So in 1 Sam. xx. 31. 2 Sam. xii. 5. LXX. vide θανάτου, morti debitus. It has been proposed to render διπλότερον in this passage deceitful, rather than two-fold, as in the 15. T. and other versions: but although it is true that ἁπλοῦς sometimes signifies sincere, and that διπλοῦς, on the contrary, occasionally implies fraudulent, crafty, as the Latin duplex in Horat. Od. I. 6., still it cannot be so rendered in the present instances. The notion of guilt is sufficiently implied in the expression υἱὸς γεέννης, in which vide, supplying the place of the adjective ἄξιος, plainly indicates the adverbial usage of διπλότερον. In confirmation of this point it is sufficient to refer to the passage quoted from Justin. M. in Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 370., where the original Greek is διπλότερον ὑμῶν βλασφημοῦσιν εἰς TO ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. GROTIUS, Κυτνοει,.--- ΚΥυρκε.} Of the Jewish opinions respecting oaths, which our Saviour reprobates in the seven following verses, see on Matt. v. 33. sq. By the gold, ν. 16. we are not to under- stand the ornamental decorations of the temple, but the money set apart for sacred purposes, called by the Greeks ἀναθήματα, and by the Latins donarta, Licurroot, Grortius. Ver. 23. ὅτι ἀποδεκατοῦτε x. tA. The Jewish law set apart for the priests a tenth of all fruits, and of such produce of the ground as could be comprehended under the name of revenue. See Levit. xxvii. 40. Numb. xviii. 21. Deut. xiv. 22. In their observance of this law the Pharisees affected the most scru- MATTHEW XXIII. 24. 279 pulous exactness, paying tithe even of the most insignificant herbs, such as our Lord here specifies, and which seem to have been usually passed over as of little or no value. It is to be observed, however, that Christ does not discommend this exact- ness, but complains, that while they were so precise in these matters, which were comparatively unimportant, they neglected the more essential commandments of the law, and substituted frivolous and insignificant observances in the place of a moral and religious life: and this remark will also apply to the other woes denounced in the chapter. The first of the herbs here mentioned, ἡδύοσμον, is the well known garden mint, so called from its fragrant smell: by ἄνηθον the dill is meant, and not the anise, as it is rendered by our translators, who were probably misled by the similarity of sound; anise in Greek is ἄνισον. Cummin, κύμινον, is a disagreeably pungent plant, and so little regarded by the ancients as to be used by them to express what- ever was worthless and insignificant. Hesych. κύμινον τοῦτο ἐπὶ μικρόλογον ἔταττον. Hence a miser was sometimes called κυμινοπριστής. See Hemsterhuis on Arist. Plut. p. 193. That these herbs are not particularized, except for the purpose of il- lustration, is clear from Luke xi. 42., where they are varied, and πᾶν λάχανον is added. The verb ἀποδεκατεύειν is an Hel- lenistic word, which is not to be found in any classical author, but was formed to represent the Hebrew Wy, osher, which sig- nifies both to take tithe and to pay tithe. In the former sense it occurs in 1 Sam. vii. 15. 17, Neh. x. 35. Heb. vii. 5. viii. 2. and in the latter, which it bears also in this passage, in Gen. xxviii. 22. Deut. xiv. 22. Luke xi. 42. xviii. 12. Kuinoet, CAMPBELL, SCHLEUSNER. Ibid. κρίσιν, ἔλεον, πίστιν. EK. T. judgment, mercy, and faith. Luke xi, 42. τὴν κρίσιν καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ Θεοῦ, judg- ment and the love of God. Hence it appears that our Lord in- tended to reprove the Pharisees for their neglect both of their social and religious duties. By the word κρίσις, therefore, must be understood justzce, 1. 6. the giving to all their due; by ἔλεος, charity, i. e. a feeling for the wants and calamities of others, and a readiness to relieve them; and by πίστις, not as some would render it, fidelity or probity, but trust in God, and confidence in his mercy. Perhaps, indeed, πίστις, as it admits of both these senses, may include both in this passage. Compare Rom. iii. 3. Gal. v. 22. Col. 1. 4. Tit. ii. 10. 1 Pet. i. 21. There is most probably an allusion to Micah vi. 8. Compare also Hos. ii. 19. The expression is not unlike Hor. Od. I. 24. 6. cui Pudor, et Justitie soror Incorrupta Fides, nudaque veritas. GRortus, HammMonp. / Ver. 24, οἱ διυλίζοντες κι τ. X. E. T. Ye strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. ‘The word strain has here been under- 280 MATTHEW XXIII. 25. stood by many as denoting to make an attempt to swallow, whereas the verb dwAiZew means to filter, or percolate. It appears, in- deed, that by a typographical error at was substituted for owt in the edition of 1611, and the blunder has been regularly continued in the authorised version down to the present time. The expres- sion is proverbial, alluding to a custom which the Jews had of filtering their wine, that they might not inadvertently swallow any insect forbidden by the law as unclean; of which descrip- tion was the κώνωψ, which seems to have been a small insect bred in the lees of wine, and thence called the culex vinarius. See Aristot. Hist. Anim. V. 19. The Talmudists also speak of jabhkuskin, or wine gnats ; and Maimonides, (de cib. vetit. I. 20.) has a remarkable illustration of this passage: He who strains wine or vinegar or strong drink, and eats the wine gnats which he has strained off, deserves whipping. That the Jews used to filter their wine appears also from Amos vi. 6. LXX, where we read of dwAcpévov οἶνον, in a passage of which the scope is not very different from the present. Our Lord applies the expression to those who are superstitiously anxious in avoid- ing small faults, yet did not scruple to commit the greatest sins. There is a proverb somewhat similar in Beracoth: He omits years, but computes months with exactness. Some would trans- late κάμηλον a cable here also, as well as in Matt. xix. 24.; and others incline to the version of 1727, which renders it @ beetle : but there is no authority for any such variation, not to mention that the Jews had a proverb of swallowing an elephant, the ana- logy of which is ample authority for retaining the usual sense of the word. A. CLARKE, KurnoeLt, ὙΥΕΊΒΤΕΙΝ, ScHorETTGEN.— [DoppripGE.] In calling the Pharisees blind guides, ὁδηγοὶ τυφλοὶ, Christ in all probability alludes to some of the more os- tentatious of the sect, who were wont to appear in public with bandages on their eyes, under the canting pretence of not even looking upon iniquity, lest they should be defiled. Hence they frequently met with severe contusions from striking against walls, and sometimes were seen in the streets covered with blood. This practice, however, was reprobated by the sect in general ; and the Talmudist, who describes it, censures it as hypocritical, and intended not to glorify God, but to deceive men. See Anich, p. 127. 4. ScHOETTGEN. Ver. 25. ὅτι καθαρίζετε x. τ. X. Of the frequent purifications of cups and vessels used at meals among the Jews, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 337. There are several instances of their exactness in this point in the Talmud: Schabbath, p. 118. 1. The metaphor here employed is sufficiently obvious. In their external deportment these hypocrites took especial pains to ap- pear strict and virtuous, while they neglected to purify the inward man from the moral stains of extortion and injustice. Before MATTHEW XXIII. 27. 29. 281 γέμουσι the words ποτήριον καὶ παροψὶς are omitted with a view to conciseness, and for the same reason the metaphor is preserved through the next verse, instead of being explained by a direct declaration of the lesson intended by it. The reading ἀδικίας, which Girtesbach has adopted in the place of ἀκρασίας, upon the authority of a multitude of the best MSS. and versions, and se- veral of the Fathers, is unquestionably correct. It suits much better with the character of the Pharisees, who are never accused of intemperance, though often of ¢justice; and indeed the former vice is rarely found with those who make great preten- sions to religion. Joseph. Ant. XVIII. 1. 3. οἵτε γὰρ Φαρισαῖοι τὴν δίαιταν ἐξευτελίζουσιν, οὐδὲν εἰς TO μαλακώτερον αὐ δε όρε δες Licutroot, Grotius, CAMPBELL, KuINOEL. Ver. 27. ὅτι παρομοιάζετε κι τ. A. By the law of Moses, (Numb. xix. 16.) if any one touched a sepulchre he was thereby rendered unclean: hence their tombs were always whitewashed, and the fifteenth of the month Adar was annually set apart, among other things, for rewashing those which had become in- discernible. So the Talmud, in Schekalim 1. 1. The generality were merely marked with the likeness of bones, (Mzes. xxxix. 15.) but those of the more opulent, to which our Saviour here alludes, were doubtless ornamented with considerable splendour. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 528. In this woe, therefore, the Pharisees are represented as polluted with the grossest vices, however holy they might appear by their exactness in the exter- nals of religion, insomuch that by the contagion of their ex- ample they defiled all who had any intercourse with them. But the denunciation in Luke xi. 44. where they are likened to the μνήμεια ἄδηλα, (of which see Horne, ubi supra,) refers to the contamination which they spread around, infecting those who un- warily approached them. Some, indeed, suppose that the appli- cation in this passage is the same as in St. Luke, and that the tombs are here called ὡραῖοι for the same reason that they are called ἄδηλα there, the herbs and grass which conceal them con- tributing at the same time to render them apparently beautiful. But this interpretation is exceedingly far fetched and unsatis- factory. Ligurroot, Macknicut.—[WuitBy, Hammonp.] Ver. 29. ὅτι οἰκοδομεῖτε κι τ. A. Not only the Jews, but the ancients generally, were wont to testify their respect for the me- mory of the illustrious dead by repairing and beautifying their tombs. What Vitringa (de Synag. p. 221.) tells us of the ex- traordinary honours paid to the sepulchre of Mordecai; and the account in Josephus, (Ant. XVI. 7. 1.) of the splendid manner in which Herod repaired that of David, mentioned in Acts 11. 29., are pleasing illustrations of this custom. St. Jerome also, (Epist. de Mort. Paul.) speaks of several tombs of the holy men of the 282 MATTHEW XXIII. 382. O. T. as still in existence in his time, which must undoubtedly have been erected or rebuilt long after their death. That the prac- tice also prevailed among other nations, see Diod. Sic. XI. 83. Abelian. V. H. XII. 7. Thucyd. 111. ὅθ. Arrian, Exped. VII. 29. Xenoph. Mem. II. p. 587. Hellen. VI. p. 465. It cannot be supposed, therefore, that our Lord intended to discountenance the practice, but to reprove the hypocrisy of the Pharisees in pretending a veneration for their ancient prophets, which they really did not feel. Neither is it probable that our Lord in- tended to insinuate that they rebuilt the sepulchres of the pro- phets not from any regard to the glory of God, or with the view of honouring the prophets themselves, but to do honour to their murderers, and to perpetuate the memory of their deeds, of which they secretly approved, to future generations. The connection of the passage is indeed somewhat intricate, but the following paraphrase is probably correct: ‘‘ Ye pretend indeed to vene- rate the memory of the prophets, whom your fathers destroyed ; and ye affirm that ye would not, had ye then lived, have con- sented to their murderous proceedings. Ye thus acknowledge that ye are by nature the children of their murderers, and I say that ye are also their children by disposition, as your conduct to me and my Apostles will prove, v. 34. Fill ye up then,” ἕο. The inference which our Lord intended to draw is not absolutely expressed, but it is evidently implied in the word υἱὸς, which not only signifies a son or descendant, but one of like manners or disposition with another. Compare Matt. v. 45. John viii. 44. In the parallel place of Luke there can be little doubt that the argument is the same, nor will any difficulty there present itself, according to the following translation: And truly ye attest and approve of the deeds of your fathers, even though they killed them, and you rebuild their sepulchres. Should this rendering, however, be deemed inadmissible, the words καὶ συνδοκεῖτε τοῖς ἔργοις τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν may be included in a parenthesis, which, though somewhat abrupt perhaps, will be amply justified by a variety of examples. Compare Gen. xiii. 10. Hawod. xii. 15, Cant. I. 5. Mark xii. 12. xiv. 23, 24. xvi. 3, 4. Luke v. 15, 16, 17. Rom. iii. 5. 8. Rev. xx. 12, 13. Le Cierc, Doppriner, Wuitsy, Grotius, Kurnoer, Exvsner, &c.—[Macknicut. ] Ver. 82. καὶ ὑμεῖς πληρώσατε κι τ. A. ‘This imperative is un- derstood by some commentators in the sense of the future; but the expression is rather to be considered as an ironical permis- sion, accompanied with a feeling of indignation, and leaving the persons to whom it is addressed, to experience the consequence of their own perverseness. A similar concession, indicative at, the same time of severe reproof, is implied in the words Jf you will, you must ; which convey an unwilling assent to one obsti- nately determined to pursue his own wilful indiscretions. This MATTHEW XXIII. 88, 84. 283 species of irony is met with several times in Scripture, as 1 Kings xxii. 22. 2 Kings ii. 17. Prov. vi. 82. and we have at least one other instance (Mark vii. 9.) of its having been used by our Saviour. Compare also Matt. xxvi. 45. John xiii. 27. Somewhat similar is Virg. Ain. IV. 381. 7, sequere Italiam ventis. So Tacit. Hist. I. 41. Sil. Ital. 11. 256. erent. Adelph. V. 3. 27. CampspeLL, WetTsTEIN, RosENMULLER, KurnorL.— [Wuitsy, Grass, &c.] The expression here employed seems to imply that there is a certain height to which the iniquity of a nation is allowed to rise, encreasing with each succeeding gene- ration till the measure is full, and punishment is inflicted. The justice of such a procedure is evident from the circumstance that the sins of a body politic can only be punished in this life, the proper punishment of national sins being national judgments, not only dissolving the transgressing state, but warning the na- tions of the world to submit with pious awe to the government of God. It may be remarked, also, that the anger of the Almighty, though slow, is always sure, and that he compensates for venge- ance delayed by the severity of the stroke. Macknicut, Gro- TIUS. Ver. 33. πῶς pbynte x. t.X. The phrase ἀποφύγειν κρῖμα or κρίσιν signifies to escape conviction in a court of judicature. Our Lord therefore would intimate that the obduracy of the Pharisees was so inveterate as to bring upon them not only the impending national calamity, but to give them little hope of acquittal at the day of judgment. Of the word yéevva see on Matt. v. 22. and of the expression γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν on Matt. iii. 7. Rapue- Lius, DoppripGe, Grorius. An argument has sometimes been drawn from our Lord’s expressions addressed to the Pharisees, and his denouncing woes against them, in justification of those censorious judgments and harsh appellations which men are too apt to apply to each other. But Christ was fully acquainted both with the dispositions and motives of these hypocrites; he knew their hearts, and the judgment which he passed upon them was that which his prophetical office required. In this know- ledge and capacity an ordinary man cannot imitate him, and therefore can derive, from him no sanction in ordinary cases for any neglect of the precepts against rash judging, so distinctly stated in Matt. vii. 1. sqq. Mackniaurt. Ver. 34, διὰ τοῦτο. The import and reference of this formula has been much disputed: some would render én the mean time, but without any sufficient authority; others connect it with the words immediately preceding, for this cause, namely, that ye are serpents, &c.; others, again, refer it to v. 32.; and so Eu- thymius: διότι μέλλετε πληρῶσαι τὸ μέτρον τῆς κακίας τῶν πατέ- ρων ὑμῶν. The most probable opinion, however, is, that it 284 MATTHEW XXIII. 35. merely denotes transition, as in Matt. xiii. 52. xxii. 29. Mark xii. 94, At all events the meaning cannot be that he would send them prophets to be killed, that they might not escape the damnation of Hell, but on the contrary, that every possible means might be tried for their conversion. At the same time he knew that they would make light of their warnings, and draw down upon them such terrible vengeance as would be a lasting monument of the divine displeasure to the end of time. In stating, however, that all the righteous blood which had been shed in former ages would be laid to their charge, he did not mean that every individual act of their ancestors would be visited upon them, but that of every species of cruelty, oppression, and murder which had been exemplified in times past, they of that generation would be no less guilty, inasmuch as they had care- fully imitated, and even exceeded, all the most atrocious deeds of their forefathers from the beginning of the world. Nor is there any hyperbole in this representation, as the account given by Josephus of their extreme national depravity will abundantly testify. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 382. sqq. Kuinoet, MackNIGHT, CAMPBELL. Ibid. προφήτας, καὶ σοφοὺς, καὶ γραμματεῖς. These and similar appellations were given by the Jews to their Doctors and Rab- bins, from whom they are transferred by Christ to his Apostles and their successors, partly in reference to the προφήτας καὶ δικαίους in v. 32. and partly to insinuate that his messengers would be no less inspired, wise, and acquainted with the Scrip- tures than those whom they themselves honoured with these titles. Compare Luke xi. 49. In proof of the completion of our Lord’s, prediction we may instance the stoning of Stephen, Acts vii. 59. the cutting off James with the sword, Acts xii. 2. the scourging. of Peter and other Apostles, Acts ν. and the persecu- tion of Paul and Barnabas from city to city. It has been ob- served, indeed, that there is no positive record of the crucifixion of any Christian teacher before the destruction of Jerusalem. Probably Christ may have included himself in the prophecy, not to mention that the history which we now possess of those early times is far from complete, so that the names of many who suf- fered, in various ways, have not been transmitted to posterity. Kurnoet, Grotius. Before ἐξ αὐτῶν must be supplied τινὰς, as in Luke xi. 49. xxi. 16. John xvi. 17. See Matt. Gr. Gr. §. 352. Ver.35. Ζαχαρίου, υἱοῦ Βαραχίου. Considerable doubts have been agitated as to the individual of whom Christ speaks; and four persons bearing the name Zacharias have been severally considered by different commentators as particularly alluded to in this passage. Some contend that Zachariah, one of the minor prophets, is meant; but although he states himself to have been MATTHEW XXIII. 37. 285 the son of Barachiah, (Zech. i. 1.) and however probable it may be that he was murdered by the Jews, (see Horne, Vol. IV. p. 239.) there is no evidence, historical or traditional, of the fact. Yet more unsatisfactory is the conclusion in favour of the father of the Baptist, of whom indeed there was a tradition mentioned by some of the early Fathers, but rejected by Jerome, that he was killed in the temple; but he was neither the son of Bara- chias nor a prophet. Others, therefore, suppose that the Za- charias in question was a rich Jew, who was slain by the Jewish zealots in the temple a short time before the destruction of Jeru- salem: Joseph. B. J. IV. 6. 4. In this case, however, the verb épovevoare must be taken in a future acceptation, not to mention that this person was the son not of Barachias, but of Baruch, Βαρούχου ; and that these names were perfectly distinct is clear from Neh. iii. 4. 20. LXX. In all probability, therefore, our Lord refers to the murder of another Zachariah, who was slain by the order of Joash, in the courts of the house of the Lord, 2 Chron. xxiv. 91. This supposition is strongly confirmed by the consideration that as Abel was the first, so this Zacharias was the /ast prophet and preacher of righteousness mentioned in the O. T. It is true that this Zacharias is said to have been the son of Jehotada ; but it was not unfrequent with the Jews to have two names, especially when the name of Jehovah entered into the composition of one of them: thus Jehotakim is also called Eliakim, (2 Kings xxiii. 34.) and in the present in- stance the same meaning, viz. the praise of God, is conveyed under both appellations. Possibly, indeed, the words viov B. may be nothing more than the marginal gloss of some copyist, who took it for granted that the minor prophet was intended, whence they at length found their way into the text. Jerome ac- quaints us that the Nazarene Gospel had Jehoiada instead of Barachias. Grotivus, Le Cierc, Wuitsy, Licurroot. — [Hammonp, Kress, &c.] By θυσιαστήριον the altar of burnt sacrifice must certainly be intended, since the altar of incense was within the ναὸς, or temple, properly so called. See Horne, and compare Jos. Ant. VIII. 4. 1. XV. 14. 5. The phrase ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ τινὰ, OY ἥκειν ἐπὶ τινὰ, as employed in this and the next verse, signifies to call for vengeance against one, for blood shed. Compare Acts v. 28. Hence, in the next verse, ταῦτα πάντα refers to the persecution of the Apostles mentioned in this, with a view of limiting the predicted punishment to the genera- tion then in existence. It is well known that the total destruction of Jerusalem took place about forty years after. Of the use of the word γενεὰ, as denoting a period of about thirty years, see my note on Hom. 1]. A. 250. Hammonp, Grortus. Ver. 37. Ἱερουσαλήμ ' “Ἱερουσαλήμ! «. τ. X. With this apos- trophe our blessed Lord concludes the most spirited and solemn 286 MATTHEW XXIII. 38. of all his discourses, and having deemed it necessary to de- nounce in the most explicit terms the destruction which threatened the guilty city, his breast heaved with compassion at the prospect, and he lamented in the most moving manner the consequences of their guilt. The depth of this feeling is forcibly expressed in the repetition of the word Jerusalem, and the beau- tiful metaphor which is employed to represent the Saviour’s love for his chosen though rebellious people, and the earnestness with which he had used every means consistent with his own perfec- tions and the freedom of man, to effect their salvation. A similar emphasis is marked by the repetition of the word Ariel in Isaiah xxix. 1. Compare Aristoph. Acharn. 27. Pac. 245. Terent. Eunuch. I. 2. 11. With respect to the metaphor borrowed from the hen’s affection for her brood, we may compare Deut. xxxii. 11. Isaiah xxxi. 5. Psalm xvii. 8. So also Eurip. Here. F. 71. ot θ᾽ Ἡράκλειοι παῖδες, ove ὑπὸ πτεροῖς Σώζω νεοσσοὺς, ὄρνις ὡς, ὑφειμένη. There are like expressions in Asch. Eum. 1004. Eurip. Andr. 440. Herac. 10. Anthol. I. 87. 1. and in the Talmud, Vajikra R. ὃ. 28. p. 168, 4. Of the figurative use of the noun τέκνα in reference to cities and their inhabitants, we have examples in 2 Sam. xx. 19. Jerem. ii. 16. So also Arist. Ran. 1356. ὦ Κρῆτες, Ἴδας τέκνα. The frequent calls to re- pentance which the Jews had received under the O. T. and their perverse neglect of them, will be recognised among many other instances in Deut. xxiv. 13. xxxii. 29, 30. Prov. i. 24. Isatah Ixv. 12. Jer. vii. 15. On points of construction we may notice the ellipsis of κατὰ before ὃν τρόπον, which is supplied in Acts xv. 11. and the plural ἠθελήσατε in reference to ‘Ieoovca- λὴμ in the singular. With respect to the latter it is not unusual to connect the names of countries, in a collective sense, with verbs plural. So Aul. Gel. III. 7. Propter ejus virtutes omnis Grecia gloriam atque gratiam precipuam claritudinis inclytis- sime decoravere monumentis, signis, statuis, ELSNER, GROTIUS, Κυτνοει, WeTSTEIN, PALAIRET. Ver. 38. By οἶκος in this verse some understand the temple, others the whole Jewish nation. That the Jews called their temple the house, κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, and the house of the sanctuary, and the everlasting house, is abundantly evident from their writings ; but, with the exception of Luke xi. 51. wherever the temple is meant in the N. T. the word Θεοῦ, or the like, is always joined with οἶκος to mark its signification. It is therefore better, in this place, to take it in the latter acceptation, as it is avowedly so used in a very similar prophecy of Jerem. xxii. 5. λέγει 6 κύριος, ὅτι εἰς ἐρήμωσιν ἔσται ὃ οἶκος οὗτος. So Chrysostom. πᾶσαν αὐτῶν τὴν ἀνατροπὴν τῆς πολιτείας ἐδήλους ‘The Greeks also used the word οἶκος, and the Latins domus, in the sense of patria. Compare Dionys. Perieg. v. 354. Catull. Attid. v. 29. 10 MATTHEW XXIII. 39. XXIV. 1. 287 Cic. Attic. Epist. VII. 2. Sall. Cat. 44, Grorrus, Patatret, ELsner, CampseLy.—[DoppripGe, ΚύΊΝΟΕΙ, RosENMULLER. } Ver. 39. ob μή με ἴδητε x. τ Δ. The interpretations which have been given of this passage are many and various. Some suppose that our Lord intended to predict his removal from them until the destruction of their city, which is repeatedly called his coming in the next chapter. In order to meet this exposition they would render ἕως ἂν εἴπητε, until ye would gladly say, i. 6. until your calamities shall have convinced you of my Messiahship, and ye will wish that ye had joined in those acclamations which ye lately rebuked. Compare Matt. xxi. 9.16. In confirmation of this opinion it is urged, that when their destruction drew nigh they earnestly expected their Messiah, and readily followed those false teachers who promised them deliverance. See Joseph. B. J. VII. 30. But to this it is an insuperable objection that the Jews do not yet acknowledge that their Messiah has arrived, the title 6 ἐρχόμενος being still prospective. Others, therefore, refer the prediction of Christ to the time of the conversion and restoration of the Jews, of which St. Paul speaks in Rom. xi. 26. But as this will take place before the last coming of Christ, it is perhaps more probable that our Lord alludes to his second advent in triumph at the end of the world. So Chrysostom: τὴν yao μέλλουσαν ἡμέραν τῆς δευτέρας αὐτοῦ παρουσίας ἔνταυθα λέγει. Some time previous to this period his fostering care will be restored to them; they will receive him as their Messiah, and be ready to greet him with joyful acclamations at his glorious ap- pearing. The word ἄπαρτι should not be rendered henceforth, but after a while, i. e. after his ascension, as in Matt. xxvi. 64. and elsewhere. Grorius, Doppripcr.—[Wuitsy, Mack- NIGHT, &c. ] CHAPTER XXIV. ConTENTs :—Our Lord foretells the destruction of Jerusalem, w. 1,2. The signs preceding, and the circumstances at- tending that event, vv. 3—351. [Mark xiii. 1. Luke xxi. 5.] The time indicated, and illustrated by the parable of the fig- tree, vv. 832—36. The uncertainty and suddenness of Christ's appearance a cause for watchfulness, vv. 37—A4, The pa- rable of the faithful and wicked servants, vv. 45—51. [Mark xiii. 62. Luke xxi. 34.] Verse 1. τὰς οἰκοδομὰς τοῦ ἱεροῦ. Of the temple and its various buildings and appurtenances see Horne, to whose ad- 288 " MATTHEW XXIV. 1. mirable Introduction, Vol. III. pp. 24.555. the reader is referred for a proof of the fulfilment of our Lord’s emphatic prediction in the next verse, where he has also given (pp. 548. sqq.) a con- nected review of the whole of the prophecies contained in this chapter, and the parallel places of Mark and Luke ; so that little more will here be requisite than this general reference in regard to the illustration of the prophecy and its fulfilment. The de- livery of the prediction arose naturally out of the train of passing events. Christ had just pronounced in the temple his pathetic lamentation over Jerusalem, in which he had adverted to its ap- proaching desolation. In allusion to this his disciples direct his attention to its strength and magnificence, with a view, in all probability, to draw from him a more explicit declaration on the subject. The destruction of their temple was an event which they could only connect in their imagination with the end of the world, or at least, with that great and awful change which they expected to take place in the constitution of the world at the Messiah’s advent. The Jews, in fact, applied the term συντέ- Aga τοῦ αἰῶνος, the end of the world, or rather of the age, to two distinct periods: 1. the coming of their Messiah, in which acceptation it is used in v. 3., and explained by the synonymous expression τῆς σῆς, (i. 6. Χριστοῦ) παρουσίας. So also in Hed. ix. 26. 1 Cor. x. 11. and that the coming of Christ is frequently to be understood of his coming in judgment upon the Jews is suffi- ciently known. 9, The end of time, as in Matt. xiii. 39. 49. xxviii. 20. and elsewhere. See also on Matt. xii. 32. There is little doubt, indeed, that our Lord had both these significations in view in the delivery of this prediction, for while the whole of the chapter relates in its primary acceptation to the destruction of Jerusalem, the forms of expression, and the images made use of, are applicable also to the day of judgment, to which there is unquestionably a secondary allusion. This is a very common practice in the prophetic writings, where two subjects are fre- quently carried on together, a principal and subordinate one. See Horne. By mingling together.in the present instance the two important catastrophes of the destruction of the Jewish polity and the end of the world, our Lord not only gives a most interesting admonition to his immediate hearers, but extended the benefit of his prediction to every period of time, and to the whole Christian world. This remark will afford an easy solution to many difficulties. We may observe, in conclusion, that the three Gospels in which the prophecy is related were written and published before the destruction of Jerusalem, and that the writers were all dead before the event. There can, therefore, be no suspicion that it was inserted after it had happened, more especially as St. John, who alone survived the siege, does not recite it. Newton, RosenmuLter, Wuitsy, Portevs, MACK- nicut.—[Mepe, SyKes, οι, &c.] The negative particle ov MATTHEW XXIV.6,7. * 289 in the beginning of v. 2. is omitted by several MSS. versions, and Fathers, and it is very probably an interpolation. Ver. 6. δεῖ γὰρ πάντα γενέσθαι κ. τ. Δ. Some refer the verb Sei to the counsel and determination of God; but the expression does nothing more than indicate the absolute certainty that the predicted events will precede the destruction of the Jewish state and nation. The word τέλος corresponds with συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος in y. 3., so that our Lord’s words were intended to con- firm his disciples to this effect: Be not alarmed at these ru- mours, for the end will not arrive till all which I declare is ac- complished. A similar mode of expression occurs in Hom. II. B. 121. τέλος δ᾽ οὔπω τὶ πέφανται. Manil. I. 912. Nee dum Jinis erat : restabant Actia bella. σιν ΟΕ, WertTsTEIN, Gro- TIUS. Ver. 7. ἐγερθήσεται γὰρ κι τι A. To Mr. Horne’s illustration of this second sign it may be added that the Jews themselves say, in Sohar Kadash, p. 8,4. In the times of the Messiah wars shall be stirred up in the world : nation shall rise against nation, and city against city. Again in Bereshith R. §. 42. p. 41, 1. 2. Eleazar, the son of Abina, said, When ye see king- dom rising against kingdom, then expect the immediate appear- ance of the Messiah. So also of the famines and pestilences in Perikta Soharta, p. 58,1. In the week in which the Son of David comes there shall be a scarcity in the first year, in the , second the arrows of famine shall fly, and in the third there shall be a grievous famine. In Perikta R. p. 28, 3. R. Levi said, In the times of the Messiah a pestilence will visit the world, and the wicked will be consumed by it. 'The words λιμοὶ καὶ λοιμοὶ are not unusually joined together, not only from their similarity of sound, but because the one naturally produces the other. So Hesiod. Op. D. 240. μέγ᾽ ἐπήγαγε πῆμα Κρονίων, Amov ὁμοῦ καὶ λοιμόν. Quint. Curt. 1X. 10. Famem deinde pestilentia insecuta est, quippe insalubrium ciborum novi succi, ad hoc itineris labor, et egritudines- animi vulgaverant morbos. Hence the proverb pera λιμὸν λοιμός. Compare 2 Chron. xx. 9. Jerem. xiv. 12. xxi. 7. Of earthquakes, as presaging times of distress, see Joel iii. 3, 4. Amos viii. 9. Sil. Ital. V. 615. Plin. N. H. II. 86. It is, therefore, incorrect, as well as unnecessary, to understand σεισμοὶ metaphorically. Grorius, WeErTSTEIN, Kurnoet.—[Kypxe, Lozsner. ] Ibid. κατὰ τόπους. E. T. in divers places, rightly. So Polyb. IIT. 53. κατὰ μέρη δὲ Kal κατὰ τόπους. ‘Thucyd. 111. 80. κατ᾽ οἰκίας. IV. 55. κατὰ χώρας. Some, however, understand in all places ; subaud. ἑκάστους, which is supplied in Zach. iv. 16. So κατ᾽ ἔτος, every year, in Luke ii. 42. But this inter- pretation can only be admitted upon the supposition that history VOL. I. U 290 “MATTHEW XXIV. 8, 9. 14. has not recorded every instance of calamities which happened, which indeed, upon any consideration, is more than probable. Rapuetius, Wetste1n, Le CLerc, ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ,. Ver. 8. ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων. Supply the words μόνον and ἔσται. Eurip. Med. 60. ἐν ἀρχῇ πῆμα, καὶ οὐδέπω μεσοῖ. The noun ὠδίνες signifies the pangs of child-birth, to which severe afflic- tions are frequently compared, not only in the Scriptures, but in other writers. See my note on Hom. Il. A. 270. Grorius, Wet- STEIN. Ver. 9. τότε παραδώσουσι κ. τ. A. In Luke xxi. 12. it is said, before these things ; but in this there is no inconsistency, for the persecutions of the Christians commenced shortly after our Lord’s ascension, and continued to rage with increasing fury long after the destruction of Jerusalem. Of this sign, the parti- culars of which extend through y. 13. the illustration given by Mr. Horne is confined to this single verse. With respect to the apostacy predicted in v. 10., it is stated by Tacitus, in relation to Nero’s persecution, that at first several were seized, who con- JSessed ; and then, by their discovery, a great multitude of others were convicted, and cruelly put to death with derision and insult : Annal. XV. St. Paul mentions by name Phygellus, Hermo- genes, and Demas, who forsook him, 2 Tim. i. 15. iv. 10. false prophets or teachers also were to be raised up, v. 11. and accordingly we find St. Paul complaining of deceitful workers transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ. Examples of such are Hymeneus and Philetus, (2 Tim. ii. 17, 18.) who destroyed the hopes of the Christian by asserting that the resur- rection was past already ; Carpocrates, the head of the Gnosties ; and Ebion, who taught that Christ was merely a Jewish prophet. See also 1 Cor. viii. Gal. vi. 12. Phil. iii. 18. Col. ii. 8. 1 Tim. i. 4. vi. 20. Tet. 111. 9. 1 John v. 21. It was the natural conse- quence of all this, that the love of many should wax cold, v. 12., and that their ardour in the cause of Christianity should be con- siderably abated; and, accordingly, we meet with a great defec- tion in several Christian churches. See Gal. iii. 1. sqq. 2 Thess. iii. 1. sqq. 2 Tim. i. 15. Heb. x. 25. Of the assurance held out in v. 13. see on Matt. x. 23. It is a remarkable fact, that not a single Christian is known to have perished at the siege of Je- rusalem, in consequence of adopting the course recommended by our Lord in vy. 16—18. By ἀνομία, in v. 12., is probably meant tllegal outrage, in allusion to the mock trials and lawless persecutions with which the Christians were continually sub- jected. Newton, Grotius, Porteus, &c. Ver. 14, εἰς μαρτύριον πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι. Scil. that the offer of salvation had been made to them in every part of the world . MATTHEW XXIV. 15. 291 where they were dispersed ; so that by their obstinate rejection of it the justice of their punishment would be universally acknow- ledged. By ἡ οἰκουμένη most commentators understand the Roman empire, in which sense the term is not unfrequently em- ployed. See on Luke ii. 1. At the same time it would be very little of an hyperbole to take it in its widest acceptation. See Horne. The word τέλος is used as in νυ. 6. A. Cuarke, Κυι- NOEL. _ Ver. 15. ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ. E. T. in the holy place. A great majority of commentators prefer on holy ground; i. e. the dis- trict lying within a certain distance of the Temple, which was regarded as sacred even by the enemies of the Jews, the Pagan temples being possessed of similar immunities. In favour of this interpretation it is urged, that, if by τόπος ἅγιος we understand the Temple itself, the event described would not be an indication of ap- proaching calamity, but the very calamity itself. But it appears from the following verse that the admonition is not given to the inhabitants of the city, to whom no opportunity of escape would then be left, but to the people of Judea, οἱ ἐν τῇ “lovdata; and immediately afterwards we find 6 ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ. It is urged, in- deed, that Ἰουδαία frequently means no more than tractus Hiero- solymitanus ; but of this no example has been adduced. Now, excepting the present passage, the phrase τόπος ἅγιος occurs in the N. 'T. only in Acts vi. 13. xxi. 28. in neither of which can it be otherwise understood than of some part of the Temple. In the LXX it is very common, and there it is always meant of the Temple, and generally of the holy place properly so called. Our Lord is here supposed to allude to Dan. ix. 27. xi. 31. xii. 11. and though the precise passage is not found in the prophet, the first cited reference in the LXX is not very remote from the words of St. Matthew. The expression there employed is ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν β᾿,έλυγμα τῶν ἐρημωσέων ἔσται; and it is observable, that although this differs from the Hebrew, still the word em- ployed is 322, by which the Syriac translator has rendered πτε- ρύγιον in Matt. iv. 5. where some part of the Temple is un- questionably meant. Nor is history averse to this exposition, as will be seen in Horne. In the parallel place, Mark xiii. 14. we have instead of ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ the words ὅπου ov δεῖ. This ex- pression, it is true, is indefinite, but it seems to be an euphemism to which no place less sacred than the Temple could have given rise. That no objection can be formed against this interpreta- tion from the omission of the article, see Art. §. IV. p. 11. MippLeton.—[Grotius, Wuirspy, CampBeLi, &c.] In the expression βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημωσέως the noun βδέλυγμα is used as an adjective, as in Luke i. 48. ταπείνωσις τῆς δούλης for δούλη ταπεινὴ. The participle ἑστὼς is in the neuter gender contracted from ἑσταός, as in Luke y. 2. ἑστῶτα for ἑσταότα. uz . 292 ΜΑΤΤΗΕΥ XXIV. 17. So Thueyd. II]. 1. τὸ μὲν καθεστῶς τοῖς “Ἕλλησι νόμιμον. KuINOEL, ΚΎΡΚΕ. : Ibid. 6 ἀναγινώσκων, νοείτω. These words are supposed by some to have been spoken by our Lord himself, in order to fix the attention of his hearers more forcibly; and by others they are explained as the words of the prophet himself, Dan. ix. 26., answering to the Hebrew 22 ΠῚ YIM), which the LXX render καὶ γνώσῃ καὶ συνήσεις. But they rather appear to contain a parenthetical admonition of the Evangelist, calling the attention of his readers to a very important warning of his master, which he was then writing, and of which many of them would live to witness the utility. The verb ἀναγινώσκειν, signifying to read, is very common; and that νοεῖν sometimes signifies to attend, compare 2 Fim. ii. 7. CAMPBELL, Ku1NorEL.—[Grorius, Mack- NIGHT. | Ver. 17. ὃ ἐπὶ τοῦ δώματος, x. τ. X. In this and the follow- ing verses there are allusions to Jewish customs designed to im- press upon the disciples the necessity of immediate flight. The houses of the Jews had flat roofs forming a sort of terrace, with stairs on the outside by which persons could descend without entering the house. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 391. Instead of τι, which is the old reading, many of the best MSS. read ra ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας, which is far preferable. In v. 18. the al- lusion is to the practice of husbandmen, not only among the Jews, but also among the Greeks and Romans, of laying aside their upper garments when at work. Hesiod. Op. D. 392. γυμ- νὸν σπείρειν, γυμνὸν δὲ βοωτεῖν, Γυμνὸν δ᾽ ἀμᾶσθαι. Virg. Georg. I. 299. Nudus ara, sere nudus. The persons mentioned in v. 19. are such as would not be in a condition to make their escape, or to bear the miseries of the siege. According to Jo- seph. B. J. V. 10. the houses were full of women and children, who perished by the famine, and mothers snatched the food even from their children’s mouths. See also Joseph. Ant. XIV. 13. 7. and Horne, wbi supra; and of the admonition in v. 20. see Vol. ΠῚ. p. 806. R. Tanchum observes, p. 30, 2. that the favour of God was particulariy manifested in the destruction of the first temple, in not obliging the Jews to go out in the winter, but in the summer. With respect to the Sabbath, the distance allowed by the Jews for journeying on that day was only 2000 cubits, or about five furlongs, supposed to be the space between the camp and the Tabernacle, Levit. xxiii. 3. See Exod. xvi. 29. Joseph. Ant. XIII. 8, 4. This superstition was retained by the Na- zarene Christians, and in fact by all who remained in Judea in the time of Adrian. See Sulp. Sev. 11. 45. Besides, on the Sabbath days the Jews not only kept within doors, but the gates of all the cities and towns were closely barred, (Nehem. xiii. 19. 22.) so that they could expect no admission into any place of MATTHEW XXIV. 21, 22. 293 security. See also on Matt. xii. 2. It is to be observed, how- ever, that our Lord does not here intend to establish the Jewish Sabbath, but to caution his disciples against the inconvenience which might arise to them from exciting the indignation of the Jews by an apparent violation of it. Some by σάββατον under- stand, but without reason, the Sabbatical year. Grorttus, Ligutroot, Exsner, A. CLarKE, Wuirsy, WETSTEIN.— [Hammonp. ] Ver. 21. οἵα ov γέγονε x. τι A. This is a proverbial expres- sion frequently employed by the sacred writers to express some very uncommon calamity, as in Ewod. v. 9. x. 14, Joel ii. 2. Dan. xii. 1. 1 Mace. ix. 27. It is not, therefore, necessary to take the words in their strictest sense ; at the same time, in this instance they were almost literally fulfilled. See Horne. The triple negatives οὐδ᾽ οὐ μὴ are powerfully emphatic. Compare Luke x. 19. Heb. xiii. 5. Rev. xviii. 14. Wuitrsy, Kurnoet. Ver. 22. οὐκ ἂν ἐσώθη πᾶσα σάρξ. The expression ov πᾶσα σὰρξ is ἃ periphrastic Hebraism for οὐδεὶς, no one; scil. of the inhabitants of Judzea, whether Jews or Christians. So vast was the number of those who perished in the siege, that if it had been protracted much longer, the whole nation must shortly have been destroyed; those within the walls by famine, conten- tion, and the fury of the Roman soldiery; and the Christians, who had taken refuge in the mountains, by the difficulties of subsisting without houses or provisions, and by the hands of the Sicarii and the Zealots, who slew all indiscriminately who did not take part in the war. In the shortening of the siege the providence of God is distinctly observable, for, to all human ap- eee a variety of circumstances combined to prolong it. espasian’s departure from Judaa to assume the imperial dig- nity, the obstinate inveteracy of the Jews against the Romans, the extraordinary strength of Jerusalem, and its ample means for sustaining a lengthened siege, and the advice which Titus received from his generals to leave the work to famine: these and other causes seemed to threaten the most protracted duration of the Jewish miseries. In fact, the besieged themselves were mainly instrumental in shortening those days of tribulation, by their seditious and mutual slaughters, their madness in burning their own provision, and, at last, by deserting their strong holds. Titus was so sensible of this, that he himself ascribed his success to God’s driving them from their fortresses. See Joseph. B. J. V. 12. 1. Tacit. Hist. V. 11. Wuirsy, Werste1n. The verb κολοβοῦν signifies properly to amputate, or mutilate, as in 2 Sam. iv. 12. XX. Xenoph. Cyrop. I. 4. 2. and thence, in re- ference to time, to shorten. So in Malela, p. 237. τοῦ αὐτοῦ μηνὸς τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκολύδησαν. By the elect in this passage the 294: MATTHEW XXIV. 24. Jewish converts to Christianity are in all probability intended. See on Matt. xx. 16. There seems to be an allusion to an opi- nion prevalent in ancient times, that a national calamity was sometimes averted, that the innocent might not be involved in the punishment of the guilty. Kuryort, Grotius, Ver. 24. ψευδόχριστοι καὶ ψευδοπροφῆται. Some suppose that our Lord had Barchochebas in view here, who expressly called himself the Messiah; but this is incorrect, as Barchochebas did not arise till the reign of Adrian, about sixty years after the siege of Jerusalem. But though Josephus does not mention that any of the impostors and magicians, of which he says (Ant. XX. 6.) the country was at this time full, assumed the title of Christ: still it is probable, from their promising to shew σημεῖα ἐλευθε- ρίας, signs of liberty, which the Jews expected from their Mes- siah, that they really did so. It is remarkable that our Lord not only predicted the appearance of these deceivers, but also the circumstances and manner of their conduct. Some were to ap- pear in the desart ; and Josephus relates that many tmpostors persuaded the people to follow them into the wilderness, promis- ing to shew them σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα, signs and miracles, done ac- cording to the counsel of God: Ant. XX. 7, An Egyptian false prophet, (Joseph. wbi supra, compared with Acts xxi. 38.) led out into the desart four thousand men, who were murderers ; but they were dispersed by Felix. Another promised salvation to the people, if they would follow him into the desart, and was de- stroyed by Festus. Also one Jonathan, a weaver, held out the same hopes, and was destroyed by Vespasian, Joseph. B. J. VII. 11. They were to appear also in the secret chambers: and there was a false prophet, (Joseph. B. J. VI. 5.) who de- clared to the people that God commanded them to go up into the Temple, when the place in which they assembled was set on fire by the Romans, and six thousand perished in the flames. So dexterous were these impostors in imitating miraculous works, that there is no wonder they deceived the multitude ; and even the Christians themselves, had they not possessed the strongest evidence of the divine mission of their Master, would in all proba- bility have fallen into the snare. And this is all that is meant by the words εἰ δυνατὸν, from which no argument can be drawn in support of the doctrine of final perseverance. The phrase simply denotes a great difficulty in a possible act. So Matt. xxvi. 39. Acts xx. 16. Rom. xii. 18. ‘That the Christians were sometimes deceived appears from Tertull. adv. Marcion. III. at the same time that the admonitions which Christ had given them rendered it extremely difficult. Hence the saying of Galen: θᾶττον τὶς τοὺς ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ μεταδιδάξειε. Besides, our Lord solemnly exhorts his disciples to the greatest caution, (vv. 4, 5. 11. 13.) and he expressly declared that many would fall from MATTHEW XXIV. 27. 295 the faith. See on Matt. xviii.6. Wuitsy, Grotius, Lr Cuerc, A. CLtarKxE. There has been some difference of opinion as to whether the s¢gzs and wonders here mentioned were really per- formed, or merely promised. That the verb δώσουσι will bear the latter interpretation is inferred from Deut. xiii. 2. 1 Kings xiii. 3. 5. LXX. which is somewhat confirmed by Joseph. Ant. XX. 8. 6. B. J. VII. 11. 1., where the history merely says δείξειν ἔφασαν. The more probable opinion, however, from the ordinary usage of the expression σημεῖον διδόναι, and from the natural idea suggested by our Lord, is, that some species of mi- racles, perhaps by demoniacal agency, were really wrought; or, at least, that magic sleights, like the /ying wonders mentioned in 2 Thess. ii. 9. were exhibited. It is well known that the Jews were particularly credulous, and easily deceived by tricks and incantations of this nature; and we are expressly told by Jerome, that Barchochebas pretended to vomit flames. At all events, it is certain that God would never suffer miracles to be wrought in proof of falsehood without investing his servants with the power of working greater miracles on the side of truth: so that the cause of God and his religion will always have the greatest evi- dence in its favour. Dopprincr, Ligurroot.—[KyPKe, Gro- tius, &c.] The word ταμεῖον, v. 26., is properly ὦ treasury or store-house, and hence any private chamber. Uesych. ταμεῖον" θάλαμος. Compare Gen. xliii. 30. Exod. vill. 3. LXX. AL- BERTI, LE CLERC. Ver. 27. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἡ ἀστραπὴ κ. τι A. By this simile some understand the s¢gnal and conspicuous, others the rapid and sudden, destruction of the Jews: probably both interpretations may be united, intimating that the coming of the Messiah to take vengeance on the nation will not be in a remote desart, or in a secret chamber of the Temple, but manifested in the sudden and rapid overthrow of his enemies. The flash of lightning is com- monly descriptive of suddenness and celerity. Compare Zach. ix. 14. Luke x. 18. Apoll. Rhod. 11. 267. Virg. Ain. XI. 326. It is remarkable that our Lord points out the direction of the march of the Roman army, which entered Judea at the east, and carried its conquests westward with the most devastating fury and rapidity. There is a doubt whether the particle γὰρ in the next - verse refers to this or the preceding ; the latter seems more pro- bable, and that it conveys an additional reason for disregarding the prevailing rumours of the Messiah’s appearance. By the carcase is meant the Jewish nation, who were judicially dead ; by the eagles the Roman armies, who bore the eagle on their standard: and our Lord would signify, that wherever these de- ceivers assembled their followers, the Romans would pursue them to destruction. ‘There is an evident allusion to the descrip- tion of the nature of the eagle in Job xxxix. 30. LXX. οὗ δ᾽ ἂν 8 256 MATTHEW XXIV. 29, 30. dot τεθνεῶτες, παραχρῆμα εὑρίσκονται. Our Lord employs the same expression in Luke xvil. 37. So also Senec. Ep. 46. Si vultur es, cadaver expecta. 'The prophecies of Moses, Deut. xxvill. 49. and in Hos. viii. 1. are supposed by some to refer to this destruction, and by others to the slaughter of the Jews under Adrian and Trajan. Wuirsy, Licutroot, Hammonp, Kut- NOEL, &c. Ver. 29. εὐθέως δὲ x. τ. X. The expressions in this and the two following verses have been supposed by many commentators to refer to the day of judgment; and indeed many of them are actually applied to that great event in the very next chapter, and in other parts of Scripture. But in the present instance the con- nection of our Lord’s discourse, and the word εὐθέως in parti- cular, distinctly appropriate them to the destruction of Jerusalem. In ancient hieroglyphic writing the sun, moon, and stars were used to represent states and empires, kings and nobility; their eclipse or extinction denoting temporary disasters or entire over- throw: and thus in prophetic language great commotions upon earth are often represented under the notion of commotions and changes in the heavens. Thus the destruction of Babylon is foretold in similar terms in Isaiah xiii. 9., the punishment of the Idumzans in Lsaiah xxiv. 6., of Sennacherib, Lsaiah li, 6., of Egypt, Ezek. xxxii. 7., the slaughter of the Jews, Dan. viii. 10., and this very destruction of Jerusalem in Joel ii. 30. Compare also Esther viii. 16. Jerem. xv. 9. Joel iii. 15. Amos viii. 9. The same also appears from the Talmud; and Maimonides ob- serves (More Nevoch. c. 29. p. 2.) that the sun and moon losing their light is a proverbial expression importing the destruction and utter ruin of a nation. So also Artemidor. Oneir. II. 39. Similar notions are also observable in the classic writers. Thus of the falling or shooting of stars, as ominous of evil times, Virg. Georg. I. 365. Spe etiam stellas, vento impendente, videbis Przcipites οωΐο labi, noctisque per umbram Flammarum longos a tergo albescere tractus. Again, v. 462. Sol tihi signa dabit : Solem quis dicere falsum Audeat? Ille etiam cecos instare tu- multus Sepe monet, &c. Compare Ovid, Met. XV. 782. Cie. Catil. III. 8. Tibull. II. 5. 71. Liv. XXII. 4 5. Still it is more than probable that there is a remote although not a direct reference to the attendant circumstances of the day of judgment. See above on v. 1. By the powers of Heaven, δυνάμεις τῶν ov- ρανῶν, are generally meant the sun, moon, and stars, as in Deut. iv. 19. Isatah xxxiv. 4. 2 Chron. xxxiii. 5. Jerem. xxxiii. 22. and elsewhere; and these, having been already particularized, are again mentioned generally to encrease the emphasis. WHITBY, Licutroot, DoppripGe, HamMMonpD, ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ,. Ver. 30. τότε φανήσεται τὸ σημεῖον κι τ. A. Some understand MATTHEW XXIV. 31. 297 the word σημεῖον to mean an ensign or banner ; others interpret it pleonastically, and it is omitted by Mark and Luke; but our Lord seems rather to allude to the prophecy in Dan. vii. 13., from which the Jews had imbibed an idea that the Messiah would ap- pear visibly in the heavens, and exert some miraculous display of power by which they would be delivered from the Roman yoke, and an universal empire over all nations be erected in their behalf. But by the coming of the Son of man in the clouds Daniel meant his appearance to take vengeance on the unbe- lieving Jews; and by the kingdom over all nations he meant a spiritual kingdom, i. e. the dispensation of the Gospel, which should be extended over all the nations of the world. Hence, by adapting the words of this prophecy to his present purpose, our Lord intimated that the true spirit of it was generally mis- taken by the Jews, and set his disciples right upon the subject. The figurative expression, coming in the clouds, is used in other parts of Scripture to denote the irresistible interposition of God to execute vengeance on a guilty generation. See 2 Sam. xxii. 10. sqq. Psalm xevii. 2. Isaiah xix. 1. Its meaning in this place is sufficiently fixed by our Lord himself in wy. 27, 28. 37. That it cannot refer, as some have supposed, to the comet men- tioned in Joseph. VII. 12. is evident, since that appeared some time previous to the destruction of the city. Macxknieur, Wuirsy, Hammonp, Le Cierc. —[Doppriner, ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ, RosENMULLER.| By φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς are evidently meant the tnhabitants of Judea, who would have abundant occasion for mourning. The verb κόπτεσθαι signifies to beat the breast in token of sorrow, as in Zech. xii. 12. Rev.i.7. See on Matt. xi. 17. WuitBy, KUINOEL. Ver. 31. ἀποστελεῖ τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ. Some commentators understand our Lord to mean, that after the destruction of Je- rusalem he would collect together, by his angels, as with the sound of the trumpet, his true and persevering followers from all parts of Judea; but he rather alludes to the rapid progress of the Gospel, by means of his Apostles and their successors, to which the exact fulfilment of this prediction mainly contributed. Agreeably to this interpretation, the word ἄγγελος is frequently applied both in the O. and N. T. to God’s prophets and mi- nisters. See on Matt. xi. 10, Their preaching also is compared to the sound of a trumpet in Isaiah lviii. 1. Jerem. vi. 17. Ezek. xxxiii. 3—6. Rom. x. 18. and the Gentiles are said to be called from all corners of the earth in Matt#. viii. 11, 12. Luke xiii. 28, 29, Wuirsy, Macxnicut, RosenMuLLER.—[Hammonp.] The Jews by the winds denoted the cardinal points of the heavens, as in 1 Chron. ix. 24, Ezek. xxxvii. 9. We have examples of the phrase ἀπ᾽ ἄκρων ἕως ἄκρων in classic writers. Themist. XII. p. 179. ἐξ ἄκρας εἰς ἄκραν. Xenoph. de vectigal. p. 727. ἀπ᾽ 298 MATTHEW XXIV. 82. 36. ἐσχάτων τῆς “EXAddoc ἐπ᾽ ἔσχατα. ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ, WeETSTEIN, Ra- PHELIUS,. Ver. 32. ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς συκῆς κι τ. X. Our Lord in this parable answers to the question of the disciples in v. 3. respecting the time of this destruction, telling them that it will be as clearly in- dicated by the signs which he had mentioned, as the approach of summer by the budding of the fig-tree. He then limits the time more distinctly to a certain period, and declares that his predic- tion would be accomplished before the generation of men then existing should pass away. Those, indeed, who understand this part of the prophecy more immediately of the day of judgment, ex- plain thes generation, (ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη, v. 34.) of the Jewish nation through all ages ; as if our Lord intended to say that they should continue a distinct people till the end of the world. But this is altogether at variance with the meaning of the word γενεὰ in every other passage of the N. T. Compare Matt. xi. 16. xii. 42. xxiii. 36. Mark viii. 12. Luke vii. 31. xi. 29. sqq. xvi. 8. Acts ii. 40. The true sense is abundantly illustrated by Matt. xvi. 28. be- sides that the declaration was'literally fulfilled. The Evangelist John in all probability lived to see these things come to pass; and there were also some Rabbins alive at the time when Christ spoke these words who witnessed the destruction of the city, viz. £. Simeon, who perished during the siege; R. Jochanan Ben Zaccai, who outlived it; R. Zadoc, R. Ishmael, and others. The Temple was burnt and the city taken A.D. 70. Dop- prIDGE, Wuirsy, Licutroor, &c.—[Mepr, Sykes, &c.] The phrase ἐγγὺς ἐπὶ θύραις, v. 33., denoting the closest proximity, occurs in Demosth. Philip. 4. ὑπὲρ δὲ τοῦ ἐπὶ ταῖς θύραις ἐγγὺς οὑτωσὶ x. τι Δ. Philo de Agric. p. 908. D. ὁ πόλεμος ἐγγὺς καὶ ἐπὶ θύραις ὦν. So in limine esse, Virg. ἄπ. VIII. 656. Compare Gen. iv. 7. Phil. iv. 5. James v. 9. Rev. i. 8. The nominative to be supplied may be ὁ vide τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, from v. 30., OY ἡ παρουσία τοῦ υἱοῦ TOU ἀνθρώπου from ν. 97. ΚΎΊΝΟΕΙ,, Bos, Wurrsy, GRortius. . Ver. 36. περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας κι τ. AX. It is strongly urged by many that this verse at least relates solely to the day of judg- ment, which is immediately alluded to in the strong proverbial expression in the preceding verse ; of which see on Matt. ν. 18. In support of this opinion great stress is laid upon the opposition of ἐκείνης here, and ταῦτα, v. 33. Uf the conjecture be true the verse should be inclosed in a parenthesis, for what follows cer- tainly relates to the destruction of Jerusalem, to which it is ex- pressly confined in Luke xvii. 26. sqq., and cannot, without vio- lence, be applied to the final advent of Christ. There is no reason, however, for supposing that there is any closer reference to the day of judgment than in the rest of the chapter. Having MATTHEW XXIV. 88. 40. 299 predicted the fall of the Jewish state within certain limits, he proceeds to affirm that the precise time thereof cannot be di- vulged, and, on that account, presses upon them the necessity of watchfulness. The emphatic term ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in Luke xix. 43. Acts τι. 20. Rom. xiii. 11. 1 Cor. i. 7, 8. ii. 13. 1 Thess. v. 2. 2 Thess. i. 10. and elsewhere. Compare Zech. xiv. 1. Hammonp, Lr CLerc.— [Wuitsy, Doppriper.| With respect to the silence of revela- tion on this point, Christ expressly states in Mark xiii. 32. that he himself also knew it not: at least such is the English version. In order to obviate the objection which has frequently been built upon this declaration against the divinity of Christ, it is some- times urged that our Lord here speaks of himself only as to his human nature; but the gradation of the sentence from men to angels, and from angels to Christ, seems to forbid this solution. It should rather seem, therefore, that the word εἰδέω in this place bears the sense of the Hebrew conjugation Héphil, and signifies to make to know, i.e. to declare, to reveal. ‘This is unquestion- ably the meaning of the word in 1 Cor. ii, 9. Hence the true import of the passage, Neither man nor angel, nor even the Son of Man himself, can reveal the day and hour of the destruction of Jerusalem to you; because the Father hath determined other- wise. Macxnicut. —[Dopprinez, Wuitsy, Lieurtroor. | Many commentators would render ὥρα season, rather than hour, observing, that if the day is unknown the hour is necessarily un- known also: this, however, is unimportant. The expression employed by our Lord is simply intended to designate the precise time. Le Cierc, Hammonp.—[A. Cuarke.] Ver. 38. τρώγοντες καὶ πίνοντες κι τ. X. These words have been thought to imply the most fatal extravagance of riot and lust ; and the verb γαμεῖσθαι is interpreted here, as it is unques- tionably often used, in a criminal sense. But how great reason soever there may be for believing that the antediluvian sinners were addicted to the grossest excesses, our Lord most probably intended nothing more than to express the security and gaiety with which they pursued the ordinary employments and amuse- ments of life when they were on the very brink of destruction. The verb ἔγνωσαν in the next verse should be rendered they did not consider, i. 6. they did not improve their knowledge so as to profit by it. That they had sufficient intimation of the judg- ments which awaited them, see Gen. vi. 13. Heb. xi. 7. 2 Pet. ii, 5. Compare Luke xix. 42. Wurrsy, Doppripce. Ver. 40. τότε δύο x. τ. Δ. Some have supposed that the de- sign of this and the following verse is to shew that the desolation should be as general as unexpected; so general, that of two persons employed together in any occupation both should in no 800 MATTHEW XXIV. 42. 45. wise escape. It should rather seem to assert the providence of God, in making a distinction between the faithful and disobedient, of whom the former would be saved and the latter destroyed, al- though they might both appear to be equally exposed to the im- pending danger. The verb παραλαμβάνεται is in the present for the future. Wuirspy, Hammonp.—[A. Ciarke.] Of the allusion in v. 41. see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 464. Ver. 42. γρηγορεῖτε οὗν, κι τ. A. It is conjectured by some that our Lord’s discourse respecting the destruction of Jerusalem concluded with the last verse; and that what follows was spoken at another time, and upon a different occasion. In Luke xii. 99, the ensuing exhortations are otherwise connected, but they ac- cord here as well as there with the subject in hand, and may, therefore, be supposed to have been accommodated by our Lord to both places. It is certain that the remainder of the admoni- tion alludes no less to the final judgment than to the judgment upon the Jews, not to mention that the next chapter cannot easily be applied to any other than the former. It seems, there- fore, that the grand transition about which commentators are so much divided is made precisely at this point. The destruction of Jerusalem was a proper emblem of the dissolution of the world itself, and the warnings which had just been delivered in re- ference to impending national judgments would naturally lead to a caution against an unwelcome surprise by a call to the tribunal of God. ‘The application of the following parables is sufficiently obvious; they inculcate the necessity of perseverance and watch- fulness, more especially in Christ’s appointed ministers, from the fact that his coming to judge the world will be no less sudden than unexpected. The metaphor of his appearance as a thief is em- ‘sich in 1 Thess. v. 2. 2 Pet. iii. 10. Rev. iii. 3. Of the verb wopbrrey, V. 43., see on Matt. vi. 19. With the sentiment we may compare Sall. Cat. 52. Vigilando, agendo, bene consulendo, omnia prospere cedunt. Wuirsy, Doppripee, Κύτνοει, Wer- STEIN. Ver. 45. τίς ἄρα ἔστι κι τ. A. These parables evidently refer most especially to the ministers of the Gospel, under the simi- litude of those servants whose business it was to distribute the monthly allowance of provisions to the slaves. They extend, however, to every Christian individually ; and in-reference to the early ages of Christianity, the faithful and wise servant will re- present those who remained constant in their attachment to their Lord under all the persecutions and iniquities of those times ; while the evil servant is the apostatizing Jew, who having de- serted the faith himself, betrayed and smote his fellow-servants, who continued faithful to the religion of the Gospel. Compare Matt. x. 21. xxiv. 10. Heb. x. 37. James v. 8, 9. 2 Pet. ii. 4. 9 MATTHEW XXIV. 51. 501 The Gnostics and early Heretics are also supposed by some to be included in this declaration. Wuitspy, Hammonp, Mack- nicut. The noun θεραπείας is the abstract for the concrete, the service for the servants, of which see Matt. Gr. Gr. §. 429. 1. Ver. 51. διχοτομήσει. Very many of the commentators un- derstand this verb of the ancient punishment of dichotomy, of which see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 155. and compare Judg. xix. 29, 1 Sam. xv. 33. 2 Sam. xii. 31. Dan. iii. 29. Heb. xi. 37. Tertull. Apol. 3. Diod. Sic. I. 2. Suet. Cal. 27. Horat. Sat. I. 1.99. Others interpret it of the division of a debtor's pro- perty among his creditors; and others, again, of separating the evil servant, or confining him apart from the rest of the house- hold, in a sense somewhat similar to that of abseindere in Hor. Od. 1. 3.21. It is quite clear from the context that the punish- ment alluded to fell short of death; and, as the two last of these in- terpretations are far-fetched and unsatisfactory, the most probable opinion is, that although dichotomy itself is not intended, the verb is transferred from that sense to denote a severity of punish- ment nearly allied to it. We should, therefore, probably trans- late it to scourge severely, in which sense the Greek τέμνειν, and the Latin discindere and secare, are sometimes employed. Com- εν Hom. Od. Σ. 345. Arrian. Epict. III. 22. Plaut. Mil. ΟἹ. . 1. 2. Terent. Adelph. IV. 3.6. In Luke xii. 47. the verb is δαρήσεται. At the same time, the punishment intended is clearly emblematic of eternal perdition, which may also be in- ferred from its being joined with the portion of the hypocrites. Thus in the Talmudic tract Solah: 10. Ehezer said, Every hy- pocrite has his portion in Hell. Kurnort, Doppriner, ScHo- ETTGEN, RosENMULLER.—[WuitTBy, Rapuetius, MuNTHE, CampBeLL, Guasse, &c.] The expression τὸ μέρος τιθέναι is probably taken from the division of booty amongst soldiers, and hence signifies versart cum aliquo. Compare Job xx. 29. Psalm xi. 6. 1. 18. Prov. xxix. 24. Dan. ix. 12. 20. So also Plutarch in Mario, c. 29. εἰς ἀρετῆς καὶ δεινότητος μερίδα τὸ ψεύσασθαι τιθέμενος. Of the expression ἐκεῖ ἔσται x. 7. Δ. see on Matt. viii. 11. 13. Exusner, Le Cxierc. With the allusion in these parables we may compare Claudian de Bel. Getic. v. 366. de veluti famuli, mendax quos mortis herilis Nuntius in luxum falso rumore resolvit, Dum marcent epulis, atque inter vina choros- que Persultat vacuis effrena licentia tectis ; Si reducem domi- num fors improvisa revexit, Herent attoniti, libertatemque pero- sus Conscia servilis precordia concutit horror. Columel. I. 1. Servi dominorum distantia corrumpuntur. See also Plaut. Pseud. LV. 7. 3. Wersrein, BULKLEY. 502 MATTHEW XXV. 1. 9. CHAPTER XXV. Contents :—Parable of the ten virgins, vw. 1—13. Parable of the talents, vy. 14—80. The proceedings of the day of judg- ment described, vy. 31—46. Verse 1. τότε ὁμοιωθήσεται κ. τ. X. For an ample illustration of this parable, the application of which is given by our Lord himself in v. 13., see Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. p. 400. III. pp. 399, 417. sq. A very similar one is found in the Jewish treatise Rheschith Cochma :—Repent, whilst thou hast strength to do it; whilst thy lamp burns, and the oil is not extinguished ; for, if thy lamp be gone out, thy oil will profit thee nothing. There is another parable also, of a like description, produced by Kimchi, on Isaiah \xv. 15. This thing is like to a king who in- vited his servants, but appointed no set time. Those that were wise adorned themselves, and sat in the porch of the palace ; but those that were foolish went about their own business. The king on a sudden called for his servants ; the first went in adorned, the second undressed ; and the king was pleased with the wise and angry with the foolish, and said: They who are prepared shall eat of my banquet ; they that are unprepared shall not eat of it. Hence Origen and others of the Fathers have justly in- ferred that this parable of the virgins is designed against a late repentance, which may be seen also in the necessity of constant vigilance, v. 13. of assiduous prayer, Luke xxi. 34. 36. and con- tinued well doing, Matt. xxiv. 45. Inv. 10. there is probably an allusion to the Jewish phrase of shutting the gates of re- pentance. Thus Midrash. Cohel. 11. 9. The holy blessed God said to Israel: My sons, repent, while the gates of repentance stand open. Compare Heclus. xviii. 21. It may be inferred, perhaps, from this parable, that ten was the usual number of virgins who attended the bridegroom, though the number may be used ¢ndefinitely, and is certainly not to be pressed in the application. The same number is particularized in Kelim, II. 8. It is the custom of the Israelites to carry the bride from the house of her father to the house of the bridegroom, and to carry before her about ten wooden staves, in which there is a piece of cloth with oil and pitch ; and these, being lighted, they carry before her for torches. ΝΥ ΠΤ ΒΥ, Licutroor. Ver. 9. μήποτε οὐκ ἀρκέσῃ x. τ. A. Some understand an ellipsis of ὁρᾶτε or βλέπετε ; others of φοβούμεθα ; and others, again, that there is no ellipsis whatever, but that the particle δὲ should be omitted in the next clause upon the authority of se- veral good MSS, It has been thought, also, that the adverb MATTHEW XXV. 14. 503 μήποτε is sometimes used for ἴσως, perhaps, as in Gen. xx. 11. LXX. 2 Tim. ii. 25. The E. T. supplies not so, 1. 6. we will not give it, lest, &c.; and this seems to be as easy a method as any, if not preferable to them all. Grorius, Grasse, Dop- DRIDGE, WuitBy, CAMPBELL.—[ALBERTI, Kypxe, &c.| It is strange that Popish writers should consider this passage as favouring their doctrine of a stock of merits in their church, founded on works of supererogation, since, if it referred to them at all, it would rather forbid any dependence on them. The ex- pression ἀγοράσατε ἑαυταῖς seems merely an ornamental circum- stance, having the appearance of a proverb usually applied to those who were unreasonable in their demands. If it is to be taken into the account, it plainly denies to every one any work of supererogation which can be placed to the account of another. DopprinGe, A. CtarKe. In the end of the parable, v. 13. the words ἐν ἡ ὃ vide τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεται, which are found in the common editions, are omitted in most MSS. and versions, and should in all probability be expunged. The sense, however, is the same in either case. Grorius, MILL, GrizsBacH, Ham- MOND. Ver. 14. ὥσπερ yao ἄνθρωπος x. τ. X. This parable does not appear to be the same with the very similar one in Lwke xix. 12. There the gifts are equal, here they vary; there they are pounds, here they are talents: that in St. Luke was spoken in the house of Zacchzeus before the raising of Lazarus, this was delivered on Mount Olivet three days before the last passover. The scope of the two parables is also generally supposed to be different: in the former the pounds are understood by some to represent the ordinary operations of the Spirit equally vouchsafed to every Christian; in the latter the talents are the extraordinary powers given in different degrees to the ministers of the Gospel, as to the Apostles ten, to the seventy disciples five, and to teachers of an inferior order one. The former also is considered as a warning addressed immediately to the Jews, the latter as a general intimation of the last judgment. Some, indeed, refer this also to the destruction of Jerusalem. It is to be observed, however, that whatever may be the opinions respecting their primary import, both of them must be interpreted ultimately with a view to the final judgment, and as directed indiscriminately to every Christian. Licutroot, Grotius, WuiTsBy. The open- ing of this parable is evidently wanting. ‘The E. T. supplies the kingdom of Heaven, which is the usual form upon similar occasions ; but it seems more likely here to have been the Son of man, both from the bearing of the similitude and the interpolation in the last verse, which in all probability caused the defect in this. CampBett, Macxnicut. Of the custom alluded to see Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. p. 404. 904 MATTHEW XXV. 15. 21. 24. Ver. 15. κατὰ τὴν ἰδίαν δύναμιν. Some would render δύναμις, wealth, in reference to the master ; and in this sense it is doubt- less sometimes employed: but the scope of the parable is alto- gether in favour of the general interpretation, which understands it of the capability of the servants, to each of whom a propor- tionate sum was given, according as they had the necessary quali- fications for its management. It seems to have been a practice with opulent traders in the East to employ a portion of their capital in this way; and something of a similar nature has been observed in modern times. The adjective ἴδιος, both in this and the preceding verse, is used for avrov, as in Matt. xxii. 5. Wuitsy, Kurnort, Ros—enmMuLLER.—[Kypxe.] In the next verse the verbs ἐργάζεσθαι and ποιεῖν are mercantile terms, of which the former signifies to embark money in trade, and the latter to realize a profit. With ἐργάζεσθαι in this sense the word χρήματα, or the like, is generally supplied, as in Herod. I. 24. Arist. Equit. 835. Elian. Hist. An. X. 50. For ποιεῖν the more usual verb κερδῆσαι is substituted in the next verse, but the former is also very commonly so employed. Ailian. V. H. XIV. 32. εὑρὼν τὴν οὐσίαν ποιήσαντα ἧς ἀπέλιπε πλείω. Theoph. Char. 54, ποιῆσαι δέκα τάλαντα. Soalso in Latin facere. Nepos, 2x Cimon. 1. 3. Magnas pecunias ex metallis fecerat. Cic. Ver. II. 6. pecunitam maximam facere. With pvéev, v. 18., there is an ellipsis of the cognate accusative ὄρυγμα. Some, indeed, supply αὐτὸ, sc. ἀργύριον, but of this the succeeding clause would only be a repetition. WerrsTern, Patarret, Kur NOEL. Of the phrase συναίρειν λόγον, see on Matt. xviii. 25. Ver. 21. εὖ, δοῦλε x. τ. A. There is peculiar force and energy in the word εὖ, which is equivalent to εὖγες It was the word employed by spectators at any public exercise to express the highest satisfaction and applause. Plato, Euthyd. ἅμα ἀνεθο- ovBnoay τε Kal ἐγέλασαν, καὶ πρὶν ἀναπνεῦσαι καλῶς τε καὶ εὖ. Compare Hor. A. P. 328. 428. In order to keep the parable and its application distinct, it is very generally agreed to render χαρὰ, in this place, a banquet or feast. In reference to the con- viviality of an entertainment the Hebrew TW, which signifies a banquet, and particularly a marriage feast, is once expressed by χαρὰ in Esth. ix. 17. LXX. and Pignorius (de Servis) says that banqueting-rooms had the word XAPA written over them. It may be observed, that although slaves were not, freedmen sometimes were, admitted to their master’s table. Doppripex, Wertstein, Wuitsy, Le Cuerc. Ver. 24, Κύριε, ἔγνων σε, κι τι X. This excuse of the sloth- ful servant has been thought to be merely an ornamental circum- stance to which nothing corresponds in the application of the parable. But it should rather seem to relate to the weak and MATTHEW ΧΧΥ. 26. 31. 305 groundless reasons which those who neglect the duties of Chris- tianity are apt to allege in their defence ; representing the Gospel as a hard task-master, who requires more of them than they are able to perform. It is to be observed also, that in what follows, v. 26., the Lord does not make any concession that the matter was truly as the servant stated, but merely admits the point by way of argument, in order to urge more forcibly upon him the necessity of exertion in the performance of his duty. In selecting also as the example of sloth the servant who had been entrusted with the smallest sum, it was not Christ’s in- tention to insinuate that those who have received most will ordinarily pass their accounts best; but to intimate that the most humble Christian has some service to perform, for which he will be held equally responsible with the highest. God does not re- quire much, where little has been given; but one talent, as well as ten, the respective trustees will be called upon to improve. Wuirtsy, Dopprincr.—[LeCrerc.] Of the construction with the verb ἔγνων see my note on Cid. T. 1271. Pent. Gr. p. 84. and compare Exod. ii. 2. 2 Sam. xvii. 8. 1 Kings v.17. 1 Mace. xl. 03. LXX. The adjective σκληρὸς implies severe, harsh, i. 6. one who exacts his due to the utmost: and the agricultural terms which follow are proverbially descriptive of such a character; or rather, of one who expects more than he has afforded the means of producing. KuINoEt. Ver, 27. τραπεζίταις. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. IIT. p. 185. They seem to have paid a certain rate of interest for money vested in their hands. It-is not to be supposed, from this de- claration, that our Lord approved of usury; he merely adapts the parable so as to answer effectually the excuse which the ser- vant had just putin. Indeed the word τόκος signifies only pro- duct οὐ interest, and such was originally the meaning of the English word wsury, by which our translators have rendered it. Of the proverbial expression in v. 29. see on Matt. xiii. 11. The words ἄρατε οὖν k. τ. A v. 28. seem to be merely added as a finish to the picture. Wuirsy, CAMPBELL, KUINOEL. Ver. 31. ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ κι τ. A. From the preceding parables, intended as a warning to prepare for the last great day, our Lord naturally turns to a description of the day itself; and it 15 a de- scription which for dignity and grandeur has not its equal in any writer, sacred or profane. It opens with a declaration of the universality of the judgment, in direct opposition to a prevailing — Jewish notion, that the Gentiles would form no part in the re- surrection, and proceeds with a detail of the method in which sentence will be passed, in the presence of men and angels. ‘The metaphor employed is agreeable to the language frequently adopted in the O. T., in which good men are compared to sheep VOL, 1. se 800 MATTHEW XXV. 34, 35. on account of their innocence, (Psalmxxxiii. 1. c. 3.) and wicked men to goats for the obstinacy of their lusts, (Ezek. xxxiy. 17, Zech, x. 3.) The allusion, however, is dropt almost at the entrance of the description, the greater part of the representa- tion being expressed in terms perfectly simple, so that though the sense is profound, it is obvious. The image is formed upon the usual practice of shepherds in early times, who always kept the sheep and goats in different flocks. Thus Virg. Eclog. VII. 2. Compulerantque greges Corydon et Thyrsis in unum; Thyrsis oves, Corydon distentas lacte capellas. Compare Liv. XXIV. 3. Of the position of the sheep on the right hand and the goats on the /eft, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 118. It may be observed, also, that the Rabbins employed the right and the /eft hand respectively as the emblems of acceptance and rejec- tion. Hence in Sohah Chadash it is said: The right hand is given, the left also is given: to the Israelites and Gentiles are given Paradise and Hell; this world and the world to come. The Romans and Greeks also had similar notions. Thus Virg. fin. VI. 540. Hic locus est, partes ubi se via findit in ambas ; Dextera, gue Ditis magni sub mcenia tendit, Hac iter Elysium nobis; at leva malorum Exercet poenas, et ad impia Tartara mittit. DoppRIDGE, MackNnicuT, A. CLARKE, Wuitsy, &c. Ibid. θρόνου δόξης. A Hebraism for θρόνου ἐνδόξου. The epithet ἅγιοι is omitted before ἄγγελοι in most ancient MSS., ver- sions, and Fathers: and it is probably an interpolation. Kut- NOEL, GRIESBACH. _ Ver. 54, βασιλεύς. In y. 31. our Lord had called himself simply the Son of Man, but he now changes the appellation, and with great propriety assumes the title of King, as about to ex- ercise the highest act of kingly power, in passing sentence on the whole congregated world. The blessing which he here pro- nounces has been adduced as an argument in favour of personal election and reprobation; but it should be observed, that the ex- pression with which it closes, and upon which the whole argu- ment rests, is a mere Hebraism. Thus there were seven things which the Rabbins said were created from the foundation of the world; 1. the Law; 2. Repentance; 3. Paradise; 4. Hell; 5. the Throne of God; 6. the Name of the Messiah ; 7. the Temple. Be it observed, however, that the Temple here alluded to was a habitation which they believed to be prepared for their nation exclusively in Heaven; to which opinion our Lord probably al- ludes. See Tanchuma, p. 61, 4. MacknicutT, SCHOETTGEN. Ver. 35. ἐπείνασα γὰρ, κι τι λ. The particular acts of charity here enumerated by our Lord were in very great estimation among the Jews, though the exercise of them was confined to those of their own nation. Thus in Vedarim R. Chama com- 8 MATTHEW XXV. 35. 307 ments thus on Deut. xiii. 4. He clothed the naked; (Gen. iii. 21.) he visited the sick; he comforted those that mourn ; (Gen. xxv.) do thou also these duties. The words of the Chaldee paraphrast in Eecles. ix. 7. bear a remarkable resemblance to those of our Lord, if, indeed, they are not an imitation of them. In Vayikra Rabba, ὃ. 84. p. 178. it is said: As often as a poor man pre- sents himself at thy door, the holy blessed God stands at his right hand ; of thou give him alms, he that stands at his right hand will give thee a reward ; but if thou give him not alms, he who stands at his right hand will punish thee. Another of their sayings was, that He who neglects to visit the sick, is like him who has shed blood. Of the duties of hospitality see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 451. Scuortreen, A. CuarKkeE, Riper. Of the doctrine inculeated in this passage, it should be observed, that we shall be examined at the last day, not merely as to our exemption from crimes, but as to our performance of good ac- tions ; and that not: only as regards charity, but every other virtue: for although our Lord has selected charity for the purpose of illustration, as being the most characteristic of his religion, yet it is clear, from the whole tenor of the N. T., that nothing short of universal holiness will entitle us to everlasting life; (Col. iv. 12. James ii. 10. 2 Pet. i. 6.) and even after we have done all we are still but unprofitable servants, andit is the merits of Christ alone that can ensure our acceptance with God, Ephes. ii. 8. 1 John i. 7. It may seem strange that the commission of sin is not expressly insisted upon, but positive injunctions evidently include the op- posite prohibitions. . We may remark also, that no intermediate station is noticed between the rewards of the good, and the pu- nishment of the bad; so that, although there-will be unquestion- ably different degrees of happiness or misery, it is certain that those who are not absolutely rewarded will be absolutely pu- nished, and that eternally. There are some, indeed, who would understand the words κόλασις αἰώνιος, not of everlasting, but merely of a long, but indefinite, punishment; in defence of which it is urged that κόλασις properly signifies correction inflicted for: the benefit of the offender. It is true that Aristotle makes a distinction between κόλασις and τιμωρία, but he afterwards uses them together as equivalent: ἐκόλασε τιμωρίᾳ. So also Hesy- chius: κόλασις" τιμωρία. With respect to αἰώνιος, it cannot be allowed that the word is used in two different significations in the same sentence; and as the efernal life of the righteous is avowedly meant in this passage, the eternal punishment of the wicked must also be understood. This text is fully explained and confirmed by Mark ix. 44. Rev. xiv. 11. xx. 10. Porreus, RENNELL. Ibid. 'The verb συνάγειν signifies to lodge or entertain; and there is an ellipsis of εἰς τὸν οἶκον, which is supplied in 2 Sam. xi. 27. Judg. xix. 18. LXX. It is evidently more properly ap- ΧΦ 308 MATTHEW XXV. 40, 41. lied to more than one, as in Plutarch, Sympos. V. 5. τοῦ πολ- Nate ὁμοῦ συνάγειν. In the next verse the adjective γυμνὸς does not mean naked, but simply, as frequently nwdus in Latin writers, badly clothed. Seneca de benef. V. 5. Qui male vesti- tum et pannosum vidit, nudum se vidisse dicit. Compare 1 Sam. xix. 24. Job xx. 6. Isaiah Wiii. 7. John xxi. 7. Acts xix. 16. The verb ἐπισκέπτεσθαι signifies properly to look earnestly, Isaiah xxvi. 16.) to observe, (Psalm xvi. 3.) and thence to viszt, sc. the sick and afflicted, for the purpose of assisting and consoling them; as in Job ii. 11. Ecelus. vii. 35. LXX. Acts vii. 25. Hence Phavorinus: éacxérropar’ προμηδεύομαι καὶ κήδομαί τινος. KUINOEL. Ver. 40. ἐφ᾽ ὅσον ἐποιήσατε κι τ. A. So close is the union betwixt Christ and his church, that he looks upon the favours conferred upon its members as done to himself, and rewards them accordingly, Matt. x. 42. So also on the other hand, with respect to injuries, and their punishment, v. 45. Hence his ad- dress to Saul, Acts ix. 4., Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me ? There is a similar sentiment in Cic. Epist. Fam. X. 1. Teque hoc existimare volo, quicquid in eum judicii officiique contuleris, ad ita me accipere ut in me ipsum te putem contulisse. Compare Prov. xix. 17. Wuitsy, BuLKLEY, KurNoEL. Ver. 41. ἡτοιμασμένον τῷ διαβόλῳ x. τ. A. There is a re- markable difference between our Lord’s expression here and in v. 34.; there the A¢ngdom is said to have been prepared for the righteous from the foundation of the world, but here the everlast- ing fire is not said to have been prepared for the wicked, but for the devil and his angels. Hence a very just inference of some of the early Fathers, that Hell was not originally designed for men, but that men, by giving themselves up to wickedness, and imitating the practices of the evil one, subject themselves to the same torments which are endured by him and his angels. Neither is it said Go, ye cursed of my Father, as Come, ye blessed of my Father, because God is the giver of happiness, and men alone are the authors of their own miseries. Compare Rom. ix, 22,23. Doppripce, WuitBy, GRoTIus. MATTHEW XXVI. 5, 6. 509 CHAPTER XXVI. Contents :—Christ foretells his approaching death, vv. 1, 2. The rulers consult about taking him, vy. 3—5. [Mark xiv. 1. Luke xxii. 1.] He ἐς anointed by Mary, vv. 6—13. [Mark xiv. 3. John xii. 1.] Judas agrees to betray Christ, wv. - 14—16. [Mark xiv. 10. Luke xxii. 3.] The preparation and celebration of the last passover, vv. 17—20. [Mark xiv. 17. Luke xxii. 14. John xiii. 1.7] Christ predicts the treachery of Judas, vv. 21—25. [Mark xiv. 17. Luke xxii. 21. John xiil. 17.] The institution of the Lord’s Supper, vv. 26—29. [Mark xiv. 22. Luke xxii. 19.] Christ goes to the Mount of Olives, and again announces his approaching death, νν. 30—82. [Mark xiv. 26. Luke xxii. 39.] He foretells Peter's denial of him, vv. 33—85. [Mark xiv. 27.] is agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, vv. 36—46. [Mark xiv. 32. Luke xxil. 40, John xviii. 1.] HZés apprehension, and Peter's re- sistance, vv. 47—57. [Mark xiv. 43. Luke xxii. 47. John xviii. 3.] Peter and John follow Christ, who 15 examined by Caiaphas, condemned and insulted, vv. 58—68. [Mark xiv. 54. Luke xxii. 55. John xviii. 15.] Peter's dental of Christ, vv. 62—75. [Mark xiv. 66. Luke xxii. 56. John xvii. 17.] Ver. 5. μὴ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ. That is, μὴ κρατήσωμεν καὶ ἀποκτεί- νωμεν. It was ἃ tradition of the Jews, founded upon Deut xvii. ., that criminals capitally convicted should be reserved till one of the three great festivals, and put to death during their conti- nuance, for the sake of making a more public example. See Sanhed. X. 4, It was the object of the Jews to anticipate the approaching festival in the case of Jesus, -that their iniquitous proceedings might be as secret as possible, and eventually buried in oblivion. But the providence of God ordained otherwise. It was of the highest importance that the crucifixion of Christ, and the events attending it, together with his resurrection from the dead, should be exhibited before many witnesses, that infidelity might never be enabled to object that these things were done in a corner, Of the Passover see Horne’s Introd. Vol. ILI. pp. 307. sqq., where much interesting matter will be found in illus- tration of the events recorded in this chapter. That Caiaphas was high-priest now, and throughout the presidentship of Pon- tius Pilate, is evident from Joseph. Ant. XVIII. 2. 2. compared with XVII. 5. 3. Wuitsy, ScuorrrceN, WAKEFIELD, Ver. 6. τοῦ λεπροῦ. This seems to have been only a sirname, as Semon the Canaanite, Matt. x. 4. originating in his having been formerly aftlicted with the leprosy, of which he was pro- bably cured by Chiist. He is called the Leper, just as Matthew is 910 MATTHEW XXVI. 6. called the Publican, because he had once been so, not because he was still so, as in that case there could have been no intercourse between him and Jesus. With respect to the transaction here recorded, and in Mark xiv. 3., there is a point which has given rise to a considerable discussion among the commentators. While some maintain that it is identical with the anointing of our Lord, which is described in John xiii. 14. others are of opinion that the two actions are entirely distinct, and performed by two different persons at two different times and in two different places. In support of the latter opinion it is urged: 1. that the action re- corded by St. John happened sta days before the Passover, whereas this is fixed to the second day before the feast ; 2. that the scene in St. John is the house of Lazarus, in St. Matthew of Simon the Leper ; 3. that in the former instance Mary, the sister of Lazarus, is the agent, in the latter a woman unnamed; 4. that St. John mentions the feet of Jesus to have been anointed by Mary, and wiped with her hair; the other Evangelists confine the anoint- ing to his head; 5. that in St. John, Judas alone murmurs; in St. Matthew, the disciples generally ; and 6. that our Lord’s vin- dication of the woman, in the two cases respectively, does not cor- respond. It will readily appear, however, that there is but little weight in any of these particulars. With respect to the time of the transaction, there is little doubt that it happened, as stated by St. John, six days before the Passover, (John xii. 1.) and that St. Matthew deferred his account of it, in order to introduce the treachery of Judas, with which it is immédiately connected. The reason of St. Matthew in so doing is evident from the rela- tion of St. John, who states that Judas had a fraudulent object in view, (John xii. 6.) so that the answer of Jesus at once disap- pointing his avarice, and smiting his guilty conscience, would naturally incite in him the idea of revenge ; and that more espe- cially as he was already an apostate, (John vi. 67. 71.) There are some, indeed, who rather refer the time, according to St. Matthew’s order, to the second day before the Passover, and con- tend that St. John anticipates the history on mentioning the place where it happened. But this solution is far less satis- factory, and scarcely, if at all, preferable to that which would re- concile the accounts of the Evangelists by supposing a corrup- tion to exist in the text of St. John, in the face of the concurring testimony of all the MSS. Besides, it is well known that the - Gospels are not always written with a strict regard to the order of time; and the manner in which the relation is introduced by St. Matthew indicates no particular time, and may as easily refer to a preceding as to a present period. The scene of the anoint- ing is laid by all three Evangelists in Bethany, and by Matthew expressly in the house of Simon the Leper. In St. John, Lazarus is only mentioned as εἷς τῶν ἀνακειμέχων, but this should rather 4) designate a guest than the host; and there is nothing improbable MATTHEW XXVI. 6. 5911 in the supposition that Martha prepared the feast, and Mary anointed Jesus, in the house of Simon, who was probably a friend, as well as in their own. Compare Luke x. 40. As to the omission of Mary's name by St. Matthew and St. Mark, a very likely reason may be assigned for it. They make no mention of the raising of Lazarus from the dead, lest they might expose him to the persecution of the Jewish Sanhedrim: and for the same cause they naturally withheld the name of his sister; but St. John, who wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem, could have no cause for such concealment. Nor is it a necessary inference that Mary left the head of Jesus unanointed, because she is stated by St. John to have anointed his feet. The general prac- tice of the East is a sufficient warrant for admitting the former circumstance; and therefore the more extraordinary part of the transaction only is related by St. John, in accordance with his peculiar manner of relating what his predecessors had passed over in silence. In stating that the disciples murmured, St. Matthew does not mean they all expressed their disapprobation, though it may be that they tacitly assented to the censure of Judas. The plural is put by Enallage for the singular, as in Gen. vili. 4. Judg xii. 7. Neh. vi. 7. Matt. xxvii. 44. and else- where. Lastly, our Lord’s vindication, as given by St. John, has been thus misinterpreted into a prediction of what passed at the time :—Let her alone: she hath spent but part of it now, that she might reserve the rest for the day of my funeral. But the words are a prediction of Christ’s death, and are beautifully taken from the occasion. Jf this ointment were laid out upon a dead body you would not think it too much: and you may con- sider this anointing as an embalming of me, the day of my fu- neral being so near. Hence it appears that there is no inconsistency in the two accounts as. given by St. Matthew and St. John; and the points in which they agree are so numerous and particular that they cannot easily be separated into different events: 1. Both happened in Bethany; 2. the anointing in both cases was by a woman, not as was more commonly the case, by the host ; 3. both happened shortly before the Passover, so shortly in- deed, that the disciples cannot be supposed to have repeated the observation which their Master had censured in Judas, within the period assigned; 4. in both cases the ointment was the same, and so expensive, that the unction was deemed waste- ful; 5. in both cases we meet with the remarkable circumstance, that the ointment was not purchased for the purpose to which it was applied, but had been preserved for some time by the person who used it; and one might almost conjecture, it was the re- mainder of the ointment which Martha and Mary had purchased for the funeral of Lazarus; 6. in both cases the unction is cen- sured, and upon the same grounds; 7. the vindication offered by \ 4 919 MATTHEW XXVI. 7, 8. Jesus has been shewn to be the same in both cases ; in which the prediction respecting the record of the transaction can scarcely have been fulfilled, unless St. John’s account be identical with that of the other Evangelists. In every point of view, indeed, the two statements have the appearance of proceeding from dif- ferent eye-witnesses of the same fact. Micuartis, Newcomer, Doppripvee.—[Licutroot, Wurrsy, Macknicut, &c. | Ver. ἴ. ἀλάβαστρον. Some derive this word from a priv. and λαβὴ, a handle, understanding thereby a small cruse or vase, with no handles, and a long neck like a modern oil flask. Plin. N. H. IX. 35. Et procerioribus margaritis sua gratia est ; elen- chos appellant fastigiata longitudine, alabastrorum figura in pleniorem orbem desinentes. It is more probable, however, that the name is derived from a species of onyx, called in Arabic Batstraton, and with the article Al-batstraton, which was pecu- liarly adapted to the purposes of preserving unguents. Plin. N. H. XXXVI. 7, 8. Onychem etitamnum in Arabie montibus, nec usquam alicubi, nasci putavere nostri veteres ; hunc aliqui lapidem alabastraton vocant, quem cavant ad vasa unguentaria, quoniam optime servare incorrupta dicitur. Compare Ibid. XIII. 2. Among the presents sent by Cambyses to the King of Aithio- pia, was a μύρου ἀλάβαστρον, Herod. III. 20. They are men- tioned by Plutarch in Alexand. p. 676. Pollux VI. Athen. VI. 19., and from them a city in Arabia was called Alabastra, Plin. N. H. V.9. Hence the name was by degrees applied to unguent vases, of whatever material they might be composed. Thus ech alabasters are mentioned in Theoc. Idyl. XV. 114. Συρίω é μύρω xobou ἀλάββαστρα. So also Alexis ap. Athen. XV. 13. It has been supposed that the vessel here intended was of glass ; as the woman is said to have broken it; Murk xiv. 3. But the expression breaking the box implies merely breaking the cement with which the vase was closed, to prevent the perfume from eva- porating. So Propert. El. 1V. 7. 21. fracto busta friare cado. It was usual in the East to stop the bottles, containing essences, with cotton, and to seal them with wax; and those which contain the attar of roses are still sealed in this manner. Some would render the verb συντρίβειν, to shake, but there are no good authorities for its use in this sense. Le CLterc, Kurnort.—[Hammonp, Grotius, Wuitsy.] Of the wnguent itself see on Mark xiv. 3. and of the custom of embalming, to which our Lord here alludes, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 520. as well as for an explana- tion of the verb ἐνταφιάζειν, v. 12. Ver. 8. ἀπώλεια. Profusion, waste. So φθόρος is used in Theocr. Idyl. XV. 18. The phrase παρέχειν κόπους, V- 10. to molest, occurs in Arist. Prob. V. 38. So Lsaiah vii. 18. ἀγῶνα παρέχειν. Ecclus, xxix. 4. πόνον παρέχειν. More commonly, MATTHEW ΧΧΎῪΙ. 14, 15. 17. 313 however, we find πράγματα παρέχειν. Our Lord’s vindication of Mary’s conduct proceeds upon the principle, that of two good actions, that should always be performed, which must either be done at the present time, or never, in preference to that for which there may be other and frequent opportunities. It is not ne- cessary to suppose that the woman had any presentiment of Christ’s approaching death: she merely intended to testify her veneration of our Lord according to a prevailing custom of the Jews, from which our Lord took occasion to intimate that his funeral was at hand. In v. 11. we have an explicit refutation of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. KurnorL, KypKr, ALBERT, Wuitsy, Le Cierc. Ver. 14. τότε. This adverb is of very indefinite signification, and by no means fixes the period at which the betrayal took place, as immediately consecutive upon the anointing of our Lord. It is used with considerable latitude in many places both of the N. T. and the LXX. Some would include the preceding narrative (vv. 6—13.) in a parenthesis, but this is unnecessary. Kurnoet.—[Marktanp. | Ver. 15. τριάκοντα ἀργύρια. Some MSS. read στατῆρας: This, however, is probably only a gloss, since, when pieces of money are mentioned in the Scriptures, the Jewish shekel or stater is to be understood. ‘Thus in the Targum the ten pieces of silver mentioned in 2 Sam. xviii. 11. are called ten shekels. The value of the shekel or stater was equivalent to four drachmas, or about half a crown of our money; and thirty of these, or about £3 15s. was the usual price of a slave. See the Tracts Krachin, p- 40. and Shekalim, c.1. Maimon. Mor. Ney. III. 40. and compare Hxod. xxi. 52. So true it is that our blessed Saviour took upon him the form of a servant. Wruitsy, A. CLARKE. The verb torava signifies properly, as applied to money, to weigh out, in reference to the ancient mode of paying by weight; whence, after the introduction of cotned money, it denoted gene- rally to pay. Compare Jod vi. 2. xxviii. 15. xxxi. 6. Hom. 1]. N. 745. T. 247. It is argued, however, from a comparison of Mark xiv. 11. and Luke xxii. 5. that the priests only promised the money at the time, or paid part only in earnest of the re- mainder: but the discrepancy can be of little importance. The Evangelists in all probability speak by anticipation, the money having been duly paid when the contract was fulfilled. Κα6ΊΝΟΕΙ,. —[Grorius, MIcHaELIis. ] Ver. 17. πρώτῃ τῶν ἀζύμων. Reference has already been made to Mr. Horne’s work, for information on the subject of the Pass- over. A question of great difficulty here presents itself; whether Christ partook of that feast with his disciples before his crucifixion ; 914 ΤΙ MATTHEW XXVI.. 17. and if so, at what time he partook thereof. It appears from John xviii. 28. that the Jews would not go into the judgment hall on the Friday morning, lest they should be defiled and rendered unfit for eating the passover in the evening; and in John xix. 14. the noon of Friday is called the preparation of the passover : some affirm, therefore, that the expressions here employed of making ready the passover, and of eating the passover, refer to a commemorative supper, used by our Lord instead of the proper paschal supper, because his crucifixion would have taken place before the time appointed for the celebration of the passover. On the other hand it is contended, that Matthew, Mark, and Luke cannot be understood in reference to any other than the passover properly so called, and consequently that the Thursday evening on which Christ supped with his disciples was the ge- neral time of the paschal celebration that year. In order to reconcile St. John with the other Evangelists, the advocates of this opinion assert, that the passages above cited refer to the day of holy convocation, or first day of the seven, during which the feast continued. But on this supposition, Christ must have been accused, and tried, and crucified on the day of holy convocation, which was observed as strictly as a sabbath. Hence a third opinion, far more probable, has arisen, that our Lord did eat the passover this year, but not at the same time with the Jews. ~ It appears from the Talmud, the Mischna, and the Rabbinical writings, that in cases of doubt respecting the time of the appear- ance of the-new moon, the passover was permitted to be holden on both of the two days between which the doubt lay; and Epi- phanius relates that there was a contention (θόρυβος) about the passover this very year. We may fairly infer, therefore, from the three first Evangelists, that a part of the Jewish nation sa- crificed the paschal lamb on the same day with our Saviour; and from St. John, that many of the Scribes and Pharisees did not sacrifice until the evening of the following day, about the time that our Lord expired on the cross. It may be objected, that our Lord could not in this case eat the feast according to law, as the priests, following the order of the Sanhedrim, to observe the passover the day following, would not have sprinkled the blood of the lamb at the foot of the altar. But, independent of what has been said respecting the uncertainty of the paschal full moon, it had become necessary to employ more than one day for slaugh- tering the immense number of lambs which were required for the feast. In one year no less than 256,000 lambs were offered, Joseph. B. J. VII. 9. 3. It will be allowed, also, that if, as was probably the case, our Saviour did anticipate the generality of the Jews in celebrating the supper, the error was not on his part. Neither his character, conduct, nor sentiments, will permit us to believe that he disobeyed in the slightest degree, the Mosaic ordinances; and if he refused to follow, upon this occasion, the “MATTHEW XXVIL 18. | 315 practice of the high priests, his refusal must be ascribed to some deviation in their practice from the Levitical injunctions. What- ever rules might have guided him, he doubtless eat the passover on the day when ἐέ ought to have been killed, ἐν )"EAEI θύεσθαι τὸ πάσχα, (Luke xxii. 7.) With respect to the objection that our Lord and his disciples seem to have reclined at table con- trary to the paschal institution, which required them to eat it standing ; the words ἀνέκειτο, v. 20. and ἀνέπεσε, Luke xxii. 14. should probably not be confined to the sense which they usually bear. The custom is known to have been abandoned in the latter days of the Jewish church. Thus in Pisach: R. Levi saith, It is the manner of slaves to eat standing ; but now let them eat lying down, that it may be known they are gone out of bondage to liberty. So Maimonides: We are obliged to le down when we eat, that we may eat after the manner of kings and nobles. Our Lord might, therefore, and in all probability did, attend to the Levitical injunction, though the Evangelists have used terms in accordance with the more general practice of the time. It should seem, then, that Christ kept the passover at the beginning of the 14th of the month Nésan, the precise day on which the Jews had eaten their first passover in Egypt, (Exod. xii. 6. 544.) and that on the same part of the day in which they had sacrificed the first paschal lamb, i. e. between the two evenings, Christ our psssover was sacrificed for us. There is yet another opinion on this difficult question, which supposes that our Lord did indeed eat ὦ passover with his dis- ciples, but that it was one of his own institution, and very dis- tinct from that eaten by the Jews, namely, the mystical passover, or sacrament of his body and blood. Now it was during this last paschal supper that the Eucharist was instituted; and it was doubtless with a view to this institution that Christ so ardently desired to eat this passover with his disciples; so that, in fact, this opinion harmonises in a great degree with the last. It may even be that no lamb was killed upon this occasion, and that the bread of the Eucharist was substituted in its place. On this sup- position, the preparation for the passover would merely imply the providing of a convenient room, removing all the leaven from the house, and such other necessary acts as would be unlawful on the following day. Thus every thing was duly prepared, and the sacrament ordained, and thenceforward substituted in the place of the passover, as a memorial of the sacrifice of the true paschal lamb, which was then about to be made for the sins of the world. Hammonn, Macxnieut, A. CLarkE, Benson, Cup- worRTH.—[ Watt, Newcome, Licutroot, Wuitsy, Le CLErc, ἃς.] Ver. 18. τὸν δεῖνα. The Greeks made use of this term in fa- miliar conversation, to designate a person well known to those , 916 MATTHEW ΧΧΥῚΙ. 23,, 24. whom they address, but whose name they had reason for with- holding, or did not immediately recollect. Schol. Lucian. Vit. Auct. 19. τὸ δεῖνα εἰώθασιν οἱ παλαιοὶ λέγειν, οὕτως ἀφελῶς τὸν. λόγον προάγοντες ἐπὶ τῶν συγκρύπτειν τι [Ξουλομένων τῇ ἀορισ- tia τοῦ ὀνόματος. ‘Tradition has variously reported that the in- dividual here intended was John the Evangelist, Nicodemus, Joseph of Argmathea, and Simon the Leper; and it is supposed that our Lord concealed his name that Judas might not be enabled, by a too early knowledge of his arrangements, to in- terrupt the celebration of the last supper. WeTsTEIN, KuINOEL. Ibid. ὃ καιρός μου ἔγγύς ἐστι. The word καιρὸς is very ge- nerally understood of the teme of Christ’s apprehension, suffer- ings, and death; and numerous instances are produced by the commentators in which it is used metaphorically to denote cala- mity. So also the Latin tempus in Nepos, de Vit. Miltiad. 5. But the connecting clause, πρός ce ποιῶ τὸ πάσχα, plainly refers it to the time of keeping the passover; and in other places also Christ has used the same or equivalent expressions, where there can be no reference whatever to his passion or death. From the ordinary acceptation of the words may be drawn an additional inference, that the time of our Lord,celebration of the passover was different from that of the rest of the Jews. Kurnorn, Ro- SENMULLER.—|Kypxke, WeEtTsTEIN, Grortius, &c.] Ver. 23. ὃ ἐμβάψας x. τ. Δι As the Jews eat the passover, there were several little dishes, containing the juice of the bitter herbs, on different parts of the table; so that each dipped his bread into that which was nearest to him. Judas, therefore, was near our Lord at the paschal supper, since he is represented as dipping in the same dish with him. Hence it is supposed by some that our Lord’s reply to Judas in v. 25. was only heard by the traitor himself; that the other Apostles merely knew that one of those who were nearest to their Master would betray him; and that the sop given to Judas (John xiii. 26.) indicated to John only the precise individual. ‘The disciples do not indeed appear to have been immediately certified on the point ; even Judas ° himself pretends not to understand the designation. Others, however, maintain that Christ intended to point out the traitor to the rest of the disciples; and such was unquestionably his ulti- mate object, though in all probability it was not recognized by the disciples till Judas had left the apartment. Some would ren- der the aorist ἐμίβάψας in the sense of to be wont; so that our Lord’s allusion will merely imply that the traitor was one of those who usually ate with him: but this seems improbable. A. CrarkeE, Grotius.—[RoseNnMULLER, KUINOEL. J Ver. 24. ὑπάγει. Verbs signifying to depart are used in all Janguages, by a common Euphemism, in the sense of to die. Ne MATTHEW XXVI. 25, 26. 317 Thus οἴχεσθαι, Eurip. Alcest. 879. Soph. Elect. 152. Aj. 1149: Xen. Cyr. III. 1. 8. Anab. III. 1. 22. ἀπέρχεσθαι, Aulian. V. H. II. 25. ἀπιέναι, Apoll. Rhod. II. 140. βεβήκεναι, Soph. CEd. C. 1673. In Latin, Stat. Theb. IX. 559. Letus abi. Silv. II. 218. Ibimus omnes. We have πορεύεται in the same sense in Luke xiii. 33. It is true that ὑπάγω is not found in this accep- tation, but εἰς ἀΐδην ὑπάγω occurs without an ellipsis in a frag- ment of Nicarchus ap. Anthol. Gr. VII. 169. Compare 1 Kings il. 2. Psalm xxxix. 13. Wisd. iv. 2. LXX. Eusner, Raruenius, KUINOEL. Ibid. καλὸν ἦν αὐτῷ, κι τ. A. This was a Hebrew expression, commonly applied to any flagrant transgressor, or to one whose lot was more particularly unfortunate. Thus in Schemoth R. §. 40. p. 1385. He that knoweth the Law, and doeth it not, it were better for him that he had not come into the world. Again in Beracoth, p. 17, 1. It were better for him that he were not created. Compare Jerem. xv. 10. xx. 14. Similar expressions are sometimes found also in the classic writers, though in re- ference to temporal calamities. See Hom. Il. Γ΄. 40. Plutarch, Consol. ad Apol. p. 115. and the tragic writers, passim. Scno- ETTGEN, Licgutroot, Kypxe. It has been inferred from this prediction respecting the treachery of Judas, that he was from the beginning to the end under an absolute necessity of doing as he did. But the fore knowledge of God that he would so act, by no means impelled him to the action: and Chrysostom justly observes, that Judas was not a traitor because God foresaw it, but God foresaw it because Judas would be so. The woe de- nounced against him is also decisive against the Calvinistic doc- trine, that all men, except some few elect, are excluded by an immutable decree, from the favour of heaven. For such a deter- mination would have made this the condition of Judas, though he had not betrayed Christ, provided he was not one of God’s elect. WHITBY. Ver. 25. σὺ εἴπας. This. was the usual form of solemn affirma- tion. Thus in Beracoth: When the Zipporenses enquired if R. Judas was dead, the son of Zaphra answered; Ye have said, Compare Arist. Plut. 96. Plaut. Merc. I. 2. 52. ΒΟΉΟΘΕΤΤΟΕΝ, KuINOEL. Ver. 26. ἐσθιόντων αὐτῶν. That the eating here alluded to was that of the paschal lamb, into the place of which the Eu- charist was intended to succeed, and not an ordinary meal, has been shewn to be the most probable opinion ; though the question is involved in considerable difficulty. In the apostolic age, after the abolition of the paschal feast, the disciples probably cele- brated the sacrament at or after their usual supper, (Acts ii. 46. xx. 7, 11.) and the agape of the primitive Christians have also 318 MATTHEW XXVI. 20.. been supposed by some to have preceded or accompanied the participation of the Eucharist. This, however, is a point upon which there is a great division of sentiments; and it is at least certain that the two feasts were kept separately in very early times. See Jude 12. According to Cyprian, it was received in the third century every day, but at what time is uncertain: the Church of Corinth seems to have solemnized it in the morning, and that this was the general practice, at least in times of perse- cution, appears from Plin. Epist. X. 97. From the Acts of the Apostles it appears, that it was administered in general to the dis- ciples, on the Lord’s day, in their public assemblies. Grorttus. With respest to the institution itself, there are certain points which it will be necessary to consider. [ON THE EUCHARIST. The circumstances attending the first appointment of this holy rite, are related with little variation by two other Evangelists be- sides St. Matthew; and by St. Paul, who declares that he derived his account from divine revelation. See Mark xiv. 22—26. Luke xxii. 19, 20. 1 Cor. xi. 23. St. John’s silence on this subject is readily accounted for by his knowledge of what the other three Evangelists had written; and by his conviction that their relation was true, and amply established by their united testimony and that of St. Paul. From their accounts of this most solemn act of reli- gious worship, we derive the following information respecting its design, its nature, and the particulars of its institution. I. The design for which the Lord’s Supper was instituted is stated in the Church Catechism, in accordance with our Saviour’s declaration, to be for the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby. In this view, the regular and frequent celebration. of it not only records the object for which he came into the world, and suffered death upon the cross, but it is also a standing proof of his divine mission to all ages of the world. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. I. p. 147. As the sacrament of Baptism is the pre- scribed mode of admission into the blessings of Christ’s covenant ; so is that of the Lord’s Supper the ordinance by which remission of sins and sanctifying grace are conferred upon the faithful and penitent members of the Church of Christ. Surely, therefore, an implicit obedience to the last command of our dying Lord is the first and most important duty of those who profess to believe the Gospel. II. With respect to the nature of the Eucharist, it may be ne- cessary to advert to the analogy which it bears to the Jewish sa- crifices. Some of these, it is well known, were entirely conse- crated to God, as typical of the full, perfect, and sufficient sa- Pa MATTHEW XXVI. 26. 319 erifice which Christ should make for the sins of the world. Of others, as the sin-offerings, a portion was eaten by the priests, as mediators to God in behalf of the person who offered the sa- crifice, who did not partake of it himself, as being still in a state of guilt. In peace offerings, however, which were a token of reconciliation between God and man, part was offered to God, and the rest consumed by the priest and the party offering, who were entitled thereby, if offered conscientiously, to consider themselves reinstated in coyenant with God. To this latter class the Jewish Passover, and consequently the Lord’s Supper, clearly belong; and thus our Lord expressly declares in John vi. 53. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Compare 1 Cor. ν. ἴ, 8. Hence the sa- crament of the Lord’s Supper is a feast upon a sacrifice, as were those under the Jewish law, and also those among the Heathen, upon things offered to idols; and a comparison is accordingly drawn between them in 1 Cor. x. 13. sqq. Now these epule sacrificiales under the law were considered as federal rites be- tween God and those that offered them, in the same way as co- venants were ratified in ancient times by the contracting parties eating and drinking together. See my notes on Hom. 1]. B. 124. 341. Hence, as salt was a necessary appendix to these sacrificial feasts, it is called the salt of the covenant, 2 Chron. xiii. 5. Compare also Levit. 13. Numb. xviii. 19. Those who partook of these sacrifices, therefore, were God’s guests, and entered into covenant with him by eating their portion of the victim, while his was consumed; the divine presence being sometimes clearly manifested by the descent of fire from heaven, thereby acknow- ledging his acceptance of the offering. In the same manner, the Christian’s participation in the Holy Communion, is a visible pledge of Christ’s love to his faithful followers, as well as a federal rite, uniting them to God and to one another. For a fur- ther view of the typical connection between the passover and the sacrament, see Horne’s Introduction. III. We come now to the particulars of the institution, which we shall consider in order: 1. λαβὼν τὸν ἄρτον. Τὰ. T. He took bread. Itis rendered by Campbell, the loaf; upon the principle that the article is definite, and from the inference suggested in 1 Cor. x. 17. that one loaf only, larger or smaller according to the company, was provided on the occasion. But the article is wanting in several important MSS. in most of the MSS. of Mark xiv. 22. and in all of Luke xxii. 19. so that, assuming the in- tended agreement of the three historians, the text of St. Matthew is probably unauthorised. It is to be observed also, that al- though the passage adduced from 1 Cor. x. 17. supported by the testimony of the Fathers, fully proves the Christian practice, the accounts which have reached us of the mode of celebrating the passover, uniformly speak of two loaves of unleavened bread. 320 MATTHEW XXVI. 26. Nor are we to wonder at this deviation from the usage of the superseded institution. Of the two cakes, usually introduced at the passover, only one is recorded to have been broken by Christ ; _ and it was therefore natural that his followers should discontinue so much of the Jewish rite as was foreign to the newly estab- — lished ordinance. Thus, at no distant period, the bread employed was not necessarily wnleavened; for though unleavened bread was actually used by Christ, it was not studiously chosen, but was such as the passover unavoidably presented. The Greek and Latin churches, however, subsequently disputed this point; the former giving /eavened bread, and the latter wnaleavened, or, at present, wafers.—2. εὐλογήσας. The E.'T. renders blessed it, i. 6. the bread: but of this see on Matt. xiv. 19. In speaking of the cup, the corresponding word in the next verse is εὐχαρισ- τήσας, from which the appellation Hwcharist partly took its rise, and partly, perhaps, from the service being a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. It is probable that as the Jews, at their great feasts, extended their thanks to particularize the blessings they commemorated, so the first Christians returned especial thanks at the sacrament for the blessings of redemption. See Clem. Alex. VII. 27. Iren. V. 2. Origen. c. Cels. VIII. The name Eu- charist first appears in the Epistles of Ignatius, A. D. 107., but from the familiar use which he appears to make of it, it was in all probability coéval with the age of the Apostles.—3. ἔκλασε. He brake it ; probably into as many pieces as the number of guests, i. e. twelve or thirteen. There cambe no doubt that the breaking of the bread is a very essential part of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper ; for this act was especially designed by our Lord to represent the breaking of the body of Christ upon the cross. In this view it is mentioned by St. Paul and the Evangelists, that our Lord said, Take, eat, this is my body broken for you; Do this in remembrance of me ; i. e. Eat this bread broken, in remem- brance of my body broken. When no bread is broken, there is no memorial of his broken body. Hence it is that the sacrament is expressly designated the breaking of bread, (Acts ii. 42. xx. 7.) and the bread itself is called κλάσματα by Augustin. The spirit of the institution, therefore, is wholly overlooked in the Romish Church, where no bread is broken, but the consecrated wafer is placed upon the tongue by the priest, and swallowed whole by the communicant.—4. ἐδίδου τοῖς μαθήταις. Hence it appears that the dzstribution of the bread, which is also omitted by the Church of Rome, is equally necessary to the due solemni- zation of the Eucharist; and it was in fact observed, as Hum- bertus testifies, by the Romanists themselves as late as the eleventh century.—5. AdPere, φάγετε" κι τ. A. It is the eating of the bread, which constitutes the feast upon the sacrifice, and ratifies the covenant between God and the communicant; and as the Jews were accustomed to understand that the food of the body MATTHEW XXVI. 26. 92] typified that of the mind, the benefits to be communicated would be readily appreciated. These benefits are justly represented in the Church Catechism fo be the strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the body and blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the bread and wine. It is well known, that upon the solemn declaration of our Lord, τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου, the Romanists ground their doctrine of Transubstantiation, which is thus stated in the 14th article of the Creed of Pope Pius IV. In the sacra- ment of the Eucharist there is really and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ ; and there is a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into his body, and of the whole substance of the wene into his blood. It should be observed, however, that the analogy existing between the Eucharist and the Passover di- rectly opposes this doctrine: and that our Lord merely intended that the bread signified or represented his body in the same sense as the paschal lamb is said to be the passover. In the Hebrew and Chaldee there is no word which expresses to mean, signify, denote, and, therefore, the Hebrews say é¢ és for ét sig- nifies. Examples of this figure abound not only in the O. T. but in the N. T., in which the idioms of the Hebrew language are known to prevail. Compare Gen. xli. 26, 27. Dan. vii. 24. Matt. xiii. 38, 39. Luke viii. 9. xv. 26. John vii. 36. x. 6. Acts x. 17. 1 Cor. x. 4. Gal. iv. 24. Rev. i. 20. The same form of speech is common also in our own language. Should a person, entering a museum, enquire whose was such and such a bust or statue, he would probably be told, this is Socrates, that Plato, a third Homer, and so on: nor is he deceived by this informa- tion; he knows that the busts are not the édentical persons, but merely the representations ofthe said philosophers, poets, &c. sculptured on marble. So any man of plain sense must see as great a difference between the man Christ Jesus and a piece of bread, as between a bust of marble and the philosopher it re- presents. ‘The bread could not be Christ’s natural body, while he was alive, and performing the act of breaking it; nor could the wine in the cup be the blood still flowing in his veins. In fact, the elements are still called bread and wine after their con- secration, (1 Cor. xi. 27.) and it is absurd to suppose that the real body of Christ can be present to different assemblies of com- municants at the same time. Tertullian, adv. Marcion. V. 40. Acceptum panem, et distributum discipulis, corpus illum suum Jfecit, Hoc est corpus meum dicendo ; id est, Figura corporis met. 6. After the words this is my body, St. Luke adds, which is given for you; and St. Paul, which is broken for you. Herein there is an allusion to the offering of sacrifice : an innocent crea- ture was brought to the altar of God, and offered znstead of, or as an atonement for, the person who brought it. 7. λαβὼν τὸ ποτήριον, kK. τ. Δ. It is not quite decided which of the four pass- VOL. I. Υ 322 MATTHEW XXVI. 26. over cups it was that our Saviour declared to be the symbol of his blood: it is usually understood to have been the ¢hird, or the cup of blessing, which was regarded as the most important of the four. Some, however, infer from the expression μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, in Luke xxii. 20., that it was the fourth, and last, but this is by no means decisive, as the cup of blessing immediately followed the eating of the lamb, which was the last thing eaten. The article before ποτήριον will decide nothing, except that one vessel only was employed at the paschal supper; and though four cups full of wine were to be emptied at different times during the ceremony, a single cup four times filled was all which the occasion required. Very few MSS. indeed want the article, and in the parallel place of Mark so many are without it, that Greesbach is inclined to reject it; but in Luke all the MSS. agree in giving it; and, therefore, as it may be presumed that uniformity was in- tended by the several Evangelists, it is surely safer to retain it. In the celebration of the passover it was customary to dilute the wine with water, and it should seem that the strength of the wine and the heat of the climate required it. Hence in Beracoth, p- 50, 2. The wise agree with R. Eleazar, that one ought not to bless over the cup of blessing till water be mixed with i. Our Lord, however, does not mention the water as essential to the Eucharist, though it is manifest from the Fathers that the early Christians continued to temper their wine, and the Ro- manists do so to the present time. These latter are far less punc- tilious in obeying an express command of Christ, in direct viola- tion of which they deny the cup to the laity. The words of Christ, in relation to this part of the rite, seem to be, as it were, prophetically emphatic: Drink ye auu of this; Aux, without ex- ception or reserve: and the notion of the Papists, that the injunc- tion was directed exclusively to the Apostles, who were then made priests, is completely overthrown by the reason assigned why ALL are to drink of the cup: For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. All, therefore, who stand in need of forgiveness, i. e. all mankind, are to partake thereof; and such was the invariable practice of the church for above 1300 years. Of the import of v. 28. see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. pp. 192. 514. note. In the latter part of the verse our Lord seems to turn from federal to piacular sa- crifices. It was usual in the former to receive the blood in a vessel, which, among the more barbarous nations, was drank by the contracting parties, as appears from Ezek, xxxix. 19. Tacit. Annal. XII. Val. Max. IX. 11.; but the more civilized nations substituted a libation of wine. See my note on Hom. 1]. B. 341. In piacular sacrifices the life of the victim was offered as a substitute for the life of the man, who had deserved death : thus a daily sacrifice was offered in the temple for the sins of the people; and it is in evident allusion to this that our Lord de- 10 MATTHEW XXVI. 29. 323 clared his blood to be shed for the remission of sins. The verb ἐκχέω or ἐκχύω is frequently employed in the LXX ina sacrificial sense, in reference to the blood poured out before the altar of the Lord by way of atonement. See Exod. xxix. 12. Lev. iv. 7. 14. 17. 30. 34, viii. 15. ix. 9. 2 Kings xvi. 15. and elsewhere. In this place the present participle ἐκχυνόμενον is used in the sense of the proximate future, and should be rendered now about to be shed. "Examples of similar usage occur in Matt. iii. 10. xx. 22. Mark ix. 31. Luke xvii. 12. xxiv. 49. Johniv.21. Of the word διαθήκη, which the E. T. here incorrectly renders testament, see Prelim. Obss. §. 1. The preposition περὶ is used for ὑπὲρ, as in Matt. ix. 56. John xvii. 9. Ephes. vii. 18. Hom. Il. M. 243. and frequently elsewhere. Of πολλῶν for πάντων see on Matt. xx. 28. Wuirsy, Ligutroot, A. CLarKE, Hammonp, MIDDLETON, &c. &c.] Ver. 29. ἀπάρτι. Henceforth, hereafter; as inv. 64. Rev. xiv. 3. There is, however, great difference of opinion respecting the import of the passage. Some suppose, with Euthymius, that the declaration was fulfilled at the commencement of the Messiah’s kingdom after his resurrection, when he ate and drank with his disciples, Luke xxiv. 30. 43. John xxi. 13. Acts 1. 4. x. 41. Others are of opinion that our Lord intended merely to announce the discontinuance of the Jewish passover, and the lasting substitution of the Eucharist inits place. But the object of our Lord’s eating and drinking after his resurrection was simply to convince them of the reality of that important event ; and his expression does not appear to have any particular refer- ence to the cessation of the passover. It seems more probable, therefore, that he intended by a strong figure to prepare them for his departure, which was now close at hand; and would pre- vent his partaking in the commemoration of any future solemnity till the end of time. The figure of drinking wine is frequently employed in Scripture to indicate feasting, as in Isaiah xxi. 13. xxiv. 9.; and thence the happiness of heaven, Matt. vii. 11. xxii. 4. Hence the epithet καινὸν, which denotes wine of a dif- ferent nature from that which was then before them, and such as the kingdom of God alone can afford. Ina similar sense are to be understood the expressions new heavens, new earth, new man, new Jerusalem, and the like. So Virg. Eccl. V.71. Vena novum fundam Ariusia nectar ; i. 6. according to Servius, quale nun- quam habuerit. Compare Hor. Od. I. 31. 2. It is true that the kingdom of God, which is the term employed in Mark xiv. 25. Luke xxii. 18. frequently signifies the Gospel state ; but this is never called, as here, the kingdom of the Father, nor will the kingdom be delivered up to the Father till after the final judg- ment. See 1 Cor. xv. 24. xxii. 8. Hammonp, Le Cierc, Kut- Υ 2 994. MATTHEW ΧΧΥΙ. 30, 91. 84. NoEL.—[Wuirtsy, Porrevus, &c.] The periphrasis γέννημα τοῦ ἀμπέλου, and the like, denoting wine, was frequent both with Jews and Greeks. Compare Deut. xxii. 9. Isaiah xxxii. 12. Hab. iii. 17. So Anacr. 4. 7. γόνος ἀμπέλου. Pind. Nem. IX. 123. ἀμπέλου παῖς. Herod. I. 212. ἀμπέλινος καρπός. Kut- NOEL, ALBERTI. Ver. 30. ὑμνήσαντες. Pious hymns, such as those of Hannah, Deborah, Mary, Zachariah, and others, were frequently recited or chaunted by the Jews upon occasions of rejoicing ; and it has, therefore, been supposed that that which was now sung by our Lord and his disciples was one adopted to the institution of the Eucharist, and similar to the Christian hymn, Acts iv. 24.; or that Christ probably formed his discourse recorded in John xvii. into asong of praise. But it is far more likely to have been the. usual paschal Hallel, consisting of the five Psalms cxili.—cxviii., in which not only the events of the Exodus are commemorated, but there is a direct reference to the sorrows of the Messiah and the resurrection of the dead. Wuirsy, Scnortreen.—[{Hammonp, Grotivs. | Ver. 31. σκανδαλισθήσεσθε ἐν ἐμοί. E.T. Ye shall be offended because of me; i. e. ye will be induced, by the terrors of my situation, to forsake and deny me. That the verb is here in- tended to convey this meaning is evident from the sequel; and, indeed, a virtual denial of Christ or his religion are always im- plied in this verb as used in the Gospel. The citation from Zech. xiii. 7. seems primarily to be understood of an evil shep- herd or teacher; and Christ applies the passage to himself ra- ther as an argument a fortiorz than as a prediction. If this would happen on account of the smiting of an evil shepherd, much more will it take place at the smiting of the good shepherd of the sheep. The expression was probably proverbial, since it is si- milarly applied in Joseph. Ant. VIII. 15. 4. Of the variation in the Hebrew and LXX version of the quotation, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 212. In the following verse our Lord still continues the allusion to shepherds, who were usually in the East followed by their sheep, a fact to which there is a beautiful reference in John x. 4. For the fulfilment of the promise here given by Christ to his disciples, see Matt. xxviii. 7. sqq. WuirBy, Grotius, KuINOEL. Ver. 34. πρὶν ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι. It is δὶς φωνῆσαι in Mark xiv. 13. In this, however, there is no inconsistency, since the Jews reckoned three, and the Heathens two, cock-crowings, of which the second, or that about break of day, was the most re- markable. Aristoph. Eccl. 414. τὸ δεύτερον ἀλεκτρύων ἐφθέγγετο. Juy. Sat. IX. 107. Quod tamen ad galli cantum facit ille se- MATTHEW ΧΧΥΙ. 35, 36. 325 cundi. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. IIT. p. 169. It appears from the Talmud, in Bava Kama, c. 7. that cocks were not kept at Jerusalem because of the holy things; and on the same plea the priests were forbidden to keep them throughout all the land of Israel. Hence, an objection has been started that Peter could not have heard one crow. In order to remove the difficulty, some would interpret ἀλέκτορα metaphorically of a watchman, and. others urge that the canon was not strictly observed, as it is evident from the story related in Erubbin, p. 26, 1. of a cock which killed a child, and was stoned by order of the council, that these birds were sometimes kept in Jerusalem. But, without resorting to these doubtful solutions, it is very possible that the crowing of a cock without the walls might easily, in the stillness of the night, have been heard at the house of Caiaphas, from which the walls were at no great distance. The noun ἀλέκτωρ is every where anarthrous in the N. T., unless, indeed, in Luke xxii. 60., where, however, on the authority of a multitude of MSS. the article is rejected by Griesbach ; and it is manifest, from this indefinite- ness, that cocks, if at all tolerated in Jerusalem, were far less common than with us. Wuirsy, Grotius, MrppLeTon. ‘The words φωνὴ and φωνεῖν are used by the Greeks not only of birds generally, but of cocks in particular. Aineas Tact. 23. τῶν ἀλεκ- ρυόνων τὰς φώνας. Lucian. Somn. I. ἀλλά σε, ὦ κάκιστε ἀλεκ- τρυὼν, οὕτως ὀξόφωνον ὄντα. So Aisop. Fab. 36.66. Hence Schol. Theocr. Idyl. 11. 109. φωνεῦντα᾽ ἀντὶ τοῦ φωνοῦντα κυ- ρίως ἐπὶ τῶν ὀρνέων λέγεται. WETSTEIN. Ver. 35. κἂν δέῃ με σὺν σοὶ ἀποθανεῖν. This declaration is strongly characteristic of Peter’s ardent disposition. The ex- pression made use of is proverbial, and frequently to be found in ancient writers. Aristoph. Plut. 216. κἂν δεῖ μ᾽ ἀποθανεῖν, αὐτὸς διαπράξω ταῦτα. Compare Lysist. 123. Aristzenet. Epist. IT. 17. Dio. Cass. XLV. p. 301. Joseph. Ant. VI. 6.2. WersTeIn, ALBERTI. Ver. 36. Γεθσημανῆ. Heb. ΝΣ 12, a place of oil-presses ; probably the village in which the produce of the Mount of Olives was prepared for use. Hither our Lord retired, as gardens, on account of the pollution of the weeds and dung, were not allowed in the city, and numbers were, therefore, formed near the walls in the neighbourhood of Mount Olivet. See Bava Metzia, c. 7. and compare John xviii. 1. The three whom he selected as his immediate attendants are those who were also present at the transfiguration, and on other occasions of peculiar importance. It is remarkable that the words καθίσατε αὐτοῦ κ. τ. A. are precisely those which Abraham addressed to his servants when he went to sacrifice Isaac, Gen. xxii. 5. Liaurroor, Grorius. —[KutnoeEt, &c.] 326 '. MATTHEW XXVI. 37. Ver. 37. λυπεῖσθαι καὶ ἀδημονεῖν. The several terms which are here employed by our Lord and the Evangelists indicate the most excessive anguish and distress of mind. The verb ἀδημο- νεῖν rises above λυπεῖσθαι ; and ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι, in Mark xiv. 33. is, if possible, still more forcible than either. Our Lord himself re- presents his soul as περιλυπὸς ἕως θανάτου ; and it is added in Luke xxii. 44. that his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. Of the verb λυπεῖσθαι, de- noting a lively and piercing sorrow, examples abound; and ἀδη- μονεῖν, to be utterly exhausted and maddened with grief, is not unusual, /Elian. Hist. An. IIL. 21. ἀδημονῶν καὶ ἀλύων ὑπὸ τοῦ ἄχους. Xenoph. Hellen. IV. 4. 3. ἀδημονῆσαι τὰς ψυχάς. Etym. M. ἀδημονεῖν" ἀλύειν, καὶ ἀπορεῖν, kal dunxaveiv. Hesych. ἀδημονώ" ἀκηδιώ, ἀγωνιῶ. Suid. λίαν λυποῦμαι, ἀπορώ. In the verb ἐκθαμ(βεῖσθαι the intensive force of the preposition is dis- tinctly observable, as also in the adjective περιλυπὸς, which is rendered yet more emphatic by the addition of ἕως θανάτου. So Jonas iv. 9. LXX. σφόδρα λελύπημαι ἐγὼ ἕως θανάτου. Heclus. iv. 28. ἕως τοῦ θανάτου ἀγώνισαι περὶ τῆς ἀληθείας. Anthol. II. 13. 2. μισῶν σαυτὸν ἕως θανάτου. There seems also to be an allusion to Psalm exiv. 3. With respect to the bloody sweat, it has been thought that nothing more is implied than that the drops were large and clammy, like drops of gore; but Aristotle (Hist. Anim. III. 19.) and Diodorus, (XVII. p. 560.) mention similar effects as attending an extraordinary agitation of mind: and the like is also asserted by some modern writers. ‘Thus Dr. Mead observes from Galen: Contingere interdum, poros ex multo aut fervido spiritu adeo dilatart, ut etiam exeat san- guis per eos, fiatque sudor sanguineus. Dopprincr, Wuirsy, WETSTEIN, KUINOEL. [oN CHRIST’s AGONY IN THE GARDEN OF GETHSEMANE. From the strong expressions employed in the description of our blessed Saviour’s agony, from the earnestness of his prayer for deliverance, and, indeed, from all the attendant circumstances, it is unquestionable that his distress of mind was in the highest degree poignant and acute. Of the cause, however, to which this extremity of pain was owing, and of the nature of the sensa- tions which he experienced, much has been written, and little understood; and there is certainly something deeply mysterious in this part of his history. Some think it was occasioned by the divine wrath pressing in upon him; and that God treated him, while bearing the sins of the world, as if he were indeed a sinner. But the ministry of the angel, (Luke xxii. 43.) who must have been sent from God, and sent in love too, is completely at va- riance with this notion; not to mention that no angelic strength could have resisted the force of God’s indignation. It is true, MATTHEW ΧΧΥ͂Ι. 39. 527 indeed, that the circumstances related in this and the following verse in St. Luke are called in question, and that the verses are omitted in the Vatican, Alexandrian, and others of the oldest MSS. They are extant, however, in such a vast majority of MSS, versions, and Fathers, that there can be no doubt of their authenticity; and, at all events, God could not regard him as a sinner who was purity itself; but in every act Jesus was, and knew himself to be, that beloved Son, in whom the Father was well pleased. Neither is it credible, that his agony arose solely from the fear of death, and of the torments and the ignominy he was about to undergo; for many great and good men, many of the primitive martyrs for instance, and of our first reformers, have met death and tortures without such expressions of ago- nizing pain. His sufferings might, indeed, be embittered by a variety of sorrows peculiar to himself; by his foreknowledge of all that would befal him, by the complicated miseries that his death would bring upon his wretched countrymen, by the perse- cution to which his disciples would be exposed in propagating his religion, by the sympathy which his mother and his beloved apostle would experience in his fate, by the malignity of sin, and the vicarious burden thereof with which he was then oppressed, and by numberless considerations which could not fail to exas- perate his woes in a powerful degree. Still it is evident that the cup of sorrow (compare Matt. xx. 23.) was not the bitterness of death: indeed, we are assured by St. Paul, in relation to this fact, that he was heard in that he feared, (Heb. ¥. 7.) i. 6. that he was delivered from the terrors that oppressed him; and yet we know that he was not delivered from the death of the cross, and that he left the garden with the most dignified composure to meet the dangers that awaited him. Upon the whole, the most probable opinion seems to be, that our Lord upon this occasion entered into a severe spiritual conflict with the great enemy of mankind, who assaulted the second Adam in a garden as he had done the first. After the temptation in the wilderness the devil is said to have departed from Christ for a season, (Luke iv. 13.) and it is not improbable that this might be the season at which he thought fit to return. The angel from heaven may be supposed to have come against the minister of hell, in order to counteract his influence and strengthen the human nature of Christ under the horrors to which he was exposed. In the whole transaction, however, there are many things hard to be understood; and we cannot, therefore, be too careful that we presume not in our en- quiries into the hidden mysteries of God. Wuirsy, Licurroor, A, Crarxe.—[Grorivus, Carvin, Doppriner, &c.] Ver. 39. a δυνατόν. If it he possible ; i. 6, if it be consistent with the divine counsels, and the method therein proposed for 328 MATTHEW XXVI. 40, 41. the redemption of the world. Many things are possible per se which are impossible in reference to certain prescribed condi- tions; and upon this principle the words of our Lord are easily reconciled with the parallel passage, Mark xiv. 36. All things are possible for thee. Our Lord’s will, in effect, therefore, per- fectly coincided with his Father’s; as it was his supreme desire that his Father should be obeyed, rather than any inclination of his own should be gratified. His prayer was intended to express not what was in reality as matters stood, but what would have been his desire, on the supposition that his Father’s will did not interfere. As the Hebrew has no optative mood, the indicative; in conformity with the Oriental idiom, is frequently used in the N. T. in the sense of the optative. In regard to the spirit of the prayer, there is a similar sentiment in Arrian, Dissert. IV. 7. κρεῖττον ἡγοῦμαι ὃ 6 θεὸς θέλει, ἢ ἐγώ. Wuirsy, GRorius, CamPBELL, Rapnetius. The verb παρελθεῖν seems to be em- ployed in allusion to the passing of the goblet from one person to another at an entertainment. Epictet. 21. [ἐν συμποσίῳ] περι- φερόμενον γέγονέ τι κατὰ σε; κοσμίως μετάλαϊ[ε" παρέρχεται ; μὴ κάτεχε. WetTSTEIN. In the beginning of the verse the reading of many MSS. is προσελθὼν, which some have approved; but the violent ellipsis which is necessary to complete the sense, scé/. εἰς TOV τῆς προσευχῆς τόπον, is abundantly in favour of the re- ceived text. KuINoEL, GRIESBACH. Ver. 40. οὕτως. Itane ? Siccine? This adverb is used in in- terrogations to denote a degree of censure mingled with admira- tion, the cause of which, in this instance, will be found in v. 35. See Mark iv. 40. 1 Cor. vi. 5. Hom. Od. E. 204. Callim. H. Del. 240. To the reproof itself there is something similar in Virg. Ain. IV. 560. Potes hoc sub casu ducere somnos ? Com- pare also Hom. Il. B. 23. Kurnoret, WerstEIn. Ver. 41. γρηγορεῖτε. From the natural our Lord evidently passes to the metaphorical use of this verb; i. e. to be diligent and circumspect, as Matt. xxiv. 42. xxv. 13. It is to be re- marked, however, that our Lord does not exhort the disciples to pray that they might not be tempted, but that they might not be overcome by those temptations to which he knew they were about to be exposed. The verb εἰσέρχεσθαι is used in the sense of emmergi et succumbere, as ἐμπίπτειν, 1 Tim. vi. 9. The succeed- ing clause is not only an affectionate excuse for the frailty of his followers, but an urgent motive for future vigilance and exertion, as if he had said: You have made a solemn promise not to for- sake me, and of your sincerity I entertain no doubt; yet when temptations actually arise, and fear, and shame, and persecution are at hand, the weakness of your flesh will prevail over your re- solution unless you use the greatest vigilance, and pray with fer- MATTHEW ΧΧΥΙ. 42. 45. 929 vency for the Divine assistance. With the sentiment we may compare Lucian. Tragopod. 66. Ψυχὴ piv οὖν μοι καὶ προθυμία πάρα: Aéuac δὲ νωθρὸν οὐχ ὑπηρετεῖ πόθοις. Stat. Theb. VIII. 739. Odi artus, fragilemque hune corporis usum, Desertorem anim. Grotius, WHITBY. Ver. 42. πάλιν ἐκ δευτέρου. Heracl. Pont. p. 452. ἐκ δευτέ- ρου δὲ πάλιν ὁμοίας ταραχῆς ἀναφθείσης. Plutarch, in Philopoem. πάλιν ἐκ δευτέρου πεμφθείς. Similar pleonasms occur in John iv. 54. xxi. 16. Acts x. 15. Hom. Od. I. 161. Xen. Hellen. III. 5. 21. Eurip. Herac. 488. Arist. Plut. 860. The adverb πάλιν, however, may possibly be referred, as in v. 44., to ἀπελ- θὼν, and ἐκ δευτέρου, as ἐκ τρίτου (scil. χρόνου) to προσηύξατο. With βαρυνόμενοι in the following verse there is an ellipsis of ὕπνῳ. Compare Luke ix. 32. Anthol. Gr. IV. 8.12. Eurip. Alcest. 395. Theocrit. Idyl. XXII. 204. Anac. Od. 1.11. 18. So Ovid, Met. V. 658. Somno gravatum. ἸΚΌΊΝΟΕΙ,, ΚΎΡΚΕ, PaxatreT. Some have supposed that this excessive drowsiness in the disciples can only be accounted for upon the supposition that the evil spirit was at work with them as well as with Christ himself; and that it was in reference to the desire of Satan to sift them as wheat, (Luke xxi. 31.) that their Master enforced Ὁ upon them the necessity of watchfulness. But there is no suffi- cient reason for this opinion, more especially as St. Luke (xxii. 45.) is silent on this head, and refers it expressly to sorrow. DoppRIDGE. Ver. 45. καθεύδετε τὸ λοιπόν. Some late interpreters translate this with an interrogation, Do ye still sleep ? &c., and this ap- pears at first sight to suit better with what follows, arzse, let us be going, &c. But the phrase τὸ λοιπὸν, and simply λοιπὸν, when- ever it relates to time, seems always to denote the future. Com- pare Acts xxvii. 20. 1 Cor. i. 16. 2 Cor. xiii. 11. 2 Tim. iv. 8, Heb. x. 18. Phavorinus: τὸ λοιπὸν ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀκολούθος. Ste- phanus: deinceps, postea. Hence the common version is clearly preferable; and, as some suppose, in this sense, sleep on still, for you can no longer assist me by your watchfulness, as the time of my betrayal is at hand. But the expression rather con- tains an ironical reproof; and so Euthymius: ἐπεὶ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν οὐκ ἐγρηγορήσατε, τὸ λοιπὸν καθεύδετε Kai ἀναπαύεσθε, εἰ δύ- νασθε. ‘This interpretation is somewhat confirmed by the word ἀπέχει, which is added in Mark xiv. 41. It is enough, 561]. that ye have slept already. CampBeLL, Wuirsy.—[Grorius, SCHLEUSNER, &c. |] Ibid. ἡ ὥρα. Scil. τῆς προδοσίας. So Euthymius, rightly ; the particle καὶ following, as frequently, in the sense of ἡ or ὅτε. Compare Mark xv. 25. Luke ii. 15. 21. Acts v. 7. Heb. viii. 8. Thucyd. I. 50. Herod. I. 61. VII. 217. See Hoogeveen. The 990 MATTHEW XXVI. 47, 48. word ἁμαρτωλοὶ is to be understood of the Gentiles, who were in general so designated by the Hebrews as being idoiaters. See Gal. ii. 15. Some, indeed, suppose, but with less proba- bility, that the Jews are intended, in the same sense as Judas is called vide τῆς ἀπολείας, John xvii. 12. The former interpre- tation is far more satisfactory, in reference to Pilate and the Roman soldiers; and for a similar reason they were called ἄνομοι, lawless, as destitute of the law of God, Acts ii. 23. 1 Cor. ix. 21. In the next verse ἄγωμεν is explained by ἐξίωμεν, as in John xiv. 31. and Euthymius supplies εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῖς περὶ τὸν προ- δότην. Etym. M. ἄγω σημαίνει τὸ πορεύομαι. GRrotius.—[Kut- NOEL. | Ver. 47. μαχαιρῶν καὶ ξυλῶν. Swords and clubs. Joseph. Bede 63.4. enone τε ἀνεδὴν παιόμενοι Kat σιδηρῷ. These tumultuary weapons do not. certainly give the idea of regular’ soldiers, nor is it probable that such would be employed without the previous consent of the Roman governor. _ It is true, indeed, that the word σπεῖρα, in John xviii. 3. usually denotes a Roman cohort, as in Acts x. 1.3; and χιλίαρχος (John xviii. 12.) also seems to lead to the conclusion that the Roman soldiery is in- tended. Compare Acts xxi. 31. sq. Hence, some have supposed that Judas was entrusted with the command of the cohort sta- tioned in the Castle of Antonia, or at least with a part of it; or with the guard which attended near the Temple at the time of the great feasts, in order to prevent any insurrection of the Jews. See Joseph. Ant. XVIII. 6. 8. Β. J. V. 3.8. But the terms may possibly be applied in a more general sense, especially if a portion of the garrison formed part of the company. The LXX employ χιλίαρχος to denote a Jewish leader of 1,000 men, in Numb, xxxi. 14. 1 Sam. xviii. 13. 1 Chron. xii. 20. With re- spect to the στρατηγοὶ τοῦ ἱεροῦ mentioned in Luke xxii. 52. they were unquestionably Jewish officers, as one of the Jewish priests is so called in Joseph. Ant. XX. 6. 2.; 9.5. B. J. IL. 17. 2. KurnoeL, Wuirsy.—[Grortivs. ] Ver. 48. ὃν ἂν φιλήσω. A kiss was a customary mode of Jewish salutation, which prevailed also among the early Chris- tians; whence the φίλημα ἀγαπῆς of St. Paul. In this sense the verb φιλεῖν continually occurs in Greek writers; the word στό- ματι being sometimes supplied. Compare Xen. I. 3. 8.; 4. 27. VII. 3. 3. Sympos. 9. 5. It should seem that there is properly a difference between the simple verb and the compound καταφι- λεῖν, the preposition in the latter being emphatic. Xen. Mem. II. 6. 3. rode piv καλοὺς φιλήσοντός pov, τοὺς δ᾽ ἀγαθοὺς κατα- φιλήσοντος. The distinction may be well exemplified by Massen- ger’s New Way to pay Old Debts, Act 111, Se. 2. And when he hisses you, kiss close. In the LX X, however, the same verb is ren- MATTHEW XXVI. 50, 51. ° 991 dered by φιλεῖν in Exod. xviii. 7., and by καταφιλεῖν in Exod. ἵν. 27. Grorius, Kurnorn. On other occasions Jesus had conveyed himself away from the multitude when they attempted to destroy him, (Luke iv. 30. John viii. 59. x. 39.) and it has been urged, in extenuation of the guilt of Judas, that he hoped he would have done so now; and that when he was disappointed in this expectation he hanged himself. Jesus, however, had expressly declared to the contrary, v. 34. supra; and at all events such a possibility would be no excuse for so base an experiment. Ver. ὅθ. ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάρει; Scil. δεῦρο. Arist. Lysist. 1104. ἐπί τι πάρεστε δεῦρο; Several MSS. read ἐφ᾽ ὃ in the accusative, which is preferred by some of the commentators: but the dative is equally correct, and thus explained by Hesychius: ἐπὶ ποίῳ σκόπῳ πάρει καὶ παραγέγονας ἐνταῦθα ; Examples of both. constructions abound. Eurip. Orest. 130. ἐφ᾽ ὅτι χρέος ἐμόλετε; Bacch. 484, ἐφ᾽ ὅπερ εἰς Θῆβας πάρει; Thucyd. I. 134. ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ἐχώρει. Of the word ἑταῖρε see on Matt. xx. 15. By this simple question our Lord clearly indicated to Judas that he was fully aware of his treachery, and the meaning of his salutation. See Luke xxii. 48. KuINOEL, ELsNER, PALAIRET. Ver. 51. εἷς τῶν μετὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ. We learn from John xviii. 10. that this was Peter; and the same Evangelist records the name of the high-priest’s servant, which was Malchus. It should seem that the name of Peter was cautiously omitted in the three first Gospels, lest it should expose him to any persecution; but St. John, writing long after his death, needed no such precaution. The action was exceedingly injudicious, though highly charac- teristic of Peter’s disposition; and had not Christ, by some se- cret influence, overawed the multitude, it must have been pro- ductive of serious consequences. In healing the servant's ear, therefore, our Lord not only performed a deed of great compas- sion, but prevented those censures which his disciple’s rashness would otherwise have occasioned. DoppripGE. Ibid. ἀφείλεν αὐτοῦ ὠτίον. Some understand ὠτίον, as the Latin auricula, of the lower part of the ear; but οὖς is the word employed in Luke xxii. 51. and the LXX use ove and ὠτίον in- differently to designate the ear. Compare Deut. xv. 17. 2 Sam. xxii. 45. Amos ii. 12. So Hesychius: οὖς ὠτίον. Meeris also: ove ᾿Αττικώς, ὠτίον Ελληνικῶς. WETSTEIN.—[GROTIUS. | The verb ἀφαιρεῖν has the sense of ἀποτέμνειν, or ἀποκόπτειν, as in John xvii. 10. So Judith xiii. 8. ἀφεῖλε τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ. 1 Mace. vii. 47. τὴν κεφαλὴν ἀφεῖλε. Polyeen. VIL. 6 δὲ σπασά- μενος τὴν παραξιφίδα, ἀφεῖλεν αὐτοῦ ῥῖνα καὶ ὦτα. In the same sense also the Latins use auferre. Cic. ad Q. Frat. II. 14. Auriculam fortasse mordicus abstulisset. Virg. Ain. X. 394. Caput Evandrius abstulit ensis. The sword, (μάχαιρα,) which 90 Ὁ MATTHEW XXVI. 52, 53. 56. Peter used upon this occasion was a short knife or dagger, such as the Jews, especially on a journey, were used to conceal under their cloaks, as a protection from the banditti with which the country was infested. ΚΌΙΝΟΕΙ,, Patatret, MIcHag.is. Ver. 52. πάντες yao οἱ λαβόντες x. τ. A. From this reproof we are not to infer that the use of the sword in self-defence is un- lawful, but that the use of it against the magistrate, which was the case in the present instance, is unlawful. It was meant also to restrain private persons from avenging private injuries, which they should rather leave to the magistrate or to God, Rom. xii. 19. ‘The expression seems to have been proverbial; intimating the probable consequence of having recourse to the sword upon every occasion. In addition, however, to the indirect lessons inculcated by our Lord, he had clearly a further and more im- mediate object in view, in reference to the Jews, who now sur- rounded him, against whom it was unnecessary for his disciples to draw the sword, since God himself would shortly cut them off by the sword of the Romans. See Rev. xiii. 10., where the same expression is used in predicting the destruction of the persecutors of true Christians. ‘To add to his rebuke, our Lord proceeds to tell Peter, v. 53., that the deed which he had performed implied a distrust of the divine Providence; and, v. 54., a gross igno- rance of the Scriptures. Grotius, Wuirsy, Macknicut, Por- TEUS. Ver. 53. δώδεκα λεγεῶνας. The Roman legion at this time contained about 6,000 men ; and twelve legions were more than were commonly entrusted to their greatest generals. How dread- fully effective such an host of angels would have been, where one alone could destroy 185,000 Assyrians at a stroke, it is above the comprehension of man to conceive. Of the infinite multitude of the heavenly host we may compare 2 Kings vi. 17. Dan. vii. 10. DopprinGE, Grotius. For a list of Latinisms in the N. T. of which λεγεὼν is an example, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. p- 28. Ver. ὅθ. ai γραφαὶ τῶν προφητῶν. Some attribute this ob- servation to the Evangelist; but that it was spoken by Christ himself is clear from Mark xiv. 49. Our Lord seems here to allude more immediately to the particular prophecy of Zsatah liii. 12. in reference to his question, dre ye come out as against a thief? In y. 54. the expression is more general, and will in- clude the predictions contained in the whole chapter of Isaiah above cited, as well as Psalm xvii. lxix. and Dan. ix. 24. 546. Κυτνοει, Le Cuierc. In the last clause of this verse we have an exact completion of the prophecy which our Lord had just before delivered in v. 31., and therein an instance of the strictest MATTHEW ΧΧΥῚ, 57, 58. 333 veracity on the part of the Evangelists, who did not hesitate to relate occurrences, which for their own credit they would gladly have suppressed, had not the sacred cause of truth required other- wise. PORTEUS. Ver. 57. πρὸς Καιάφαν. To Annas first, according to John xviii. 195. It should seem that this circumstance is omitted by the three first Evangelists, as nothing of any importance trans- pired there. Jesus may have been conducted thither in compli- ment to Annas, whose late deposition from the priesthood by the Roman power had increased his popularity with the Jews; so much so, indeed, that no less than five of his sons successively enjoyed the dignity of high-priest, and his son-in-law was at this time in possession of the office. It is likely, also, that Annas was president of the Sanhedrim, and that Christ was brought to him in this office, while the council was assembled at the house of Caiaphas. For πρὸς Καιάφαν Luke (xxii. 54.) has εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ ᾽᾿Αρχιε- ρέως. Thus πρὸς is frequently used to denote motion to a place in which the person is, whose name is governed by the preposi- tion in the accusative. Compare Gen. xix. 3.6. LX X. So Aets xxi. 18. πρὸς Ἰάκωβον. Adlian. V. H. 1. 21. πρὸς βασιλέα ἀφί- κετο. Terent. Eun. III. 5. 64, Eamus ad me. Wuitsy, A. CLARKE, KUINOEL. Ver. 58. ὃ δὲ Πέτρος x. τ. A. From this circumstance some commentators would render πάντες, v. 56., by plerique ; but, it should seem, unnecessarily. Peter, in all probability, had at first fled with the rest, but ashamed of his cowardice, and really attached to his Master, he summoned up resolution to return, and follow him at a distance. It is added in John xviii. 15. that ano- ther disciple followed with Peter, who is generally supposed to have been John the Evangelist himself; and when we consider that he was destined to write a history of Christ’s life, it will ap- pear very proper that an opportunity should have been provi- dentially afforded him of witnessing his trial before the council. An objection has indeed been urged against this opinion, that the twelve being Galileans, and men of mean station, would scarcely have had interest to procure admission into the palace upon an occasion of such importance; and, consequently, that an inha- bitant of Jerusalem, the person perhaps at whose house Jesus had eaten the passover, would be more likely to gain an entrance for Peter and himself into the hall. For similar reasons others have supposed Judas to be intended. But there is no impro- bability in the notion, that John, though a poor Galilean, may have had some acquaintance among the high-priest’s household, who would have given him admittance to the proceedings. It is expressly stated in John xviii. 16. that he was known to the high-priest, probably from his connexion with some of the do- 334 MATTHEW XXVI. 60, 61. mestics. Macknicut.—[Grotius, Lampr, Wuitsy, &c.] See further on John, in loc.; and of the form ἀπὸ μακρόθεν, see my note on Hom. Il. A. 500. Ver. 60. καὶ οὐχ εὗρον. That is, they found none whose evi- dence came up to the point they aimed at, and proved against Jesus a capital offence. Not that they did not charge him with crimes that would have subjected him to death, as some have supposed, but because their testimony was contradictory, Mark xiv. 56. ‘To condemn any one to death the law required the concurring testimony of two or three witnesses, each of whom was examined apart. See Numb. xxxv. 30. Deut. xvii. 6. Matt. xvill. 16. 1 Zim. ν. 195. It was also necessary to produce evi- dence sufficient to induce the Roman governor to ratify the sen- tence, in whose hands the power of life and death was now vested. The words οὐχ εὗρον are wanting after προσελθόντων in some MSS., most probably from the error of some copyist, who was offended at their repetition. There seems to be a gradation in the two clauses, intimating that when there was the testimony of one witness there was no difficulty in suborning a succession of others, though their depositions were equally unavailable. The readiness with which false witnesses were procured was probably owing in some degree to the nature of the accusations with which Christ was charged. In the prosecution of false prophets no man was allowed to speak in their defence. See Maimonides in Hiélcoth Sanhedr. c. 2. and the notes of Fagius on the Chaldee Para- phrase of Deut. xiii. 8. ; and compare Acts vi. 11. 13. There is a great similarity between the treatment which Christ now expe- rienced and the conduct of the Jews towards Jeremiah; the latter, indeed, may be looked upon as typical of the former. ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ,, Wuirsy, Hammonp. Ver. 61. οὗτος ἔφη" κι τ. XA. From Mark xiv. 59. it appears, that neither on this point did their witnesses agree together. The intention of this accusation was evidently to convict our Lord of having spoken disrespectfully, and prophesied against the Temple, which was considered by the Jews as blasphemy, and of course a capital offence. But the truth is, that he had said no such thing as that which they had falsely laid to his charge: the ex- pressions alluded to are those which he spake after casting the buyers and sellers from the Temple, when the Jews asked him what sign he could give them of his authority to do these things. In answer to their enquiries he referred them to the miracle of his resurrection, destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up, John ii. 19. where we are expressly told that by thés temple he meant his own body, to which he probably pointed at the time. According to Mark xiv. 58. the witnesses alleged that Christ had said ¢his temple made with hands, which more grossly MATTHEW XXVI. 63. 335 exaggerates the calumny, as entirely restraining the words of Christ to the Temple of Jerusalem. It is observable that the words thus grossly misrepresented were spoken by Christ three years before the charge was brought against him; a circumstance which affords the most striking attestation of the unimpeachable integrity of his life. The expression διὰ τριῶν ἡμερῶν is equi- valent to ἐν τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, Matt. xvi. 21. So διὰ ἑπτὰ ἐτών, Deut. xvi. 1. Acts xxiv. 17. Similar forms are frequent in the Greek writers: Isocr. Archid. ταύτης δὲ διὰ τριῶν ἐτῶν κατοικί- ζουσα. Grortius, ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ, WETSTEIN, DoDDRIDGE. Ver. 63. ἐξορκίζω σε κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ. This seems to have been the usual mode of administering an oath. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 193. sq. Both the simple and compound verbs ὁρ- κίζω and ἐξορκίζω are used in the LXX. for the Hebrew verb yawn, hisbiang, which is commonly rendered in the E.T. to make to swear. Compare Gen. xxiv. 3. 1 Kings τι. 42. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 19, Neh. xiii. 25. Jerem. xlix. 15. in some of which places the genitive of the Deity sworn by follows with the preposition κατὰ, though the more usual construction is with the double ac- cusative, asin Mark v.7. 1 Thess. v. 27. The form is some- times used by private persons, as in Judg. xvii. 2. 1 Kings viii. 91., but more generally by magistrates, either to the witness, (Lev. v. 1.) or to the person accused, in which case it was called the oath of adjuration. See Numb. ν. 19. 21. Josh. vii. 19. 1 Kings xxii. 16. After such an adjuration by a magistrate or superior, the answer returned was an answer upon oath; a false answer was perjury, and even the silence of the person adjured was not deemed innocent. Hence it was that the high-priest had recourse to this measure upon our Lord’s disdaining to answer the unfounded accusations which were brought against him, from the conviction that his judges were predetermined, and that every thing he could say would be of no avail. From the question pro- posed by the high-priest, and from our Lord’s observation in Luke xxii. 67, 68. it is evident that he and his council hoped to place him in a dilemma: if he confessed, to condemn him on that confession; and if he denied, to expose him on that denial, as unable to maintain the pretensions he had formerly made. Camp- BELL, ΚαΊΝΟΕΙ, Hammonp, Dopprince. Ibid. ὃ Χριστὸς, ὃ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ. It is clear from this pas- sage, and others in which these terms are used synonymously, as Matt. xvi. 16. and elsewhere, that the Jews expected their Mes- siah to be the Son of God. See on Matt. xiv. 33. The expecta- tion was founded on the second Psalm, which the Jews in our Saviour’s time agreed in referring to their Messiah, and which is so referred by St. Paul and the Apostles in a body, Acts iv. 25. xiii. 995. It is also certain that they understood the title Son of God in a sense implying divinity. Hence it is that the 336 MATTHEW XXVI. 64, 65. high-priest declared the assumption of this title to be blasphemy, v. 65., for in no other sense than as implying divinity could it be so construed, and deemed worthy of death. The appellation was sometimes given to men of eminent piety; and the whole Jewish people styled themselves the sons of God; so that in this figurative sense Jesus might have claimed it without incurring the charge of blasphemy. Compare also John y. 17, 18. x. 31. sqq. Grotius, WHITBY. Ver. 64. σὺ εἶπας. See above on νυ. 25. In what follows our Lord again alludes to the passage of Daniel referred to in Matt. xxiv. 30. See the note there; and of the expression ἐκ δεξιῶν καθῆσθαι on Matt. xx. 20. The adverb πλὴν is moreover, as in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 17. and ἀπάρτι is synonymous with ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν in Luke xxii. 69. and, therefore, equivalent with μετὰ μικρὸν ; so that the time of the appearance must refer, primarily at least, to the destruction of the Jewish nation. As the Hebrews employ the word TNA, hageburah, which signifies power, in the ab- stract, as a common appellation for God, so δύναμις exactly cor- responds with our usage of the word Almighty. Compare Heb. i. 3. viii. 1. 1 Pet. iv. 14. In the Rabbinical writings also the same mode of expression repeatedly occurs. Thus Jarchi on Numb. vii. 10. observes: Moses received not the offering of the princes till commanded by the mouth of power. See also Kimchi on Josh. vii. KutnoeL, Wuirspy, Hammonp, Grotius. Ver. 65. διέρῥηξε τὰ ἱμάτια. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. pp- 282. 410. It should be observed, however, that the precepts ir Levit. x. 6. xxi. 10. forbidding the high-priests to rend their clothes, relate only to the pontifical garments, and to private mourning. ‘That Caiaphas was clothed in ordinary apparel upon this occasion appears from Lod. xxix. 29, 30. where the pontifical garments were ordered to descend from father to son ; and, there- fore, could only be worn at their consecration, and when they ministered. In seasons of great distress it was not unusual with the high-priests to rend their clothes, instances of which may be found in 1 Mace. xi. 71. Joseph. B. J. 11. 15. 2,4. It should seem also that a similar practice prevailed in sitting in judgment respecting blasphemy. Weread in the Talmud, Sanhedr. VII. 10. They who judge a blasphemer, first bid the witness to speak out plainly what he hath heard: and when he speaks it, the judges, standing on their feet, rend their garments, and do not sew them up again. So also Maimonides in Avod. Zara, c. 2. When witnesses declare aloud the blasphemy which they have heard, then all hearing the blasphemy are bound to rend their clothes. Macxnicur, Grotius, Ligutrroot. In the end of the verse the word ἴδε is put for Were, as in Matt, xxviii. 6. Mark xvi. 6, ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ,. MATTHEW XXVI. 66—69. 307 Ver, 66. ἔνοχος θανάτου ἐστι. Of the extent of the power which the Jews now possessed in matters of life and death, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 110. The word ἔνοχος is properly constructed with the dative, as in Matt. v. 21, 22. Sometimes, however, it is found with the genitive, and so Mark iii. 29. xiv. 64. Heb. ii. 15. So also Demosth. p. 1229, 11. ἔνοχοι δεσμοῦ. In this latter construction there seems to be an ellipsis of κρί- ματι. See Bos Ellips. Gr. p. 146. Matt. Gr. Gr. §. 3847. Obs. 4. Ver. 67. ἐνέπτυσαν. Spitting in the face was a mark of the most profound contempt and abhorrence, both with the Jews and other nations. See Numb. xi. 14. Job xvi. 10. xxx. 10. Micah v. 1. Plutarch. Apophthegm. p. 189. A. τῷ Φωκίωνι σιωπῇ Badi- ζοντι τῶν ἐχθρῶν τις ἐνέπτυσεν ἀπαντήσας εἰς TO πρόσωπον. Lucian. 1). M. XX. 2. προσπτύσομαί γε πάντως ἀνδρογύνῳ ὄντι. Seneca, de Consol. 13. Inventus est tamen, qui in faciem. ejus (Aristidis, sez/. ad supplicium ducti) inspueret. So also Senec. de Ira, {Π1. 88. Kurnort, Wetstrein. Between the verbs xo- λαφίζειν and ῥαπίζειν there is this difference, that the former denotes to strike with the clenched fist, the latter with the palm of the hand. 'Theophylact: κολαφίζειν: διὰ τῶν χειρῶν πλήτ- τειν, συγκαμπτομένων τῶν δακτύλων. Suidas: ῥαπίσαι" πατάξαι τὴν γναθὸν ἁπλῇ τῇ χειρὶ, ὃ καὶ λέγουσι παίειν ἐπὶ τῆς κόρρης. Hence Juvencus: Tune sanctam Christi faciem sputa undique complent, Et palmze tn malis, colaphique én vertice crebri Insul- tant. Sedul. Op. Pasch. IV. Namque per hos colaphos caput est sanabile nostrum ; His alapis nobis libertas maxima plausit. So Juv. Sat. XIII. 127. Nec pugnis cedere pectus Te veto, nec plana faciem contundere palma. Hammonp. Ver. 68. προφήτευσον ἡμῖν, x. τ. Δ. In this insulting taunt there seems to be an indirect sneer at the popular belief in our Lord’s Messiahship; which is rendered yet more apparent by the sarcastic use of the word προφητεύειν. This verb, as also μαντεύεσθαι, is sometimes used generally in relation to things unknown, so as to correspond with the English guess. Aristot. Rhet. III. 17. 10. ἐκεῖνος γὰρ (Epimenides) περὶ τῶν ἐσομένων οὐκ ἐμαντεύετο, ἀλλὰ περὶ τῶν γεγονότων, ἀδήλων δέ. It should be remembered that Christ was now blindfolded, as appears from Mark xiv. 65. Luke xxii.64,. The treatment which he received from the Jews upon this occasion is expressly predicted in Lsaiah 1. 6. lili. 8.7. KurnoeL, Grotius, MARKLAND. Ver, 69. ἔξω. That is, without; or according to Mark xiv. 66. beneath, (κάτω) the room in which Jesus was examined ; not without the palace. See v. 58. The fire at which Peter and the servants were warming themselves was probably contained in a chafing-dish, and placed in the outer court of the palace; but VOL, I. Ζ 998 MATTHEW XXVI. 69. Jesus was examined in the vestibule, called by Matthew πύλων, and by Mark περιαύλιον. The persons in the court, therefore, might be said to have been without, in respect of the covered part of the building; or be/ow, in respect to the vestibule, which was raised above the level of the court. Some suppose that Peter was, throughout the whole proceeding, in the same room with his Master, but separated from him by a bar or rail, so as to be without the bar, and below the raised platform on which the exa- mination took place: but this is less probable. Grorius, Lamy. —[Macknicut.] With respect to Peter’s three denials there are some apparent inconsistencies in the narratives of the several Evangelists, which it will be necessary to reconcile. The first denial, made while he sat at the fire, was elicited, according to the three first Evangelists, by a direct charge, but according to John xvili. 17. in answer to a question by the damsel who kept the door. Hence, some have supposed that a note of interrogation ‘should be added in every instance ; but this is perfectly unneces- sary, since the Hebrew frequently puts a strong affirmation in an interrogatory form. Grorrus,—{Micuae.is.] According to Matt. vy. 71. and Mark xiv. 69. the second charge was made against Peter by another damsel ; according to Luke xxii. 58. by aman. In order to remove this difficulty, it is proved by some that the Greek word ἄνθρωπος, like the Latin homo, sig- nifies both man and woman; and others contend that he was accosted both by a woman and a man; the former mentioned by Matthew and Mark, the latter by Luke. But the better solution is, that the maid spoke to the by-standers (τοῖς ἐκεῖ ;) upon which one of them accosted Peter himself, and received the denial. It is true that some MSS. for τοῖς ἐκεῖ read αὐτοῖς" ἐκεῖ x. τ. X., but that this is incorrect is evident from the mention of no place to which ἐκεῖ can refer; in which case also the position of the words would have been καὶ οὗτος ἦν ἐκεῖ. There is also another difficulty respecting the place where this second denial occurred. According to John xviii. 25. Peter was still at the fire, whereas the words of St. Matthew seem to indicate that he had gone into the vestibule. But the participle ἐξελθόντα merely indicates the intention of going out, without necessarily implying that he fulfilled it. Compare John x. 52, 33. with xi. 8. Wuirsy, Kurnoet.—[Grotius, Macxnicut, Campsetu.] The third charge is attributed by Matt. v. 73. and Mark xiv. 70. to the by- standers, by Luke xxii. 59. to one person in particular, and by John xviii. 26. to a relation of Malchus, whose ear Peter had cut off in the garden. But Luke, no doubt, specifies one of the by- standers mentioned generally by Matthew and Mark, who dis- tinguished himself by the vehemence of his affirmation, in which he was supported by the relation of Malchus, if indeed it was not himself that (διϊσχυρίζετο) confidently affirmed the Apostle’s con- nection with Jesus. It is possible that numbers might inter ro- MATTHEW XXVI. 70. 74. 339 gate him, though he denied but thrice. Watt, A. CrarKe. We may observe, in conclusion, that our Lord’s trial and Peter’s de- nial being contemporary events, might be related the one before the other, according to the historian’s pleasure. Matthew and Mark describe the trial first, because it is the principal fact; St. Luke brings it in after the denials. John has preserved the exact order of the proceedings, beginning with the first denial, which happened immediately after Peter entered the palace ; then giving the history of the trial, as the principal fact; and concluding with the subsequent denials. Macknieur. Ibid. παιδίσκη. John xviii. 17. ἡ παιδίσκη ἡ θυρωρός. The porters employed by the Romans and Greeks were always men ; but it was not unusual with the Jews to assign the office to fe- males. See 2 Sam. iv. 6. Acts xii. 13. The accusation, σὺ ἦσθα μετὰ ᾿Τησοῦ, is explained in John as implying one of his disciples ; and εἶναι μετά τινος is acommon formula, denoting to take side with one, to assist, to befriend, as in Matt. xii. 30. Thucyd. VI. 44, VII. 57. Kurnort, WETSTEIN. Ver. 70. οὐκ οἶδα, τί λέγεις. A common formula of denial. So Soph. Aj. 270. πώς τοῦτ᾽ ἐλέξας ; οὐ κατοῖδ᾽ ὅπως λέγεις. Inv. 72. the adverb ὅτι is used, like the Hebrew particles 5 and TDN, after verbs of adjuring, in the sense of profecto. Compare Gen. xxii. 17. xxviii. 16. xlii. 16. xliv. 28. 1 Kings 1. 80, WeErt- STEIN, Kurnoeu. Of the Galilzan dialect, v. '73., see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 14. Ver. 74. καταθεματίζειν. This is the reading of a great va- riety of MSS. upon the authority of which it is admitted by Griesbach into the text. But analogy will give no other mean- ing to this verb than that of deponere; and it is therefore highly probable that the copyists have dropped a syllable from the verb καταναθεματίζειν, which exactly suits the sense, and is also con- firmed by Mark xiv. 71. The meaning, however, is not male- dicere Christo, as expressed in Plin. Epist. 97., but there is an ellipsis of ἑαυτοὺς, which is supplied in Acts xxi. 12. Peter, in all probability, used a form of imprecation, which is common in the O. T., God do so to me, and more also! Gro- Trius, Kurnoent.—[A. Cuarke.] There is no doubt that fear was in a great measure the cause of Peter’s denial of his Master. He had been witness to the insults heaped upon Jesus, and he was sensible of the hopeless situation in which he was placed ; he saw himself surrounded by enemies, and above all, in the presence of, and probably recognized by, one whose relation he had wounded. Still his sin was more than a sin of infirmity. He had been forewarned against it, and his conscience must have smitten him severely as he fell, step by step, from a lie to per- jury, and from perjury to the most profligate oaths and curses. Z2 940 , MATTHEW XXVII. 1, 8. His fall may well teach us to distrust our own unassisted nat in time of temptation, and his contrition nd speedy repentar when the look of his Master (Luke κατ ἦὶ forced him ἴθ flect upon the heinousness of his offence, will assure us that nc sinner need despair of mercy who truly repents. It is remark able that all the Gospels record the fall of Peter, but non circumstances of greater exaggeration than Mark, whose | is said to have been revised by Peter himself. A moat ing proof this of the veracity of the narrative. Wuuitsy,~ TEUS, DopDRIDGE. CHAPTER XXVII. ; Contents :— The condemnation of Christ by the Sanhedrim, vv. 1, 2. [Mark xv. 1. Luke xxii. 66.] The repentance of Judas, and the purchase of the potter's field, vy. 3—10. Christ before Pilate, vv. 11—25. [Mark xv. 2. Luke xxiii. 1. John xvii. 28.] Barabbas released; and Jesus scourged, insulted, and led away to be crucified, vv. 26—29. [Mark xv. 15. Luke xxiii. 24. John xix. 1.] The crucifixion, and at- tendant circumstances, vy. 30—45. [Mark xv. 20. Luke xxiii. 26. John xix. 16.] The death of Christ, and the prodigies which accompanied and followed it, vy. 46—56. [Mark xv. 33. Luke xxiii. 44. John xix. 28.] The burial of Christ, vv. 57—61. [Mark xv. 42. Luke xxiii. 50. John xix. 38.] The sepulchre sealed and guarded, vv. 62—66. Verse 1. πρωΐας. It was contrary to the Jewish canons to proceed against a person’s life by night; as it appears from the Talmud, in Sanhedr. IV. 1. Cases of money are heard in the day, and may be determined in the night ; but capital causes are tried in the day, and finished in the day. As the proceedings at the house of Caiaphas were totally at variance with this regu- lation, they seem to have separated till break of day, under pre- tence of conducting the business according to form, but with the real intention of consulting by what means they might obtain the sanction of Pilate to the sentence which they had already passed upon Jesus. Ligurroor, Grortius. Ver. 2. δήσαντες. It appears from John xviii. 12. that Jesus was bound immediately upon his apprehension, so that the aorist in the nominative is employed for the perfect δεδεμένον in the accusative; or probably his bands were loosed during the exa- mination. Of the phrase συμβούλιον λαμβάνειν see on Matt. xii. 14. The title ἡγεμὼν, which properly belongs to the pro- consular oy propretorian governors of the Roman provinces, is MATTHEW XXVII. ὅ. 5. 941 tium Pilatum supplicio a of the rebellious disp the Jews, it was deemed necessary to invest the procurator of Ju dea with the proconsular power of life and death, being still in subjection to the President of Syria. See Joseph. B. J. II. 8. 1. Antiq. XVIII. 1. 1. Hence the title of ἡγεμὼν is also given to Pilate in Joseph. Ant. XVIII. 3. 1. Ku1noEt, Grotius, Kress. Ver. 4. αἷμα ἀθῶον. Innocent blood ; i. e. an innocent man. Not only the phrase σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα, (Matt. xvi. 17.) but simply αἷμα, is employed to designate man; and we have the expression here employed in Deut. xxvi. 25. 1 Sam. xix. 5. Psalm xciii. 21. So Philo de victimis, p. 839. οὔτ᾽ αἵματος ἀθώου προσήψαντο. The adjective ἀθῶος signifies properly unpunished, from Own, a Jine, of which see my note on Hom. 1]. N. 668. and thence wn- deserving of punishment, i. 6. innocent. 'Themist. Orat. 23. p. 287. νόμοις ἀθῶον εἶναι. Some consider od ὄψει as a Hebraism, but it should rather seem to be an adaptation of the Latin formula Tu videbis ; for which the Greeks employ σοὶ μελέτω. KyYPKE, ALBERTI.—[KurnoeEt.] The opinion of some of the early Fa- thers, as well as some modern commentators, that Judas was in some measure induced to betray Jesus by the expectation that he would deliver himself out of their hands, which has been already noticed, is supposed to derive some support from his subsequent repentance. But, from our Lord’s declaration in Matt. xxvi. 24. John xvii. 12., and from St. Peter’s in Acts i. 25. it cannot be be- lieved that his repentance was sincere. The tortures of conscience racked him with remorse, but as all he thought of in the betrayal was gain, so all that now instigated him to suicide was confusion and despair. In the answer of the chief priests there was a won- derful instance of the most flagrant inconsistency; they did not scruple to murder an innocent person, yet were mightily consci- entious about putting into the treasury the price which they themselves had paid for his blood. Portreus, Wuitsy. ©) Ver. 5. ἀπελθὼν ἀπήγξατο. E.T. Went and hanged him- ‘self; and that this is correct is evident from Arrian, Epict. I. 2. τὸ δὲ ἀπάγξασθαι οὔκ ἐστιν ἀχόρητον" ὅταν γοῦν μάθῃ τις ὅτι εὔλογον, ἀπελθὼν ἀπήγξατο. Hanging, indeed, seems to have been a frequent mode of self-destruction. So Ahitophel, 2 Sam. xvii. 23. ἀπῆλθεν καὶ ἀπήγξατο. Compare Job vii. 16. Tobit ii. 10. It has been thought, however, that the account given by St. Peter of the death of Judas in Acts i. 25. that he fell head- long, and his bowels burst out, contradicts the fact of his hanging - 942 ΜΑΙ ΠΕ ἈΧΧΥΙΓΠΌΣΗΣ himself. Hence some have contended that ἀπάγχεσθαι may sig- nify merely to suffocate, and that Judas choaked himself, even to bursting, with rage and remorse. In support of this interpreta- tion they adduce the wish of the poet: Virg. Ecgl. VII. 27. Invidia rumpantur ut ilia Codro. In Josephus also, Ant. XV. 13. one Zenodorus is mentioned, who is supposed to have died in this manner. But the more probable opinion is, that the traito had actually swspended himself, and that the cord breakipa cree noose slipping, he had fallen with such violence as to cause his bowels to protrude. This interpretation is strongly confirmed by the expression ἐλάκησε μέσος, employed by St. Peter, as the verb ληκεῖν signifies lacerare cum strepitu, in allusion perhaps to the noise occasioned by his fall. It should seem, therefore, that in the Gospel the ¢ntent and perpetration, and in the Acts the event of the deed is recorded, in which there was possibly a more than ordinary providence exhibited to mark the end of so notable a sinner. There is a singular tradition, that the devil caught Judas up into the air, strangled him, and dashed out his bowels against the ground; and even this solution has found an advocate in modern times. Wuitsy, Kurnoet, Mackxnicut, Le Cuerc, ALBERTI.—[Grotius, WAKEFIELD, LigHTFoor. ] Ver.6. κορβανᾶν. The treasury ; or that part of the woman’s court where the chests were placed for receiving the offerings of the worshippers. See on Matt. xv. 5. The Rabbins inferred from Deut. xxiii. 18. where the hire of a harlot is specified as an abomination to the Lord, that it was unlawful to place the pro- duce of any unjust or iniquitous traffic, and consequently the price of blood, into the treasury. Compare Sanhedr. p. 112. Hence, ~ also, the first Christians deemed it unlawful for an executioner to make any offerings or alms. KurnoeL, Hammonp, MAckNIGHT. Ver. 7. ἠγόρασαν τὸν ἀγρὸν τοῦ κεραμέως. Thirty pieces of silver may seem a very inconsiderable price for a field so near © Jerusalem; but, in all probability, it had been rendered unfit for pasture or tillage by the potters, in digging out the earth for their wares. It should seem that it was not unusual to convert pieces of ground, which had thus been rendered useless for other pur- poses, to that of sepulture. There was a place at Athens called Ceramicus, which had doubtless, from its name, been formerly attached to a potiery, and was used as a burying-place for those who fell in the service of their country. With respect to the strangers, (Eévor,) for the interment of whom the field of blood was provided, the priests would have little cared for Heathen burials ; and it has therefore been thought they must be foreign Jews, who died during a temporary residence at Jerusalem: at all events, the point is not very material. The historians men- tioning the purchase of the potter’s field, with ¢ ney for ~ MATTHEW XXVII. 9. 848. which Judas betrayed his Master, from which circumstance it received the appellation of the field of blood, (Hebraice, ἀκελδαμὰ, Acts i. 19.) and was still so called in the time of Jerome, is a public appeal to a very public transaction, and puts this part of the history beyond the reach of exception. As to the date of the transaction, it may be observed, that the purchase of the field does not seem to have been effected immediately upon the money being cast down in the temple. But because the deliberation of the priests concerning this matter had a close connexion with the treachery of Judas, St. Matthew very fairly relates it here, though f) it may not have taken place for some days, perhaps weeks or months, after Judas had hanged himsel Macknieut, Dop- DRIDGE, Kutnoet. wy wir <1 g-or-f al = te ie Ver. 9. ᾿Ἰερεμίου. A purchase somewhat similar to that here recorded is mentioned in Jerem. xxxii., but the prophecy to which the Evangelist here unquestionably refers, occurs in Zech. xl. 13. and not in Jeremiah at all. For a solution of the diffi- culty, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. p. 212. note. The citation itself corresponds neither with the Hebrew nor the LXX, in both of which the clause τὴν τιμὴν Ἰσραὴλ is wanting ; and seems to be supplied by the Evangelist himself from the ironical ob- servation of the Prophet: 4 goodly price that I was priced at of them ; i. 6. of the children of Israel. In this case, therefore, the words ἀπὸ υἱῶν ᾿Ισραὴλ will necessarily be the nominative, subaud. τινες, to the verb ἐτιμήσαντο, according to the common interpretation ; and cannot be referred to ἔλαβον, so as to in- dicate Judas, as some have supposed. See farther in Horne, uz supra. As to the application of the prophecy, or rather vision, Zechariah therein represents the person of Messiah, who de- mands of his people the value which they set upon his services, when he undertook the office of a shepherd in guiding and go- verning them : and upon their giving him thirty pieces of silver, the price of a slave, he indignantly casts it to a potter, who happened to be working at the Temple-gate, as a fitter price for his paltry ware than for the benefits which they had experienced at the hands of Christ. The whole transaction was clearly intended to presignify the train of events here related by the Evangelists. It is one of those prophecies which can relate, except in a very re- mote sense, to our Saviour alone: and the Jews themselves refer it to their Messiah. So Bereshith R. on Gen. xlix. Kimchi, in- deed, would render the Hebrew ἽΝ", jotzer, by τὸν γαζοφύλακα, the treasurer, as if it were ΝΣ, the quiescent letters being often interchanged: and to this interpretation some commentators are inclined to assent. In support of this opinion, they argue that the prophet neither mentions the field nor the purchase, and that the grammatical sense, to which the Talmudical writers fre- quently accommodate the literal, almost necessarily points to a 944 MATTHEW XXVII. 11, 15. treasurer, as it relates to the payment of money in the Temple. But the word in every instance signifies a potter ; and though the LXX have here used χωνευτήριον carelessly for κεράμειον, they employ κεραμεὺς in Isaiah xli. 25. Lam. iv. 2. It might even be, indeed, were so minute a correspondence necessary, that the potter is used in Zechariah by Synecdoche for the potter's field, as Ucalegon in Virg. Ain. II. 312. for the house of Ucalegon. KuinoreLt, Dopprince, Grorrus.—[CAMPBELL, Le CiErc. ] Ver. 11. σὺ εἶ ὃ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων; It appears from the parallel place, Luke xxiii. 2., that the Jews in their application to Pilate, had changed their accusation against Jesus from blas- phemy to treason. They accused him of forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and of making himself a king :—a charge which, however false, was extremely dangerous before a Roman go- vernor, acting under the authority of the jealous Tiberius. The dignity with which Christ acknowledged what was really true, but preserved the most profound silence against their false and unjust affirmation, might well have astonished Pilate. It seems that this and the three following verses relate to the first exami- nation of Jesus before the governor, after which he was sent to Herod; but St. Matthew, omitting what passed before Herod, continues his account of Pilate’s examination in one uninter- rupted narrative. Compare Luke xxiii.6.sqq. _We may remark, that the silence of Jesus is expressly predicted in Lsazah li. 7. Le Cierc, Grortius, A. CLARKE. Ver.15. καθ᾽ ἑορτήν. Scil. ἐν τῷ πάσχα, John xviii. 39. At the other festivals it was rather the custom to punish criminals, and indeed, at the passover also, with the exception of the indi- vidual, who was released to the people. Nor was this custom of Jewish institution, as some suppose, but contrary, in fact, to the spirit of their law, which was altogether χωρὶς οἰκτιρμῶν, (Heb. x. 28.) and recognized no such power of remission either in king, sanhedrim, or people. David dared not forgive Absalom ; Zede- kiah could not oppose the sanhedrim; and Sameas prophesied destruction against the sanhedrim itself for unjustly acquitting Herod. There is little doubt, therefore, that the practice was comparatively of recent origin, if not introduced by the Romans; among whom there was a custom somewhat similar at their Lectisternia. Liv. V. 18. Lectisternii indicti diebus vinctis demta sunt vincula. The Athenians, likewise, had the same usage at the Thesmophoriz and other festivals. See also Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 308. Grorius.—[Wuirsy, Licurroot.] In the two following verses many MSS. read Ἰησοῦν Βαραββᾶν. But although it is possible that the name Jesus, or Joshua, as being very common among the Jews, may have belonged to Barabbas ; MATTHEW XXVII. 18, 19. 94 it is highly probable that it is inserted by the mistake of some copyist. GRIESBACH. Ver. 18. 7d. It is not necessary to suppose that Pilate had received any information to this effect: he was himself aware that no sedition had been raised by Jesus, and he could not but discover the frivolous and empty nature of the charges brought against him. It was, in fact, the fear of sedition on the part of the multitude, v. 24., and his dread of the jealousy of Tiberius, which prevailed with him, against his conscience, to deliver Christ to be crucified. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p, 181., where there is also a description of Pilate’s judgment-seat, ({3nua,) mentioned in the next verse. The Roman tribunals, it may be added, were always in the openair. Le CLerc, Grorius, KUINOEL. Ver. 19. κατ᾽ ὄναρ. Perhaps the word σήμερον may imply that she had dreamt these things in the morning since Pilate rose; and as the Heathens attached great importance to dreams which came about break of day, she might, on that account, be more disturbed by them. A precisely similar occurrence is re- lated in Appian. B. C. 11. p. 814. and the celebrated dream of Calphurnia may also be aptly compared, as related in Val. Max. I. 7. 2. and imitated by our immortal Shakspeare in his Jaudeus Cesar, Act II. Se. 2. Considerable difference of opinion exists as to the nature of the dream which caused so great alarm to the wife of Pilate. Some of the later commentators have been in- clined to attribute it to natural causes; they imagine that she may have been informed of the doctrines and the miracles of Christ, that she may have had some belief in the truth of his mission, and have desired to counteract the dark designs of the sanhedrim ; so that the anxiety excited in her mind by the pass- ing events did not forsake her sleep, but produced those dreams which so greatly disturbed her. Others unaccountably suppose that the devil might be the author of them, in order to prevent the death of Christ according to the prophecies. Upon the whole, perhaps, it may seem that the dream was supernatural, though it may be difficult to give any stronger reason for the opinion than that an impression to that effect almost involuntarily arises on the perusal of the narrative. There certainly can be no ground for the notion that she was distracted with a repre- sentation of those calamities which afterwards befel Pilate and his family. Doppripee, Grorius.—[Kurnoet, Fremine.] The name of Pilate’s wife was Claudia Procula. This incidental notice of her being now at Jerusalem is a strong proof of the Evangelist’s veracity, as the governors of provinces had only been recently permitted to take their wives with them. See Horne’s Introd, Vol. III. p. 109. 346 MATTHEW XXVII. 24, 25. Ver. 24, ἀπενίψατο τὰς χείρας. This was the usual mode with the Jews of declaring their innocence. In a case of undis- covered murder, the elders of the nearest city were required to wash their hands, in token of their innocence, over the victim which was sacrificed to expiate the crime. See Deut. xxi. 6. Hence, in Sota VIII. 6., the elders of the city washed their hands in water, where the victim was slain, and declared : Our hands have not shed this blood. Compare Psalm xxvi.6. The practice seems to have been adopted by Pilate, who had lived long enough in Judea to have become familiar with their cus- toms, in order to signify to those who could not hear for the tumult, that he would not be partaker in the death of Christ. It has been thought, indeed, that the custom was equally in use among the Heathens, and that as such Pilate adopted it. But the Pagan and Jewish practices, though similar, were distinct ; the former being only employed in cases of crime actually com- mitted, and especially of bloodshed. Schol. Soph. Aj. 663. ἔθος ἦν παλαιοῖς, ὅτε ἢ φόνον ἀνθρώπου ἢ ἄλλας σφαγὰς ἐποίουν, ὕδατι ἀπονίπτειν τὰς χεῖρας εἰς κάθαρσιν τοῦ μιάσματος. See Eurip. Orest. 429. Herc. F. 1415. Apoll. Rhod. IV. 543. 698. Herod. I. 35. Ailian. V. H. III. 1. VIII. 5. Virg. Ain. II. 715. It 15 clearly a distinct action, which judges, in passing sentence, were accustomed to perform, raising their hands to heaven, and declaring themselves guiltless (ἀθῶον) of the blood of the person condemned. Κύινοει, Buxtorr, WETSTEIN.— [Grorius, Wuirsy, Dopprives.] Of the adjective ἀθῶος, see above, on v. 4. The correct expression would have been ἀθῶος τοῦ αἵματος, without the preposition, which is added Hebraice. Ver. 25. τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ κ. τ. X. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p- 122. It was also a custom among the Greeks, for those per- sons upon whose evidence others were put to death, to devote themselves, by a solemn execration, to the divine vengeance, if their testimony was untrue. Thus Demosthenes observes, in relation to a case of murder, (adv. Aristocr. p. 438.) διεξομεῖται κατ᾽ ἐξολείας αὐτοῦ, καὶ γένους καὶ οἰκίας, ὁ τινὰ αἰτιώμενος εἰργάσθαὶ τι τοιοῦτο. Compare Aristoph. Ran. 594, A®lian. V.H. III. 43. Hom. 1]. A. 162. A similar form was also em- ployed in the Roman courts of justice: Sit sanguis istius super nos ! With respect to this imprecation of the Jews in regard to our Saviour, the exact fulfilment of it at the siege of Jerusalem, and the striking correspondence between their crime and their punishment, exhibit the clearest proofs of the finger of God. The passover happened at the time both of our Lord’s crucifixion and of the siege ;—the rejection of the true Messiah was their crime, and the following of false Messiahs led to their destruc- tion;—they bought Jesus as a slave, and they themselves were MATTHEW XXVII. 26. 28. 347 afterwards sold and bought at the lowest prices ;—they destroyed -Jesus lest the Romans should take away their place and nation; and the Romans did take them away:—and what is still more striking, they were punished with the same death which they in- flicted on the Saviour of mankind, and that in such prodigious numbers, that, according to Joseph. B. J. VIL. 1. διὰ τὸ πλῆθος χώρα τε ἐνελείπετο τοῖς σταυροῖς, Kal σταυροὶ τοῖς σώμασι. Ju- vencus has thus translated the imprecation in his Hist. Evang. IV. 623. Nos, nos cruor iste sequatur; Et genus in nostrum scelus hoc et culpa redundet. EusNER, Grotius, Newron, WErT- STEIN, KUINOEL. Ver. 26. φραγγελλώσας. This verb, which is equivalent to μαστιγοῦν in John xix. 1., as also πραιτώριον in the next verse, is of Latin origin. Hor. Sat. I. 2. 41. 716 flagellis ad mortem cesus. 3. 119. horribili sectere flagello. The pretorium does not here refer to the part of the Roman camp which was so de- nominated, but the noble edifice which had formerly been He- rod’s palace, and was subsequently the residence of the Roman procurators when they came from Cezsarea to Jerusalem. Κυτ- NOEL. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 22. A variety of in- formation, illustrative of the remainder of this chapter, will be found in the same volume, p. 157. sqq. Ver. 28. χλαμύδα κοκκίνην. The chlamys, called also saga and paludamentum, was a robe worn by the Roman soldiers over their other garments, covering the left side only, and fastened on the right shoulder by a knot or button. Hence they are called chlamydati in Plaut. Rud. 11. 2.9. The chlamys of a general was of finer texture and deeper colour than that of the common soldier, differing however from the imperial saga, which was of purple. Compare Hist. B. Afr. c. 37. Sil. Ital. [X. 420. What is here called χλαμὺς κοκκίνη is described as πορφύρα in Mark xv. 17. 20., and ἱμάτιον πορφυροῦν in John xix. 2., which is pre- cisely the difference between the robe of a general and an em- eror. The two adjectives, however, are sometimes interchanged. Plin. N. H. XXII. 5. Coccum imperatoriis dicatum paludamentis. The robe in which our Lord was insultingly clothed was, in all probability, a worn-out saga of one of the officers of the praetorian guard. It is supposed by some that the insult was offered by the soldiers, at the instigation of the Jews, in reference to his claims as their expected Messiah, a tradition existing among them that their Messiah would be clothed in fine purple. See Bereschith, R. UX1X.11. But they seem rather to have ar- rayed him in this mock majesty in derision of his title to be the | King of the Jews; asif the robe had been one of the picte vestes - usually sent by the Roman senate: in fact, this is evident from the next verse. KurnozeL, HammMonp, Wuirtsy. 10 948 MATTHEW XXVII. 29. 32. Ver, 29. στέφανον ἐξ ἀκανθῶν. A difference of opinion exists among the commentators respecting the nature of this crown, which is grounded entirely upon the object for which it was placed upon the head of our Lord. It is contended, on the one hand, that the soldiers could have had no interest in adding to our Lord’s sufferings, and that the crown of thorns, like the reed put into his hand, and the scarlet robe on his back, was meant only as a mark of mockery and contempt. Now the word ἀκαν- θῶν may be the genitive plural of ἄκανθος, as well as of ἀκάνθη ; and in that case it would signify what we call bear’s-foot, which is not a thorny, but a soft and smooth plant. It is called mollis acanthus in Virg. Eccl. III. 45. Georg. IV. 137., and levis in Plin. N. H. XXII. 22., and the soldiers would rather have chosen to plat a plant of this nature than one which was covered with prickles. But, on the other hand, it is argued in support of the common version, that the adjective ἀκάνθινος, which is used in Mark xv. 17. John xix. 1. invariably denotes thorny, as in Lsatah xxxiv. 13. LX X.—that ἀκάνθη, both in the nominative and other cases, frequently occurs in the LXX and N. T. but ἄκανθος never ;—and that all the versions, without any excep- tion, render the word thorns. The silence of the early Fathers is of little weight against this testimony, especially as Tertullian, (de Coron. Milit. §. 14.) who lived A. D. 160. mentions the crown as being of thorns in such a manner as clearly shews that he had never heard of any different opinion. So also Clem. Alex. Ped. II. 8. Here is, therefore, the highest probability opposed to mere conjecture ; and that it was intended to add cruelty to scorn, is abundantly evident from the other particulars of their conduct. See also Horne, ubi supra. CAMPBELL, DoppRIDGE.— [Pzarce, Micnaetis, A. CLARKE. | Ibid. χαῖρε, 6 βασιλεύς. It was thus that the Romans were used to salute their emperors. Hence Mart. Epig. XIV. 71. Hoc didici per me dicere, Czesar ave! Compare Macrob. Saturn. II. 4. St ge a i. iv. 1-20. 91 25s ct. Δ ἢ viii. 16—18. 94--30.... 26—29. 31; θὲς ρον Ave we BO—-32. BA θῦνε oe ΕΒ eA, |) ee 2295, Tepe ee: re 26—56. 538—58. .. .-vL./ 1—6. $= 15. oe ike ix. 1—6. tl nL ee ΡΥ AIG το νοεῖς Ξε 3—12 17—29. Aimee ] oa sa oh 10. 13—21...: Be AAG Sy 11. 17. 22—xvi. 12. . 45—viil. 21. vill. 22—26. xvi. 13—xviii. 9.. 27—ix. 50% ως 18—51.. xix. “1=-12,.. +... x¢ 1. Πρ, 13—xxiil. 1.. 13—xii. 38. . . xviii. 15—xx. 45. xii, 388—44, .... xx. 45—xxi. 4. xxiv. 1—36. .. .xiii. 1—32. .... xxi. 5. sqq. —_e ΧΧΥΙ. 1—xxvil. 8. xiv. 1—xvi. 8. ἘΜ. Ἢ 10.,.::-.15.1 κούηραος xxiv. 10—35. 1, oc 386— 43. xxviii. 18S—20. ... 15—13; POKCOS? © Bie 5D, 51. Verse 1. ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. Some consider ἀρχὴ as the nominative case to the verb éyévero, v. 4., and include the inter- vening verses in a parenthesis; but although the preaching of John may justly be looked upon as the commencement of the Gospel dispensation, so long a suspension of the sense in the very first sentence is extremely awkward, and the construction proposed entirely unsuited to the style of the sacred writers. On the other hand, ἐγένετο ᾿Ιωάννης [βαπτίζων, John was baptizing, is quite in their idiom. Compare Mark ix.7. Luke ix. 35. The first verse, therefore, ought to be considered as a sentence by itself; and ὡς, sicut, refers to v. 4. as the completion of the pro- 10 MLA BK 1.:-.9:.15. 383 phecies with which the Gospel opens. It was not unusual with authors to prefix a short sentence to their works to serve asa title to the book, and to signify that the beginning immediately fol- lows. See Hos. i. 1. In the same sense Herod. I. 1. Ἡροδότου ᾿Αλικαρνασσῆος ἱστορίης ἀπόδειξις ἥδε, The commencement of Thucydides also, and other writers might also be adduced; and thence probably arose the custom frequently adopted by tran- scribers, of putting at the head of their transcript incépit, fol- lowed by the name of the subject; and at the end eaplictt, with the name repeated, to shew that the work is entire. . The usage so far still exists that we prefix a short title at the head of our books, and subjoin The end at the completion. CampsBELt, Lr Cierc.—[Wuitrsy, Grotrus, Markuanp.| In the next verse the MSS., versions, and Fathers vary between the common read- ing ἐν τοῖς προφήταις and ἐν Ἡσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ. Many com- mentators support the latter, which was certainly very early re- cognized, and gave rise to the objection of Porphyry, that Mark attributes to Isaiah what is found in Malachi. Hence it has also been thought that the true reading is simply ἐν τῷ προφήτῃ, the name “Hoata having been added from a gloss. But as the com- mon reading has an immense majority of copies in its favour, and some noted versions; as the quotation is from two different pro- phecies, Mal. ii. 1. Lsaiah xl. 2, 3., of which the nearest is not from Isaiah, but from Malachi; and as the Jews often say, As it ts written in the Prophets, yet it is never said in the N. T. written in a prophet, but by him; there seems to be no just ground for departing from the received text. CAMPBELL, WHITBY, Ligutroot.—[Grortius, Micuarris, M111. ] Ver. 13. μετὰ τῶν θηρίων. This circumstance is omitted by the other Evangelists. It seems to intimate that he was in the most remote, unfrequented, and savage part of the desert, and was probably introduced for the sake of the Romans, who might not be acquainted with the wildness of the eastern deserts. Some have supposed that the description seems rather to point to the great desert of Horeb, but that of Judea was also in some parts infested with wild beasts. See 1 Sam. xvii. 28. 94. 2 Sam. xxiii. 20. Jerem. xlix. 19, It has been conjectured, but without any reason, that the expression is merely poetical, as in Virg. Ain. III. 64, Cron vitam in silvis inter deserta ferarum Lustra do- mosque traho. Licutroot, A. CLarke.—[MArKLAND, WeEr- sTEIN.] In the preceding verse the verb ἐκβάλλειν is used in the milder sense of to lead out, as infra, v. 43. John x. 4. See also Matt. ix. 24., where it is employed somewhat similarly. The word in Matt. iv. 1. is ἀνήχθη. Wuirsy, Grortus. Ver. 15. πεπλήρωται ὃ καιρός. The time here spoken of is that which, according to the predictions of the prophets, was to 984 MARK I.°19. 22. happen between any period assigned by them and the appearance of the Messiah. It was, for instance, the completion of the se- venty weeks of Daniel; that is, each week being seven years, four hundred and ninety years from the order issued to rebuild the temple. However much the Jews misunderstood many of the other prophecies relating to the reign of this extraordinary personage, what concerned both the time and the place of his first appearance seems to have been pretty well apprehended by the bulk of the nation. From the N. T. as well as other and independent histories of that period, it is evident that there was then a prevailing expectation among them of this great deliverer ; and it is in reference to this expectation that the Evangelist has inserted the article before καιρός. It is a point of some conse- quence to the cause of Christianity, that both the time and the place of our Lord’s birth coincided with the interpretations then commonly given of the prophecies by the Jews themselves, his contemporaries. CAMPBELL, MippLeTon. ‘The expressions 70- τεύειν ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ and πιστεύειν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ are somewhat different: the latter merely implies an assent to the truth of the Gospel narrative, but the former includes a disposition of heart in conformity with its precepts, and a firm reliance on the pro- mises held out init. The preposition corresponds with the He- brew 2, in Psalm cxix. 66. Grorttus. Ver. 19. καταρτίζοντας τὰ δίκτυα. The verb καταρτίζειν not only signifies to mend or refit, but also to prepare, to make. In- terpreters are generally agreed in preferring the former significa- tion; and the Jewish fishing-boats, as described in Joseph. B. J. Il. 43., though commodious enough for repairing nets, would be ill adapted for making them. CAMPBELL. Ver. 22. ἐξουσίαν ἔχων. See on Matt. vii. 29. The de- moniac in the next verse is mentioned only by Mark and in Luke ix. 31. We may compare, however, Matt. viii. 29. xvii. 15. It appears that the man had lucid intervals, or he could not have been admitted into the synagogue; and from his convulsions (v. 26.) it is more than probable that epélepsy was the complaint with which he had been afflicted by damoniacal agency. With respect to the construction of the passage, the preposition ἐν is used in the sense of with, like the Hebrew 2 in Eawod. xy. 19. In ν. 24. ἔα is not a verb, as some have supposed, by an interjec- tion answering to the Latin eheu. The verb ἀπολέσαι corres- ponds to βασανίσαι in Matt. viii. 29. and σπαράσσειν, (ν. 26.) which signifies properly ¢o tear, is here used of those spasms or convulsions which are usually attendant upon epilepsy; and which are called in the medical writers σπασμοὶ or σπαραγμοί. See Aratzus, de Curat. Epileps. 5. de morb. 5. Galen. ad Glaue. 1. In the expression of surprise, v. 27., which the mi- MARK I. 38. 11. te 385 racle elicited, the words κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν are applied to Christ, as acting by his own power, in opposition to that of the Jewish exorcists, who invoked the aid of heaven in order to dispossess demons. Grotius, WetTsTEIN, RosENMULLER. There seems to have been a tradition among the Jews that the Messiah would destroy Galilee, and disperse the Galileans. Hence Lightfoot supposes, in opposition to the received opinion, that the ejacula- tion inv. 24. was spoken by the man, who was a Galilean, and not by the demon. CAMPBELL. Ver. 38. τὰς ἐχομένας κωμοπόλεις. One MS. has ἐγγὺς πό- Age καὶ εἰς τὰς κώμας ; in conformity with the Vulgate, which translates Proximos vicos et civitates: but the variation doubtless originated in the uncommonness of the word κωμόπολις, which is found nowhere else in the LXX or the N. T. It occurs, how-: ever, in Strabo, XITI. p. 887. B. τὸ Ἴλιον, ὃ νῦν ἐστὶ, κωμόπολίς τις ἦν. Some suppose that it is intended to denote towns where there was no synagogue ; and it is certain that something énter- mediate is meant, greater than a village, and less than a city; either similar to those which are mentioned in Joseph. B. J. ITI. 2., or wnwalled towns, as in Thucyd. I. 5. πόλεσιν ἀτει- χίστοις, Kat κατὰ κώμας οἰκουμέναις. The participle ἐχόμενος, in the sense of propinquus, occurs in Luke xiii. 33. Acts xx. 15. xxi. 26. and in Gen. xli. 23. Numb. ii. 17. 2 Sam. xxi. 1. Psalm Ixvili. 25. xciv. 15. LX X. It is also frequent in the best writers. Herod. IV. 176. τούτων ἐχόμενοι Γινδάνες εἰσι. Joseph. VI. 1. 1. πρὸς Tac ἐχομένας ἀπολύουσι πόλεις. See also Aristot. Pol. VI. 5.8. Arrian, Exped. II. 8. Diod. Sic. I. p. 32. XVII. p. 142. Herod. 1. 98. IV. 178. Schol. Thucyd. I. 11. Joseph. Ant. XI. 8. CampBeLL, LightFroot, WetsTeIn, ELsNer, Kypxe, Of the verb ἐμβριμᾶσθαι, v. 43., see on Matt. ix. 30, CHAPTER II. Contents :— The cure of the paralytic, vv. 1—12. [Maitt. ix. 2. Luke v. 17.] The call of Matthew, and the dinner at his house, vv. 13—22. [Matt. ix. 9. Luke v. 27.] Christ vin- dicates his disciples from an alleged profanation of the Sab- bath, vv. 23—28. [Matt. xii. 1. Luke vi. 1.] Verse 1. Ot ἡμερῶν. Scil. τινῶν. Theophylact. de ἡμερῶν ἀντὶ τῶν διελθούσων ἡμερῶν τινῶν. So Gen. iv. 3. LXX. See also on Matt. xxvi.61. Wuirsy, Grotius. In Luke xi. 7. we have εἰς τὴν κοίτην, as here εἰς οἶκον for ἐν οἴκῳ. So also Xen. Cyrop. VII. 5. 41. παρῆν cic τὸ αὐτὸ χωρίον. RAPHELIUS. VOL, I. ὌΝ ὃ 386 MARK IT. 2. 19. 26. Ver. 2. τὰ πρὸς τὴν θύραν. That is, τὸ πρόθυρον, the vesti- bule. “Τὴ the end of the verse λόγος with the article is used κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, of the word of God, i. 6. the doctrine of the Gospel. Of the miracle recorded in the subsequent verses see the parallel place in Matthew and Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. pp. 291. 297. note. Some suppose that the words τῷ πνεύματι αὐτοῦ in ν. 8. are redundant: but it should rather seem that πνεῦμα is used in “the second acceptation mentioned under Matt. i. 18. Applied to an ordinary man in this sense it would here denote the percep- tion of what was passing in his own mind, and would be properly rendered zx himself, as it may also be in reference to Christ, pro- vided it be understood to include those faculties of his divine nature, by which he ascertained what was passing in the minds of others. CaMPBELL.~—[RosENMULLER, KUINOEL. | Ver. 19. μὴ δύναται νηστεύειν. In a subject such as this, relating to the ordinary manners or customs which obtained in a country, it is usual to speak of a thing which is never done as of what cannot be done.. The verb δύναται therefore is, in fact, re- dundant, as in the examples adduced in Matt. ix. 15., and there are several cases in which the same periphrasis indicates some- thing far short of an. impossibility. of. If their actions be con- trary to the rules of decency or propriety, as in Hod. viii. 26. Mark vi. 42. Luke xi. 7. 2. Tf it be illegal or unjust, as in Deut. xii. 18. Acts x. 47.1 Cor. x. 21. 2 Cor. xiii. 8. 3. If it be not agreeable to the divine counsels, as in Gen. xix. 22. Matt. xxvi. 42. Johny. 19. 50. 4. If it be inconvenient, as in Gen. xliv. 22. Mark i. 45. iii. 20. vi. 19, 20. Luke xiv. 20. 5. Ifthe agent is prevented by some fault in the patient, as in Mark iv. 33. vi. 5. Luke xvi. 2. John ν. 44. 6. If there be any aversion to doing it, as Gen. xxxvii. 4. Jerem. vi. 16. Matt. vii. 16. xii. 34. John vii. 7. viii. 43. xii. 39. xiv. 17. Acts iv. 20. Rom. viii. 8. 1 John iii. 9. Rev. ii. 2. CAMPBELL, WHITBY. Ver, 26. ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιάθαρ τοῦ ᾿Αρχιερέως. E. T. In the days of Abiathar, the high-priest. Now it appears from 1 Sam. xxi. 1. which is the place here referred to, that Apimelech was then high-priest at Nob; and from 1 Sam. xxii. 20. xxiii. 6.1 Chron. xviil. 16) that Abiathar was the son of Abimelech. In order to reconcilé this historical discrepancy, some have supposed, with Theophylact, that Abiathar was the priest and Abimelech the high-priest ; or that ὕστερον is understood before ἀρχιερέως, as in Matt.i. 6. David the king, i.e. afterwards king ; or that Abimelech, now advanced in years, employed his son as his sagan, or deputy; and he, being then present, and a more con- spicuous character than his father in the days of David, and suc- ceeding his father very shortly in the high-priesthood, is men- tioned by anticipation as already in the office: or that Abiathar MARK III, 1. 387 and Abimelech, the father and the son, were called by either name indiscriminately. Others assign a variety of significations to the preposition ἐπί; such as én the presence of, about or a litile before the time that, at the suggestion of, &c. &c. All this, however, has arisen from imagining that the words of St. Mark, explained in the obvious way, would mean in the priesthood of Abiathar ; a sense which they willnot bear. Without the article, indeed, which is omitted in some few MSS., such must have been the meaning, as in 1 Mace. xiii. 42. LXX. ἐπὶ Ξίμωνος ἀρχιε- ρέως. Luke iii. 2. ἐπ᾽ ἀρχιερέων "Avva καὶ Καιάφα. Demosth. Vol. I. p. 250. ed. Reiske. ἐπὶ Νικοκλέους ἄρχοντος. In these examples the insertion of the article would imply, as in the case of Abiathar, that these persons were subsequently dis- tinguished by their _respective offices from others of the same name. The name of Abiathar was certainly not uncommon among the Jews ; it should seem therefore that the Evangelist has merely followed the Rabbinical mode of citation frequentiy adopted by the writers of the N. T. in their quotations from the O. T., which in this instance has been completely overlooked. They select some principal word out of each section, and apply the name to the section itself, saying, in Hl, in Solomon, &c. when they wish to distinguish the sections in which these names occur. Thus Rashz, on Hos. ix. 9. has in the concubine ; i. 6. Judg. xix. Aben Ezra on Hos. iv. 8. As is said near Eli. So Mark xii. 26. ἐπὶ τῆς βάτου, in the section which treats of the burning bush. Rom. xi. 2. ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ἐν Ἠλίᾳ τί λέγει ἡ γραφή; Hence the expression ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιάθαρ may be explained an the chapter of Abiathar, i.e. in that part of the book of Samuel where the history of Abiathar is related. It is objected to this interpretation that the word γέγραπται is omitted; but ἀνέγνωτε, which is found in the place of Mark cited above, occurs here also, though at some little distance from ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιάθαρ. Micuae.is, MrppLeron.—[Grotius, Wuirsy, Hammonp, Le CiErc, &c. | CHAPTER IIL. Contents :— The withered hand healed, vv. \—6. [Matt. xii. 9. Luke vi. 6.] Divers cures, and the call of the twelve Apostles, vv. 7—18. [Matt. xii. 15. Luke vi. 12] A demoniac cured, and the conduct of the Scribes and Pharisees thereupon, vv. 19—30. [Matt. xii. 22. Luke xi. 14.] Christ's kindred, vv. 31—35. [Matt. xii. 46. Luke viii. 19.] Verse 4. ἀγαθοποιῆσαι, ἢ κακοποιῆσαι; κ. τ. A. A mere nega- ae ts ᾿ ke a ee tion is frequently expressed in Scripture by an affirmation of the ον 988 ΜΆΝΠΙΚΊΎΠ59; 14, 17. contrary, as in Matt. xi. 25., not to reveal is to hide. See also Luke xiv. 26. and elsewhere. Hence the pertinency of our Lord’s argument, as the question about preference was here solely between doing and not doing. In the latter part of the question there is probably an allusion to the maxim of the Jews, that it was lawful to defend themselves on the Sabbath, and even to kill an enemy in self-defence. See 1 Mace. ii. 41. Joseph. Ant. XIV. 8. From this, however, and many other passages, it may be justly deduced as a Christian principle, that not to do the good which we have the opportunity and power to do, is, in a certain degree, to do the contrary evil; and not to prevent mis- chief when we can is to commit it. From the next verse we learn that anger is not always sinful, as it is found in him in whom was no sin: but it must never be accompanied with a desire of revenge, in which case it coincides with the ὄρεξις av- τιλυπήσεως, as it is defined by the philosophers, and is entirely inconsistent with the Christian character. The clause συλλυ- πούμενος x. τ. A. is not found in the other Evangelists. For πωρώσει the Codex Beze@ reads νεκρώσει ; and the Vulgate trans- lation is cacitate. CAMPBELL, WHITBY, Le Cierc, A. CLARKE. Ver.9. προσκαρτερῇ αὐτῷ. E.T. should wait on him; 1. 6. should be always in readiness to receive him. The verb is more usually applied to persons, as in Acts vili. 15, So Polyb. Leg. 47. προσ- καρτερεῖ τῷ Τίτῳ. It has been thought that the verb ἐπιπίπτειν, in the next verse, has the sense of προσπίπτειν in v. 11., and should be rendered to fall down at his feet; scil. in order to touch him, as in Mark vi. ὅθ, But the pressing on him, which is the proper sense of the word, is more agreeable to the reason why he desired a ship; scdd. that they might not throng him. The use of the noun μαστὶξ is very similar to that in which it is im- plied in Hom. I]. Μ. 97. See my note there, and Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 510. Grorrus, Wuitsy, Werstrern. —[Ham- MOND. | Ver. 14. ἐποίησε. He chose, or appointed. So 1 Sam. xii. 6. LXX. 6 ποιήσας Μωσῆν καὶ ᾿Ααρών. Herodian. IV. 4. ἡγε- μόνας ἢ ἄρχοντας ποιεῖν. Philostr. Apoll. V. 28. ποίησόν με, ἔφη, βασιλέα. Of the phrase μετά τινος εἶναι see on Matt. xxvi. 69. In ν. 17. the relative, which is supplied in Luke xii, 14. is omitted; and the verb to be understood in the following verses is ἐποίησε. The import of the name Peter is explained in Matt. xvi. 18. Grotrus, Exsner, ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ,. Ver. 17. Boavepyéc. This word is neither Hebrew nor Syriac ; and it has been thought that the Greek transcribers have not copied it exactly, but that DY 24, bent roam, i. 6. sons of thunder, which the ancient Greeks would pronounce Benereem, ΄ MARK IID. 21. ὁ89᾽ was probably the appellative used by our Lord. Jerome, on Dan. i. is in favour of this supposition ; and various methods are given by which the name, which he writes Βενερεὲμ, may have been altered into Boavepyéc. Others, however, derive the word from WY, roesh, which signifies an earthquake, or any great commotion, as in Hagg. ii. 7., and thence, probably, thunder. Between these derivations it is difficult to decide: the former is nearer the interpretation given by the Evangelist, and, at all events, preferable to that from WI, reges, which signifies merely an assembly. A. CLarke, Grotius, Hammonp, Licurroor, Brza. Of the reason for which this name was given to the sons of Zebedee, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. IV. p. 912, Ver. 91. ἐξέστη. E. T. He ts beside himself. It shocks many persons to think that so harsh an expression concerning our Lord should have been pronounced by his relations, and various methods have been suggested ‘to get rid of the difficulty. Some contend that the verb ἐξίσταναι here signifies to faint, sczl. from exhaustion and want of food; and in support of this interpreta- tion they adduce Gen. xlii. 28. xlv. 26, 27. Josh. ii. 11. Lsaiah vii. 2. xxxili. 3. Jerem. xlix. 23. LXX. But these instances are not exactly in point; not to mention that fainting or swooning denotes a visible event, or one that had been related to his friends rather than by them. Others are for rendering the word to wonder, to be amazed, as in Mark ii. 12., but there an evident subject of wonder or amazement is first mentioned, and then the passion as the natural effect. Admitting, therefore, that the word is here employed in its ordinary acceptation, another class of interpreters refer the relative αὐτὸν not to ᾿Ιησοῦς but to ὄχλον, v. 20., but the same pronoun occurs again in the same clause, where it is admitted on all hands to refer to Jesus, and not to the multitude. Others, again, have supposed that the phrase οἱ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ does not here denote his friends or rela- tions, but merely those who were with him; i.e. some of his disciples. But this is altogether impossible ; for it is said not of Jesus alone, but of his disciples also, that they were oppressed by the crowd; and consequently they could not be said to have heard of the distress which they had seen and felt. Unless, therefore, ἔλεγον be translated indefinitely 2# was said, of which the syntax will scarcely admit, the version of the E. T. is cor- rect ; and it is easy to suppose that the expression might be eli- cited from our Lord’s relations by the fear that his fervency of spirit might be injurious to his health; not to mention that the were apt at times to encourage a disposition not altogether fa- vourable to his claims. See John vii. 5. with the context. Camp- BELL, DoppripGE, Hammonp, KurnoreLt.—[ Wuitsy, LECuERc, Grotius, SCHOETTGEN.| With ἐξέστη there is an ellipsis of ἐκ φρενῶν or ἐκ γνώμης. So Aristen. I. 5. ἐξέστην, ὁμολογῶ. 990 MARK III. 31. LY. 2. 10, 11. 15. Alciphron. III. 2. μέμῃνας, καὶ ἀληθῶς ἐξέστης. Compare Mark v. 42. vi. 51. Luke viii. ὅθ. Acts ii. 7. 12. xii. 16. The omission is supplied in Eurip. Orest. 1019. ἐξέστην φρενῶν. Iph. A. 136. γνώμας ἐξέσταν. Bacch. 840. 805. So Cic. de Div. 11. excidere mente. Phavorinus: é&éornxe’ μαίνεται. The phrase κρατῆσαι αὐτὸν does not necessarily imply violence, as appears from 2 Kings iv. ὃ. LXX. Mark ix. 27. Werstern, Munrue. _ Ver, 31. ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ. Hence Theophylact accuses her κενοδοξίας, of vain glory; Tertullian of incredulity; and Chry- sostom of tnfirmity and madness. Wurtsy. It is not necessary to admit the charge in order to shew that the superstitious errors of Romanism are wholly at variance with the opinions of the early Fathers. CHAPTER IV. Contents:—The parable of the sower, vv. 1\—20. [Matt. xiii. 1. Luke vill. 4.1 The proper end of hearing, vy. 21—25. The parable of the progressively growing seed, vv. 26—29. The parable of the mustard-seed, vy. 30—34, [Matt. xiii. 31. Luke xi. 19.] The tempest stilled, vv. 35—41. [Matt. viii. 18. Luke viii. 22.] Verse 2. ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ. In his doctrine ; i. e. while he was teaching. The phrase occurs again in Mark xii. 38. and is pe- culiar to this Evangelist. Grortus. Ver, 10. οἱ περὶ αὐτόν. None of the other Evangelists in- timate that there were any besides the twelve with him: but it seems that there were others, probably some of the seventy dis- ciples, who were constant attendants upon his public instructions. A, CLARKE. Ver. 11. τοῖς ἔξω. It was customary with the Jews to give this title to the Heathens. Thus in Aruch: Books that are without ; 1. 6. Heathen books. Our Saviour, therefore, by ap- plying it to the Jews, seems to hint to them that in a short time the kingdom of God would be taken from them, and they them- selves be of ἔξω, those that are without. Wurrsy, LicHTroor. Ver. 15. καὶ πῶς; How then? The conjunction καὶ is not only copulative but illative, as in Gen, xiii. 16. xxiv. 41. xxviil. 21. xxxi. 8. xlii. 34. 38. Exod. vi. 1. vii. 9.11. Levit. iv. 3. 14. 23. 28. v. 5. vi. 4. Numb. v. 15, 21. Deut. vi. 21. viii. 10. Josh. MAR KL TY. ΟἹ, 26. 991 i. 15. xxiv. 90. 1 Sam: i. τ. vi 9, Psalm ii. 16. vii. 7. xlviii. 42, Joel ii. 18. Mic. vii. 9. Mal. ii. 2. LXX, Mark x. 26. Luke ii. 15. xii. 29. 1 Cor. v.13. Waurrsy. Ver. 21. This and the four following verses occur in different connexions in Matt. v. 15. x: 26. xi. 15. xii. 2. xiii. 12. Here and in Luke viii. 16. they are subjoined to the explanation of the parable of the sower, in a private conference with the disciples, and seem to be intended as a direction to them in regard to their future ministry. ‘ I give you,” says Christ, ‘‘ a clear light by which you may understand this and all other parables ; not that you should keep it to yourselves, and hide it as a candle under a bushel, (v. 21.); for though I instruct you privately.in the doc- trines of the Gospel, I do not intend that you should keep them secret, for there is nothing hid which shall not be made manifest, (v. 22.) Listen, therefore, to my instructions (v. 23.); and take heed how ye listen, that nothing be forgotten, for according to the measure of your attention and diligence greater proficiency shall be imparted to you (v. 24.); according to the proverb, He that hath, §c. (v. 95.). So Theophylact. Wurrsy, Le Cuerc, Macknicut. The word κλίνη, v. 21., does not signify a bed, but a@ couch, on which they reclined at meals, and which seems to have been frequently used as a hiding-place. Lucian Toxar. 28. τὰ φώρια ἐξέφερον ὑπὸ κλίνῃ τινὶ ἐν σκοτεινῷ κείμενα. Liban. Kpict. 608. τοὺς μὲν ἐκ τῶν ὀρῶν κατήγαγες, τοὺς δὲ ὑπὸ κλίνας κρυπτομένους ἐπείσας, k. τ. A. Sueton. Calig. 51. Sub lectum condere solebat. Plaut. Cas. III. 5. 31. Sub lectes latentes metu mussitant. WerrstrIn. In v. 24. τὶ is equivalent to πῶς in Luke viii. 18. So also 1 Cor. vii. 16. The verb ἀκούειν, in the end of the verse, implies to hear with attention, as in Matt. xviii. 15, 16. and elsewhere. It has a signification nearly similar infra y. 33. WuitBy, CAMPBELL. Ver. 26. οὕτως ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία κ- τ. X. This parable is re- corded only by St. Mark. Some refer it to the seed which fell upon good ground in the foregoing parable of the sower, which springs and grows and daily increaseth, though the husbandman knows not how. So the doctrine of the Gospel received into a honest heart ripens and brings forth fruit, though we know not how the word and spirit work the increase. In this case, how- ever, Christ being the husbandman, the sleeping and waking can” form no part of tie comparison, nor can it be said with propriety that he knoweth not how the seed comes to perfection. It seems more probable, that the parable should be understood in connexion with the preceding verses, and intended to prevent the Apostles from being dispirited when they did not see their labours attended with immediate success. As the husbandman does not by any efficacy of his own cause the seed to grow, but 392 MARK IV. 27. 29. 35. 4 leaves it to the natural and imperceptible nourishment of the soil and sun; so Christ, having taught men his religion, no longer interposes visibly in the furtherance thereof, but suffers it to spread by the secret influence of his spirit, till it shall at length attain its full effect. But as the reapers in the harvest collect the ripened corn into the granary, so also Christ will then visibly re- appear, to take to himself and reward those who have received his doctrine and brought forth the fruits of it. Of course the ornamental circumstances of the parable are not to be taken into the account. S. Cuarke, Macxnicut.—[WHuITBy. | Ver. 27. καθεύδῃ, καὶ ἐγείρηται x. τ. X. The order is clearly this: καθεύδῃ νύκτα καὶ ἐγείρηται ἡμέραν. In the next verse the adjective αὐτομάτη signifies by its own energy; i. 6. without the industry of man. Apoll. Rhod. I. 1143. αὐτομάτη φύε γαῖα τερείνης ἄνθεα ποίης. Hesiod. Op. D. 1. 117. καρπὸν δ᾽ ἔφερε ζείδωρος ἄρουρα Αὐτομάτη πολλόν τε καὶ ἄφθονον. Arrian. Exped. Alex. VII. 4. 8. οἱ λειμῶνες, of νάρδον αὐτόματοι ἐκφέ- ρουσι. Virg. Ain. II. 10. Nullis hominum cogentibus ipse Sponte sua veniunt. With the expression πλήρη σῖτον we may compare Lucian. Diss. Hesiod. p. 663. οὐδὲ ἀμᾷν χλωρὸν ἔτι τὸν σταχὺν, ἢ κενὸν εὑρεθήσεσθαι τὸν καρπόν. The whole ex- pression is similar to Simplic. in Epict. p. 224. τὸ γὰρ σπέρμα φυτῶν, κατα[αλλόμενον ἐπὶ γῆν, τεγγόμενον ὕδατι, ῥίζας ἀφίησι καὶ )λαστοὺς, εἶτα καλάμην καὶ κλάδους τρέφει, καὶ τὰ ἐξῆς μέχρι τῆς ἀποδόσεως τοῦ καρποῦ καὶ πεπάνσεως. Again, Ῥ. 231. καὶ ἀπὸ πυροῦ καλάμη, καὶ ἄσταχυς, καὶ πάλιν πυρός. Compare also Cic. de Senect. 15. Wetstern, Κυρκε, A. CLARKE. Ver. 29. παραδῷ. Supply ἑαυτόν. Shall deliver itself ; scil. to the gatherer; i. 6. shall be ripe. There 15 ἃ similar ellipsis in Eurip. Phoen. 21. See my note; Pent. Gr. p. 305. So in Latin, dare for dare se: Terent. Heaut. V. 1. 43. The omission is supplied in Virg. Georg. I. 287. Multe adeo gelide melius se nocte dederunt. In the same way the Hebrew OW is used in Isaiah xxxviii. 13., where the LXX employ παραδίδωμι. Luke has τελεσφορεῖν. By a common metonymy, δρέπανον, the sickle, is put for the reapers, who used it. The verb ἀποστέλλειν is pro- perly used only of persons. Bos, Hammonp. Our Lord has been supposed to intimate here, that as soon as a man has reached the ‘highest degree of holiness of which his nature is capable, he is taken into the kingdom of God. But such is evidently not the scope of the parable; and though in many cases it would be gain to die and be with Christ, yet to live may be better for the church. See Philip. i. 21. 24. The time of harvest here, as in Matt. xiii. 58. 43. is the day of judgment. A, CLARKE. Ver, 35. ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ. Hence it appears at first sight MARK V. 3. 393 Ω that the following events of the storm and the Gadarene de- moniac are immediately connected with the delivery of the pa- rable of the sower, whereas, according to Matthew, they took place at a different time. But it should be remembered that the Jews used the word days for time generally, so that the expres- sion here employed is equivalent to ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ, Matt. xil. 1., where a similar transition occurs. It is true that in this case the plural ἡμέραι is usually employed, as in 1 Sam. iii. 1. LXX. Compare also Nehem. xiii. 1. with ch. xii. 37. But there may be an enallagé of the singular for the plural, as in John xviii. 20. In Luke viii. 22. the words employed are ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν. The Evangelist’s meaning is, therefore, that on one of those days, after our Lord had taught the people, he de- sired his disciples to go with him to the other side of the lake. There is another difficulty, however, arising from the words we ἦν ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ in the following verse, which seem to connect the transaction with v. 1. supra: but this may mean nothing more than that he had been preaching from a vessel to the multitude on the shore, as his custom was on other occasions, and that they carried him away just as he sat in the vessel. Or it may be that ὡς ἦν, like we εἶχε, will denote quam celerrime. Xen. Cyrop. LIV. 1. 19. εὐθὺς ὥσπερ εἶχεν 6 Ξενοφῶν ἐλθὼν πρὸς τὸν Χειρίσοφον. So in Latin μέ implies swiftness, as in Virg. Eclog. VIII. 41. Ut vidi, ut perii, ut me malus abstulit error! In this case ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ must be put for εἰς τὸ πλοῖον ; and the inter- change of these prepositions is sufficiently common. Compare Matt. xiv. 3. Mark i. 16. 1 Cor. xv. 19. Esdr. vii. 10. Ecclus. xlii. 12. LXX. Of the verb παραλαμβάνειν, see on Matt. iv. 5. Other solutions also have been given, but they are so extremely far fetched as to be altogether unworthy of attention. Macknieur, Grotius, KuInorL, SCHLEUSNER.—[ELsNer, KypKe, Rapue- tus, &c. | CHAPTER V. Contents :— The Gadarene demoniac, vv. 1—20. [Matt. viii. _ 28. Luke vii. 26.] The daughter of Jairus raised, and the issue of blood cured, vv. 21—43. [Matt. ix. 1. Luke viii. 40. ] Verse 3. οὔτε ἁλύσεσιν οὐδεὶς xk. τ. X. Instances of great strength in maniacs, during their paroxysms, are very usual: in this instance, however, it was clearly the effect of demoniacal agency. It is also very common with them to tear and maim themselves with their hands or sharp stones, or whatever may fall ψ 394 MARK.YV. 7. o : in their way. Pausan. in Laconicis: ἐπέτρωσκε αὐτὸς αὐτὸν, καὶ διεξήει τὸ σῶμα ἅπαν, κόπτων τε καὶ λυμαινόμενος. Justin. XILI. 6. 17. Macedonia exemplo furentium manus et membra sua ipsa cesura. The use of sharp stones for cutting is noticed in Arrian, Indic. XXIV. 9. τὰ δὲ ἄλλα τοῖς λίθοισιν ὀξέσιν ἔκοπτον" σίδη- ρος γὰρ αὐτοῖς οὐκ ἦν. WeTSTEIN, RAPHELIUs. Ver. 7. τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου. The name of the Most High is given to God in the O. T. to distinguish him from all others who are called gods, as in Gen. xiv. 18. Deut. xxxii. 8. Heb. vii. 1. Hence it seems to have been adopted as a general name of the Deity by the Canaanites and Phoenicians; for we find the invo- cation Ythalonim Vualonuth, i. e. Superos superasque, being the masculine and feminine plural of the Hebrew wy, Falion, cor- rupted into Alon, in Plaut. Poenul. V. 1.1. Philo also relates that Augustus had sacrifices offered in Jerusalem to the most high God. it is not surprising, therefore, that the dzemoniac, though an Heathen, should make use of the appellation in addressing Christ. Of the formula δρκίζω σὲ, see on Matt. xxvi. 63. Here, - however, it does not amount to the exaction of an oath, but is merely an expression of earnest supplication, equivalent to δέο- pat cov in Luke viii. 28. Some have supposed that the request here made corresponds with the first petition in Luke, and there- fore, that βασανίζειν denotes a milder punishment than εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον ἀπελθεῖν, Luke viii. 31. But it seems more probable that this latter is only a repetition of the former entreaty in a different form. The word ἄβυσσος signifies bottomless, and is applied by the Greeks to their Zartarus, as in Eurip. Phoen. 1620. Ταρτάρου aBvoca χάσματα. Hence the Jews and early Christians, in writing Greek, transferred it to the abode of evil spirits; or, as it is called, the bottomless pit, Rev. ix. 1, 2. xi. 7. xvii. 8. xx. 1. 3. Compare also 2 Pet. ii. 4. It appears also from v. 10. infra, that the devils begged that Jesus would not send them out of the country. ‘To explain this circumstance some pretend that particular genii preside over particular regions, founding their opinions on Dan. x. 13. 20.; and because the pro- phet speaks of angels contending with each other, and Michael's assisting one of the parties, they think the war was waged between good and bad genii, respectively appointed to protect and injure mankind. Hence they conjecture that the dee who tormented these miserable men were stationed in this country to oppose Christ; and here they begged to remain, thinking that they can do more mischief than elsewhere. Be this as it may, they bore the most unequivocal testimony to the Omnipotence and the di- vinity of Christ; and it may be questioned ifthe person speaking, or any of the hearers, except Christ himself, fully understood the . nature or the propriety of the petition which they put up to him. Macknicut, Grorius, Hammonp, Doppripge.—[Wu'tsy. ] > MARK V. 9. 18. 23. 395 » Ver. ὃ. τί σοι ὄνομα; Spirits are continually represented in Scripture as having names, for instance, Gabriel, Michael, Beelzebub, ἕο. Le Clere supposes that these names were either of human invention, or assumed by the spirits to accommodate themselves to human capacities. That the latter was the case, in some instances at least, appears from this passage, as well as from Luke i. 19. and elsewhere. Christ did not ask the daeemon’s name from ignorance, but in order that the surrounding multitude might be convinced by. the answer of the dreadful affliction to which the possessed was exposed, of the stupendous power by which the miracle was effected, and of the benevolence which re- leased the sufferer from a tyranny so oppressive. The term legion, borrowed from the Romans, was constantly employed by the Jews to denote a great multitude. In Bereshith Rabba, §. 20. A. Eliezer Ben Simeon saith, It is easier for a man to nourish a legion of olives in Galilee, than to bring up one child in the land of Israel. It has been supposed that the legion is here put for the chief of the legion, but the tenor of the narrative - is decisive in favour of the literal meaning of the word. What the Romans thought of their legions may be readily conceived from the boast of Cesar, de Bell. Hisp. ὃ. 42. An, me deleto, non animum advertebatis, decem habere legiones populum Ro- manum, gue non solum vobis obsistere, sed etiam coclum diruere possent? LiguTrooT, KUINOEL. ~~ Ver. 18. ἵνα ἢ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ. See on Matt. xxvi. 69. The man may have been induced to make this request lest he should again become subject to the demon’s power as soon as Christ had de- parted. But our Lord was willing to shew that his presence was not necessary in order to protect those who put their trust in him. So Theophylact. It may be also that he wished to have a living record of his miracles among the Gentiles, for the purpose of preparing their minds for the reception of the Gospel, when it should be preached to them after his resurrection. In the next verse the Camb. MS. followed by the Syriac version, inserts ὅτι before ἐλέησε, but the received reading presents a very easy con- struction. Grotius, Ku1NOEL. Ver. 23. τὸ θυγάτριον. It appears from v. 42. that she was about twelve years old, and from Luke that she was his only child. Hence the term θυγάτριον, and κοράσιον, v. 41. Mai- monides in Ashuth, c. 2. A daughter from her birth-day, until she is twelve years old complete is called a little maid, but when she is full twelve years old, and one day over, she ts called a young woman. Of the phrase ἐσχάτως ἔχειν we have frequent examples in the best writers. Lucian. Abdic. 14. ἐν ἐσχάτοις οὖσαν τὴν γυναῖκα. Diod. Sic. XVIII. 48. ὁ δ᾽ ᾿Αντίπατρος ἐσχάτως ἤδη διακείμενος. ΧΧῚ, 12, τὸν βασιλέα διακείμενον ἐσ- 4 396 MARK V. 26. 30. 38. χάτως ἤδη. Joseph. Ant. IX. 9. καταλαβὼν δ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐν ἐσχά- τοις ὄντα, κλαίειν ἤρξατο. Artemid. Oneirocr. III. 61. τοῖς ἐσ- χάτοις ἔχουσι σωτηρίαν προαγορεύει. So in ultimis esse, Petron. Arb. 101. Before iva there is an ellipsis of δέομαι ; and it often happens that some verb or sentence is omitted before this par- ticle, as in Mark xiv. 49. Ephes. v. 33. 1 John ii. 19. In peti- tions however, more especially, the verb is omitted. See my note on Hom. I]. B. 413. The imperative ἐπιθὲς is used in Matt. ix. 18. Ligntrroot, WETSTEIN, ELSNER, WHITBY. Ver. 26. πολλὰ παθοῦσα κ. τ. A. That the sufferings as well as the expences of the woman must have been excessive, we may readily conceive from the nostrums which the Jewish physicians were accustomed to apply to the disease under which she la- boured. In Schabbath, p. 110., we find the following: R. Jo- chanan saith: Take of gum of Alexandria the weight of a auzee ; of alum, the weight of a zuzee; and of crocus hortensis, the weight of a xuzee: let these be bruised together, and be given in wine to the woman who hath an issue of blood. If this does not benefit, take of Persian onions three logs, boil them in wine, give it to her to drink, and say, Arise from thy flux. If this does not prevail, set her in a place where two ways meet, and let her hold a cup of wine in her hand, and let somebody come behind her, and affright her, and say, Arise from thy flux. If these do no good other doses and remedies are prescribed, and among them the following: Letthem dig seven ditches, in which — let them burn some cuttings of such vines as are yet uncircum- cised, i. e. under four years growth, and let her take in her hand a cup of wine. Lead her away from this ditch, and let her sit down over that, and so of the rest ; and at every removal you must say unto her, Arise from thy flux. Licurroor. ‘There is a story related in.Euseb. Eccl. Hist. VII. 18. that this woman, who by the way had spent all that she had, afterwards erected a statue commemorative of her cure; and that near it an unknown plant miraculously sprung up, which was a sovereign remedy against all diseases. Credat Judeus. Wuitsy. Ver. 30. τὴν ἐξ αὐτοῦ δύναμιν ἐξελθοῦσαν. So Luke vi. 19. Hence it appears that the power of performing miracles was not adventitious, but inherent in Jesus. ‘The miraculous cures per- formed by the Prophets and Apostles are always attributed to a superior agency; but those of Christ sometimes to a divine virtue residing in him, and sometimes to the Father, as in John xiv. 10. Their being therefore equally ascribed to the Father and himself proves that they are one in mysterious union. WutT- BY, HoLpEN. Ver. 38, ἀλαλάζοντας. From ἀλαλὴ, of which see Pent. ΜΑΒΚΟΥ. 48. ΥἹ. ὅ. 16. 397 Gr. Lex. in voce. In v.41. some Latin copies have Tabitha, as in Acts ix. 40.; but the common reading is correct. The word nny, Talyitha, occurs in the Chaldee paraphrase on Prov. ix., and in Bava Bathra, p. 91, 2. we have the words nad) nu, which the Gloss explains a boy and a girl. Somewhat similar both in sound and signification is the AZolic word τάλις, of which see Lex. Pent. Gr. in voce. The verb κοῦμι is the im- perative of OP, surgere. In the interpretation the Evangelist has inserted cot λέγω, as indicative of the self-derived authority by which our Lord performed this miracle. Licurroot, Gro- TIUS. Ver. 43. ἵνα μηδεὶς γνῷ τοῦτο. One reason of this might be, lest he should receive too frequent applications to raise the dead. The miracles of Christ were designed as proofs of his mission, and not to alter the course of nature upon every request that might be made to him. Hence, after restoring the damsel to life, he left her, for the preservation of her existence, to the use of ordinary means, and commanded that something should be given her to eat. Lt CLERc, A. CLARKE. CHAPTER VI. Contents:—ZJUl treatment of Christ at Nazareth, vv. 1—6. [Matt. xiii. 54.] ts commission to the twelve, vy. 7—13. [ Matt. x. 1. Luke ix. 1.] Various opinions of Christ, vv. 14, 15. [Matt. xvi. 14.] Death of John the Baptist, vv. 16—29. [Matt. xiv. 2.] The twelve return, vv. 30—34. [ Matt. xiv. 19. Luke ix. 10. John vi. 1.] Five thousand fed miraculously, vv. dd—44, [Matt. xiv. 16. Luke ix. 12. John vi. 3.] Christ prays in private, vv. 45, 46. [Matt. xiv. 22. John vi. 15.] He walks on the sea, and quells a storm, vv. 47—52. [Matt. xiv. 24, John vi. 16.] Diévers cures, vv. 53—56. [Matt. xiv. 34.] Verse 5. οὐκ ἠδύνατο. See on Mark ii. 19. Christ required faith in the patient in order to his cure; and, therefore, where this was wanting, he could do no mighty work; not that he wanted power, but that they wanted the condition upon which alone it was fit that he should heal them. Wuursy. Ver. 13. ἤλειφον ἐλαίῳ. Of the use of oil in cases of sickness and disease, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 510. To this there is an allusion in James y. 14. and in the Talmud. See Berach, p. 3, 1. Schabbath, p. 14,3. It is also mentioned asa 998 MARK VI. 15. 19. 21. - medicinal application in Celsus, Galen, and Hippocrates. Itisa question however, whether, in the case of the Apostles, it was used as symbolical of that οὐΪ of gladness which they imparted to the patient, or as a remedy, which though uncertain in human hands, could not be otherwise than effectual in the hands of God. The former is, perhaps, the more probable opinion, not only be- cause it was not pointed out to them as a remedy by Christ, but because it was frequently used as a religious emblem both by Jews and Christians. Thus we are told of the wnetion of faith, and of the spirit, 2 Cor. i. 21. 1 John ii. 20. 27. Wintsy, LIGHT- root, Grotius, RosEnmMuLLer.—[Micuae.is, Kumnok.. | Ver. 15. ὅτι προφήτης ἐστὶν, ἢ ὡς κι τι A. According to Eu- thymius some copies had ὁ προφήτης, so that the sense would be He is the prophet predicted of old. But the almost general consent of the best MSS. in omitting the particle ἢ forbids us to admit the article or. the interpretation founded upon it. The meaning is, He is a prophet resembling one of the prophets of ancient times. MippLeTon, CAMPBELL, GROTIUS. Ver. 19. ἐνεῖχεν αὐτῷ. Was greatly enraged at him. Hesych. évetyov" ἐχόλουν, ὠργίζοντο. Compare Luke xi. 53. There is probably an ellipsis of χόλον, which is supplied in Herod. I. 118. VIII. 27. Nearly in the same sense is used the Hebrew DOW, which the LXX render by ἐγκοτεῖν in Gen. xxvii. 41. Psalm liv. 3. by μνησικακεῖν in Gen. 1]. 15., and by ἐνέχειν in Gen. xlix. 23. Hammonp, Grortius, WersteIN. In the next verse there is some difference of opinion as to the meaning of the verb συνετήρει : the E. 'T. renders it observed, and some commen- tators understand it of the attention which Herod, in common with others, had occasionally paid to John’s advice. See Joseph. Ant. XVIII. 7. But this is rather implied in the ensuing clause. The Vulgate has custodiebat ; i. 6. from the effects of Herodias’ resentment: and this seems to be the true version. Compare Matt, ix. 17. Luke ii. 19. v. 38. There seems to be a needless repetition of the verb ἀκούειν in the next clause; but in the first — instance it is merely an explanation of ἐποίει. The sense is, He heard him with pleasure, and frequently put what he heard in practice. CAMPBELL, ΚΌΙΝΟΕΙ, Le Cterc.—[Wurrsy. ] Ver. 21. ἡμέρας εὐκαίρου. ἘΣ. 'T. a convenient day. It rather means ὦ day of leisure; i.e. a holy day. Inv. 31. infra, the verb εὐκαιρεῖν signifies to be at leisure. Hammonp.—[Grorius.] The word μεγιστᾶνες is of Persic origin, and thence adopted both by the Greeks and Latins to designate nobles generally, but more especially the immediate friends or ménésters of the king. Suidas: μεγιστᾶνες" οἱ τοῦ βασιλέως περίβλεπτοι, ὑπεξ- ούσιοι.. Compare Joseph. Ant. IX. 8. 9, XX. 2. 3. Sueton. 10 MARK VI. [8.81.88. 399 Calig. 5. Senec. Epist. 21. Tacit. Anal. XV. 27. It occurs in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 8. Prov. vii. 16. Jerem, xiv. 3. Jonas iii. 7. Nah. iii. 10. Dan. 111. 34. v. 1, 2. 3. 9. 23. Zach. xi. 2. Rev. vi. 15. viii. 23. LXX. By πρῶτοι we are probably to understand the chief magistrates of the city or province. SCHLEUSNER. Ver. 23. ἕως ἡμίσους κι τ. Δ. There is a similar promise in Esth. v. 3. UXX. So Hom. Ul. 1. 612. ἶσον ἐμοὶ βασίλευε, καὶ ἥμισυ μείρεο τιμῆς. WeETSTEIN.. The verb ἀθετεῖν in v. 26. sig- nifies to deny, to refuse, in which sense it is used in Joseph, Ant. XV. 2. 6. οὐδενὸς ἀθετήσειν ὧν ἀξιοῖ. Plut. Coriolan. p. 252. C. μηδὲν ἀθετεῖν μήτ᾽ ἀναίνεσθαι τῶν τοιούτων δυναμένου. Its primary meaning is to displace; and thence to abrogate, Gal. iii. 15. to frustrate, Luke vii. 80. 1 Cor.i. 19. to reject, Luke x. 16. with some other cognate significations. ScHLEUS- NER. The word σπεκουλάτωρ, v. 27., signifies a soldier of the guard. Itis the Latin speculator, which occurs in Tac. Hist. I. 24, It is found also in Hebrew characters in the Talmud. Hammonp, Licurroot. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. I. p. 100. Ver. 31. ὑμεῖς αὐτοί. You yourselves; 1. e. by yourselves, or alone. So αὐτὸς is sometimes used, as in Theogn. v. 373. σὺ γὰρ πάντεσσιν ἀνάσσεις Τιμὴν αὐτὸς ἔχων. PALAIRET. Ibid. οἱ ἐρχόμενοι καὶ οἱ ὑπάγοντες. Coming ; that is, to be instructed, or to be healed of their infirmities; and departing, when they had received the benefits for which they petitioned. Ver. 53. There is, perhaps, no verse in the N. T. which has suffered more from transcribers than this. In the first clause οἱ ὄχλοι, and in the next αὐτὸν are omitted by a variety of the best MSS., and Griesbach has properly ejected them from the text. Christ would scarcely embark in sight of the mud/titude since his intention was to be private, though many might discover it; ΠΟΥ would the historian be likely to say that many knew him, after he had been occupied so long in teaching them that his person could not be otherwise than familiar to them. It may be said, indeed, that when αὐτὸν is excluded there seems to be some de- fect, as it is not expressly said what they knew; but this is so fully supplied by the following words, which acquaint us that the people went thither, as to put it beyond a doubt that what they knew was the place to which our Lord intended to sail. Indeed, many of those who retain the common reading refer αὐτὸν not to Jesus, but to τόπον in the preceding verse: but there is sufficient reason for supposing that the words in question are intruders. Upon the authority also of several MSS. and versions Griesbach rejects the last clause of the verse altogether, and emends the preceding sentence as follows, καὶ πεζῇ ἀπὸ πασῶν τῶν πόλεων συνέδραμον, καὶ ἦλθον ἐκεῖ. CAMPBELL, GrizsBacH. Of y. 34. 400 MARK VI. 37. 39. 46. see on Matt. ix. 36. The expression ὥρα πολλὴ, (v. 35.) sig- nifying late in the day, is of frequent occurrence both in Greek and Latin writers. Dion. Hal. II. 54. διέμενον ἄχρι πολλῆς ὥρας. Ces. Β. G. 1. 22. Multo die. Cic. Epist. Attic. XIII. 9. Multus sermo ad multum diem, WrtTSTEIN. Ver. 37. διακοσίων δηναρίων. This would amount to about 6£ 5s. sterling. Some suppose that the disciples made an offer of laying out their whole stock in hand to supply provisions for the multitude; but the question seems rather to indicate an ex- pression of admiration: and this opinion is confirmed by the im- port of Philip’s answer in John vi. 7. It appears also from the Talmud that two hundred denarii was the sum fixed as a fine for various offences, as the dowry of a virgin, as the portion to be paid by a husband to his divorced wife, &c. &c. whence it be- came at length a general phrase for any round sum. Licurroor, GitL, Wuirsy.—[Grotius, Doppriner.] ‘The preposition ἀντὶ must be supplied with δηναρίων. Ver. 39. συμπόσια, συμπόσια. The word συμπόσιον signifies properly compotatio ; and thence generally an entertainment, and, by an easy transition, the company assembled at an entertainment. Cic. Epist. Fam. [X. 24. Sapientius nostri quam Greci. Llli συμπόσια, aut σύνδειπνα, zt. 6. compotationes, aut conccenationes ; nos convivia, quod tum maxime simul vivitur. See also de Senect. c. 13. The word is here doubled after the idiom of the Hebrew language, which is deficient in phrases of distribution. In the same manner we have δύο δύο, infra v. 7. and πρασιαὶ πρασιαὶ in the next verse. So Hevod. viii. 10. LXX. συνήγαγον αὐτοὺς θημωνίας Onuwviac. The word πρασιὰ denotes a small plot, such as a flower-bed in a garden. ‘Theophylact: πρασιαὶ λέγονται τὰ ἐν τοῖς κήποις διάφορα κόμματα, ἐν οἷς φυτεύονται διάφορα πολλάκις λάχανα. It is found in this sense in some of the later Greek writers; as also in Eeclus. xxiv. 31. but not elsewhere in the LXX or in the N. T. Some have supposed _ that the whole multitude sat down in one body, one hundred in | front, and fifty deep, because 50 x 100 = 5000. But such a disposition would have rendered the distribution of the bread extremely inconvenient: and the use of the plural both by Mark and Luke plainly indicates several detached companies. These companies formed themselves into oblong squares, like beds in a garden, the persons in each company sitting face to face. The word κλισιαὶ, employed by St. Luke, refers to the manner of γ6- clining at meals. Κ6ΊΝΟΕΙ,, CAMPBELL, WeTSTEIN. Iny. 44. the adverb ὡσεὶ is omitted by many of the best MSS. Ver. 46, αὐτοῖς. Thatis, τῷ ὄχλῳ, the multitude, Matt. xiv. 23. Compare Mark viii. 1. With ἐλαύνειν in ν. 48. there is an MARK VI. 52. VII. 2. 401 ellipsis of τὴν ναῦν, as in John vi. 19. The omission is supplied in Arist. Equit. 1179. Grortus. Ver. 52. ἐπὶ τοῖς ἄρτοις. That is, ἐπὶ τῷ θαύματι τοῖς ἄρ- τοις γενομένῳ. Some understand ἐπὶ to mean after, as in Jo- seph. Ant. V. 1. 26., ποιήσετε σωφρονήσαντες Kal ἐπὶ νεαροΐῖς μετατιθέμενοι ἁμαρτήμασι. It should seem rather to signify by means of, as in Matt. iv. 4. and elsewhere. The verb συνιέναι denotes to gain wisdom, to grow wiser: and so in Josh. i. 7. 1 Sam. xvi. 4. LXX, Matt. xvi. 8. Mark viii. 17. The verb πωροῦσθαι is here metaphorically applied, as again in Mark viii. 17. John xii. 40. Rom. xi. 7. 2 Cor. xiii. 14. It signifies pro- perly to be hardened; and thence, to be mentally dull, or stupid. ScHLEUSNER.—[Kress.] Of the verb ὁρμίζω, v. 53., see my note on Hom. 1]. &. 75. CHAPTER VIL. Contents :— The conversation of our Lord with the Scribes and Pharisees on the subject of traditions, vv. 1—28. [Matt. xv. 1.] The cure of the Syro-Pheenician woman's daughter, vv. 24—30. [Matt. xv. 21.]; and of the man with an impediment in his speech, vv. 31—37. Verse 2. κοιναῖς χερσί. With common, i.e. defiled hands. See on Matt. xv. 11. It was quite in the Jewish idiom to oppose common and holy; the most usual signification of the latter word in the O. T. being separated from common, and de- voted to sacred uses. The superficial Pharisee, however, uni- formly attending to the letter and neglecting the spirit of reli- gion, here used the word in the sense of wnclean or unwashen, not understanding that their meals were sanctified by the word of God and by prayer, (1 Tum. iv. 5.) rather than by ceremonial ablutions. This sense of the word κοινὸς seems to be recognized in the Latin derivative caenum, and in the old verb quino ; whence inguino, to pollute. Some suppose that the explanation, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, ἀνίπτοις, is added from a gloss; but as Mark wrote for Gentile as well as Jewish readers, he added it no doubt for the information of the former. CampBeLt, Hammonp. ‘The word ἐμέμψαντο is wanting in several MSS., and Griesbach has re- jected it from the text. But the authorities in favour of the common reading are abundantly sufficient, and though wv. 3, 4. are parenthetical, the word ἔπειτα, at the beginning of v. 5., in- dicates the commencement of another sentence, and not the con- tinuation of ν. 2. VOL. I. pd 402 | MARK VII. 3, 4. Ver. 3. ἐὰν μὴ πυγμῇ νίψωνται. Hacept they wash their hands oft. For this signification of the word πυγμῇ there is no authority whatever; and though in the modern Lexicons crebro is admitted as one meaning, it is only because the Latin Vulgate so translates the word in this passage. Erasmus would therefore read πυκνῇ, which Beza suspects that the old translator found in his copy; but πυκνῇ, as an adverb, is as little known as πυγμῇ; though πυκνὰ frequently occurs, as in Luke y. 33.: and even πυκνὰ would be ambiguous, as it may imply that they washed often before every meal. Theophylact explains the word ἄχρι ἀγκῶ- voc, up to the elbow; and that such was the Jewish manner of washing is evident from a variety of passages in their writings. Thus in Jadaim, 11. 8. The hands are polluted and made clean unto the joining of the arm. The same custom, borrowed in all probability from the Jews, is recognized in the Koran, Sur. V. 7. O believers, when ye wish to pray, wash your faces, and your hands up to the elbows, and your feet up to the ancles. But this idea would scarcely have been conveyed by the dative; nor does πυγμὴ even signify the elbow, but the fist, or the hand con- tracted for grasping. It is more natural, therefore, to consider the word as representing the manner of washing ; and hence it is rendered by some with the fist, i. e. with one hand closed, and passing over the other. But it should rather seem that the word is here used, by metonomy, to signify a handful, as we say a foot for the length of a foot; and as the sense immediately supplies the word water, the sense will be wzth a small quantity of water. This is confirmed by the circumstance that the verbs rendered wash, both in this and the next verse of the E. T. are different in the original; the former of which, νίπτεσθαι, signifies to wash simply, and is distinguished from βαπτίζεσθαι, which signifies to immerse, to dip, (whence βαπτισμὸς, immersion, in the same verse,) by the addition of πυγμῇ. Both these modes of washing of hands appear to have been in use; the baptism or émmersion of the whole body was, for the most part, a religious ceremony. CAMPBELL, WetTsTEIN.—[Hammonp, LicutTFroot, Le Crerc, WuitBy. | Ver. 4. ἀπὸ ἀγορᾶς. Scil. ἐλθόντες, or perhaps γενόμενοι or ὄντες, the former of which is supplied in Herod. II. 78. ἐπεὰν ἀπὸ δείπνου γένωνται, and the latter in Herod. I. 126. ἀπὸ δείπνου ἦσαν. The ellipsis occurs in Theophr. Char. 24. ἀπὸ δείπνου ἐντεύξεσθαι φάσκειν. Compare Heclus. xxxiv. 27. LXX. There is no occasion therefore to insert ὅταν ἔλθωσι, which has found its way into some MSS. from a marginal gloss. ELsNErR. The word ἕεστῶν may either be the genitive plural of ἕεστῆς, the name of a liquid measure, corresponding with the Latin sextarius, or of Ecard, polished vessels, subaud. ποτήρια. Perhaps the former derivation is preferable. The word ἕεστῆς occurs fre- MARK YI. 9% 13.°21. 405 quently in Galen, and in Arrian, Dissert. 11. 16. Epict. I. 9. Joseph. Ant. VIII. 2. 9. Vit. 15. Grotrus, Wrersrrin.— [Licutroor.] The cleansing of brazen drinking vessels, (yaA- κίων,) only is mentioned ; as earthen-ware,, if it became polluted, was broken. A similar custom is attributed to the Egyptians in Herod. 11. 37. ἐκ χαλκέων ποτηρίων πίνουσι, διασμέωντες ava πᾶσαν ἡμέραν" κι τι A. Couches, κλιναὶ, upon which they re- clined at meals, were supposed to incur impurity if any person legally unclean made use of them: Celim, p. 66, 1. RosENMUL- LER, KUINOEL. Ver. 9. καλῶς abersire. Some commentators disjoin the ad- verb καλῶς from ἀθετεῖτε, and prefix it to ἔλεγεν : but the struc- ture of the sentence will scarcely admit of this; nor is it at all suited to the manner of the Evangelists, who tell the world simply what Christ said and did, leaving the judgment which ought to be formed about both to the discernment of their readers. Others take the words interrogatively; but the expression is evidently ironical. See on Matt. xxiii. 32. CamMPBELL.—| PEARCE, Ham- MOND. | Ver. 13. παρόμοια τοιαῦτα. Namely, such things as make the word of God of none effect by your traditions. Accordingly Dr. Pocock, (Miscel. p. 415.) cites from them an ancient canon, that vows take place even in things commanded by the law, as well as in things indifferent ; and that any one is so bound by them that he cannot without great sin do that which ts com- manded; 1. 6. a vow which cannot be legally ratified, must be ratified even in violation of the law. WuitBy. Ver. 21. ἔσωθεν γὰρ x. τ. A. The defilements here mentioned ‘are, in the first place, sins committed against the second table of the Law, as murder and an evil eye against the sixth command- ment; fornication, adultery, lasciviousness, against the seventh ; theft, deceit, against the eighth; false witness and blasphemy, against the ninth; and covetouwsness against the tenth. See Rom. xii. 9. They include also the evil dispositions which incline us to these vices: as, 1. ἀφροσύνη. 2. πονηρία. 3. ὑπερηφανία. 4. διαλογισμοὶ κακοί. Of these last ἀφροσύνη is variously in- terpreted: some render it foolishness; others boasting, from 2 Cor. xi. 1. 19. xii. 6. 11.; and it is supposed to include not only a carelessness about religion but a want of reverence for the Divine Majesty. It is evidently the reverse in signification of σωφροσύνη, which usually denotes temperance, and therefore most probably implies ὦ want of command over the passions. By πονηρία, which is a general name for vice, is here more par- ticularly meant malice, as in Rom. i. 29. Of the terms ὀφθαλ- μὸς πονηρὸς and βλασφημία, see on Mait. vi. 22. 1x. 3. respec- D ὦ 404 MARK VII. 34, 35. tively. In this place the former rather denotes envy than covet- ousness ; but the two vices are nearly related, and the expression is used of envy in Deut. xv. 9. and in Prov. xxiii. 6. where the LXX has ἀνὴρ βάσκανος, and the Vulgate homo invidus. The word πλεονεξίαι denotes covetousness ; or perhaps rather, as the plural is used, énordinate desires generally: and so 2 Pet. ii. 14. Wuitsy, Grotius, CAMPBELL, &c. Ver. 34. κωφὸν μογιλάλον. E. T. One that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech. Some, however, maintain that the adjective μογιλάλος should be rendered dumb, in which sense it occurs in Exod. iv. 11. Isaiah xxxv. 6. LXX, for that the man was dumb as well as deaf appears from v. 37. and from Matt. ix. 99. Luke xi. 14. But the miracle here related is different from that referred to in Matthew and Luke; and the word ἀλά- λους, in v. 37., is rather a general expression than employed in reference to this particular case. After the cure also the man is represented as speaking plain, (ἐλάλει ὀρθῶς. ν. 35.) which clearly characterises the cure of an zmpediment, and not of a com- plete deprivation of speech; and that he was only tongue-tied, as it is called, is evident from the expression 6 δεσμὸς τῆς γλώσσης, in the same verse. Artemid. I. 52. τὸ δὲ μὴ δύνασθαι p0eyyeo0at ἢ τὴν γλώσσην δεδεμένην ἔχειν. Justin. XIII. 7. Battus, ingue nodis solutis, loqui primum ccpit. Grotius, LE Cuerc, Wer- sTEIN.—[Wuitrsy, Hammonp.| It has been asked why Christ in this, and two other of his miracles, made use of external signs, which could have nothing to do with the cure. This was no doubt intended to intimate that the power which he was about to exert resided in himself. By putting his finger on the man’s ear, he intimated, that as he appeared to have his ears closed he would exert his power to open them; and his tongue, cleaving, as it were, through drought, to the palate, he moistened it with spittle, to signify that he would loose it. Wurrsy. Ver. 35. ἐφφαθά. This word is explained by some as the imperative Hithpahel, and by others as the imp. Niphal of the Hebrew verb M5, aperutt. But it is rather Syro-Chaldaic than pure Hebrew. As our Lord pronounced the word Ephphthathach, for such is its proper sound, with a solemn and authoritative em- phasis, the Evangelist thought proper to retain it, though the last letter could not be properly expressed by any in the Greek al- phabet. The verb λύεσθαι would have been more properly ap- plied to the loosing of the tongue, but διανοίγεσθαι comes nearer to the signification of the word of which it is here given as the interpretation, and it signifies to open the mouth in Psalm xxxvili, 14. xxxix. 9. Prov. xxxi. 8. LXX. Luke i. 64. and elsewhere. ScuLEUSNER, Grotius, A. CLARKE. MARK ΕΙΣ ΤΩ 16: 22, 405 CHA PT ER Vit. Contents :—The feeding of the five thousand, vv. 1—9. | Matt. xv. 32.] Hypocrisy of the Pharisees, vv. 10—21. [Matt. xvi. 1.7 A blind man restored, vy. 22—26. Jewish opinions respecting Christ, vv. 27—30. [Matt. xvi. 13. Luke ix. 18.] Our Lord's prediction of his death and resurrection, vv. 81— 38, [Matt. xvi. 21. Luke ix. 22.] Verse 11. συζητεῖν αὐτῷ. E. T. To question with him, i. 6. to dispute with him: the ancient mode of disputation being by question and answer. Hence Aristotle enumerates among the sophisms, πλείω zowrnuata. Compare Luke ii. 46. Grorius, KUINOEL. Ver. 12. τῷ πνεύματι. This is strongly expressive of the vio- lence of his emotion, and the sorrow which he felt at their ob- duracy and hardness of heart. Compare Acts xvii. 16. In the end of the verse εἰ δοθήσεται is an elliptical form of adjuration, very common in the O. T., in which the words Let me not live, or the like, are omitted at the beginning. So in Deut. i. 35. 1 Sam. 111. 14. Psalm \xxxix. 3, 4. xev. 11. cxxxii. 2, 3. The sense is complete in Hzek. xiv. 16. LXX. Ζῶ ἐγὼ, εἰ υἱοὶ ἢ θυγα- τέρες σωθήσονται. By degrees, however, the conditional particle came to be considered merely as a negative, and hence it is ex- pressed in Matt. xii. 39. xvi. 4. Luke xi. 29. by ov. Wuirsy, CAMPBELL, MACKNIGHT. Ver. 15. ‘Howéov. Matthew couples the Sadducees with the Pharisees, and omits the mention of Herod. But Herod and the Herodians, whom Jesus in all probability meant to include with their head, seem to have belonged to the sect of the Sadducees, and that they were infected with the /eaven of hypocrisy, is evi- dent from Luke xiii. 31. Ros—ENMULLER. Ver. 22. φέρουσιν αὐτῷ τυφλὸν, k. τ. A. This miracle is re- corded only by St. Mark, and it contains three particulars worthy of notice :—1. Jesus led him out of the town, thereby declaring, that after so many mighty works had been wrought in Bethsaida without leading the people to repentance, it was undeserving of beholding any further display of the power of Christ. 2. The man upon whom the miracle was performed does not appear, as in other similar cases, to have been born blind; this is evident: from his looking up, for the purpose of ascertaining the recovery of his sight, and from his reply to our Lord’s inquiry, that his vision was indistinct and imperfect: he saw men, as trees, walk- 406 MARK VIII. 26. 31. ing; i.e. he could distinguish men from trees only by their walking: from which it is plain that the idea of a tree had been previously impressed upon his mind when in possession of his sight. A confusion of objects is mentioned by Plato as the first signs of returning vision; which, he observes, τῆς αἰσθήσεως σημεῖα παραλλάττει. The verb ἀναβλέπειν, it is true, frequently signifies in the N. T. to recover sight, and in this sense many of the commentators understand it; but in all such cases it denotes a complete recovery, as in Matt. xi. 5. xx. 34. Mark x. 51. Luke vil. 22. xviii. 41. John ix. 11.15. 18. and elsewhere, which does not hold here, as in the very next verse. it is used again, the cure being not yet complete; and the perfection of the cure is after- wards declared in the words ἀποκατεστάθη, καὶ ἐνέβλεψε τηλαυ- γῶς ἅπαντα. In this passage, therefore, it signifies simply ἕο look up; and so it is used in Matt. xiv. 19. Mark vi. 41. vii. 34, Luke ix. 16. xix. 5. Occasionally it denotes nothing more than to behold, as in Mark xii. 41. Luke xxi. 1. 3. Lastly, in giving sight to this man, Jesus did not, as on other occasions of a like nature, perform the cure znstantaneously, but by degrees. It was probably his intention to make it evident that he was not confined to one method of operation, but could dispense his mercies in whatever manner he chose. Of the use of external signs in this and other of Christ’s miracles, see on Mark vii. 34. and Horne’s Introd. Vol. I. p. 238. Grorius, CAMPBELL, Macknicut, HammMonp. Ver. 26. μηδὲ εἰς τὴν κώμην κι τ. X. Some have thought that there is an impropriety in this reading, as it seems to suppose that the man could relate the miracle to the people in the village though he did not enter it. But the words τινὶ ἐν τῇ κώμῃ are merely a periphrasis for any of the villagers ; and some of these might frequently pass his house, which, though not in Beth- saida, seems to have been at no great distance. The Vulgate, indeed, renders the passage δέ st in vicum introieris ; but this version seems to have arisen from a different reading, for which, however, there is no authority. CampBEeLL, Wuitsy, Rosen- MULLER.—[ MILL. | Ver. 31. ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι. To be rejected. There is an allusion to Psalm cxviii. 22. In other places of the LXX the Hebrew word there employed is rendered by ovdeveiv. ‘The word παῤῥησίᾳ, in the next verse, signifies plainly, i. e. without any figure of speech or parable: and so it is also used by the classic writers. Of vv. 34. sqq. see on Matt. x. 33. 38. xvi. 24. and of the word μοιχαλὶς, in v. 38., on Matt. xii. 39. Grorius. MARK IX. 8. 12. 407 CHAPTER IX. Contents :— The transfiguration, vv. 1—13. [Matt. xvii. 1. Luke ix. 28.] A deaf and dumb spirit dispossessed, vv. 14— 29. [Matt. xvii. 14. Luke ix. 37.] Christ again foretells his death and resurrection, vv. 30—52. [Matt. xvii. 22. Luke ix. 43.] Contention among the disciples, and the admonition of Christ consequent thereupon, vv. 33—50. [Matt. xvui. 1. Luke ix. 47.] Verse 8. ἐξάπινα. This word is found occasionally in the LXX: and so Jamblich. ix Protrept. 20. p. 125. μὴ ἐμφόβους ἐξάπινα καθίστασθαι. The pure Greek writers, however, always write ἐξαίφνης or ἐξαπίνης. Thom. M. οἱ ῥητορικοὶ ἐξαπίνης" τὸ δὲ ἐξάπινα οὐχ Ἑλληνικὸν ὅλως. Hom. 1]. O. 825. ἐλθόντ’ ἐξαπίνης. In v. 11. ὅτι is for διότι, quare. Compare Matt. xvil. 10. Some consider this an Hebraism, but ὅτι is sometimes found in the same sense in Greek writers. Hom. Il. A. 64. ὅς κ᾽ εἴπη, ὅτι τόσσον ἐχώσατο Φοῖβος ᾿Απόλλων. So also v. 28. infra. Arist. Plut. 19. ΚΚΎΡΚΕ, ΥΕΊΒΤΕΙΝ, PALAIRET. Ver. 12. καὶ πῶς γέγραπται κι τ. Δ. This passage has been a source of considerable difficulty to the commentators. Accord- ing to the rules of construction, no proper meaning can be ad- duced from the words as they now stand. Instead of καὶ πῶς several good MSS. read καθὼς, which Michaelis supposes is the gloss of some transcriber, who placed it in the margin as the in- terpretation of Mark’s indifferent Greek. Bishop Marsh, how- ever, observes that πῶς occurs fourteen times in the Gospel, and always in its proper sense; and accordingly, he would receive καθὼς as the true reading. But even upon this supposition the sense of the passage does not seem to be elicited; nor does the explanation of Grotius appear more satisfactory: And how then, if this be true, can Christ suffer according to the Scriptures ? Perhaps some light may be thrown upon the question by a re- ference to the parallel place in St. Matthew. It thence appears that the fate of John the Baptist and of Christ are contrasted with each other; and the substance of this clause and of the following verse are transposed. By a similar transposition in this place, and by reading καὶ οὕτως, as in Matthew, instead of καὶ πῶς, the two’Evangelists would precisely coincide, and the connection and drift of the argument would be plain and intelligible. In v. 15, the clause καθὼς γέγραπται ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν must be understood of the coming not the sufferings of the Baptist, as these latter are no- where predicted in the O. T. Instances of similar transposition are not unfrequent. Compare Gen. xiii. 10. Ewod. xii, 15. 408 MARK IX. 16. 18. 22. Cant. I. 5. Mark xii. 12. xvi. 3, 4. Acts viii. 7. Rom. 1. 18. Wuitpy. Ver. 16. τί συζητεῖτε. From the reply of the man in the fol- lowing verses it appears that the Scribes were disputing with the disciples respecting the cure of the youth, which they had unsuc- cessfully attempted. See on the parallel place in Matthew. MAcKNIGHT. Ver. 18. ῥήσσει αὐτόν. E.T. teareth him. But the verb ῥήσσειν has two significations; 1. To break or rend, as in Matt. vil. 6. ix. 17. Mark ii. 22. Luke v. 37.: and 2. 70 throw down, as in Luke vi. 49. Compare Matt. vii. 25. 27. Wisd. iv. 19. LXX. ρήξει αὐτοὺς πρηνεῖς. Artemid. Oneir. I. 62. ρῆξαι τὸν ἀντίπαλον. Horapoll. II. 57. βήσσει ἑαυτὸν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν. So in this passage it is rightly interpreted by Huthymius, καταβάλλει εἰς γῆν. Hesych. ῥῆξαι" διελεῖν, καταβαλεῖν. The Hebrew 0777, rendered in other places ῥηγνύναι, is expressed by καταβάλλειν in Job xii. 14. Ezek. xxvi. 4.12, LXX. At v. 20. δόξα ex- plains ἐσπάραξεν by pnEev, but see on Mark i. 22. The verb ξηραίνεσθαι signifies not only to be dried up, and thence to pine away, as in Zech. xi. 17. LXX, but also to swoon or faint. So Isaiah xxxvii. 27. Zech. x. 2. Wuitsy, WEtTsTEIN, GROTIus. Ver, 22. ἀλλ᾽ εἴ τι δύνασαι. Some imagine that this expres- sion does not imply doubt, but denotes simply κατὰ δύναμιν, in which sense it occurs in Hom. 1]. A. 393. Thucyd. VI. 25. Herod. VIII. 57. Soph. Aj. 329. and elsewhere in classical Greek. But the whole tenor of the narrative is at variance with such an interpretation, and it is very probable that the failure of ‘the disciples in working the cure, and the encreasing violence of his paroxysms as the dzmoniac approached Christ, contri- buted to produce that weakness of faith which dictated the words in question. The particle ἀλλὰ is frequently, as here, redun- dant in petitions. So Arist. Pac. 266. Acharn. 578. 582. Vesp. 459. Lysist. 747. Plut. 1203. And so tamen in Latin. Terent. And. V. 3. 23. Tamen, Simo, audi. In the following verse the insertion of the article τὸ has greatly perplexed the commentators; some maintain that it is redundant, and others that it is an inter- polation: but though it is wanting in some MSS., and is not translated in the Vulgate and other versions, the variations and omissions seem to have arisen from the grammatical obscurity of the passage. Others, again, suppose that τὶ should be substi- tuted either with or without an interrogation; and Markland yet farther, that δύνασαι should be repeated, thus: τί, εἰ δύνασαι; δύνασαι πιστεῦσαι; κι τ. A. It has been conjectured also that the sentence is elliptical, and may be thus supplied: τὸ, εἰ δύνα- σαι, πιστεῦσαι βοηϑέδεὶ σοί. But whatever ingenuity there may MARK ΙΧ, 24. 35. 409 be in these several opinions, they are for the most part equally unauthorized and unsatisfactory. Our Lord evidently alludes to the wavering faith exhibited in the words εἴ τὶ δύνασαι, with which the father had qualified his entreaty. In reference to this the article τὸ is put absolutely, with the preposition κατὰ under- stood; and thus runs the sense of the passage: As to this matter, i.e. my ability to perform the cure, ¢f you are able to believe, all things are in my power, for the good of him that believeth. Of the dativus commodi see Matt. Gr. Gr. §. 387. Kurnoet, Ro- pire Cn agra PauaIrReT, Grotius, KNATCHBULL, Ὁ: Ver. 24. ἀπιστίᾳ. E. T. unbelief. It is evident, however, from the preceding clause, that a total want of faith is not in- tended, but merely a deficient or wavering faith. In the next verse, and no less than eight times out of nine in this Gospel, the verb ἐπετίμησε is rendered in the Vulgate comminatus est ; but in all the other Gospels it is rendered in conformity with the E. T., which has rebuked. That the verb will not admit this sense, viz. to threaten, is evident from its being sometimes adopted to the wind, the sea, &c. to which, as including the idea of punishment, it cannot be so applied even in a prosopopeia. Sometimes too, as in this very place, the very words of the ἐπιτί- pore are given, and never do they contain any thing of the nature of a menace. The verb is even used to express St. Peter’s rebuke of his Master in Matt. xvi. 22.; and Euthymius, on Matt. xii. 16., explains it by παραγγέλλειν. In short, the only terms for threat in the Gospels is ἀπειλὴ and its derivatives. CampsELt. In v. 25. also the pronoun ἐγὼ is emphatic, as marking the superior and self-exerted power of Christ above that of his disciples, who had failed in their attempt to eject t demons. The paroxysm which succeeded the command of Chris is recorded as a proof that the cure had not been previously effected; and our Lord added the prohibition that he should enter no more into him, \est an impression should remain that the fit had naturally subsided, and would return again at the end of the month. Werstetn, A. CLARKE. Ver. 35. εἴτις θέλει κι τι X. See on Matt. xx. 26. and of wv. 37. 41. on Matt. x. 40. 42. Between these last verses the ob- servation of John seems to have been inserted out of its proper connection. It has been supposed that the man who is repre- sented by him as ejecting devils in the name of Christ was one of the seventy disciples, who had given up his commission after their return, and retired from the company of the other disciples, though he still held fast his faith in Christ. Others suppose that he was only partially converted, but that an efficacy was allowed to his adjurations, which was withdrawn after the descent of the 410 | MARK IX. 41. 44 Holy Ghost. It seems more likely that he was one of the Bap- tist’s disciples, who had been led by his master to believe in Jesus: and it would be no small proof of the truth of Chris- tianity, both to himself and to others, that the name of Christ was thus powerful even among those who did not follow him, and therefore could do nothing in compact with him. For that the miracle was actually performed is evident from the whole tenor of the narrative. If he stedfastly believed, however, that Jesus was the Christ, it is difficult to give a reason for his keeping aloof from his disciples. At all events it cannot be supposed that a man who knew nothing of Christ, or one so abandoned as the Jewish exorcists, could have been allowed to work a miracle in his name. The proverb in vy. 40. is the reverse of that in Matt. xii. 50., but that it is equally true, see the note there. He that does not oppose our endeavours to subvert the kingdom of Satan, but rather pursues the same end with us, cannot be against us, but is rather for us; and he that so sensibly feels the power of my name cannot speak evil of me. Wuirsy, A. Crarxe.—[Grortius, Dopprinee. | Ver. 41. ὅτι Χριστοῦ ἐστε. Scil. μαθηταί. From the note on Matt. i. 18. it should seem that Χριστοῦ in this place, without the article, 15 aproper name. The more general use of the word in the N. T., and especially in the Gospels, is unquestionably as an appellative descriptive of office or dignity, and some have thought that it is never employed otherwise, except when the Evangelists themselves adopt the practice of their time. Michaelis, indeed, asserts that in the time of the Apostles the word was never used except as an epithet expressive of the ministry of Jesus. But, on this supposition, how are we to explain among other instances, om. v. 6. 1 Cor. i. 12. 23. 2 Cor. iii. 3. Gal. ii. 17. Col. iii. 24.1 Pet. i. 11., in all of which the article is omitted, and to — _ 580 the anointed is more than any of the passages will bear? Upon the whole it can scarcely be doubted, that even during our Saviour’s life Χριστὸς had become a proper name, though its ap- pellative use was more frequent. Compare especially Matt. xxvii. 17. 22, with Matt. x. 2. An expression similar to that of this passage occurs in 1 Cor. iii. 23. ὑμεῖς δὲ Χριστοῦ, Χριστὸς δὲ Θεοῦ: where Χριστὸς is clearly a proper name. MippLETON.— [CampBELL, MicHae is. ] - Ver. 44. ὅπου ὃ σκώληξ x. τ. AX. This expression is taken from Isaiah \xvi. 24. where the prophet is describing the mi- serable end of hardened and impenitent sinners. From Isaiah the allusion has been borrowed in Heclus. vii. 17. Judith xvi. 17. As our Lord is here speaking of Gehenna, which was looked upon by the Jews as an emblem of the place of torment, it may be that the metaphor here employed is connected throughout with MARK IX. 49. 411 this idea. In detestation of the odious sacrifices which the idol- atrous Jews had there offered to Moloch, Josiah had caused the Valley of Hinnom to be desecrated by dead carcases ; and the al- lusion has been supposed to refer to the fire which consumed the victims, and to the worms which preyed upon the carcases. But the reign of Josiah was prior to the age of Isaiah, and it is therefore more probable that the prophet alludes to the two dif- ferent modes in use among the Jews of disposing of their dead ; by one of which the body is consumed by worms in the grave, and by the other burnt with fire. From these sensible images our Lord describes Hel/, as trom those of resting in Abraham’s bosom, &c. he described Heaven. There has been much con- tention also among the learned respecting the nature of this fire and worm, whether they be real and material, or whether they denote the worm of conscience and the fire of sharp burning pain. The Fathers are greatly divided on this point, and the same Father often differs from himself, particularly St. Jerome and St. Austin. It has even been affirmed, that though the worm is metaphorical the fire is unquestionably material. This confu- sion, however, of trope and letter can scarcely be admitted ; and as the constant phraseology of Scripture plainly declares that the bodies of the wicked shall be tormented in everlasting fire, as’ in Matt. iii, 10. 12. x. 28. xxv. 45. John xv. 6. 2 Thess. i. 8. 2 Pet. iii. 10. Jude 7., the probability is in favour of the literal sense. In this sense the Jews would certainly have understood our Lord, for the Targum, on Gen. xv. 17. represents Gehenna as a fur- nace sparkling and flaming with fire, into which the wicked fall : and on Ecclus. viii. 10. ix. 15. x. 11. it speaks of the fire of Hell, and of the wicked who shall go to be burned in Hell. At all events the punishment will be eternal. On this our Lord, both here and every where, is remarkably explicit; nor could he be otherwise understood by the Jews, who had always held that the punishment of the wicked in Hell would be eternal. Accord- — ing to Joseph. B. J. 11. 12. Ant. XVIII. 2. the Pharisees main- tained that the wicked would be tormented ἀϊδίᾳ τιμωρίᾳ, and that an eternal prison, (εἰργμὸς ἀΐδιος,) was prepared for them. Philo also (de prem et pen. p.713, 6.) observes that their fate is ζῇν ἀποθανόντας ast, to live for ever dying ; and διαιωνίζειν ἐν ἀλγηδόσι, καὶ ἀνίαις, καὶ συμφοραῖς ἀδιαστάτοις. MACKNIGHT, Le Crierc, Doppripcr.—[Wuitsy, τη, Grorius. ] Ver. 49. πᾶς γὰρ πυρὶ x. τ. X. This is confessedly one of the most difficult passages in the N. T.; and it is scarcely possible to satisfy oneself, much less to direct others, in selecting that in- terpretation which is liable to the least objection. The Codex Beze is without the first clause of the verse, and some other MSS. omit the second; but the authorities in favour of entire genuineness are indisputable. Bates! supposes that the con-— 1 419 MARK IX. 49. clusion of the chapter has been inserted from some other place in the Gospel, to which it properly belongs ; but for this supposition again there is no authority, nor has any more appropriate context been pointed out. Besides, various interpretations have been given by the commentators, which, however uncertain, are not improbable ; and the main difficulty lies in determining to which of the two preceding verses our Lord’s declaration refers. If it _ refers to v. 47. πᾶς must be understood generally of every Chris- tian, i. e. every one who plucks out the offending eye, and mor- tifies the evil inclinations of his heart; and those who advocate this side of the question have proposed one or other of the fol- lowing explanations: 1. Every Christian is salted or purified with fire, 1. e. by the fiery trials and sorrows of life; 2 the same manner as every sacrifice is salted with salt. See Levit. ii. 13. The particle καὶ in the sense of ὡς is not unfrequent, as in Mark x. 12. John xiv. 20. and elsewhere. Salt was used in sacrifices on account of its seasoning and preserving qualities, as an emblem of that purity and persevering fidelity which are necessary in the worshippers of God. 2. Every Christian shall be salted with fire, i. e. shall be purified by the Holy Ghost, as every sacrifice, &c. Compare Matt. iii. 11. Acts ui. 3. 3. Every Christian shall be salted for the fire, scil. of God’s altar, i. e. shall be pre- pared by the Apostles’ doctrine to be offered a holy and lively sacrifice unto God. So 2 Pet. iil. 7. πυρὶ τηρούμενοι, reserved for the fire. On the other hand there are those who understand πᾶς of every wicked man, i.e. of those whose worm dieth not, &c. This connection seems to be pointed out by the particle yao: and here also there are various interpretations, of which it will be sufficient to notice one or two of the most remarkable. 1. Every wicked man shall be consumed by fire, as every sa- crifice is salted with salt, In defence of this rendering it is urged that the Hebrew 71", which signifies properly ¢o salt, denotes also to collie, as in Isaiah li. 6.; and that in this ambiguity of signification the emphasis of the comparison lies. 2. Every sinner shall be salted with fire, but every sacrifice, (i. 6. every true Christian, Rom. xii. 1.) shall be seasoned with the salt of grace to the incorruption of glory. 3. Every sinner shall be salted with fire, so as to become imperishable, as every sacrifice, &c. This, after all, is perhaps the best explanation, which depends upon the property of salt to preserve things from corruption. Hence our Lord may be supposed to mean, that as salt preserves the flesh with which it is connected from corrup- tion, so this everlasting fire will make those cast into it as éncon- sumable as itself. There seems to be a transition from the men- tion of wnquenchable fire to the fire on the altar, which was never extinguished ; then to the sacrifices on the altar; from these to the salt, and thence to the peace and friendship (v. 50.) of which, as well as of purity, of incorruption, and of wisdom it is some- MARK X. 6. 12. 413 times the emblem. Hence, to have eaten a man’s salt is consi- dered in the East to this day a bond of indissoluble attachment. See Harmer’s Obss. Vol. IV. p. 458. Of the precept in the next verse see on Matt. vy. 13. It has been proposed for πᾶς πυρὶ to read πᾶσα πυρία, every wheaten sacrifice ; but there is no such word as πυρία ἴῃ Greek, and if there was nothing is gained by the alteration. Wuitpy, A. CLARKE, Grotius, Le Cierc, Licut- Foot.—{GiLPin, Ros—ENMULLER, Macxnicut, &c. | CHAPTER X. ConTENTs :— The question of divorce, vv. 1—12. [Matt. xix. 3.] Christ blesses little children, vv. 13—16. [Matt. xix. 13. Luke xviii. 15.] The young ruler, and the dangers of wealth, wv. 17—31. [Matt. xix. 16. Luke xviii. 18.] Christ again pre- dicts his death and passion, vv. 32—34. [Matt. xx. 17. Luke xviii. 31.] Ambition of the sons of Zebedee, vv. 9--- 45. [Matt. xx. 20.] Blind Bartimeus, vv. 46—52. [Matt. xx. 29. Luke xviii. 35. ] Verse 6. κτίσεως. This word is found in all the MSS. except the Alexandrian, and almost all the versions. It cannot there- fore be suspected from not appearing in Matt. xix. 4. as ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς conveys the same sense, and Matthew is more likely to have omitted, than Mark to have added, a word in our Lord’s discourse. WHITBY. Ver. 12. καὶ ἐὰν γυνὴ κι τ. Δ. The practice of divorcing the husband, unwarranted by the law, had been, according to Joseph. Ant. XV. 7. 10., introduced by Salome, sister of Herod the Great, who sent a bill of divorce to her husband, Costobarus : which bad example was afterwards followed by Herodias and others. In this they were probably instructed by the Roman women, who, in this age, carried the practice to a most scandalous extent. See Juv. Sat. VI. 222. and compare 1 Sam. xxv. 44. 1 Cor. vii. 195. By law, it was the husband’s prerogative to di- vorce the wife; and the bill, which she received, was an evidence that she had not deserted her husband, but that he had parted from her, and left her free. Christ, however, puts both parties on the same level, and makes adultery in one as great an offence as in the other. It is clear also from this text that polygamy is unlawful, for adultery does not consist in the repudiation of the first wife, however unjust and cruel such repudiation may be, but in entering into a second marriage during the legal existence of the first. CAMPBELL, Doppripcr, Wuitsy, PALey. 414. MARK ν 19. 21. Ver. 19. μὴ ἀποστερήσῃς. The tenth commandment, as ren- dered by the LXX, and cited by St. Paul in Rom. vii. 7., is μὴ ἐπιθυμήσεις ; and as cited in Matt. xix. 19., thou shalt love thy = neighbour as thyself. With Matthew also agree Joseph. Mace. 3. and R. Tranchuma, p. 167, 2.; and it seems to have been a scruple with the Jews to quote the Decalogue either in the exact words or the exact order. Joseph. Ant. III. 5.4. λέγων, ode Mwioie ἐν ταῖς δύο πλάξιν γεγραμμένους κατέλιπεν" οὺς ov θε- μιτόν ἐστιν ἡμῖν λέγειν φανερῶς πρὸς λέξιν, τὰς δὲ δυνάμεις ad- τῶν δηλώσομεν. Compare Rom. xiii. 9. Under ἀποστερεῖν St. Mark includes all those secret acts of fraud or injustice which are not included in the foregoing prohibitions, and with which the law cannot interfere. The verb itself is used with considerable latitude in the Scriptures, as implying any act of injustice gene- rally. Hence it is nearly synonymous with ἀδικεῖν in 1 Cor. vi. 8. and properly employed by the LXX. to render the Hebrew pwy, in Lev. vi. 2. It imports also the detention of any thing when it is due, the injustice of which is expressed in the forensic maxim, Minus solvit qui tempore minus solvit. From the dif- ferent forms in which the commandment is given by the Evan- gelists and St. Paul it is fair to conclude that it contains the importance of them all ; obliging us to rest satisfied with our own condition, and to think others as worthy of enjoying what belongs to them as we are of enjoying what belongs to us. WETSTEIN, Hammonp, Wuitsy, Grortius. Ver. 21. ἠγάπησεν αὐτόν. There is considerable diversity of opinion respecting the meaning of the verb ἀγαπᾷν in this place. Some suppose that it is employed to indicate some outward ges- ture by which Christ manifested his ‘approbation both of the question and the reply of the young man. The Rabbins fre- quently employed some token of this sort, as a kiss, an inclina- tion of the head, or the like, to signify their admiration of a disciple’s conduct. But in these cases the Talmudic verb specifies the particular action. Thusin Horaioth, p. 48,3. R. Abba Bar Catina heard R. Levi disputing profoundly, and when he had made an end R. Abba rose up, and kissed his head. In Psalm Ixxviii. 36. the expression ἀγαπᾷν ἐν στόματι signifies to flatter, whence it has been thought that the verb here has a similar sense, and that Christ praised the youth tronically, knowing him to be a covetous and worldly-minded man, ‘This interpreta- tion, however, proceeds upon the supposition that the young ruler was insincere, which is highly improbable: not to mention that irony would scarcely have been used by our Lord in a ques- tion of such serious importance. Besides, in the passage cited, the meaning of the verb is settled by the addition of ἐν στόματι, which alone could authorize its usage in so uncommon an ac- ceptation. ‘There are yet other senses more or less unsatisfac- MARK X..26. 30. 415 tory, which have been affixed to the verb in this instance; and after all, the E. T. seems to be not only the least objectionable, but the most natural and appropriate. He loved him, i. e. he was well pleased with him, scéd. because of his youth, his earnest- ness, and his sincerity. He was unwilling, it is true, to give the test which our Lord subsequently required of him; but hitherto his life had been passed in strict obedience to the law, and so far he was praiseworthy, though he afterwards manifested too strong an attachment to the world. The citations from Psalm cxvi. 1. Isaiah \x. 10. LXX, which are adduced in support of the inter- pretation first stated, are more applicable to this last; and to these we may add, with all reverence, the heavenly voice in Matt. il. 17, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητὸς, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα. WHIT- BY, A, Cyuarke, Macxnicut. —[Licutroor, ΕἼΒΝΕΒ, &c.] The import of the verb στυγνάζειν, in the next verse, as applied to a sorrowful and dejected countenance, will be abundantly illus- trated by the following examples. Eustath. Ismen. IV. p. 98. συνέχει THY ὀφρὺν, στυγνάζει τὸ πρόσωπον. Eurip. Hipp. 290. στυγνὴν ὀφρὺν λύσασα. Alcest. 782. στυγνῷ προσώπῳ καὶ συν- ὠφρυωμένῳ. Diog. Laert. VII. 1, 18. στυγνὸν καὶ τὸ πρόσω- πον συνεσπασμένον. See also my note on Soph. Ant. 528. Pent. Gr. p. 246. WersTEIn, ΚΎΡΚΕ. Ver. 26. καὶ τίς δύναται σωθῆναι; Matt. xix. 25. τίς ἄρα; But καὶ τίς, which is by some taken for a Hebraism, occurs in the _ same sense in the best writers. Herod. III. 140. καὶ τίς ἐστι “Ἑλλήνων εὐεργέτης ; Arist. Pac. 123. καὶ τίς πόρος σοὶ τῆς ὁδοῦ γενήσεται; Sov. 834, Acharn. 86, Φ]1Δη. II. 31. VIII. 16. Arrian, Alex. V. 2. 4. Epict. 1V. 4. e¢ alibi. Wertstetn, Ens- NER, Bos.—[Grottvs.] Ver. 30. οἰκίας, καὶ ἀδελφοὺς, x. τι A. Two difficulties have been pointed out in this passage: the first in the promise itself, - the second in the Zimétation, μετὰ διωγμῶν. With respect to the first, the declaration that the sincere Christian shall receive a hundredfold houses, and brothers, &c. seems to imply that the compensation shall be zm kind. Hence the impious sneer of Julian, who asked whether the Christian was to get a hundred wives. But, not to mention that the word γυναικὰς does not ap- ᾿ pear in this to correspond with γυναῖκα in the preceding verse, it is clear that the promise is not to be taken “terally : it plainly implies, that those who forsake all for the sake of Christ shall find among genuine Christians spéritual relatives, who shall be as dear to them as fathers, mothers, &c.; and in this sense, es- pecially in the Apostolic age, the promise of receiving a hundred fold may have been even literally fulfilled. For the disciples, as they travelled from place to place, were admitted by the brethren to the shelter of their houses and the product of their lands, and , 416 MARK X. 32. 42. 46. 50. welcomed with every token of friendship and filial affection. As_ to the qualifying words, μετὰ διωγμῶν, a promise regarding things merely temporal, accompanied with persecutions, has been considered as illusory, and compared to the feast which was given by Dionysius to Damocles, at the same time that a sword was suspended by a hair over his head. Hence, some have suggested that μετὰ should be rendered after; but as this sense is ex- tremely rare with a genitive, others would read διωγμὸν, with Theophylact. But the idea of temporal blessings, during the time of persecution, is by no means inconsistent with the state of the church militant, wherein the godly are always, in some shape or other, exposed to persecution : hence there is no authority for rejecting the passage altogether, as some have wished ; or to alter it, as others. See the parallel place in Matt. xix. 29. and com- pare 2 Cor. vii. 4. James i. ἢ. Le Cierc, Dopprines, A. CLAaRKE.—[WETSTEIN, CAMPBELL, Pearce, ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ, Rosen- MULLER. | : >? Ver. 32. ἐθαμίοῦντο, κι τ. A. This wonder and fear is ascribed by some to the prediction which Christ now delivers of his death and passion; the words καὶ παραλα[βὼν being rendered for he took. Examples of καὶ in this sense are found in Lwke i. 22. John xii.. 35. and elsewhere. But it should seem that his going to Jerusalem was the cause of their terror, where the San- hedrim had already endeavoured to apprehend him, John xi. 53. 57. Wuirsy, Grotius.—[A. CuarkE. | Ver. 42. οἱ δοκοῦντες ἄρχειν. The participle is here redun- dant. Matt. xx. 25. οἱ ἄρχοντες. Luke xxii. 25. οἱ βασιλεῖς. Compare also 1 Cor. vii. 40. xl. 16. xii. 23. xiv. 37. Phil. iii. 4. Epict. Ench. XXX. 11. τῶν ἐν ὑπεροχῇ δοκούντων. Polyb. I. 5. τοὺς δοκοῦντας ἀδικεῖν. ABlian. V. H. X. 15. δοκοῦντες διαφέ- oev. See also on Matt. iii. 9. Dopprincr, Wuirsy, Pa- LAIRET. Ver, 46. υἱὸς Τιμαίου Βαρτίμαιος. Some suppose that the Evangelist is here guilty of tautology; but probably an interpre- tation of the name Bartimeus is intended, the words τοῦτ᾽ ἐστι being understood, as in Abba, Father, which occurs oftener than once. Licurroot, CAMPBELL. With προσαιτῶν there is an ellipsis of βίον, as in Job xx. 14. LXX. So Arist. Acharn. 429. χωλὸς προσαιτῶν. The omission is supplied in Eurip. Helen. 512.792. KypxeE. Ver, ὅθ. ἀποβαλὼν τὸ ἱμάτιον. Scil. that he might run the faster. Hom. Il. B. 183. βῆ δὲ θέειν, ἀπὸ δὲ χλαῖναν βάλε. Eustath. in loc. ἵνα ἐν τῷ θέειν ῥᾷον τρέχοι. WeTsTEIN. Of the title Rabboni, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. ILI. p. 482. MARK ΧΙ. 4. 10. 19. ALT CHAPTER XI. ConTENTS:—Christ’s entry into Jerusalem, vv. 1—11. [Matt. xxi. 1. Luke xix. 29. John xii. 12.] The barren fig-tree cursed, vv. 12—14, [Matt. xxi. 18.] The Temple purged, vv. 15—18. [Matt. xxi. 12. Luke xix. 45.] The fig-tree withered, vv. 19—26. [Matt. xxi. 29.] Christ refuses to tell the Chief Priest by what authority he acted, vv. 27—33. [Matt. xxi. 23. Luke xx. 1.] Verse 4, ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀμφόδους. In bivio; or perhaps merely near the street. The word does not occur again in the N. T., but so it is used in Prov. i. 20. Jerem. xi. 13. Amos v. 16. LXX. Hesych. adupoda’ ai ῥύμαι, ἀγυιαὶ, διόδοι. Suid. ἄμφοδον᾽ δίο- δον, ῥύμην. The noun στοι[θὰς, in v. 8., or as itis more generally written, στι[ὰς, signifies more properly a bed of leaves. See my note on Hom. H. ὦ. 670. Hesych. στιβάς" ἀπὸ ῥάβδων ἢ yAw- ρῶν χόρτων στρῶσις καὶ φύλλων. Hence the verb στι[βαδοκοικεῖν in Polyb. II. 17. Here, however, it denotes simply /eaves, though with a reference to their being strawed on the ground. Compare Matt. xxi. 8. ScHLEUSNER, WETSTEIN. Ver. 10. ἡ ἐρχομένη βασιλεία x. τ. X. The kingdom of David is the kingdom which God was now about to erect according to his promise made to David. In several of the principal MSS. and versions the words ἐν ὀνόματι Κύριου are wanting, and their insertion between [βασιλεία and its regimen τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν gives them very much the appearance of an interpolation. Be- sides, the phrase ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι Κυρίου, in the preceding verse, may very easily have given rise to an inadvertent repeti- tion of it in this. There is, therefore, some reason for rejecting these words, but none for rejecting the whole clause. Wuutrsy, Grotius, Mini, GRIESBACH. Ver. 13. οὐ γὰρ ἦν καιρὸς σύκων. E. Τὶ, For the time of figs was not yet. Did Christ then curse the tree because it had not figs before the time of figs? To solve the difficulty it has been proposed to read οὗ instead of οὐ : but the translation thus affixed to the passage, where he was it was the season of figs, is ex- tremely harsh and intricate, and irreconcilable with the general simplicity of the N. T. writers; not to mention that the sentence thus rendered would affix to the words, without any assignable reason, a sense precisely contrary to that which they now bear. Neither is there any authority for translating καιρὸς σύκων, a good year for figs, or a good country for figs; and if it could be proved that καιρὸς was ever so used, it cannot be supposed that the Evangelist would have applied it in a sense so artificial and VOL. I. Ee 418 MARK ΧΙ. 16. extraordinary. The fact is, that the expression καιρὸς δύκων denotes the season for gathering figs. So Matt. xxi. 34. 6 καιρὸς τῶν καρπῶν. Compare Job ν. 26. Psalm i. 3. LXX. Mark xii. 2. Luke xx. 10. And this, indeed, coincides with the interpretation which a reader would naturally give it. The declara- tion however, that the season of figs was not yet come, cannot be, as the order of the words would lead one at first to imagine, the reason why there was nothing but leaves on the tree; for the fig- tree has the property of forming its fruit before the leaves ap- pear. Hence the words καὶ ἐλθὼν x. τ. A. must be read in a pa- renthesis; and thus the appearance of the tree in full foliage, together with the fact that fig harvest had not yet arrived, would justify the expectation of finding fruit on the tree; and the dis- appointment of this expectation could only have proceeded from the barrenness of the tree. Parentheses of this kind are not without example, and there is one precisely similar in Mark xvi. 3,4. Compare Gen. xiii. 10. Nwmb. xiii. 20. 23. Luke xx. 19. John i. 14. It has been objected, indeed, that, at all events, the figs at this time of the year, in the beginning of the month Nisan, (March or April,) must have been so unripe as to be totally unfit to eat. But it frequently happens in Barbary, and of course in the hotter climate of Judea, that some of the more forward and vigorous trees will occasionally yield a few ripe figs six weeks or more before the full season, which are esteemed a great dainty. Something like this may be alluded to in Hos, ix. 10. See Shaw's Travels, p. 342. Compare also Isaiah xxviii. 4. Camp- BELL, Macxnicut, ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ, Wertstern, Ros—ENMULLER.— [Hernstus, Hammonp, Micuae tts, &c. | Ver. 16. ἵνα τὶς διενέγκῃ σκεῦος, The Hebrew word 55, keli, which properly signifies a vessel, is employed with consi- derable latitude in the O. T.: it denotes arms in Jer. xxi. 4. Ezek, ix. 1., clothes, Deut. xxii. 5., and musical instruments, Psalm \xxi. 22. Hence, it is likely that the meaning of the word σκεῦος is equally comprehensive, and intended to include any article of traffic whatsoever. In this prohibition, however, our Lord merely enforced the received doctrine of the Jews ; for to this effect they interpreted Levit, xix. 30. Deut. xii. 5. as it appears from Josephus, adv. Apion. p. 1066. The Talmud also, in Jevamoth, p. 6, 2. explains the reverence of the Temple to mean that none go into it with his staff, and his shoes, and his purse, and dust upon his feet ; and that none make it a common thoroughfare, or a place of spitting. It may be that the abuses, which had now risen to a great height, were in some measure in- creased by the proximity of the Castle of Antonia, as the markets held in the Temple would be very convenient for the garrison, which was there stationed. Ligurroot, ΥΕΊΒΤΕΙΝ, KuUINOEL, RosENMULLER. MARK XI. 17. 21, 22. 419 Ver. 17. πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι. The E. T. has given this passage as if the words had been ὑπὸ πάντων τῶν ἔθνων; and this is more remarkable, as in the translation of Isaiah lvi. 7. it is cor- rectly rendered for all people. As the court of the Gentiles, which was the part of the Temple more generally profaned, was designed for the devout of all nations, the Temple itself was justly styled a@ house of prayer for all nations ; and upon this principle our Lord commanded that no part of it was to be dese- crated. CAMPBELL, HAMMOND. Ver. 21. κατηράσω. The use of this verb, which the E. T. renders to curse, has afforded occasion for cavil, as conveying an idea very unsuited to the character of our Lord. But the expres- sion which our Lord made use of on the occasion, supra, v. 14., was in every respect becoming, and St. Peter merely follows the Jewish mode of speaking in reference to things which have be- come worthless and unprofitable. Compare Heb. vi. 8. Mack- NIGHT. Ver. 22. πίστιν Θεοῦ. That is, faith in God, the genitive Θεοῦ being put for εἰς τὸν Θεόν. The noun πίστις is frequently used with the genitive of the object precisely in this manner. Compare Acts iii. 16. Rom. iii. 22. 26. Gal. ii. 16. 20. 11. 22. Phil. iii. 9. So also ἐλπὶς, 1 Thess. i. 3. Some, however, un- derstand the expression as a mere Hebraism, denoting a strong faith ; and it is common in the Jewish idiom to use the name of God with a substantive to denote great, mighty, excellent ; or with an adjective as the sign of the superlative. See 1 Sam. xiv. 15. Isaiah xxix. 1. Exod. iii. 1. and elsewhere. But the sub- stantives so employed, with which alone we are concerned, are always names either of real substances, as mountain, cedar, lion, city; or of visible effects, as wrestling, trembling, and the like ; never of any abstract quality, as fazth, hope, justice, &c. The received translation, therefore, is unquestionably correct. Camp- BELL, Grotius, Kurnoet.—[Prarce, A. Crarxe.] Of the phrase ἔσται ὑμῖν, in v. 24., see on Matt. xviii. 19. and of the two following verses on Matt. vi. 5. 12. vil. 7. xviii. 21. sqq. Some MSS. and versions omit v. 26., and in others two verses are added from Matt. vii. 7, 8. The origin of these variations is easily perceptible. 420 MARK XII. 4. 12. 26. CHAPTER XII. Contents :—Parable of the vineyard, vv. \—12. [Matt. xxi. 33. Luke xx. 9.] The tribute-money, vv. 13—17. [Matt. xxii. 15. Luke xx. 20.] Christ's reply to the Sadducees respecti the resurrection, vv. 18—27. [Matt. xxii. 23. Luke xx. 27 His answer to the Pharisees, vv. 23—34,. [Matt. xxii. 34] and his enquiry respecting the Messiah, vv. 35—37. [Matt. xxii. 41. Luke xx. 41.] His caution against the Scribes, vv. 38—40. [Matt. xxiii. 1. Luke xx. 45.] Zhe widow's mite, vv. 41—44, [Luke xxi. 1.] Verse 4. λιθοβολήσαντες ἐκεφαλαίωσαν. E. T. At him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head; i. 6. they wounded him in the head with stones. This is no doubt the sense of the passage, although the commentators are greatly divided in the meaning of the verb κεφαλαιοῦν. In Rom. xiii. 9. the compound ἀνακεφαλαιοῦν signifies to sum up, to comprise; and so it has been proposed to render it here, to this effect, they threw stone after stone at him. But the parallel word in Luke is τραυματί- Zev, which favours the received translation. Others would trans- late it to load with insult. So Theophylact: συνετέλεσαν καὶ ἐκορύφωσαν τὴν UBow. This meaning, however, is totally un- supported and unsatisfactory. The interpretations to shave the head, scil. in derision, to beset with sticks, &c. need only be no- ticed in order to their refutation ; and to despatch is contrary to the tenor of the narrative. It is true that there is no positive classical authority for the sense above assigned to it, but analogy is altogether in its favour. Thus we have γαστρίζειν, to strike in the belly, and μηρίζειν, to strike on the thigh. Diog. Laert. VII. p- 544. εἰ ὃ εἰς τὴν γαστέρα τύπτων γαστρίζει, Kal 6 εἰς τοὺς μη- ροὺς τύπτων μηρίζει. Compare Arist. Equit. 273. 454. Vesp. 1529. Hence κεφαλαιοῦν, to strike on the head, and this signi- fication is confirmed by Arist. Ran. 854. κεφαλαίῳ τὸν κρόταφον ῥήματι θένων. Wuitsy, CAMPBELL, ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ,, SCHLEUSNER.— [Ligntroot, WAKEFIELD, ALBERTI, &c. ] Ver. 12. πρὸς αὐτούς. Against them. So Luke xx. 19., but Matt. xxi. 45. περὶ αὐτῶν. The preposition πρὸς has the same import in Judg. xii. 3. Isatah xxxii. 6. Ezek, xiii. 9. LXX. Acts xxiii. 30. xxvi. 14. Ephes. vi. 11. Heb. xii. 4. Wuitsy. Ver. 26. ἐπὶ τῆς βάτου. See on Mark ii. 26. In the next verse there is a great variety in the reading, arising probably from an apparent difficulty in the construction of the article. The words ὁ θεὸς νεκρῶν could not be tolerated in regimen ; MARK XII. 29. 41. 421 but there is evidently an ellipsis of another Θεὸς before νεκρῶν, which is supplied in Matt. xxii. 32. Instead, therefore, of omitting the article with some MSS., and making the proposi- tion exclusive, There is no God, &c. it seems more accurate with others to omit Θεὸς before ζώντων, which seems to have crept in from the margin. MippLeToN, GRIESBACH. ἡ Ver. 29. Κύριος 6 Θεὸς x. τ. A. Some would render this clause as two sentences: the Lord is our God; the Lord ts one. It is true that the verb substantive is wholly omitted in the He- brew of Deut. vi. 4., but the construction in the Greek, with ἐστιν in the last member, does not favour this construction; and in the original the idiom οἵ the language will not permit the se- paration of the words ΤΟΝ M7. Rennevi.—[Campsett. ] Mark, as writing more especially for the Gentiles, has quoted the precept more at large than St. Matthew. The answer of the Scribe also, and our Lord’s reply in v. 32. sqq., are only recorded by this Evangelist. With the former we may compare the Tal- mudic Tract Succa, p. 49,2. R. Eliezer said: It is far better to give alms than to offer all oblations. By the declaration these are not far, &c. ν. 34., our Lord intimated that the lawyer had expressed sentiments which became a Christian, and such as might eventually dispose him to embrace Christianity, and make him a partaker in the privileges and promises of the Gospel. WertsteIn, Macxnicut. The vv. 38—40. correspond with Matt. xxiii. 5, 6, 7. 13. Ver. 41. γαζοφυλακίου. This word, which is of rare oc- currence, seems to denote the chests into which the money de- signed for the Temple and the sacred service was put. 'The’first mention we have of such a repository is in 2 Kings xii. 9., where it is called κιβωτόν. ‘These chests were thirteen in number, set apart for different purposes, and inscribed accordingly. See Maimonides in Shekalim, c. 2. Joseph. B. J. V. 14. Antiq. XIX. 5. and Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. pp. 183. 241. From signifying the chest that contained the treasure the name was at length ap- plied to that part of the Temple where the chest was deposited, as here, and in John vil. 20. It appears from the Mischna, in Shekal. p. 8, 4. that according to his pleasure any one might cast into the chests how little soever he would; i. e. any thing not less than two prutahs. Now the prutah was the small He- brew coin equal to the eighth part of an Italian as, the as being the twenty-fourth part of a silver denarius: Bava Metzia, p. 44, 2. Kiddush, p. 58, 4. Hence it is called λεπτὸν in Greek, and mite in English, which is an old word for crumb. The brass money (χαλκὸς) here mentioned was probably of this species; of which the rich cast in πολλὰ, scil. λεπτά. CAMPBELL, GRo- τιῦϑ, LIGHTFOOT. 422 MARK. AHI Hs. 19. Ver. 44. ὑστερήσεως. Of her want, or poverty. So ὕστέ- onua, which is opposed to περισσεῦμα, abundance, in 2 Cor. viii. 14. The word [βίος is used for the sapport of life in the best authors; and so Luke viii. 43. xv. 12. 80. Here it rather im- plies what is necessary to support life during the day. Grortus, WuitTBy. CHAPTER XIII. Contents:—The destruction of Jerusalem foretold, the signs which should precede and accompany it described, and the necessity of watchfulness and prayer inculcated, vy. 1\—387. [ Matt. xxiv. 1. Luke xxi. 5.] Verse 11. μελετᾶτε. This word is frequently used by the rhetoricians of an elaborate disquisition or discourse. Isocr. de Pace: καὶ γὰρ αὐτοὶ πεποιήκατε τοὺς ῥήτορας μελετᾷν καὶ φιλο- σοφεῖν. Lucian. de Merc. cond. 35. ῥήτορα μελετήσαντα. Hence the phrase μελέτη ῥήτορος, a declamation. WrTsTEIN. Of the Quakers’ misinterpretation of this passage see on Matt. x. 20. It is clear from this place, compared with Luke xxi. 14, 15. that the promise is peculiar to the Apostles and to the times of per- secution. WHITBY. Ver, 19. αἱ ἡμέραι ἐκεῖναι θλίψις. An emphatic abstractum pro concreto not unusual in the best writers. Herod. I. 16. πᾶς ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος συμφορή. Achil. Tat. LV. p. 267. καὶ ἣν ἅπας 6 ποταμὸς ἑορτή. ΚΥρκε. Of the ἐκλεκτοὶ, v. 20., see on Matt, xx. 16. Α similar phraseology occurs continually in the Fa- thers. Thus Clemens speaks of sedition, as ἀλλοτρία καὶ ξένη τοῖς ἐκλεκτοῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ, Epist. ad Corinth. § 1. and again, ἡμᾶς ἐκλογῆς μέρος ἐποίησεν ἑαυτῷ. WHITBY. MARK XIV. 3. 425 CTA TE. Xv Contents :—The rulers conspire against Christ, vv. 1, 2. [Matt. xxvi. 1. Luke xxii. 1.] He ts anointed in the house of Simon, vv. 83—9. [Matt. xxvi. 6. John xii. 1.7] The cove- nant of Judas with the chief priests, vv. 10, 11. [Matt. xxvi. 14. Luke xxii. 3.] - The last supper, and the institution of the Eucharist, vv. 12—31. [Matt. xxvi. 17. Luke xxii. 7. John xiii. 17.] The agony in the garden, vv. 82—A2. [Matt. xxvi. 36. Luke xxii. 40. John xviii. 1.] The betrayal. wv. 43—50. [Matt. xxvi. 47. Luke xxii. 47. John xviii. 3.] The seizure and escape of a young man in the train, vy. 51, 52. The examination of Christ, and Peter's denial, vy. 53—72. [Matt. xxvi. 57. Luke xxii. 54. John xviii. 12.] Verse 3. νάρδου πιστικῆς. The nard is a highly aromatic plant, two species of which are mentioned by Dioscorides, the nardus Syriaca and Indica. 'The latter terminates, like wheat or lavender, in ears or spikes, from which a rich unguent is ex- tracted, and thence denominated wnguentum nardinum, or un- guentum nardi spicate ; Anglicé, spikenard. See Dioscor. I. 6. 8. 75. Plin. N. H. XII. 12. XIII. 2, Sometimes, however, the unguent, as well as the herb itself, was called simply nard. It was so extremely prized, and so valuable, that a small box of it furnished at an entertainment was considered equivalent to a large vessel of wine. Hor. Od. IV. 12. 16. Nardo vinum mere- bere: Nardi parvus onyx elictet cadum. With respect to the epithet πιστικὴ, which is here applied to it by St. Mark, there is a considerable diversity of interpretation; but the opinions of some of the commentators are so improbable, that it will be suf- ficient merely to mention them, and to examine those only which seem to be worthy of notice. Passing by, therefore, the con- jectures of πτιστικῆς from πτίσσειν, contundere, and ᾿Οπιστικῆς from Opis, a town near Babylon; and the derivations from πιέ- ζειν, premere, from the Syriac NPIND'D, an acorn, and from Πιστὰ, a city of Persia, supposed to be mentioned in Aisch. Pers. 2.— the first hypothesis which deserves attention is that which sup- poses the word to be of Latin origin, and substituted for spicata. It is clear, however, that in this case it should have been applied to the herb rather than to the unguent. Those, again, who would render the word liquid, as if from πίνειν, to drink, evi- dently confound it with πιστὸς in Aisch. Prom. 489., which they cite in their defence. Upon the whole the most probable opinion seems to be that the epithet denotes pure, unadulterated, and is derived from πίστις. Thus the sacramental wine is called in Euseb. Dem. Ev. VIII. κρᾶμα πιστικὸν τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης. 10 424. MARK XIV. 13, 14. Kutnoet, Κυρκε, Le Cterc.—[Grorius, Ligutroot, Wer- STEIN, SCHLEUSNER, &c. | Ver. 13. κεράμιον. Scil. ἀγγεῖον or σκεῦος, an earthen vessel. Polyb. IV. 56. ἡτοίμασαν οἴνου κεράμια μύρια. Joseph. Ant. VIII. 13. 2. ἐλαίου τὸ κεράμιον. Diog. Laert. VI. 2. 6 δὲ κε- ράμιον ὅλον ἔπεμψεν αὐτῷ. So in Juv. Sat. X. 25. fictilia, subaud. vasa. Pollux VII. 162. ἀγγεῖα κεράμεια καὶ γήϊνα, Kat τὰ εἴδη κεράμεια. RAPHELIUS, WETSTEIN. It has been thought that the person whom the disciples were to meet with this vessel of water was a servant of the house in which our Lord intended to eat the Passover. Fetching water seems to have been a servile occupation among the ancients generally. We have a striking instance of it in the Edectra of Euripides. Ver. 14. κατάλυμα. E. T. the guest chamber. The same word occurs in Lwke ii. 7., where, inthe Εἰ. T. it is rendered inn. In Judea there seem to have been two sorts of public-house for the reception of strangers, of neither of which we have any precise counterpart among ourselves. Ofthese the καταλύματα were the most commodious, being divided into separate apartments for the accommodation of different parties, who brought their provisions with them. It was necessary that there should be at Jerusalem a great number of these houses for the reception of the vast con- course of people who came thither at the Passover; and rooms also in private houses, which at the time were set apart for a similar purpose, and to one of which our Lord seems here to allude, were called by the same name. This apartment is called in the next verse ἀνώγεον ἐστρωμένον, an upper room, furnished, or more properly carpeted. ‘The term, however, as used of a dining-room, does not refer simply to the floor, but to the couches also, on which they reclined at meals, and over which was spread a coverlet or carpet. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. ILI. pp. 395. 397, The other word translated énn in the E. T. is πανδοχεῖον, Luke x. 54. This was far less comfortable than the κατάλυμα, as all the travellers and their cattle also were under the same roof, se- parated only by a low partition-wall from each other. Hence the derivation of the name is evident. It is distinguished in the Vulgate from κατάλυμα, where the one is rendered by diverso- rium, and the other by stabulum. CampBELL. Some have thought that chambers, (καταλύματα,) were let out during the feast, and that the disciples were simply directed to engage this particular one, wherein to prepare the Passover. But it is well ascertained that it was the custom of the Jews to give to strangers the use of their rooms and furniture for this purpose, without any pay except the skins of the lambs sacrificed. See the Talmud, in Joma, p. 12, 1. Licurroot, Le Cterc.—[Ro- SENMULLER. | MARK XIV. 19. 36. 41. 47. 425 Ver. 19. εἴς καθ᾽ cic. Some take κατὰ for καὶ εἶτα, and render the expression one and then another: so unus is sometimes re- peated instead of alter in Latin. Mart. Epigr. I. 20. 2. Eapuit una duos tussis, et una duos. But it should rather seem to be a Hebrew idiom for καθ᾽ ἕνα, and not altogether dissimilar from the form noticed at Mark vi. 89. Compare John viii. 9, Rom. xii. 5. Ephes. v. 88. Grotius.—[WETSTEIN. | Ver. 86. ᾽'Αββα, 6 πατήρ. There has been much discussion respecting these words. Some are of opinion that 6 πατὴρ is merely added to ᾿Αββα as being equivalent in meaning, in the same manner as we frequently find in the early Jewish writings a word of the same signification in Greek added to their own term, by way of explanation. But in all these cases, such as 1) 1, Mori κύριε, 92° YW, shangnar πύλη, &c. the article is never prefixed to the Greek word. Others, therefore, would read 6 πατὴρ, 1.6. 6 ἐστι μεθερμηνευόμενον πατήρ; for which, however, there is no authority either here or in the other two places, Rom. vill. 15, Gal. iv. 6. where the expression recurs. Now in these places the Syriac version renders my Father, or owr Father, re- spectively, as the circumstances of the case require, thereby plainly indicating that the article here, as elsewhere, has the force of a possessive pronoun, and that ὁ πατὴρ must be taken for the vocative case, as 6 βασιλεὺς, Matt. xxvii. 29. ὃ υἱὸς, Mark x. 47. 6 θεὸς, Rev. xv. 3. The addition is expressive of the most impassioned feeling. Among the Hebrew, the words ‘ON, Abbi, and NAN, Abba, have a distinct signification, the former being a term of merely civil respect, and the latter of filial affection. Compare the Targum on Gen. xxii. 7. xxvil. 34. xlviii. 18. and on Gen. iv. 20. 1 Sam. x. 12. 2 Kings ii. 12. et passim. Mippieton.-—[ScHoEttGen, Licutroot, &c.] Ver. 41. ἀπέχει. Considerable doubts exist with respect to the meaning of this word, and the proper mode of supplying the ellipsis occasioned by the abrupt manner in which our Lord’s agitation led him to express himself. Most of the commentators would understand καιρὸς or ὥρα in reference either to the téme when the Apostles could assist their Master, or to the agony of Christ. But the verb itself is unquestionably émpersonal, and so it is explained by all the Fathers and Lexicographers, sup- ported by the authority of classical examples. Hesych. ἀπέχει" ἀπόχρη, ἐξαρκεῖ. Anacr. Od. 28. ἀπέχει, βλέπω γὰρ αὐτόν. Perhaps the true interpretation is that which is noticed in the parallel passage, Matt. xxvi. 45. “Wrtstrein, WHITBY. — [Hammonp, Κυρκε, KuINoEt, &c. | Ver. 47. εἷς τις. So again v. 51. The pleonasm is of fre- quent occurrence. Thucyd. VI. 61. τινα μίαν νύκτα. Aristoph. 426 MARK XIV. 51. 54. Equit. 1297. μίαν τινα. Plutarch. de Adulat. p. 63. E. εἷς τις ἑωρακὼς τὸ γενόμενον. WETSTEIN. Ver. 51. νεανίσκος. Many idle conjectures have been formed respecting this youth. Epiphanius and Jerome suppose him to have been James the Less; Chrysostom and others have a tra- dition that he was John: but all the disciples had forsaken him and fled. It has also been conjectured that he was some young man whose house lay near the garden, and who, being rouzed by the tumult, was excited by curiosity to see what was going forward. ‘The most probable conjecture seems to be that he was a Roman soldier not on duty, for νεανίσκος, as juventus and ju- venes in Latin, is frequently employed as a denomination for sol- diers. Thus again in this very verse, where the article points to a particular part of the company, which could be no other than the soldiery. Compare Josh. ii. 1. vi. 22. Isaiah xiii. 18. LXX. and in the Hebrew, 2 Chron. xiii. 3. where the LX X have πολε- puothe. Of the word σινδὼν see on Matt. xxvii. 59. Some suppose that it here signifies the ¢alith, or upper cloak, which the Jews generally wore, since the word γυμνὸς does not neces- sarily mean naked. See on Matt. xxv. 35. In this case, however, the words ἐπὶ γυμνοῦ would be superfluous; nor does their use agree better with the notion that the wnder linen tunic is intended, which was always close to the skin. Besides, a man’s appearing only in his tunic would not have excited surprise, as the common people, when at work, seldom appeared otherwise. See on Matt. xxiv. 17. It should rather seem, therefore, to have been the linen cloth or sheet in which he had been sleeping. So Kimchi: Stndon est vestis nocturna, guam induunt super carnem, factus ex lino. Galen. μὴ γυμνὸς κομιζέσθω, ἀλλὰ περιβεβλημένος ow- δόνα. Herod. II. 95. ἢν μὲν ἐν ἱματίῳ ἐνελιξάμενος εὕδῃ ἢ σιν- δόνι. Dion..H. ap. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. ΝῚ. 40. ἤμην γυμνὸς ἐν τῷ λίνῳ ἑσθήματι. Compare Thucyd. II. 49. Liban. Or. ΧΙ. Ρ. 377. 1. ὙΨΕΊΘΤΕΙΝ, Grotius, ScHLEUSNER, WuHITBY.— [Pearce.] This incident is related only by St. Mark; but though of much less importance than the cure of Malchus, it adds greatly to the credibility of the history. It is an occurrence which is very likely to have happened, but very unlikely to have been invented. CAMPBELL. ; Ver. 54. πρὸς τὸ φῶς. E. T. At the fire. In pure Greek the word φῶς almost always, if not invariably, denotes light. Its usage, therefore, in this place for fire may fairly be considered as a Hebraism, the word x, which signifies ight, being frequently used in this acceptation. By a comparison with this place the same metonomy seems to be indicated in Luke xxii. 56., though it has there been ingeniously proposed to render it the light or blaxe of the fire. Grotius, HAaMMonD.—[Pa.aireET, WETSTEIN. ] MARK XIV. 56. 69. 72. 427 Ver. ὅθ. ἴσαι ai μαρτυρίαι. It has been said that it does not appear by the Evangelist that there was any disagreement in the testimony of the witnesses against our Lord, anda reason is thence deduced for rendering ἶσος here and at v. 59. sufficient. That the testimony adduced was not sufficient to condemn him is certain, but it does not appear that it was not at the same time contradictory, though the Gospels do not record the precise points of contradiction. There may possibly be a reference both to the ¢nconsistent and the insufficient nature of the evidence, though the Sanhedrim seem rather to have studied a show of justice than to have regarded the magnitude of the alleged offence; and there is no good authority for the use of this adjec- tive in the sense proposed. The traditional canons divided tes- timonies into three kinds:—1. a vain, or discordant testimony ; 2. a standing, or presumptive testimony; and 3. an even testi- mony, ἴση μαρτυρία. It was not agreeable to the Jewish canon to seek for witness at all in capital cases, as it appears from the Talmud in Sanhedrim, c. 4. Liagutroot, WETSTEIN, WoLF.— [Hammonp, Grotius, Wuitsy.|] Inv. 61. the name Θεοῦ is prefixed to τοῦ εὐλογήτου in some MSS. and versions, but it is entirely suitable to the Hebrew idiom to employ the adjective without the substantive as a distinguishing appellation of God. CAMPBELL. Ver. 69. ἡ παιδίσκη. The article seems here to indicate the maid recently mentioned, v. 66., whereas Matthew puts this se- cond charge into the mouth of another. This discrepancy is unnoticed in Matt. xxvi. 69., but will be easily solved to the satisfaction of every candid enquirer, and that too without reject- ing the article, or making it equivalent to τις, for which there is no reason or authority. The maid who first recognized Peter may have joined in the second accusation, which seems to have been made by several persons together; and it is natural, from her reiterated attack, that she should make the deepest impression upon his mind. Hence, in relating the circumstance to Mark, he might have said, the maid. Micuartis, MrippLeton.—[Gro- TIus, RosENMULLER. | Ver. 72. ἐπιβαλὼν ἔκλαιε. E. T. When he thought thereon he wept: and much as the import of the participle ἐπιβαλὼν has been canvassed, this seems to be the true interpretation of the passage. Any change, such as ἐπιλαβὼν, which has been pro- posed, is altogether without authority ; and the other meanings which have been attached to ἐπιβάλλειν, are either inadmissible or unsuited to its present use. The examples produced by some in favour of its signifying to rush out, conclude nothing, for in these it implies to rush im rather than to rush out; and the pre- position, if used, is εἰς or ἐπὶ, never ἐξ or ἀπό. Others, therefore, prefer one of two other explanations, upon the authority of Theo- 428 MARK XV. 9. phylact, who observes : ἐπιβαλὼν ἔκλαιε, τουτέστιν, ἐπικαλυψά- μενος THY κεφαλὴν, ἢ ἀντὶ τοῦ, ἀρξάμενος μετὰ σφοδρότητος. With respect to the former of these interpretations, it was a well- known, and indeed a natural custom with the Greeks and Ro- mans, and also with the Jews, to cover the head when they wept. Compare 2 Sam. xv. 30. xix. 4. Esth. vii. 8. Jerem. xiv. 3, 4. Joseph. Ant. VII. 10. 5. Hom. Od. Δ. 114, Aisch. Choéph. 75. Eurip. Orest. 274. Suppl. 110. 295. Arist. Ran. 942. Platon. Phed. p. 97. Wytt. Isocr. Trapez. p. 714. Anthol. V. 33. Herod. VI. 67. Plin. Epist. xxxv. 10. But, not to mention that such an expression of grief would have published the emo- tion of Peter to all present, such an ellipsis can scarcely be al- lowed as that suggested by Eurip. Elect. 1232. ἐπιβαλὼν φάρη κόραις ἐμαῖσι. Compare Levit. xix. 19. LXX. The other inter- pretation of Theophylact would require ἐπέβαλεν κλαίειν rather than ἐπιβαλὼν ἔκλαιε, even if the word would admit of this mean- ing; for which there is no more authority than for rendering it, according to another supposition, to look upon, scil. Jesus. It is true that the expression is elliptical, and that by supplying this or that particular word a given sense may be elicited; but an ellipse cannot be fairly established unless where an instance si- milar to the case in point can be exhibited. Now in the sense of the E. T. there are abundant examples of ἐπιβάλλειν, sel. τὴν διανοίαν, both with and without the ellipsis. Polyb. Leg. 37. ἐπιϊαλὼν ὃ πρεσβευτὴς πολλούς τινας διετίθετο λόγους. Μ. Anton. X. 90. τούτῳ γὰρ ἐπιβαλὼν, ταχέως ἐπιλήση τῆς ὄργης. Hierocl. Carm. Pythag. p. 14. ἄλλως δὲ καὶ ἄλλως ἐπιβάλλει. Diod. Sic. XX. 44. πρὸς οὐδὲν ἐπέβαλε τὴν διανοίαν τῶν παρὰ τοῖς πολεμίοις συντελουμένων. Hence Suid. ἐπιβολή ἔννοια. Diog. L. Epicur. X. 31. τὰς φανταστικὰς ἐπιβολὰς τῆς διανοίας. If these authorities do not put the matter beyond doubt, they at least give it a greater probability than has been yet given to any other hypothesis ; and the incident is certainly such as would na- turally produce reflection in the mind of the Apostle. CAMPBELL, WetTSsTEIN, Kypke.—[RosENMULLER, SCHLEUSNER, ELSNER, Beausospre, Bos, Grotius, LE Cuierc, &c.] CHAPTER XV. Contents :—The accusation, crucifixion, death, and burial of Christ, with the attendant circumstances, vy. 1—47. [ Matt. xxvii. 1, Luke xxiii. 1. John xviii. 28.] Verse 38. At the end of this verse the clause αὐτὸς δὲ οὐδὲν amrekpivaro are added in a few MSS, and retained by the E. T. ΜΆ ΧΥ ΟΣ 58.11.51. 51. 429 and some other versions. Hence, perhaps, the error in the trans- lation of v. 5., yet answered nothing, whereas the adverb οὐκέτι should have been rendered no longer. The clause was probably inserted from Matt. xxvii. 12. Grotrus, CAMPBELL. Ver. 6. ἀπέλυεν. Matt. xxvii. 15. εἰώθει ἀπολύειν. Of the use of the aorist simply in this sense see Matt. Gr. Gr. §. 503. 3. The same sense, however, will result by rendering κατὰ ἑορτὴν, ad morem festi, or after the manner of the feast ; and this 1s the import of the preposition κατὰ in Rom. iii. 5.1 Cor. iii. 3. xv. 32. Gal. iii. 15. ‘So also in Attic Greek, κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ, i. 6. κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον. It cannot be now ascertained, either from Josephus or elsewhere, to what sedition the Evangelist alludes in the next verse. The phrase φόνον ποιεῖν, to commit murder, occurs in Deut. xxii. 8. LXX. So Polybius: ποιεῖν αἷμα καὶ φονούς. Wuitsy, KurnorL, RAPHELIUS. Ver. 8. ἀναβοήσας. Several MSS. read here ἀναβὰς or ava- βήσας, and thence the Vulgate cum ascendisset turba; unless the MSS. in question were made conformable to the Vulgate, whose translators had probably mistaken ἀνα[βοήσας for ἀναβή- σας. ‘That the received reading is correct is evident from the words πάλιν ἔκραξαν in vy. 15. Wurrsy, Grotius. Ver, 11. ἀνέσεισαν. Stirred up, incited. Some copies have ἔπεισαν, evidently from a marginal gloss. Dion. Hal. Ant. R. VILL. p. 748. οὐκ ἐπιτρέψοντες τοῖς ἀνασείουσι τὸ πλῆθος. Pa- LAIRET. The adverb μᾶλλον is here used in ἃ negative rather than a comparative sense: and so Matt. x. 6. Mark ix. 43, and elsewhere. Wuirsy. Ver, 15. τὸ ἱκανὸν ποιῆσαι. To content, to satisfy. The phrase seems to be of Latin origin, derived from the forensic ex- pression satis facere. Hence it is found in those Greek writers who lived after the subjugation of Greece to the Romans. Diog. Laer. in Bion. IV. 50. τὸ ἱκανόν σοι ποιήσω, ἐὰν παρακλήτους πέμψῃς. Appian. Punic. p. 68. εἰ τὸ ἱκανὸν ποιήσετε Ῥωμαίοις. Grortius, WETSTEIN. Ver, 21. ᾿Αλεξάνδρου καὶ Ῥούφου. The latter of these is supposed to have been the person saluted by St. Paul in Rom. xvi. 3., and if so, he and his brother were probably at Rome when St. Mark published his Gospel. Hence he very naturally inseits their names together with that of their father, appealing thereby to their testimony in support of the truth of his history. Lucius, another brother, is said to have preached the Gospel in Germany. Grotius. Of the statement in v. 25. compared with that in John xix. 14, See Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. pp. 505. 510. 4:30 MARK XV. 27. 42. XVI. 1. Ver, 27. δύο λῃστάς. A copy of the Italic version tells their names, Zoathan and Chammatha. A. CuarKxe. The prophecy cited in the next verse is Isaiah liii. 12. Abarbanel, on the pas- sage, testifies that the Rabbins unanimously refer the whole chapter to their Messiah. Wuirsy, Grorivus. Ver. 42. 6 ἐστι προσάββατον. This explanation is added by Mark for the information of the Gentiles, for whom he principally wrote. Grotius. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 308. CHAPTER XVI. Contents :— The two Maries and Salome see an angel in the sepulchre, vv. 1—8. [Matt. xxviii. 1. John xx. 1.7] Christ appears to Mary Magdalene, and sends her to the disciples, vv. 9—11. [Luke xxiv. 10. John xx. 14.] His appearance on the road to Emmaus, vv. 12, 13. [Luke xxiv. 13.] His final commission and ascension into Heaven, vv. 14—20. [Matt. xxviii. 18. Luke xxiv. 50. Acts i. 6.] Verse 1. διαγενομένου. Being past, or ended. So Acts xxv. 13. xxvi. 9. Polyb. II. 19. διαγενομένων πάλιν ἐτῶν δέκα. Herodian. I. p. 475. χρόνου δὲ οὐ πολλοῦ διαγενομένου. Polyzen. Strat. VIL. 31. χρόνου διαγενομένου. Rapneiius, Grorius. The verb ἠγόρασαν is rendered inthe E. T. they had bought ; and in this acceptation the aorist is sometimes used. It is most probable, however, that this translation originated in Luke xxiii. 56., where it is stated that the spices were prepared before the evening of the Sabbath. The two Evangelists, however, refer to different parties of women respectively ; and though the one party had procured their spices on the evening before, there is no reason to suppose that the other did not purchase an additional supply after the Sabbath. The Vulgate correctly has emerunt. From this notion also, that only one party of women visited the sepulchre on the morning of the resurrection, as well as from con- founding the times of their setting out and their arrival, has arisen the difficulty of reconciling the words ἀνατείλαντος τοῦ ἡλίου, v. 2., with the statement of the other Evangelists, and especially the expression πρωϊ σκοτίας ἔτι οὔσης, in John xx. 1. Some contend, therefore, that the aorist does not here denote times past, but passing, or about to pass, and that the phrase means simply about sun-rise : while others would adapt the various ex- pressions of the Evangelists to the different distinctions of twi- light among the Rabbins. But the difficulty is much more na- MARK XVI. 4. 7. 9. 12. 431 turally removed by harmonizing the incidents so as to suit the times severally described by the Evangelists. 'Towns—enp.— [Wuitsy, Licutrroor, &c. ] Ver. 4. ἦν yao μέγας σφόδρα. This is referred by some to an elliptical sentence, to be thus supplied: And they were anxious, because the stone, ἕο. But the clause should rather be con- nected with the preceding verse, the intervening sentence being parenthetical. See on Mark xi. 13. Kurtnort.—[Grorttius, Wuitsy, RosENMULLER. | _ Ver. ἴ. καὶ τῷ Πέτρῳ. Peter is here named, not as prince of the Apostles, but for his consolation, and the assurance that his repentance after the threefold denial of his Master was accepted. Theophylact: ἐπείδη ἠρνήσατο 6 Πέτρος. So Chrysostom, Je- rome, and others. . The conjunction καὶ is elliptical for καὶ μά- Ausra, especially. Thus Homer, passim: Τρῶας καὶ “Ἕκτορα. Virg. fin. 1. Danaum atque immitis Achillis. Wwuirsy, Grorius. In the next verse the words οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπον are to be limited to those whom the women might meet on their return, as they doubtless published the occurrence afterwards. So Euthymius. Compare Luke xxiv. 22, 23. Hammonp, Grotius. Ver. 9. ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια. Some understand this merely of so many epileptic fits; others explain seven as a certain for an un- certain number, and the German theorists even go so far as to maintain an opinion that the expulsion of these demons was no- thing more than a delusion of Mary’s mind. The intent and origin of such opinions are too obvious to require refutation. Kur1noEL, Pautus, &c. Of the genuineness of the concluding verses of this'Gospel see Horne’s Introd. Vol. IV. p. 235. Ver. 12. ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ. Commentators are not agreed whe- ther this change was in the dress of Jesus, or in his visage. Possibly μορφὴ may include both; and, at all events, it is a point of no material importance. The alteration in his appearance, whatever it might be, was doubtless the cause which prevented his immediate recognition by the two disciples, who were going εἰς ἀγρὸν, into the country, i. 6. to Emmaus. See Luke xxiv. 18., where the particulars are more fully related. The incredulity of the Apostles, mentioned in the next verse, has been thought in- consistent with Luke xxiv. 54:., and it has been proposed to re- move the discrepancy by reading that passage interrogatively, Has the Lord risen, &c. But, though many of the assembled disciples yielded their assent to the testimony of Simon, there were still some who would probably entertain doubts respecting the resurrection. Some, we know, were scarcely led to believe by the evidence of their own eyes, Matt. xxviii. 17. Luke xxiv. 41. 482 MARK XVI. 15. We may therefore fairly conclude that St. Luke means only some, probably the majority, of the eleven; and bya figure of common occurrence in the best writers, puts the whole for the part. Some, indeed, suppose that ἕνδεκα, in v. 14., is used in the same way, and that only ¢en is meant, Thomas being absent. But the appearance of Christ there recorded is not parallel with that in Luke xxiv. 36. John xx. 19., but with that in John xx. 26., which took place a week after the resurrection. In his previous meetings there was nothing like reproof; and it was the stub- bornness of his unbelieving Apostles, and especially of Thomas, which called forth the rebuke here mentioned, and the other cir- cumstances related at large by St. John. Grorius, Macknicut, KurnoEL.—[Mark.anD.] Ver. 15. πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει. So Col. i. 23. In Matt. xxviii. 18. the expression is πάντα τὰ ἔθνη : which has been supposed to mean more particularly the Gentiles. The phrase also employed by Mark was very common in this limited sense among the Jews. Thus in Bereshith R. ὃ. 13. The speech of all the creatures, i. e. the Heathen, is only of earthly things : but all the prayers of Israelites are for the holy place. But that it is here to be understood of the whole creation, Jews as well as Gentiles, is manifest from Luke xxiv. 47., where the words beginning at Je- rusalem are added; and in this extended sense it is also some- times found in the Rabbinical writings. Wuirsy.—[Licutroor, Hammonp.] Of the objection which has been raised against Christianity on the ground of its non-universality, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. I. p. 340. sqq. The damnatory sentence in the ensuing verse has not only been a fruitful source of cavil to the unbeliever, but a stumbling-block to many sincere Christians. Not only has it been said to make human salvation depend upon a mere speculative belief, and to involve the greater part of man- kind, to whom the Gospel has not reached, in ruin; but it has been endeavoured to bring the declaration within limits by which it does not appear to be confined. But by comparing the words of the Apostolic commission as dictated here, in Matt. xxviii. 20. and Luke xxiv. 47. it will appear that not only faith but obe- dience and repentance were to be preached in the name of Christ ; and that consequently belief, as a part of the Christian system, is here put for the whole. With respect to the necessity of bap- tism, as a condition of salvation, i. e. of being placed in a state of salvation, our Church does not undertake to say that it is im- possible to be saved without it. The words of Scripture, how- ever, seem to urge its absolute necessity; and the early Fathers, too strongly indeed, insist upon the danger even of infants dying unbaptized; nor is it for us, who need salvation, to sound and examine the means by which salvation is offered, but seriously to do what is required, and religiously to fear the danger which MARK ΧΟ 17. 453 may be incurred by neglecting it. There are some, it is true, who limit the damnatory declaration before us to the age of the Apostles, when the spiritual gifts, promised in the very next sen- tence, could not fail of producing conviction in any unprejudiced mind. But there are other passages, which, without any such qualifying appendix, represent the terrible doom of the unbeliev- ing, as Luke xii. 46. Rev, xxi. 8., and it is enough for us to infer from the command to preach the Gospel to all nations, that there is a broad distinction between unavoidable ignorance and the vo- luntary rejection of the Gospel. See Rom. x. 14. Opportunity and capacity of believing are supposed both in this and other texts to the same effect, which cannot possibly be applied to any case, where these, from whatever causes, are wanting. Nor can we hence conclude that infants are incapable of baptism because they are incapable of faith, for the same reasoning would render them incapable of salvation. In the second Claas. however, baptism is omitted; so that it is not simply the want of baptism, but the contemptuous neglect of it, which constitutes the sin; as infants might otherwise be punished for the mistake or profane- ness of their parents. The extent of the declaration, therefore, amounts to this, that by virtue of fazth and baptism we are placed in a state of salvation; if we continue in faith, and do not wilfully recede from the duties of the baptismal covenant, we shall ac- tually be saved; if otherwise, Scripture warrants but one alter- native. Wuitsy, Lonspate, Doppriner, ὅς. Many render the verb κατακρίνεσθαι to be condemned, as 1655 strong in expres- sion than the E. T., and doubtless the verb may be so translated. But this makes little difference as to the sense of the passage. The two clauses are evidently antithetical; and upon the lowest interpretation of σωθήσεται, as signifying a mere salvable state in the admission to Gospel privileges, the reverse of it must imply a state, which, if persevered in, must end in everlasting perdition. At the same time, the solemnity of the declaration, as well as of the occasion on which it was delivered, may reasonably be con- sidered as pointing at the final condition of the believer and the infidel. Grotius, RoseNMULLER, HammMonp, DopprRIDGE. Ver. 17. σημεῖα δὲ x. τ. A. For the first promulgation of the Gospel the extraordinary display of the spirit was necessary, to draw the attention of mankind more forcibly to a consideration of its merits, and the admission of its truth. Hence our Lord, in giving his final injunction to his Apostles, promises them the sensible co-operation of his grace, and certain supernatural en- dowments to those who, by their means, were introduced into the kingdom of God. Of the nature and extent of these spi- ritual gifts we shall have to speak in the note on 1 Cor. xii. 28. At present, therefore, it will be sufficient to attend to the fulfil- ment of our Lord’s promise in regard to those which are here VOL, I. Ff 434 MARK XVI. 17. enumerated by St. Mark.—1. Casting out devils. Of the expul- sion of the most inveterate dzemons, not only from men, but from temples, altars, &c. by the name of Christ, we have the most convincing testimony of the early Fathers, who do not hesitate to appeal to the very infidels in support of their veracity ; and offer, upon pain of death, to make the experiment in the presence of an inquisitorial tribunal. Clem. Recogn. IV. 33. Fidelis quis- gue demonibus imperat. Justin. M. Dial. p. 302. A. τὰ δαιμό- Ν ~ via πάντα καὶ πνεύματα πονηρὰ ἐξορκίζοντες ὑποτασσόμενα ἡμῖν — ἔχομεν. Origen (cont. Cels. I. p. 7.) speaks of the name of Jesus as ὑπὸ φαυλῶν ὀνομαζόμενον ἀνύειν; and St. Austin affirms, T. IX. p. 63. Μὰ ipst qui seducunt per ligaturas, per precan- tationes, per machinamenta inimici, miscent precantationibus suis nomen Christi. Compare Matt. vii. 22. Mark ix. 38. Acts xix. 4.—Minut. F. p. 31. Hee omnia sciunt plerique vestrim, ipsos demonas de semetipsis confiteri, quoties a nobis et tormentis verborum, et orationis incendiis, e corporibus exiguntur. Tertull. Apol. 23. Edatur hic aliquis sub tribunalibus vestris, quem de- mone agi constat. Jussus a quolibet Christiano loqui, spiritus alle tam se demonem confitebitur de vero, quam alibi Deum de falso. Et nist sie demones confessi fuerint, Christiano mentiré non audentes, ibidem illius Christiant procacissimi sanguinem fundite. See also Origen c. Cels. I. p. 20. III. p. 133. VII. pp. 334. 376. ed. Spenc. Just. M. Apol. I. p. 45. Dial. ο. Tryph. Ρ. 311. 341. Lactan. IV. 27. V. 27... Iren. II. 56, 57. Julian. ap. Cyril. p. 198. Porphyr. ap. Euseb. Prep. Ev. V. 1. Clem. Alex. ad Grec. p. 9. A. Cyprian de Idol. pp. 4. 14. Tertull. Apol. 37.—2. Speaking with new tongues. ‘This was a sift highly requisite for the speedy propagation of the Gospel; and there is frequent mention of its exercise in the N. T. Com- pare Acts x. 46. xix. 6. 1 Cor. xii. 9. 80. xiv. 26. sqq. 2 Cor. i. 5. and elsewhere. Irenzeus also (Lib. V.6.) speaks of the Chris- tians as παντοδάπαις λαλούντων διὰ πνεύματος γλώσσαις. It is somewhat strange that this méraculous faculty should have been represented, as it has been by some of the German commentators, as the result of previous study ; while others have proposed to limit its extent to the promise made by Christ to his Apostles in Matt. x. 19, 20. of supernatural assistance when they were brought before the courts of judicature.—3. Taking up serpents. Of this we find only one instance in the N. T. viz. that of St. Paul in Acts xxviii. 3.; and there are but few of any credit in the Ecclesiastical writers. Tertullian, however, observes, Scorp. c. 1. Hoc denique modo etiam Ethnicis sepe subvenimus, donati a Deo ea potestate quam Apostolus dedicavit, cum morsum vipere sprevit. Jamblicus, in Vit. Pyth. 28., says that Pythagoras had this gift; and many impostors have also pretended to possess it. Julius Paulus (Lib. I. 15.) speaks of ctrculatores, qui serpentes circumferunt. So Plato in Euthydem. p. 201. E. ἡ μὲν τῶν . .- MARK XVI. 19. 135 ἐπώδων τέχνη ἔχεων TE Kal φαλαγγέων καὶ σκορπίων καὶ τῶν ἄλ- λων θηρίων τε καὶ νόσων κήλησίς ἐστι. YVirg. Kelog. VIII. 71. Frigidus in pratis cantando rumpitur anguis. Ovid. Met. VII. 203. Vipereasrumpo verbis et carmine fauces. It has also been asserted by very credible writers, that in the East there is an art of charming serpents by music, so as for a short time to suspend their disposition to hurt. From the possibility, therefore, of de- ception in this respect, itis probable that this miracle was less ᾿ς frequently exercised ; but there can be no reason to render the verb αἴρειν to kill, as some have proposed. The sense of the passage is clear from Luke x. 19. Isaiah xliii. 2.; and the power undoubtedly included the ability to heal the most dangerous wounds inflicted by the bites of venomous animals. ‘To complete the sense the words καὶ οὐ μὴ αὐτοὺς βλάψουσι must be supplied from the next clause.—4. Drinking poison without injury. Con- sidering the refinement to which the art of poisoning was by this time brought, and that it was even applied as a capital punish- ment, such a promise as this will appear highly important. Four instances are recorded of the exercise of the gift: that of Bar- sabas, by Papias, ap. Euseb. Ecc. H. III. 39.; of the Ceecilian soldiers, by Ado, in his Martyrology; of Sabinus, Bishop of Ca- noso, by Gregory of Tours; and of Joshua Ben Levi, in the Talmud, who was cured by pronouncing the name of Jesus. It is worthy of remark, that Mohammed, who styled himself the Apostle of God, lost his life by poison; a circumstance which, compared with our Lord’s promise, at once exhibits his impos- ture. With θανάσιμόν τι we must understand φάρμακον. The same ellipsis occurs in Plutarch in Cesare: we ὑπνωστικὸν οὐ θανάσιμον πεπωκότα. It is supplied in Eurip. Ion. 616. ὅσας σφαγὰς δὴ φαρμάκων θανασίμων Τυναῖκες evpov.— 5. Healing the sick. 'To this salutary influence we find ample testimonies during the first three centuries. See 1 Cor. xii. 19. 30. James ν. 14, 15. Epiphanius relates, de Mensuris, ὃ. 15. that soon after the destruction of Jerusalem the Christians returned from Pella, σημεΐα μέγαλα ἐργαζόμενοι ἰάσεων. Among the operations of the Holy Spirit at baptism, Justin M. enumerates τὸ τῆς ἰάσεως, Dial. Tryp. p. 258. ‘Tertullian thus appeals to Scapula, a judge at Carthage, Apol. c. 4. Et quanti honesti viri, de vulga- ribus enim non dicimus, aut a demoniis aut valetudinibus reme- diati sunt? He then particularizes one Proculus, who so in- gratiated himself with Severus by the cure of EKuodus, that he was retained in the palace till his death. Compare also Iren. II. 56, 57. Origen c. Cels. I. p. 34. 11. p. 80. Arnob. adv. Gent. I. p- 35. VIII. p. 418. Wuirsy, Grotius, Doppriper, A. CLARKE, KUINOEL. Ver. 19. ἀνελήφθη εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν. Of our Lord’s ascension into heaven see Horne’s Introd. Vol. I. p. 522. for a sufficient F£2 486 MARK XVI. 20. reply to the leading objections which have been raised against it. Upon the assumption that the last twelve verses in this Gospel are spurious, it has been insinuated that Luke’s is the only narrative which has been given of the event. To this we may reply that our Lord himself predicted the event, and that the ful- filment of it was repeatedly asserted by St. Peter and St. Paul. Compare Acts ii. 32. sqq. Ephes. iv. 10. vi. 9. Col. iv. 1. 1 Tim. iii. 16. Heb. vi. 19. viii. 1. ix. 12.21. The phrase ἀναφέρεσθαι εἰς οὐρανὸν is used also of the translation of Elijah in 2 Kings — ii. 10. Compare also Ecclus. xlviii. 9. xlix. 16. 1 Mace. ii. 58. LXX. Of the phrase καθίσαι ἐκ δεξίων see on Matt. xx. 20. It is here quoted from Psalm cx. 1., which is therefore to be un- derstood as prophetic of the ascension. Grotrus, KuINoEL. Ver, 20. τοῦ Κυρίου συνεργοῦντος. In accordance with his promise given in Matt. xxviii. 20. Compare 1 Cor. iii. 9. xv. 10. and elsewhere in the Epistles. The stgns following are those mentioned supra, vv. 17, 18. Grortus. ST. LUKE'S GOSPEL. CHAPTER I. Contents :— The Preface, vv. 1—4. The birth of John the Baptist foretold, vv. 5—25. The annunciation, vv. 26—88. Interview between Mary and Elizabeth, vv. 69—45. Mary's song of praise, vv. 46—56. Birth of John, vv. 57—66. The prophetic song of Zacharias, vy. 67—79. Education of the Baptist, v. 80. Verse 1. ἐπειδήπερ πολλοὶ x. τ. X. On this Preface see Horne’s Introd. Vol. IV. pp. 304. 515.; and of the Apocryphal Gospels, to some of which the Evangelist has been supposed to allude, see Appendix I. of the same work, Vol. I. p. 499. Many, however, if not all of these spurious productions, were of a later date than the Gospel of St. Luke ; nor does it by any means follow that the narratives to which he refers were intentionally false or heretical, though we may fairly, perhaps, infer, that they were de- fective and erroneous. Such, at least, is the impression which this introductory statement of his object in writing naturally makes upon the mind: although the verb ἐπιχειρεῖν by no means neces- sarily implies failure, as it sometimes signifies not merely fo at- tempt, but to accomplish. AXschin. Dial. Soc. II. 12. ἀλλὰ τί οὐχ αὑτὸς, ἐπείπερ εἰσηγεῖ τὸν λόγον, ἐπεχείρησας λέγειν,κ. τ. λ. Ulpian had evidently his eye upon this place ἐμ Demosth. p. 159. ἐπει- δήπερ περὶ τούτου πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀπολογήσασθαι. With respect to the word ἀνατάξασθαι, which has been understood as signifying to re-arrange a history already written, it is certain that the preposition does not always in composition retain its proper force. The word itself is not repeated in the N. T., and is generally of very rare occurrence : but ἀναγράφειν is frequently no more than γράφειν, as in Dion. Hal. Vol. I. p. 182. ed. Reiske: Καλλίας δὲ ὁ τὰς ᾿Αγοθοκλέους πράξεις ἀναγράψας. That ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν is here simply to write a narrative, seems probable from what follows: ἔδοξε κἀμοὶ γράψαι. In the N. T. the verb πληροφορεΐν, applied to things, signifies to per- 438 LUKE I. 2. form, fulfil, accomplish, as in 2 Tim. iv. 5. or applied to persons, to persuade, convince, embolden, as in Rom. iv. 21. The de- rivative πληροφορία occurs also in the Epistles. In this passage, though applied to persons, most of the commentators coincide with the E. T. in adopting the latter signification of the word; and similar catachreses are frequent in the best writers. The sense is the same as if the construction were τῶν πραγμάτων ἃ ἐν ἡμῖν γενέσθαι πληροφορούμεθα : and this, in fact, seems to be the sense best suited to the tenor of the passage. The different derivations which have been assigned to the verb are of minor importance: it is found in the sense here affixed to it in Ctesias, Pers. 38. πολλοῖς λόγοις Kai ὁρκίοις πληροφορήσαντες Meya- βυζον. Isocr. Or. Trap. ἐμὲ ἔξαρνον πληροφορηθεὶς γεγενῆσ- θαι. ΚΌΙΝΟΕΙ, SCHLEUSNER, WETSTEIN, PALAIRET, GROTIUS. —[Hammonp, CameBELL, &c. ] Ver. 2. aw ἀρχῆς. So Acts xv. 7. ἀφ᾽ ἡμερῶν ἀρχαίων. The expression is sometimes supposed, as ἄνωθεν in the next verse, to refer to the period at which Luke begins his narrative; but it should rather seem to indicate the commencement of Christ’s ministry : and so Mnason is called ἀρχαῖος μαθητὴς, Acts xxi. 16. Neither is it probable that λόγος is here to be understood of Christ personally, in which acceptation it seems peculiar to St. John. The word of God, or simply the word, was a common expression with the Jews for whatever God communicated to men for their instruction. See Luke viii. 11. and compare Mark iv. 14. Hence it came to denote the Gospel; and the idiom, even in the abridged form, occurs in Luke viii. 12, 13. 15. Acts iv. 4. vi. 4, viii. 4. x. 44, xi. 19. xiv. 25. xvi. 6. xvii. 11. Hence it ap- pears that it is very familiar with this Evangelist; nor is there any reason for a different interpretation in this place. Some, indeed, would render τοῦ λόγου the thing, not the word, sup- posing it to mean the same with πραγμάτων in the preceding verse, and understanding by ὑπηρέται those connected in the events, as the relations and immediate connections of Jesus. But in this case the plural would rather have been used as in vy. 4. and ὑπηρέτης always denotes a servant or agent employed by another in the performance of some work, as were the Apostles by Christ in the ministry of the Gospel. In the N. T. it is synonymous with διάκονος : and in Acts vi. 4. we have ἡ διακο- via τοῦ λόγου opposed to διακονία τραπεζῶν, an inferior mi- nistry, which was soon to be committed to a set of stewards elected for the purpose. Luke, therefore, doubtless received his information from those who had attended Jesus during his public ministry, and who, after his ascension, were entrusted with the propagation of his doctrine through the world. See also Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 295. note. CampBetyt, LignTroor. —[{Hammonp, Breza, Grorius, KurNnoet. ] LUKE I. 3, 4. 439 Ver. 3. παρηκολουθηκότι πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς. E. T. Having had perfect understanding of all things. But the verb παρακολου- θείν signifies to follow up, to examine, to investigate. See 1 Tim. iv. 6. 2 Tim. iii. 10. So Demosth. p. 1178. τοῖς εἰδόσιν ἀκριβῶς ἅπαντα ταῦτα τὰ πράγματα ὡς ἔχει Kal παρηκολουθηκόσιν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς. 1463. ὅσα τυγχάνω Ov ἐμπειρίαν καὶ τὸ παρηκολουθηκέ- ναι τοῖς πράγμασιν εἰδώς. Plin. Epist. VII. 16. Unum adjiciam, omnia me, quibus interfueram, queque statim, cum maxime vera audiantur, audieram, vere persecutum. ‘The historian intended to assert his diligence in procuring exact information rather than the possession of that information; thus contrasting himself with the αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται, from whom he derived his knowledge. CaMPBELL, Grotius, WETSTEIN, ΚΥΡΚΕ. Some would render ἄνωθεν from above, i. 6. by inspiration, comparing John iii. 8. 31. xix. 11. James i. 17. 1. 15. 17. But it frequently denotes simply from the top or beginning, as in Matt. xxvii. 51. Mark xv. 38. John xix. 23. Acts xxvi. 5., and such is unquestionably its import here, in reference to the early period at which this Gospel commences above that of St. Matthew and St. Mark. So Demosth. c. Nearch. p. 1370. βούλομαι δ᾽ ὑμῖν ἀκριβέστερον περὶ αὐτῶν ἄνωθεν διηγήσασθαι καθ᾽ ἕκαστον. Virg. Georg. IV. 575. Prima repetens ab origine famam. Wuitsy, WETSTEIN, Lieutroor, The word καθεξῆς does not necessarily refer to time, so that we cannot conclude from it, as some have hastily done, that St. Luke has strictly observed the true chronological order of events. It means distinctly, particularly, as opposed to con- JSusedly, generally ; and relates to the orderly classification of the several transactions recorded. Compare Acts xviii. 25. and see Horne’s Introd. Vol. IV. p. 306. Campspetyi, Grotius, WHITBY. —[Brza, Le Cuerc.] Of the individuality of Theophilus see also Horne. We may add that, on the other supposition, it would be the only instance of a feigned name in the N. T. Moreover, in the composition of an epithet, analogy requires that φίλος should be placed in the beginning of the word; and we actually have the word φιλόθεος in 2 Tim. iii. 4. Of the epithet κράτιστε, it has been observed that it may be nothing more than an affectionate designation, as in Hor. Ep. I. 16. Opteme Quinctz. But in this sense φίλτατε would rather have been employed ; and in the N. T. it is always used as a title of eacellency to men of rank, as in Acts xxiii. 26. xxiv. 3. xxvi. 25. So Hor. Sat. I. 10. 82. Octavius optimus. There was certainly a person of this name resident at Jerusalem at the time when Luke wrote his Gospel. He is thus mentioned in Joseph. Ant. XX. 8. King Agrippa, removing Jesus the son of Gamaliel from the high- priesthood, ἔδωκεν αὐτὴν Ματθίᾳ τῷ Θεοφίλου. CAMPBELL, ὙΥΕΊΒΤΕΙΝ, Licutroor.—| Hammonp. | Ver. 4. κατηχήθης. There is some doubt whether this verb is to be understood in the sense of catechetical or viva voce in- «ἀν ον thee > τ 440 LUKE 1. 5. struction, or in that of information simply. It is derived from nxn, vox; and thence signifies, in the active voice deméttere vo- cem per aures, and in the passive, to hear, as in Acts xxi. 21. 24. in Plutarch, de flumin. pp. 1152. 1160, 1161, 1162. and so in Philo, Leg. ad Caium, p. 1020. κατήχηται δὲ ὅτι καὶ πάντων ἱερῶν τῶν πανταχοῦ κάλλιστόν ἐστιν. Instruction, however, is evidently intended in Acts xviii. 25. Rom. ii. 18. 1 Cor. xiv. 19. and this seems to be the sense best suited to the present passage, from which two arguments are deducible against the Romanists :— 1. against the sufficiency of oral tradition; and 2. against with- holding the Scriptures from the laity. Wuirspy.—[Kypxe. } Ver. 5. Ἡρώδου. This was Herod, surnamed the Great, an Idumean by birth, and the first king of Judah who was not of Jewish extraction. Hence the prophecy of Jacob in Gen. xlix. 10. was now fulfilled; for the sceptre had departed from Judah, and now was the time to look for the appearance of the Messiah. For an account of the family of the Herods, and also of the courses of priests, see Horne’s Introduction. The word épnuepia properly denotes a daily service, as that of the Prytanes at Athens ; and thence, by metonymy, the tribe itself, which offi- ciated. Hesych. épnuepia ἡ τῆς ἡμέρας λειτουργία. - Hence, be- cause the Jewish courses of priests resembled, in several respects, the Athenian Prytanes, the name was transferred to them, though with some impropriety, as theirs was a weekly service. It has been supposed that Zacharias was either the high-priest or his deputy, and was now performing his grand office on the day of expiation. But he is called merely ἱερεύς τις, not ἀρχιερεὺς, as Luke iii. 2. ix. 22. and elsewhere: and Josephus states that Simon, son of Boethus, was high-priest that year; not to mention that the high-priest was of no course at all. The name of the Bap- tist’s mother, which was that of the wife of Aaron, (Hod. vi. 23.) is mentioned to shew that he was of the sacerdotal line both on his father’s and mother’s side; for though a priest might marry a Levitess, or indeed any daughter of Israel, (Hera ii. 61. 2 Chron. xxii. 11.) it was more honourable to take a wife of priestly descent. See Joseph. Vit. ἐμέ. c. Apion. 1. 7. Hence also Elizabeth and Mary might be relations, as stated in v. 36. though one was of the tribe of Levi, and the other of Judah. Elizabeth, who was of the family of Aaron, and therefore also of Moses and Miriam, was descended from the most illustrious characters in the whole Jewish history. Licgurroor, Wuirsy, Grortius, Mackniaut, A. CLARKE, KuINoEL, &c. [on THE CIRCUMSTANCES CONNECTED WITH THE BIRTHS OF JOHN THE BAPTIST AND OF CHRIST. It will readily be granted, that if the account of the conception and birth of John the Baptist, as contained in this first chapter LUKE. 5. 441 of St. Luke’s Gospel, is true, his mission is necessarily divine. The whole train of events which are here affirmed to have taken place, are of a nature so clearly beyond the power of human means to produce, that if they really happened as they are said to have happened, the authority of any fact founded upon them becomes unquestionable. Now it is certain, admitting the ge- nuineness of this part of the history, (of which see Horne, wbi supra,) that these extraordinary facts have been on record from the time of the publication of St. Luke’s Gospel to the present day; and, therefore, if they were invented at all, they must have been invented either by Luke himself, in conjunction with the Apostles, and after the death of John, for the purpose of assisting the propagation of Christianity ; or by John himself, and his dis- ciples, during his life, in order to support a pretended claim to inspiration ; or, lastly, by Zacharias, with a view to some future and distant advantage to be derived from their fabrication. As to the first of these alternatives, it is utterly impossible that events of this nature could have been suppressed for so long a period, and given to the world nearly a century after they are said to have taken place. Had such miraculous occurrences, which had never before been heard of, appeared in a work pur- porting to be written by a professed advocate of a new religion, which was making its way in face of the most determined oppo- sition, they must have been enquired into, detected, and exposed. The Apostles themselves must have known that there were ready means, and those who were ready and willing to employ those means, of sifting the matter to the bottom; and that the slightest deviation from veracity would have involved in certain ruin the cause in which they were engaged. Nor is it less improbable that the events in question should have been the invention of the Baptist himself. From their very nature, the knowledge of their existence, or of their supposed existence, must have been public during the infancy, and indeed before the birth of John. At the time when the angel appeared to Zacharias in the Temple, the whole multitude of the people were praying without. Now on the ordinary days of the week twenty-four men only, who from the nature of their office were called stationary men, attended the Temple service as representatives of the people. ‘The day, therefore, on which Zacharias saw the vision, must either have been the Sabbath or some public festival, on which, exclusive of the whole course of priests in attendance, there was a more than ordinary concourse of worshippers in the Temple: and even of the priests alone, according to Josephus, there were thousands in each course of the twenty-four. Compare 2 Kings xi. ὅ. It must be allowed, then, that circumstances far less extraordinary than those recorded by St. Luke must have been remembered by some of the numerous assembly who witnessed them; and con- sequently, that they could not afterwards have been set on foot, 442 LUKE I. 5. and declared to have happened at such a time, in the face of so many who would have been able to contradict the assertion. The circumstances, in fact, whether real or pretended, can have hap- pened at no other time than that to which they are assigned by the Evangelist. In the first place Zacharias must have been prevented by his blindness, which his incredulity had brought upon him, from pronouncing the benediction after the burning of the incense: and this omission of what the Israelites regarded as the most essential and solemn part of the service, and received with the profoundest veneration, and which had probably never occurred before, would render the time of its occurrence particu- larly remarkable. It was also the lot of Zacharias to burn in- cense when he went into the Temple of the Lord ; which was the most honourable part of the whole sacerdotal office, and no priest could perform it more than once. Sigon. Rep. Heb. I. 13. Nove semper accedebant sacerdotes, ut sortiantur ad suffiendum, et nullus bis suffitum adolebat. There was yet another circum- stance, which, from its public nature, would prevent any subse- quent invention of the miraculous birth of John the Baptist, and fix the precise date of its occurrence. At the circumcision of a child the relatives and friends of the family, to the number of ten at least, were invited to celebrate the event in a social entertain- ment. In the presence of these assembled guests, at the admi- nistration of the rite to John, Zacharias suddenly recovered his speech, according to the promise of the angel, and uttered a re- markable prophecy respecting his son. Independently, there- fore, of the miracle, the expectation of the fulfilment of the pre- diction would not allow them to forget the occasion and the time of its delivery: the terror which they felt, and the conjectures which they formed, could not soon have been obliterated from their minds. John could never, therefore, have ventured to attract the attention of the Jews by a relation of facts which he stated to have happened at a certain time and place, and by ap- pealing to multitudes as witnesses of those facts, when there was not a being in existence who had so much as heard of them. The imposture must have been immediately detected and exposed, and even if it did not at once confound the Christian cause, Luke could never have hazarded a repetition of it. Waiving the im- possibility, however, is it probable that John would have been the person to set the contrivance on foot? Human impostures are invariably conducted on calculating principles : they are never undertaken without a view to present, or a prospect of future ad- vantage. But the severe austerities of the Baptist can never be reconciled with worldly considerations: while his steady oppo- sition to prevailing vices, and the undaunted firmness with which he rebuked sin, even in Herod himself, are a convincing proof that he had no ambitious views to promote, and that he must needs have been prepared for that death which was the conse- LUKE I. ὅ. 443 quence of his perseverance. Had John been so inclined, the most favourable opportunities offered of gratifying the most as- piring wish; at one time in particular the Jews seem to have re- quired but his own sanction to receive him as their expected Messiah. But he confessed, and denied not ; but confessed, I am not the Christ: John i. 23. With every unbiassed enquirer this candid declaration alone would be sufficient to establish his mission, and confirm his pretensions as a messenger from Heaven. The only remaining supposition of imposture abounds with such extravagant absurdities that it cannot stand for an instant. If any part of the miraculous events in question were the inven- tion of Zacharias, they must all have been so; and among the rest the prediction of the angel concerning the future destination of John. Now it has been already proved that this prediction, whether truly delivered by the angel, or pretended to have been so delivered, must have been public at that very period to which it is assigned, 1. e. nine months previous to the Baptist’s birth. In the case of fraud then the supposed promise of a son, was given to Zacharias at a period when Elizabeth was not only unlikely, but from her peculiar situation, independently of her advanced age, unable to bear a child at all. Admitting, however, that contrary to all expectation and probability she had actually conceived, and that upon this foundation Zacharias had hazarded the prediction, could he possibly have ventured to declare that her delivery, especially in her particular case, would be unat- tended with danger either to herself or her child? And even should the hope of success have induced him to prosecute a scheme so absurd, could he have presumed still further that the infant should assuredly be a male, and that he should live, par- ticularly under the disadvantages which attended the birth of John, to the age of manhood? Still further, could he promise himself that the child, should he live, would turn out so utterly depraved as to engage in an imposture so iniquitous, and that he should have strength and abilities to support the character as- signed him? These multiplied absurdities evince, beyond the slightest possibility of doubt, that the prediction could not, in the case of forgery, have been delivered before the birth of the Baptist, nor indeed till he had attained a vigour of constitution far beyond the promise which his early years would naturally ex- hibit. The same observations will apply to the prophecy of Za- charias himself at the time of his son’s circumcision. But it has already appeared, from a consideration of the events which at- tended these prophecies, that they must have been public at a ~ much earlier period, and that they could not have been brought into subsequent notice. It appears, therefore, with the strictly logical force of a mathematical reductio ad absurdum, that an imposture in the case supposed is not only morally improbable, but physically impossible. 444 LUKE I. 5. Nor does the matter end here.—The whole train of events re- corded in this chapter are so inseparably connected, that the au- thenticity of each and all must be at once admitted, or rejected. If Zacharias was concerned in their fabrication, he could not have been the only person in the plot; Elizabeth, and Mary, and the rest, must each have had their share in it, and their particular parts to act. Now it is certain that the character for virtue and piety attributed to all of these persons in the Gospel, must have been in accordance with the general opinion of the times. Would Zacharias then, or whichever of them was the first contriver of the supposed imposture, have hazarded his reputed character, which was indispensable to the prosecution of his design, by trusting his secret to any person, whosoever he might be? From the very nature of the undertaking, the incitements to treachery were infinitely more powerful than those to concealment; not to mention the extreme improbability of success. The benefits which they could expect from the enterprise were at all events uncertain, and could not be looked to for the next thirty years at least; whereas the reward of exposure would be instant and sure; and, if at all corresponding with the well-known aversion of the Jews from the whole Christian scheme, considerable. Again, success would appear still less likely from the fears and doubts and incapacities naturally attendant upon old age on the one hand, and from the inconstancy and inexperience of youth on the other. For Joseph and Mary, on the supposition that the former had not been previously married, which is the opinion most strongly supported, must have been very young at this time. Wedlock was reckoned by the Jews among the affirmative pre- cepts, and from the strong desire of issue the espousals fre- quently took place at ten years of age, and few men were un- married at e7ghteen. In short, whether the character, circum- stances, and condition of the persons concerned, or the nature of the plot itself, or the probable chance of success, are jointly or separately considered, the whole affair is so completely immersed in absurdity, and so totally inconsistent with the ordinary views of human prudence and foresight, that infidelity itself must surely pause before it trust to its boasted reason, in denouncing such manifest truths as mere fabrication and falsehood. With respect to the miraculous conception of our blessed Lord, however extraordinary in itself, and above the reach of human reason to comprehend, it is not on that account to be rejected as incredible. Not only is the evidence upon which it rests of that irrefragable nature, that it cannot, without sophistry, be impeached, but no other mode of generation could have con- sisted with the Gospel scheme of redemption. It was necessary that Christ should in no degree partake of the natural pollution of the human race, as in that case he would have himself been included in the general condemnation of Adam’s progeny. Jn EU RE. Ι Οἱ 9, 445 Adam all die: and as the sentence upon universal guilt was also universal, a Redeemer was to be found pure of every stain of innate and contracted guilt. Since, therefore, every person produced in the natural way could not but be contaminated by original corruption, the purity requisite to the efficacy of the Re- deemer’s atonement, made it necessary that the manner of his conception should be supernatural. Had the office of Christ been merely that of a teacher or prophet, a mere man might have done the whole business; but to this higher office such an one would have been unequal. So close is the connection of this ex- traordinary fact with the cardinal doctrines of the Gospel. See on Matt. xxviii. 19. Brett, Ligutroot, Wuitrsy, ALLIx, Hors- LEY, ΜΑΟΚΝΙΘΗΊ, &c. Ver. 6. ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ. In the sight of God; i. e. truly and sincerely pious; an Hebraism of which there is a similar example in Gen. vii. 1. To the same effect we have in Plut. Probl. Rom. p- 274, A. καὶ τὸ ἐν ὑπαίθρῳ μάλιστα πῶς εἶναι δοκεῖ τοῦ Διὸς ἐνώπιον. See onv. 15. infra. The word ἀμεμπτοὶ more immediately regards their irreproachable conduct in the eyes of men. In the explanatory sentence which succeeds ἐντολαὶ and δικαιώματα are referred by the generality of commentators, either to the moral and ceremonial, or to the Levitical and natural law, respectively; but perhaps the terms are nearly synonymous, as in Gen. xxvi. 5. LXX. Suidas: δικαιώματα νόμος, ἐντολαί. We may compare Ovid. Met. I. 328. Innocuos ambos, cultores numinis ambos. In the phrase προ[ϑε[βηκὼς ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις, (v. 7.) the preposition answers to the Hebrew 2, and ἡμέραι is also used according to the Hebrew idiom. The classical expression is προβαίνειν τῇ ἡλικίᾳ or κατὰ τὴν ἡλικίαν; and in Latin etate provectt. We have προβεβηκὼς ταῖς ἡμέραις in Josh. i. 23. and προβεβηκότες ἡμερῶν in Gen. xviii. 11. LXX. The time of life here denoted could not be more than fifty; after which a priest was forbidden to officiate: Numb. viii. 25. A more ad- vanced age is expressed by προβεί[ϑηκυῖα ἐν ἡμέραις πολλαῖς in Luke ii. 86. Kuinort, Werstrern, Macxnicut, Muntrue.— [Ligutrroot, GRoTItvs. | Ver. 9. ἔλαχε τοῦ θυμιάσαι. Scil. κλῆρον, or μέρος. The former is supplied in Acts i. 17. By ναὸν is here meant the sanctuary, in which was the altar of incense, as distinguished from the whole Temple, τὸ ἱερὸν, in one of the courts of which, viz. that of the Israelites, the people were praying, v. 10. The form ἦν προσευχόμενον for προσηύχετο is frequent in this Evan- gelist. Compare infra, v. 21, 22. ii. 8. 51. iii. 23. iv. 44. v. 9. 17. Acts x. 30, and elsewhere. So Eur. Hec. 669. οὐκέτ᾽ 14. δῦ Ver. 7. διηπόρει. Was greatly perplexed. The preposition is intensive ; and the verb is intended to express a mixture of doubt and fear. Compare Luke xxiv. 4. Acts ii. 12. v. 24. x. 17. In the next verse the verb φαίνεσθαι is used in the sense of ἐλθεῖν. So in 2 Mace. vii. 22. LXX. εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἐφάνητε κοιλίαν. Plat. Protag. sub init. πόθεν, ὦ Σώκρατες, φαίνῃ; See also my note on Hom. Il. K. 286. Doppriper, WetstEIn, Hammonp. Ver. 12. ἡμέρα ἤρξατο κλίνειν. Scil. εἰς ἑσπέραν. The same ellipsis occurs in Judg. xix. 11. LXX. Herod. IV. 181. It is supplied in Judg. xix. 9. κέκλικεν ἡ ἡμέρα εἰς ἑσπέραν. Arrian. Exp. Alex. III. 4. ἐγκλίναντος δὲ τοῦ ἡλίου εἰς ἑσπέραν. In the same manner inclinare is used in Latin. Plin. Epist. VII. 27. Inclinato die spatiabatur in porticu. Q. Curt. VI. 11.9. In vesperam inclinabat dies. Compare Luke xxiv. 29. With τὰς κύκλῳ κώμας also there is an ellipsis of the participle κειμένας ; and so in Xen. Anab. III. 5. 9. τὴν κύκλῳ πάσαν χώραν. Hell. IV. 6. 3. ra κύκλῳ περιέχοντα don. Again in the next verse, some suppose that οὐ δυνατόν ἐστι, or ov δυνάμεθα, is omitted before the particles εἰ μή τι, and that this elliptic phrase is em- ployed to introduce a manifest absurdity. But it does not appear that any sarcasm is intended; and the passage may possibly be rendered with an interrogation :—Shall we then buy, §c. ? - In this sense εἰ. μή τι is again used in 2 Cor. xiii. 5. So Joseph. Ant. XVII. 11. εἰ μή τι τοιοῦτον viov ἐνόει κακῶς εὑρίσκοιτο ; Compare also Eurip. Alcest. 824. where, however, Monk reads the line without a question, and Edmsley conjectures εἰ μή ye σός peek. τ᾿ A. WerTsTEIN, KurnoeL, KypKe.—[Grortivs, Bos.] Ver. 14. κλισίας. In companies; subaud. κατά. See Matt. Gr. Gr. §. 425. and compare Mark vi. 39. The word is used in the sense which it here bears in Joseph. Ant. XII. 2.11. In v. 18. the adverb καταμόνας should be rendered zn private. It frequently occurs in the LXX. as two words, κατὰ μόνας, scil. χώρας, and so in the best writers. See Psalm iv. 8. Jer. xv. 17. Mie. vii. 14. Thucyd. I. 32. 37. Joseph. Vit. §. 63. It should be observed that neither in this place nor in Mark iv. 10. are we to understand the disciples as excluded, but simply the multitude. Parxuurst, WetTsTEIN, Grotius. There is considerable varia- tion in the MSS. respecting the admission or rejection of the words καθ᾽ ἡμέραν in v. 23. All the versions, however, with one exception, sanction their presence; and though they are not found in the parallel places of the other Gospels, still there is no- thing there to contradict them. To follow Christ is the daly business of his disciples, and, therefore, it is more than probable that St. Luke has stated as much; nor is there any sufficient erounds for rejecting the statement. CAMPBELL, GRIESBACH. L112 516 LUKE IX. 28. 31. Ver. 28. ὡσεὶ ἡμέραι ὀκτώ. With these words some under- stand an ellipsis of the verb ἦσαν, and compare Luke vi. 19, Others take ἐγένετο for the verb, and produce a variety of in- stances in which a masculine or feminine plural is followed by a verb in the singular; thus, for example, Herod. I. 26. ἔστι δὲ μεταξὺ τῆς πόλιος καὶ τοῦ νηοῦ ἑπτὰ στάδιοι. But it is preferable to read the words in a parenthesis, and take ἐγένετο δὲ καὶ παρα- λαβὼν in connection, which is a mode of construction not un- usual with this Evangelist. The καὶ is redundant, as in Lwke viii. 1. x. 38. xxii. 44. or it may be rendered into English by the conjunction that. CAMPBELL, ELsNeR.—[Buackwa .L, Bos. ] Ver. 31. ἔξοδον. This word is often used of military expedi- tions, as in 2 Sam. xi. 1. LXX. Thucyd. 11. 10. V. 14. Ailian. V.H. I. 7. IL. 11. XIII..12. Dion. Hal.,A.:R., VIII. pp. 303. 531. and God’s punishment is frequently represented under the figure of going out to war, as in Isaiah xlii. 13. Hence it has been supposed that the conversation here mentioned alluded to the battle which “our Lord was about to wage against the rebel- lious Jews at the destruction of Jerusalem. This, however, would require εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ rather than ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ; not to mention that whenever ἔξοδος is so used, the sense is always de- termined by the addition of some such word as army, king, or the like. But independently of the construction, there can be little doubt that ἔξοδος is here used to signify death, as in a va- riety of passages, both in the sacred and profane writers. _Com- pare Wisd. iii. 2. vii. 6. Ecclus. xxxviii. 23, LXX. 2 Pet. i. 15. In Joseph. Ant. IV. 8. 2. τοῦ ζῆν 15 added. Inthe same manner excessus and exitus are used in Latin. Cic. de Legg. I. 1. Certe non longe a tuis edibus inambulans post excessum suum Romu- lus, §c. Again, de Fin. III. 18. Jn his excessum e vita, et in vita mansionem. See also Juy. Sat. X. 127. Plin. Epist. VI. 16. Corn. Nep. IX. 4.5. The word is also used of the departure of the Israelites out of Egypt both in Heb. xi. 22. and in the title to the second book of the Pentateuch; and in reference to this event it is evidently used in this place, the deliverance from Egyptian bondage being typical of the spiritual deliverance from the bondage of sin effected by the death of Christ. Hence it will also include the triumph of our Lord’s ascension, to which there seems to be an allusion inv. 51. Some few MSS. read δόξαν instead of ἔξοδον, and others include both. Grotrus, WETSTEIN, Wuirsy, Kypke, ΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ,, Licurroot.—[Hammonp, Le Cierc.] The verb λέγειν signifies to converse about a thing in Mark x. 32. John vi. 7. viii. 27. 54, ix. 19. 1 Cor. i. 12. 2 Tim. ii. 7. So Herod. VII. 144. τὸν πόλεμον τὸν πρὸς Αἰγίνητας λέγων. In Latin also, Ovid. Met. I. 1. In nova fert animus mutatas dicere formas. Compare Cic. de Fin. V. 3. Ailian. Y. H. ΤΠ. 36. Some, less properly, render it to foretell. LUKE ΙΧ. 45, 46. 51. O17 Pearce, ParkHurst.—[ScuLeusNner.| Of the phrase βεβαρη- μένοι ὕπνῳ, in the next verse, see on Matt. xxvi. 42. Inv. 34. some understand the pronouns αὐτοὺς and ἐκείνους of the same persons; but the former is more properly referred to the Apos- tles and the latter to Moses and Elias. Camppetyt.—[ Le Cierc. ] Of the expression εἶναι πρός τινα, v. 41. see on Matt. xiii. ὅθ. Ver. 45. ἵνα. To the end that. Sometimes ivaimplies merely so that, but it seems here to express something intentional, a passive participle being employed rather than an adjective. ‘There is evidently a difference between saying that an expression is dark and that it is darkened or made dark ; nor is there any im- propriety in supposing that predictions were intentionally ex- pressed so as to be imperfectly understood at the time. The Apostles had not yet thrown off the prejudices which they. long entertained in common with their countrymen, that their Messiah should live for ever, and which gave rise to the distinction in after ages between Messiah ben Joseph, who was to die, and Messiah ben David, who was to be for ever triumphant. The sense of iva in this place is confirmed by John ν. 20. vi. 7. Rom. ii. 19. 1 Cor. xiv. 13. 2 Cor. vii. 9. CAMPBELL, WHITBY, SCHLEUSNER, Ver. 46. τὸ, ric κι τ. X. The neuter article τὸ occurs in re- ference not to a noun but to a sentence in Luke i. 62. xxi. 2. 4. 23. 24.27. Compare also Matt. xix. 18. and Mark ix. 23. In v. 48. by a very common Hebraism the positive μέγας is put for the superlative, as in Matt. xxii. 86. and elsewhere. CAMPBELL. Ver. 51. τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ἀναλήψεως. The noun ἀνάληψις does not occur in any other place of the N. T., nor is it found in- the LXX, but the verb ἀναλαμβάνειν is frequently used in both. It is applied to our Saviour’s ascension into heaven in Mark xvi. 19. Acts i. 2. 11. 22. 1 Tim. iii. 16. to the translation of Eli- jah in 2 Kings ii. 11. LXX; and hence the title ᾿Ανάληψις Μωσέως to aJewish treatise respecting the body of Moses. The verb, however, is used in other significations; and therefore some commentators, interpreting συμπληροῦσθαι in its strict sense, would render ἀνάληψις a retiring, i. e. from Jerusalem and the parts adjacent, which Jesus rarely frequented in the early part of his ministry, because the Jews sought to kill him, John vii. 1. Others understand a lifting up, i. e. on the cross, but this would rather have been ὕψωσις, as in John xii. 22. Others, again, suppose that a second seizure is intended, in re- ference to the attempt which had formerly been made upon the person of Christ, Luke iv. 29., but in this case the proper word would have been συλλαμβάνειν. Compare Luke xxii. 54. Acts i. 16. There can be little doubt that our Lord’s ascension is meant, nor is there any real objection to this in the verb συμ- 518 LUKE IX. 54. πληροῦσθαι, which may fairly be interpreted with some latitude. In popular language a time is frequently said to be come which is very near. With respect to the objection that the Evangelist would scarcely speak of the ascension of Christ as being at hand some time before his resurrection, and even his trial and death ; the circumstances closely connected with an event may well be understood as comprehended in it, and this is strongly indicated here by the indefinite turn of the expression τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ἀναληψέως. Grotius, KurinoEL, Wuirsy, DoppripGe.— [Prearce, Hammonp, Micuaenis, Parxuurst.| Some think that another journey into Galilee intervened between this time and the crucifixion. But the sense which ἀνάληψις almost un- questionably bears, and the strong expression employed by the Evangelist, plainly indicate that this was the last time that Christ went to Jerusalem before his ἔξοδος alluded to during the trans- figuration. The phrase στηρίζειν τὸ πρόσωτον is a Hebraism, denoting a fixed and settled resolution, as in 2 Kings ii. 9, 10. xii. 18. Jerem. iii. 12. xxi. 10. Ezek. iv. 3. vi. 2. xiii. 17. xiv. 8. xvii. 7. xxi. 10. Dan. xi. 16, 17. and frequently in the Rabbi- nical writings. In v. 42. the expression is less powerful, and merely denotes that his face was turned in the direction of Jeru- salem, thereby indicating that he was going to that city. Com- pare 2 Chron. xxxii. 2. Jerem. xiii. 15. Wuirsy, WerTsTEIN. Of the enmity between the Jews and Samaritans, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 376. On many occasions, however, as may be collected from the parable of the good Samaritan, and from our Lord’s interview with the woman of Samaria, this nation did not always abstain from acts of kindness towards the Jews. It should seem, therefore, that the tacit preference which our Lord gave to the worship of the Jewish temple, by going up to Jeru- salem at the celebration of the Passover, induced them to reject him in this instance. There is an account in Joseph. Ant. XX. 25. of the murder of certain Galilzeans by the inhabitants of Gi- nea, a Samaritan village, as they were passing to Jerusalem at one of the feasts. Wuitsy, Patey. With ἑτοιμάσαι, in the next verse, Bos supplies ξενίαν. Compare Acts x. 10. Philem. 22. Ver. 54. we καὶ ᾿Ηλίας ἐποίησε. See 2 Kingsi. 10. It is ob- servable that there is no analogy between the case cited by the Apostles and their own. The servants of Ahab meditated an in- sult against Elijah, as the prophet of the Most High ; whereas the Samaritans, deluded by their prejudices, and not fully acquainted perhaps with the nature of our Lord’s pretensions, were objects of pity rather than punishment. Besides, the religion of Jesus was of a milder nature than that of Moses, and was only to be promoted by meek and merciful means. Religious persecutions can find no. warrant in the Gospel, and our Lord’s reply in the next verse is decisive against them. We may observe, by the 10 LUKE IX. 61, 62. 519 way, that some of the later commentators read this reply inter- rogatively, but the common translation is at least equally expres- sive. Wuitrsy, Grotius. —[ScHLEUSNER, Kurnoet.] The noun πῦρ, signifying lightning, occurs again in Luke xvii. 29. Rev. xiii. 13. xx. 9. So also in Soph. Ant. 131. Eurip. Pheen. 1191. and tgnis, in the same sense, in Hor. Od. I. 84. 5. and elsewhere. Of ἀναλίσκειν, denoting to destroy, we have ex- amples in Gal. v.15. 2 Thess. ii. 8. and so Xen. Cyrop. I. 4, 5. τὰ θηρία ἀνηλῴῷκει διώκων. It is applied to the action of fire, as in this place, in Gen. xli. 50. Numb. ix. 33. Jerem. |. 7. Ezek. v. 12. LXX. Werstrern, PARKHURST. —— Bic) Ver. ΟἹ. ἀποτάξασθαι τοῖς εἰς τὸν οἶκόν pov. This disciple seems to have had in view the case of Elisha, who made ἃ 51- milar request to the prophet Elijah, 1 Kings xix. 19. though it is probable that our Lord discerned a less firm resolution in the one than in the other. The incident is related only by St. Luke. With respect to the verb ἀποτάξασθαι a difference of opinion prevails among the commentators. Some would refer the verb to the disciple’s possessions, understanding κτήμασι with the dative following, and rendering to set in order my affairs. But the dative of the person seems infinitely preferable, with which the verb signifies to take leave, to bid adieu, in Plutarch, Josephus, Philo, and other writers. Of Elisha having parted with his pa- rents, it is said in Joseph. Ant.-VIIT. 19. 7. ἀποταξάμενος αὐ- τοῖς εἵπετο. Compare also Acts xviii. 18. 21. 2 Cor. ii. 18. With a dative of the thing it signifies fo renounce, as in Luke xiv. 33. Grotius, WertsreIn, ΚΎΡΚΕ, Parkuurst.—[HEtn- 5105, DoppripeGs, A. CLARKE. | Ver. 62. οὐδεὶς ἐπιβαλὼν x. 7. Δι The first member of this sentence is a proverbial expression, descriptive of those who, en- gaged in any important concerns, allow their attention to be ab- stracted by things foreign ; and the application to religious duties is blended with the ἀπόδοσις, without forming a distinct member of the comparison. The similitude is derived from the ploughman, who keeps his eyes stedfastly before him that the furrow may be perfectly straight. Hence Hesiod. Op. D. 11. 60. ἰθείην αὔλακ᾽ ἐλαύνοι, Μηκέτι παπταίνων μεθ᾽ ὁμήλικας, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ ἔργῳ Θυμὸν ἔχων. To this custom is to be referred the derivation of the Latin verb delirare ; the old word lira signifying a furrow. With the sentiment we may compare Phil. iii. 14. and to the same effect Seneca: $2 entm ambitio non respicit, majora semper con- , sequendi studio flagrans ; quanto id equius est eos facere, quibus immortalis gloria proposita est. The Pythagoreans had a si- ~milar maxim, cited by Simplicius, an Hpictet. 332. εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν ἐπερχόμενος μὴ ἐπιστρέφου. Grotius, WuitBy, WETSTEIN. σ- 520 . LUKE X. 1.18, CHAP TE RX. Contents :— The mission of the seventy disciples, vv. 1—16. Their return, vv. 11---94, A lawyer directed in the way to obtain everlasting life, vy. 25—29. The parable of the good Samaritan, vv. 5}0—37. Martha and Mary, vv. 38—A2. Verse 1. καὶ ἑτέρους ἑβδομήκοντα. Εἰ. Τὶ, Other seventy also ; which seems to imply that seventy had been sent before. The words should rather be rendered seventy others also, the con- junction καὶ referring to the previous mission of the twelve, in Luke ix. 1. Some MSS. read ἑβδομήκοντα δύο, of which see Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. p. 195. But, without advocating a change in the Text, some commentators maintain that seventy is placed in a round number for seventy-two, that being also the number of the Jewish Sanhedrim, as well as of the elders, whom Moses associated with himself in the government of the people, and in reference to whom Christ acted upon this occasion. But seventy is the number of elders chosen by Moses, (Hod. xviii. 21. xxiv. 9. Numb. xi. 16.24.) and there is no proof that seventy- two was the number of the Sanhedrim. It appears, indeed, from Joseph. Ant. XII. 2. that of the translators of the Septuagint, six were chosen from each tribe; though in the same passage he speaks of them as seventy persons. Still this can only be applied by analogy to the Sanhedrim; and the writers on Jewish anti- quities are almost unanimous in making them seventy, the pre- sident making seventy-one. See Selden de Synod. V. 4. 8. Wuitsy.—[Licutroot, Grotius.] Of the verb ἀναδεῖξαι see on Luke i. 80. of the phrase ava δύο on Luke ix. 14. and with the following verses compare Matt. ix. 37. x. 1. δ. sqq. xi. 21. 564. See also on Matt. xxiii. 15. and my note on Hom. II. X. 263. Ver. 18. ἐθεώρουν τὸν Σατανᾶν x. τ. Δ. Some understand these words as referring to Satan’s fall from heaven on his first transgression, (2 Pet. 11. 4.) which was typical of the destruction of his power over mankind by the progress of the Gospel. But in the same manner as being exalted to heaven sometimes figuratively implies the extension of sovereignty and dominion, so may falling Srom heaven be understood, without any particular reference, of the diminution or loss of power. Compare Matt. xi. 23. Hence, by an enallage of tense, our Lord may be understood as saying, I shall see the destruction of Satan’s kingdom in the world, by the success of your ministry. We have a similar expression re- lative to the King of Babylon in Isaiah xiv. 12. See also John xl. 31. 2 Cor. iv. 4. Ephes. vi. 12. Col. i. 18. Rev. xii. 7. 544. LUKE X. 20. 25. 521 Cicero, in Epist. Att. II. represents the overthrow of Pompey by the phrase ex astris decidisse ; and in Orat. Philip. II. 42. ex- presses degradation by de celo detrahere. WuitBy, Grotius.— [Doppripce.] Of v. 19. see on Mark xvi. 17. Some suppose that by serpents and scorpions our Lord means men of like dis- positions with these animals, as he calls the Scribes and Pha- risees a generation of vipers in Matt. iii. 7. and that he declares the inability of their enemies to hurt them beyond what Provi- dence shall think fit. A. Cuarke. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 499. note. Ver. 20. ὀνόματα ὑμῶν ἔγράφη. So Heb. xii. 23. Many are of opinion that this is an allusion to the enrolment of citizens’ names in a register, whereby their right to the privileges of citi- zenship is ratified and acknowledged. There are references to the same custom in a variety of passages in Scripture, in which a book is attributed to God, wherein he writes the names of those who are heirs of everlasting life, and blots out those who are unworthy of being registered as citizens of heaven. See Exod. xxxii. 32. Deut. ix. 14. xxv. 19. xxix. 20. 2 Kings xix. 27. Psalm \xix. 28. cix. 13. cxxxix. 16. Isaiah iv. 3. Ezek. xii. 9. Dan. xii. 4. Phil. iv.3. Rev. iii.5. xiii. 8. xvii. 8. xx. 12. 15. xxi. 27. xxii. 19. Among the Heathens also a book is assigned to Ju- piter, in Eurip. ap. Stob. Grot. p. 121. to Philo in Aisch. Eum. 273., to the Fates in Lucian. Catapl. §. 5., and to Nemesis in Callim. H. Cer. 57. Others, however, suppose less properly, that, as to be written in the dust, (Jer. xvii. 13.) implies to perish; so to be written in the book of life is a Jewish phrase denoting worldly prosperity. See the Targums on Isaiah iv. 3. Jerem. xiii. 9. cited above. Hammonp, Kurnoet.—[Grorivs. } We are by no means to infer that being thus written implies an absolute and irreversible decree of eternal salvation. St. Paul himself, on more than one occasion, speaks hesitatingly upon the subject of his own perseverance unto the end ; and as one among the twelve failed of making his election sure, it cannot be ima- gined that our Lord intended to assure the seventy of an uncon- ditional inheritance in heaven. In Rev. xxii. 19. also Christ threatens some to blot out their names, although once written in the book of life; and to a like effect the declaration of Moses is explained by the Targum on Exod. xxxii. 32. Wuitsy, Gro- tius. Of the following verses see on Matt. xi. 25. sqq. xiii. 16. Ver. 25. καὶ ἰδοὺ, νομικὸς κι τ. A. An incident very similar to this is related in Matt. xxii. 36. See the notes zm loco; and of the parable by which the import of the second great com- mandment is illustrated, v. 30. see Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. pp. 404. 482, It was our Lord’s object in this parable to convince the lawyer that his duty to his neighbour embraced a much wider 522 LUKE X. 30. signification of the term than the Jews were inclined to affix to it, and to teach mankind in general the nature and extent of Christian benevolence. Under the idea of neighbour the Pha- risees and Scribes included none but those of their own commu- nity. Many precepts are found in their writings which inculcate a spirit of benevolence among themselves; but they cherished, as Tacitus truly observes, adversus omnes alios hostile odium: Hist. V.5. So alsoJuv. Sat. XIV. 103. non monstrare viam, eadem nisi sacra colenti. With respect to the Gentiles, and the Sama- ritans were held in the same estimation, Maimonides has the fol- lowing in Rutzah, §. 4. We must not contrive their death; but if they be in danger of death we are not bound to deliver them. For it is said, Thou shalt not rise up against the blood of thy neighbour: but such a one ts not thy neighbour. It often hap- pens that persons who have the best opportunities to understand true religion are very deficient in making use of them, and flatter themselves that a zeal for externals will make up for a want of vital holiness. This was notoriously the case with the Jews, and therefore our Lord sends them to learn their duty from a schis- matic and heterodox Samaritan, who practised it much better than they. It is admirably well judged to represent the distress on the side of the Jew, and the mercy on that of the Samaritan. Had the points been put the other way the inference would have operated less forcibly on the mind of the lawyer; for though he might have replied that the Jewish law required no act of charity to a Samaritan, he could not deny that the same feeling of bene- volence which actuated the Samaritan toward the Jew ought equally to operate with the Jew toward the Samaritan. We may observe, also, that the conduct of the priest and Levite is yet more inexcusable from the circumstance that if a man saw his enemy’s ox or ass going astray or sinking under a burden, the Mosaic law (Hawod. xxiii. 4, 5.) commanded him to help them. Grotius, Jortix, Dopprince. The lawyer’s reply in the next verse refers to Deut. vi. 5. Levit. xix. 18. which were repeated together every day in the synagogue, as containing a summary of the whole law. The former part, containing the duty of God, was also written upon their phylacteries. Some suppose that πῶς and τὶ are equivalent, but the first part of the question seems to be general, the latter more particularly directed to the lawyer himself. Hernstus.—[KvINoEt. ] Ver. 30. ὑπολαβὼν εἶπεν. So Herod. VII. 213. ὑπολαβὼν ἔφη. Compare Thucyd. V. 49. Xen. Cyr. II. 2. 2. Anab. III. 1. 31. ABlian. V. H. IL. 1. XIV. 8. Job ii. 4. iv. 1. Dan. iii. 9. LXX. There is an ellipsis of λόγον, which is supplied in Herod. III. 146. Μαιάνδριος δ᾽ ὑπέλαβε τὸν λόγον Kk. τ. Δ. In this manner the Latin suscipere is used in Virg. “En. VI. 723. Suscipit Anchises. So also excipere in Virg. Ain, IX. 258., LUKE X. 80, 84. 528 which answers to Plato’s use of ἐκδέχεσθαι in the Euthydemus. Some incorrectly supply αὐτόν. In the opening of the parable some interpreters connect ἄνθρωπος ἀπὸ ἹΙερουσαλὴμ;, as in Matt. xv. 1. xxvil. 57. John xi. 1. Acts xvii. 13. Heb. xiii. 24. observing that the whole energy of the story depends on the opposition be- tween the Jew and the Samaritan. To account for the trans- position of the verb κατέ[θαινεν, a similar instance is cited from Luke xi. 27. ἐπάρασά τις γυνὴ φωνὴν ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου. But in neither case is the transposition necessary, and the opposition seems to be equally marked either way. Brza, WersTEIN, Kypke.—[CamMpBELL, WAKEFIELD. | Ibid. λῃσταῖς περιέπεσεν. So Diog. Laert. IV. 50. The verb περιπίπτειν signifies to fall in with, and is applied either to persons or things, chiefly of an evil character. Compare 2 Macc. ix. 21. x. 4. LXX. James i. 2. Thucyd. II. 54. Polyb. I. 76. 8. Artemid. III. 5. In v. 36. the expression is varied into ἐμπίπ- τειν εἰς τοὺς λῃστὰς, for which we have classical authority in Arrian. Epict. LIT. 13. So Hor. Sat. I. 2. 42. fugiens hic decidit acrem Predonum in turbam. The phrase πληγὰς ἐπιθεῖναι is found in 2 Mace. iii. 26. LX X. Acts xvi. 23. but rarely, if ever, in classical Greek. It seems to be a Latinism. Thus Val. Max. IX. 10. Permisit ut denas plagas singulis imponeret. Instead of ἡμιθανὴς the more usual classical form is ἡμιθνὴς, as in Aris- toph. Nub. 504. Thucyd. II. 52. Lycoph. Cass. 511. The pre- sent form, however, is found in Diod. Sic. XII. 62. Herodian. IV. 9. 15. We have ἡμίθνητος in Wisd. xvii. 18. LXX. The corresponding Latin word semtnex occurs in Virg. Ain. V. 275. WETSTEIN, SCHLEUSNER. In the next verse κατὰ συγκυρίαν de- notes by a coincidence, scil. of time and place ; i. e. by chance. Hesych. κατὰ συντυχίην. The noun is very rarely met with, but it denotes an accident or coincidence in Herod. IX. 89. Polyb. V. 18.6. In 1 Sam. xx. 26. the Hebrew ΠῚ, which the LXX. translate σύμπτωμα, is rendered συγκύρημα by Sym- machus. Hippocrates uses συγκυρία to denote an occasion of doing athing. HamMonp, Parkuurst, A. CLARKE. Ver. 34. κατέδησε τὰ τραύματα. Xen. Cyr. V.2. 32. τραύματα ἐπιδεδεμένους. Of the use of a mixture of o@/ and wine as a lini- ment see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 510. Cels. Med. V. 86. In vulnerum curatione lane succide vicem implent, nunc ex vino et oleo, nunc ex posca. Compare Theophr. H. V. IX. 12. Plin. N. H. XXXI. 47. The mixture was called otnelcum. We may readily account for the Samaritan’s having these ingredients at hand, as the frequent unction of the limbs with oil is pecu- liarly refreshing in the hot countries of the East, and travellers were accustomed to provide themselves with wine and provisions for their journey, which were not furnished at the inns. Of the word πανδοχεῖον see on Mark xiv. 14. The compound verb 524 LUKE X. 38. 40. προσδαπανᾷν in the next verse is of very rare occurrence. It: occurs, however, in Lucian. Ep. Saturn. §. 39. Themist. Or. 23. The two denarii which the good Samaritan proffered to defray any additional expences for food or attendance were equivalent to the price of two days’ labour, (Matt. xx. 9.) and would doubt- less go further than a much larger sum among ourselves. Wert- STEIN, SCHOETTGEN, GILPIN. Ver. 38. κώμην twa. Bethany. See John xi. 1. The verb ὑποδέχεσθαι signifies not only to receive, but to receive with hos- pitality, or under one’s roof. Hom. Od. 11. 70. ὑποδέξομαι οἴκῳ. Compare Job. vii. 8. 1 Mace. xvi. 15. LXX. Luke xix. 6. Acts xvii. 7. James ii. 25. Hom. 1]. Il. 476. Xen. Mem. II. 3. 15. Lucian. D. D. Tom. I. p. 178. Elian. V. H. IV. 9. XVI. 26. In Luke viii. 40. ἀποδέχεσθαι is used in nearly the same sens Some of the commentators are of opinion that Martha was a widow, and that Lazarus and Mary were living in her house; but as she was the individual whose conduct gave rise to the ad- mirable lesson inculcated by our Lord, the house may have been called her’s, though she only had it in joint possession with her brother and sister. We may observe that Martha was a common name among the Orientals. It is mentioned as a Syriac appella- tionin Plut. Mar. p. 414. E. Σύραν γυναῖκα, Μάρθαν ὀνόματι, μαντεύεσθαι λεγομένην. In the next verse the particle καὶ is not redundant, but has a reference to the disciples as well as to Mary. Sitting at the feet of their instructors was an usual posture not only with the Jews but other early nations also. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 483. and compare Arist. Vesp. 618. Isidor. Orig. XX. 11. Suet. Claud. 32. Aug. 64. Val. Max. II. 1. WetsTEIN, Kurnoet, Parkuurst.—[Grorivs. ] Ver. 40. περιεσπᾶτο. This verb denotes to tear asunder, to draw different ways ; and thence, metaphorically applied to the mind, to distract, to confuse; as nearly equivalent to μεριμνᾷν and τυρβάζειν in the next verse. Eeclus. xii. 2. LXX. περισ- πωμένῳ περὶ πάντων. Diod. Sic. I. 74. περὶ πολλὰ περισπασ- μένους. Compare also Heclus. i. 15. ii. 23. 26. iii. 10. LXX. Polyb. IV. 10.5. We have exactly to the point Hor. Sat. IT. 8. 67. Tene, ut excipiar laute, torquerier omni Sollicitudine dis- trictum. Of μεριμνᾷν see on Matt. vi. 25. The verb τυρβάζειν (from τυρβὴ, Xen. Cyr. I. 2. 3., whence the Latin turba,) sig- nifies properly to raise the mud, as in Arist. Vesp. 257. Pac. 1007. See the Scholiast on Equit. 311. Hence the passive τυρ[βάζεσθαι, to be disturbed in mind, to be bewildered. Of the verb συναντιλαμβάνεσθαι see on Luke i. 54. The repetition of the name Martha is expressive of affection, attended in this in- stance with gentle reproof. Compare Matt. vii. 41. Mark xiv. 36. 45. Rom. viii. 15. Gal. iv. 6. It seems to convey the idea LUKE) X. 42, XI. 1. 525 of the restless situation of a person in a crowd, or of water in a state of agitation. Some MSS. read θορυβάζῃ. Werstern, Ro- SENMULLER, VALCKENER, ParkuurRsT, DoppRIDGE, Grorivs. Ver. 42. ἑνός. Euthymius: τῆς ἀκροάσεως τῶν ἐμῶν λόγων. Many, however, after Theophylact and Basil, supply βρώματος, and with πολλὰ, in the preceding verse, βρώματα. The same commentators understand μερίδα in reference to the custom of sending the choicest portion of the feast to the most honourable among the guests. See my note on Hom. I]. H. 321. But al- though the zeal of Mary in preparing an entertainment for her Master was undoubtedly the basis of our Lord’s remark, the H common interpretation seems infinitely preferable. By supply- ing the general term toaypara we have one of the gravest and αὐ: important apophthegms that ever were uttered ; and of μερὶς, the sense of business or occupation, we have examples in Xen. Cyr. III. 3. 5. Anab. VII. 6. 25. and elsewhere. So also pars in Latin. The opinion of Basil seems to have originated in the reading of some MSS. adopted by the Coptic and AZthiopic ver- sions :—déAlywv δέ ἐστι χρεῖα ἢ ἑνός. DoDDRIDGE, ELSNER, KyPKE, KurnorLt.—|[RosENMULLER, WETSTEIN, A. CLARKE.] From the praise here bestowed upon Mary, the Papists have inferred that a contemplative is more acceptable in the sight of God than an active life. It is not two courses of life, however, but two par- ticular actions that are here compared; and attention to the word of God, with a view to profit by it, is recommended as a more beneficial exercise than any occupation connected with temporal concerns. Our Lord did not mean to signify any displeasure at Martha’s hospitality, but to testify his greater satisfaction in the earnestness with which Mary listened to his instructions. Mack- NIGHT, GROTIUS. CHAPTER. Xf. Contents:—The Lord’s prayer, vv. 1—4. Earnestness in prayer recommended, vy. 5—13. A demoniac cured, and the conduct of the Scribes and Pharisees thereupon, vv. 14—36. [Matt. xii. 22. Mark iii. 19.] Denunciation of woes against the Pharisees and lawyers, vv. 91---4. ᾿ ix ..-.....ὕ........ Δ ἢ already been given; unless, perhaps, not being present at its 526 LUKE XI. 4. 6, 7. delivery, he was unacquainted with its existence. In either case it was sufficient to repeat it, as the most perfect and sufficient epitome of human wants, both spiritual and temporal. Of its se- veral petitions see on Matt. vi. 9. sqq. As given by St. Luke, however, not only is the doxology omitted, but in some MSS. and versions the words ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, together with the third and the latter part of the s¢xth petition, are wanting. Several of the Fathers contain no notice of these clauses, and Origen distinctly states that they were not recorded by St. Luke. This would lead us to think that he had not found them in any copy of the Gospel which came under his notice ; and hence the best critics have considered them as the interpolation of some later transcriber, who thought it necessary to supply what he thought deficient in one Gospel out of another. At the same time by far the greater number of MSS. possess them ; and the are noticed by Cyprian, Cyril, Chrysostonis Enath ymin, Theo- phylact, and others of the Fathers, and it is difficult to suppose that all the copyists would regularly insert them from St. Mat- thew. Licurroor, Wuitspy.—[ MILL, Grorius, GRrEsBACH. | Ver. 4. ὀφείλοντι. One who sins or offends against God or man, is in the Syriac called 2°71, a debtor; and a sin, in like manner, is NIM, a debt. See Dan. i. 10. and compare the Targums on Hwod. xxxii. 30. Lev. iv. 3. Psalm xxv. 18. Ezek. xviii. 7. Hence ὀφείλειν and its derivatives are frequently used in this sense in the N. T., as in this place and Matt. vi. 12. 22. Luke xiii. 4. Hence ἀφιέναι, to release, is here of the same im- port as to forgive or absolve. HAMMOND, WHITBY. Ver. 6. ἐξ ὁδοῦ. Some connect this expression with παρέγένετο, and translate 7s come out of his road, comparing Apul. IX. p. 200. Nocte quadam paterfamilias, de pago proximo tenebris illune caliginis impeditus, et imbre nimio madescens, atque οὗ zd ab itinere directo cohibitus, ad hortum nostrum divertit. The instances, however, are not necessarily similar; and it is prefer- able to join φίλος ἐξ ὁδοῦ, a friend on a journey, for which the authorities are more pertinent and express. Lysias, p. 34. ed. Taylor. καταλαβόντες τὸ μειράκιον ἐκ τῆς ὁδοῦ. Ibid. p. 36. βίᾳ ἐκ τῆς ὁδοῦ συναρπάζοντες. WAKEFIELD.—[V ALCKENER. ] Ver. ἴ. ἡ θύρα κέκλεισται. It was now midnight, (v. 5.) or that part of the evening which by the Greeks was named κλαυσίθυρον. Compare Josh. ii. 5. LXX. See also Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p- 450. We are not necessarily to infer that the children were in the same bed with their parent, as the E. T. seems to imply. According to the custom among the lower classes of the East the whole family were asleep in the same room, upon separate mattresses laid upon the ground. That per’ ἐμοῦ will bear this LUKE ΧΙ. 8. 527 signification is clear from ν. 31. infra, Matt. ii. 3. Acts xxi. 5. 1 Cor. xvi. 1. Indeed κοιτὴ may be put as a part for the whole, and signify the bed-chamber. Some would render παιδία ser- vants, of which sense of the word see on Matt. vii. 5. But it here plainly signifies children, as in Heb. ii. 18, 14. and else- where. Hammonp, Grotius, CamMpBEeLL.—[Macxknicut, Le Cierc.] Of the phrase κόπους παρέχειν see on Matt. xxvi. 10. The interchange of the prepositions εἰς and ἐν has been repeat- edly noticed. Ver. 8. ἀναιδείαν. Importunity. The Homeric use of avac- δὴς is very similar. See my notes on 1]. A. 521. N. 139. So Petronius: Nehil est quod non improbitas extorqueat. SCHLEUS- NER, Grotius. The design of this parable, and of the very si- milar one in Luke xviii. 1. is to enforce the necessity of frequent and earnest prayer; and the direct inference to be drawn from them is, that as importunate entreaties will frequently prevail with men, and even with those who are actuated by no religious principles, to alleviate the wants of their fellow-creatures, so in a greater degree will the Almighty attend to the persevering peti- tions of those who diligently seek him. It is true, indeed, that the reasons for the prevalence of importunity with men, have no place when applied to God. Men may not attend to first appli- cations from doubt as to the necessity of them, from inability to render assistance, from pride, and a variety of other causes; but God knows our necessities before we ask, is infinitely able to grant all that we can desire, can receive no accession of glory from our dependance, and is incapable of being softened by the repetition, or wearied by the importunity, of our addresses. But although perseverance in prayer can have no efficacy in inclining God to be more merciful, it may yet be effectnal in making us fitter objects of mercy; not to mention that the nature of our prayers, and the proper season for granting them, are better known to him that they can possibly be tous. Where an imme- diate compliance with our requests is most conducive to our final happiness, he is as ready to give as we to ask; where to refuse our petitions will contribute more to this end, whilst he appears to deny a blessing he grants one in the refusal; and where sus- pending his blessings for a time will be for our advantage, they are put off to a more convenient season. RosENMULLER, Kut- NoEL. Of the following verses see on Matt. vii. 7. sqq. The similitude in v. 12. is well preserved, the body of the scorpion being very like an egg, and the head being scarcely discernable, especially in those of the white kind mentioned by Atlian and others. Bochart has produced testimonies to prove that the scorpions of Judea were about the size of anegg. See also Plin. N. H. x1. 25. MAcKNIGHT. Ἶ 528 LUKE XI. 13./17. 27. 33. Ver. 13. ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. This is not to be construed with δώ- σει, as some suppose, but is clearly equivalent to οὐράνιος, as in Matt. vii. 11. Compare 1 Cor. xv. 47—49. 2 Cor. v. 42. . By πνεῦμα ἅγιον is here meant the ordinary aids of the Holy Spirit, as parallel with the good gifts in Matt. vii.9. Accordingly the Greek Scholiasts have χάριν πνευματικήν. WuitBy, GRoTIUs, MrippLeton.—[CAmMPBELL. ] Ver. 17. καὶ οἶκος ἐπὶ οἶκον πίπτει. The Vulgate translates Et domus supra domum cadit, which probably gave rise to the opinion that οἶκος was a subdivision of βασιλεία in the pre- ceding clause, and that the sense of the passage should be thus rendered: By intestine broils any kingdom may be desolate, one family falling after another. But surely the original would hardly admit of such a translation, did not the parallel place in St. Matthew sufficiently prove that the generally received version is correct. The phrase οἶκος ἐπὶ οἶκον for ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτὸν is a He- braism of frequent occurrence. Grotius, KuryorLt.—[Camp- BELL. | Ver. 27. μακαρία ἡ κοιλία κι τ. A. This was an exclamation extremely natural, more particularly so if the woman was a mo- ther; and a variety of passages illustrating the sentiment are found in the Rabbinical and profane writers. From the latter we may select Museeus de Her. et Leand. 138. "Ὄλβιος ὅς σε φύτευσε, καὶ ὄλβιος ἣ τέκε μήτηρ, Ταστήρ θ᾽ ἣ σ᾽ ἐλόχευσε μακαρ- τάτη. Callim. H. Cer. 95. Κλαῖε μὲν ἁ μάτηρ, βαρὺ ὃ ἔστενον αἱ δύ᾽ ἀδελφαὶ, XW μαστὸς τὸν ἔπινε. Ovid. Met. IV. 320. Qué te genuere beati, Et frater felix, et fortunata profeeto, Siqua tibi soror est, et que dedit ubera nutrix. Claud. Pan. Prob. 203. O duplict fecundam Consule matrem, Felicemque uterum, qui ᾿ nomina parturit annis. Petron. Arb. 94. O felicem, inquiunt,’ matrem tuam, que te talem peperit. The verb θηλάζειν has an active signification in Luke xxiii. 29. As authorities for either acceptation we may compare Gen. xxi. 7. Job iii. 12. Psalm viii. 3. Lam. ii. 20, LXX. Matt. xxi. 16. xxiv. 19. Mark xiii. 17. fElian. V. H. XIII. 1. Hist. An. X. 8. Plut. Rom. p. 20. D. Exsner, WetsTEIN, Pauarret, RaPHetius, SCHOETTGEN. By the emphatic declaration in the next verse our Lord by no means intended to detract from the blessedness ascribed to the Virgin in Luke i. 28. 48. but merely to intimate that the essential blessed- ness of eternal happiness was not restricted to her alone in con- sequence of her relationship to him, but was equally extended to all who fulfilled the condition of the Gospel covenant. WuuirTBy, GRotivs. Ver, 33. koumriv. Scil. χώραν. Hence the Latin erypta, and the English crypt. Of the parable see on Matt. ν. 14. Our LUKE ΧΙ. 38- 529 Lord intimates that the exercise of his miraculous powers among those, who were blinded by their prejudices against the evidence which they afforded of his Messiahship, would be the same in effect as to place a lighted candle under a bushel. Hence he takes occasion in the three following verses, of which see on Matt. vi. 22., to exhort them to remove the darkness which ob- scured their mental vision, in order that the whole understanding might be illuminated by the light of the Gospel. The com- mentators complain of indistinctness and tautology in vy. 36., which some would remove by inserting the article before the second ὅλον, and understanding it of the whole man, both body and soul. Others would reject the verse altogether, upon the authority of some few MSS. in which it is omitted with v. 35. But there is no tautology in the case, the latter clause being more fully explained by a reference to the bright shining of the candle, supra v. 33. Neither would τὸ ὅλον imply both body and soul, nothing more than the body having been previously mentioned, though the soul be the object which our Lord had, by a tacit inference, more especially in view. Inv. 35. the ana- logy between external and intcrnal light had been established ; in the present the complete illumination described in the con- cluding clause, though intended of the mind, is aflirmed only of the body ; the application, after what had been said, being sup- posed to be obvious. A Crarke, MippLeron, Kurnori.—[Mr- CHAELIS, MarkLAND.] The noun ἀστραπὴ generally signifies lightning, as in Matt. xxiv. 27., but the corresponding Hebrew word is used to denote a bright flame in Deut. xxxii. 41. Nahum. ill. 3. SCHLEUSNER. Ver. 38. ἐβαπτίσθη. See on Matt. xv. 2. Mark vii. 2. sqq. In the next verse, for ὑμῶν some of the commentators suggest ὑμῖν, as the most elegant and appropriate reading ; but the con- jecture is wholly unsupported, and the intermixture of the com- parison with its application is not unusual in our Lord’s parables. See the last note. In this instance, more especially, the two parts are almost necessarily blended, inasmuch as the outside of the cup, in point of fact, could scarcely be cleansed without cleansing the inside also; so that the application ad hominem runs thus :— ** You, while you are so scrupulous in regard to external wash- ings, do nothing more than if you washed the outside of the cup or platter, while there was nothing but filth within. Ye fools! did not God, who made the outward man, make the inward man also? and does he not require inward as well as outward purity?” According to some, however, the verb ποιεῖν, v. 40., signifies to make a thing as it ought to be, and thence to cleanse. It is true, indeed, that some shew of authority may be produced for such a meaning, as, for instance, 2 Sam. xix. 25. LXX. ποιεῖν τὸν μύσ- taxa. But St. Luke would scarcely have used the verb in so rare VOL. I. M m 530 LUKE ΧΙ. 41. 49. a sense; and the received interpretation is much more simple, and at least equally intelligible. The word ἄφρονες corresponds with the Hebrew O'OW, which frequently occurs in the Rabbi- nical writings. Thus in Menacoth, p. 66, 1. R. Jochanan Ben Zacchai said: Ye fools, how prove ye this? Licurroor, Ro- SENMULLER.—[ELSNER, KUINOEL. | Ver. 41. τὰ ἐνόντα. Some commentators understand κατὰ and χρήματα, and render the formula thus supplied, according to your substance. Now in Demosth. de Cor. p. 312. ἐνόντα dex notes property ; and the ellipsis may probably be justified by the somewhat similar one in Arist. Eccles. 856. ra δυνατὰ yao Sci rf πόλει ξυλλαμβάνειν. But the proper phrase in this case would be ἐκ τῶν ἐνόντων ; and though ra ἔνοντα might possibly bear the same signification, no example to that effect has been pro- duced ; at all events, we should rather have expected ὑπάρχοντα, as in Luke viii. 3. xii. 33. Compare Tob. iv. 7, 8. It seems better, therefore, to understand τῷ ποτηρίῳ ; and, indeed, that ra ἔνοντα will mean that which is within the cup, may be fairly in- ferred from the parallel place in Matt. xxiii. 26., where the words corresponding with τὰ ἔνοντα δότε ἐλεημοσύνην are καθάρισον τὸ ἐντὸς τοῦ ποτηρίου. Compare Xen. Hell. II. 3. 6. Ages. II. 19. Hence the sense will be—Care not for the exterior part of the cup, but give in alms the food which it contains; and thus all things shall be clean to you: i. e. you shall not require the Levitical purification. See Zit. i. 15. Raruetius, KypKE, WET- STEIN, ParkHuRST.—[Grortius, Ros—ENMULLER, SCHLEUSNER, CampPBELL.] It has been supposed that our Lord’s words are ironical, and spoken“in derision of the high importance attached to alms-giving by the Pharisees, of which there are sufficient proofs in the Rabbinical writings. Thus in Bava Bathra, p. 9, 1. R. Asai saith, Alms are equivalent to all the other command- ments. Again, p. 10, 1., R. Judah said, Giving of alms hastens our redemption ; it delivers from death. But such an interpreta- tion is more ingenious than solid; for, although our Lord did sometimes, though rarely, employ irony, the present occasion was not one in which he would have departed from his usual solemnity of discourse. We are not to infer, however, that alms- giving is the only virtue required by God, but that it was se- lected by Christ, not only as inclusive of every other Christian grace, but as being the one in which the Pharisees, like Nebu- chodonozar, were peculiarly deficient. Compare Dan. iv. 27. Pos- sibly, also, it may have been chosen with an indirect reference to the subject in hand, as the Arabic word zachat signifying alms, carries the double sense of increase and cleansing. SCHLEUSNER, Wuitsy, Le CLerc.—[Licurroot, Kurnoet. | iy oe Ver, 49. ἡ σοφία τοῦ Θεοῦ. Some understand by this a peri- LUKE XI. 53. XII.+1. 531 phrasis for Christ, as in Matt. xxiii. 34, our Lord speaks in his own person. But it is agreeable to the Hebrew idiom to say the wisdom of God and the power of God for the wise God and the mighty God; and such is, in all probability, the case in this passage. Compare Acts viii. 10. 1 Cor. i. 24. 30. and elsewhere. A similar form of speaking is not unusual in the Jewish writings ; as, for instance, in the Targum on Lament. 11. 2. Is it fitting that the daughters of Israel should eat the fruit of their own womb? The rule of judgment, i. e. retributive justice, answered and said, Was it also fitting to kill a priest and a prophet in the sanctuary of the Lord, as ye killed Zacharias? ἸΚΟΊΝΟΕΙ,, LigHTFoot. Ver, 53. ἀποστοματίζειν αὐτόν. Τὰ. T. to provoke him to speak. The primary import of this verb is to recite from me- mory, ἀπὸ στόματος λέγειν; οἵ which there are abundant in- stances in Plutarch, Athenzeus, and other writers. Hence also to command another to speak, to question magisterially, as a teacher does his disciples. Hesych. arooromarigev’ ἀπὸ μνήμης ἀξιοῦν λέγειν... Suidas: ἀποστοματίζειν φασὶ τὸν διδάσκαλον, ὅταν κελεύῃ τὸν παῖδα λέγειν ἅττα ἀπὸ στόματος. Jul. Pol. IT. 202. ἀποστοματίζεσθαι δὲ τοὺς παῖδας Πλάτων που λέγει, ἤγουν ἀπὸ τῶν διδασκάλων ἐρώτασθαι τὰ μαθήματα. The passage here referred to isin Plat. Euthyd. p. 14. τί δὲ, ὦ Κλεινία, ἔφη, ὁπότε ἀποστοματίζοι ὑμῖν ὁ γραμματιστὴς, πότεροι ἐμάνθανον τῶν παίδων τὰ ἀποστοματιζόμενα; οἱ σοφοὶ, ἢ οἱ ἀμαθεῖς ; So also Aristot. Soph. Elench. 3. τὰ γὰρ ἀποστοματιζόμενα μανθάνουσιν οἱ γραμματεῖς. ‘The sense in which St. Luke has employed it is marked in the desire of the Pharisees θηρεῦσαί τι ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ; and it is one of the many proofs of his perfect familiarity with the genius of the Greek language. Grorius, Hammonp, WetstTeIn, Kypxe. Of the phrase δεινῶς ἐνέχειν see on Mark vi. 19. CHAPTER XII. Contents :—Christ exhorts his disciples against hypocrisy, and recommends confidence in the divine Providence, wv. 1—12. He refuses to act as judge, vv. 13, 14. Caution against worldly cares and anxieties, vv. 15 —84. Exhorta- tion to watchfulness, vv. 835—59. Verse 1. τῶν μυριάδων τοῦ ὄχλον. That is, an indefinitely great multitude. So μυρίας is used for the Hebrew 239 in Mm 2 » “5 ΓῚ 532 LUKE XII. 13, 15. Gen, xxiv. 60. Deut. xxxili. 2. Psalm iii. 6. Dan, xi. 12. Ecelus. xlvii. 6. Compare also Acts xxi. 20. (xxvi. 26.\Heb. xii. 22. Jude 14. Rev. v. 11. Ligutroot, Grotrus. 4 Ibid. ἥτις ἐστὶν ὑπόκρισις. These words are supposed by some to be an interpolation, because in a parallel admonition in Matt. xvi. 6. our Lord expressly refers to the doctrines of the Pharisees under the image of /eaven. But it should rather seem, from the connection of the sense in the two following verses, that the allusion is here to another symbolic application of the term ; and it is well known that it was usual with him to give a different turn to the same idea upon different occasions. See on Jatt. xvi. 11. The precept coincides with that which in the charge to the twelve runs thus: Be wise as serpents, 80. (Matt. x. 16.) for though the disciples were to be prudent and circumspect in their behaviour, their prudence was to be wholly unmixed with hypocrisy. Of this the Pharisees had as large a proportion as of false doctrine ; and our Lord assures his followers, that although their artful expedient might serve a turn for the present, it would eventually be discovered and exposed. Macxnient, A. CLARKE. —[Perarce.] Of the following verses see on Matt. x. 26. sqq. and xii. 31, 52. and of the import of ἀνθ᾽ ὧν, v. 3. on Luke i. 20. Ver. 13. μερίσασθαι per ἐμοῦ τὴν κληρονομίαν. Among the Jews children had the inheritance of their fathers divided equally among them, except that the eldest had a double portion. [{ is likely, though by no means certain, that the complainant in the text was a younger brother, from whom the elder had detained his share of the property bequeathed to him. Some have sup- posed that he appealed to our Lord in his prophetic capacity, but his reply, which is founded on od. 11. 14. plainly indicates that he was requested to act merely as an arbitrator ; nor is it impro- bable that disciples, in order to avoid the delay of judicial pro- ceedings, were sometimes accustomed in such cases to abide by the decisions of their masters. Christ, no doubt, declined to in- terfere lest he should excite the jealousy of the Jewish council, probably that of the three judges, who were the appointed arbi- trators of property. In after times, when the Christian converts abstained to bring their differences before a Heathen tribunal, the bishops usually decided controversies of this nature, in con- formity with the advice of St. Paul in 1 Cor, vi. 1. sqq. Wrirsy, Grotius, Licutroot.—[Le CuieErc. ] Ver.15. φυλάσσεσθε ἀπὸ τῆς πλεονεξίας. From the connexion between this precept and the incident which gave rise to it, 7Aco- vetia evidently denotes an over anxiety in acquiring wealth, the inefficiency of which in securing either the happiness or duration of life, is illustrated in the following parable. Of ζωὴ in the sense of felicity we have examples in Prov. iv. 22. Xi. LOUK ED XG 6..20. 535 28. LXX. Rom. viii. 6. 1 Pet. iii. 10. So Ovid. Pont. LV. 6. 8. The reason assigned for this admonition of our Lord may be il- lustrated by a variety of passages in the classical writers. Aristot. Nicom. X. 9. οὐ γὰρ ἐν τῇ ὑπερβολῇ τὸ αὐταρκές. Hor. Od. IV. 9. 45. Non possidentem multa vocaveris Recte beatum, §c. Sat. I. 1. 49. Dic, quid referat intra Nature fines viventi, jugera centum, an Mille aret? Epist. 1. 2. 47. Non @eris acervus et aurt Aigroto domini deduxit corpore febres, Non animo curas. Manil. LV. 89. Ht neque paupertas breviores excipit annos, Nec sunt immensis opibus venalia fata. Apparent, however, as is the sense of the passage, not so the construction. Some of the com- mentators would join 2x τῶν ὑπαρχόντων with ζωὴ, others with ἐν τῷ περισσεύειν. But although ζῆν ἐκ τινὸς is a frequent phrase, as in 1 Cor. ix. 14., ἔς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ζῆν, nothing seems to be gained by such an expression as ζῆν ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρ- χόντων ; and a genitive after περισσεύειν, as in Luke xv. 17., 15 always without a preposition. Possibly the latter words are a marginal interpretation, which have improperly found their way into the text. Wuitsy, SCHLEUSNER, GrRoTIUs, WETSTEIN, KuinoEL.—[CAMPBELL. ] Ver. 16. εὐφόρησεν. This verb is somewhat rare ; it is used, however, in Joseph. B. J. I. 2. 43. as εὔφορος and εὐφορία are in Atlian. V. H. II. 17. Phil. Vit. Mos. T. I. p. 162. The noun χώρα is here synonymous with ἄγρος, ὦ field. Compare Matt. xxiv. 18. with Luke xxi. 21. and see Leclus. xliil. 3. LXX. John iv. 35. James v. 4. So Joseph. Ant. VII.8. 5. τὴν χώραν ἐπυρπόλησε. From this signification of χώρα, as opposed to cities and towns, is derived the word \woericxowoc, who was an officer appointed to assist the bishop in country districts. Of γεννήματα, produce, v. 18., we have another example in Luke xxii. 18. So Polyb. I. 71. τῶν ἐκ τῆς χώρας γεννημάτων. Diod. Sic. V. 17. τῶν δὲ πρὸς τὴν τροφὴν γεννημάτων οἶνον μὲν ὅλοσ- χερῶς οὐκ ἔχουσι. With v. 19. compare Leclus. xi. 18, 19. Hence Senec. Epist. 99. Nos corpus putre sortite nihilominus eterna proponimus, et, in quantum potest etas humana pro- tendi, tantum spe occupamus. WrtTsTEIN, Grotius, KypKE, ScHLEUSNER, ROSENMULLER. Ver. 20. τὴν ψυχήν σου ἀπαιτοῦσιν. Wisd. xv. 8. τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπαιτηθεὶς χρέος. Commentators differ respecting the nominative to be supplied before ἀπαιτοῦσιν. Some understand God in the plural, with reference to the Trinity, and others sup- pose an allusion to the Jewish opinion, that the angel of death, by means of good or bad angels respectively, required back the debt of life. See on Luke xvi. 22. But it is enough perhaps to explain the expression as an impersonal form, of which there are many similar instances in this Gospel. Compare ver. 48. vi. . ΛΔ 44 oe - 534 LUKE XII. 21. 24. 29. 38. 444xiii, 19) xiv. 85. xvi. 4.9. and elsewhere. So Catull. III. 9. Qui nunc it per iter tenebricosum Illic, unde negant redire guenquam. With the sentiment in the next verse the following are parallel. Anthol. 11. 50. 12. Πλοῦτον μὲν πλουτοῦντος ἔχεις, ψυχὴν δὲ πένητος, Ὦ τοῖς κληρονόμοις πλούσιε, σοὶ δὲ πένης. Propert. Eleg. III. 5. 18. Haud ullas portabis opes Acherontis ad undas; Nudus ab inferna, stulte, vehere rate. Mart. Epig. VIII. 44. 9. Rape, congere, aufer, posside : relinquendum est. Pheed. Fab. IV. 19. 18. Tibi dico, Avare, gaudium heredis tui. Sil. Ital. V. 265. Modo quem Fortuna fovendo Congestis opibus donisque refersit opimis Nudum Tartarea portabit navita cymba. Grotius, KurnoeL, RosENMULLER. —[SCHOETTGEN, ELsNeER. | Ver. 21. εἰς Θεὸν πλουτῶν. The verb πλουτεῖν is here evi- dently to be taken in a spiritual sense; but there is some dif- ference of opinion as to the import of the expression πλουτεῖν εἰς Θεόν. Some make it synonymous with θησαυρίζειν ἐν οὐρανῷ, as in Matt. vi. 20. Others understand it as signifying fo use one’s riches as God wishes. But perhaps the true meaning is, to be rich for God's glory; i.e. by employing one’s wealth in works of charity and benevolence. Compare v. 33. So Lucian. Epist. Saturn. 24. ἐς τὸ κοινὸν πλουτεῖν, to be rich for the benefit of the community. Philo Byzant. πλουτεῖν sig Θεῶν κόσμον. Kyrxe, Parkuurst.—[KuInoeLt, ScHLEUSNER, MarxkLaNnp, &c.] Of the following verses see on Matt. vi.'25. sqq. Ver. 24. κόρακας. Matt. vi. 26. πετεινά. ‘The commentators remark a more beautiful allusion in St. Luke, from the pecu- liarities of the raven tribe. Naturalists relate that they fre- quently desert their young, either from forgetfulness or aversion ; and Philo relates that they are preserved from perishing by worms and insects, which the materials of which their nests are made are calculated to produce. See Philo X. 12. Arist. Hist. An. IX. 91. Aélian. II. 49. and compare Job xxxviil. 41. Psalm cxlvii. 9. Grortius, WETSTEIN. Ver, 29. μετεωρίζεσθες. This verb signifies properly to Lift up on high; and, as well as the adjective μετέωρος, is applied to the flight of birds, and to ships at sea, which appear elevated in re- spect of the land. Compare Ezek. x. 16. sqq. Obad. iv. LXX. ABlian. H. A. 111. 20. VII. 30. XI. 33. Thucyd. VII. 16. Hence, from the agitation to which birds and ships are subject from the winds, arises the metaphorical signification of being restless and unsettled in mind. Cic. Epist. Att. XV. 14. Ita sum μετέωρος, et magnis cogitationibus impeditus. Virg. Ain. VILL. 19. Qui magno curarum estuat estu. In this sense we have Lucian. Jup. Trag. T. IL. p. 191. μετέωροι πάντες πρὸς τὴν Σ LUKE XII. 30. 32. 35. 535 ἀκρόασιν. Thucyd. 11. 7. ἡ “Ἑλλὰς πᾶσα μετέωρος ἦν. See also” Joseph. B.J. 1. 27. 3. 11..91..1.1Ν.9. 2. Ant. VIII. 8. 9, The same metaphor is retained by the Latins as in Cic. Tusc. I. 40. Expectando et desiderando pendemus animis, cruciamur, an- gumur. Compare Soph. Cid. T, 914. Parkuurst, Wuirsy, Grotius, ALBERTI, DoppRIDGE, WETSTEIN, SCHLEUSNER. Ver. 30. ἔθνη κόσμους. The words κόσμος and αἰὼν have a peculiar meaning in the sacred which they have not in profane writers, the latter referring to the Jewish ages, and the former to the Gentile. Compare Matt. xxiv. 3. Tit. i. 2. and elsewhere. LiguTroor. Ver, 32. τὸ μικρὸν ποίμνιον. Double diminutives of this na- ture have a peculiar emphasis. Among a variety of instances the following have been selected: Aristoph. Plut. 147. 240. μικρὸν ἀργυρίδιον. Isocr. μικρὰ πολίχνια. Athen. XV. p. 666. μικρὸν πινακίσκιον. Xen. Cyrop. VIII. μάλα μικρὸν γήδιον. Cic. Acad. IV.38. minuta opuscula. Paradox. Procem. minutas interrogatiun- culas. The form is here expressive of the utmost tenderness, which is rendered yet more emphatic by the insertion of the article, somewhat unusual with the vocative, in the sense of the pos- sessive pronoun. WeETSTEIN, CAMPBELL. On the two following verses see on Matt. xix. 21. vi. 19. The adjective ἀνέκλειπτος, though of rare occurrence, is found in Diod. Sic. IV. 84. avex- λείπτους ἔχοντες τὰς τῆς τροφῆς δαψιλείας. In the same sense ἀνεκλιπὴς is used in Wesd. vii. 14. viii. 18. LXX. With the sentiment in v. 34. we may compare Plaut. Aul. II. 2. 4. Nam Ego sum hic: animus domi est. Καὶ ΟΥΝΟΕΙ,, PEARCE. Ver. 35. ai ὀσφύες περιεζωσμέναι. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 402. The custom alluded to prevailed among the ancients generally, with those engaged in any active employments, as sol- diers, servants, and others. With respect to the Jews we may compare Ewod. xxxix. 5. Lev. xvi. 4. 1 Kings xx. 11. 2 Kings iii. 21. Luke xvii. 8. John xiii. 4. Ephes. vi. 14. Rev. 1.185. To the same effect Hom. Od. &. 72. ζωστῆρι θοῶς συνέεργε χιτῶνα. (Eustath. σπουδῆς δηλωτικόν.) Hence the adjective εὔζωνος, active. Horat. Sat. 11, 8. 10. puer alte cinctus. 70. Precincti recte pueri comptique ministrant. On the contrary, discénctus implies édle, dissolute, as in Hor. Epod. I. 34. We may gather from ν. 37. that it was the custom of those days, as it was in older times among ourselves, for the host, on certain occasions, to wait upon the company. The same also appears from*Hor. Sat. II. 6. 107. velutt succinctus cursitat hospes, Continuatque dapes, necnon verniliter ipsis Fungitur οὐ οὐδ. It was not cus- tomary, indeed, that the servants sat at table while the master waited; though something similar took place at the Roman Sa- 10 _»@ LUKE XII. 47. 49. urnalia, the Cretan Wermea, and some other ancient festivals. ‘Our Lord merely meant to aflirm that the master would treat such servants with every mark of honour and respect, HAMMonD, Grotius, Wuirsy, Le Crrerc, Kurnort. Of the following verses see on Matt. xxiv. 43. sqq. xxv. 1. sqq. and of the word γάμος, v. 36. on Matt. xxii. 1. In ν. 37. the participle is re- dundant, as in Luke xvii. 8. παρελθὼν ἀναπέσαι. See also Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. p. 308. Ver. 47. δαρήσεται πολλάς. That is, κατὰ πολλὰς πληγάς; and so κατὰ ὀλίγας πληγὰς, in the next verse. The same el- lipsis is frequent in the best writers. Arist. Vesp. 1277. καί με κακίσταις ἔκνισε, scil. πληγαῖς. Nub. 472. τυπτόμενος πολλάς. Xen. Anab. V. ὀλίγας παίειν. So in Latin, Terent. Heaut. II. 4, 22. diu etiam duras dabit; scil. plagas. Bos. Of the verb δέρειν see on Matt. xxi. 35.; and of the punishment of scourg- ing among the Jews see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 141. It appears that although forty stripes was the limit allowed by the law, a man was sometimes adjudged to receive twice the number, if he were guilty of a double offence ; and a master might inflict any number on his slave. Jor petty offences as few as six, five, and even four stripes were sometimes given. ‘hus in Pesachim, p- 94. 2. He that eateth the potitha, let him be beaten with four stripes; he that eateth a pismire, let him be beaten with five ; he that eateth a hornet, let him have six. Hence, in the adminis- tration of God’s retributive justice, reward or punishment will be administered according to the use or abuse which men make of the opportunities vouchsafed to them. Ligurroor, A. CLARKE. Ver. 49. πῦρ ἦλθον κ. τ. A. From the necessity of watchful- ness our Lord is led to consider the times of persecution, when it would be more especially called for; and the fire of which would be kindled immediately after his death and passion, which are here represented under the image of baptism. See on Matt. x. 34. xx. 22. Ovid affords a good illustration of fire, as the emblem of persecution: Scilicet ut fulvum spectatur in ignibus aurum ; Tempore sic duro est experienda fides, Gnrorius. Ibid. τί θέλω, εἰ ἤδη ἀνήφθη; The commentators have expe- rienced no little difficulty in interpreting these words. Some would make τί how much, as in Cant. VII. 6. LXX. and εἰ that, as the Hebrew DN, in 1 Sam. xxiv. 7. Compare Acts viii. 22, Others would render it nész, with the Vulgate, as if the ori- ginal were εἰ μή. But that a wish is intended to be expressed is sufficiently evident from the corresponding clause in the very next verse; and it is therefore preferable to render the particle by utinam. Of its use in this signification see my note on Soph. id. T. 863. Pent. Gr. p. 61. and the somewhat obscure con- struction may fairly be attributed to the degree of energy, not LUKE XII. 54. 56. . ὦ 537 unmixed with agitation, with which the words were delivered. Hence there is no necessity for placing a note of interrogation at θέλω, as some have supposed. The import of the passage is this :—** Since the advancement of true religion must be at- tended by such unhappy divisions and persecutions, I cannot but wish that they, together with my passion which must precede them, had already taken place.” The particle εἰ is also used in this sense in Luke xix. 12. xxii. 42. and in Josh. vii. 7. Job vi. 2. LXX. In the schools of the Rabbins an affirmation is some- times expressed in the form of a question; so that what will I, §c. may be equivalent to I will, §c. Grotius, Wurrsy, Licur- Foot, ParKHurst. —[CampBELL, Kurnoet.] The verb συνέ- χεσθαι, to be distressed, occurs in Luke viii. 37. Phil. i. 23. So Menander: συνέχεται λυπαῖς ἀεί. In Acts xviii. 5. τῷ πνεύματι is added. The whole clause is a curious instance of the laxity with which the early Fathers sometimes cited the Scriptures. Irenzus, quoting from memory, reads it καὶ πάνυ ἐπείγομαι εἰς αὐτό; and Epiphanius καὶ τί θέλω, εἰ ἤδη ἐβαπτίσθην ; in both instances the sense is preserved, without the slightest resemblance to the words of the passage. Grotius, Minn, SCHLEUSNER. The verb ἔχειν is here used in the sense of μέλλειν, as in 2 Esdr. iv. 45. LXX. Lactantius uses habere in the same way; and 50 also the translators of the Athanasian Creed, habent resurgere. Hammonp. Ver. 54. τὴν νεφέλην. Some MSS. omit the article, but it is unquestionably definite, the appearance here mentioned being a well known phcenomenon. Seé Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 33. From niceties of this sort, in which a local custom or popular opinion of the time is alluded to, and which could not easily be fabricated, we obtain a strong evidence of the authenticity of the Scriptures, and consequently of the credibility of our religion. It may be observed, also, that the heat which accompanies the southerly winds, which blow during the month of March in Syria and Palestine, is excessively oppressive. Different illustrations to the same effect are given in Matt. xvi. 2., where our Lord ad- dresses the Pharisees. MrppLeTon, Grorius, PARKHURST. Ver. ὅθ᾽ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον. Namely, that it is the time in which, according to the prophets, the Messiah was to appear. Our Lord proceeds in the next verse to intimate, that even with- out the express declaration of the prophets they had sufficient evidence in what they heard and saw, that God had visited his people in a most extraordinary manner, from which they might reasonably infer that his mission was divine. The adjective δί- καιος here denotes fitting, reasonable, as in Phil. i. 7, and else- where. Grotius, A. CLARKE. 538 LUKE XII. 58. XIII. 1. Ver. 58. ὡς yao ὑπάγεις κι τ. A. This and the next verse occur in Matt. y. 25., forming part of our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount; and it is supposed by some that St. Luke has recorded them here as a detached precept in the same sense which they bear in St. Matthew, without any reference to the preceding con- text. This notion, however, is hardly consistent with the use of the connecting particle γάρ; and the precept may well be consi- dered as a parable, in which the Jews are warned to make their peace with God by repentance, before the time of predicted ven- geance arrived. Our Lord seems to have left his hearers to make the application for themselves, as in Luke xiii. 16., and upon other occasions, that he might not provoke the anger of the mul- titude. Hammonp, Le Crerc.—[Grortius, Wuirsy. } Ibid. δὸς ἐργασίαν. There is some difference of opinion re- specting the import of this phrase: some commentators, after Theophylact, supposing it to mean to pay the interest as well as the principal of the debt. But this is extremely harsh; not to mention that τόκος is the word employed to denote interest or usury in Luke xix. 23. The phrase is evidently a Latinism, dare operam; and it is used of a laboured composition by Her- mogenes, de Invent. III. 5. 17. Of the noun πράκτωρ see on Luke iii. 11. and of λεπτὸν, in the next verse, on Mark xii. 41. The verb κατασύρειν is used as the Latin detrahere, in Cic. Milon. 14. Cum in judicium detrahi non posset. Philo frequently em- ploys the word in the same sense. WeEtTSTEIN, Grorius, KyPKE. —[Lr Cuerc.] Jaw.9 Akg CHAPTER XIII. Contents :—Pilate’s massacre of certain Galileans, and the fall of the Tower in Siloam, vv. \—5. The parable of the barren fig-tree, vv. 6—9. Aninfirm woman cured, vy. 1O—17. The parable of the grain of mustard-seed and the leaven, wv. 18—22. [Matt. xiii. 31.] The question Are the\yfew saved ? answered, vy. 23—30. Herod’s design to kill Christ, ν. 31. He predicts his death and resurrection, and mourns over Je- rusalem, vv. 31—35. Verse 1. περὶ τῶν Γαλιλαίων, ὧν κι τι A The incident to which the Evangelist here alludes is not determined. It has been supposed, in opposition to the plain statement that the people concerned in it were Galileans, that it was the sedition raised by the Samaritans on Mount Gerizim, and suppressed by ve LUKE XIII. 3. 539 Pilate, as related in Joseph. Ant. XVIII. 5. Some of the Greek Fathers contend that the tumult is intended, which was set on foot by the followers of Judas of Galilee, (Acts v. 37.) who ap- peared about A.D. 14. and resisted the payment of tribute to Cesar. The tenor of the context, however, seems to point to a more recent event, and Christ, who disapproved of the leading principle of this sect, would scarcely have placed them on a level with those who were innocently slain by the fall of a tower. In fact, nothing certain can be decided on the subject. There is no particular mention of the affair in Josephus, though his declara- tion that the Galilaans were the most seditious people in the land, renders it highly credible that some sudden tumult in the temple may have given Pilate a pretext for putting a party of them to the sword. It is related in Joseph. B. J. II. 1. 3. that Archelaus did not hesitate to slay three thousand while they were offering sacrifices; and in some insurrection of the Galilzans Pilate may have followed his example. Indeed, though Judas himself was not personally concerned, the factious tenet of his party may have been the origin of the tumult upon this as well as upon other occasions. See Joseph. II. 1. 12. 23. Ant. XX. 5. A pe- culiar atrocity was supposed to attach to a murder committed be- fore an altar. Liv. X. 39. Nefando sacro mixta hominum pe- cudumque cede respersus. WuitsBy, Grotius, Licutroor, WETSTEIN. Ibid. τῶν θυσιῶν. For τοῦ αἵματος τῶν θυσιῶν. There is a similar ellipsis in Hor. Od. I. 1. 299. Lituo tube Permixtus so- nitus. The sense is complete in Phil. Jud. T. 11. p. 315. αἵματι γὰρ ἀνδροφόνων αἷμα θυσιῶν ἀνεκφαθήσεται. In the next verse the preposition παρὰ signifies above or beyond, as in Luke iii. 16. Δ “Rom. i. 9. 11. 7. 9. ix. 28. “So preter in Latin. Plaut. Amphit. IJ. 1. Quem ego amo preter omnes. WETSTEIN. Ver. 3. ὡσαύτως. In like manner; as ὁμοίως inv. 5. This declaration partakes not only of an admonition, but of a pro- phecy, which was literally fulfilled about forty years afterwards in the destruction of Jerusalem. During the siege the Temple was frequently the seat of war, and multitudes of the priests who were offering the sacrifices were slain, and their blood mingled with that of the victims. Multitudes also were buried under the ruins of the Temple. See Joseph. B. J. V. VI. et passtm. Upon other occasions also the Temple had been defiled with various slaugh- ters. Under Florus a massacre took place, and Manahem was slain as he worshipped there. The zealots also, and the Idu- means who assisted them, met with a similar fate, (B. J. II. 32. IV. 14. sqq.) Wuirsy, Grotius, A. Crarke. A notion pre- vailed among the Jews that any sudden calamity was sent by God as a judicial visitation upon the sins of the sufferers; and it is not improbable that the circumstances here related were re- 540 LUKE XIII. 6, 7. garded in this light. The evident drift of our Lord’s observation upon them is to set aside this error in judgment, though it has been produced in support of the very doctrine which it was in- tended to refute. Christ does not indeed deny that these Ga- lilaans were sinners, and that their sufferings were justly due to their sins; but he reprobated the uncharitable judgment of those who look upon such accidental occurrences as particular provi-— dences, and condemn SSoticular sullerers a the Sichite-or-God's merited vengeance, while they regard themselves as comparatively righteous, only because no such calamity has yet befallen them. RosENMULLER, WarertANp. Of the Pool of Siloam see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. pp. 23.43. The tower was probably built on the city walls, near which the stream flowed. Of the word ὀφειλετὴς see on Luke xi. 4. Ver. 6. συκῆν ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι. This circumstance has been supposed to militate with Dewt. xxii. 9.; but the precept there delivered seems rather to forbid the sowing of a variety of seeds in the same field, and the planting of trees is not noticed. Vines and fig-trees were frequently planted together, and hence they are frequently mentioned in conjunction in the O. T. Pliny also observes in N. H. XVII. 18. F’corum levis (umbra est,) guamvis sparsa ; tdeoque inter vineas seri non vetantur. An opposite opi- nion, however, is adopted in Theophrast. Plant. II]. 15. χαλε- πώτατα δὲ καὶ ἀμπέλῳ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις συκῆ Kal ἐλαία" Kal γὰρ τροφὴν πολλὴν ἀμφότερα λαμβάνει, καὶ σκιὰν παρέχει πλείστην. KuInoEL, Werstetn. Of the scope of this parable see Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. p. 402. and compare Isaiah v. 1. sqq. There is a somewhat similar comparison in Arrian. Epictet. I. 15. συκῆς μὲν κάρπος ἄφνω καὶ μίᾳ ὥρᾳ οὐ τελειοῦται" γνωμῆς δ᾽ ἀνθρώπου κάρπον θέλεις οὕτω δ᾽ ὀλίγου καὶ εὐκολῶς κτήσασθαι; GROTIUS. Ver.7. τρία ἔτη. In Judea fig-trees usually bore fruit after they had been planted three years, Maimon. Mor. Nev. III. 37. Theophr. Plant. III. 17. Columel. de Arb. 21. In the applica- tion of the parable, however, the three years must be understood of an éndefinite period, and not after some commentators, as in- dicating the three years’ duration of our Saviour’s ministry. In this case the fourth year, during which the tree was allowed te remain, could not be extended to represent the forty years which intervened between the death of Christ and the fall of Jerusalem without destroying the unity of the image. ‘The four years to- gether embrace the whole period of the Jewish commonwealth, and the time of Christ’s ministry is well denoted by the close of the third year, the maturity of the tree corresponding with the completion of the Mosaic dispensation. Wuitsy, Grotius.— [Pearce.] The verb καταργεῖν, from ἀργὸς, inactive, signifies to render useless, properly cessare facere, and in this sense it occurs LUKE XIII. 9. 11. 15. 26. 541 in Esra iv. 21. 23. v. 5. vi. 8. LXX. So also Dioscorides, and Eur. Phoen. 765. ὅπως ἂν μὴ καταργῶμεν χέρα. As applied to land, we meet with Arist. GEcon. 2. χώρας ἀργοῦ γενομένης. Compare Diod. Sic. XIX. 42. The verb, however, is used no where in the sense of this passage, nor is it to be found in the classical writers, except in the passages above cited. It is used, however, by St. Paul in a variety of derived senses, so as almost to be reckoned among the words peculiar to this Apostle. In 1 Cor. vi. 13. xiii. 8. and elsewhere it signifies to abolish ; 2 Tim. i. 10. to destroy; 1 Cor. xiii. 11. to put away; Gal. ii. 17. to abrogate ; and Rom. vii. 2. to emancipate. Grotius, Wet- STEIN, KYPKE. Ver. 9. κἂν piv ποιήσῃ κάρπον. The sense must be supplied by καλῶς ἔχει, of which ellipsis see my note on Hom. 1]. A. 135. We may observe that it was a principle with the Jews, founded on the precept in Deut. xx. 19. not to cut down any tree till its barrenness was clearly ascertained. Hence Bava Kama, p. 1. Cut not down a palm that bears a cab of dates. Licutroor. Ver. 11. πνεῦμα ἀσθενείας. Not simply a periphrasis for ac- θενείαν, as some maintain, but to be understood in reference to the Jewish opinion, that diseases were frequently inflicted by evil spirits. Hence v. 16. ἣν ἔδησεν ὁ Σατανᾶς. See Joseph. Ant. VI. 9. the Targums on Psalm xci. 6. and Maimon. Mor. Nev. III. 22. on “οῦ τι. 7. The infirmity under which this woman la- boured was called κύφωσις, as plainly appears from the use of the appropriate terms συγκύπτειν and ἀνακύπτειν. We have εἰς τὸ παντελὲς for παντελῶς, as in Heb. vii. 25. Wuirsy, Licut- FOOT, WETSTEIN, KypKe.—[RosENMULLER. | Ver. 15. λύει τὸν βοῦν, x. τ. A. It appears from Schabb. II. I. Erubbim, p. 20, 2.and a variety of other passages in the Rab- binical writings, that it was permitted to attend to the feeding of their cattle on the Sabbath, and even to draw water for them, and pour it into troughs. The Heathens also allowed the per- formance of a variety of agricultural employments on their most solemn festivals. See Virg. Georg. I. 268. sqq. Compare the note on Matt. xii. 11. Liaurroor, ScnorrTrceNn, DoppripeGE, WertsteEIn. Of the importance which the Jews attached to their descent from Abraham, whence they called themselves his sons and daughters, see on Matt. iii. 9., and of the two following pa- rables on Matt. xiii. 31. 33. Ver. 23. εἰ ὀλίγοι of σωζόμενοι; The precise import of this question, as well as the spirit in which it was put, is not fully agreed upon by the commentators. Some understand σώζεσθαι of temporal deliverance only, in which sense it is applied in the 542 LUKE XIII. 82. LXX with reference to the remnant, κατάλειμμα, which the pro- phets declared would be rescued from the general destruction of the Jews, which was now approaching. See Jerem. xlix. 17. LXX, and elsewhere. Julian has a parallel expression in Or. I. p. 6. λείψανον περισωζόμενον. Others understand the expression of those who shall be saved from the general disbelief, i. e. of those, among the Jews more especially, who should believe in Christ and embrace his religion. So the remnant mentioned in Isaiah x. 22. is applied by St. Paul in Rom. ix. 27. Compare Luke xix. 9. Acts xi. 17, Rom. xi. 14. 1 Cor. vii. 16. and particularly Acts ii. 40. and 47. Ignatius also, in his Epistle to Polycarp, has em- ployed the term in the same acceptation. Hence it will signify to put in the way of salvation. Compare Jos. B.J. V. 13. 5. It seems more probable, however, that eternal salvation was in the mind of the enquirer, and that the question was not a captious one, as some suppose, but proposed with a view to an authori- tative answer. Though it was the general opinion of the Jews that all Israel should have their part in the world to come, still the point appears to have been disputed continually in the schools, (Sanhedr. p. 3. 1.); and our Lord’s judgment may have been sought as decisive on the subject. Hence the use of the participle in the present instead of the future, as indicating a firm reliance upon the certainty of his decision, the present time being fre- quently employed when the event, though future, is clearly ascer- tainable. Our Lord’s reply, moreover, is not easily reconcile- able with the idea of a temporal deliverance, though in this, as in other cases of merely speculative importance, he has not given a direct answer. Compare John xii. 34. xxi. 21. Acts i. 7. It was of more concern to know what sort of persons than how many will be saved; and accordingly we are told that those only will enter into the gate of life who strive (ἀγωνίζονται) to do so. This striving, therefore, is totally distinct from’ any absolute decree, and it depends upon ourselves whether we will or will not use the necessary exertions to make our calling and election sure. Wuitsy, Grotius, Licgutroot, ScHorTTGEN.—[Hammonp, RosENMULLER.] Of the following verses see on Matt. vii. 13. 22, vill. 11. xix. 80. In v. 25. ἐγέρθη is looked upon by some as redundant; but the verb may signify to rise from one’s seat. The phrase φαγεῖν καὶ πιεῖν ἐνώπιόν τινος, v. 26. is expressive of intimate acquaintance and familiarity. Compare Psalm xli. 9. KUINOEL. | Ver. 32. τῇ ἀλώπεκι ταύτῃ. Persons are frequently compared in the Scriptures to those animals which they appear to resemble in temper and disposition. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 499. note. The foa seems to have been selected in all ages and countries as the emblem of artifice and cunning, instances of which might be produced in abundance from writers of all deno- —— ---΄-- LUKE XIII. 33. 543 minations. It is probable from our Lord’s thus designating He- rod, that these Pharisees had been sent to intimate a pretended design of the Tetrarch to kill him, with a view to rid himself of his presence in his dominions. The repeated testimonies of Christ to the innocence of John the Baptist, and the influence which he was daily acquiring with the multitude, would naturally create suspicion and alarm in the mind of the prince. Some, in- deed, have thought that the Pharisees themselves invented the report in order to check the censures which our Lord never hesi- tated to pass upon their conduct. Had this been the case he would scarcely have sent them with a message to Herod, instead of reproving, as upon other occasions, their own hypocrisy and deceit. With respect to the appellation itself, we may observe that it contains no violation of the precept in Hod. xxii. 28. The prophets in the O. T. did not scruple to reprove the vices of kings and rulers; and in calling Herod ἃ fox Christ intended no- thing vituperative, but merely to intimate a perfect knowledge of his secret intentions. Grotius, Kuinort.—[WetstEIn.] The expression σήμερον καὶ αὔριον is a proverbial phrase, denoting any short interval of time. Compare Hos. vi. 2. So Arrian. Epict. IV. 10. οὐκ εἶχε πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν, ὅτι αὔριον ἢ εἰς τὴν τρίτην δεῖ αὐτὸν ἀποθανεῖν. On the other hand, yesterday and the third day signifies lately in Gen. xxxi. 2. Exod. iv. 10. Deut. xix. 6. Josh. iii. 4. 1 Sam. xix.'7. 1 Chron. xi. 3..GRotius, DoppRIDGE. A difference of opinion exists as to the meaning of the verb τελειοῦ- μαι. Some, deriving it from τέλη, render it I shall be sacrificed, viz. on the cross; and others, 7 shall complete, i.e. my ministry: but the more received interpretation is that of the E. T. Z shall be perfected, in a passive sense, 1. 6. L shall die. Compare Acts xx. 24, Phil. iii. 12. ScHLEusNER, WetTSTEIN.—[KUINOEL, Κυρκε, DoppribGE | Ver. 33. οὐκ ἐνδέχεται. It is not possible. Hesych. ἀδύνατόν ἐστι. ‘This was a severe reproof against the Jewish sanhedrim, of which some of those present may perhaps have been members. It lay with this council, which sate at Jerusalem, to decide upon the pretensions of prophets, and punish impostors ; and it now remained for them to complete the series of murders of which they had already been guilty by condemning and crucifying the Messiah. The expression, however, is to be understood with certain limitations, as John the Baptist and some other prophets, though comparatively few, had perished out of Jerusalem. Exs- NER, WeTSTEIN, Licutroot, Doppriper, Kurnoeu. In the beginning of the verse the verb πορεύεσθαι refers to the advice of the Pharisees in ν᾿ 91., and there seems to be an ellipsis to the following effect:— Nevertheless, after working my miracles to-day and to-morrow, or the day after Imust depart, as you recommend, for Jerusalem, for, ὅς. Hammonp. Of Christ’s lamentation over Jerusalem see on Matt. xxiii. 37. ( yan 16.158 4 F δ 544 BUAE XIV. 1..-7. CHAPTER XIV. ConTENTs :—Christ dines with a Pharisee, and heals a dropsy on the Sabbath-day, vv. 1—6. He recommends humility, vv. 7—15. The parable of the great supper, vv. 1\6—24. Worldly- mindedness incompatible with Christianity, vv. 25—35. Verse 1. caBParw φαγεῖν ἄρτον. It was a religious obligation with the Jews, which our Lord encouraged by his presence on this occasion, to have their tables better spread on the Sabbath- day. See Nehem. viii. 10. Tobit ii. 1. Phil. Jud. II. 166. In Schabb. p. 119, 1. a Rabbi who had been well entertained en- quires— How did you know of my coming ? and is thus answered —AIs there any thing more valuable to us than the Sabbath ? i. e. the day induced us to make good cheer, though we knew not of your coming. Hence Plutarch, speaking of the Jews, observes in Sympos. p. 672. A. αὐτοὶ δὲ τῷ λόγῳ μαρτυροῦσιν, ὅτι σάββα- TOV τιμῶσι, μάλιστα μὲν πίνειν καὶ οἰνοῦσθαι παρακαλοῦντες ἀλλή- λους. The phrase φαγεῖν ἄρτον is not uncommonly applied to a meal of more than ordinary preparation, as in 2 Sam. 1x. 7. xii. 21. Prov. ix. 5. Ligutroot, ScuorETTGEN, WeETsTrIN, Kut- NOEL. The ἄρχοντες τῶν Φαρισαίων are not, as the E. T. have it, chief Pharisees, but rulers of the sect of the Pharisees, i. e. members of the Sanhedrim, or rulers of the synagogue. See Matt. ix. 18. Otherwise they would have been termed πρῶτοι Φαρισαίων. Grotivus, Hammonp. Of the formula ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, v. 5. see on Matt. xi. 25. and of the following verses on Matt, xii. 2. 10, 11. Ver. 7. ἐπέχων. Some understand τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς, both here and in Acts iii. 5. alleging Lucian’s expression ἐπέχειν τοὺς ὀφ- θαλμούς τινι. No instance, however, is produced where the el- lipsis is necessarily so supplied. It should seem, therefore, that τὸν νοῦν or τὴν διάνοιαν should rather be added. This is clearly the case in 1 Tim. iv. 16. ἔπεχε σεαυτῷ, καὶ τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ. Plato, de Legg. 11. p. 926. B. ἐπὶ μείζοσι γάμοις τὴν διάνοιαν ἐπέχων. Compare Herod. I. 80. VI. 96. Lucian, T. ΠῚ p. 212. In the same manner the Latins use attendere with or without animum in the accusative. Werstein.—[Bos. ] Ibid. τὰς πρωτοκλισίας. The manner in which the Jews and the ancients rec d at their meals has been noticed more than once al honourable place was beside the host ; couch ἃ vy along the upper end of the table. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. pp. 997. 420. and compare Virg. /En. I. 698. Hor. Sat. IT. 8. 30. Plaut. Pers. V. 1. 15. Of this post of honour the Rabbies were remarkably ambitious, claiming ἘΠΕ AIVS 93.12: 545 it as due to their superior wisdom. Thus the Talmud, in Bera- coth, p. 11, 2. King Janneus invited R. Simeon to a banquet, where he placed himself between the king and the queen, and being asked the reason, he replied : In the book of Ben Israel it is written, “ Exalt Wisdom, and she shall exalt thee, and make thee to sit among princes.” The quotation, however, is from Prov. iv. 8. A similar pride seems also to have prevailed among the Greeks and Romans. Theoph. Char. 21. 6 δὲ μικροφιλότιμος, ἐπὶ δεῖπνον κληθεὶς, παρ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸν καλέσαντα κατακείμενος δειπ- νῆσαι (φιλεῖ) Wal. Max. II. 1. Invitaté ad coenam diligenter querebant, quinam et convivio essent interfuturi ; ne seniores ad- ventu dascubitum precurrerent. Our Lord’s precept may be compared with Prov. xxv. 7., and lessons of a similar character are to be met with inthe Rabbinical writings. Of the E. T. we may remark that in our earlier writers the word room was syno- nymous with place. Ligutroot, SCHOETTGEN, WETSTEIN. Of the word γάμος; in the next verse, see on Matt, xxii. 1. Ver.9. δὸς τούτῳ τόπον. This form, as well as κατέχειν τό- wov and προσαναβῆθι ἀνώτερον, were the usual expressions of etiquette at the Jewish entertainments, instances of which abound in the Rabbinical writers. Parallel phrases are also to be found in the classics. Plut. in C. Gracch. p. 840. δότε τόπον ἀγαθοῖς, κακοὶ πολῖται. Arrian. Epict. III. 26. ἔξελθε, δὸς ἄλλοις τόπον. Ovid. Pont. I. 1. locum date sacra ferenti. Fast. II. 668. Cuncta Jovi cessit turba, locumque dedit. Cic. Epist. Fam. XI. 1. Dandus est locus Fortune. Senec. Epist. 74. Demus rap- toribus locum. Plautus: Abe tu sane superior. WkrTSTEIN, Kypxe. Of y. 11. see on Matt. xxiii. 11. Ver. 12. μὴ φώνει τοὺς φίλους; x. τ. AX. Supply μόνον. The precept is not to be taken in an unlimited sense, as excluding all interchange of hospitality among the rich, but as recommending that more acceptable benevolence in the sight of God, which ex- tends itself to those from whom no reward can be expected. In this restricted sense the particle μὴ, like the Hebrew &), is fre- quently employed. See on Matt. ix. 13. Our Lord may possibly allude to an Eastern custom which prevails in Arabia to this day, where the rich frequently dine in the open air and invite © the passers by, even of the poorest orders, to partake of the meal, that nothing may be left. See also Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 204. Sentiments analogous to the precept are found in other writers. Cic. Off. I. In collocando beneficio hoc maxime officii est, ut quisque maxime opis indigeat, ita et maxime opi- tulari: quod contra fit a plerisque ; a quo enim plurimum spe- rant, etiamsi ille his non eget, tamen et potissimum inserviunt. Plin. Epist. IX. 50. Volo eum, qui sit veré liberalis, tribuere amicis, sed amicis dico pauperibus; non ut isti, qui tis potissi- VOL. I. Nn 546 LUKE XIV. 14. 18. mum donant, qui donare maxime possunt. Compare also Hom. Od. P. 382. Xen. Sympos. I. 15. Arist. Nicom. VIII.15. Am- mian. Marcel. XIV.6. The verb φωνεῖν is here, as elsewhere, used in the sense of καλεῖν, but a peculiar emphasis has been at- tached to it in this place, inasmuch as those who give invitations merely from ostentatious motives are wont to speak in a loud voice. Some have regarded ἀντικαλεῖν, which is opposed to it, as a Latinism ; and so we have in Mart. Epig. I11.27.1. Nunquam me yevocas, venias cum sepe vocatus. But Xenophon, as cited above, fully establishes the Greek idiom: οὔτε μὴν ὡς ἀντικλη- θησόμενος καλεῖ μέ τις. WETSTEIN, Harmer.—[Grortius.] Of | καλεῖν see on Matt. xxii. 3. eet ‘ 2. Ver. 14. ἀναστάσει τῶν δικαίων. So ἀνάστασις τῆς ζωῆς, as opposed to ἀνάστασις κρισέως, John v. 25. The Pharisees only acknowledged the resurrection of the just, and our Lord here speaks in accordance with their sentiments, though it is clear from Matt. xxv. 32. and elsewhere, that there will be a general resurrection. They also supposed, as we have elsewhere already remarked, that there would be two resurrections, the first of ὁ which would take place at the Messiah’s appearance. Hence i the reply of the guest, the kingdom of God is evidently to be un-» derstood of the Messiah’s earthly kingdom. Grotius, PEA Of the following parable see on Matt. xxii. 1. sqq. where it is given more at large. « Ver. 18. ἀπὸ μιᾶς. There is here a manifest ellipsis, which has been supplied in various ways. Some, comparing Acts iv. 32, _ Phil. i. 27. understand καρδίας or Ψυχῆς : others suggest φωνῆς, — as in Diod. Sic. p. 515. D.: and others, again, ὥρας, αἰτίας, ψήφου, &c. But the word omitted is rather γνώμης or βουλῆς. Compare Hom. Il. B. 379. and my note im loc. The omission is supplied in Demosth. Philip. IV. p. 147. ἐὰν μὲν ὑμεῖς dpo- θυμαδὸν ἐκ μιᾶς γνώμης Φίλιππον ἀμύνησθε. Grortus, T- sTEIN, Bos.x—[Hammonp, Lieutroor, Doppriner,] &c. The verb παραιτεῖσθαι does not signify, as it sometimes does, to re- fuse, but to excuse oneself, as in Joseph. Ant. VIII. 8.2. In- deed, the expression ἔχε pe παρῃτημένον is a Latinism, corres- ponding exactly with Mart. Epigr. II]. 80. Hacusatum habeas me, rogo: ceenodomi. The phrases ἀναγκὴν ἔχω, opus habeo, — and ἐρωτῶ σε, rogo te, are also regarded as Latinisms by the generality of commentators; though the former, which recurs in Luke xxiii. 17. 1 Cor, vii. 87. Heb. vii. 27, Jude 3. is used by some of the later Greek authors. In the next verse also dox- μάσαι is the Roman forensic term probare, which signifies fo examine a thing in order to ascertain its quality. Cic. in Verrs ΠῚ. 31. Ut probetur frumentum. Wurrtstrin, Grotivs, Μι- CHAELIS. It is Uda of remark that there is nothing sinful in 0 LUKE XIV. 23. 26. 547 the various excuses which the guests offered for non-attendance at the feast. The engagements which they alleged were in them- selves unobjectionable ; but their offence consisted in allowing any occupation whatever to interfere with the more urgent and important ceremony to which they had been invited. We may, and we ought to attend to the duties and concerns of the present life, but we must never allow them to interfere with the great work of our salvation. Ver, 23. ἀνάγκασον εἰσελθεῖν. St. Augustin was induced, by the obstinacy of the Donatists in the latter part of his life, to in- terpret this text in favour of the compulsion of heretics, though he had strenuously maintained in his early works, as Justin, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Arnobius, and the rest of the Fathers had done before him, that none ought to be compelled to a pro- fession of their faith, The passage, however, has no relation to heretics, but to the unconverted Gentiles; nor is any other than moral compulsion or persuasion intended, which is all that a ser- vant could exert. In this sense the verb ἀναγκάζειν occurs in Matt. xiv. 22. See the note there; and to the examples cited add Prov. vii. 21. UXX. Mark vi. 45. Luke xxiv. 29. Acts xvi. 15. Gal. ii. 14. 1 Thess. ii. 10, 2 Tim. iv. 2. Cic. de Orat. I. 9. de Amic. 8., So also Plutarch, m Brut. p. 993. λιπαρεῖν καὶ βιά- ζεσθαι ἐπὶ δεῖπνον. Hor. Epist. I. 9. 5. prece cogit. The ex- pression, therefore, intimates the affectionate earnestness with which Christ invites us to embrace the Gospel, but without any sanction, which some would derive from it, to the doctrine of ir- resistible grace. Doppripcr, Wuitsy, ΜΑΟΚΝΙΘΉΤ. Ver. 26. μισεῖ τὸν πατέρα. Taken literally, the import of this declaration would be not only impious, but impossible: but the verb μισεῖν is frequently to be understood in a limited sense, and the precept merely intimates that every tie is to be sacrificed, and every attachment forsaken which comes into competition with Christ and his religion. See on Matt. vi. 24. and on x. 37. where the meaning is more clearly expressed. The comparison is to be taken in the same light with that of Epictetus, wherein he likens mankind to men preparing for a voyage: They may collect shells onthe shore provided they be ready to go on board at the signal for sailing. Compare 1 Cor. vii. 29, 30. Hence, as a man na- turally calculates the expense of any undertaking before he em- barks in it, or as a king considers his resources before he engages in war, so is it necessary for the Christian to prepare his soul for temptation in the service of God and Christ: Keclus. ii. 1. It has been suggested, but with little probability, that our Lord may here allude to the renunciation which the Jewish proselytes made of their Gentile relations. Wuirsy, Grotrus, GILPrIn. Nn 2 548 LUKE XIV. 28. 31. 34. XV. 2. Ver. 28. πύργον οἰκοδομῆσαι. So in Matt. xxi. 33. and hence some have imagined that a tower similar to that which is there intended, and which were common in the vineyards of the east, is here also meant. But from the cost of its erection being the subject of especial calculation, it should seem rather to have been a turreted mansion; and in nearly the same sense πύργος is used in Luke xiii. 4. So Hor. Od. 1. 4. 13. pauperum tabernas, re- gumque turres. Liv. XX XIII. 48. Annibal ad suum turrim per- venit. The verb ψηφίζειν signifies to calculate, from ψῆφος, a pebble, which was used by the ancients in computation. So Rev. xiii. 18. ψηφισάτω τὸν ἄριθμον. Herod. 11. 36. λογίζονται ψή- φοισι. SCHLEUSNER, WETSTEIN.—[ DoppRIDGE. | Ver. 31. καθίσας βουλεύεται. So Virg. Ain. X. 159. Hie magnus sedet Aineas, secumque volutat Eventus belli varios. With this illustration we may also compare the following. Thu- cydides: τοῦ πολεμοῦ τὸ παράλογον ὕσον ἐστι πρὶν ἐν αὐτῷ YE νέσθαι προδιάγνωθε. So Livy: Cum tuas vires, tum vim fortune martemque belli communem propone animo. Quinctilian: Prius est parare bellum quam exercere. Sallust: Priusquam incipias, consulto ; et postquam consulueris, mature facto opus est. P. Mimus: Diu apparandum est bellum, ut vincas celerius. To these may be added Xen. Mem. IV. Ped. II. Ammian. Marcel. XXV.3. Joseph. B. J. II. 16.4. Phil. Jud. 11. 16. 40. Gro- TIus, WETSTEIN. Ver, 84. καλὸν τὸ ἅλας" κι τ. X. From a false notion that this mineral cannot lose its flavour, some have supposed that pure salt is not here intended, but some mixture in which salt abounds. But see note on Matt. ν. 13. The connexion in this place runs thus: “ Ye see the necessity of counting the cost and hazard of becoming my disciple ; for if ye proceed rashly ye may apostatise, and become as unsavoury salt.” In being trodden under foot there may be an allusion to excommunicated penitents in the primitive Church, who cast themselves on the ground to be trampled upon by those who passed them. Ligurroot, Wurr- py.—[Hammonp, Le Cuerc.] qa 4. 1% (2, CHAPTER XV. Contents :—Parables of the lost sheep, vv. 1\—7.; of the lost piece of money, vv. 8—10.; and of the prodigal son, wv. 11—82. Verse 2. ἁμαρτωλοὺς προσδέχεται. Associates with sinners. So Arist. Equit. 735, τοὺς piv καλούς τε κἀγαθοὺς οὐ προσδέχει. LUKE XV. 4. 549 There is some difference of opinion as to the application of the three parables which compose this chapter. Some by δικαίοις in y. 7. understand the Jewish nation, who trusted in themselves that they were righteous ; and by ἁμαρτωλῷ the Gentile world, in which sense the word is not unfrequently used in the N. T. So also in v. 10.: and under the figure of the prodigal son the Gentiles are again supposed to be represented, who were far off Jrom God, (Ephes. ii. 13.) until admitted to the privileges of the Christian covenant, to the great dissatisfaction of the Jews, who are represented by the elder brother. A much more natural ap- plication arises out of the murmurs of the Pharisees against our Lord for holding communication with persons whom they re- garded as sinners, and with whom, even though they repented, they would not associate. See Tanchuma, p. 3, 2. But as our Lord upon another occasion had told them that the whole need not a physician, but those that are sick, so he here teaches them that there is joy in heaven at the repentance of a sinner, and the return of a prodigal; and consequently it is more pleasing in the sight of God to attempt their conversion than to forsake their company, and thus harden them in their sins. It may be, indeed, that cur Lord may have had in view the more extended sense of which the parables would afterwards admit, with reference to the call of the Gentiles ; and the ancient Fathers have not improperly applied them to both cases. Atthe same time the r7ghteous who need no repentance cannot be taken in an ironical acceptation, since there would be no less joy at the conversion of one of these than at that of sinners of any other description. The μετανοία, trans- lated repentance, does not here imply that sorrow for sin, which is daily required of the most godly men, but a thorough change of mind and conduct, which is necessary to the conversion of an habitual sinner. Grorius, Hammonp, DoppripGE, ScHOETT- GEN.—[Wuirsy.] Of the particulars of the parable see on Matt. xviii. 12. and compare the notes on Matt. ix. 10, 15. It seems to have been a custom with the Jews to carry their sheep on their shoulders. See Jsaiah xl. 11. and compare Tibull. Eleg. I. 1. 31. Non agnamve sinu pigeat fetumve capelle Desertum, oblita matre, referre domum. ‘The scope of the parable may also be illustrated by Eurip. Fragm. Cid. 14. Ἔκ τῶν ἀέλπτων ἡ χάρις μείζων βρότοις Φανεῖσα, μᾶλλον ἢ τὸ προσδοκώμενον, Τέρπει. KUINOEL, WETSTEIN. Ver. 4. ἐπὶ τὸ ἀπολωλός. The preposition here properly de- notes én search of. Diog. Laert. I. 10. πεμφθεὶς παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς εἰς ἀγρὸν ἐπὶ πρόβατον. Kypxe. Of the ellipsis of μᾶλλον in v. 7. see my note on Hom. I]. A. 116. The parable of the lost piece of money has the following parallel in the Jewish writings. As aman who has lost any thing lights a candle, and searches till he find it, so should we be diligent in seeking for the things 550 LUK& .XYV.912, 13, 15. of the world to come. So Theoph. Char. 10. τῆς γυναικὸς ἀπο- [βαλούσης τρίχαλκον, οἷος μαμὰ 0 τὰ σκεύη, καὶ τὰς κλίνας, καὶ τὰς κιβωτοὺς, καὶ διφᾶν τὰ καλύμματα. WETSTEIN. Ver. 12. τὸ ἐπιβάλλον μέρος. The portion which falls to my share. So Job vi. 11. LXX. ὅτι σοι ἐπιβάλλει ἡ κληρονομία αὐτῆς. Compare 1 Macc. x. 30.2 Mace. iii. 3. ix. 16. In the same sense the word also occurs in other writers. Herod. ΤΥ. 115. τῶν κτημάτων τὸ ἐπιζβάλλον. VII. 23. ἀπολαχόντες yao μόριον ὅσον αὐτοῖσιν éréadtse. Demosth. de Cor. p. 212. τῆς τῶν ἄλλων τύχης τὸ ἐπιβάλλον ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς μετειληφέναι τὴν πόλιν. Neither the Jewish or Roman law allowed to a father the volun- tary distribution of his whole estate. Among the Jews a double portion was allotted to the first born, and the remainder was di- vided equally among the rest of the children, (Deut. xxi. 17.) nor was it unusual to settle his patrimony upon a son during the father’s life-time, the latter reserving to himself, as in the present instance, so much of the estate as was sufficient for the support of the rest of his family. Parkuurst, Werstern, Kyrxe, Kut- NOEL, Ver. 13. συναγαγὼν ἅπαντα. Scil. εἰς ἀργύριον. Turning it all into money. Plutarch. Op. p. 772. C. κληρονομίαν εἰς ἀργύ- ριον συναγαγών. Quinctil. Dial. 5. Cunctas facultates in pretia collegi. The verb διασκορπίζειν signifies to squander ; in Latin dilapidare. 'Thus Terence: Priusquam ddapidet nostras vi- ginti minas. With respect to the adjective ἄσωτος there can be no doubt of its derivation, though all are not agreed respecting its precise import. Some understand it actively, of one who can save nothing ; but it is certainly preferable to explain it after Aristotle, in a passive acceptation, τὸν δ αὑτὸν ἀπολλύμενον. He adds, Ethic. IV. 1. δοκεῖ δὲ ἀπώλεοιά τις αὑτοῦ εἶναι καὶ ἡ τῆς οὐσίας φθορὰ, ὡς τοῦ ζῆν διὰ τούτων ὄντος. Soph. Aj. 190. ἀσώτου γενεᾶς. Schol. τῆς ἐξώλους καὶ σώζεσθαι μὴ δυναμένης. The E. T. réotous living fully expresses the meaning of the ori- ginal. Cic. de Fin. 11. 8. Nolim enim mihi fingere asotos, ut soletis, qui in mensam vomant, et qui de convivits auferantur, crudique postridie se rursus ingurgitent ; qui solem, ut aiunt, nec occidentem unquam viderint nec orientem: qui consumplis patrimoniis egeant ; nemo nostrum istius generis asotos jucunde putat vivere, &c. &c. &c. Aul. Gell. VII. 11. Nequam hominem nihili neque rei neque frugis bona, quod genus Greci fere ἄσω- τον, ἢ ἀκόλαστον, ἢ ἀχρεῖον, ἢ κακότροπον, ἢ μιαρὸν vocant. ὙΥΈΤΘΤΕΙΝ, GRoTIUs. Ver. 15. βόσκειν χοίρους. As the Jews were forbidden to eat swine, so the care of these animals was considered an employment at variance with their religion, so that the occupation in which he LUKE XV. 16. 551 was engaged is a moving circumstance in the picture of the pro- digal’s distress. Thus in Sola, p. 49, 2. Cursed is he that Jfeedeth swine. A similar antipathy prevailed among the Egyp- tians, as related in Herod. 11. 27.; and the office of a swineherd, though no religious scruples intervened, was looked upon with the greatest contempt among Heathen nations. Mart. Epigr. X. 11. Dispeream, ni tu Pyladi prebere matellam Dignus es, aut porcos pascere. PEARCE, WeTsTEIN. Of the verb κολλᾶσ- θαι, which here signifies to attach oneself to another, scil. as a servant, see on Matt. xix. 5. Ver. 16. καὶ ἐπεθύμει γεμίσαι κ- τι X. The interpreters for the most part have been used to understand this passage as if the desire was not gratified; but as the prodigal had the care of the ‘swine he could have had no difficulty, except on the score of con- ‘science, to supply himself with a portion of their food; and as he had made no scruple of violating his religion in undertaking the charge, he would scarcely have been deterred from purloining his necessary subsistence, the wages allowed by his master being insufficient to supply his wants. Hence it seems that ἐπιθυμεῖν should be rendered to be fain, to be content, of which sense several instances may be adduced from the classics ; and so it should also be taken in Lwke xvi. 21. and in Isaiah 1. 29, \vii. 2. LXX. Thus Lys. Orat. 24. ἐπιθυμεῖν τῶν παρόντων νυνὶ πραγμάτων, to be content with the present position of affairs. In the ensuing member of the sentence there is an ellipsis of φαγεῖν. The sense runs thus: And yet, though he was reduced to this extremity, no one gave him aught to eat. CAMPBELL, Grotius, MACKNIGHT. —|KurnoeEt. | , Ibid. κερατίων. E.T. husks: by which have been understood the pods of peas or beans, or some other leguminous vegetable. The commentators, however, are now pretty generally agreed that the fruit of the carob tree (ceratonia siliquosa, Linn.) is in- tended, of which the fruit is still used in the East for feeding swine. It is also called S¢. John’s bread, from a popular notion that it formed part of the Baptist’s food in the wilderness. In Plin. N. H. XV. 28. it is called the Egyptian fig; and so Hesych. κερατωνία᾽ συκῆ Αἰγύπτου. The rind, which is some- times eaten by the poorer classes, is sweet, but mealy, and some- what indigestible. Hence Vajikra Rabba: R Acha said, A Jew must eat carobs in order to repentance. Again in Tanchuma, p. 258, 1. I should prefer the land of Israel, were the wildest ea- robs my only food. Compare Hor. Epist. II. 1. 125. Vevit sih- quis et pane secundo. Pers. Sat. IIT. 55. Stlquis et grandi pasta polenta. See also Galen, de Med. Situp. 1. Theoph. Hist. Plant. I. 18. ΓΝ. 1. Some have incorrectly imagined that the fruit intended was a kind of weld chesnut. CAMPBELL, GROTIUs, WETSTEIN, SCHOETTGEN.—| DoppRIDGE. | 552 LUKE XV. 17. 20. 22. 24. Ver. 17. εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἐλθών. Coming to himself. The formul: is used of a recovery from insanity, delirium, or any mental de- lusion whatsoever. Diod. Sic. XIII. 95. τοῖς λογισμοῖς εἰς ἑαυτοὺς ἐρχύμενοι. Arrian. Epict. 31. ὅταν εἰς σεαυτὸν ἔλθῃς. Hor. Epist. I]. 2. 137. Eapultt elleboro morbum, bilemque me-_ raco, Et redit adsese. Lucret. ΤΥ. 994. Donec discussis redeant erroribus ad se. 1016, Exterrentur, et ex somno quasi mentibu’ capti Vix ad se redeunt. In Acts xii. 11. the phrase γενέσθαι ἐν ἑαυτῷ, which is found also in Xen. Anab. I. 5. 15. has precisely the same meaning. WertstTeiIn, Kypxe. In the next verse ov- pavoc is substituted for Θεὸς, as in Matt. xxi. 25. Compare Dan. iv. 23. 1 Mace. iii. 18. LXX, where the Hebrew is M7) 1399. Grotivs. Ver. 20. ἐπέπεσεν ἐπὶ τὸν τράχηλον. In token of affection and reconciliation. Compare Gen. xxxiii. 4. xlv. 14. Tobit xi. 8. Acts xx. 37. So Hom. Od. Ψ. 207. Δακρύσασα δ᾽ ἔπειτ᾽ ἰθὺς. δράμεν, ἀμφὶ δὲ χεῖρας Action BAAN ᾿Οδυσῆϊ. Ter. And. I. 1.110. Rejecit se in illum flens quam familiariter. WevstEIN, WAKE- FIELD. Of the verb σπλαγχνίζεσθαι see on Matt. ix. 36. The idea in which the word originated prevailed generally among the ancients. Eur. Orest. 1200. Kat viv δοκῶ, τὸ πρῶτον ἢν πολὺς παρῇ, Χρόνῳ μαλάξειν σπλάγχνον. Ovid. Epist. I. 90. Viscera nostra tue dilaniantur opes. Compare also Aisch. Prom. 729. Eur. Med. 220. Juv. Sat. XIII. 14. Ver. 22. τὴν στολὴν τὴν πρώτην. The first, i.e. the best robe : as in Rom. iii. 2. x. 19. 1 Tim. i. 15. So Esra xxvii. 22. LXX. μετὰ πρώτων ἡδυσμάτων. Athen. V. p. 197. Β. ταύταις δ᾽ ἀμφί- ταποι ἁλουργεῖς ὑπέστρωντο τῆς πρώτης ἐρέας. Joseph. Ant. XIII. 5.4. τὰ πρῶτα μύρα χριόμενοι. In the same manner primus is used in Ter. Adelph. V. 2. 4. Justin. I]. 9. The robe, the ring, and the shoes were marks of distinction in the East. See Gen. xli. 43. 1 Mace. vi. 16. James ii. 2. and Horne’s In- trod. Vol. III. p. 406. So Plaut. Casin. δὲ effiais hoc, soleas tibi dabo, et annulum in digito Aureum, et bona plurima. With the killing of the fatted calf we may compare Hom. Od. ©. 414. "AEP ὑῶν τὸν ἄριστον, iva ξείνῳ ἱερεύσω Τηλεδαπῷ. Hor. Epist. I. 3. 86. Pascitur in vestrum reditum votiva juvenca. GRrotius, WetstTEIN, BuuKuLey. Of the verb θύειν see on Matt. xxii. 4. Ver. 24. νεκρὸς ἦν, καὶ ἀνέζησε. Some understand the father as speaking of his son in relation to himself, or to his own igno- rance whether he was alive or dead. But the expression is rather to be understood of a spiritual death and resuscitation. 'Theo- phylact: νέκρωσιν piv καὶ ἀπώλειαν φησὶ τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας" ἀναζώωσιν δὲ καὶ εὕρεσιν, THY ἀπὸ τῆς μετανοίας. Compare Rom. iv. 19. Ephes. ii. 1. ν. 14.1 Tim. ν. 6. 1 John iii. 14. Rev. iii. 1. Ὗ LUKE ΧΥ. 29, 80. 553 and see the note on Matt. viii. 22. The Jews have a proverb, Ili men, while they live, are dead; and the Arabs, The living dead man is truly dead. Pythagoras also, in order to intimate that one who had deserted his school of philosophy was morally dead, set up a coffin in his room. We have a similar metaphor in a fragment of Menander, preserved by Eustathius: ΓΑνθρωπε, πέρυσι πτωχὸς ἦσθα καὶ νεκρὸς, Nuvi δὲ πλουτεῖς. So Cic. post redit. in Senat. 9. Qui me ἃ morte ad vitam, a desperatione ad spem, ab exitio ad salutem revocavit. So inv. 27. ὑγιαίνοντα is to be understood of moral sanity; or, at least, as including this as well as bodily health. Hammonp, ΚΎΡΚΕ, WersTern.— [RosENMULLER, KUINOEL. | Ver. 29, ἰδοὺ, τοσαῦτα ἔτη κι t.X. This point in the parable is not to be overpressed in favour of the Pharisees or of the Jewish nation; but, allowing them to be as righteous as they pretended, it was no reason for their rejecting a penitent sinner. Tertullian observes: Posuit Christus ergo illos in parabola, esse, non quales erant, sed quales esse debuerant. The father inti- mates in his reply that there is no just cause of complaint to the righteous, because the penitent are received into favour. As the joyful welcome given to the younger son did not lead to the dis- inheritance of the elder, so neither will God, out of partial fond- ness for a repentant sinner, raise him to a higher state of glory than those who have made greater progress in holiness, and done him more constant and faithful service. Grotius, Lz CLERc, DoppRIDGE. Ver. 30. ὃ καταφαγών σου τὸν Biov. We have the same me- taphor in Hom. Od. O. 10. μή τοι κατὰ πάντα φάγωσι, Κτήματα δασσάμενοι. Aschin. c. Timarch. εἰ οὗτος πεπόρνευκέ τε, καὶ TA πατρῷα κατεδήδοκε, καὶ οὐ μόνον κατέφαγεν, ἀλλ᾽, εἰ οἷόν τ᾽ εἰπεῖν, κατέπιεν. Ζβορ. Fr. νέος ἄσωτος καταφάγων τὰ πατρῴα. Ter. Eun. II. 2. 4. Patria qui abligurierat bona. Hor. Sat. II. 3. 122. Filius ut ebibat heres. We read of a maxim of Solon in D. Laert. I. 55. ἐάν τις μὴ τρέφῃ τοὺς γονέας ἄτιμος ἔστω, ἀλλὰ καὶ 6 τὰ πατρῷα κατεδηδοκώς ; and, accordingly, a law is cited in Eschin. c. Timarch. ὃ. 30. to the effect that no person of this character should be allowed to speak in the assembly. Wer- STEIN, WOLF. Jon Fy te ἐδ. 4? 554 ἐκ δι τ. 6? ~ ᾿ς _ Contents :—The parable of the unjust seid, τ. 1—13. The Pharisees reproved, vv. 14—18. The para of Dives and Lazarus, vv. 19—381. | a. * - - CHAPTER XVI. - ~ ὙΚ ~ λῷ Verse 1. ἄνθρωπός τις x. τ. X. There is a parable very like this in D. Kimchi on Zsatah xl. 21. though our Lord has im- proved it greatly, and rendered the circumstances more striking and impressive. The whole world is like unto a house; heaven és its roof, the stars its lamps, and the fruits of the earth t table spread. The owner and builder of this house is the Holy 7 blessed God; and man is his steward, into whose hands the bu- siness of the house is committed. If he considers in his heart that the master kecps his eye constantly over him, and he, there- Sore, acts wisely, he shall find favour in the eyes of his master ; but if the master find wickedness in him, he shall remove hi Srom his stewardship. The foolish steward does not think of this, 86. §c. §c. Licutroot, A. Crarke. The verb διαβάλλειν does not always imply calumny ; but, as here, it is used of af accusation in Numb. xxii. 22.2 Mace. iii. 11. LXX. Diod. Sie. p- 269. D. Joseph. Ant. VI. 10. 2. The phrase ἀποδοῦναι λόγον, to give an account, occurs in Matt. xii. 36. Acts xix. 40. Heb. xiii. 17. 1 Pet. iv. 5. So Plat. Phad. §. 8. ὑμῖν δὲ τοῖς δικασταῖς βούλομαι τὸν λόγον ἀποδοῦναι. SCHLEUSNER, ΚΎΡΚΕ, Rapueuius. Of the use οὗ δύναμαι, in the next verse, see on Mark ii. 19. Ver, 3. σκάπτειν οὐκ ἰσχύω, x. τ. X. As the labour of digging seems to haye been regarded by the ancients as most servile and laborious, so begging was looked upon as mean and dis- graceful. Aristoph. Av. 1432. τί γὰρ πάθω ; σκάπτειν γὰρ οὐκ ἐπίσταμαι. EKurip. Rhes. 176. κακαὶ γεωργεῖν χεῖρες εὖ τεθραμ- μέναι. Pausan. Arcad. ρ. 695. Λακεδαιμονίων οἱ αἰχμάλωτοι τὸ πεδίον Τεγεάταις ἔσκαπτον. Quintil. Decl. 9. Quid vis porro Jaciam? Agrestia opera? Delicatior, quod a fortuna non didici. Also Tyrteeus: πτωχεύειν πάντωμ ἐστ᾽ ἀνιηρότατον. The verb γιγνώσκειν signifies 4o resolve in*Mé next verse ; and so it occurs in Diod. Sic. IV. 57. Plutarch. Lycurg. §. 3. Eur. Dan. fr. 43. Alciph. Epist. I. 25. Grorius, EtsNer, WeTSTEIN, SCHLEUS- NER. Before δέξωνται we must supply ἄνθρωποι, or perhaps χρεωφειλέται. Ver, 6. ἑκατὸν βάτους ἐλαίου. A hundred baths of oil. The bath, ΓΙᾺ, was the largest measure of capacity among the He- : LUKE XVI. 8. 555 brews, except the Homer, of which it was the tenth part: Ezek. xl. 11. 14. It was equal to the ephah, containing about seven and a half English gallons. In the E. T. βάτος in this, and κόρος in the next verse, are rendered by the same general term, measure. But the cor, 1D, was the largest Hebrew dry measure, as the Homer was for liquids; each containing about seventy-five gal- lons. According to Joseph. Ant. XV. 9. 2. the cor was equi- valent to ten Attic medimni, or bushels. Hence there may have been no partiality manifested in the reduction to each of the debtors respectively, inasmuch as twenty cors of wheat were, in all probability, equal in value to fifty baths of oil. The word γράμμα signifies a bond or engagement, and is properly rendered by cautio in the Vulgate. In this sense it is also used in Joseph. Ant. XVIII. 6. 8. It should seem to have been a custom with tenants, who paid the rent due to the landlord in the produce of the land, to have signed a bond for the payment, which was coun- tersigned by the steward. To prevent any appearance of forgery, therefore, the debtors or tenants are desired by the steward to execute their bonds afresh. Some, indeed, have supposed that no injustice was meditated in these latter proceedings, the steward intending to make up from his own resources the balance which he deducted from the accounts of the debtors. But, not to men- tion that in such a case he would have let the accounts remain unaltered, the drift of the parable does not seem to admit of such an interpretation. By changing the bills he cunningly made the debtors his accomplices in the fraud, providing at the same time against his detection, and for ensuring his favour with those whom he fraudulently benefitted. That his master appears, from v. 8., to have discovered his guilt is no argument for his not wishing to deceive him. Doppripgz, A. CLtarke.—[Macxnieut. | Ver. 8. ὃ κύριος. Scil. τοῦ οἰκονομοῦ. Of the scope of this passage see Horne’s Introd. Vol. II]. pp. 404. 534. The chai- dren of this world are those who mind worldly things, and the children of light ave those who are enlightened by religious wis- dom, and regard worldly things so far only as they may subserve the great purpose of salvation, and become the instruments of good to others. Hence, the application of the parable is clearly deducible from our Lord’s injunction in the following verse. Those who desire the rewards of heaven should be as assiduous in securing them by a proper application of their worldly advan- tages, as the steward was in making friends by w#mproper means; and as studious in laying up for themselves treasures in heaven, as the worldly-minded usually are in encreasing their earthly stores. A. Crarke, LE Cuerc, Wuitsy, &c. The word γενεὰ in this passage has been variously interpreted; some understand- ing it in its literal and others in a metaphorical acceptation. Among the latter, condition, conduct, disposition, &c. have been 556 LUKE XVI. 9. assigned to it, but without any valid confirmation from similar usage. The safest way, therefore, seems to be to understand it literally, so that the import of εἰς τὴν γενεὰν will be as respects their generation, i.e. the age in which they live. Compare Matt. xi. 16. xxiii. 36. Luke i. 48. ix. 41. xi. 29. Acts viii. 33. and elsewhere. ParkHuurst, Ros—ENMULLER, KuINoEL.—[Grorivs, CamPBELL, &c. ] Ver. 9. ἐκ τοῦ μαμωνᾶ τῆς ἀδικίας. For μαμωνᾶ ἀδικοῦ. So in v. 8. οἰκονόμον τῆς ἀδικίας. Compare also Luke xviii. 6. The epithet unrighteous, as applied to riches, does not seem to imply acquired by injustice, though some commentators understand it in this sense. It is true, indeed, that the corresponding expres- sion PWT MD is used by the Targumist on 1 Sam. vill. 3. xii. 3. 2 Sam. xiv. 14. Prov. xv. 27. Isaiah v. 23. and elsewhere, to signify unjust gain. ‘The Rabbins held also, that those who were unable to make restitution, from ignorance of the persons they had wronged, should appease the justice of God by paying the amount into the synagogue for the service of the poor. It cannot for a moment be imagined, however, that our Lord's ad- vice will admit of this interpretation; so that those who think that the texture of the parable sanctions the meaning, apprehend it to be spoken in a general sense in relation to the means by which wealth is too frequently acquired in the world. But it is clearly better, in this instance, to render ἄδικος, deceitful, not to be relied on, for in v. 11. τῷ ἀδίκῳ μαμωνᾷ is contrasted, not with τὸ δίκαιον, but with τὸ ἀληθινὸν, the former relating to earthly treasure, the latter to heavenly. We have a similar opposition in Rom. ii. 8. 1 Cor. xiii. 6.; and ἄδικος and ἀδικία are used for Salse and falsehood in Deut. xix. 18. Job xxvii. 24, Psalm xxvi. 6. Jerem. v.31. Ezek. xxiii. 7. Hos. xii. 7. Amos viii. 5. LXX. John vii. 18. viii. 46.2 Thess. x. 12. So also Eurip. Elect. 948. Ἢ γὰρ φύσις δίκαιος, ov τὰ χρήματα" “H piv yao αἰεὶ παραμένουσ᾽ αἵρει κακά" ὋὉ δ᾽ ὄλβος ἄδικος, καὶ μετὰ σκαιῶν ξυνὼν, ᾿Εξέπτατ᾽ οἴκων, σμικρὸν ἀνθήσας χρόνον. Virg. Georg. Il. 460. Pundit humo facilem victum justissima tellus. The opposite of this last citation is tellus nunquam mentita colono, Sil. Ital. VII. 60. Hammonp, Le Cuerc, Campse.tt, WeErsTEIN, ΚΟΙΝΟΕΙῚ,, Pearce, WakerteLp.—[Licutroot, Wuirsy.|] With ἐκλέ πητε there is an ellipsis of τὸν [βίον or τὸ ζῆν. The former is supplied, Lys. Orat. VIII. 4. Alciph. Ep. III. 28. Dion. Hal. A. R. I. 54., and the latter in 3 Mace. ii. 23. Polyb. 11. 41. Of the verb used in this sense absolutely, we have examples in Gen. xxv. 8. xxxv. 29. xlix. 33. Psalm civ. 29. Job xiii. 19. xiv. 11. Jerem. xiii. 17. 22. Lam. i. 20. Wisd. v. 18. Judith vii. 22. LXX. So Apoll. Bibl. III. 4. 2. Σεμέλης δὲ διὰ τὸν φόβον ἐκ- λιπούσης. Joseph. B. J. IV. 1. 9. Χάρης κατακείμενος Kal vo- σηλεύομενος ἐκλείπει. Eur. Hipp. 860. ἔλιπες, ἔλιπες, ὦ φίλα LUKE‘ ΧυΙ- 20; 557 γυναικῶν. Schol. τὸ ἔλιπες ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀπέθανες" ἔλιπες τὸ ζῆν. In the same way the Latins use deficere, as in Justin. XII. 15. 8. Cum deficere eum amici viderent. In this passage the word was probably selected by our Lord to preserve the analogy be- tween death and the steward’s discharge from office. Some would supply τοῦ μαμωνᾷ, but the ellipsis is unauthorised, and does not suit well with the context. Wurrspy, WreTsTEIN, Camp- BELL, WAKEFIELD.—[Grotius, KyPKE. | Ibid. δέξωνται. The nominative to be supplied before this verb is matter of contention among the critics. Some understand the poor, of whom the relief afforded by the unrighteous mammon had made friends; and in support of this opinion they cite a dogma of the Rabbins: The rich assist the poor in this world by their wealth, and the poor assist the rich in the world to come with their souls and bodies. So Jerome: Non memini me legere mala morte mortuum, qui libenter opera charitatis exer- cuit : habet enim multos intercessores, et impossibile est multorum preces non exaudirt. Ina sense nearly similar honouring fa- ther and mother is said to be the cause of long life, Hwod. xx. 12. Others imagine that the angels are intended, in reference to our Lord’s declaration in Matt. xxiv. 31.: and others, again, that φίλοι should be supplied from the preceding member of the sentence, where φίλους, in the plural, is supposed to refer to God. A great objection to all these hypotheses is their uncer- tainty, and it is, therefore, better to consider δέξωνται as used ém- personally. See on Matt. i. 23. Luke xii. 20. Hammonp, Wuirsy, RosENMULLER. —[Grotius, MEDE, SCHOETTGEN, BuackwaLt, ΚΎΊΝΟΕΙ, &c.] An objection has been raised to the use of the word σκηναὶ in this verse, as it properly implies a tent or tabernacle raised for temporary purposes; it signifies, however, a buélding generally, not only in Acts xv. 16. but in Polyb. XII. 9.4. XX XI. 22.2. So the Vulgate in Hsdr. ii. 11. dabo eis tabernacula eterna. Compare also Rev. xii. 12. xii. 6. ScHLEUSNER, RaPHELIUS.—[MARKLAND. | Ver. 10. ὃ πιστὸς ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ, k. τ. Δ. This is a proverbial saying, to which there are many parallel in the Rabbinical writ- ings. The application follows in the next verse: ‘‘ As he who is unfaithful in small matters is not worthy to have the charge of a more important trust, so those who have misapplied their earthly riches, which are merely committed to them by God as stewards, and for which they must give an account, will be considered as unfit for the riches of heaven, which, if bestowed, would be perpetually their own, and which no one could take from them.” Thus in Sche- moth R. §. 2. God never bestows largely upon men until he has proved them in smaller concerns ; after which he raises them to higher stations. In v. 12. ἀλλοτρίῳ is rendered by the E. T. ano- ther man’s, whereas God, not man, is intended, to whom the riches 558 LUKE XVI. 14, 15. and other advantages in our possession properly belong. In the same sense τὰ ἀλλότρια is used in Phil. Jud. II. 77. 38. Hence Clem. Rom. II. 5. τὰ κοσμικὰ ταῦτα we ἀλλότρια ἡ γεΐσθαι, καὶ μὴ ἐπιθυμεῖν αὐτῶν. Compare Eur. Phoen. 558. Arrian. Epict. I. 1. 11. 16. III. 24. 1V.5. To these τὰ ἡμέτερα are opposed, as belonging to the inheritance which shall last for ever, eternal in the heavens. ‘Thus propria and aliena are contrasted by the Latins. Pheed. Fab. 1. 4. Améttit merito propria, qué aliena appetit. Compare also Hor. Sat. II. 2. 129. Nam _ proprize tel- luris herum naiura neoue illum, Nee me, nee quemquam statuit. Nune ager Umbreni sub nomine, nuper Ofella Dicius, erit nullt proprius ; sed cedet in usum Nunc mihi, nune alii. Epist. II. 2. 270. Tangvam sit proprium, puncto quod mobilis hore, Nune prece, nunc pretio, nyne vi, nunc sorte suprema Permutat do- minos, et cedit in altera jura. P. Syrus: Nil proprium ducas, quod amitti potest. Hence Donatus on Ter. Andr. IV. 3. Bona — eterna vocantur propria; bona vero hujus vile aliena. Wuitsy, Grotius, SCHOETTGEN, WeTsTEIN. Ofv. 13. see on Matt. vi. 24, The connexion in this place is readily discernible. Ps . =. Ver. 14. ἐξεμυκτήριζον. They sneered; or rather, according — to an expression of our own, turned up their noses at him. The derivation is from μυκτὴρ, nasus. The Latins also had a similar expression. Thus Hor. Sat..1. 6.5. Naso suspendere adunco. Pers. Sat. I. 40. Rides :—et nimis uncis Naribus indulges. We meet with the verb again in Luke xxiii. 55. and in Psalm ii. 4. xxii. 7. Prov. xv. 20. LXX, but very rarely in the classic writers. It is found, however, in Stobzeus, and in a fragment of Menander, cited by Plutarch; and Lysias is cited in J. Pollux, II. 78. as likewise employing it. ΚΎΡΚΕ, WersTEIn, KuINOEL. Ver. 15. δικαιοῦντες ἑαυτούς. This phrase clearly denotes those who arrogate to themselves a superiority of virtue which they do not possess. Compare Luke x. 29. The arts by which the Pharisees gained a reputation of exalted piety among their countrymen are sufficiently exposed by our Lord in Matt. xxiii. Of the three following verses see on Matt. xi. 13. v. 18. 352. re- spectively. Their connexion in this place is not so apparent, and some have supposed that they were spoken upon another oc- casion, and inserted here as detached observations; upon closer examination, however, they appear to have arisen out of the te- nour of our Lord’s discourse. ‘‘ Your reputed sanctity among men is an abomination to God, who knows the heart, and reads therein hypocrisy and covetousness. The dispensation of the Gospel, which opened with the preaching of John, will place the precepts and ceremonies of the law, which your traditions have perverted and misapplied, in their true and proper light; and teach mankind that not one tittle shall fail. ‘Take, for instance, LUKE XVI. 1921. 559 the commandment respecting adultery, which you have contrived to evade, and your evasion of which, though it may not affect your character in the sight of the world, is abomination in the sight of God.” Having thus unmasked their hypocrisy, our Lord returns to his subject, and dissuades his hearers from the abuse of riches, and indulgence in worldly pleasures, by the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Grotius, Wuitspy, DoppRipGE.— [Hammonp, KurnoEt.] : . Ver, 19. ἄνθρωπος δέ τις κι τ. X. Some of the ancient Fa- thers, and among them Irenzus (III. 62.) and Tertullian (De Anim. §§.'7. 9.) have locked upon this narration as a real history, while others have considered it as founded upon fact. The rich man has been identified with Herod and with Caiaphas, but upon no other grounds for the supposition than the sumptuous fare and purple dress. See on Matt. xxvii. 28. The description, how- ever, has all the appearance of a parable, and as such it was esteemed by Theophilus, and the moderns generally have con- curred in his opinion. Lazarus too, though a name of some fre- quency among the Jews, is here most probably fictitious, and de- scriptive of the destitute condition in which the poor man is re- presented to have been. It may either be the Hebrew Eleazer, which signifies God my helper, or rather, perhaps, VY N5, lo azer, ὦ helpless person. Be it further remarked, that a parable in many respects similar is to be found in the Talmud. Wuirsy, Licutroot, DoppripcE, Kurnort. Of the verb ἐβέβλητο, in the next verse, see on Mait. viii. 6. Ver. 21. ἐπιθυμῶν χορτασθῆναι. Content to be fed. See on Luke xv. 16. It does not appear that he was refused the crumbs, and, indeed, had this been the case it would scarcely have been omitted in the rebuke of Abraham. The rich man’s sins were carelessness and negligence rather than meditated enhumanity. By the law he was bound to have provided for the care and maintenance of so wretched an outcast, instead of indulging in luxury and sensuality while the duties of humanity were unre- garded. See Deut. xv. 7, and compare Prov. 111. 27. Isaiah \viii. 3. CAMPBELL, KUINOEL. Thid. ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ κύνες x. τ. X. This circumstance has been regarded by some as an alleviation rather than an addition to his calamity. ‘The tongue of the dog is, indeed, sometimes looked upon as endued with healing properties, and the animal has been said to be moved with pity at distress. Justin. I. 4. 11. Motus et ipse misericordia, qua motum etiam canem viderat. But, from the general tenor of the parable, the incident is clearly re- corded to shew that his ulcers lay bare, and were neither closed, or bound up, or mollified with ointment, (Isaiah i.6.) Besides, the connecting particles ἀλλὰ καὶ, which are correctly rendered 560 LUKE XVI. 22, 23. in the E. T. moreover, clearly imply an increase of suffering. Compare Luke xii. 7. xxiv. 22. Doppripce.—[WETSTEIN. ] Ver. 22. ἀπενεχθῆναι αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀγγέλων κ. τ. A. This may possibly be only an ornamental circumstance in the parable, in accordance with the popular opinion of the Jews, who assigned this office to good angels ; and it is an office well suited to their benevolent natures and the condition of a departed spirit. Thus in Kalaim, p. 32. 3. Holy men would fain have R. Judah still in the land of the living, but the angels took him away. Hence the Targum on Cant. [V. 12. None but the just can enter Pa- radise, whither their souls are carried by angels. A somewhat similar notion prevailed among the Heathen, who invested - cury with the office. Soph. Aj. 843. καλῶ δ᾽ ἅμα Πομπαῖον ‘Eopiv χθόνιον εὖ μὲ κομίσαι. Hor. Od. I. 10. 17. Tu pias letis animas reponis Sedibus. By Abraham’s bosom the Jews understood Paradise. Kiddushim, p. 72.1. This day Ada Bar Ahava sits in Abraham's bosom. So Joseph. de Maccab. ὃ. 18. οὕτω γὰρ θανόντας ἡμᾶς ᾿Αβραὰμ, καὶ ᾿Ισαὰκ, καὶ ᾿Ιακὼβ ὑπο- δέξονται εἰς τοὺς κόλπους αὐτῶν. Of the import of the expres- sion see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 398. and compare Matt. viii. 11. Ligntroot, WeETsTEIN, DoppripGE, WuHiTBy. 4 Ver, 23. ἐν ἅδῃ. See on Matt. xi. 23. From this passage, however, it has been argued that Hades here at least denotes the place of torment. The Jews, however, as well as the Greeks, represent the receptacle of departed souls as divided into two parts, the abodes of the blessed lying contiguous to those of the damned, and separated only by an impassable river or gulf, in such sort that the ghosts could converse with one another from its opposite banks. One of the Rabbins thought that a wall se- parated them; and it is said in Midras Choheleth, p. 103. on Eicclus. vii. 14. God hath set one against the other at the dis- ἡ tance of a hand-breath. In Midras Ruth, p. 44. 2. is the fol- lowing parable: There are wicked men, who are united in this world ; but one of them repents, the other doth not: so the one is found standing in the assembly of the just, the other in the as- sembly of the wicked. The one seeth the other, and saith, Woe and alas! §c. §c. §c. So in the parable of our Lord, souls whose bodies were buried know each other, and converse toge- ther, as if they had been embodied; and the Pagans in like manner introduce departed souls, as if in possession of their bodily functions, conversing, and following pursuits, and sensible to pains and pleasures analogous to those of life. The parable represents the wicked as tormented in flames; and the Grecian mythologists fix them in Periphlegethon, a river of fire. Compare Hesiod. Theog. 720. sqq. Hom. Il. 6. 13. Virg. Ain. VI. 577. VIII. 243. Diod. Sic. I. 96, Plat. Phad. T. I. p. 253. Lucian. LUKE XVI. 24. 31. 561 de Luct.§. 2. Plutarch. de Sera Num. Vind. p. 565. E. de Gen. Sac. p. 590. Joseph. B. J. 11. 8. 14. Ant. XVIII. 15. Hence the rich man and Lazarus may have been equally in Hades, though in different departments of it. If, as some have thought — from these coincidences, the parable is formed upon these popular prejudices, it does not, therefore, follow that our Lord approved ofthem. In parabolical discourses, provided the doctrines incul- cated are strictly true, the terms in which they are inculcated may be adapted to the prevailing ideas of those to whom they are ad- dressed. Among the doctrines here enforced we may safely rely on these :—that the soul is immortal, and exists in a separate and conscious state after its dissolution from the body;—that future rewards and punishments will be apportioned not only with re- ference to sins committed, but duties omitted ;—that future mi- sery, of whatever nature it may be, will be eternal and irrevo- cable; that a sufficiency of light is afforded by the Gospel, and that, if men are not enlightened thereby, they would not be persuaded by any extraordinary illumination, which could be afforded consistently with the freedom of the human will. On other points, therefore, which it has pleased God for the wisest reasons to veil in mystery, St. Augustin has well observed: Melius est dubitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis. Macxk- NIGHT, Grotius, LE CLERc, DoppRIDGE, WETSTEIN. Ver. 24, πάτερ ᾿Αββραάμ. This appellation is in strict keeping with the Jewish prejudices respecting their descent from Abra- ham. See on Matt. iii. 9. By the Patriarch’s reply in the next verse we are by no means to infer that the mere possession of this world’s goods was the cause of the rich man’s torments. It was his abuse of his possessions, and his applying the good things which he received to his own exclusive gratification, for which he was thus severely visited. The expression ἀπολαβεῖν τὰ ἀγαθά σου is a Rabbinism. He who shall pass, says the Talmud, through forty days without chastisement, hath received this world; a full and abundant reward for all the good that he hath done here. Wuitpy, HamMonD. Ver. 31. εἰ Μωσέως x. τ. X. Though Moses does not per- haps expressly assert a future state of rewards and punishments, yet the facts recorded by him contain unanswerable arguments in proof of it, and the prophets speak plainly of it in many places. See Psalm xvi. 9. sqq. xvii. 15. xxiil. 6. xlix. 14. Ixxiii. 17. sqq. Prov. xiv. 32.) Eccles. iii. 17. 21. xi. 9. xii. 7. 13. Ezek. xviii. 19. sqq- Our Lord here asserts that it was not the want of evi- dence, but their sinful addiction to worldly pleasures, which darkened the understandings, and biassed the minds of the Jews against the reception of the Gospel; and we have two striking instances of the truth of his declaration, In the raising of ano- VOL. I. 00 562 LUKE XVII.'1. 5. ther Lazarus from the dead, (John xi. 46.) and in the circum- stances attending his own resurrection, to which he seems more especially to allude, he afforded a far more convincing proof of his divine mission than any such apparition as is here referred to could have been. We may observe that Moses and the pro- phets was an usual designation for the body of the Jewish Scrip- tures, as read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day. (See Horne.) Licutroot, Dopprivge, Grotius. 4.f,1. | $44 pe 7 νυ ΣΡ CHAPTER XVII. oi ConTENTs :—On forgiveness of injuries, and man’s unprofitable _ service, vv. 1—10. The ten lepers, vv. 11—19. The sudden approach of Christ's kingdom, vv. 20—37. Ν Verse 1. ἀνένδεκτόν ἐστι. It is impossible. So Luke xiii. 88. οὐκ ἐνδέχεται. The adjective is found in no other author. With λυσιτελεῖ, in the next verse, there is an ellipsis of μᾶλλον, which — is supplied in Lys. Orat. XII. ἡγησάμενοι ταῦτα μᾶλλον Avo τελεῖν, ἢ πολιτῶν x. τ. A. Of the precepts with which the chapter commences see on Matt. xviii. 6. 91, There is an illus- tration of the proverb in v. 2. in Kiddushim, p. 29. 2. Samuel saith, A man may marry and after that devote himself to the study of the law. R. Jochanan saith, No: shall he devote him- self to the study of the law with a mill-stone about his neck. Compare also Arist. Equit. 1360. ἔΑρας μετέωρον, ἐς τὸ βάραθρον ἐμβαλῶ, Ἔκ τοῦ λάρυγγος ἐκκρεμάσαι ὑπέρίδϑολον. GRoTIUS, WetsteEIn, Licutroot, Δ. CLARKE. . Ver. 5. πρόσθες ἡμῖν πίστιν. Unless there is no connexion between the several precepts here delivered, the éncrease of faith seems to have been solicited by the Apostles with a view to be ena- bled to comprehend the nature and extent of the forgiveness re- commended in the last verse. But those.commentators are pro- bably correct, who maintained that our Lord’s discourse is here composed of detached precepts, in which no connexion is in- tended or required. Hammonp, Grotius.—[WetsteIn, WuIT- | By.| Of the next verse see on Matt. xvii. 20. xxi. 21. Some suppose that συκάμινος, the sycamine, is the same tree with ov- κομορέα, the sycamore, which is mentioned in Luke xix. 4.; and so Galen (de Aliment. I1.) and Athenzus. Others, however, distinguish between them, and contend that the former has no connexion with συκέη, the fig-tree, but is purely Syrian PPV. Dioscorides and Celsus call it the mulberry-tree ; and it is ren-— LUKE XVII. 7. 11. 563 dered morus in the Latin Vulgate. So also the Arabic, Syriac, and the older English versions. The sycamore is so called as resembling the mulberry-tree in its leaf, and the fig in its fruit, and seems to have been very common all over the East. It was, in all probability, the same as Pharaoh’s fig-tree of the Egyptians ; and being a tall and spreading tree it was well suited to the pur- pose for which Zacchzus employed it. Its name is sometimes transposed into morosycon, as in Cels. Hierobot. III. 18. Arboris in Atgypto nascentis, quam ibi morosycon appellant. See Plin. N. H. XIII. 7. Theoph. Hist. Plant. 1V. 2. We may observe that the tree so called in this country is a totally different tree, the larger maple. Grotius, WETsTEIN, HARMER.—[PARK- HuRST, A. CLaRKE, &c. | Ver. 7. τίς δὲ κι τ. Δ. Here again the connexion is not very discernible, though the particle δὲ, unless a mere expletive, seems to have a reference to the preceding verses. Having given di- rections on certain points of Christian conduct, our Lord follows them up with the assurance that, however punctually attended to, no merit can attach to the observance of them. In the same manner as a servant places his master under no obligation by performing the duties of his station, so is Christ in no ways in- debted to his disciples and followers for discharging the service which the Gospel requires from them. Not only does idleness and the neglect of the talents committed to our care render us un- profitable, as in Matt. xxv. 30., but the mere performance of what is commanded comes within the compass of our Saviour’s meaning. Senec. Controv. II. 13. Non est beneficium, sed offi- cium, facere quod debeas. So Hor. A. P. 267. Vitavi denique culpam, non laudem merut. ‘The rewards, therefore, which are promised to obedience are not of debt or merit, but of grace; and though they are great incitements to virtue, and will be distributed to all according to their works, we can have no claim to them on the score of our own deservings. Hammonp, Wuirsy, Grorius. —[Macknient, Kurnoet.] The verbs φαγέσαι and πιέσαι, in v. 8., are the second pers. 2. fut. med. for φάγῃ and πίῃ, accord- ing to the old dialect, which substituted φάγομαι and πίομαι for φαγοῦμαι and πιοῦμαι. Compare Isaiah ix. 16. LXX. Matt. xx. 23. Luke xiv. 15. James v. 3. Rev. xvii. 16. Phrynichus: πιοῦ- μαι σὺν τῷ Y λέγων οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἐρεῖς" πίομαι γάρ ἐστι τὸ ἀρχαῖον, καὶ πιόμενος ἄνευ rou Y. So Arist. Equit. 1286. οὔ ποτ᾽ ἐκ ταὐ- τοῦ μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν πίεται ποτηρίου. WETsTEIN, Parxuurst. Of περιζωσάμενος see on Luke xii. 35. Ver. 11. διὰ μέσου Σαμαρείας καὶ T. There is some doubt as to the meaning of the term διὰ μέσου in this place. Had Christ proceeded from Capernaum, in the neighbourhood of which he usually resided, direct to Jerusalem, his nearest road would doubt- 002 δο04 LUKE XVII. 14. 18. less have been through the midst of Samaria; but in this case the Evangelist had no occasion to mention Galilee, or, at least, it would properly have been named before Samaria. The historian may have spoken, indeed, of his route generally, without allud- ing to the geographical positions of Galilee and Samaria; but it should rather seem that the confines of the two countries are meant, so as to render it immaterial which was mentioned first. In the Arabic and Syriac versions the passage is rendered be- tween Samaria and Galilee: Our Lord, therefore, may have crossed the Jordan at the bridge of Seythopolis, and proceeding along the banks of the river through Perzea, passed it again into Jericho. He possibly avoided Samaria in order to escape the impediments which the jealousy of the Samaritans might have thrown in his way. ΟἌΜΡΒΕΙΙ, Grotius, WeTsTtEIN, WHITBY. —[Macxnient, Le Cuerc.] On some points of the following miracle see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. pp. 339. 514. Ver. 14. τοῖς ἱερεῦσι. The use of the plural in this passage, as well as in Matt. viii. 4., has supplied the commentators with matter of discussion. Some maintain that the priests of the Jews and Samaritans are both intended, and that the latter, who re- ceived the law of Moses, are directed, no less than the former, to abide by the precept respecting lepers in Levit. xiv. 2. Our Lord, it is true, withheld his sanction from the tenets and the worship of the Samaritans, (John iv. 22.) but in a question in which no controversial doctrine occurred, he would probably have referred each party respectively to his own priest. Others, how- ever, are of opinion, and perhaps rightly, that ἱερεῦσι is here used in a collective sense; and an argument is thence deduced, that by sending the Samaritan to a Jewish priest he gave an indirect decision in favour of the superior sanctity of the Temple of Je- rusalem above that on Mount Gerizim. Wuitsy, Grotius.— [WerTsTEIN. ] Ver. 18. ἀλλογενής. So Josephus calls the Samaritans ἀλ- λοεθνεῖς, Many of the Rabbies, indeed, looked upon them in the same light as the Gentiles; and it was matter of dispute how far they were to be esteemed otherwise. It appears from 2 Kings xvii. 24. that they were formed from a colony of Cutheans, and they are still denominated Cuthites by way of reproach. At the same time they were not Heathens, but worshipped the one true God; and by some the legitimacy of their priesthood was ad- mitted. See Kiddushim, p.'75. 2. Our Lord should here be un- derstood as applying to them a term of national prejudice, in order to place the ingratitude of the nine Jews in a more conspicuous light. Grotrus, WersteIn. Of the verb εὑρίσκεσθαι, in the sense of εἶναι, see on Matt. i. 18. LUKE. XVII. 20. 22. 565 Ver. 20. μετὰ παρατηρήσεως. Ἰὼ. T. with observation: and in the margin, with outward shew. So Euthym. μετὰ πολλῆς φαν- τασίας. The word does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., and but seldom in profane writers. Its ordinary meaning is looking out, or being on the watch, of which examples occur in Polyb. XVI. 22. 8. Plutarch. Quest. R. p. 266. Arrian. Exped. III. 16. 15. Joseph. B. J. I. 29. The marginal note, therefore, must rather be looked upon as a gloss than a translation, and it re- _mains to decide between one of the two interpretations which are more generally adopted by the commentators. Some understand by the expression that the Messiah’s kingdom comes not in such a manner as to require that notice and observation with which the Scribes and Pharisees awaited it. They expected that his advent would be marked by famine, pestilence, earthquakes, and revolu- tions: and under this idea, the unmeaning expressions of an idiot, a sudden tempest, or any unusual appearance in the hea- vens, was frequently sufficient to excite their expectation. There should rather seem, however, to be an allusion to that regal pomp and splendour so calculated to elicit observation, in which the Messiah was expected to appear. Upon this view of the ques- tion our Lord’s reply is natural and easy; he tells them that their preconceived notions of the grandeur of his coming had so blinded their understandings that they did not know hin, although he was actually among them. 'The words ἐντὸς ὑμῶν do not imply, as some suppose, the spiritual principle, as opposed to the out- ward parade, by which secular kingdoms are commonly intro- duced. Our Lord is not here speaking of his dominion over the hearts of men, but of the establishment of his kingdom in the world, respecting which the Pharisees had been enquiring. Be- sides, he would scarcely have represented the Pharisees as being in that.spiritual condition which the words, thus interpreted, im- ly. They are, therefore, equivalent to ἐν ὑμῖν, among you, as in John i. 14. Compare Luke i. 1. vii. 16. John xi. 54. and else- where. That ἐντὸς will bear this signification is evident from Xen. Anab. I. 10. 2. ταύτην ἔσωσαν, καὶ τἄλλα ὅσα ἐντὸς αὐτῶν, καὶ χρήματα, καὶ ἄνθρωποι, ἐγένοντο. Compare Ailian. V. H. IX. 3. Grotius, ῪΉΙΤΒΥ, Macknicut, KypKeE.—[CAMPBELL, MarkKLanD, &c. | " Ver. 22. ἐλεύσονται ἡμέραι, κι τ. A. Our Lord here alludes to the calamities which their sins, and especially that of rejecting the Messiah, would shortly bring upon them. In those days, he tells them, they would in vain wish for his presence among them, and seek for the opportunity of mercy, which they now rejected. So Dion. Hal. VI. 71. εἰ δὲ παρήσετε τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον, εὔξαισθε ἂν πολλάκις ὅμοιον εὑρεῖν ἕτερον. Hammond, WetsTeIn. Upon the remainder of the chapter see, for the most part, on Matt. xxiv. 17. 27. 38. 40. 566 LUKE XVII. 24. 32. XVIII. 1. Ver. 24. τῆς im οὐρανὸν, x. τ. Δ. Supply χώρας and χώραν. The same ellipsis is found in Job xviii. 4. Prov. viii. 28. LXX. The phrase ὑπ᾽ οὐρανὸν, as employed in this passage, occurs also in Plat. Ep. VII. p. 527. D. τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνθρώπων. Bos, Wetstein. Of the verb ἀποδοκιμάζειν in the next verse, see on Mark viii. 31. Inv. 29. Θεὸς is the nominative to be supplied with ἔβρεξε from Gen. xix. 24. Ver. 32. μνημονεύετε τῆς γυναικὸς Λώτ. Having illustrated _ the sudden destruction of Jerusalem by that of Sodom and Go- morrah, our Lord naturally adduces the example of Lot’s wife as a warning against similar conduct in those, who might otherwise escape the impending calamity. If any, after the signs of the times, and the means of safety had been clearly pointed out to them, hesitated, from a love of the world, or want of faith, to adopt the measures which circumstances required, they might see in Lot’s wife a picture both of their sin and its punishment. Of the next verse see on Matt. x. 39. It seems here to be applied in a literal acceptation, with reference to the context :— W hoso- ever shall expect to save himself by taking refuge in Jerusalem, shall lose it; and whosoever shall risque the loss of it, by fleeing to places of less apparent security, shall save it. In profane writers the verb ζωογονεῖν signifies to procreate, as in Diod. Sic. I. 88., but in the LXX. and the N. T. to preserve life. So Gen. vi. 19. Exod. i. 17, 18. 22. Judg. viii. 19. 1 Kings xx. 31. 1 Sam. xi. 6. LXX. Acts vii. 19. The corresponding word in Mark viii. 35. is σώζειν. Macknicut, Grotius, WETSTEIN. In the next verse νὺξ is used metaphorically of the gloomy hor- rors which would attend the destruction of Jerusalem. KuINOEL. Many of the best MSS. do not contain vy. 36., and in the opinion of the best critics it is an interpolation from Matt. xxiv. 40. 14 fea. 540. CHAPTER XVIII Contents :— The parables of the importunate widow and of the Pharisee and publican, vv. \—14. The young ruler’s ques- tion, and our Lord’s discourse thereon, vv. 15—30. [Matt. xix. 16. Mark x. 17.] Christ again foretells his death and passion, vv. 31—34, [Matt. xx. 17. Mark x. 32.] 44 blind man healed at Jericho, vy. 35—43. [Matt. xx. 29. Mark x. Verse 1. μὴ ἐκκακεῖν. E.'T. Not to faint ; Vulg. Non deficere ; i. 6. not to tire, or flag. In this sense the verb recurs in 2 Cor. LUKE XVIII. 2, 9. 507 iv. 1. Gal. vi. 9. 2 Thess. iii. 18. So also Polyb. IV. 19.; and hence Hesych, ἐκκακοῦμεν᾽ ἀμελοῦμεν, ἀκηδεῶμεν. In a sense closely analogous it also signifies ¢o despond, as in 2 Cor. iv. 16. Ephes. iii. 13., but though some would adopt this meaning here also, the former is most suitable with the context. It is not un- usual with men, if their prayers are not immediately answered, to desist from a repetition of them, more particularly in times of per- secution, to which our Lord now alludes. The particle δὲ plainly implies that the parable has a relation to the preceding discourse, and that it was delivered at the same time. We are not, how- ever, to understand that the parable recommends incessant prayer in the strictest sense of the word, but a frequent and earnest per- severance in the duty. The adverbs πάντοτε, ἀδιαλείπτως, and the like, are frequently employed in this limited ‘signification. See Levit. vi. 20. Numb. xxviii. 24. 3. Dan. viii. 11. 1 Mace. xii. 11. LXX. John xviii. 20. 1 Tim. v. 5. and compare 1 Thess. v. 17. with Ephes. vi. 18. Hammonp, Ligutroot, Wuitsy, Mack- NIGHT, WETSTEIN. Ver. 2. τὸν Θεὸν μὴ φοβούμενος, k.7- A. Similar expressions, which seem to be proverbial of the most obstinate wickedness, are frequently met with. Hom. Od. X. 39. Οὔτε θεοὺς δείσαντες, Ot οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἔχουσιν, Οὔτε τιν᾽ ἀνθρώπων νέμεσιν κατόπισ- θεν ἔθεσθε. Eur. Cyc. 601. ᾧ θεῶν οὐδὲν ἢ βροτῶν μέλει. Herod. II. 198. τῶν θεῶν οὐ μεμνημένοι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους φθεί- ροντες. Liv. III. 37. Deorum hominumque contemptor, Sallust. Hist. I. 15. Hostéis omnium bonorum, ut te neque hominum neque deorum pudet. WrEtTSTEIN, ELSNER. Ver. 8. ἐκδίκησόν με. Τὼ, T. Avenge me; and in this sense the verb elsewhere occurs in the N. 1, In this place, however, there is no idea’ of vengeance ; the woman merely requests that her right should be adjudged to her. The words should, there- fore, be translated Do me justice upon mine adversary. WHITBY, Dopprincr. Of the phrase ἐπὶ χρόνον, v. 4., which recurs in Acts xy. 33, xix. 22. see my note on Hom. Il. B. 299. and of the word ὑπώπιον, from which ὑπωπιάζειν in v. 5. is derived, on Il. M. 463, The verb signifies properly to strike under the eye, and corresponds with the Latin suggillare. Both the Greek ὑπώπιον, however, and the Latin swggillatio, are used meta- phorically in the sense of insult or contwmely, Thus Cicero: Consulatus Auli non tam consulatus, sed Magni nostri (Pompeii) ὑπώπιον. Liv. XIII. 14. Id pretoribus, non sine suggillatione consulum, mandatum. Some would, therefore, render it in this place, to rail at; but the commentators, for the most part, prefer translating it to weary. From striking on the face it may signify to strike generally, thence to give pain, from which the sense proposed is easily deduced. It is true that only one instance of 568 LUKE XVIIL. 7. . wo. * ’ this usage, and that somewhat an equivocal one, has been ad- - duced from Diog. Laert. II. 136. but the Latin obtundere, which is nearly synonymous with ὑπωπιάζειν, is frequently so employed. Liv. 11. 15. Quando id certum est, neque ego obtundam, sepi eadem nequicquam agendo. Terent. And. II. 2. 11. Obtundis, - tametsi intelligo. Adelph. I. 2. 33. Ausculta, ne me obtundas de hac re sepius. Auctor ad Heren. IV. 42. Eandem rem dice- mus non eodem modo, nam id quidem obtundere auditorem est. Grotius, Macxnicut, Le Cierc, Wersrery.—[Hammonp. | Some critics would refer εἰς τέλος to ὑπωπιάζῃ, lest she weary me at last; but its position in the context is in favour of the old interpretations, which construe it with ἐρχομένη. [{ is the phrase by which the Hebrew M3?, perpetually, is rendered in Job xiv. 20. Psalm xiii. 1. xlix. 19. xxiv. 1. 10. 19. Compare John xiii. 1. 1 Thess. ii. 16. Grotrus, Ligurroot.—[WAkEFIELD.] Of the expression 6 κρίτης τῆς ἀδικίας, v. 6., see on Luke xvi. 8. ᾿ Ver. 7. καὶ μακροθυμῶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς. E.T. Though he bear — with them. There is considerable difference of opinion, however, both as to the rendering and the application of the passage. The more usual sense of the verb Hehe Buyucty in the N. T. is to be long-suffering ; and, therefore, as sinners are generally regarded as the objects of God’s forbearance, (Rom. 11. 4. ix. 22. 2 Pet. iii. 9.) the words ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῖς are referred by some commentators to those who afflict and persecute the elect. But no such reference is implied in the context, where ἐκλεκτῶν is the only antecedent to which αὐτοῖς can properly belong; neither does the purport of the parable accord with the interpretation. Now the verb pa- κροθυμεῖν signifies also to delay, or linger; others, therefore, un- derstand μακροθυμῶν as here put, by a common Oriental idiom, for μακροθυμῶν ἔσται or μακροθυμήσει, and to be taken in con- junction with ποιήσει τὴν ἐκδίκησιν. But though several MSS. read μακροθύμει, and the omission of the substantive verb con- nected with a participle is not unusual, it would scarcely be dropped when a personal verb precedes. Others, again, by making a small alteration in the accent, convert the participle into the genitive plural of the adjective μακρόθυμος, and couple it with βοώντων. ‘The words, however, will not easily bear this con- struction, and the examples in support of it are far from satis- factory. Against the E. T., which suits exactly with the plain intention of the parable, the main objection is the use of καὶ in the sense of καίπερ, although. But in this sense it oceurs in John iii. 32. xiv. 50. xvii. 25, xxi. 23. Acts vii. 5. Rom. i. 13. Heb. iii. 9. and elsewhere; and, in other respects the version is sanctioned by an exactly parallel expression in Heclus. xxxv. 18. LXX. καὶ ὁ Κύριος, οὐ μὴ βραδύνῃ, οὐδὲ μὴ μακροθυμήσει ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς. Some, indeed, have fancied an inconsistency between vy. 7, and 8. It is plain, however, that God may not answer the ΌΧΙ 57 9. 11. 569 prayers of his servants immediately, and may yet, when he does answer them, give them a speedy and sudden fulfilment. Be it observed, also, that though the parable admits of a general ap- plication, it was here particularly addressed to the disciples, who were suffering under the persecution of the Jews; and the ven- geance here intended is the approaching destruction of Jeru- salem, which, though at some distance, our Lord constantly pre- dicted as coming suddenly upon them. Macknigut, Beza.— [Wuitsy, Grotius, CAMPBELL, Etsner, &c.] Of the ἐκλεκτοὶ see on Matt. xx. 16. Ver. 8. πλὴν ὁ υἱὸς κι τ. A. This question implies that at the coming of Christ to avenge his elect, the faith of his coming should in a great measure be lost. Accordingly, it appears from 2 Pet. iii. 4. that many infidels and apostates scoffed at the ex- pectation of Christ’s coming, which the godly in those days che- rished ; and from Heb. x. 25. that many of them began to waver and faint under persecution, insomuch that all the epistles ad- dressed to them are manifestly designed to keep them stedfast in the faith. Compare Hebd. iii. 12—14. x. 23—39. xii. 1—4. James 1. 1—4. ii. 6. v. 10. 1 Pet. ii. 20—25. iti. 14—17. iv. 1, 2, 12—19. v. 9, 10. We must, therefore, understand ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς of the land of Judea, as elsewhere frequently. Macknicut, Wuitsy, DoppRIDGE. Ver. 9. πρός τινας τοὺς πεποιθότας K. τ. X. From the neces- sity of instant and earnest prayer our Lord naturally turns to the duty of thinking humbly of our own merits, and praying to God for mercy and forgiveness. In illustration of the parable of the Pharisee and publican the reader will find ample matter in Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. pp. 186. 335. 367. sqq. It should be observed that the preposition πρὸς, both here and in v. 1. supra, signifies concerning, as in Luke xii. 41. xix. 9. and elsewhere. So Plutarch. Op. p. 594. πρὸς ὃν δὲ Πίνδαρος εἴρηκεν. WeET- STEIN, KYPKE. Ver. 11. πρὸς ἑαυτόν. Some commentators connect these words with σταθεὶς, and render them by himself, i. e. apart ; while others join them with προσηύχετο, and follow the E. T. with himself, i. e. inwardly, mentally. Now there is no passage either in sacred or profane writers in which πρὸς ἑαυτὸν is used in the former of these acceptations, the phrase so employed being always καθ᾽ ἑαυτόν. Neither is there any truth in the supposi- tion that the Pharisee kept himself aloof in order to avoid pollu- tion by too near contact with the publican, since they must have been occupied in two distinct courts of the Temple, the Pharisee in that of the Israelites, and the publican (μακρόθεν ἑστὼς, v. 13.) in that of the Gentiles. It is clear, therefore, that the latter in- 570 LUKE XVIII. 13. terpretation is correct, which is confirmed by Mark ix. 10. § x. 26, xi. 31. xii. 7. xiv. 4. xvi. 3. Luke iii. 15, xxiv. 12. 1 Cor. xi. 3. So Achil. Tat. I. ταῦτα πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν ἔλεγον. Aristeen. Ep. I, 6. πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν ἔφην. A man would scarcely have uttered aloud such a prayer as the Pharisee’s, in which every word was a calumny upon all around him. By some critics σταθεὶς is said to be redundant, as-in Luke xix. 8. and elsewhere; but it pro- bably refers to the more usual attitude of praying among the Jews. Grortius, Le Crerc, Werstrern, Kuinoen. — [ΒΕΖΑ, Wuitsy, Doppripncre, Campsety.] Of the Jewish fasts and tithes, mentioned in v. 12. see on Matt. vi. 16. xxiii. 98. a specimen of Pharisaic pride we may subjoin the following from Bereshith Rabba, ὃ. 35. p. 44. Rabbi Simeon, the son of Jochai, said: The world is not worth thirty righteous persons such as our father Abraham. If there were only thirty righteous per- sons in the world, I and my son should make two of them; and if there were but twenty, I and my son would be of the number; and if there were but ten, I and my son would be of the number ; and if there were but five, I and my son would be of the five ; and of there were but two, I and my son would be those two; and if there were but one, myself should be that one. A. CLARKE. Ver. 13. οὐδὲ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς x. τ. X. A variety of passages” have been adduced by the commentators, both from Jewish and Heathen writers, in proof that it was the general custom of the ancients to raise their eyes and hands to heaven in prayer. It appears, however, to have been a frequent maxim with the Rabbis, that he who prays should cast down his eyes, but raise his heart to God; and there are passages in their writings which recommend praying with their eyes downward. ‘Thus Maimon. in Tephillah: Let him that prayeth cover his head and look downward. No specific direction, however, but a deep sense of humiliation and consciousness of guilt, together with heartfelt contrition and desire of forgiveness, produced the humble posture of the publican. So Tacit. Hist. IV. 72. Stabant conscientia Jlagitit meste, fixis in terram oculis. That beating the heart was also a sign of excessive grief see Hom. Il. 3. 50. Virg. Ain. I, 485. and compare Matt. xi. 17. xxiv. 30. Lignutroot, Wer- STEIN, GROTIUS. Ibid. ἐμοὶ τῷ ἁμαρτωλῷ. It has been thought that the article _ is here emphatic, and denotes the sinner κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν. But the foree thus ascribed to the article is here unfounded ; for it may be laid down as a general rule, that whenever an at¢éributive noun (see above, p. 10.) is placed in $pposition with a personal pro- noun, such attributive has the article prefixed. ‘Thus in Luke vi. 24. ὑμῖν τοῖς πλουσίοις. xi. 46. ὑμῖν τοῖς νομικοῖς. In neither of these instances can emphasis be intended. We have the same form of speech also in Herod. IX. p. 342. μὲ τὸν ἱκέ- LUKE XVIII. 14. 34, XIX. 2. 571 τιν. Plut. Conv. VII. Sap. p. 95. ἐμὲ τὸν δύστηνον. See also Soph. Elect. 282. Eurip. Ion. 348. Arist. Av. 5. Acharn. 1154. Eccles. 619. Of the usage in question the ground is sufficiently obvious. The article here, as elsewhere, marks the assumption of its predicate ; and the strict meaning of the publican’s prayer is: Have mercy on me, who am confessedly a stnner ; or, seeing that I ama sinner, have mercy on me. MippLeton.—[WeEr- STEIN, RosENMULLER. | Ver. 14. δεδικαιωμένος, ἢ ἔκεινος. There is an ellipsis of the adverb μᾶλλον, of which see my note on Hom. 1]. A. 117. The verb δικαιοῦν here signifies to acquit, to accept as just; as in Rom. iii. 20. and generally in the Epistles. The expression seems to have been in common use among the Jews. Thus in Schemoth R. p. 133, 8. Whosoever enters the temple covered with sins, and offers a sin-offering, his sins are remitted, and he rejoices in being accounted just. SCHOETTGEN, Grotius. Of the maxim which closes the parable see on Matt. xxiii. 11. Ver. 34. οὐδὲν τούτων συνῆκαν᾽ x. τ. X. Some critics suppose that they regarded our Lord’s predictions of his death in the light of an allegory. It is sufficient to understand that they could not reconcile them with their own traditions and limited interpreta- tions of the Scriptures. See on Luke ix. 45. Wuirsy.—[Gro- TIUS. | CHAPTER XIX. Contents :—The conversion of Zaccheus, vv. 1—10. The parable of the pounds, vv. 11—28. Christ's triumphant entry into Jerusalem ; his lamentation over the city, and purging of the Temple, vy. 29—48. [Matt. xxi. 1. Mark xi. 1. John Rott, 10} Verse 2. ἀρχιτελώνης. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 185. There is some doubt, however, as to the rank and office of this person. The E. T. calls him the chief among the publicans; but to this it is objected that it seems to imply the chief of the whole order in Palestine, in which case the article would most probably have been prefixed, as it usually is to ἀρχιερεὺς, when the chief priest is spoken of. Hence it is supposed that the chief publican of a particular city or district is intended ; but this interpretation would require the article, if the principle be correct, no less than the other. At all events, however, the article must here be omitted, as it is also 572 LUKE XIX. 4 with ἀρχιερεὺς whenever it follows a verb substantive. See note on the Greek article, p. 10. Omission 1. and compare Acts xxiii. 5. There is, therefore, no reason why ἀρχιτελώνης is at all less definite in its import than would ὁ ἀρχιτελώνης be, if cir- cumstances had permitted the article to be used. The precise nature of the office, however, it is not easy to determine. Some understand him to have been a publicanus, or farmer of the tolls, as distinguished from a portitor, or mere collector; and it is pro- bable from Joseph. B. J. 11. 14. 9. that Jews were sometimes admitted to this rank, though it properly belonged to Roman knights. Sucha person might, without impropriety, be called ἀρ- χιτελώνης, a head-collector, as being a publican in the strict sense, under whom the τελῶναι acted. The publicans, indeed, formed a society or college under the direction of a president residing at Rome, and this president managed the concerns of the society by means of representatives appointed in the provinces. The pre- sident himself was called magister, and each representative pro- magister. See Grevius on Cic. Fam. Epist. XII. 9. Zacchzeus might, therefore, be this representative, for though he was a Jew, it might be the policy of the Romans sometimes to employ Jews in offices of trust and emolument. Although these opi- nions amount to nothing above conjecture, the last seems to have the preference. That Zacchzeus was a Jew is clear from v. 9. Tt is true, indeed, that Gentiles as well as Jews are children of Abraham by faith: but of this idea the Jews were then ignorant. The name of Zaccheus is purely Hebrew, (Ezra ii. 9. viii. 14.) and his restoring fourfold proved his respect for the Law of Moses. See on v. 8. Our Lord declares also in v. 10. that he’ came to seek and to save that which was lost, viz. of the house of Israel; (Matt. x. 6.) and had a son by faith only been in- tended, the verb would have been ἐγένετο, he is become, rather than ἐστὶν, he is. Their aversion to the Roman government led the Jews to look upon all tax-gatherers in the light of Genttles and sinners ; but Christ here assures them that Zacchzeus was no less a son of Abraham than themselves, and that the exercise of his profession, without injustice, would bring salvation through faith to himself and his family. The word ἀρχιτελώνης is ἅπαξ λεγόμενον in the N.T. Mrppieton, Grortus, Lienrroor.— [Campse.t, Beza.] Of the construction in the next verse see Matt. Gr. Gr. ὃ. 295, 3. and my notes on Hom. 1]. B. 409. Ε, 85. Ver. 4. προδραμὼν ἔμπροσ We meet with similar pleo- nasms frequently in the classic writers. Thus Thucyd. I. 23. τὰς αἰτίας προέγραψα πρῶτον. Of the sycamore-tree see on Luke xvii. 5. and Horne’s Introd. Vol. 111. p. 65. With ἐκείνης there is an ellipsis of ὁδοῦ, and also of the preposition διὰ, though the latter is improperly inserted in some few MSS. See on Hom. LUKE XIX, δ᾽ 9. 578 I]. A. 120. B. 415. Inv. 7. the verb καταλῦσαι is rendered by some commentators to take refreshment ; but it is well rendered to be a guest with, as in the E. T., or to lodge, as in Luke ix. 12. So also in Gen. xix. 2. xxiv. 23:25. Numb. xxii. 8. LXX. Xen. Anab. 1. 8. 1. AAlian. V. H. I. 82. It properly refers to per- sons unbinding burdens from their beasts, or, as others think, to loosening their girdles and sandals, when they baited on a journey or reclined at meat. WetTsTEIN, Grotius, PARKHURST. We may observe that our Lord’s knowledge of Zacchzeus, on his first meeting with him, was supernatural and divine. Ver. 8. ἀποδίδωμι τετραπλοῦν. This was the utmost which the Jewish law required, even in cases of fraudulent concealment, unless where an ox had been killed, and its use lost to the owner; for the seven-fold restitution (Prov. vi. 31.) seems only proverbial. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 138. Some com- mentators have remarked, that oppressive publicans were required by the Roman law to restore four-fold; but this was only after judgment obtained: whereas, before conviction, it was enough to make restitution of what had been taken, or, at least, of twice as much. As the proportion of tax to be levied on each individual was settled by the publicans, a ready means was afforded them of fraud and exaction; and such oppression being under pretence of law, it may properly be expressed by the verb συκοφαντάω, of which see on Luke 111. 14. DopprivGe, Liecntroor. It is sup- posed by some that the verbs δίδωμι and ἀποδίδωμι are here used in the present tense instead of the future, and that Zacchzeus, convinced by the instruction which Christ had that day delivered, intended forthwith to embrace his religion, and practise its duties. It is true that the word σήμερον occurs in our Lord’s reply; but the precepts, which Zaccheeus declares his intention to observe, are those of the Mosaic law, and the declaration seems to have been made in order to repel the insinuation of his being a sinner. The verbs may, therefore, be used indefinitely, to denote the customary discharge of these duties on the part of the publican: and σήμερον may have nothing more than a general signification. MackniGuT.—[Grortius, WHITBY. ] Ver. 9. τῷ οἴκῳ τούτῳ. Some understand, by synecdoche, the master of the house ; but there seems to be no reason for not extending it to the publican’s family, who may fairly and cha- ritably be supposed to have followed his example, in embracing the Gospel. Such was certainly the case in other conversions recorded in the N. T. Compare John iv. 46. 53. Acts x. 2. xvi. 14, 15. 33, 34. xviii. 8. Some, again, suppose that this declara- tion of Christ was made ¢o Zacchzeus, and others concerning him. Of πρὸς in. this latter signification see on Luke xviii. 9. It should seem, however, that our Lord spoke ¢o Zacchzus in reply 574 LUKE XIX. 13. 20, 21. to his declaration in the preceding verse. It is true, indeed, that he is spoken of in the third person, but Christ possibly turned from him in the conclusion of his speech to the surrounding mul- titude. Some copies read πρὸς αὐτούς. Wuitay, Hammonp.— [Grotius, CampseLL, Kutnoet, &c.] Of the parable of the pounds see Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. p. 404. Vol. IIL. p. 106. and the notes on Matt. xxv. 14. sqq. Ver. 13. δέκα μνᾶς. E. T. Ten pounds; properly, ten mine. The LXX use the original word μνάα for the Hebrew 721, from which it is evidently derived, and it appears from Ezek. xlv. 12. to have been equal to sixty shekels. Now allowing the shekel, with Dr. Prideaux, to be three shillings, then the mina was equal to nine pounds English. A. CLtarke. The number ¢en is used merely as a round number. In the old Greek writers the verb πραγματεύειν generally signifies to be engaged in business, whence it is here employed of embarking money in trade. So πραγματεύτης is used, as the Latin negotiator, to signify a trader. See 1 Kings ix. 19. LXX. Xen. Cyr. II. 4. 26. The word em- Ὁ ployed in Matt. xxv. 16. is ἐργάζομαι, whence the compound προσεργάζομαι, to make money by trading, in vy. 16. WETsTEIN. . Of the phrase ἴσθι ἔχων, in v. 17. see Matt. Gr. Gr. 8. 559. and my note on Soph. Ant. 1064. Pent. Gr. p. 280. The adverb ἐπάνω, denoting dignity or authority, is somewhat rare; it occurs, how- ever, in John iii. 31. and in Arrian. Diss. I. 12. 34. Joseph. Ant. IV. 18.40. There seems to be an allusion to the custom of rewarding meritorious services with the government and re- venues of a certain number of cities. So Athen. p. 29. F. ὁ δὲ Κῦρος ὃ μέγας Κυαξαρῷ ἐχαρίσατο ἑπτὰ πόλεις, Πήδασον, Ὀλύμπιον, Κύμαν, Τίον, Σκῆπτρα, Αρτυψιν, Τυρτύρην. ScHLEUSNER, WETSTEIN. Ver. 20. ἐν σουδαρίῳ. Inanapkin. The word 877) is found in the Syriac version of Ruth iti. 15. Hence some have thought that it is of Chaldee derivation, but as no Oriental root occurs to which it can be probably referred, it is most probably formed from the Latin swdarium, which is from sudare : being used, as it should seem, to wipe the face in perspiration. Hence it came to signify. any linen cloth generally ; and it is used in John xi. 44. for the napkin in which the head of a corpse was wrapped. Compare also John xx. 7. Acts xix. 12. It appears from the Rabbinical writings, in which the word is repeatedly Hebraized, that money was not unusually kept in a cloth. Thus in Vajikra R. VI. p. 150. He kept his denarii in a napkin (sudario.) SCHOETTGEN, WersteIn, Le Cierc. Ver. 21. αὐστηρός. This adjective properly denotes a harsh taste or savour, as of unripe fruits, &e. and is deduced by the LUKE XIX. 23. 575 etymologists from the verb αὔω, to dry; because things of a rough taste make the mouth feel dry and harsh. So in Diose. V.6. αὐστηρὸς οἶνος. Hence it was applied metaphorically to persons of a sour visage, as in Diod. Sic. III. p. 168. προσόψιν αὐστηροτέραν. Etym. Mag. παρὰ τὸ αὔω, τὸ Enoatvw, 6 μέλλων αὔσω" ἐξ οὗ αὐστηρὸς σημαίνει στρυφνὸν, ξηρὸν, αὐχμηρὸν, σκυ- θρωπόν. Again, it is applied metaphorically as the Latin durus and asper, to men of a severe and griping disposition. In this sense it is used in this place, and in 2 Mace. xiv. 30. LXX. In Matt. xxy. 24. the corresponding word is σκληρός. WETSTEIN, KYPKE. Ibid. αἴρεις ἃ οὐκ ἔθηκας. The expression is proverbial, and to the same purport, though more correctly expressed, than that in Matt. xxv. 24. συνάγων ὅθεν οὐ διεσκορπίσας. It is founded on a precept which seems to have been common to the Hebrews with other nations, against keeping a treasure which had been accidentally found, to which none but an avaricious temper would be inclined. To the same effect was the law of Solon, which is ἢ commended by Plato, (de Legg. XI.) and given in Diog. Laert. in Vit. Solon. ὃ. 57. ἃ μὴ ἔθου, μὴ ἀνέλῃ" εἰ δὲ μὴ, θάνατος ἡ ζημία. So Adlian. V. Η. 111. 46. Σταγειριτῶν "νόμος οὗτος καὶ πάντη “Ἑλληνικὸς, Ὅ μὴ κατέθου, φησὶ, μὴ λάμβανε. TV. 1. οὐ- δὲν, ὧν μὴ κατέθετο, ἀναιρεῖται. Joseph. c. Apion. II. 30. κἂν ὑφέληταί τις τὸ ἀλλότριον, κἂν, ὃ μὴ κατέθηκεν, ἀνέληται. The latter clause is similar to Arist. Equit. 392. τἀλλότριον ἀμῶν θέ- ρος. Compare also John iv.37. WerTstTEIN, KypKe, Le Crerc. Ver. 23. ἐπὶ τὴν τράπεζαν. E.T. Into the bank. The word properly denotes the table at which the money changers sate, and from which they were denominated τραπεζίται. Demosth. Op. Ρ. 900. ἀποστερῆσαι τὸ ἐπὶ τὴν τράπεζαν χρέος. Hence Plaut. Capt. I. 2. 89. Subducam ratiunculam quantillum argenti mihi apud Trapezitam est. Of the same import is the Latin mensa- rius. Liv. VII. 21. Quinqueviris creatis, quos mensarios a dis- pensatione pecunie appellarunt, mensis cum ere in foro positis. Griesbach has marked the article before τράπεζαν with the mark of posszble spuriousness. It is omitted in a great many MSS., nor would its absence in this instance affect the sense; at the same time, while ἐπὶ τὴν τράπεζαν is common in Demosthenes, ἐπὶ τράπεζαν is not found. Kypxe, WetsteIn, MippeTon. Of the verb πράσσειν see on Luke 111. 11. The whole of v. 25. is omitted in the Codex Beza, and some other MSS. It seems to be a parenthetical observation of some person, intending to cor- rect the distribution, as if he had said: Why give the mina to him who has ten already, rather than to one of those who have fewer? A. Ciarke, Pearce. Of v. 26. see on Mait. xiii. 11. and of the redundant pronoun αὐτοῖς on Matt. iv. 16. 3 ’ 3 576 LUKE XIX. 27,28. 38. 40. 42. a Ver. 27. κατασφάξατε ἔμπροσθέν pov. This custom, which — prevails in the East to this day, was universally practised among the ancients. Plutarch. zn Sylla, p. 476. D. Λουκρήτιον ἐν ὀφ- θαλμοῖΐῖς ἀποσφάξαι προσίταξεν. Cesar. B. C. ITI. 109. Quos dle, cum in conspectum ejus venissent, corripi ac interfici jussit. Justin. XLII. 4. 4. In conspectu suo eum interfici jussit. Com- pare 1 Sam. xi. 12. WerTSTEIN. ὯΝ ed Ver, 28. ἐπορεύετο ἔμπρῳθεν. He went forward, i. e. on his journey; not as some render it, preceded the multitude. Xen. Cyr. IV. 2. 12. προπορεύεσθε ἔμπροσθεν. KyrKe.—[Grorius. ] Ver. 38. εἰρήνη ἐν οὐρανῷ, x. τ. A. See on Luke ii. 14. ~ The first clause is not given by Matthew or Mark; and some critics would reject them from Luke also, as out of place. Others would reject the whole verse, but there is no authority for either suppo- « sition. The meaning seems to be this:—May the peace of πιᾶπ- kind be ratified in heaven by means of the Messiah; and, in consequence, may glory be given to God in the highest. Ro- SENMULLER, NEwcomMe.—[ Pearce. ] . err Ver. 40. οἱ λίθοι κεκράξονται. Some by the stones understand the Gentiles, whom the Jews were wont to despise, among other reasons, for their reputed stupidity. See also on Matt. iii. 9. But the expression is evidently strongly proverbial, as appears both _ from Jewish and Heathen writers, and indicates a moral impos- sibility that Christ’s kingdom should not be acknowledged. Thus in Chagigah, p. 16. 1. The very stones and beams of that man’s house will testify against him. Aisch. Agam. 37. οἶκος δ᾽ αὐτὸς, εἰ φθογγὴν λάβοι, Vapéorar ἂν λέξειεν. Eur. Hipp. 419. Οὐ δὲ σκότον φρίσσουσι τὸν ξυνεργάτην, Τέρεμνά τ᾽ οἴκων, μή ποτε φθογγὴν ἀφῇ; 1077. ὦ δώματ᾽, εἴθε φθέγμα γηρύσαισθέ μοι. Androm. 925. ὡς δοκοῦσί μοι Δόμοι γ᾽ ἐλαύνειν φθέγμ᾽ ἔχοντες οἵδε με. Cic. pro Οαἱ. 24. Nonne ipsum domum metuet, ne quam vocem eliciat. Pro Marcel. 3. Parietes mediusfidius, C. Cesar, ut mihi videtur, hujus curi@ tibi gratias agere gestiunt. De Orat. I. 57. Lapides mehercule omnes flere ac lamentari coegisses. Compare also Habak. ii. 11. Virg. Eclog. V. 28. Juv. Sat. 1, 13. IX. 103. Shakspeare, also, more than once employs a similar expression. Macbeth, II. 1. Zhou sure and firm set earth, Hear not my steps which way they walk, for fear Thy very stones prate of my whereabout, And take the present horror from the time, Which now suits with it. Jul. Cxs. III. 2. And put a tongue In every wound of Cesar, that should move The stones of — Rome to rise and mutiny. Grotius, WetsTEIN.—[Wuitsy.] Ver, 42. εἰ ἔγνως x. τ. A. Some commentators would here take εἰ for wtinam, as in Luke xii, 49. and others supply the LUKE XIX. 43. 577 sense by an ellipsis, as in Luke xiii. 9, The particle ὅτι, by which Christ refers to the cause of his tears, seems rather to de- cide in favour of the former method; and this broken manner of speaking may have been the natural effect of agitated feeling. Grotius, Wuitsy, Kuinoet, RoseNMULLER.— [CAMPBELL, DopprinGe, Kypxe, &c.|] It has been urged that our Lord’s emotion upon this occasion was unworthy of his divine character ; and it has been endeavoured, upon the authority of Epiphanius, to reject this and the preceding verse as an interpolation. But the verses of which Epiphanius (Anchor. §. 41.) mentions the omission in some MSS., are Luke xxii. 43, 44.: and though our Lord’s weeping proves his humanity, it is so far from lessening the dignity of his character, that it exalts it exceedingly. Com- pare John xi. 35. Mitzi, Macxnieut. With ra πρὸς εἰρήνην we must supply ὑπάρχοντα, or the like. The expression, which is similar to τὰ τῆς εἰρήνης, is equivalent to εἰρήνην ; and there seems to be in this place an allusion to the etymology of Jeru- salem. Indeed, the commentators remark a peculiar emphasis throughout the whole of our Lord’s apostrophe; as in the inser- tion of καὶ, even, which may probably refer to the exaggerated guilt of this city, (Matt. xxiii. 37.) and the words ταύτῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, which mark the peculiar call to repentance which at that period had been made to them by their rejected Messiah. ὙΥΕΎΒΤΕΙΝ, A. CLARKE. We may observe that the blindness of the Jews was not the effect of any irresistible decree, but it arose from their wilful neglect of those signs and warnings which God had conti- nually vouchsafed them. As it is here said viv δὲ ἐκρύβη x. τ. X. so in Luke xviii. 34. Christ’s death is said to be hid from the Apostles: but it was their prejudices which prevented them from understanding his declarations respecting it. Wuirsy, Le CLERC. Ver.43. χάρακα. This noun signifies ὦ rampart or mound, in which sense it frequently occurs in the LXX; and so also in Arrian. Exped. II. 79. 9. Polyb. I. 29. 3. In Joseph. B. J. V. 12. 2. the corresponding word is τεέχος. Of the exact fulfilment of the prophecy, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. I. p. 552. Rapuetius, CAMPBELL. It has been thought that the words καὶ τὰ τέκνα σου ἐν σοὶ are to be coupled with συνέξουσί σε πάντοθεν, and that ἐδαφιοῦσί σε is to be taken parenthetically. But the verb ἐδαφί- Cav has two distinct significations ; 1. when spoken of a city, to level with the ground ; 2. of men, to dash against the ground. It is used in both these senses by the LXX; in the former in Amos iii. 14. and in the latter in Psalm cxxxvii. 9. Hos. x. 14. Nahum iii. 10, Hence some annex both senses to it in this pas- sage, and others apply it in the latter only both to σὲ and τέκνα. The latter is perhaps the more likely method. KurnoE., ScHLEUs- NER.—[Grotius, RosENMULLER, WAKEFIELD. | VOL. I. Pp ᾿ 578 LUKE XIX. 48. XX. 6. Ibid. καιρὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς cov. So 1 Pet. ii. 12. ἡμέρα ἐπισ- κοπῆς, where the time of persecution is supposed to be intended ; and the word is used in a bad sense in Isaiah x. 3. Jer. vi. 15. x. 15. Wisd. iii. 7. Ecclus. ii. 14, LXX. But it may also signify a merciful visitation, as in Job x. 12. xxxiv.9. Hence the vi- sitation here intended will be the gracious offers of mercy which God made to the Jews during the period between the Baptist’s preaching and the destruction of Jerusalem. Theophylact: éro- κοπῆς" τουτέστι, τῆς ἐμῆς παρουσίας, ὅτε ἦλθον ἐπισκέψασθαί σε καὶ σῶσαι. See on Luke i. 68, ScHLEUSNER, A. CLARKE. Ver. 48. ἐξεκρέματο. Hung, i. e. upon his words; were ear- nestly attentive to him. So Eunapius: ἐξεκρέματο τῶν λόγων, καὶ τῆς ἀκροάσεως οὐκ ἐνεπίμπλατο. In like manner the Latins use pendere. Virg. Ain. ΠΥ. 79. Pendetque éterum narrantis ab ore. Ovid. Ep. Her. I. 30. Narrantis conjux pendet ab ore viri. Sil. Ital. VI. 566. Pendent ea ore loquentum. Plin. Epist. I. 10, Attentus et pendens. Pope has employed the same metaphor in his Epistle to Lord Cobham, v. 184. Though wondering senates hung on all he spoke. In the preceding verse the phrase τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν does not imply, as some commentators have inferred from Christ’s retiring to Bethany in the evening, (Matt. xxi. 17.) in the day time; but, as it is evident from Matt. xxvi. 55. Luke xi. 9. and the general usage of the N. T. it is correctly rendered daily. WeTSTEIN, ParkHurst, Grotius.—[WaALtL, GiPin. | b Qa.) CHAPTER XxX. Contents :— The question concerning the authority of Christ, and the baptism of John, vv. 1—8. [Matt. xxi. 23. Mark xi. 27.| The parable of the labourers in the vineyard, vv. 9—20. [Matt. xxi. 33. Mark xii. 1.] The question respecting tribute, vv. 21—26. [Matt. xxii. 15. Mark xii. 13.] Christ’s reply to the Sadducees, touching the resurrection ; and his question to the Pharisees respecting the Messiah, vv. 27—44. [Matt. xxii. 23. Mark xxi. 18.] He severely reproves the Pharisees, vv. 45—47. [Matt. xxiii. 1. Mark xii. 38.] Verse 6. καταλιθάσει ἡμᾶς. It was not unusual with the Jewish rulers, when they could not convict their enemies, to in- cite the populace to stone them. This summary mode of pro- ceeding was called judicium xeli; and it was an alternative which they had now well nigh brought upon themselves. Compare John x. 31. Acts xiv. 19. Grortus. BU KE AX. 11. 20, 21. 519 Ver. 11. προσέθετο πέμψαι. Mark xii. 4. πάλιν ἔπεμψε. The expression here used is a Hebraism; and so again in Luke xix. 11. προσθεὶς εἶπε. Compare Gen. viii. 21. xviii. 29. Job xix. 1. LXX. Iny. 13. the adverb ἴσως is by many commentators ren- dered surely. It occurs no where else in the N. T., and some contend that its ordinary sense of perhaps or probably can have no place in the Scriptures, in which uncertainty cannot belong to the Spirit of Truth. The sense thus assigned to it is sup- ported by 1 Sam. xxv. 21. Jerem. v. 4, LXX. Xen. Cyrop. VI. 1. 4. Anab. III. 1. 26, 28. Ablian. V. H. XI. 5. Plat. Gorg. VII. 59, 52. At the same time, the above remark may fairly be questioned, more especially in relation to a parable; and ἔσως signifies perhaps in Gen. xxii. 21. Jerem. xxvi. 25. The event is almost decisive in favour of the usual acceptation here. Wert- STEIN.—[CAMPBELL, PEARCE, SCHLEUSNER, PaRkHUuRST. ] Ver. 20. ἐγκαθέτους. This is a verbal noun from ἐγκαθίημι, to tie in wait; whence it is rendered in the E. T. spies. So Hesych. ἐγκάθετοι: ἐνεδρεύοντες. Suid. ἐγκάθετος" δόλιος. Hence the LXX. use the phrase ἐγκάθετος γίγνεσθαι for the Hebrew 278 in Job xxxi. 9. Compare Asch. Dial. Socr. III. 12. Polyb. XIII. 5.1. The verb, however, sometimes signifies to suborn, as Plutarch. in Pyrrho, p. 389. ἦσαν dé twee, ove αὐ- τὸς ὃ Πύῤῥος ἐγκαθίει. In this place, therefore, the noun should seem to denote a person suborned for a particular purpose; and in this sense it is plainly used in Joseph. B. J. 11. 2. 5. VI. 5. 2. This class of persons, as described by St. Luke, will come under the condemnation of Cicero, de Off. 1. 3. Totius injustitie nulla capitalior est, quam eorum, qui tum, cum maxime fallunt, id agunt, ut virt boni videantur. WrTSTEIN, PARKHURST, ΚΎΡΚΕ. The expression ἐπιλα[ϑέσθαι λόγου or ῥήματος, to catch at one’s words, 1. 6. with a view to accusation, is employed in like manner by the classical writers. Phavorinus explains the verb ἅπτεσθαί τινος ἁμαρτάνοντος, and Suidas by μέμφεσθαι. Hence some would apply the former signification to this place, and the latter to y. 26., but the phrases in both instances are unquestionably syno- nymous. Compare Xen. Mem. I. 2.31. Hell. II. 1.32. The Latin arripere has the same import in Cic. N. D. II. 65. Fin. ΠῚ. 4, Eusner, WetsTEIn, RAPHELIUS, SCHLEUSNER. Ver. 21. λαμβάνεις πρόσωπον. A Hebrew phrase, denoting partiality, and synonymous with θαυμάζειν τὸ πρόσωπον, in Jude 16. See Levit. xix. 15. Deut. x. 7. 17. 2 Chron. xix. 7. Job xxxiv. 19. Prov. viii. 5. Ecclus. xxxv. 13. xlii. 1. Lam. iv. 16. Mal. i. 8. 11. 9. LX X. and compare Matt. xx. 16. Mark xii. 14. Hence the derivatives προσωποληπτεῖν, προσωπολήπτης, and προσωποληψία, in Acts x. 84. Rom. ii. 11. Ephes. vi. 9. Col, iii. 25. James ii. 1. 9. Kurnort, PARKHURST. Pp2 580 LUKE XX. 27. 38. 46. Ver. 27. ἀντιλέγοντες μὴ εἶναι. The negative particle is fre- quently redundant after verbs of denying. So again in Luke xxii. 34. Thucyd. III. 41. VIII. 24. and continually in the best writers. In Acts xxiii. 8. we have λέγουσι μὴ εἶναι ἀνάστασιν. Werstein, Kypxe. Of the import of υἱὸς, in vv. 94. 36., see Horne’s Introd. Vol. II. p. 24. and compare Luke xvi. 8. Ver. 38. πάντες yao αὐτῷ ζῶσιν. There is much difference of opinion concerning the meaning of this clause. Some under- stand from it, that all, though dead, are still living, so far as re- lates to God, who discerns equally the past and the future. Others suppose that yao is not here causal, but tllative, and introduces the main conclusion to be drawn from God's declara- tion to Moses, viz. that all live after death, no less than the Pa- triarchs. Others, again, would render Θεῷ ζῇν to live to God's honour and glory. But it should rather seem to mean that all mankind, both the living and the dead, live to God; and that death does not close our connexion with him, who has the power to recal us to an immortal existence. So Origen, on Psalm cxix. 50. ὁ Κύριος τοὺς τεθνεῶτας Θεῷ ζῃν εἶπεν, ὡς οὔπω τὸ ζῇν ἔχοντας, πλὴν ὅσον ἐν δυνάμει Θεοῦ τοῦ ζωοποιήσαντος. There is a remarkable passage, which proves that the best informed Jews believed that the souls of the righteous exist in a state of happiness, and throws some light on this place, in Joseph. de Maccab. c. 16. ταῦτα εἰδότες, ὅτι of διὰ τὸν Θεὸν ἀποθνήσκοντες ζῶσι τῷ Θεῷ, ὥσπερ ᾿Αβραὰμ, ᾿Ισαὰκ, καὶ ᾿Ιακὼβ, καὶ πάντες οἱ Πατρίαρχαι. To the same effect is the following, from Shemoth R. p. 159. Rabbi Abbin saith; The Lord said unto Moses, Find me out ten righteous persons among the people, and I will not destroy them. Then said Moses, Behold, here am I, Aaron, Eleazar, Ithamar, Phineas, Caleb, and Joshua. But God said, Here are but seven, where are the other three? When Moses knew not what to do, he said, O eternal God, do those live who are dead? Yes; saith God. Then said Moses, If those which are dead do live, remember Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. A. CuarKE, WAKEFIELD, Kypxke.—[Brza, Werstern, Dop- DRIDGE. | Ver. 46. περιπατεῖν ἐν στολαῖς. M. Anton. 1. 7. ἐν στολῇ περιπατεῖν. Arrian. Epic. IIL. 22. ἐν κοκκινοῖς περιπατεῖν. It has been supposed that στολὴ is here adopted from the Latin stola, which was a woman’s garment, in order to mark the length. But Greek writers used the word indiscriminately, and particularly for the long garments of the Eastern nations. /Elian. V. H. 1. 32. στολὴν Μηδικήν. IX. 1. Περσῶν πορφυρᾶς καὶ μηλίνας στολάς. The LXX. employ it of various robes. See Gen. xxvii. 15. 2 Sam. vi. 14. and elsewhere. In Matt. xxi. 5. the expression is μεγαλύνουσι τὰ κράσπεδα τῶν ἱματίων LUKE: XXI. 4. 15. 22. 081 αὐτῶν. Analogous to our Lord’s is Cicero’s description of the Tribune Quinctius: Lactte ut non solum mores ejus et arrogan- tiam, sed etiam vultum atque amictum, atque illam usque ad talos demissam purpuram, recordemint. WETSTEIN, PARKHURST. CHAPTER XXII. Contents :—The widow's mites, vv. 1—4. [Mark xii. 41.] Our Lord’s prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, and the parable of the fig-tree, vv. 5—35. |Matt. xxiv. 1. Mark xiii. 1.1 The necessity of watchfulness, vv. 54—86, [Mark xiii. 34.] Christ retires nightly to Mount Olivet, vv. 37, 38. Verse 4. εἰς τὰ δῶρα. We have here, in the abstract for the concrete, the gift for the treasury which received the gift. Com- pare Mark xii. 43. Of the temple-offerings, ἀναθήματα, (v. 5.) and the magnificence of the temple itself, see Horne’s Introd. Vol. ΠῚ. pp. 242, 248. Hence Tacit. Hist. V. 5. Vitis aurea Templo reperta. 8. Hierosolyma gentis caput: illic immense opu- lentie Templum. In v. 6. ταῦτα must be rendered with respect to these things. See my note on Soph. Ant. 212. Pent. Gr. p. 228. We have similar instances in Psalm xviii. 30. civ. 17. Hos. ii. 11. xii. 7. Nah. i. 8. UXX. Acts vii. 40. x. 36. 1 John ii. 27. Rev. i. 26. vi. 8. Grotius, WETSTEIN, WHITBY. Ver. 15, στόμα καὶ σοφίαν. That is, wisdom of speech. We have a similar hendtadys, and the same consequence, in Corn. Nep. Alcib. I. Tanta erat commendatio oris et orationis, ut nemo et dicendo posset resistere. Compare Acts vi. 10. Wer- sTEIN. Of the proverb in v. 18. see on Matt. x. 29. It is not to be understood with some as promising a compensation in eter- nity for the ills endured for the sake of the Gospel, but as pre- dicting the escape of the Christians amid the impending ruin of the Jews. This is evident from the next verse, which should be rendered by your perseverance preserve ye, i. e. ye shall pre- serve, your lives. Some MSS. read κτήσεσθε. The words cor- respond with Matt. xxiv. 13. 6 ὑπομείνας εἰς τέλος αὐτὸς σωθή- σεται. Of κτᾶσθαι, signifying to keep in possession, to preserve, we have an example in a similar expression of Lysias: τὰς ψυχὰς ἀλλοτρίας κέκτησθαι. Of the signification οὗ ὑπομονὴ see on Luke viii. 5. Wuitsy, KypKe.—[Grortivs. | Ver, 22. ἡμέραι ἐκδικήσεως. See Hos, ix. 8. In the next 582 LUKE XXI. 24. verse ἀνάγκη must be understood in the sense of θλίψις, with which it corresponds in Matt, xxiv. 21.; and it is used in the same sense in Jobit iii. 7. 11. 2 Mace. vi. 7. 1 Sam. xxii. 2. Job xxxvii. 9. LXX. 1 Cor. vii. 26. 2 Cor. xii. 10. 1 Thess. iii. 7. So also Xen. Mem. III. 10. 12. εἰς τὰς ἀνάγκας τὰς adye- νοτάτας ἐμπεσόντες. Adlian. V. H. XII. 24. τὴν ἀνάγκην τῆς πενίας. Sueton. Ces. 68. Famem et ceteras necessitates tolera- bant. The metaphorical expression στόμα payaipac occurs in Gen. xxxiv. 26. “καρ. xviii. 27. Deut. xiii. 15. Hence Eur. Orest. 1295. δίστομα φάσγανα. Compare Heb. iv. 12. Soph.. Aj. 651. Lucian. Trag. 114. Werstery, Etsner, PARKHURST. Ver. 24, ἄχρι πληρώθωσι καιροὶ ἐθνῶν. The interpretations of this text have been extremely various. Some writers under- stand the time when the full number of the Gentiles, which God will call, shall be completed. This, however, though a very an- cient interpretation, is at variance with St. Paul’s declaration, that at the conversion of the Jews there shall be a greater and more glorious conversion of the Gentiles than that which happened at their fall, (Atom. xi. 12. sqq.) It has been supposed that the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled when a Christian Church was established at Jerusalem by Hadrian, who partly rebuilt it, and changed its name to “πα. But the edict which the em- peror issued upon that occasion, for the banishment of the Jews from Jerusalem, included believers as well as unbelievers ; and the new-formed Church consisted of Gentile Christians only, under the episcopal direction of Marcus. (Euseb. Eccl. Hist. IV. 5.) At this time, therefore, the Jews did not re-inhabit Jerusalem ; nor were they induced, by emulation of the Gentiles, to embrace Christianity according to the Apostle’s prediction cited above. Others refer the time to the age of Constantine the Great, who put an end to the Gentile idolatry in Jerusalem, and established the Christian worship there, (Euseb. Vit. Const. III. 26.) “But here again no particular conversion of the Jews is recorded. Besides, Jerusalem is still, and always has been, trodden down by the Gentiles, and has never been in possession of the Jews from the delivery of the prophecy to the present time; whereas, when the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled, the expression clearly implies that the Jews will be restored. This period, therefore, will arrive, when the times of the four great kingdoms predicted by Daniel shall have expired, and the fifth kingdom, or the kingdom of Christ, shall be set up in their place; when the Lord shall again collect the scattered sheep of the house of Israel, and all shall be one fold under one shepherd, and citizens of the New Jerusalem, the city of the living God. There are indeed others who understand by the times of the Gentiles the times in which they shall be véstted and punished, and cite in support of their opinion Jerem. xxvii. 7. 1. 27. Ezek. xxi. 25. LUKE XXI. 25. 30. 86. 583 29, xxii. 3, 4. xxx. 3. But this opinion does not seem entitled to much attention. Wuirsy, Ligutroot, NeEwron, RoseEn- MULLER.—[Hammonp, Le Cuierc, Dopprinee, ΚΎΊΝΟΕΙ, &c. ] By some interpreters the verb πατεῖσθαι is here rendered to be had in subjection; and by others to be laid waste, or profaned. Either rendering will suit the sense. Compare 1 Mace, iii. 2. iv. 60. Rev. xi. 2. Soph. Ant. 1275. λαξπάτητον χαράν. Schol. μεθ᾽ ὕβρεως ἀπωθουμένην. So Cic. Attic. VIII. 11. Conculcari miseram Italiam videbis proxima estate. WrrTSTEIN, Park- HURST. Ver. 25. ἐν ἀπορίᾳ. With perplexity ; a well-known import of the preposition. The noun συνοχὴ, distress, occurs in Judg. ii. 3. Job xxx. 3. LXX. 2 Cor. ii. 4. So Artem. 11. 3. πᾶσι τοῖς ἐν συνοχῇ οὖσι. By ἔθνη are here meant the nations of Palestine, called φυλαὶ in Matt. xxiv. 30. Wertstetn. Of the metaphorical application of σάλος to civil commotions, see my note on Soph. Ant. 212. Pent. Gr. p. 225. In the next verse φόβου καὶ προσδοκίας is a hendiadys, denoting a fearful expecta- tion ; προσδοκία being a word of middle signification, and used here, as ἐλπὶς frequently, ina bad sense. Compare Psalm cxix. 116. 2 Mace. iii. 21. Ecclus. xl. 2. Xen. Cyr. I. 6. 16. Polyb. I. 31. 3. Joseph. Ant. V. 10. 4. and see my note on Hom. II. O. 110. Kypxe, Etsner, Muntue. The accusative κεφαλὰς, in y. 28., is to be referred to the verb ἀπάρατε only, a point being placed at ἀνακύψατε, which is intransitive. Joseph. B. J. VI. 8. 5. ὀλίγον ἐκκύψαντες ἐκ τοῦ δέους. Compare John vii. 10. Xen. (Econ. XI. 5. Polyb. I. ὅδ. Theophr. Char. 11. ὙΥΕΊΎΒΤΕΙΝ, Ver. 30. προβάλωσι. Supply φύλλα from Matt. xxiv. 32. Our Lord’s precept delivered in v. 94. sqq. is illustrated in the other Gospels by the parables of the good and bad servants. The noun κραιπάλη signifies a head-ache, and is distinguished from μέθη as being the effect, not the act, of intemperance. Hesych. κραιπάλη" ἡ ἀπὸ χθιζῆς μέθης κεφαλαλγία. Ammon. κραιπάλη καὶ μέθη διαφέρει κραιπάλη μὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἡ χθεσινὴ μέθη, μέθη δὲ ἡ τῆς αὐτῆς ἡμέρας γινομένη οἴνωσις. Compare Alciph. Epist. III. 21. Herodian. I. 17. 7. ὙΥΕΊΒΤΕΙΝ. Ver. 36. we παγίς. Compare Isaiah xxiv. 17. Eccles. ix. 12. Of the verb καθῆσθαι see on Matt. iv. 16. In the next verse σταθῆναι denotes to be acquitted, pardon and condemna- tion being respectively expressed in Scripture by standing and falling. See Ezra ix. 15. Psalm i. 5. Nahum. i. 6. Rom. xiv. 4, The verb ὀρθρίζειν signifies properly to rise early. Its proper form is ὀρθρεύειν. Meeris: ὀρθρεύειν, ᾿Αττικῶς" ὀρθρί- Zev, Ἑλληνικῶς. Theocr. Idyl. X. 58. Μυθίσδεν τᾷ ματρὶ κατ᾽ εὐνὴν ὀρθρευοίσᾳ. Schol. ἀνισταμένῃ ὄρθρου. Hence it sig- 584 LUKE XXII. 3. 6. nifies, as in this place, to come early to a place or person. Com- pare Gen, xix. 27. xx. 8. Exod. xxxiv. 4. Josh. ti. 1. Ecclus. xxxix. 6. LXX. Grortius, A. CLARKE, WETSTEIN. | CHAPTER XXII. Contents :— The rulers conspire to take Christ, vv. 1, 2. [Matt. xxvi. 3. Mark xiv. 1.] Judas agrees to betray him, vv. 3—6. [ Matt. xxvi. 14. Mark xiv. 10.] The last Supper, and the enstitution of the Eucharist. vv. 7—20. [Matt. xxvi. 17. Mark xiv. 12.] Christ predicts the treachery of Judas, vv. 21—23. [Matt. xxvi. 21. Mark xiv. 17. John xiii. 17.] He reproves the ambition of his disciples, vv. 24—950. [Matt. xx. 25. Mark x. 42. John xiii. 2.] Peter's denial foretold, vv. 31— 39. [Matt. xxvi. 31. Mark xiv. 27. John xiii. 31.] The - agony in the garden, vv. 40—46. [Matt. xxvi. 56. Mark xiv. 32. John xviii. 1.7] Zhe betrayal, and Peter's resistance, vv. 47—53. [Matt. xxvi. 47. Mark xiv. 43. John xviii. 3.] His denial of Christ, vv. 54—62. [ Matt. xxvi. 58. Mark xiv. 51. John xviii. 15.] Christ insulted, tried, and condemned, vv. 63—71. [Matt. xxvii. 1. Mark xvi. 1.] Verse 5. εἰσῆλθε δὲ Σατανᾶς x. τ. X. This expression im- plies nothing more than a mental suggestion. So the Apostle declares that Satan worketh inwardly (ἐνεργείται) in the children of disobedience, (Ephes. ii. 2.) and so the operations of the Holy Ghost, which the good are said to receive, are not sensible, Compare John xiii. 2. Acts v. 9. 2 Tim. ii. 25. Wuirsy, Gro- TIus, KurnoeL. With στρατηγοῖς, in the next verse, supply Tov ἱεροῦ, as inv. δῷ. and see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 245. and the note on Matt, xxvi, 47. Ver. 6. ἐξωμολόγησε. ἘΦ. T. he promised, scil. to betray Jesus ; i. e. he agreed or assented to the terms proposed. ‘The compound verb is somewhat unusual in this sense; but the simpie verb is so used in Matt. xiv. 7. So Lysias: εἶπον οὖν ὅτι τά- Aavrov ἀργυρίου ἕτοιμος εἴην δοῦναι" ὁ δ᾽ ὠμολόγησε ταῦτα ποιή- σειν. Compare Jer. xliv. 25. LXX. 1 Tim. vi. 12, 18. Heb. iv. 11. Thucyd. III. 90. Polyb. IT. 95. Xen. Anab. VII. 4. 13. In illustration of the noun εὐκαιρία we may cite Cic. Off. I. 40. Tempus actionis opportunum Grece εὐκαιρία, Latine appellatur oecasio. Fin. II]. 14. Opportunitas : sie enim appellamus εὐ- καιρίαν. WrtsTEIN, SCHLEUSNER, Parkuurst. The word ὄχλος signifies both a multitude and a tumult, of which the latter LUKE XXII. 15. 17. 24. 585 sense is best adapted to this place. So also in Acts xxiy. 18. HaAmMonp, Ver. 15. ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα. Expressions of this nature, according to the genius of the Jewish language, are the strongest manner of affirmation, as in Gen. ii. 17. xxxi. 80. Numb. x1. 4. Isaiah vi. 9. Matt. xiii. 14. Acts iv. 17. v. 28. and elsewhere. Our Lord’s anxiety to eat this passover was caused by his desire to instruct them in the nature of his death, as a propitiatory sa- crifice ; to institute the Eucharist in memory of his dying love; to offer them consolation on his departure from the world; and to record the gracious promises which he made them in John xiv. xv. xvi. In the next verse ἕως ὅτου is a Hebrew form of ex- pression, signifying that our Lord would no more eat the pass- over for ever. The thing to be fulfilled (πληρωθῇ) was the de- liverance of mankind from the bondage of sin by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, typified by the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb, which was slain in commemoration of the deliverance of the Jews from Egyptian bondage. Macxnieut, Grorius. Ver. 17. ποτήριον. It is probable that only one vessel was used during the-celebration of the passover. See on Matt. xxvi. 26. The MSS., however, for the most part, are against this supposition, since a very few only have the article before ποτή- ριον. It has been supposed, indeed, that the cup here alluded to was not the cup used at the institution of the Eucharist, but earlier in the feast, perhaps the first, which was drank before the meal. Our Saviour is here said, however, to have given thanks, so that it seems rather to have been the cup of blessing, or the third of the four, and in that case it was the cup used at the in- stitution of the Lord’s Supper. But then, on the other hand, how are we to understand what is said below in v. 20, 2 The perplexities attending the passage are such that it savours strongly of interpolation. Both this and the following verse are omitted in the Syriac version and some MSS., and may possibly have been inserted from the parallel passage in Matthew. Mrp- DLETON. Ver. 24, ἐγένετο δὲ καὶ φιλονεικία k. τ. A. Two cases of dis- sension among the disciples have already been recorded, one in Matt. xviii. 1. Mark ix. 33. Luke ix. 46., and the other in Matt. xx. 20. Mark x. 35. From the difference of circumstances which accompanied it, the former cannot be that which is men- tioned here ; and some are of opinion that the present instance is distinct from either of them. It should seem, however, that the latter occurrence is here intended, and that St. Luke has re- corded it out of the true order of time, for it is scarcely probable that a contention for superiority would have arisen upon an occa- 586 LUKE XXII. 25, 26. 28. sion so truly affecting. The verb ἐγένετο should, therefore, be rendered there had been, i. e. on the way to Jericho. Grorius, CAMPBELL, ΚυΊΝΟΕΙ, A. Clarke, Pearce.—[Wuitsy.] Of the pleonasm δοκεῖν εἶναι see on Matt. 111. 9. Ver. 25. εὐεργέται. Euergetes, i. 6. the benefactor, was the title assumed by one of the Ptolemies. The same was affected by other kings among the antients: and in order to attain it they spared no expence in acts of public munificence and regal splen- dour. See 2 Mace. iv. 2. Thucyd. I. 129. Xen. Cyr. III. 3. 4 Apol. Socr. 26. Polyb. V. 9. [X. 30. Diod. Sic. XI. 26, Aisch. Socr. Dial. I. 12. Plutarch. Osir. 355. Coriol. 218. Dion. Hal. IV. 32. Athen. p. 349. Joseph. B. J. I. 16. Phil. Leg. p. 349. There is an inscription still in existence at Athens to the follow- ing effect: The great queen, Julia Berenice, daughter of King Julius Agrippa, and descendant of the great kings, benefactors (εὐεργετῶν) of this city. With the Romans it was a custom to distribute part of the conquered lands among the soldiers ; these lands were called beneficia, those who enjoyed them beneficiarii, and the donors benefactors. With respect to the construction, the sense seems to be somewhat inverted: And they who are called benefactors exercise authority over them. Grotius, LE Cirerc, SCHLEUSNER, Hammonp, A. CLARKE. Ver. 26. 6 μείζων. It has been conjectured that Peter was the eldest of all the Apostles, and that this adjective is here to be understood in reference to age, rather than dignity, as in Rom. ix. 12., and as the Latin major, in Virg. Ecl. V. 4. But, by comparing Matt. xx. 26. it appears that νεώτερος is rather to be rendered as opposed to μείζων than μείζων to νεώτερος ; and we have authorities for νεώτερος, in the sense of an inferior, in clas- sical writers. Dion. Hal. II. p. 700. λόγον ἀπεδώκαμεν ἅπασι τοῖς οουλομένοις, ἀπὸ τῶν πρώτων ἄχρι τῶν νεωτάτων. The expressions employed throughout have an evident reference to office or stationin the kingdom of Christ. Compare Acts v.6. 1 Tim. v. 1. Heb. xiii. 17. With οὕτως, in the beginning of the verse, there is an ellipsis of the verb ποιεῖτε. KyPKE.—[KUINOEL, Gro- tius, Ligutroot.] Our Lord’s observations respecting himself, in the next verse, may well be referred to his whole life; but they seem more particularly to have respect to his late condescen- sion in washing the disciples’ feet, (John xiii. 14.) MackniguT. Ver. 28. πειρασμοῖς. E. T. Temptations ; 1. 6. trials, afflic- tions, as in Gal. iv. 14. Heb. ii. 18. iv. 15. James i. 12. 2 Pet. ii. 9. Rev. iii. 10. In the first clause of the next verse some MSS. and versions insert διαθήκην, and some commentators in- close the second clause in a parenthesis, removing the comma after μου, and connecting διατίθεμαι ὑμῖν ἵνα ἐσθίητε κ. τ. A. LUKE XXII. 31, 32. 36. 587 But the various reading is insufficiently supported; and it is scarcely probable that the verb διατίθεσθαι would be used twice in the same verse with a different construction. Of the kingdom which Christ here assigns to his disciples, see on Matt. xix. 28. Wuirsy.—[CAmpBELL. | Ver. 31. σινιάσαι ὡς τὸν σῖτον. To sift you as wheat ; i. 6. to put to the test the sincerity of your professions and the strength of your principles; to toss you with temptations, as wheat is shaken ina sieve. Compare Isaiah xxx. 38. Amosix.9. The noun σίνιον, a@ sieve, and the verb σινιάζειν, are found only in the later writers. We may observe that all the Apostles are included in this warn- ing, although Simon is especially addressed, as being perhaps more immediately concerned in the late dissension, and because our blessed Lord foresaw that he was about to fall more deeply than the rest. The plural pronoun ὑμᾶς, and the words στή- ριξον τοὺς ἀδελφούς cov, sufficiently prove that Peter was not alone addressed. Some have thought that there is an allusion to Job i. 9. 12., and that the expression both here and there is to be understood allegorically. But there is no foundation for this supposition. It is more to the purpose to remark, that the earnest address to Simon, so strongly expressed in the repetition of his name, instead of forming an argument in favour of his primacy in the Church, is rather to be considered in the light of a reproof, and prophetic of his want of faith. Wersrrin, Licur- root, Grotius, Rennet.—[Kurnoet, &c.] It is plain from this passage that the power of the devil is restrained, and that he can exert his evil influence upon men only so far as God allows him. The verb ἐξαιτεῖσθαι signifies generally to demand a person to be given up to punishment, as in Demosth. de Cor. 13. Herodian. I. 12. 12. Joseph. Ant. 11. 5. 3., and ina sense nearly similar it may be applied here. Sometimes, however, it is used in a good sense, as in Xen. Anab. I. 1. 3. Rapuenius, PARKHURST. Ver. 32. μὴ ἐκλείπῃ. E. T. Fail not. Rather fail not utterly. Peter’s faith did fail, but by the intercession of Christ he was preserved from falling irrecoverably. With ἐπιστρέψας must be supplied σεαυτόν. Some, indeed, take ἐπιστρέψας στήριξον for a Hebraism for πάλιν στήριξον, and compare Psalm |xxxiv. 6. LXX. But the better interpretation is, Having at length reco- vered yourself, i. 6. from your fall. So Matt. xiii. 15. Acts iii. 19. ix. 35. xiv. 15. xxvi. 18. 20. ScHLEUSNER, ΒΕΖΑ, WoLF.— [Grotius, KuINoEL, &c.] Ver. 36. μάχαιραν. From amisapprehension of this admoni- tion, and inability to reconcile it with our Lord’s non-resistance at his apprehension, Bishop Pearce proposes to read πήραν. The 10 588 LUKE ΧΧΙΙ. 87. 39, 48. words mean nothing more than ἃ prediction of the dangers which now surrounded them, in opposition to the security of former times; and in like manner the prophets are accustomed to express times of danger metaphorically, by recommending the precautions which men generally take for their defence. Other symbols also of a like nature are continually found in their writings, as in 1 Kings xxii. 11. Isaiah xiv. 21. xx. 2. Jerem. ix. 17. xxvii. 2. Ezek. iv. 2. xii. 7. Hos. i. 2. and elsewhere. Hence the direction to buy a sword will be nothing more than a proverbial expression, denoting provision against impending danger. So far was our Lord from authorizing a forcible resistance that he reproves Peter for using his sword in Matt. xxvi. 52. The phrase ἱκανόν ἐστι, in v. 38., though: attended with some difficulty, cannot have re- ference to the disciples’ reply, inasmuch as two swords could not have been sufficient even for a semblance of defence; in which sense it is sometimes understood. Neither is there any appear- ance of irony in our Lord's answer, as some have imagined. It is plain that the disciples mistook his meaning, and the words in all probability were merely indicative of his wishing to dismiss the subject for the present. Similar expressions, for a similar purpose, are not uncommon in the Rabbinical writings. Grorius, Licgutroot, WetsTEIN, SCHOETTGEN, KurnoEL.—[PeEarcE. | Ver. 37. τὸ γεγραμμένον. Isaiah liii. 12. Compare Mark xv. 28. With ra περὶ ἐμοῦ we must also supply γεγραμμένα. The phrase τέλος ἔχειν, which is equivalent to τελεσθῆναι, is classical Greek. Dion. Hal. IX. 12. τέλος εἶχε τοῖς Τυῤῥηνοῖς τὰ μαν- τεύματα. Asch. Prom. 12. ἐντολὴ Διὸς ἔχει τέλος δή. ῪΕτ- STEIN. Ver. 39. οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ. That is, Peter, James, and John, as in Matthew and Mark. Inv. 41. some MSS., evidently from a gloss, read ἀπεστάθη. The verb ἀποσπάσθαι does not neces- sarily imply vzolence, but signifies simply to withdraw oneself, as in this passage, and in 2 Mace. xii. 10. 17. Acts xxi. 1. So Xen. Cyr. 11. 2. 5. ἵνα we πλεῖστον ἀποσπασθῶμεν τοῦ βασιλικοῦ στρατεύματος. The phrase λίθου βολὴ occurs in Thucyd. V. 65. and elsewhere frequently. Compare Hom. Il. I. 12. In the next verse the particle εἰ is optative, as in Luke xii. 49, Ham- MOND, WertstTEIN, Grotius, Kuinort.—[Kypxe.] Of the genuineness of vy. 99, 94. see Horne’s Introd. Vol. LV. p, 302. In the former the verb ἐνισχύειν is used in an active sense, as in 2 Sam. xxii. 40. Ecclus. liv. 70. LXX. but in Acts ix. 19. it signifies to be strengthened; and so also in Gen, xlviii. 2. Judg. xvi. 28. xx. 22. LXX. ScHLEUSNER. Ver. 45. κοιμωμίνους ἀπὸ τῆς λύπης. Hom. Od. M. 310. Κλαιόντεσσι δὲ τοῖσιν ἐπήλυθε νήδυμος ὕπνος. Long. Past. LI. LUKE XXII. 51. 53. 66. 589 p. 67. ταῦτα λέγοντα αὐτὸν ἐκ τῶν δακρύων kal τῆς λύπης ὕπνος [βαθὺς καταλαμβάνει. Plut. de Fort. Rom. p. 323. C. αὐτὸν & εἰς ὕπνον ἐκ δυσθυμίας καὶ λύπης ἀποκλιθῆναι. Q. Curt. XIV. 13. Tandem gravatum animi anxietate corpus altior somnus oppressit. In y. 49. the preposition ἐν is put for σὺν, as else- where frequently ; and the particle εἰ is used in the sense of num, asin Mark viii. 23. Luke vi. 7. xiii. 23. xxii. 67. Acts 1. 6. xxv. 20. So Thucyd. I. 118. ἐπηρώτων τὸν θεὸν, εἰ πολεμοῦσιν ἄμεινον ἔσται; Eur. Phoen. 736. εἰ νυκτὸς αὐτοῖς mpooado- μεν ἐκ λόχου. In like manner δ is used in Virg. Eclog. LX. 37. Ain. IV. 110. Werstern, ALBERTI. Ver 51. ἐᾶτε ἕως τούτου. Ε΄. T. Suffer ye thus far. This version is obscure, and susceptible of very different interpretations. All antiquity seems agreed in understanding our Lord’s expres- sion as a check to the zeal and resistance of his disciples ; and what is recorded in Matthew and John strongly confirms this explanation. Another, indeed, has been suggested, viz. that the words were spoken to the soldiers, who are supposed before now to have seized his person; and that our Lord requested to be released for the purpose of healing the man, whose ear had been cut off. But this interpretation is every way exceptionable, as being totally destitute of evidence, and affording a solitary in- stance of our Lord’s asking permission to work a miracle. The expression ἕως τούτου means commonly hitherto; so that the most natural import of our Lord’s words are, let pass what is done—Enough of this—No more of this. CampBeiL, WET- STEIN, KurnoreL,—[Hammonp, Doppripge, ELsNER. | Ver. 53. αὕτη ὑμῶν ἐστιν ἡ ὥρα, x. τ. Δ. Some understand these words as referring to the dead of night as the most favour- able season for deeds of darkness; and compare Sil. Ital. XII. 193. Perge,age; fer gressus ; dexter deus, horaque nostra est. Mart. Epig. X. 19. Hee hora est tua, cum furit Lyceus. But it should rather seem that σκότος is here to be understood of the prince of darkness, and that our Lord meant to say, This is the hour destined for the completion of your wicked purpose, and for the powers of darkness to reign undisturbed. Compare 2 Cor. vi. 14. Col. i. 13. The words αὕτη ἐστι must be repeated before ἐξουσία. Grotius, WETSTEIN, KUINOEL. Ver. 66. τὸ πρεσβυτέριον τοῦ λαοῦ. In Acts xxii. 5. τὸ πρεσβυτέριον is used without the addition of λαοῦ. St. Luke is the only sacred writer who gives this appellation to the Sanhe- drim, of which he is doubtless speaking. He calls it also ἡ γερουσία in Acts v. 21. Compare 1 Tim. iv. 13. CAMPBELL, WETSTEIN. 590 LUKE XXII. 68. XXIII. I, 2 4 7. Ver. 68. ἐὰν δὲ καὶ ἐρωτήσω, κι τ A. The form of argu- mentation among the Hebrews was usually interrogatory. See on Mark viii. 11. Our Lord meant to say, that whether he simply declared his Messiahship, or entered into an argument to prove it, they would equally reject his claims. That they would have done so is evident from their conduct on other occasions. Compare Luke xx. 7. 17. 44. Grorius, KuINnoEL. CHAPTER XXIII. Contents :— The examination of Christ before Pilate and Herod : his crucifixion, death, and burial, vv. 1—56. [Matt. xxvii. 2. Mark xv. 1. John xviii. 28.] Verse 1. τὸ πλῆθος αὐτῶν. It is probable that the chief priests and elders, with their servants and dependents, are the multitude here spoken of. The common people were gene- rally favourers of Jesus, and for this reason the Jewish rulers caused him to be apprehended in the night, and it was but now just break of day. Compare Lwke xxii. 6. 66. Pearce, A. CLARKE. Ver. 2. εὕρομεν. The verb here denotes to convict by ju- dicial enquiry : as again in wy. 4. 14. Acts xiii. 28. xxiii. 29. So Xen. Cyr. I. 2. 7. κολάζουσι δὲ καὶ οὺς ἂν ἀδικῶς ἂν &yKa- λοῦντας εὑρίσκωσι. Of διαστρέφειν, signifying to pervert, to lead astray, we haye other examples in 1 Kings xviii. 17. LXX. Matt. xvii. 17. Acts xiii. 8. Werstein, ΚΎΡΚΕ, ELSNER. Ver. 4. οὐδὲν εὑρίσκω αἴτιον. According to John xviii. 38. Pilate did not say this till after Christ had declared to him that his kingdom was not of this world ; and probably not till after he had discovered, upon examination of the witnesses, that he had raised no seditions whatsoever. Lr Cierc, Pearce, A. CLARKE. The word αἴτιον is properly an adjective, but it is used as a sub- stantive: or θανάτου may be supplied from v.15. Of the reason of Pilate’s question in v. 6. see Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p. 15. Ver. 7. ἀνέπεμψεν αὐτὸν πρὸς Ἡρώδην. It was the regular practice of the Roman preefects to send back (remittere) the prisoner to the governor of the province or district to which he belonged, though they had the right of trying all offences com- mitted within their respective provinces. Thus it appears from Joseph. B. J. III. 10. that Vespasian remitted the trial of the LUKE XXIII. 8. 15. 28. 591 Taricheans to king Agrippa. Pilate seems to have acted in this case with a view to obtaining a reconciliation with Herod, with whom he was then at variance, (v. 12.) The cause in which this enmity originated has been the subject of conjecture: and is generally supposed to have arisen from Pilate’s affair with the Galilzeans, related in Luke xiii. 1. But, be the origin of the quarrel what it might, when the character of the parties is con- sidered, their reconciliation, as M. Saurin truly observes, is far more wonderful than their enmity. Grotius, A. CLARKE, Dop- DRIDGE. Ver. 8. θέλων ἐξ ἱκανοῦ x. τ. Δ. See Luke ix.9. If Herod’s wish to witness a miracle was the mere effect, as some suppose, of idle curiosity, we see at once one motive of our Lord’s silence before him, who did not choose to exercise his divine power on so unworthy an object. In v. 11. the word στρατεύμασιν signifies merely a body-guard, as in Acts xxiii. 10. Grotius, KurnoEt. Ver. 15. πεπραγμένον αὐτῷ. E.T. Done unto him; which is incorrect. The dative is here put for the genitive with ὑπὸ, which is evident from the repetition of the phrase πράσσειν τι ἄξιον θανάτου in other places. Compare Acts xxv. 12. 25. xxvi. 21. Instances of the same syntax are common in the best writers. So Arist. Eccl. 73. καὶ μὴν τά γ᾽ ἄλλ᾽ ὑμῖν ὁρῶ πεπραγμένα. Xen. Hell. Il. 2. 17. ἀναμνήσω ὑμῖν τὰ τούτῳ πεπραγμένα. CAMPBELL, WETSTEIN, ΚΥΡΚΕ. In νυ. 16. 22. the verb παι- δεύειν, which properly signifies to educate a child, implies, by an easy transition, to chastise ; chastisement forming a necessary part of education. In this sense it is frequently used in Scrip- ture, though never by profane writers. See Prov. iii. 12. xix. 18. xxix. 17. Wisd. iti. 5. Ecclus. x. 28. LUXX. 1 Cor. xi. 32. 2 Cor. vi. 9. Heb. xii. 6, 7.10. The particular chastisement here in- tended is scourging. Hence Theophylact: παιδεύσας" σωφρο- νίσας διὰ μαστίγων. SCHLEUSNER, KUINOEL. Ver. 28. μὴ κλαίετε ἐπ᾽ ἐμέ. Soph. Phil. 999. Οἶμαι μὲν ἀρκεῖν σοί γε καὶ τὰ σ᾽, ὦ τάλας, ᾿Αλγήμαθ᾽, ὥστε μὴ τὰ τῶν πέλας στέ- νειν. Ovid. Met. XIII. 464. Non mea mors ili, verum sua vita gemenda est. Cic. Cat. IV. 1. Est mihi jucunda in malis, et grata in dolore, vestra voluntas ; sed eam, per Deos immortales queso, deponite, atque obliti salutis mee de vobis et de liberis vestris cogitate. WrtsTEIN. With respect to the syntax it may be observed, that some MSS. read ἐμοὶ, which is sanctioned by Luke xix. 41. The verb κλαίειν, however, is more usually fol- lowed in Greek writers by an accusative without a preposition, as in Hesiod. Op. D. I. 220. κλαίουσα πόλιν τε καὶ ἤθεα λαῶν. But the expression κλαίειν ἐπί τινα is sufficiently confirmed by Numb. xi. 13. Judg.x\.37. xiv. 17. LXX. and elsewhere. Of Ou- 592 LUKE XXIII. 29. 31. γατέρες, τέκνα, and like terms, denoting the inhabitants of a place, see on Matt. xxiii. 37. and compare Gen. xxxiv. 1. Psalm exxxvil. 8. Isaiah iii. 16. Jer. xlvi. 24. Luke xiii. 84. xix. 44. KUINOEL. Ver, 29. μακάριαι αἱ στεῖραι x. τ. X. How fearfully this pre- diction was fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem the history of Josephus will abundantly testify. See on Matt. xxiv. and -Horne’s Introd. Vol. I. p. 555. With the sentiment we may compare Eurip. And. 395. Οἴμοι κακῶν τῶνδ᾽" ὦ τάλαιν᾽ ἐμὴ πατρίς" Ὥς δεινὰ πάσχω" τί δέ με καὶ τεκεῖν ἐχρῆν; ἔΑχθος τ᾽ ἐπ’ ἄχθει τῷδε προσθέσθαι διπλοῦν. Cic. Ep. Fam. V. 16. Negue he consolationes tantum videntur proficere debere, quantum sta- tus ipse nostre civitatis, et hac prolatio temporum perditorum ; cum beatissimi sint, qui liberos non susceperunt ; minus autem miseri, gui his temporibus amiserunt, quam si eosdem bona, aut denique aliqua republica, perdidissent. See also Tacit. Ann, II. 75. Sil. Ital. IV. 357. Senec. Cons. II. 5. The next verse is descriptive of the dreadful consternation and horror into which the inhabitants would be thrown; and there is an allusion to the caves and mountains of Judea, to which they fled for safety and concealment. See Joseph. B. J. IV. 9. 4. VI. 8. 3. VII. 7. δ, Similar expressions occur in Jsaiah ii. 19. Hos. x. 8. Rev. vi. 16. ix. 6. Compare Hom. Il. A. 18. P. 416. Virg. Ain, IV. 24, XII. 892. Ovid. Epist. VI. 144, Fast. III. 609. Sil. Ital. 1V. 331. Grortius, WETSTEIN, KUINOEL. Ver. 31. εἰ tv τῷ ὑγρῷ κι τ. A. This is a proverbial expres- sion. Among the Jews a green tree was looked upon as the emblem of the righteous, and one dry and withered as the emblem of the wicked. See Psalm i. 3. Ezek. xx.47. xxi. 3. Ecclus. vi. 3. It appears from the Talmud in Sanhedrin, p. 93., to have been a Jewish maxim on the misery that attaches to the good from their association with the wicked, who exceed them in number, that two pieces of dry wood will burn one piece of green. Hence our Lord’s application of the parable will amount to this : —If an innocent man be put to death in the face of justice, by a people who professed a divine religion, what oppression and de- solation may not be expected amid the anarchy and confusion which shall take place at the siege of Jerusalem by the Roman armies ? Compare | Pet. iv. 18. Wuirsy, A. CLARKE, SCHOETT- GEN. Of ξύλον, signifying ὦ tree, we have examples not only in Gen. i. 11. Ezek. xvii. 24. LXX. Rev. ii. 7, xxii. 2. 14, and elsewhere ; but in Eurip. Cycl. 572. Herod. VII. 65. Theoph. Hist. Plant. V. 9. So Hor. Od. II. 13. 11. Tw triste hgnum. Hence the usage of the word is not merely Hellenistic or He- braical, as some have imagined. Parxuurst, Woxr.—[VALcK- NzR.] In the next verse there should be a comma at ἕτεροι δύο, LUKE XXIII. 34. 40. 49. 593 with which κακοῦργοι is not in agreement, but in apposition. Some, indeed, suppose that Christ is here included, not as being actually a malefactor, but as being treated like one. But the necessity of so harsh an interpretation is avoided by correcting the punctuation. Κυρκε, Kurnort, RosENMULLER. Ver. 34. πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς" x. τ. X. If ignorance does not excuse a crime, it at least diminishes the atrocity of it: and our Lord’s benevolent spirit suggested this excuse for his murderers at the very moment they were nailing him to the cross, in com- plete fulfilment of the prophecy in Lsazah 1111. 12. It is true that the Jews knew that they were crucifying an innocent person, but, blinded by the most obstinate prejudices, they did not know the full extent of their guilt. Some have supposed, however, that our Lord could not here have prayed for the Jews, inasmuch as his prayer did not succeed in averting the dreadful calamity which hung over their nation. The Roman soldiers, who nailed him to the cross, had greater excuse also on the score of igno- rance; and for them, therefore, the prayer is conceived to have been offered. But there can be little doubt that the Jews were included in the prayer, which must be limited to the sense of in- terceding for time and opportunity of repentance, and forgiveness to such as availed themselves of this long suffering and forbear- ance. That in this sense the prayer was fulfilled is evident from a variety of passages in the Acts. See also 1 Cor. ii, 8. and compare 1 Zim. i. 15. Grotrus.—[KuInoEt. ] Ver. 40. ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ κρίματι. Under the same sentence. The charge brought against Christ in v. 2. was, that he had endea- voured to raise a sedition by opposing the payment of the tribute due tothe Roman government. It may seem, therefore, that the two malefactors were of the same party with Judas of Galilee, and others, who refused to submit to the Romans, and resisted upon principle the tax imposed by them. Prarcr. See Horne. Ver. 43. σήμερον per ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ. It has been a subject of enquiry what our Lord wished the penitent thief to understand by this promise. He certainly could not intend to sanction the fabulous traditions of the Jews, nor the notions of the Essenes ; neither can any argument be drawn from it in fa- vour of the Mahometan Paradise. Some have supposed, that by Paradise we are to understand Heaven, and compare 2 Cor, xii. 4. Rev. ii. 7. But in the first of these passages it is probable that fwo visions are intended, and in the latter the expression is clearly figurative. ‘The word has been derived from παρὰ and δείω, to irrigate ; but is evidently of Oriental origin. The Greeks borrowed it from the Persians, among whom it signified a gar- den, οὐ inclosure, full of the richest produce of the earth. J. Poll. VOL. I. aq 594 - LUKE XXIII. 43. Onom. IX, 12. οἱ δὲ Παράδεισοι, βαρβαρικὸν εἶναι δοκοῦν τοὔ- νομα, ἥκει καὶ κατὰ συνηθείαν εἰς χρῆσιν Ἑλληνικὴν, ὡς καὶ πολ- Ad ἄλλα τῶν Περσικῶν. Xen, Aicon. κῆποί τε ἔσονται, οἱ Παρά- δεισοι καλούμενοι, πάντων καλῶν τε καὶ ἀγαθῶν μεστοὶ, ὅποσα ἡ γῆ φύειν ἔθελες. Compare Xen. Cyr. I. 8. 12. Diod. Sic. XVI. 41. The original word D795, Pardes, occurs in Neh. ii. 8. Eccles. ii. 5. Cant. LV. 13. and the LXX use παράδεισος for the Garden of Eden in Gen, ii. 10. and for any garden in Numb. xxiv. 6. Isaiah i. 30. Hence it came to signify a place of ea- quisite delight, and the Jews seem to have used it as synonymous with the expression Abraham's bosom in Luke xvi. 22. So Tertull. Apoll. §. 47. Paradisum nominamus, locum divine amee- nitatis recipiendis sanctorum spiritibus destinatum. So also Origen, Chrysostom, and others of the Fathers. It was there- fore our Lord’s intention to signify that the penitent sufferer might hope for peace and happiness in that intermediate state which awaits the good between death and the resurrection. The phrase μετά τινος εἶναι is used of those who partake of an enter- tainment, as in Judg. xiv. 11. LX X. So also Terent. Heaut. I. 1. Hodie apud me sis volo. Plaut. Stich. Cras apud me eritis. WETSTEIN, CAMPBELL, Grotius, Horstery, Bos, &c. &c. It has been imagined that grace was begun in the thief, and his con- version suddenly perfected, though every circumstance apparently concurred to hinder him from believing. Yet it is far from being certain that either his faith or repentance was the fruit of this particular season. It is evident that he must have known some- thing about our Saviour, for otherwise he could not have said οὐδὲν ἄτοπον ἔπραξε. He may have been acquainted, therefore, with the miracles and the preaching of Christ before he was thrown into prison, although he had not sufficient resolution to abstain from evil courses. Nay, it is even possible that his un- timely end may have been occasioned by the single act of insub- ordination, for which he suffered; and that he was, nevertheless, a sincere believer, and with this exception, a practical follower of Christ. That he was convinced of our Lord’s Messiahship is evident from his petition, μνήσθητί μου, Κύριε, x. τ. X., though it may be doubted whether his notion of Christ's kingdom was founded on the popular prejudices of his countrymen, or on the declarations which our Lord himself had frequently made res- pecting it. No argument, therefore, can be drawn from his case in favour of the validity of a death-bed repentance, since, even upon the supposition that he had had no previous knowledge of Christ, he could in that event have had no previous call, and therefore he repented as soon as the means of grace were af- forded him. The fair inference from the history is, that a true repentance is never too late. At the same time, a continuance in sin upon the encouragement afforded by this solitary example, will end in a repentance which has no analogy to that of the thief LUKE XXIII. 54. XXIV. 1. 595 except in regard to the lateness of it. Macknient, Wuirsy, DopprinGeE, KurInoEt, &c. Ver. 54, ἐπέφωσκε. Properly, dawned, as in Matt. xxviii. 1. Herod. III. 86. Polyb. IX. 1.; and hence, as applied to the Jewish sabbath, which began in the evening, drew on, ap- proached. Compare John xix. 31. By the Greeks, who rec- koned the morning the first part of the day, this verb was na- turally applied to the ushering in of the day. Hence Luke, who was a native of Syria, and, therefore, living much among Gen- tiles, would insensibly have acquired a habit of applying a term which indicated the commencement of a day beginning in the morning to denote the commencement of a Jewish day. In fact, the Evangelist only adopted the common practice of his country- men. The Syriac verb, which properly denotes to shine as the day light, is applied also to the evening light, and is the very word used in the Syriac version of this passage. It is also used for ἐπιφώσκειν in Matt. xxviii. 1.; and some have thought that the evening is there also intended; but the context neither re- quires nor admits any other sense than the usual one. The Jews also, it should seem, had a similar mode of expression, which originated in their custom of lighting lamps on the evening of the Sabbath. Hence the Sabbath evening was called Light. Thus Maimonides: By the ight, i.e. on the evening, of the fourteenth day they search for leaven by the light of a candle. CampBeELL, Ligutroor, Werstern.—[MIcHa€L Is. | CHAPTER XXIV. Contents :— The resurrection made known to a party of women upon their arrival at the sepulchre, vv. 1—11. Peter goes to the sepulchre,v.12. Christ appears to two disciples on the road to Emmaus, vy. 13—35. His appearance to the Apostles, in the absence of Thomas, vv. 36—43. His com- mission to the disciples at Jerusalem, vv. 44—49, The ascen- sion, vv. 50—53. [Mark xvi. 19.] Verse 1. ὄρθρου Babioc. At the earliest dawn. Thom. M. ὄρθρος" ὁ πρὸ τοῦ λυκαυγοῦς καιρὸς, ἔν ᾧ ἔτι λύχνῳ δύναταί τις χρᾶσθαι. The word occurs in sth. ν. 14. Prov. vii. 18. Dan. vi. 19. Joel ii. 2. LXX. John viii. 2. Acts v. 21. Xen. Anab.II. 2.21. Diod. Sic. XIV. 104. Polyb. ITI. 73. 3. XII. 26. 1. Plat. Crit. 1. de Legg. XII. and with the epithet βαθὺς, which points to an earlier period, in Arist. Equit. 216. Theoc. [ἀν]. XVIII. 14. Herac. All. Hom. 492. The time intended is that eq 2 596 LUKE XXIV. δ." described in Ovid. Epist. Her. XIV. 22. Ultima pars noctis, primaque lucis erat. Compare Hom. 1]. H. 453. Wersrern, Kypxe, Patarret. The circumstances in this chapter are either recorded by St. Luke alone, or given more at large than by the other Evangelists : and he may possibly have derived his information from Joanna, with whom he seems to have been acquainted. See Luke viii. 9. The last clause of this verse is omitted in several MSS. and rejected by the best critics. But the evidence against its admission is very trifling: it connects this chapter with vv. 55, 56. of the last; and the women alluded to were doubtless inha- bitants of Jerusalem, who had joined in the train of those from Galilee. CampspeLyt.—[Mit1t, Griespacu, Pearce, &c.] Of the order of events connected with the resurrection and other points of apparent difficulty, see the notes on Matt. xxviii. 1. 5644. and the Table. Ver. 5. κλινουσῶν τὸ πρόσωπον εἰς τὴν γῆν. These words do not imply prostration, but reverence, in accordance with the injunction laid upon the Jews not to gaze upon an heavenly vi- sion. Compare E.od. iii. 6. xix. 27. Judg. xiii. 20. 1-Kings xix. 13. The heathens also regarded their deities with a similar veneration, and considered it dangerous to look steadfastly on them, when supposed to make themselves visible. Apoll. Rhod. IV. 1315. Αὐτὰρ by εἰς ἑτέρωσε παλιμπέτες ὄμματ᾽ ἔνεικε Aai- μονας αἰδεσθείς. Ovid. Fast. I. 148. Sumpsi animum, gratesque Deo non territus egi; Verbaque sum spectans pauca locutus hu- mum. III. 571. A media calum regione dehiscere capit ; Sum- misere oculos, cum duce, turba suos. Hence Senec. Epist. II. Artifices scenici, qui imitantur affectus, qui metum et trepida- tionem eaxprimunt, qui tristitiam representant, hoc indicio imi- tantur verecundiam: dejiciunt vultum, verba submittunt, figunt in terram oculos, et deprimunt. Doppripcr, Exsner, Wert- STEIN. Ibid. τί ζητεῖτε x. τ. X%. This was a common form of speech among the Jews, and seems to have been applied to those who were foolishly or unprofitably employed. As places of burial were unclean, it was not reasonable to suppose that the living would frequent them, or that a person who was missing was likely to be found there. Thus in Schemoth Rabba, p.124. 1. The foolish servant of a priest, seeking his master among the tombs, called out to the by-standers, Saw ye my master here? They say unto him, Thou fool, who ever saw a priest among tombs? So say Moses and Aaron to Pharaoh, Thou fool, is it the custom to seek the dead among the living, or the living among the dead ? Our God is the living God; but the gods of whom thou speakest are dead, &c. ἄς. Compare Vajikra R. 6. So also Plaut. Meneech. 11. 1. 15. Hominem inter vivos queritamus mortuum : Nam invenissemus jamdiu, si viveret. Ligurroor, A. CLARKE, LUKE XXIV. 11—13. 597 WerstrIn. Of the word ἁμαρτωλοὶ in v. 7. see on Matt. xxvi. 47. Luke vii. 37. The prediction referred to by the angels is to be found in Matt, xvi. 21. xvii. 23. and the parallel places. Ver. 11. ἐφάνησαν ὡσεὶ λῆρος. Lucian. Timon. I. ἅπαντα ταῦτα λῆρος ἤδη ἀναπέφῃνε, καὶ καπνὸς ποιητικός. Xen. Anab. VII. 7. 24. λῆρος πάντα ἐδόκει εἶναι. Plaut. Poen. I. 1. 4. Nam tue blanditie mihi sunt, quod dict solet, Gerre germane, atque edepol λῆροι λήρων. WETSTEIN. Ver. 12. 6 δὲ Πέτρος x. τ A. From a notion that St. Peter’s visit to the sepulchre, recorded by St. Luke, is identical with that in which he was accompanied by St. John, as related in John xx. 9., it has been supposed that this verse is out of place, and that the Evangelist has not preserved the true order of events. Of the genuineness of the verse there can be no doubt, as, with three inconsiderable exceptions, it is found in all the MSS. and versions. The fact is, there is no reason to believe the two Evan- gelists record the same visit; for when Peter and John went to- gether, before any report of the women concerning a vision of angels, the former went into the sepulchre, which does not ap- pear to have been the case according to St. Luke. It is obvious, also, that the motives which induced the two visits are perfectly distinct, and the circumstances attending them took place in dif- ferent parts of the tomb. West, Townson, Kuinoeit.—[Larp- NER, A. CLARKE. | Ibid. πρὸς ἑαυτόν. The commentators differ respecting the connexion, in which these two words are to be taken. Some join them with ἀπῆλθε, and translate, he returned home. See on Luke vy. 8.; and to the examples there cited add Polyb. V. 93. διέλυσε τοὺς Μεγαλαπολῖτας πρὸς αὐτούς. Joseph. Ant. VIII. 4. 6. πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς ἕκαστοι ἀπήεσαν. So in Latin, Pheed. Fab. IV. 41. Sermone ab ipso cognitum cupidissime Ad se recepit. Ter. Eun. III. 5. 64. Hamus ad me. But it may be inferred from v. 24. infra, that Peter did not go directly home from the sepulchre, but returned to the place where the disciples were as- sembled. Hence it is better to connect πρὸς ἑαυτὸν θαυμάζων, wondering within himself, as in most of the ancient versions; and this method is abundantly confirmed by its suitableness to the style of the Evangelist. Thus Luke xviii. 11. πρὸς ἑαυτὸν ταῦτα προσηύχετο. xx. 14. διελογίζοντο πρὸς ἑαυτούς. DopprineE, CAMPBELL, WETSTEIN.—[KypkKE, Hammonpn, KuINoEL. | Ver. 13. δύο ἐξ αὐτῶν. This long and interesting account is not mentioned by Matthew or John, and it is only glanced at in Mark xvi. 12. One of the two disciples was Cleopas, (v. 18.) and the other is supposed by many learned men, both ancient and modern, to have been Luke himself. The Persian translation 10 598 LUKE XXIV. 16. 18. says positively that it was so; but the opinion is at variance with the Evangelist’s own declaration in the preface to his Gospel, that he was not an eye-witness. Hpiphanius thought it might be Nathanael, and others have maintained that it was Peter ; but these are mere conjectures, and the latter can scarcely be recon- ciled with v. 34., unless λέγοντες be substituted for λέγοντας. It is clear that neither of them were Apostles, though they may possibly have been of the number of the seventy disciples. Dop- DRIDGE.—[Licutroot, A. CLarKe.| Of Cleopas, and of the village Emmaus, see Horne’s Index. There seems to have been three places of this name. To that here mentioned the same distance of sixty stadia, or about seven English miles, is assigned in Joseph. B. J. VII. 6. 6. Possibly the disciples resided there, and were returning home after the celebration of the passover. Grotius. In the next verse the verb ὁμιλεῖν is used in the somewhat rare signification of to converse. Compare Dan. i. 19. LXX. Acts xx. 11. xxiv. 26. Joseph. Ant. X. 11. 7. IV. 2. 2. XI. 5.6. Exvsner, Kress. Ver. 16. οἱ δὲ ὀφθαλμοὶ x. τ. XA. The commentators are not agreed whether the eyes of the disciples were holden by natural or preeternatural causes. A different habit, their having no ex- pectation of seeing him, and the grief with which they were af- fected, might in part divert their attention, and prevent their re- cognizing him; but the peculiarity of the expression, compared with that in v. 31. seems to indicate some particular agency of God, both upon their eyes and their memories. Compare Gen. xxi. 19. Numb. xxii. 31. 2 Kings vi. 17. sqq., and see on Mark xvi. 12. Wuirsy, Doppripcz, Hammonp, Grorius.—[Kut- NOEL, CAMPBELL, ΚΥΡΚΕ, ScuieusNerR, &c.| The verb ἀντι- βάλλειν, in the next verse, signifies properly to toss from one to another, as a bali, §c. and is thence applied metaphorically to an argumentative discussion. Compare 2 Mace. xi. 3. LXX. The disciples were possibly discussing the probability or impro- bability of Christ's Messiahship and resurrection. ΟΥ̓ ΕΊΒΤΕΙΝ, A. CLARKE. Ver. 18. σὺ μόνος παροικεῖς κι τ. Δ. There are two ways in which these words may be understood; either as a method of accounting for the apparent ignorance of a traveller, or as an ex- pression of surprise, that any one who had been at Jerusalem at the time should be as ignorant as a stranger of the late extraor- dinary events. The E. T. favours the first interpretation, but the latter is the best, and most generally received, and the pas- sage should be thus rendered: Art thou alone such a stranger in Jerusalem as to be ignorant of these events? Similar expres- sions of surprise may be produced from most languages. Dio. Or. III. p. 42. σὺ ἄρα, εἶπε, μόνος ἀνήκοος εἶ τούτων, ἃ πάντες LUKE XXIV. 19 21. 24. 599 ἴσασι; M. Anton. III. ξένος κόσμου 6 μὴ γνωρίζων τὰ ἐν κόσμῳ ὄντα. (Οἷς. Milon. 12. An vos, judices, vero soli ignoratis, vos hospites in hae urbe versamini; vestre peregrinantur aures, neque in hoc pervagato civitatis sermone versantur ? Rabir. 23. Adeone hospes hujus urbis, adeone ignarus es discipline consue- tudinisque nostre, ut hec nescias? Ovid. Met. Il. 9. An que per totam res est notissima Lesbon, Non audita tibi est 2 Came- BELL, WETSTEIN, KYPKE. Ver. 19. ἀνὴρ προφήτης. It is very generally thought that ἀνὴρ is here redundant, more Hebraico. See Exod. ii. 14. 1 Sam. xxxi. 3. Judg. vi. 8. xix. 1. 16.22. The pleonasm, however, if it be one, is equally common in Greek writers, as in Hom. 1]. ©. 370. Thucyd. I. 41. Herod. I. 90. 141. Plat. Pheaed. 9. 34. But it is probable that its use is here emphatic, and in- tended as a title of honour. So Lucian. Jup. Frag. 15. ὦ ἄν- ὃρες θεοί. Compare 1 Mace. ii. 23. vi. 57. Eeclus. x. 26. Acts vill. 27. James ii. 2. A. Cuarke, ScHLEUSNER. —[KyYPKE, PARKHURST. | Ver. 21. τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν. Achil. Tat. VII. p. 442. τρί- THY ταύτην τὴν ἡμέραν γέγονεν ἀφανής. Itis a general rule that nouns to which οὗτος is prefixed always take the article; and this is invariably the case in the N. T. with the exception of Acts i. 5. xxiv. 21. and the present passage. Now in all these cases either a numeral adjective occurs, or something analogous to it, so that cases of this kind may possibly be regarded as occasional exceptions to the rule. MippLeron. ‘There is a difficulty res- pecting the nominative case to be supplied before ἄγει. Some improperly regard σήμερον in the light of a nominative ; others understand ἥλιος ; and others again take ἄγει in a passive signi- fication, used impersonally. _ But the noun to be supplied is ’In- cove; and the phrase ἄγειν ἡμέραν, which is the same with the Latin agere diem, well expresses the doubts which they enter- tained as to whether he was alive or dead. We have a some- what similar, though not the same, form in Lucian. D. M. 13. ἔτι ἐν Βαβύλωνι κεῖμαι τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν. Beza, ΚΎΡΚΕ, WET- sTEIN.—[Grotius, θΠΟΌΡΕΙΡΘΕ, &c.] Of the verb ἐξίστημι, in the next verse, see on Matt. xii. 23. Mark iii. 21. It is here used actively, as in Aets viii. 9. The adjective ὄρθριαι supplies the place of an adverb of time. So Job xxix. 7. LXX. ἐξεπορ- ευόμην ὄρθριος. Virg. Ain. VIII. 465. Auneas se matutinus agebat. Ku1InoEL. See my note on Hom. Il. A. 414. Ver. 24, τινες. Peter and John, as related in John xx. 10. and Peter again, v. 12. supra. With τῶν σὺν ἡμῖν there is an ellipsis of ὄντων, as in v. 99. Mark ii. 26. So Xenoph. Rep. Lac. 13. τρέφει ἡ πόλις βασιλέα Kal τοὺς σὺν αὐτῷ. Bos. ᾿ 000 LUKE XXIV. 25. 29—81. Ver. 25, βραδεῖς τῇ καρδίᾳ. The adjective βραδὺς is not un- usually applied to the understanding, even without the addition of ἐν ἐῶν ον or the like. Arist. Nub. 129. ἐπιλήσμων καὶ βραδύς. Hence Suid. βραδύς" ὃ μὴ ἀγχίνους. So Hor. Sat. 1. 3. 39. Ili Tardo cognomen pingui damus. We have the same com- bination as in this passage in Atsop. Fab. ἀναστενάξας ἀνέκραγε, Ὦ ἀνόητοι καὶ βραδεῖς. Of ἀνόητοι, rendered fools in the E. T. the meaning is rather thoughtless, inconsiderate, being a term of expostulation or reproof, not of anger or contempt. ‘The phrase πιστεύειν ἐπί τινι is a Hebraism. WetsTein, CAMPBELL, Dop- DRIDGE. In the clauses of the next verse ἀρξάμενος is applied in two different senses. See my note on Soph. Cid. T. 270. Pent. Gr. p. 26. Ver, 29. παρεβιάσαντο. E. T. they constrained, i. 6. they persuaded. See on Matt. xiv. 22. Luke xiv. 23. It has been objected that our Lord’s making as though he would have gone further was a species of dissimulation, and as such un- worthy of his divine character. But he doubtless would have gone further had he not been solicited otherwise ; and though he was aware that he should be so solicited, his omniscience must in no ways be supposed to have influened the wish of the dis- ciples to detain him. Grorrus, Wuirsy. In the phrase πρὸς ἑσπέραν the preposition denotes approximation, as in Joseph. Ant. V. 5. So Thucyd. IV. 135. πρὸς tap. With τοῦ μεῖναι there is an ellipsis of ἕνεκα. WetTsTEIN, KuINoEL. Ver, 30. λαβὼν τὸν ἄρτον κι 7. A. See on Matt. xiv. 19. Some have thought that our Lord gave his two disciples the Holy Sacrament on this occasion, adding it to the ordinary meal, as at the first institution of the rite; and that they knew him thereby to be Jesus. But such a notion is entirely without foundation. Among the Jews the giving of thanks and the dis- tribution of the bread was the office of the head of the family, but in mixed companies, he, whose rank and character rendered him most worthy of the honours of the table, obtained them. Hence, upon this occasion it devolved upon our Lord, his dis- ciples being fully convinced from his conversation that he was a person of no ordinary account. Macknieurt. Ver. 31. ἄφαντος ἐγένετο ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν. E. T. He vanished out of their sight: and in the margin, ceased to be seen of them. Many of the interpreters adopt the marginal interpretation, sup- posing that Jesus merely departed unexpectedly and on a sud- den, and cite the instance of Pelops, in Pind. Olymp. I. 72. ἄφαντος ἔπελες. In this sense ἄφαντος is unquestionably used in a variety of passages. See Aisch. Agam. 607. Soph. Cid. T. 560. Eur. Or. 1495. 1507. Theoc. Idyl. IV. 5. Anac. XX XIII. LUKE XXIV. 32. 34. 36. 601 4, Apol. Rhod. IV. 1330. Arat. Dios. 899. Thuc. VIII. 58. Xen. Anab. I. 4. 7. Diod. Sic. IV. 65. Joseph. Ant. XX. 8. 6. So Flor. Epit. I. 1. E conspectu ablatus est. ‘The natural im- port of the passage, however, seems to be that of a supernatural removal. Compare John viii. 59. In v. 36. the words ἔστη ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν should also be so understood. Jesus might unques- tionably have entered by the doors, as the disciples from Emmaus had done, inasmuch as they were only closed for fear of the Jews, and were readily opened to any of their own company. At the same time, their mistaking him for a spirit, clearly suggests the idea of a supernatural presence. Wuirsy, Grotius.— [WertsteIn, Le CLrexc, KutNnoet. ] Ver. 32. ἡ καρδία καιομένη ἦν. The expression is one of mingled enthusiasm, affection, and joy ; and the reading is more powerful, as well as more authentic, than that of some MSS. which instead of καιομένη read κεκαλυμμένη. Compare Psalm xxxix. 3. Jer. xx. 9. So Οἷς. Fin. 1V. 3. Incendit igétur eos, qui audi- unt. Brut. 80. Ha omnibus oratoris laudibus longe ista sit maxima, inflammans animos audientium. Kyrke, Doppriper, WETSTEIN. Ver. 84. Σίμωνι. None of the Evangelists mention any of the circumstances of this appearance to Peter, but St. Paul expressly refers to it in 1 Cor. xv. 5.; and in v. 7. he also men- tions an appearance to James. Yet, as no record of his having seen him exists in the Gospels, little credit is due to the story which Jerome gives us from the Gospel of the Nazarenes, that James had vowed to eat nothing after the Paschal supper till Jesus had risen, and that, therefore, our Lord appeared first to him. The faith of none of the Apostles was sufficiently strong for such a vow; and the order in which St. Paul speaks of the appearance to James suits very ill with the story. As Mary Magdalene was the first woman, so probably Peter was the first man, who was favoured with the sight of his risen Saviour, who may perhaps have appeared to him on his return from the sepulchre, v. 12. Had Christ been seen of the other Apostles before Peter, who had denied him, he might have deemed his repentance ineffectual, and despaired of his restoration to the favour of heaven. Dop- DRIDGE, MACKNIGHT. Ver. 36. εἰρήνη ὑμῖν. Scil. ἔστω. This was the usual form of salutation among the Jews. See Horne’s Introd. Vol. III. p- 437., and compare the note on Matt. x. 12. The Vulgate adds, Ego sum, nolite timere ; and several other versions have the same addition: but only two Greek MSS. have ἐγὼ εἰμί: μὴ φοβεῖσθε. Grotius, CAMPBELL. VOL. I. Rr ig 602 ’ LUKE XXIV. 37, 38. 45, 46. Ver. 37. πνεῦμα θεωρεῖν. Of the Jewish notions respecting Spirits, see on, Matt. xiv. 26. By his observation in v. 39. our Lord by no means intended to sanction these notions, but merely to convince them, according to their own ideas of spirits, that he was not one. That the Jews believed in the immateriality of spirits is evident from the definition of R. Hoshatah in Bereshith Rabba, p. 34, 2. that they are beings to whom souls are created, but they have no body made for those souls. Of a similar notion prevalent among the Heathen the classics afford a variety of examples. ‘Thus Max. Tyr. Diss. XV. 1. οὐ γὰρ σάρκες αἱ δαιμόνων φύσεις; οὐδὲ dora, οὐδὲ αἷμα. Ovid. Met. 1V. 443. Errant exangues sine corpore et ossibus umbre. Compare Hom. Od. A. 217. Virg. En. VI. 700. Quintil. Decl. X. Cic. Tus. 1. 11. Christ pointed to his hands and feet, which still bore the impression of the nails, as a yet further proof of his mate- riality, and that the same body was before them in which he had been nailed to the cross. Hence, as we shall be like him in the resurrection, our bodies will be united to our souls at the last day. See Phil. iii. 21. Ligurroot, Grotius, WETSTEIN. Ver. 88. ἀναβαίνουσι. In the sense in which this verb is here used the Latins use swrgere, as in Virg. Ain. I. 582. Que nunc animo sententia surgit. With the expression ἀπιστεῖν ἀπὸ χαρᾶς, v. 41., compare Matt. xxvii. 8.; and add Liv. xxxix. 49. Via sibimet ipsi pre nec opinato gaudio credentes. Of the Jewish division of the O. T., which our Lord adopts in v. 44., see Horne. Christ had spoken of the fulfilment of the predictions contained therein, in Matt. xvi. 21. xvii. 23. xx. 19. Mark ix. 31. x. 34. Luke ix. 44. xviii. 33. xxiv. 7. There is reason to believe that this and the following verses were spoken after the Apostles had returned from Galilee, from the appointed meeting with Christ; but the harmony of the passage is not easily settled. Grorius, WETSTEIN. Ver. 45. διήνοιξεν αὐτῶν τὸν νοῦν; x. τι A. It is one thing to explain the Scriptures, and another to open man’s understanding to receive them. Christ did the latter, probably by giving them now the first gift of prophecy or tnterpretation, ἑρμηνείας ἢ ἐπι- λύσεως, which fell more plentifully upon them at the day of Pentecost. Compare Acts xvi. 14. The phrase occurs fre- quently in Justin and other Fathers. Grotius, WHITBY. Ver. 46. τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ. So John ii. 22. Acts ii. 25. xiii. 35. 1 Cor. xv. 1. It does not appear, however, in what part of the O. T. Christ's resurrection on the third day is predicted, unless in Hos. vi. 2., and typically in Jon. i. 17. The prophecies to which Christ more immediately alluded in these two verses were LUKE XXIV. 18. 52,. 53. 603 probably Psalm ii. 6. 8. xxii. 3. ex. 2. sqq. Isaiah ii. 3. xxviii. 16. xls, 9. oxlix. 6. lit.) 12.dx244 joe . Jer. xxxi. 34. Dan, vii. 14. Hos. ii. 23. Joel ii. 32. Mal. i. 11. Grotius. In v. 47. ἀρξά- μενον 15 an impersonal par rentie so that you begin. So Herod. ΠῚ. 91. ἀπὸ δὲ Ποσειδηΐου πόλιος; τὴν ᾿Αμφίλοχος ὃ ᾿Αμφιαρέω οἴκισε ἐπ᾽ οὔροισι τοῖσι Κιλίκων τε καὶ Σύρων, ἀρξάμενον ἀπὸ ταύτης κι τ. A. Some Μ55. read ἀρξαμένων, which would be the genitive absolute with ὑμῶν understood. But the received read- ing is undoubtedly correct. With κηρυχθῆναι supply δεῖ, from ἔδει in the preceding verse. Rapuenius, Exsner. It was both graciously and wisely appointed by our Lord that the Gospel should begin to be preached at Jerusalem; graciously, as an encouragement to all penitents, who would thus see that even the murderers of Christ were not excluded from the offers of mercy ; and wisely, because the facts which had there happened, and were about to happen at the day of Pentecost, afforded the most ample testimony to the truth of Christianity. Doppriper. Ver. 48. τούτων. Namely, of all the events of the life and death of Christ, but more especially of his resurrection, as the most incontrovertible proof of his divine mission. Compare Acts i. 21. Wuitsy. Of the sufficiency of the Apostolic testimony see Horne’s Introd. Vol. I. The ἐπαγγελία, promise, the fulfil- ment of which our Lord forewarns them to await in Jerusalem, was the descent of the Holy Ghost, promised in John xv. 26. xvi. 7. See Isaiah xliv. 3. Ezek. xxxvi. 26. Joel 11. 28. Acts i. δ. Heb. xi. 185. Of the verb ἐνδύεσθαι, signifying to be invested with, we have examples in Rom. xiii. 14. 1 Cor. xv. 58. Gal. 11. 27. Col. iii. 9,10. So Tacit. Agric. 9. Tréstitiam, et arro- gantiam, et avaritiam exuerat. Senec. Epist. 47. Regum nobis anduimus animos. See my note on Hom. []. A. 149. Grortus, Kypke, A. CLARKE. Ver. 50. ἐξήγαγε δὲ αὐτοὺς κι τ. A. See on Mark xvi. 19. It was far more proper that Christ should ascend into heaven, than rise from the dead, in the sight of his Apostles ; for his resurrection was proved by his appearances subsequent to his passion, but his ascension could only be visible at the time when it took place. Doppripner. ‘ Ver. 52. προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν. See on Matt. ii. 2. It is manifest that the expression here indicates religious worship, as paid: to one who was no longer present with them on earth, but ascended into heaven. Of διαπαντὸς, in v. 53, see on Luke xviii. 1. The Apostles were constant attendants in the Temple at the stated hours of prayer, and at the sacrifices offered morning and evening, which are called ὁλοκαυστώματα διαπαντὸς in 604 LUKE XXIV. 53. 1 Chron. xvi. 40. 2 Chron. ii. 4. It is scarcely possible that they could have taken up their abode in any of those apartments belonging to the Temple, as some have imagined, which are mentioned in 2 Kings xi. 2, 3. 2 Chron. xxii. 11, 12. his the Sanhedrim and rulers would not have permitted, if we may judge from their inveterate hatred of the cause to which they were attached. Wuitsy. THE END OF VOL. I. Gitsert & RIVINGTON, Printers, St. John’s Square, London. ᾿ ce Wager ἢ a atte ὑ } ᾿ it : Hee ; A ἶ δὸς: ] abe ᾿ "4 " ΜῊ fea Ἷ 2 γι ' Posie 1 To erty ν : f, | ; a ‘ ᾽ a tala "ἢ 4 i een δ᾽ a ~ he