Bible Commentaries

CHAPTER 13

Matthew 13:1. The omission of δέ (Lachm. Tisch. 8) is supported by B א, three Curss. It. Arm. Aeth. Or. But the apparently superfluous δέ might very easily be left out, coming as it does before τῇ.

ἀπὸ τ. οἰκ.] Lachm. Tisch. 8 : ἐκ τ. οἰκ., after Z א, 33, Or. Chrys. Weakly attested. Yet B, Or. (once) omit the preposition altogether.

Matthew 13:2. τὸ πλοῖον] Lachm.: πλοῖον (B C L Z א). But see on Matthew 8:23.

Matthew 13:4. ἦλθε] Lachm.: ἦλθον, after D L Z, Curss. Since κατέφαγεν below necessarily presupposes the singular, this reading must be regarded as merely an error on the part of the transcriber, which was amended in B, Curss. by substituting ἐλθόντα and omitting the following καί (so Tisch. 7). Otherwise, Fritzsche, de conform. N. T. crit. Lachm. p. 52 f.

Matthew 13:7. Instead of ἀπέπνιξαν, with Tisch. 8, read ἔπνιξαν, after D א, Curss. The reading of the Received text is from Luke.

Matthew 13:9. ἀκούειν] is, with Tisch., to be deleted, in accordance with B L א* Codd. It. See on Matthew 11:15.

Matthew 13:14. αὐτοῖς] Elz.: ἐπʼ αὐτοῖς, against decisive testimony. An interpretation.

Matthew 13:15. συνῶσι] So Elz. 1624, 1633, 1641, Griesb. Matth. Lachm. Tisch., according to decisive testimony. Scholz: συνιῶσι.

ἰάσωμαι] Lachm. Tisch.: ἰάσομαι, after testimony of so decisive a character that it cannot have been derived from the LXX., while the subjunctive mood may have been adopted for sake of conformity with the preceding verbs. Comp. on John 12:40.

Matthew 13:16. After ὦτα Lachm. deletes the superfluous ὑμῶν, only according to B, Curss. Codd. It. Hil.; and for ἀκούει, he and Tisch. read ἀκούουσιν, after B C M X א and Curss. Or. Eus. Cyr. Chrys. The latter is a mechanical conformation to the previous verb.

Matthew 13:17. γάρ] is deleted by Tisch. 8, only after X א, Curss. It. Arm. Aeth. Hil.

Matthew 13:18. For σπείροντος Lachm. Tisch. 8 read σπείραντος, after B X א* Curss. Syr. p. Chrys. Correctly; the σπείρων of Matthew 13:3 would still be lingering in the minds of the transcribers. Therefore, in deference to still stronger testimony, should σπείραντι be adopted in Matthew 13:24, with Lachm. and Tisch. 8.

Matthew 13:22. τούτου] omitted after αἰῶνος in B D א* Arm. Cant. Verc. Germ. 1, Corb. 2, Clar. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Explanatory addition.

Matthew 13:23. The form συνιείς (Lachm. Tisch., after B D א, 238, Or.) instead of συνιών has been adopted in consequence of Matthew 13:19.

Matthew 13:25. ἔσπειρε] Lachm. and Tisch.: ἐπέσπειρεν, after B א ** (* has ἐπέσπαρκεν) and Curss. Arm. It. Vulg. Clem. Or. and several Fathers. Correctly; how easily might the preposition be dropped through carelessness in transcribing! More easily than that the ἐπέσπειρεν, which occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, should have been inserted as a gloss.

Matthew 13:27. The article, which in Elz. is placed before ζιζάνια, is deleted by Griesb. and the later critics, according to decisive testimony. So also with regard to τῷ before καιρῷ in Matthew 13:30, where Fritzsche wrongly maintains τῷ to be necessary.

Matthew 13:30. εἰς δέσμας] D L X Δ, Curss. Or. Chrys. Codd. I. have merely δέσμας, some with and others without αὐτά. Tisch. 7 has deleted εἰς (comp. Rinck), and that correctly; an explanatory addition.

Matthew 13:32. The form κατασκηνοῖν (Lachm. Tisch.) is only found in B* D; in the case of Mark 4:32, only in B*.

Matthew 13:34. οὐκ] Lachm. Tisch.: οὐδέν, after B C M Δ א* Curss. Syr. p. Arm. Clem. Or. Chrys., should be adopted on the strength of this testimony, and because οὐκ is found in Mark, and is by way of toning down the expression.

Matthew 13:35. διά] א* 1, 13, 33, 124, 253 insert Ἠσαΐου, which is supported by Eus. Porphyr. and Jerom. A false gloss,[447] notwithstanding that it is adopted by Tisch. 8. Jerom. suggests Ἀσάφ.

κόσμου] deleted by Tisch. 8, after B א** 1, 22, several Codd. of the It. Syrcur or Clem. Eus. The omission was occasioned by the LXX., which has merely ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς.

Matthew 13:36. Ὁ ʼΙΗΣΟῦς] and ΑὐΤΟῖς, Matthew 13:37, as well should be deleted as interpolations, according to B D א, Curss. Verss. and Or. Chrys.

Matthew 13:40. ΚΑΊΕΤΑΙ] Elz. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : ΚΑΤΑΚΑΊΕΤΑΙ, after B D א. Taken from Matthew 13:30.

For ΑἸῶΝ. ΤΟΎΤΟΥ Lachm. and Tisch. have merely ΑἸῶΝΟς, after B D Γ א, Curss. Verss. Cyr. Ir. Hil. Correctly; ΤΟΎΤΟΥ is quite a common addition, as in Matthew 13:22.

Matthew 13:44. ΠΆΛΙΝ ὉΜΟΊΑ] B D א, Vulg. It. Syrcur Copt. Arm. Tisch. have merely ὉΜΟΊΑ; Lachm. has ΠΆΛΙΝ only in brackets. It would be more readily deleted than inserted, for at this point a new series of parables begins, and it would seem to be in its proper place in the passage that follows (Matthew 13:45; Matthew 13:47).

Matthew 13:46. For Ὃς ΕὙΡΏΝ, we should, with Griesb. Fritzsche, Scholz, Lachm. and Tisch., read ΕὙΡῺΝ ΔΈ, after B D L א, 1, 33, Cyr. Cypr. and Verss. To continue the discourse with the relative was in accordance with what precedes and what comes after, which accounts for the relative construction superseding the ΕὙΡῺΝ ΔΈ, which would seem to break the continuity. Matthew 13:48. Lachm. has ΑὐΤΉΝ after ἈΝΑΒΙΒ.; so also Tisch. 7. On too inadequate testimony. With Tisch. 8, and on sufficient testimony, read instead of ἈΓΓΕῖΑ the more uncommon term ἌΓΓΗ.

Matthew 13:51. ΛΈΓΕΙ ΑὐΤΟῖς Ὁ ἸΗΣΟῦς] before ΣΥΝΉΚ. is wanting in B D א, Copt. Aeth. Vulg. Sax. It. (not Brix. Clar. Germ. 2) Or. Deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch.; would be more readily inserted than omitted, although the discourse of Jesus is only continued. With Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., and on somewhat similar authority, we should delete the κύριε after ναί as being a common addition.

Matthew 13:52. τῇ βασιλείᾳ] Elz. Scholz: εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν, Lachm.: ἐν τῇ βασιλ. (D M 42, Vulg. It. Chrys. Ir. Hil. Ambr. Aug.). Both readings appear to be explanations of τῇ βασιλ., which latter is sufficiently confirmed by the testimony of B C K Π א, Curss. Syr. Ar. Aeth. Slav. Or. Ath. Cyr. Procop.

Matthew 13:55. Ἰωσῆς] without adequate testimony, B C א** 1, 33, Copt. Syr. p. (on the margin) Syrcur It. (exc. Cant.) Vulg. Sax. Or. (twice) Eus. Jer. have Ἰωσήφ.; D E F G M S U V X Γ א*? Curss. Cant. Or. (once) have Ἰωάννης. Accordingly, with Lachm. and Tisch., we ought to prefer Ἰωσήφ as having the largest amount of testimony in its favour. See, besides, Wieseler in the Stud. u. Krit. 1840, p. 677 ff.

[447] A clear idea of the age of this erroneous addition may be obtained from the fact that it was even found in a copy of Matthew made use of by the Clementine Homilies (see Uhlhorn, Homil. u. Recogn. d. Clem. p. 119), and also from the circumstance of Porphyry’s chuckling over the Ἠσαΐου as being an error on the part of the inspired evangelist. But the weight of critical testimony is very decidedly in favour of rejecting the reading Ἠσαΐου in Matthew as spurious (in answer to Credner, Beitr. I. p. 302 ff.; Schneckenburger, p. 136, and Bleek).

Matthew 13:1-52. Ἐν δὲ τῇ ἡμ. ἐκ.] fuller detail than in Mark 4:1, which evangelist, however, describes the situation with more precision, though he likewise introduces the parable of the sower immediately after the scene with the mother and brothers (otherwise in Luke 8), and indeed as one of the many (Luke 4:2; Luke 4:33) that were spoken at that time, and thereupon proceeds in Matthew 13:26 ff. to add another having reference to sowing, which is followed again by the parable of the mustard seed, which Luke does not introduce till Matthew 13:18 ff. along with that of the leaven. But seeing that Matthew lets it be distinctly understood (Matthew 13:36) that the four first parables (on to Matthew 13:34) were spoken in presence of the multitude, and the other three again within the circle of the disciples, there is the less reason for regarding the similarity of character which runs through the seven, as recorded by Matthew, in the light of an “overwhelming” with parables (Strauss), and the less need to ascribe some of them (Keim, comp. Schenkel), and especially those of the mustard seed and the leaven, to a different period, from their being supposed to be applicable (Weizsäcker) to a later order of things. Yet, when we consider that Jesus surveyed the future of his work with a prophetic eye, we need not be at a loss to see how a parabolic address might contemplate a later state of things just as fittingly as does the Sermon on the Mount, to which this series of parables stands in the same relation as the superstructure to the foundation of a building. Comp. Ewald, who holds, however, that originally the parables stood in a somewhat different order.

ἀπὸ τ. οἰκίας] is to be taken in connection with ἔξω, Matthew 12:46, and not to be regarded as referring to no house in particular (Hilgenfeld).

Matthew 13:2. Τὸ πλοῖον] the boat standing by.

ἐπὶ τὸν αἰγιαλόν] along the shore (comp. Matthew 14:19), as in Matthew 18:12. Winer, p. 380 [E. T. 508]; Nägelsbach, note on Hom. Il. ii. 308. The expression is suited to the idea of a gathering of people extending over a considerable space.

Matthew 13:3 f. Παραβολή (Arist. Rhet. ii. 20), מָשָׁל, the narrating of an incident which, though imaginary, still falls within the sphere of natural events, with the view of thereby illustrating some truth or other (ἵνα καὶ ἐμφατικώτερον τὸν λόγον ποιήσῃ, καὶ πλείονα τὴν μνήμην ἐνθῇ, καὶ ὑπʼ ὄψιν ἀγάγῃ τὰ πράγματα, Chrysostom). See Unger, de parabolar. Jesu natura, interpretatione, usu, 1828, who gives the following definition: collatio per narratiunculam fictam, sed veri similem,[448] serio illustrans rem sublimiorem.[449] The correct canon for the interpretation of the parables is already to be found in Chrysostom on Matthew 20:1 : ΟὐΔῈ ΧΡῊ ΠΆΝΤΑ ΤᾺ ἘΝ ΤΑῖς ΠΑΡΑΒΟΛΑῖς ΚΑΤᾺ ΛΈΞΙΝ ΠΕΡΙΕΡΓΆΖΕΣΘΑΙ, ἈΛΛᾺ ΤῸΝ ΣΚΌΠΟΝ ΜΑΘΌΝΤΕς, ΔΙʼ ὋΝ ΣΥΝΕΤΈΘΗ, ΤΟῦΤΟΝ ΔΡΈΠΕΣΘΑΙ ΚΑῚ ΜΗΔῈΝ ΠΟΛΥΠΡΑΓΜΟΝΕῖΝ ΠΕΡΑΙΤΈΡΩ.

Ὁ ΣΠΕΊΡΩΝ] the sower, whom I have in view. Present participle, used as a substantive. See on Matthew 2:20. A similar parable is given in the Jerusalem Talmud Kilaim I. f. 27.

ΠΑΡᾺ Τ. ὉΔΌΝ] upon the road (which went round the edge of the field), so that it was not ploughed in or harrowed in along with the rest.

τὰ πετρώδη] the rocky parts, i.e. “saxum continuum sub terrae superficie tenui,” Bengel.

[448] To be distinguished from the fable, which, for example, may introduce animals, trees, and such like as speaking and acting. “Fabula est, in qua nec vera nec verisimiles res continentur,” Cic. invent. i. 19. So far as appears from the New Testament, Christ never made use of the fable; as little did the apostles; in the Old Testament, in Jdg 9:8 ff.

[449] Observe, moreover, that the New Testament παραβολή and מָשָׁל may mean something more comprehensive and less definite (including every description of figurative speech, Mark 3:23; Mark 4:30; Mark 7:17; Luke 4:23; Luke 5:36; Luke 6:39; Luke 14:7; Matthew 15:15; Matthew 24:32) than is implied in the above definition of the parable as a hermeneutical terminus technicus. Comp. the Johannean παροιμία (note on John 10:6). John does not use the word parable; but then he does not report any such among the sayings of Jesus, though he has a few allegories; as, for example, those of the vine and the good shepherd.

Matthew 13:6 f. Ἐκαυματ.] was scorched (Revelation 16:8 f.; Plut. Mor. p. 100 D, with reference to fever-heat).

διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ῥίζαν] Owing to the shallowness of the earth, the seed sent up shoots before the root was duly formed.

ἐπὶ τὰς ἀκάνθ.] upon the thorns (which were about to spring up there), and these grew up (ἀνέβησαν, Xen. Oec. xix. 18), shot up. Comp. Jeremiah 4:3; Theophrastus, c. pl. ii. 17. 3 : τὸ τῇ ἀκάνθῃ ἐπισπειρόμενον σπέρμα.

Matthew 13:8. Ἑκατὸν κ.τ.λ.] That grains are meant is self-evident, without our having to supply καρπούς. For the great fertility of the East, and especially of Galilee, consult Wetstein on this passage. Dougtius, Anal. II. p. 15 f.; Köster, Erläut. p. 171; Keim, II. p. 448. However, such points of detail (comp. as to ἑκατόν, Genesis 26:12) should not be pressed, serving as they do merely to enliven and fill out the picture.

Matthew 13:9-10. See on Matthew 11:15.

The parabolic discourse is resumed at Matthew 13:24, after Jesus has finished the private exposition of those already spoken, into which he was led in consequence of the question addressed to him by the disciples. The exposition was given in the boat, where it is sufficiently possible to conceive such a conversation to have taken place without the necessity of our regarding the whole situation as imaginary (Hilgenfeld), or without our having to suppose it “rather more probable” that the exposition took place after the whole series of parables was brought to a close (Keim).

Matthew 13:10. The question, which in Matthew is framed to suit the reply (Neander, Weiss, Holtzmann), appears in a different and certainly more original form (in answer to Keim) in Mark 4:10; Luke 8:9.

Matthew 13:11. Δέδοται] by God, through the unfolding, that is, of your inward powers of perception, not merely by means of the exposition (Weizsäcker, p. 413). The opposite condition, Matthew 13:13.

γνῶναι] even without the help of parabolic illustration, although previous to the outpouring of the Spirit, nay, previous to the second coming (1 Corinthians 13:9 f.), this would always be the case only to an imperfect degree.

τὰ μυστ. τ. βας. τ. οὐραν.] the secret things of the Messiah’s kingdom, things which refer to the Messiah’s kingdom. They are called μυστήρια, because their ἀποκάλυψις was now being brought about for the first time by means of the gospel. Comp. note on Romans 11:25; Romans 16:25. They are the purposes that are hid in God, which man can only know by the help of divine teaching, and which the gospel unveils.

ἐκείνοις δὲ οὐ δέδοται] is still to be connected with ὅτι (because).