Mga Komentaryo sa Bibliya

Matthew 5:45. Ὅπως γένησθε υἱοὶ, κ.τ.λ.] is commonly understood, in keeping with the ὅτι τὸν ἥλιον, κ.τ.λ., that follows, of the ethical condition of similarity to God, according to which the child of God also exhibits in himself the divine disposition and the divine conduct (Ephesians 5:1 f.). But the correct interpretation is given by Matthew 5:9, and is supported by γένησθε (for γίνεσθαι is never equivalent to εἶναι). What is meant is, as in Matthew 5:9, the obtaining of the coming salvation in the kingdom of the Messiah, which, according to the connection, as in Matthew 5:9, is designated as the future sonship of God, because the participators in the Messianic blessedness must necessarily be of the same moral nature with God as the original type of love; therefore the words that follow, and Matthew 5:48.

τοῦ ἐν οὐραν.] See on Matthew 6:9. As to the thought, comp. Seneca, de benef. Matthew 4:25 : “Si deos imitaris, da et ingratis beneficia; nam et sceleratis sol oritur, et piratis patent maria.”

ὅτι] is not equivalent to ὅς, but the simple as (for), stating that ὅπως γένησθε υἱοὶ, κ.τ.λ., is rightly said. Fritzsche here inappropriately (comp. already Bengel) drags in the usage of εἰς ἐκεῖνο ὅτι (see on John 2:18; John 9:17, etc).

ἀνατέλλει] transitive, Hom. Il. v. 777; Pind. Isthm. vi. 5, v. 111; Soph. Phil. 1123; Diod. Sic. xvii. 7; LXX. Genesis 3:18; Sir 37:17; Clem. Cor. I. 20.

τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ] “Magnifica appellatio; ipse et fecit solem et gubernat et habet in sua unius potestate” (Bengel). The goodness of God towards His enemies (sinners) Jesus makes His believers feel by the experimental proof of His all good administration in nature—a proof which, like every one derived a posteriori in favour of a single divine attribute, is, on account of opposing experiences (God also destroys the good and the evil through natural manifestations), in itself insufficient, but, in popular instruction, has its proper place, and is of assured efficacy, with the same right as the special consideration of individual divine attributes in general.

Matthew 5:46. Argumentum e contrario in favour of the command to love one’s enemy; for the mere love of one’s friend belongs to no higher stage of moral life than that of the publicans and heathens.

In what follows neither is a μόνον to be supplied after τοὺς ἀγαπ. ὑμᾶς, nor is ἔχετε to be taken for ἕξετε (both in answer to Kuinoel and others). Jesus opposes the doctrine, “Love them who love you,” and views the reward, as in Matthew 5:12; Matthew 6:1, as a possession, preserved in heaven with God, to be realized in the kingdom of the future.

οἱ τελῶναι] the tax-gatherers (partly natives, partly Romans), who were employed in the service of the Roman knights, who farmed the revenues. They were generally greatly hated amongst the Jews on account of their severity and avarice, especially, however, for being the servants of the Roman power. Wetstein on the passage; Keim, II. p. 217 f.

Matthew 5:47. And if ye shall have welcomed your brethren alone (saluted them lovingly), what special thing have you done? The conception, “to act in a friendly manner” (Luther, Tholuck, Bleek, Hofmann), is not the significatio, but certainly the adsignificatio of ἀσπάζεσθαι, as often in classic writers. Comp. ἀσπάζεσθαι καὶ φιλεῖν, Stallbaum, ad Plat. Ap. p. 29 D, and Rep. 499 A.

τοὺς ἀδελφ. ὑμῶν μόνον] is not to be limited to the members of families and other close associations (Tholuck and others), as was already done by the reading φίλους, approved of by Griesbach; but it refers to the members of the nation, and applies to the national particularism of the Jews; consequently the national antithesis is οἱ ἐθνικοί. Comp. Bleek.

τί περισσόν] what preference? what distinguishes you above others, “ut decet filios Dei,” Bengel. Comp. Romans 3:1; Soph. O. R. 841. Instead of τί περισσόν, Justin, Apol. i. 15, quotes τί καινόν, which substantially agrees with τί περισσόν, and belongs only to another form of the idea, not to a higher point of view (Hilgenfeld). See Ritschl in the Theol. Jahrb. 1851, p. 490 f.

Matthew 5:48. Ἔσεσθε] imperatively.

οὖν) draws a deduction from Matthew 5:44-47, where the emphatic ὑμεῖς forms the sublime antithesis to the last-mentioned publicans and heathens. The highest summary of the unending obligation of Christian love.

τέλειοι] ἐν μηδενὶ λειπόμενοι, Jam 1:4. Euth. Zigabenus well remarks: οἱ μὲν ἀγαπῶντες τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας αὐτοὺς ἀτελεῖς εἰσιν εἰς ἀλάπην: οἱ δὲ τοὺς ἐχθροὺς, οὗτοι τέλειοι. Comp. Luther: “after the example of the heavenly Father, who does not piece nor divide His love,” and already Ignatius, ad Philad., interpol. 3. Thus the closing admonition stands in close relation to what precedes. Others (Beza, Fritzsche, Kuinoel, Ewald, who also regards Matthew 7:12 as originally belonging to this passage): integri, sine vitiis in general, without exclusive reference to the commandment of love. They consider the verse as the top-stone of the whole discourse, directed from Matthew 5:20 onwards against the Pharisees. But this anti-Pharisaic tendency is still continued also in ch. 6, and the pointing to the example of God would at least not be appropriate to Matthew 6:27 ff. and to Matthew 6:31 ff.

ὥσπερ] equality of the moral modality, Matthew 5:45, by which the relation of the adequate degree is not required, and yet the ideal task, the obligation of which is never exhausted (Romans 13:8 ff.), is for ever made sure. Observe, moreover, how this ὥσπερ corresponds, indeed, to the Platonic conception of virtue (ὁμοιοῦσθαι τῷ θεῷ); the latter, however, is surpassed, on the one side, by the specific requirement of love as similarity to God; and, on the other, by the idea of God as the heavenly Father.

CHAPTER 6

Matthew 6:1. After προσέχ. Tisch. inserts δέ, no doubt only in conformity with L Z א, Curss. Verss.; yet correctly, inasmuch as δέ would be readily omitted from its coming immediately after the syllable TE, and from its reference not being noticed.

δικαιοσύνην] Elz. Matth. Scholz have ἐλεημοσύνην, against B D א, 1, 209, 217, It. (Brix. excepted) Vulg. Or. and some other Fathers. A false gloss.

Matthew 6:4. αὐτός] not found in B K L U Z א, Curss. Vulg. It. Copt. Syrcur and several Fathers. It seemed superfluous, and was accordingly omitted, and that all the more readily that it is likewise wanting in Matthew 6:6; Matthew 6:18. Cancelled by Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. 8.

σοι] Elz. Griesb. Matth. Scholz add ἐν τῷ φανερῷ, which is not found in B D Z א, Curss. Codd. gr. in Aug. Syrcur Copt. Vulg. and several Fathers. Also in the case of Matthew 6:6, the testimonies in favour of omitting are essentially the same; while, as regards Matthew 6:18, the testimony for excluding is far more decided. It should be retained in Matthew 6:4; Matthew 6:6, but in Matthew 6:18 it is an interpolation, and ought to be deleted.[418]

Matthew 6:5. προσεύχῃ, οὐκ ἔσῃ] Lachm. and Tisch.: προσεύχησθε, οὐκ ἔσεσθε, after B Z, 1, 22, 116, Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Goth. It. Vulg. Or. Chrys. Aug. Correctly; the singular was occasioned by the use of that number in what precedes and follows. א has προσεύχῃ οὐκ ἔσεσθε; see, however, Tisch. on Cod. א.

Matthew 6:12. ἀφίεμεν] D E L Δ Π, 157, 253, Ev. 26 : ἀφίομεν; B Z א*, 1, 124 (on the margin), Harl. For. Or. Nyss. Bass.: ἀφήκαμεν. So Lachm. and Tisch. The latter is to be adopted. The reading of the Received text and ἀφίομεν are from Luke 11:4, into which, again, as quoted in Origen (once), ἀφήκαμεν has found its way from our present passage.

Matthew 6:13. πονηροῦ] Elz. Matth. add the doxology: ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, Ἀμήν. Against a preponderance of testimony, and contrary to the whole connection with Matthew 6:14 f. A very old (Syr.) addition from the liturgy; one, however, that has assumed a variety of forms.

Matthew 6:15. τὰ παραπτ. αὐτῶν] is correctly deleted by Tisch. It is wanting in D א, Curss. Vulg. It. Syr. Aug., and how easy was it mechanically to insert it as a supplement from Matthew 6:14!

Matthew 6:18. σοι] Elz. Fritzsche add ἐν τῷ φανερῷ; see on Matthew 6:4.

Instead of κρυπτῷ, Lachm. and Tisch., in both instances, have κρυφαίῳ, after B D א, 1, 22; correctly, seeing that κρυπτῷ is the common reading, and derived from Matthew 6:4; Matthew 6:6.

Matthew 6:21. Instead of ὑμῶν, B א, 1, 128, and important Verss. and Fathers, have σου both times, which Griesb. has recommended, and Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have adopted. Correctly; ὑμῶν is taken from Luke 12:34.

Matthew 6:22. After the first ὀφθαλμός Lachm. has σου, only after B, Vulg. Aeth. Codd. It. Or. Hil. Taken from the one which fallows. Then in what comes next Lachm. places the ᾖ immediately after οὖν, only according to B. In א and several Verss. and Fathers οὖν is omitted; deleted by Tisch. 8, against decisive testimony. Coming as it does after ἐάν, it might easily be left out through an oversight on the part of the transcriber.

Matthew 6:25. καὶ τί] Fritzsche, Lachm. ἢ τί, according to B, Curss. and a few Verss. and Fathers. Too inadequate testimony. א Curss. Verss. and Fathers, who are followed by Tisch. 8, omit καὶ τί πίητε altogether. In conformity with Luke 12:22.

Matthew 6:28. Instead of αὐξάνει, κοπιᾷ, and νήθει, Lachm. and Tisch. have the plurals, after B א, Curss. Ath. Chrys. Correctly. See Luke 12:27. Likewise in Matthew 6:32, where Lachm. and Tisch. have ἘΠΙΖΗΤΟῦΣΙΝ, the sing, is used to conform with Luke 12:30.

Matthew 6:33. Τ. ΒΑς. Τ. ΘΕΟῦ Κ. Τ. ΔΙΚΑΙΟς. ΑὐΤΟῦ] Lachm.: Τ. ΔΙΚΑΙΟς. ΚΑῚ ΤῊΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑΝ ΑὐΤΟῦ, only after B. In א, Τ. ΘΕΟῦ is wanting; and its omission, in which Tisch. 8 concurs, is favoured by the testimony of the reading in B. Several Verss. and Fathers also leave out Τ. ΘΕΟῦ, which, as being a supplement, ought to be deleted. The testimony is decisive, however, in favour of putting Τ. ΒΑς. first.

Matthew 6:34. ΤᾺ ἙΑΥΤῆς] Lachm. and Tisch. have merely ἙΑΥΤῆς, according to important. testimony. Correctly; from the genitive not being understood, it was attempted to explain it by means of ΤΆ, and in other ways (ΠΕΡῚ ἙΑΥΤῆς, ἙΑΥΤΉΝ, ἙΑΥΤῇ).

[418] Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted ἐν τῷ φανερῷ in all the three passages; in ver. 18 it is also erased by Griesb. Matth. and Scholz.

Matthew 6:1. Connection: However (προσέχετε δέ, be upon your guard), to those doctrines and prescriptions regarding the true δικαιοσύνη, I must add a warning with reference to the practice of it (ποιεῖν, 1 John 3:7). This warning, stated in general terms in Matthew 6:1, is then specially applied in Matthew 6:2 to almsgiving, in Matthew 6:5 to prayer, and in Matthew 6:16 to fasting. Accordingly δικαιοσύνη is righteousness generally (Matthew 5:6; Matthew 5:10; Matthew 5:20), and not benevolence specially, which, besides, it never means, not even in 2 Corinthians 9:10, any more than צרקה (not even in Proverbs 10:2; Proverbs 11:4; Daniel 4:24), which in the LXX., and that more frequently by way of interpretation, is rendered by ἐλεημοσύνη, in which the δικαιοσύνη manifests itself by acts of charity; comp. Tob 2:14; Tob 12:9.

On εἰ δὲ μήγε, after which we are here to supply προσέχετε τὴν δικαιοσύν. ὑμ. μὴ ποιεῖν, etc., see on 2 Corinthians 11:16.

μισθὸν … οὐρανοῖς] See on Matthew 5:12; Matthew 5:46.

Matthew 6:2. Μὴ σαλπίσῃς] do not sound a trumpet, metaphorically: make no noise and display with it (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus). Comp. Achill. Tat. viii. p. 507; Cic. ad Div. xvi. 21 : “te buccinatorem fore existimationis meae.” Prudent, de Symmach. ii. 68. Here ἔμπρ. refers to the idea of a person sounding a trumpet, which he holds up to his mouth. Others (Calvin, Calovius, Wolf, Paulus, also τινές referred to by Euth. Zigabenus) render: cause not a trumpet to be sounded before thee. They think that, in order to make a display, the Pharisees had actually made the poor assemble together by the blowing of trumpets. But the expression itself is as decidedly incompatible with this extraordinary explanation as it is with the notion that what is meant (Homberg, Schoettgen) is the sound produced by the clinking of the money, dropped into the alleged trumpet-like chests in the temple (see on Mark 12:41), and this notwithstanding that it is added, ἐν τ. συναγ. κ. ἐν τ. ῥύμ. On the injunction generally, comp. Babyl. Chagig. f. v. 1 : “R. Jannai vidit quendam nummum pauperi dantem palam; cui dixit: praestat non dedisse, quam sic dedisse.” In the synagogues it was the practice to collect the alms on the Sabbath; Lightfoot and Wetstein on this passage.

ὑποκριταί] in classical writers means actors; in the New Testament, hypocrites. “Hypocrisis est mixtura malitiae cum specie bonitatis,” Bengel.

ἀπέχουσι … αὐτε͂ν] inasmuch as they have already attained what was the sole object of their liberality, popular applause, and therefore have nothing more to expect. ἀπέχειν, to have obtained, to have fully received. See on Php 4:18.

Matthew 6:3. Σοῦ δέ] in emphatic contrast to hypocrites.

μὴ γνώτω ἡ ἀριστερά σου, κ.τ.λ.] The right hand gives, let not the left hand know it. Proverbial way of expressing entire freedom from the claiming anything like self-laudation. For sayings of a similar kind among the Fathers, see Suicer, Thes. I. p. 508. De Wette, following Paulus, thinks that what is referred to is the counting of the money into the left hand before it is given away with the right. This is out of place, for the warning is directed, not against a narrow calculating, but against an ostentatious almsgiving. For the same reason we must object to the view of Luther, who says: “When you are giving alms with the right hand, see that you are not seeking to receive more with the left, but rather put it behind your back,” and so on.