Mga Komentaryo sa Bibliya

Matthew 28:12 ff. Συναχθέντες] Change of subject. Winer, p. 586 [E. T. 787].

συμβούλ. τε λαβόντες] after consulting together, as in Matthew 12:14, Matthew 22:15, Matthew 27:1; Matthew 27:7. The conjunctive particle τε has the same force as in Matthew 27:48, and occurs nowhere else in Matthew; found so much the more frequently in Luke’s writings, especially in the Acts.

ἀργύρια] as in Matthew 26:15, Matthew 27:3; Matthew 27:5; Matthew 27:9. Silver pieces, a sufficient number of shekels.

εἴπατε, κ.τ.λ.] an infelix astutia (Augustine), seeing that they could not possibly know what had taken place while they were sleeping.

Matthew 28:14. ἐπὶ τοῦ ἡγεμόνος] coram procuratore. ἀκούειν is not to be understood, with the majority of expositors, merely in the sense of: to come to the ears of, which is inadmissible on account of ἐπί (for in that case Matthew would have simply written: καὶ ἐὰν ἀκούσῃ τοῦτο ὁ ἡγ, or used the passive with the dative), but in the judicial sense (John 7:51; Xen. Cyrop. i. 2. 14, and frequently): if this comes to be inquired into, if an investigation into this matter should take place before the procurator. Erasmus: “si res apud illum judicem agatur.” Comp. Vatablus and Bleek.

ἡμεῖς] with a self-important emphasis. Comp. ὑμᾶς in the next clause.

πείσομεν αὐτόν] we will persuade him, i.e. satisfy, appease him (see on Galatians 1:10), in order, that is, that he may not punish you; see what follows.

ἀμερίμνους] free from all concern (1 Corinthians 7:32), and, in the present instance, in the objective sense: free from danger and all unpleasant consequences (Herodian, ii. 4. 3).

Matthew 28:15. ὡς ἐδιδάχθ.] as they had been instructed, Herod. iii. 134.

ὁ λόγος οὗτος] not: “the whole narrative” (Paulus), but, as the context requires (Matthew 28:13), this story of the alleged stealing of the body. The industrious circulation of this falsehood is also mentioned by Justin, c. Tr. xvii. 108. For an abominable expansion of it, as quoted from the Toledoth Jeschu, see Eisenmenger’s entdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 190 ff. For ἡ σήμερον ἡμέρα, see Lobeck, Paral. p. 534.

Matthew 28:16 The eleven disciples, in accordance with the directions given them, Matthew 28:10, proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain, etc.

οὗ ἐτάξατο, κ.τ.λ.] an additional particular as to the locality in question, which the women received, Matthew 28:10, and had subsequently communicated to the disciples. The οὗ, ubi, is to be regarded as also including the preceding whither (to go and abide there), Luke 10:1; Luke 22:10; Luke 24:28; Winer, p. 439 f. [E. T. 592]; Kühner, II. 1, p. 473.

Matthew 28:17 Ἰδόντες, κ.τ.λ.] According to the account now before us, evidently the first occasion of meeting again since the resurrection, and the first impression produced by it—corresponding to the ὄψεσθε of Matthew 28:7; Matthew 28:10. See, besides, on Matthew 28:10.

οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν] It was previously said in a general way that the eleven fell prostrate before Him, though all did not do so: some doubted whether He, whom they saw before them, could really be Jesus. This particular is added by means of οἱ δέ, which, however, is not preceded by a corresponding οἱ μέν before προσεκύνησαν, because this latter applied to the majority, whereas the doubters, who did not prostrate themselves, were only the exception. Had Matthew’s words been: οἱ μὲν προσεκύνησαν, οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν, he would thus have represented the eleven as divided into two co-ordinate parts, into as nearly as possible two halves, and so have stated something different from what was intended. This is a case precisely similar to that of the οἱ δὲ ἐῤῥάπισαν of Matthew 26:67, where, in like manner, the preceding ἐκολάφισαν αὐτόν (without οἱ μέν) represents what was done by the majority. “Quibus in locis primum universa res ponitur, deinde partitio nascitur, quae ostendit, priora quoque verba non de universa causa jam accipi posse,” Klotz, ad Devar. p. 358. Comp. Xen. Hell. i. 2. 14 : ᾤχοντο ἐς Δεκέλειαν, οἱ δʼ ἐς Μέγαρα; Cyrop. iv. 5. 46: ὁρᾶτε ἵππους, ὅσοι ἡμῖν πάρεισιν, οἱ δὲ προσάγονται, and the passages in Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 1160; Kühner, II. 2, p. 808. According to Fritzsche, a preceding οἱ μὲν οὐκ ἐδίστασαν should be understood. This, however, is purely arbitrary, for the ἐδίστασαν has its appropriate correlative already in the preceding προσεκύνησαν. Again, as matter of course, we must not think of predicating the προσεκύνησαν of the doubters as well, which would be psychologically absurd (only after his doubts were overcome, did Thomas exclaim: ὁ κυριός μου κ. ὁ θεός μου!). Fritzsche (comp. Theophylact, Grotius, and Markland in Eur. Suppl. p. 326) attempts to obviate this objection by understanding ἐδίστασαν in a pluperfect sense (they had doubted before they saw Jesus); an expedient, however, of the same arbitrary nature as before (comp. on John 18:24), and such as no reader of our passage (with προσεκύνησαν before him) would have suspected to be at all necessary. Others, in spite of the plain and explicit statements of Matthew, and in order to free the eleven from the imputation of doubt, have here turned to account the five hundred brethren, 1 Corinthians 15:6 (Calovius, Michaelis, Ebrard, Lange), or the seventy disciples (Kuinoel), and attributed the ἐδίστασαν to certain of these! Others, again, have resorted to conjecture; Beza, for example, thinks that for οἱ δέ we might read οὐδέ; Bornemann, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 126 (comp. Schleusner), suggests: οἱ δὲ διέστασαν (some fell prostrate, the others started back from each other with astonishment). The doubting itself on the part of the disciples (comp. Luke 24:31; Luke 24:37; Luke 24:41; John 20:19; John 20:26) is not to be explained by the supposition of an already glorified state of the body (following the Fathers, Olshausen, Glöckler, Krabbe, Kühn, wie ging Chr. durch d. Grabes Thür? 1838; comp. Kinkel’s unscriptural idea of a repeated ascension to heaven, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1841, p. 597 ff.), for after His resurrection Christ still retained His material bodily organism, as the evangelists are at some pains to remind us (Luke 24:39-43; John 20:20; John 20:27; John 21:5; comp. also Acts 1:21 f., Matthew 10:41). At the same time, it is not enough to appeal to the fact that “nothing that was subject to death any longer adhered to the living One” (Hase), but, in accordance with the evangelic accounts of the appearing and sudden vanishing of the risen Lord, and of the whole relation in which He stood to His disciples and His disciples to Him, we must assume some change in the bodily organism and outward aspect of Jesus, a mysterious transformation of His whole person, an intermediate phase of existence between the bodily nature as formerly existing and the glorified state into which He passed at the moment of the ascension,—a phase of existence, however, of which it is impossible for us to form any distinct conception, for this is a case where analogy and experience alike fail us. His body did not retain, as did those of Jairus’ daughter, the young man of Nain, and Lazarus, exactly the same essential nature as belonged to it before death, but still it was not as yet the σῶμα τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ (Php 3:21), though it was certainly immortal, a fact which of itself would necessarily involve the very essential change which came over it; comp. also Bleek.

Matthew 28:18.[41] Προσελθών] From feelings of modesty and reverence, the eleven had not ventured to go quite close to Him.

ἘΔΌΘΗ] with all the emphasis of the conviction that He was triumphant at last: was given to me, etc., was practically given, that is, when the Father awoke me out of death. Thereby His state of humiliation came to an end, and the resurrection was the turning-point at which Christ entered into the heavenly glory, in which He is to reign as κύριος πάντων till the time of the final surrender of His sway into the hands of the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28). It is true, no doubt, that when first sent forth by God He was invested with the ἘΞΟΥΣΊΑ over all things (Matthew 11:27; John 13:3); but in His state of ΚΈΝΩΣΙς it would, of necessity, come to be limited by the conditions of that human life into which He had descended. With His resurrection, however, this limitation was removed, and His ἘΞΟΥΣΊΑ fully and absolutely restored, so that He once more came into complete possession of His premundane ΔΌΞΑ (John 17:5; Luke 24:26; Php 2:9 f.; Romans 14:9; Ephesians 1:20 ff; Ephesians 4:10; 1 Corinthians 15:25 ff.), the ΔΌΞΑ in which He had existed as the ΛΌΓΟς ἌΣΑΡΚΟς, and to which He was again exalted as the glorified Son of man. Comp. on John 1:14.

ΠᾶΣΑ ἘΞΟΥΣΊΑ] all authority, nothing being excepted either in heaven or earth which can be referred to the category of ἐξουσία. Some, unwarrantably interpreting in a rationalistic sense, have understood this to mean the “potestas animis hominum per doctrinam imperandi” (Kuinoel),—or, as Keim expresses it, the handing over to Him of all spirits to be His instruments in carrying out His purposes in the world,—or absolute power to make all necessary arrangements for the establishment of the Messianic theocracy (Paulus), or power over the whole world of humanity with a view to its redemption (Volkmar), and such like. What is really meant, however, is the munus regium of Christ, free from all limitation, without, however, compromising in any way the absolute supremacy of the Father; John 14:28; 1 Corinthians 15:27; 1 Corinthians 11:3.

[41] Comp. for ver. 18 ff., Theod. Schott in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1871, p. 1 ff.

Matthew 28:19 The οὖν of the Received text (see the critical remarks) is a gloss correctly representing the connection of the thoughts. The fact stated in Matthew 28:18 is itself the reason why all nations should be brought under His government, and made subject to His sway by means of the μαθητεύειν, etc.

μαθητεύσατε] make them my μαθηταί (John 4:1); comp. Matthew 13:52; Acts 14:21. This transitive use of the verb is not met with in classical Greek. Observe how here every one who becomes a believer is conceived of as standing to Christ in the personal relation of a μαθητής, in accordance with which view the term came to be applied to Christians generally.

πάντα τὰ ἔθνη] all nations without exception, Matthew 25:32, Matthew 24:14, Matthew 26:13. With these words—and this is the new feature in the present instructions—the previous prohibition, Matthew 10:5, was cancelled, and the apostolic mission declared to be a mission to the whole world. On this occasion Jesus makes no mention of any particular condition on which Gentiles were to be admitted into the church, says nothing about whether it was or was not necessary that they should in the first instance become Jewish proselytes (Acts 15:1; Galatians 2:1), though He certainly meant that it was not necessary; and hence, because of this omission, the difficulty which the apostles had at first about directly and unconditionally admitting the Gentiles. If this latter circumstance had been borne in mind, it could hardly have been asserted, as it has been, that the special revelation from heaven, for the purpose of removing the scruples in question, Acts 10, tells against the authenticity of the commission recorded in our passage (in answer to Credner, Einleit. I. p. 203; Strauss, Keim).

βαπτίζοντες, κ.τ.λ.] in which the μαθητεύειν is to be consummated, not something that must be done after the μαθητεύσατε (Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 164; comp. also, on the other hand, Theod. Schott, p. 18), as though our passage ran thus, μαθητεύσαντες … βαπτίζετε. Besides, that the phrase βαπτίζοντες κ.τ.λ. did not require in every case the performance of the ceremony by the apostles themselves, was distinctly manifest to them in the discharge of their functions even from the first (Acts 2:41). Comp. also 1 Corinthians 1:17.

βαπτίζειν εἰς] means to baptize with reference to. The particular object to which the baptism has reference is to be gathered from the context. See on Romans 6:3, and thereon Fritzsche, I. p. 359; comp. also on 1 Corinthians 10:2. Here, where the βαπτίζειν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα is regarded as that through which the μαθητεύειν is operated, and through which, accordingly, the introduction into spiritual fellowship with, and ethical dependence upon Christ is brought about, it must be understood as denoting that by baptism the believer passes into that new phase of life in which he accepts the name of the Father (of Christ) and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit as the sum of his creed and confession, τὸ ὄνομα, because it is precisely the name of him who is confessed that expresses his whole specific relation considered by itself, and with reference to him who confesses, and accordingly the three names, “Father, Son, and Spirit,” are to be understood as expressing the sum-total of the distinctive confession which the individual to be baptized is to accept as his both now and for all time coming.[42] Consequently the Corinthians were not baptized εἰς τὸ ὄνομα Παύλου (1 Corinthians 1:13), because it was not the name “Paul,” but the name “Christ,” that was to constitute the sum of their creed and their confession. For a similar reason, when the Samaritans circumcised, they did so לשם הל גדיזים (see Schöttgen on the passage), because the name “Gerizim” represented the specific point in their distintive creed and confession (their shibboleth). The dedication of the believer to the Father, etc., is of course to be regarded as practically taking place in the course of the ΒΑΠΤΊΖΕΙΝ ΕἸς ΤῸ ὌΝΟΜΑ Κ.Τ.Λ.; for though this is not directly intimated by the words themselves (in opposition to Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 163; Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u. Werk, III. 2, p. 12), it is implied in the act of baptism, and could have been expressed by the simple use of εἰς (without ΤῸ ὌΝΟΜΑ), as in 1 Corinthians 10:2; Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27. Further, ΕἸς ΤῸ ὌΝΟΜΑ is not to be taken as equivalent to ΕἸς ΤῸ ὈΝΟΜΆΖΕΙΝ (Francke in the Sächs. Stud. 1846, p. 11 ff.), as though the meaning of the baptism consisted merely in calling God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Spirit the Holy Spirit. Such a view certainly could not apply in the last-mentioned case, for, like Father and Son, ΤῸ ΠΝΕῦΜΑ ἍΓΙΟΝ must be understood to be a specifically Christian designation of the Spirit, ΤῸ ὌΝΟΜΑ is rather intended to indicate the essential nature of the Persons or Beings to whom the baptism has reference, that nature being revealed in the gospel, then expressed in the name of each Person respectively, and finally made the subject of the Christian’s confession and creed. Finally, in opposition to the utterly erroneous view of Bindseil (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1832, p. 410 ff.), that ΒΑΠΤΊΖΕΙΝ ΕἸς ΤῸ ὌΝΟΜΑ means: to lead to the adoption of the name through baptism, i.e. to get the person who is to be baptized to call himself after the particular name or names in question, see Fritzsche as above. But as for the view of Weisse (Evangelienfr. p. 186 f.) and of Volkmar, p. 629, as well, that Christ’s commission to baptize is entirely unhistorical, it is only of a piece with their denial of the actual bodily resurrection of Jesus. Ewald, too (Gesch. d. Apost. Zeit. p. 180), is disposed to trace the origin of the commission to the inner world of a later apostolic consciousness.

It is a mistake to speak of our passage as the formula of baptism;[43] for Jesus is not to be understood as merely repeating the words that were to be employed on baptismal occasions (and accordingly no trace of any such use of the words is found in the apostolic age; comp. on the contrary, the simple expression: βαπτίζειν εἰς Χριστόν, Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27; ΒΑΠΤΊΖΕΙΝ ΕἸς ΤῸ ὌΝΟΜΑ, Χ., Acts 8:16, and ἘΠῚ Τῷ ὈΝΌΜ. Χ., Acts 2:38), but as indicating the particular aim and meaning of the act of baptism. See Reiche, de baptism, orig., etc., 1816, p. 141 ff. The formula of baptism (for it was so styled as early as the time of Tertullian, de bapt. 13), which in its strictly literal sense has no bearing whatever upon the essence of the sacrament (Höfling, I. p. 40 ff.), was constructed out of the words of the text at a subsequent period (see already Justin, Ap. 1:61), as was also the case, at a still later period, with regard to the baptismal confession of the three articles (see Köllner, Symbol. d. Luth. K. p. 14 ff.). There is therefore nothing here to justify those who question the genuineness of our passage (Teller, Exc. 2, ad Burnet de fide et officiis Christianorum, 1786, p. 262; see, on the other hand, Beckhaus, Aechth. d. s. g. Taufformel, 1794), or those who of late have doubted its originality, at least in the form in which it has come down to us (Strauss, Bruno Bauer, de Wette, Wittichen in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1862, p. 336; Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, Scholten, Keim), and that because, forsooth, they have professed to see in it a ὕστερον πρότερον. Exception has been taken, again, partly to the ΠΆΝΤΑ ΤᾺ ἜΘΝΗ, though it is just in these words that we find the broader and more comprehensive spirit that characterized, as might be expected, our Lord’s farewell commission, and partly to the “studied summary” (de Wette) of the New Testament doctrine of the Trinity. But surely if there was one time more than another when careful reflection was called for, it was now, when, in the course of this calm and solemn address, the risen Redeemer was endeavouring to seize the whole essence of the Christian faith in its three great leading elements as represented by the three substantially co-equal persons of the Godhead with a view to its being adopted as a constant ΣΗΜΕῖΟΝ to be used by the disciples when they went forth to proclaim the gospel (Chrysostom: ΠᾶΣΑΝ ΣΎΝΤΟΜΟΝ ΔΙΔΑΣΚΑΛΊΑΝ ἘΓΧΕῚΡΗΣΑς ΤῊΝ ΔΙᾺ ΤΟῦ ΒΑΠΤΊΣΜΑΤΟς). The conjecture put forward by Keim, III. p. 286 f., that Jesus instituted baptism—though without any specific reference to all nations—on the night of the last supper, to serve the purpose of a second visible sign of His continued fellowship with the church after His departure from the world, is inadmissible, because there is no trace of this in the text, and because, had such a contemporaneous institution of the two sacraments taken place, it would have made so deep an impression that it could never have been forgotten, to say nothing of the impossibility of reconciling such a view with John 4:1 f.

[42] Had Jesus used the words τὰ ὀνόματα instead of τὸ ὄνομα, then, however much He may have intended the names of three distinct persons to be understood, He would still have been liable to be misapprehended, for it might have been supposed that the plural was meant to refer to the various names of each separate person. The singular points to the specific name assigned in the text to each of the three respectively, so that εἰς τὸ ὄνομα is, of course, to be understood both before τοῦ υἱοῦ and τοῦ ἁυίου πνεύματος; comp. Revelation 14:1 : τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ. We must beware of making any such dogmatic use of the singular as to employ it as an argument either for (Basilides, Jerome, Theophylact) or against (the Sabellians) the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. We should be equally on our guard against the view of Gess, who holds that Christ abstained from using the words “of God the Father,” etc., because he considers the designation God to belong to the Son and the Holy Spirit as well. Such a dogmatic idea was not at all likely to be present to His mind upon an occasion of leave-taking like the present, any more than was the thing itself on which the idea is supposed to be based, for He was never known to claim the name ειός either for Himself or for the Holy Spirit. Still the New Testament, i.e. the Subordinatian, view of the Trinity as constituting the summary of the Christian creed and confession lies at the root of this whole phraseology.—Observe, further, that the baptismal formula: “in nomine,” and: “in the name,” rests entirely on a mistranslation on the part of the Itala and Vulgate, so that there is accordingly no ground for the idea, adopted from the older expositors, that the person who baptizes acts as Christ’s representative (Sengelmann in the Zeitschr. f. Protestantism. 1856, p. 341 ff.), neither is this view countenanced by Acts 10:48. Tertullian (de bapt. 13) gives the correct rendering in nomen, though as early as the time of Cyprian (Ep. lxxiii. 5) in nomine is met with. The practice of dipping three times dates very far back (being vouched for even by Tertullian), but cannot be traced to the apostolic age.

[43] It is no less erroneous to suppose that our passage represents the first institution of baptism. For long before this the disciples had been baptizing in obedience to the instructions of Jesus, as may be seen from John 4:1 f., where baptism by the disciples is spoken of as tantamount to baptism by Jesus Himself, and where again there is as little reason to suppose the mere continuation of the baptism of John to be meant as there is in the case of our present passage (John 3:5). In the passage before us we have the same commission as that just referred to, only with this difference, that it is now extended so as to apply to all nations. This at once disposes of the question as to whether baptism should not occupy merely a secondary place as a sacrament (Laufs in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 215 ff.). Comp. also, on the other hand, 1 Corinthians 10:1-3, where there is an unmistakeable reference to baptism and the Lord’s Supper as the two great and equally important sacraments of the Christian church. Of these two, however, it is clearly not the Lord’s Supper, but baptism, on which the greatest stress is laid as forming the divine constituent factor in the work of redemption, and that above all in the Epistles of Paul, in which the only instance of anything like a full treatment of the subject of the Lord’s Supper is that of First Corinthians, and even then it is of a somewhat incidental character.

Matthew 28:20 Διδάσκοντες αὐτούς, κ.τ.λ.] without being conjoined by καί, therefore not co-ordinate with, but subordinate to the βαπτίζοντες, intimating that a certain ethical teaching must necessarily accompany in every case the administration of baptism: while ye teach them to observe everything, etc. This moral instruction must not be omittedFN[44] when you baptize, but it must be regarded as an essential part of the ordinance. That being the case, infant baptism cannot possibly have been contemplated in βαπτίζ, nor, of course, in πάντα τ. ἔθνη either.

καὶ ἰδοὺ, κ.τ.λ.] Encouragement to execute the commission entrusted to them, Matthew 28:19.

ἐγώ] with strong emphasis: I who am invested with that high ἐξουσία to which I have just referred.

μεθʼ ὑμῶν εἰμι] namely, through the working of that power which has been committed to me, Matthew 28:18, and with which I will continue to protect, support, strengthen you, etc. Comp. Acts 18:10; 2 Corinthians 12:9-10. The ὑμεῖς are the disciples to whom the Lord is speaking, not the church; the present tense (not ἔσομαι) points to the fact of His having now entered, and that permanently, into His estate of exaltation. The promised help itself, however, is that vouchsafed by the glorified Redeemer in order to the carrying out of His own work (Php 3:21; Php 4:13; Colossians 1:29; 2 Corinthians 12:9), imparted through the medium of the Spirit (John 14-16), which is regarded as the Spirit of Christ (see on Romans 8:9), and sometimes manifesting itself also in signs and wonders (Mark 16:20; Romans 15:19; 2 Corinthians 12:12; Hebrews 2:14), in visions and revelations (2 Corinthians 12:1; Acts 12:17). But in connection with this matter (comp. on Matthew 18:20) we must discard entirely the unscriptural idea of a substantial ubiquity (in opposition to Luther, Calovius, Philippi). Beza well observes: “Ut qui corpore est absens, virtute tamen sit totus praesentissimus.”

πάσας τ. ἡμέρ.] all the days that were still to elapse ἕως τ. συντελ. τοῦ αἰῶνος, i.e. until the close of the current age (see on Matthew 24:3), which would be coincident with the second advent, and after the gospel had been proclaimed throughout the whole world (Matthew 24:14); “continua praesentia,” Bengel.

[44] N1 Οὐκ ἀρκεῖ υὰρ τὸ βάπτισμα καὶ τὰ δόυματα πρὸς σωτηρίαν, εἰ μὴ καὶ πολιτεία προσείη, Euthymius Zigabenus, who thus admirably points out that what is meant by διδάσκοντες, κ.τ.λ., is not the teaching of the gospel with a view to conversion. The ἀκοὴ πίστεως (Galatians 3:2) and the πίστις ἐξ ἀκοῆς (Romans 10:17) are understood, as a matter of course, to have preceded the baptism. Comp. Theodor Schott, who, however, without being justified by anything in the text, is disposed to restrict the ὅσα ἰνεσειλάμ. ὑμῖν, on the one hand, to the instructions contained in the farewell addresses (from the night before the crucifixion on to the ascension), and τηρεῖν, on the other, to a faithful observance on the part of the convert of what he already knew. Comp., on the contrary, Matthew 19:17; John 14:15; John 14:21; John 15:10; 1 Timothy 6:14; 1 John 2:3 f., 1 John 3:22 f., 1 John 5:2 f.; Revelation 12:17; Revelation 14:12; Sir 29:1, in all which passages τηρεῖν τὰς ἐντολάς means observe, i.e. to obey, the commandments. Admirable, however, is the comment of Bengel: “Ut baptizatis convenit, fidei virtute.”

REMARK 1.

According to John 21:14, the Lord’s appearance at the sea of Tiberias, John 21, which Matthew not only omits, but which he does not seem to have been aware of (see on Matthew 28:10), must have preceded that referred to in our passage.

REMARK 2.

Matthew makes no mention of the return of Jesus and His disciples to Judaea, or of the ascension from the Mount of Olives; he follows a tradition in which those two facts had not yet found a place, just as they appear to have been likewise omitted in the lost conclusion of Mark; then it so happened that the apostolic λόγια terminated with our Lord's parting address, Matthew 28:19 f. We must beware of imputing to the evangelist any subjective motive for making no mention of any other appearance but that which took place on the mountain in Galilee; for had he omitted and recorded events in this arbitrary fashion, and merely as he thought fit, and that, too, when dealing with the sublimest and most marvellous portion of the gospel narrative, he would have been acting a most unjustifiable part, and only ruining his own credit for historical fidelity. By the apostles the ascension, the actual bodily mounting up into heaven, was regarded as a fact about which there could not be any possible doubt, and without- which they would have felt the second advent to be simply inconceivable (Php 2:9; Php 3:20; Ephesians 4:10; 1 Peter 3:22; John 20:17), and accordingly it is presupposed in the concluding words of our Gospel; but the embodying of it in an outward incident, supposed to have occurred in presence of the apostles, is to be attributed to a tradition which Luke, it is true, has adopted (as regards the author of the appendix to Mark, see on Mark 16:19 f.), but which has been rejected by our evangelist and John, notwithstanding that in any case this latter would have been an eyewitness. But yet the fact itself that the Lord, shortly after His resurrection, ascended into heaven, and that not merely in spirit (which, and that in entire opposition to Scripture, would either exclude the resurrection of the actual body, or presuppose a second death), but in the body as perfectly transformed and glorified at the moment of the ascension, is one of the truths of which we are also fully convinced, confirmed as it is by the whole New Testament, and furnishing, as it does, an indispensable basis for anything like certainty in regard to Christian eschatology. On the ascension, see Luke 24:51, Rem.