Commentaires bibliques

CHAPTER 17

Matthew 17:3. ὤφθησαν] Lachm. and Tisch.: ὤφθη, after B D א, Curss. and Codd. of the It. The plural is a grammatical correction; the sing. can scarcely be taken from Mark 9:4.

Matthew 17:4. ποιήσωμεν] Lachm. and Tisch.: ποιῇσω, after B C א, 17 :Corb. 1, Germ. 1. Correctly; the plural is from Mark and Luke.

The arrangement Ἠλίᾳ μίαν (Lachm. Tisch.) is supported by decisive testimony.

Matthew 17:5. φωτεινή] Only on the authority of a few Curss. and Ephr. Griesb. and Fritzsche have φωτός, which Olshausen also prefers. An interpretation for the purpose of defining the wonderful nature of the cloud.

The order ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ (inverted in Elz.) is, with Lachm. and Tisch. 8, after B D א, 1, 33, to be preferred. The reading of the Received text is according to the LXX.

Matthew 17:7. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : καὶ προσῆλθεν ὁ Ἰ. καὶ ἁψάμενος αὐτῶν εἶπεν, after B (in the first half of the sentence also D) א, Verss. Seeing how much the reading fluctuates in the various authorities, the Received text, from having the balance of testimony in its favour, is not to be abandoned.

Matthew 17:9. ἐκ] Elz.: ἀπό. Approved by Scholz, against decisive testimony. From Mark 9:9, for the sake of conformity with the ordinary usage.

ἀναστή] Lachm. and Tisch: ἐγερθῇ, after B D, Sahid. The reading of the Received text is from Mark 9:9.

Matthew 17:11. On important testimony, Ἰησοῦς and αὐτοῖς are, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted. Common interpolations.

πρῶτον] is omitted after ἔρχ. in B D א, Curss. Verss. Aug. Hil.; L inserts it after ἀποκατ. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch. Repetition from Matthew 17:10, in accordance with Mark 9:12.

Matthew 17:14. αὐτῶν] which Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted, is omitted in B Z א, 1, 124, 245, Sahid.; it might easily have been overlooked from coming, as it does, immediately after ἐλθόνΤΩΝ.

αὐτόν] Elz.: αὐτῷ, against decisive testimony.

Matthew 17:15. πάσχει] Lachm.: ἔχει, after B L Z א, Or. Either an involuntary alteration occasioned by the current use of the expression κακῶς ἔχειν (Matthew 4:24, Matthew 8:16, Matthew 9:12, Matthew 14:35), or intentional, on account of the apparent pleonasm.

Matthew 17:17. The order μεθʼ ὑμῶν ἔσομαι (Lachm. Tisch.) is supported by the preponderating testimony of B C D Z א, Curss. Or., and ought to be adopted. Comp. Mark and Luke.

Matthew 17:20. ἀπιστίαν] Lachm. Tisch. 8 : ὀλιγοπιστίαν, after B א, Curss. Syrcur Sahid. Copt. Arm. Aeth. Or. Chrys. An ancient emendation to soften the expression, ἀπιστίαν, after Matthew 17:17 especially, may have offended pious sensibilities.

The reading μετάβα ἔνθεν (Lachm. Tisch.) is neither satisfactory nor has it uniform testimony in its favour.

Matthew 17:21. Tisch. 8 has deleted the whole verse, but only after B א* 33, and a few Verss. The great preponderance of testimony is in favour of retaining it, although Weiss likewise rejects it. It might have been regarded as inserted from Mark 9:29 had the terms of the two passages coincided more fully. Why it was omitted, it is really impossible to say; it may only have happened accidentally, and the omission remains an isolated instance.

Matthew 17:22. ἀναστρεφ.] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : συστρεφ., after B א, 1, Vulg. Codd. of the It. A gloss, in order that ἀναστρεφ. might not be taken in the sense of return.

Matthew 17:23. ἐγερθήσεται] Lachm.: ἀναστήσεται, after B, Curss. Or. Chrys. From Mark 9:31.

Matthew 17:25. ὅτε εἰσῆλθεν] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : εἰσελθόντα, which is found in א*; in B it is: ἐλθόντα; in C: ὅτε ἦλθον; in D: εἰσελθόντι. Others have: ὃτε εἰσῆλθον, εἰσελθόντων, εἰσελθόντος. Seeing there is such variety in the readings, we ought to prefer, not the simple verb, which B and C concur in adopting, but the compound form, which is supported by D א and the numerous authorities in favour of the reading of the Received text; further, the plural is to be rejected, inasmuch as it is without adequate testimony and has been inserted from Matthew 17:24; and finally, the reading ὅτε is to be regarded as an analysis of the participle. Consequently the reading εἰσελθόντα should be adopted.

Matthew 17:26. For λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Πέτρος read, with Lachm. and Tisch. 8, simply εἰπόντος δέ, after B C L א, Verss. Or. Chrys. The reading of the Received text is somewhat of a gloss.

Matthew 17:1. Comp. Mark 9:2 ff.; Luke 8:28 ff.; 2 Peter 1:16 ff. Μεθʼ ἡμέρας ἕξ] Luke 9:28 : ὡσεὶ ἡμέραι ὀκτώ. This ὡσεί makes it unnecessary to have recourse to any expedient for reconciling the numbers. Chrysostom, Jerome, Theophylact, Erasmus, and many others, are of opinion that Luke has included the dies a quo and ad quem.

εἰς ὅρος ὑψηλόν] Since the fourth century there has been a tradition that the mountain here referred to was mount Tabor, the situation of which, however, was such as altogether to preclude this view. If we are to understand that Jesus remained during the six days in the neighbourhood of Caesarea Philippi, we may, with some probability, suppose that the height in question was one of the peaks of Hermon, a clump of hills standing to the north-east of that town.

Those three disciples were the most intimate friends of Jesus. Comp. Matthew 26:37. For ἀναφέρει, comp. Luke 24:51; 2Ma 6:10; Polyb. viii. 31. 1.

κατʼ ἰδίαν] so that they alone accompanied him to this mountain solitude.

Matthew 17:2. Μετεμορφ.] was transfigured, in the way about to be described. That is to say, His external aspect was changed (“non substantialis, sed accidentalis fuit transformatio,” Calovius); His face gleaming like the sun, and His raiment being so white that it shone like light. He appeared in outward heavenly δόξα, which μεγαλειότης (2 Peter 1:16) was the foreshadowing of His future glorified state (John 12:16; John 12:23; John 17:5; John 21:24; 2 Corinthians 3:18; Matthew 13:43). The analogy presented by Exodus 34:29 comes short in this respect, that, whereas the brightness on the face of Moses was the result of God’s having appeared before him, in the case of Christ it proceeded from His own divine nature and life, the δόξα of which radiated from within.

ὡς τὸ φῶς] The aspect of it, therefore, was luminous, radiant.

Matthew 17:3. Αὐτοῖς] the disciples, Matthew 17:2. They saw conversing with Jesus, Moses and Elias, who, as forerunners of the Messiah, represented the law and the prophets (Schoettgen, Wetstein). Comp. Matthew 17:5; Matthew 17:8. It was not from what Jesus told them afterwards that they came first to know who those two were, but they themselves recognised them at once (Matthew 17:4), though not from their conversation, as has been arbitrarily supposed (Theophylact). The recognition was immediate and directly involved in the marvellous manifestation itself.

The subject of conversation, so far as the accounts of Matthew and Mark are concerned, does not appear to have been once inquired into. According to Ebrard, Jesus communicated to the fathers of the old dispensation the blessed intelligence of his readiness to redeem them by His death. According to Luke 9:31, Moses and Elias converse with Jesus about His impending death.

Matthew 17:4. Ἀποκριθ.] see note on Matthew 11:25. Taking occasion from what he now saw before him, he proceeded to say.

καλόν ἐστιν κ.τ.λ.] is usually interpreted thus: “Amoenus est, in quo commoremur, locus” (Fritzsche, Keim); or, what is much to the same effect, it is referred—particularly by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus—to the security of the place, protected as it was by the two celestial visitants, in contrast to Jerusalem, where Jesus was destined to suffer. But, inasmuch as the terms used by Peter are ἡμᾶς (not ἡμῖν) and the simple εἶναι (not μένειν); further, inasmuch as what he says is occasioned by the presence of Moses and Elias, and has reference to them, as is likewise proved by the following εἰ θέλεις κ.τ.λ., which implies that he wishes to do something towards enabling Jesus to have a longer interview with them,—it is preferable, with Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius, Klostermann, Weiss, Volkmar, to interpret as follows: It is highly opportune that we (disciples) happen to be here (in which case, therefore, the ἡμᾶς is emphatic); accordingly, I would like to erect (ποιήσω, see critical remarks) tabernacles (out of the brushwood growing around) for you here, with a view to a more prolonged stay. The transition to the singular is in keeping with Peter’s temperament; he would like to make the tabernacles.

Matthew 17:5 ff. Ἰδοὺ καὶ … ἰδού] lively way of introducing the various points of importance.

νεφέλη φωτεινή] a luminous, clear, bright cloud, represented in Matthew as, without doubt, a marvellous phenomenon, not in itself certainly, but in connection with the incident which it accompanies.

ἐπεσκίασεν] A luminous cloud overshadows them, casts a kind of light and shade over their forms, so that they are rendered less clear than they were before the cloud intervened. Olshausen unwarrantably fancies that ἐπεσκ. has been employed in consequence of the light having been so strong as to dazzle the eyes and affect the sight.

αὐτούς] viz. Jesus, Moses, and Elias (Matthew 17:4). The disciples hear the voice from out the cloud (Matthew 17:5-6), are therefore not to be regarded as being within it, as is likewise manifest a priori from the fact that the cloud, as was so frequently the case in the Old Testament, is here the sacred symbol of the divine presence (Wetstein on this passage, comp. Fea, ad Hor. Od. i. 2. 31), and therefore accompanies those three divine personages as a σημεῖον for the disciples, on whose account likewise the voice sounds from the cloud. This in answer to Olearius, Wolf, Bengel, Baumgarten-Crusius, who refer αὐτούς to the disciples; and to Clericus, who refers it to all who were present.

φωνὴ κ.τ.λ.] no less the voice of God than that in Matthew 3:17.

ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ (see critical remarks) is the divine ratification of the words of Moses in Deuteronomy 18:15, according to their Messianic import. However, the hearing (i.e. faith and obedience) is the point on which stress is to be laid, as is evident from its being put first. This command is now in order (not so, as yet, in Matthew 3:17), coming as it does at a time when Jesus had attained to the full dignity of His prophetic office, but when, at the same time, the prospect of what awaited Him was calculated to put the ἀκούειν of the disciples to the severest test.

Matthew 17:6-7 occur only in Matthew. Comp. Daniel 10:9 f.; Revelation 1:17.

ἥψατο] “Tactus familiaris et efficax,” Bengel.

Matthew 17:9. Ὅραμα] the thing seen, spectaculum. Acts 7:31; Sir 43:1; Xen. Cyr. iii. 3. 66; de re equestr. ix. 4; Dem. 1406. 26; Pollux, ii. 54; used in the LXX. with reference to whatever is seen in vision by a prophet.

ἐκ νεκρῶν] from Sheol, as the abode τῶν νεκρῶν. On the omission of the article, see Winer, p. 117 [E. T. 153]. The reason of the prohibition can only be the same as in Matthew 16:20, where see note. According to the mythical view (see observations after Matthew 17:12), it was intended to explain the circumstance of a narrative composed in a later age, and, nevertheless, one which proceeded from the three witnesses.

Matthew 17:10. Οὖν] can have no other reference than to the foregoing prohibition (comp. Matthew 19:7): “Seeing that we are forbidden to tell any one about the appearing of Elias which we have just witnessed, and so on, what reason, then, have the scribes for saying that Elias must first come (before the Messiah appears, to establish His kingdom)?” Does it not follow from Thy prohibition that this teaching of the scribes must be erroneous, seeing that, if it were not so, Thou wouldst not have enjoined us to keep silence regarding this manifestation of Elias? This is likewise in harmony with the answer of Jesus, which is to this effect: “That teaching is quite correct; but the Elias whom it speaks of as being the Messiah’s forerunner is not the prophet who has just been seen upon the mount, but John the Baptist, whom they did not recognise, and so on.” This view is so entirely in accordance with the context as to exclude any others, as, for example, that of Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, Kuinoel, who, emphasizing πρῶτον, interpret thus: διατί οἱ γρ. λέγ., ὅτι Ἠλίαν χρὴ ἐλθεῖν πρὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ; πῶς οὖν οὐκ ἠλθεν οὗτος πρὸ σοῦ; or that which ascribes to the disciples the idea, of which there is not the remotest hint, that Christ is going to be revealed before the world in His glory, and that therefore there is really no further room for the manifestation and the services of Elias (Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 518); or that of Grotius, Michaelis, Fritzsche, Lange, Olshausen, Bleek, Hengstenberg, who understand the question of the disciples as referring to the circumstance that Elias had not remained, but had so quickly disappeared again (it was believed, though of this the question contains no hint whatever, that Elias would teach the Jews, settle the disputes among their instructors, restore the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod, and so on; Lightfoot on this passage; Winzer, de ἀποκαταστάσει πάντων, II., 1821, p. 9); or, again, that of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Neander, Krabbe, Ebrard, who suppose that the object of the question was to know whether the manifestation of Elias, which the scribes had in view, was that which had just taken place, or whether it was some other one yet to come; or, lastly, the expedient of Schleiermacher and Strauss, who think that the whole conversation originated in the disappointment felt in consequence of the prediction regarding the coming of Elias not having been fulfilled, and that it has only found its way into the present connection through an erroneous process of combination. According to Köstlin, p. 75, οὖν does not refer back to the transfiguration at all, but seems to say: “Seeing that the Messiah is already come,” which is the idea supposed to be contained in Matthew 16:13-27. He thinks the connection has been interrupted by the evangelist interpolating the story of the transfiguration between Matthew 16:27 and Matthew 17:10.