Commentaires bibliques

CHAPTER 25

Matthew 25:1.[19] ἈΠΆΝΤΗΣΙΝ] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : ὙΠΆΝΤΗΣΙΝ, following B C א, 1, Method. Had this been the original reading, it would also have forced its way into Matthew 25:6, in which latter, however, it is found only in 157, Cyr.

Matthew 25:2. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : ΠΈΝΤΕ ΔῈ ἘΞ ΑὐΤῶΝ ἮΣΑΝ ΜΩΡΑῚ ΚΑῚ ΠΈΝΤΕ ΦΡΌΝΙΜΟΙ, following B C D L Z א, min. and vss. (also Vulg. It.). Considering what a preponderance of evidence is here, and seeing how ready the transcribers would be to place the wise first in order, the reading of the Received text must be regarded as a subsequent transposition.

Matthew 25:3. For ΑἽΤΙΝΕς there are found the readings (glosses): ΑἹ ΔΈ in Z, Vulg. codd. of the It. Lachm., and ΑἹ ΓΆΡ in B C L א, Tisch. 8; likewise ΑἹ ΟὖΝ in D.

Matthew 25:4. In witnesses of importance ΑὐΤῶΝ is wanting after ἈΓΓΕΊΟΙς, so that, with Lachm. and Tisch. 8, it is to be deleted as a common interpolation.

Matthew 25:6. ἜΡΧΕΤΑΙ] is wanting in such important witnesses (B C* D L Z א, 102, Copt. Sahid. Arpo. Cant. Method. Ephr. Cyr.), and has so much the look of a supplement, that, with Lachm. and Tisch. 8, it should be erased. But the ΑὐΤΟῦ after ἈΠΆΝΤ., which Tisch. 8 deletes, is wanting only in B א, 102, Meth. Cyr.

Matthew 25:7. For ΑὐΤῶΝ it is better, with Lachm. and Tisch., to read ἙΑΥΤῶΝ, following A B L Z א. The reflective force of the pronoun had never been noticed, especially with Matthew 25:4 preceding it, in which verse ἙΑΥΤῶΝ instead of ΑὐΤῶΝ after ΛΑΜΠ. (so Tisch. 8) is supported only by the evidence of B א.

Matthew 25:9. For ΟὐΚ, as in the Received text, there is a preponderance of evidence in favour of reading Οὐ ΜΉ, which Griesb. has recommended, and which Lachm., Tisch. 7, and also Scholz have adopted. The ΜΉ, which Fritzsche and Tisch. 8 have discarded, was omitted from its force not being understood.

ΔΈ after ΠΟΡΕΎΕΣΘΕ (in Elz., Tisch. 7) would be just as apt to be inserted as a connective particle, as it would be ready to be omitted if ΠΟΡΕΎΕΣΘΕ, Κ.Τ.Λ. was taken as the apodosis. Accordingly, the matter must be decided by a preponderance of evidence, and that is in favour of deleting the ΔΈ.

Matthew 25:11. ΚΑῚ ΑἹ] Lachm. has simply ΑἹ, but against decisive evidence; and then think how readily ΚΑΊ might be dropped out between TAI and AI!

Matthew 25:13. After ὭΡΑΝ Elz. inserts ἘΝ ᾟ Ὁ ΥἹῸς ΤΟῦ ἈΝΘΡΏΠΟΥ ἜΡΧΕΤΑΙ, words which, in accordance with a decided preponderance of evidence, are to be regarded as a gloss (Matthew 24:44).

Matthew 25:16. ἘΠΟΊΗΣΕΝ] A** B C D L א** min.: ἘΚΈΡΔΗΣΕΝ. Recommended by Griesb. and Schulz, adopted by Lachm. Gloss derived from what follows.

The omission of the second ΤΆΛΑΝΤΑ by Lachm. is without adequate authority, nor had the transcribers any motive for inserting it; comp. Matthew 25:17.

Matthew 25:17. ΚΑῚ ΑὐΤΌς] is wanting in important witnesses, and is erased by Lachm. and Tisch. 8; but, owing to the circumstance of ὩΣΑΎΤΩς ΚΑΊ having preceded, it may very readily have been left out as superfluous and clumsy.

Matthew 25:18. Lachm. inserts ΤΆΛΑΝΤΟΝ after ἛΝ, only on the authority of A, It.; but ἜΚΡΥΨΕΝ (Lachm. Tisch.) for ἈΠΈΚΡΥΨΕΝ is supported by such a preponderance of evidence that it is unnecessary to regard it as taken from Matthew 25:25.

Matthew 25:19. It is better, with Lachm. and Tisch., to adopt in both cases the order ΠΟΛῪΝ ΧΡΌΝΟΝ and ΛΌΓΟΝ ΜΕΤʼ ΑὐΤῶΝ, in accordance with preponderating evidence.

Matthew 25:20. ἘΠʼ ΑὐΤΟῖς] is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, both here and in Matthew 25:22, following B D L א, min. and vss., while E G, min. read ἘΝ ΑὐΤΟῖς; but D, Vulg. It. Or. insert ἘΠΕΚΈΡΔΗΣΑ before the ἘΠʼ ΑὐΤΟῖς. Later variants are interpretations of the superfluous (and therefore sometimes omitted) ἘΠʼ ΑὐΤΟῖς

Matthew 25:21. ΔΈ, which Elz. inserts after ἜΦΗ, has been deleted, in accordance with preponderating evidence, as being an interpolation of the connective particle (so also Griesb., Scholz, Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch.).

Matthew 25:22. ΛΑΒΏΝ] is wanting in A B C L Δ א, min. Syr.utr.; a few min. have ΕἸΛΗΦΏς. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Correctly; a supplement.

Matthew 25:27. For ΤῸ ἈΡΓΎΡ. ΜΟΥ Tisch. 8 reads ΤᾺ ἈΡΓΎΡΙΆ ΜΟΥ, following B א*, Syr.p. Correctly; the plural would be apt to be replaced by the singular (comp. Luke), because it is a question of one talent, and because of the ΤῸ ἘΜΌΝ following.

Matthew 25:29. ἈΠῸ ΔῈ ΤΟῦ] B D L א, min.: ΤΟῦ ΔΈ. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch.; the ordinary reading is by way of helping the construction.

Matthew 25:30. ἘΚΒΆΛΕΤΕ for ἘΚΒΆΛΛΕΤΕ (in Elz.) is confirmed by decisive evidence.

Matthew 25:31. Elz. Scholz insert ἍΓΙΟΙ before ἌΓΓΕΛΟΙ, in opposition to B D L Π* א, min. and many vss. and Fathers. An adjective borrowed from the ordinary ecclesiastical phraseology, and which, though it might readily enough be inserted, would scarcely be likely to be omitted. Comp. Zechariah 14:5.

Matthew 25:40. ΤῶΝ ἈΔΕΛΦῶΝ ΜΟΥ] wanting only in B* and Fathers. Bracketed by Lachm. But comp. Matthew 25:45.

Matthew 25:41. ΟἹ ΚΑΤΗΡΑΜ.] Tisch. 8 has deleted the article, in accordance with B L א, and that correctly; it is taken from Matthew 25:34.

[19] The Codex Alex. (A) joins the list of critical authorities for the first time at ch. 25. It begins at ver. 6 with the word ἑξέρχεσθε.

Matthew 25:1 f. An additional exhortation to watchfulness in consequence of the day and hour of the advent being unknown, and embodied in the parable of the ten virgins, extending to Matthew 25:13, which parable is peculiar to Matthew (having been taken from the collection of our Lord’s sayings); for it is not the echoes of the present narrative, but something essentially different, that we meet with in Mark 13:35-37 and Luke 12:35-38.

τότε] then, i.e. on the day on which the master will return, and inflict condign punishment upon his worthless slave. Not: after inflicting this punishment (Fritzsche), for the parable is intended to portray the coming of the Messiah; but neither, again, is it to be taken as pointing back to Matthew 25:37 and Matthew 25:14 of the previous chapter (Cremer), which would be an arbitrary interruption of the regular sequence of the discourse as indicated by τότε.

ὁμοιωθήσεται] will be made like, actually so; see on Matthew 7:26.

ἡ βασιλ. τῶν οὐραν.] the Messianic kingdom, in respect, that is, of the principle of admission and exclusion that will be followed when that kingdom comes to be set up.

ἐξῆλθον εἰς ἀπάντ. τοῦ νυμφ.] Here the marriage is not represented as taking place in the house of the bridegroom, in accordance with the usual practice (Winer, Realw. I. p. 499; Keil, Arch. § 109), but in that of the bride (Jdg 14:10), from which the ten bridesmaids set out in the evening for the purpose of meeting the expected bridegroom. The reason why the parable transfers the scene of the marriage to the home of the bride, is to be found in the nature of the thing to be illustrated, inasmuch as, at the time of His advent, Christ is to be understood as coming to the earth and as setting up His kingdom here below, and not in heaven. Comp. also the following parable, Matthew 25:14 ff.

ἐξῆλθον] they went out, namely, from the bride’s house, which is self-evident from the context (εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ νυμφίου). Bornemann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 112 f.,—who, like the majority of expositors, supposes that what is here in view is the ordinary practice of conducting the bride from her own house to that of the bridegroom (but see on Matthew 25:10),—and Ewald understand ἐξῆλθον of the setting out of the maids from their own homes to go to the house of the bride, in order to start from the latter for the purpose of meeting the bridegroom as he comes to fetch home his bride. But the meaning of the terms forbids us to assume different starting-points for ἐξῆλθον and εἰς ἀπάντησιν (Acts 28:15); this is further precluded by the supposition, in itself improbable, that the foolish virgins could not have obtained a fresh supply of oil at the house of the bride.

Whether ten was the usual number for bridesmaids cannot be determined; but generally “numero denario (as the base of their numeral system) gavisa plurimum est gens Judaica et in sacris et in civilibus,” Lightfoot. Comp. Luke 19:13.

φρόνιμοι] Comp. Matthew 24:45, Matthew 7:24; Matthew 7:26. This second virtue belonging to a right ἑτοιμασία (see on Matthew 24:45), viz. practical wisdom, is here intended to be made specially prominent. The idea of a contrast between chastity and its opposite (Cremer) is quite foreign to the context. Comp. κοράσιον φρόνιμου, Tob 6:12.

Matthew 25:3. Αἵτινες μωραί] sc. ἦσαν, quotquot erant stultae.

ἔλαβον they took, on setting out; not for the pluperfect (Erasmus, Vatablus).

μεθʼ ἑαυτῶν] with themselves, namely, besides the oil that was burning in their lamps.

Matthew 25:5-6. The virgins, who, Matthew 25:1, have left the house of the bride (in opposition to Cremer and Lange, who suppose ἐξῆλθον to contain a prolepsis), and therefore are no longer there, have betaken themselves to some house on the way [ἐξέρχεσθε, observe), in order there to await the passing by of the bridegroom. The coming of the latter was delayed on till midnight; the maids who sat waiting began to get wearied, they nodded (aorist), and slept (imperfect). Comp. Isaiah 5:27; Psalm 21:4. Vulgate: “dormitaverunt mines et dormierunt.”

ἰδοὺ ὁ νυμφίος (without ἔρχεται, see critical remarks): behold the bridegroom! The cry of the people who see him coming a little way off. They are made aware of his approach from seeing the light of the torches or lamps carried by those who accompanied him in the procession.

Matthew 25:7 f. Ἐκόσμησαν] they put in proper order, namely, by trimming the wick and such like, they dressed them.

ἑαυτῶν (see critical remarks): each one her own; betokening the individual preparation that was now going on.

σβέννυνται] are just on the point of going out.

Matthew 25:9. Μήποτε … ὑμῖν] Since οὐ μή is the correct reading (see critical remarks), and seeing that the ἀρκέσῃ following cannot be regarded as dependent on μήποτε, but only on οὐ μή, the punctuation should be as follows: μήποτε· οὐ μὴ ἀρκέσῃ, κ.τ.λ.: never (shall we give you of our oil): there will certainly not be enough for us and you! For the absolute negative μὴ, comp. Matthew 26:5; Exodus 10:11; Matthiae, p. 1454; Kühner, II. 2, p. 1047. Correctly Bornemann, as above, p. 110; Bleek, Lange, Luthardt. Comp. Winer, p. 556 [E. T. 632]; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 107.

Matthew 25:10 f. While they were going away, came (not: advenerat, Fritzsche).

εἰσῆλθον μετʼ αὐτοῦ] namely, into the house of the bride, whither the bridegroom was on his way, and to which the maids were conducting him, with a view to the celebration of the marriage. The idea of the bridegroom’s house being that referred to (see on Matthew 25:1) is precluded by the correlation in which ἦλθν ὁ νυμθίος and εἰσῆλθον μετʼ αὐτοῦ stand to each other.

κύριε, κύριε] expressive of most urgent and anxious entreaty. Comp. Matthew 7:21.

Matthew 25:12 f. Οὐκ οἶδα ὑμᾶς] because ye were not amongst the bridesmaids who welcomed me, ye are to me as entire strangers whom I do not know, and who, therefore, can have no part in the marriage! The knowledge of experience arising out of the intercourse of life (Matthew 7:23; 1 Corinthians 8:3; 1 Corinthians 13:12; Galatians 4:9) is the point intended to be thus illustrated. Besides, Jesus might also have said (in opposition to Cremer): οὐκ ἔγνων ὑμ. (I have not known you).

οὖν] because the foolish virgins were shut out, and because something corresponding to this would happen to you unless you watch.

According to Matthew 25:13, the teaching of the parable is: that the moral preparedness that continues to maintain itself up till the moment of the advent, the day and hour of which do not admit of being determined, will lead to participation in the Messianic kingdom, whereas those in whom this preparedness has not been maintained till the end will, when surprised by the sudden appearing of the Lord, experience in themselves the irreparable consequences of their foolish neglect, and be shut out from, His kingdom. This latter is a negative expression of condemnation, not, as Olshausen supposes notwithstanding the ἐκλείσθη ἡ θύρα, merely a way of designating such a salvation as is spoken of in 1 Corinthians 3:15. More specific interpretations—of the virgins, the lamps, the oil, the κραυγή, etc.—are to be found not only in Origen, Hilary, Cyrill, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Augustine, Jerome (see Cremer, p. 156 ff.), but also in Olshausen, von Meyer, Cremer, Lange, Auberlen. In those interpretations subjective opinion has, in most diverse and arbitrary fashion, exceeded the limits indicated by Jesus in Matthew 25:13. Calvin well remarks: “Multum se torquent quidam in lucernis, in vasis, in oleo. Atqui simplex et genuina summa est, non sufficere alacre exigui temporis studium, nisi infatigabilis constantia simul accedat.” Neither is the falling asleep of the virgins intended to be specially significant; for, as it happened in the case of the exemplary wise ones as well, it cannot represent any moral shortcoming.