聖書注解書

CHAPTER 21

Matthew 21:1. πρὸς τὸ ὄρος] Instead of πρός, Lachm. and Tisch. have εἰς, following B C** 33, codd. of It. Or. (once). Correctly; πρός is taken from Mark 11:1; Luke 19:29.

Matthew 21:2. πορεύθητε] Lachm. Tisch. 8 : πορεύεσθε, following important evidence. But the transcribers happened to be more familiar with πορεύεσθε (Matthew 10:6, Matthew 22:9, Matthew 25:9; Matthew 25:41).

For ἀπέναντι, Lachm. Tisch. 8 have κατέναντι, which, though sanctioned by important evidence, is borrowed from Mark and Luke.

ἀγάγετε, for which, with Lachm., ἄγετε should be read, is likewise taken from the parallel passages (see, however, on Mark 11:2).

Matthew 21:3. With the Received text, Lachm. and Tisch. read ἀποστελεῖ, following B D H M א, Vulg. It. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Or., while Matth. Griesb. Scholz, on the other hand, have adopted ἀποστέλλει. Important evidence on both sides. The connection seemed to require the future, which was acordingly introduced here and in Mark 11:3.

Matthew 21:4. ὅλον] is to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch. 8, following C* D L Z א, vss. Or. Chrys. Hil. Comp. Matthew 1:22, Matthew 26:56.

Matthew 21:5 πῶλον] Lachm. Tisch.: ἐπὶ πῶλον, following B L N א, 1, 124, vss. Correctly; in the Sept. there is only one ἐπί.

Matthew 21:6. The evidence of B C D 33 in favour of συνέταξεν (Lachm. Tisch. 7) is sufficient. Tisch. 8, with the Received text, reads προσέταξεν, the more usual form.

Matthew 21:7. For the first ἐπάνω αὐτῶν, Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read ἐπʼ αὐτῶν, following B L Z א, 69, Or., with which we may class D and codd. of It., which have ἐπʼ αὐτόν. The transcriber would be apt mechanically to anticipate the subsequent ἐπάνω.

ἐπεκάθισεν (Elz.: ἐπεκάθισαν) is supported by decisive evidence (adopted by Matth. Griesb. Fritzsche, Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.), so that instead of supposing it to be taken from Mark 11:7 (comp. John 12:14), we should rather regard the reading of the Received text as derived from Luke 19:35.

Matthew 21:8. ἐστρώννυον] Tisch. 8 : ἔστρωσαν, following only D א * Or. A repetition of ἔστρωσαν in the earlier part of the verse.

Matthew 21:9. προάγοντες] Lachm. Tisch.: προάγ. αὐτόν, following B C D L א, min. vss. Or. Eus. This αὐτόν, which in itself is not indispensable, was still more apt to be omitted in consequence of Mark 11:9.

Matthew 21:11. Lachm. (B D א, Or.) puts ὁ προφ. before Ἰησοῦς; so also Tisch. 8. But how current was the use of the phrase, “Jesus of Nazareth!”

Matthew 21:12. τοῦ Θεοῦ] deleted by Lachm., following B L א, min. vss. and Fathers. It was omitted as superfluous, and from its not being found in Mark and Luke, also in consequence of its not occurring elsewhere in the New Testament.

Matthew 21:13. ἐποιήσατε] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.: ποιεῖτε, following B L א, 124, Copt. Aeth. Or. Eus. Correctly; ἐποιήσατε is from Luke. Comp. on Mark 11:17.

Matthew 21:19. μηκέτι] Lachm. and Tisch.: οὐ μηκέτι, following, it is true, only B L; but οὐ would readily be omitted, all the more that Mark 11:14 has simply μηκέτι.

Matthew 21:23. ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ] Lachm. Tisch. 8 : ἐλθόντος αὐτοῦ. See on Matthew 8:1.

Matthew 21:25. Ἰωάννου] Lachm. and Tisch.: τὸ Ἰωάννου, which is sufficiently attested by B C Z א, Or.; τό was omitted as superfluous.

παρʼ ἑαυτ.] Lachm.: ἐν ἑαυτ., following B L M** Z, min. Cyr. Gloss in accordance with Matthew 16:7-8.

Matthew 21:28. μου] upon important evidence, is with Fritzsche, Tisch. to be deleted as an interpolation.

Matthew 21:30. ἑτέρῳ] So also Griesb. Scholz, Tisch. The δευτέρῳ (Lachm.) of the Received text is opposed by C* D E F G H K U X Δ Π א, min. vss. and Fathers, and, coming as it does after πρώτω, looks like an exegetical gloss.

Matthew 21:31. πρῶτος] Lachm.: ὕστερος. Maintained Rinck and Schweizer[7] in the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 944. Comp. Ewald also, who, however, suggests ὕστερον, sc μεταμεληθείς. Similarly Buttm. in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 343 ff. ὕστερος is found in B, while D, vss. (also codd. of It. and the Vulg.) and several Fathers read ἔσχατος. Consequence of the transposition that had taken place in Matthew 21:29-30 (B, min. vss. and Fathers): ὁ δὲ ἀποκρ. εἶπεν· Ἐγὼ, κὐρ., καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλθεν. Καὶ προσελθ. τῷ ἑτέρῳ εἶπ. ὡς. Ὁ δὲ ἀποκρ. εἶπεν· Οὐ θέλω, ὕστερον δὲ, κ.τ.λ. But this transposition was the result of the ancient interpretation of the two sons as referring to the Jews and the Gentiles.

Matthew 21:32. οὐ] Lachm.: οὐδέ, following B, min. Syrcur and jer. Copt. Aeth. It. Vulg. Hilar. The compound negative, the force of which had not been observed, would be omitted all the more readily that δέ occurs just before.

Matthew 21:33. τις after ἄυθρωπος (in Elz. Matth.) is deleted by Griesb. and more recent editors, in accordance with decisive evidence.

Matthew 21:38. κατάσχωμεν] Lachm. and Tisch.: σχῶμεν, following B D L Z א, min. Or. Cyr. The compound form, for sake of greater precision.

Matthew 21:44. This whole verse is wanting in D, 33, Cant. 21 :Verc. Corb. 1, 2, Or. Eus. (?) Lucif. Cyr. (?); condemned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. The external evidence is not sufficient to warrant deletion. Had the words been borrowed from Luke 20:18, they would have been inserted after Matthew 21:42, and the first half of the passage would have been in closer agreement with Luke (that is to say, the πᾶς would not have been left out). The omission, again, might well be due to a mistake on the part of the copyist, whose eye might pass at once from αὐτῆς καί to αὐτὸν καί.

Matthew 21:46. ὡς] Lachm. and Tisch.: εἰς, following B L א, 1, 22, Or. ὡς from Matthew 21:26; Matthew 14:5.

[7] Schweizer explains thus: ὁ ὕστερος, SC. ἀπελθών (which Buttm. should not have declared to be erroneous). The answer, he says, is hesitating and reluctant, perhaps intentionally ambiguous. But coming after the question τίς ἐκ τῶν δύο, κ.τ.λ., the simple ὁ ὕστερος can only he taken as equivalent to ὁ δεύτερος, as in Xen. Hell. i. 7. 6, al. Lachm. was of opinion that the answer was intended to be inappropriate (comp. already Jerome), though he ultimately decided in favour of the view that the words λέγουσιν … Ἰησοῦς, which Or. omits, are spurious. See the latter’s Praefat. II. p. v. Tisch., Bleek, and others have correctly upheld the reading of the Received text.

Matthew 21:1. Comp. Mark 11:1 ff.; Luke 19:29 ff. Καὶ ἦλθον εἰς Βμθφαγῆ] by way of giving greater precision to the foregoing ἤγγισαν εἰς Ἱερος. They had come towards Bethphage; that is, as the connection shows (Matthew 21:2), they had not actually entered the village, but were close upon it, so that it lay right before them; comp. on John 4:5. Hard by them (“in latere montis Oliveti,” Jerome) was the neighbouring village of Bethany (Matthew 21:17), about which, however, and its position with reference to Bethphage (Robinson, Pal. II. p. 312), nothing more precise can now be said. Consequently there is no divergence from Mark and Luke, so that it is unnecessary to understand εἰς, versus, after ἦλθον (Fritzsche), which is distinct from, and more definite than, ἤγγισαν.

Of Bethphage, בֵּית פַּאנֵי, house of figs, no trace remains (Robinson, as above). It is not once mentioned in the Old Testament, though frequently in the Talmud. Buxtorf, p. 1691; Hug, Einl. I. p. 18.

τότε] an important juncture. “Non prius; vectura mysterii plena,” Bengel. To any one travelling from Jericho, the holy city would be in full view at Bethphage (not at Bethany). And Jesus makes due arrangements for the entry; it is not something done simply to gratify the enthusiastic wishes of those about Him (Neander, de Wette, Weizsäcker); comp. Keim, III. p. 85 f.

REMARK.

The stay of Jesus at Bethany, recorded by John (Matthew 12:1 ff.), does not admit of being inserted into the account given by the Synoptists (in answer to Ebrard, Wichelh. Komment. über d. Leidensgesch. p. 149; Lichtenstein); we should rather say that these latter expressly forbid the view that the night had been passed at Bethany, all the more that they introduce the anointing (Matthew 26:6 ff.; Mark 14:3 ff.), and consequently the stay of Jesus at this village after the triumphal entry, and that not merely in the order of their narrative, but also in the order of events (Matthew 26:2; Mark 14:1). This likewise in answer to Wieseler, p. 391 f.

The tradition, to the effect that the triumphal entry took place on the Sunday (Palmarum), is in no way inconsistent with the synoptic narrative itself, and agrees at the same time with John 12:1; John 12:12, inasmuch as it would appear from this evangelist that the day on which Jesus arrived at Bethany was most probably the 8th of Nisan, which, however, according to John’s representation, must have been Saturday (see note on John 12:1). Still, as regards the dates of the passion week, there remains this fundamental divergence, that, according to the Synoptists, the Friday on which Jesus died was the 15th, while according to John (see note on John 18:28) it was the 14th of Nisan; and further, that John 12:12 represents Jesus as having passed the night at Bethany previous to His triumphal entry, while according to the synoptical account He appears to have gone at once from Jericho to Jerusalem. In any case, the most authentic view of this matter is that of John, on whose authority, therefore, must rest the tradition that Sunday was the day on which Christ rode into the city.

Matthew 21:2 f. Εἰς τὴν κώμην, κ.τ.λ.] Bethphage.

εὐθέως] essentially appropriate to the specific character of the instructions: immediately, after you have entered.

The mention of two animals made by Matthew, though seemingly at variance with Mark 11:2, Luke 19:30, John 12:14, represents the matter more correctly than the other evangelists, and is neither to be explained symbolically (of Judaism and heathenism, Justin Martyr), nor to be regarded as a reduplication on the part of Matthew (Ewald, Holtzmann), nor to be traced to a misapprehension of the words of the prophet (de Wette, Neander, Strauss, Hilgenfeld), who intends וְעַל עַיִר as an epexegetical parallel to עַל־חֲמֹר; for just in the same way are we to understand καὶ ἐπὶ πῶλον, Matthew 21:5, so that, according to Matthew as well, Jesus rides upon, the foal, though accompanied by the mother, a detail which the other evangelists fail to notice. Moreover, it is simply arbitrary to assign a mythical character to the prediction of Jesus on the strength of Genesis 49:11 (Strauss; on the other hand, Bleek).

ὅτι] recitative.

ἀποστέλλει] so far from refusing, He sends them away. The present represents as already taking place what will immediately and certainly be realized. Comp. Mark 4:29. In εὐθέως δέ, but at once, observe Jesus’ marvellous knowledge, not merely of the fact that the animals would undoubtedly be found awaiting them exactly as He said they would be, but of the further fact that the people of the place are so loyal to Him as perfectly to understand the meaning of the ὁ κύριος, κ.τ.λ., and to find in those words sufficient reason for at once complying with His request. Comp. Matthew 26:18. The idea of a magical virtue attaching to the use of the name Jesus (Strauss) is foreign to the text; while, on the other hand, we fail to satisfy the requirements of the three accounts of this incident by resolving it into a mere case of borrowing (Paulus) or requisition (Keim).

The simple account of John does not affect the credibility of the synoptic narrative (also in answer to Bleek). See note on John 12:14 f.

Matthew 21:4 f. Ἵνα πληρωθῇ] not accidental, but in accordance with the divine purpose of fulfilling, etc. This quotation, which is a free rendering, partly of the original Hebrew and partly of the Septuagint, combines Isaiah 62:11 (εἴπατε … Σιών) and Zechariah 9:9, where the riding of the ideal Messianic king upon an ass is simply a representation, not indeed of absolute humility (Hengstenberg, Christol. III. p. 360 f.), for such riding is a sign of πραΰτης, but of a peaceful disposition; comp. Ewald, Propheten, I. p. 256, ed. 2. He does not come upon a war-horse, not ἅρματα ἐλαύνων ὡς οἱ λοιποὶ βασιλεῖς, Chrysostom. The incident in which Jesus then realized the recognised fulfilment of the prophecy (Hengstenberg, Ewald, Keim) would suggest the strained interpretation of the figure, and quite properly, inasmuch as Christ’s riding into the city revealed the typical nature of the form in which the prophet embodied his prediction (Düsterdieck, de rei propheticae natura ethica, 1852, p. 78 f.). For the prophetic expression daughter of Zion (the locality of the town regarded as its mother), see Knobel’s note on Isaiah 1:8. Comp. Lamentations 1:6.

σοί] Dative of ethical reference, common likewise in classical Greek along with ἔρχεσθαι.

καὶ ἐπὶ πῶλον] See note on Matthew 21:2. καί is epexegetical.

υἱὸν ὑποζυγ.] בֶּן־אֲתֹנוֹת. For ὑποζύγιον, beast of burden, a term more frequently used in the Septuagint to designate the ass, comp. Herod, ix. 24, 39, 41; Xen. Anab. i. 3. 1; Lucian, Cynic, x.; Polyb. iii. 51. 4; 3 Esdr. Matthew 5:43; 2 Peter 2:16.

Matthew 21:7. They spread their outer garments upon both animals, being uncertain which of them Jesus intended to mount.

The (second) ἐπάνω αὐτῶν must necessarily be referred, with Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Castalio, Beza, Homberg, Fritzsche, Winer, p. 165 [E. T. 219], to the garments, in which case it is clear from Matthew 21:5 that Jesus sat upon the foal. Were we to refer αὐτῶν to the animals, the result would be the absurd idea (which Strauss, B. Bauer, Volkmar make use of against Matthew) that Jesus mounted both of them at once, not one after the other (Fritzsche, Fleck), seeing that κ. ἐπεκάθισεν ἐπ. αὐτῶν denotes the instantaneous, finished act which followed the spreading of the garments. To suppose (Ebrard, Olshausen), by way of justifying the reference to the animals, that we have here a loose form of speech, corresponding to the German phrase: he leaps from the horses, and such like, is out of the question, for the simple reason that no such σύλληψις can be assumed in the case of Matthew 21:5, all the less so that, from this verse, it would appear that it was the dam on which Jesus rode, with the foal walking by her side.

Matthew 21:8. Manifestations of respect, such as kings were usually greeted with on entering cities, 2 Kings 9:13; Wetstein’s note on this passage; Robinson, II. p. 383.

ὁ πλεῖστος ὄχλος] the most of the people, the greatest part of the multitude. Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 397 D; Thuc. vii. 78; Xen. Anab. iii. 2. 36.

ἑαυτῶν] states what the multitude did with their own garments, after the disciples had spread theirs upon the two beasts.

Matthew 21:9 ff. Ὡσαννά] הוֹשִׂיעָה נָא, Psalm 118:25, bestow blessing!—addressed to God. The dative is due to the meaning of the verb (opitulare) contained in ὡσαννά.

ὡσαννὰ ἐν τοῖς ὑψίστ.] Grant blessing in the highest places (Luke 2:14), i.e. in the highest heaven (Ephesians 4:10), where Thy throne is fixed, and from which let it descend upon the Messiah. The interpretation of Fritzsche, Olshausen: let blessing be proclaimed (by the angels) in heaven! is far-fetched. No less so is that of de Wette, Bleek: let Hosanna be confirmed in heaven, let it be ratified by God! Nor is ἐν τ. ὑψ. equivalent to ὁ ὢν τ. ὑψ. (grant blessing, O Thou who art in heaven), as Beza, Vatablus, Calovius, Bengel, Kuinoel, are disposed to think.

ἐν ὀνόμ. κυρίου] i.e. as sent by God to be His representative, John 5:43.

Speaking generally, the exclamation may be described as an outburst of enthusiasm expressing itself, in a free and impromptu manner, in language borrowed from the hymn for the feast of Tabernacles, Psalms 118. (Succoth iv. 5).

ἐσείσθη] was thrown into a state of commotion (Pind. Pyth. iv. 484; Soph. Ant. 163), on account of the sensation created by this Messianic entry into the city. The excitement was contagious.

ὁ προφήτης] the well-known prophet. The crowds that accompanied Him had, in most explicit terms, designated Him the Messiah; but the less interested people of the city wished above all to ascertain His name and rank. Hence the full reply, Ἰησοῦς … Γαλιλ., in which the ὁ ἀπὸ Ναζαρ. τ. Γαλιλ. doubtless betrays somewhat of the Galilean consciousness of the multitude, inasmuch as it was for most part composed of Galileans.

REMARK.

The triumphal entry of Jesus is not a final attempt to establish the Messianic kingdom in a political sense (Wolfenb. Fragm.), such a kingdom having been entirely foreign to His purpose and His function. It is rather to be regarded as His last public and solemn appearance as the Messiah,—an appearance which, coming as it did immediately before His passion, was on the one hand a matter of deep personal interest because of the necessary bearing it was felt to have upon the mission of His life; while, if taken in connection with what happened so soon after, it was calculated, on the other hand, to destroy all expectations of a merely political kind. The time was now come when Jesus felt that, just because He was the Messiah, it behoved Him to do something—and for this He appropriates the prophet’s symbol of the Prince of Peace—by way of contrast to His practice hitherto of forbidding the publication of His Messiahship. This step, which, from the fact of the crisis being so near, might now be taken without risk, He had postponed till the eve of His death,—a circumstance of the utmost significance as regarded the sense in which His Messiahship was to be understood. This incident, too, was one of the things for which His hour had not previously come (John 6:15). Comp. note on John 7:5 f. Strauss asserts that there is here the possibility at least of a mythical story, though his objections are far from being to the point. See, on the other hand, Ebrard and Bleek. According to Wittichen, Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1862, p. 365, Jesus did not intend this incident to be regarded in any other light than as an ordinary festival procession, but the multitude, without consulting Him, turned it into an occasion for a Messianic demonstration. This is not in keeping with the unusual preparations mentioned in Matthew 21:2; comp. Matthew 21:7.

Matthew 21:12. Different from Mark 11:11; Mark 11:15, where the narrative is more precise; comp. Weiss’ note on Mark.

In the court of the Gentiles were the tabernae, הניות, where animals, incense, oil, wine, and other requisites for sacrifice were exposed for sale. Lightfoot on this passage.

The money-changers (κολλυβ., see Phrynichus, p. 440) exchanged on commission (קולבון, Maimonides, Shekal. 3) ordinary money for the two drachmae pieces which were used in paying the temple tribute (see note on Matthew 17:24).

This cleansing of the temple is, with Chrysostom, Paulus, Kuinoel, Tholuck, Olshausen, Kern, Ebrard, Baumgarten

Crusius, Schleiermacher, Hengstenberg, Wieseler, to be regarded as the second that took place, the first being that recorded in John 2:13 ff., and which occurred on the occasion of the first visit to Jerusalem. The abuse having been repeated, there is no reason why Jesus should not have repeated this purifying process, and that (in answer to Hofmann, Luthardt, Hengstenberg) without any essential difference. The absence, in the synoptical account, of any allusion to a previous occasion, is sufficiently explicable from the length of time that intervened, and from the fact that the Synoptists take no notice generally of what took place during the earlier visit to Judea. The similarity of the accompanying circumstances may be accounted for from the similarity of the incidents themselves; whereas the supposition that the cleansing took place only on one occasion would necessarily involve a chronological derangement extending to almost the whole period of Christ’s ministry,—a derangement which can neither be fairly imputed to the synoptical narrative nor even conceived of as far as John is concerned, whose testimony is that of an eye-witness. This is not “wishy-washy criticism” (Keim), but it is based upon the authenticity of the fourth Gospel, as well as upon the weighty and unanimous testimony of the synoptical writers, to sacrifice whose authority for the sake of John would be both one-sided and violent. This, however, is what Wetstein, Lücke, Neander, de Wette, Bleek, Ewald, Weizsäcker have done. Others, again, have rejected the fourth evangelist’s account, so far as its chronology is concerned, in favour of that of the Synoptists (Ziegler, Theile, Strauss, Baur, Weisse, Hilgenfeld, Schenkel, Keim). Comp., further, the remarks under John 2:17.