성경 주석서

Matthew 4:24. Εἰς ὅλην τὴν Συρίαν] His reputation spread from Galilee into the whole province.

πάντας τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας] all the sufferers that there were. The following ποικίλ. νόσοις belongs not to κακῶς ἔχοντας (Syriac, Euth. Zigabenus), but to συνεχομένους.

νόσοις κ. βασάνοις] Sicknesses and torments.

The first is general, the last special.

καὶ δαιμον. καὶ σελην. κ. παραλυτ.] makes prominent three special kinds of what had previously been described in a general manner, so that the first καί is to be rendered: especially also, particularly also.

δαιμονιζομένους] according to the popular view, shared by the evangelist: possessed by demons (Matthew 9:34, Matthew 12:26), whose bodies had become the seat and organ of demoniacal working; δαιμόνιον is not a diminutive form, little devil (Ewald, Keim), but the neuter of δαιμόνιος as substantive. See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Ap. Socr. p. 27 f. They were real sick persons with diseases of a peculiar character (mania, epilepsy, delirium, hypochondria, paralytic condition, temporary dumbness), whose sufferings, being apparently inexplicable from physical causes, were believed to have their foundation not in an abnormal organization, or in natural disturbances of the physical condition, but in diabolical possession—that is, in the actual indwelling of demoniac personalities, very many of which might even be counted in one sick person (Mark 5:9; Mark 16:9).[394] This belief, which is conceivable from the decay of the old theocratic consciousness and of its moral strength, which referred all misfortune to God’s sending, is, however, a belief which rendered healing possible only through the acceptance of the existing view leaving the idea itself untouched, but made it all the more certain for the Messiah, who has power over the kingdom of devils, and who now, in the pure manifestation of Jesus, accompanied with miraculous working, stood victoriously opposed to all diabolic power. Comp. Ewald, Jahrb. VII. p. 54 ff., also Bleek, Neander, p. 237 ff. If we assume, however, that Jesus Himself shared the opinion of His age and nation regarding the reality of demoniacal possession of the sick (Strauss, Keim, Weiss), we find ourselves in the dilemma of either being obliged again to set up the old doctrine upon the authority of Jesus, or of attributing to the latter an erroneous belief not by any means remote from the religious sphere, and only of a physiological kind, but of an essentially religious character, and which would be irreconcilable with the pure height of the Lord’s divine knowledge.

καὶ σελην. κ. παραλυτ.] Epileptics, whose sufferings, it was observed, increased as the month advanced (Wetstein), and sufferers from nervous diseases (Richter, de paralysi, 1775). Epilepsy also might be of such a kind as to be regarded as demoniacal sickness (Matthew 17:15); here, however, is meant the form of sickness which is regarded as natural.

[394] After the old view of actual bodily possession of the sick had, after Balth. Becker (bezauberte Welt, iv. 5 ff.), Mead (medica sacra, ix.), Wetstein, been, especially by Semler (Comment. de daemoniacis, 1760, u. umständliche Untersuch. d. dämonischen Leute, 1762), successfully refuted, and had disappeared altogether (see also Timmermaim, de daemoniac. evangelior. 1786; Winzer, de daemonologia N. T., 1812, 1821), although attempts at its defence were not wanting (Storr, Opusc. I. p. 53 ff.; Eschenmayer, Mysticism, 1823; Jahn, Nachträge zu s. theol. Werken, 1821), the old view was again brought forward, partly before (v. Meyer, Bibeldut. p. 40 ff.; Olshausen on Matthew 8:28, and others), partly after, the assaults of Strauss (Krabbe, Hoffmann, Ebrard, Arnoldi, Hofmann, Steinmeyer), and supported with more or less acuteness, and with turns of a partly obscure and evasive character, especially by means of comparisons with magnetism. Delitzsch, bibl. Psychol. p. 293 ff.; Ebrard in Herzog’s Encykl. III. p. 240 ff. Not so, however, Lange, 11. 1, p. 285 ff., who, regarding the condition as a natural one, refers it to a nervous disease, having an elective affinity with demoniacal influences, which the patient as well as the people represented to himself as possession. By this the old view is not retained even in appearance. Against its tenability, however, irrespective of all objections of a physiological and medical kind, the following are decisive proofs: (1) The non-occurrence of demons in the O. T.; (2) the undisputed healing of the same by exorcists (Matthew 12:27; Mark 9:38; Josephus, Antt. viii. 2. 5; Justin, c. Tryph. 85; Lucian. Philopseud. 16); as well as (3) the non-occurrence of reliable instances in modern times (? Justinus Kerner, Gesch. Besessener neuerer Zeit., Carlsruhe 1834), although the same sicknesses, which were deemed to be demoniacal, are common; and (4) the complete silence of John, which (comp. especially Luke 9:49) is the more eloquent the more essentially he also regards miraculous healing as belonging to the work of the Messiah, and the conquest of the devil as the Messiah’s task. In John, moreover, diabolical possession is found mentioned (Matthew 13:27), but not as the effect of physical sickness, but of spiritual domination and obduracy, the so-called obsessio spiritualis. Comp. John 7:28; John 8:48; John 10:20. Definite references to the expulsion of demons from the sick are wanting also in Paul’s Epistles, although they might be included with others in 1 Corinthians 12:9. Observe, moreover, (5) the demoniacs were not at all filled with godless dispositions and anti-Christian wickedness, which, nevertheless, was necessarily to be expected as the result of the real indwelling of devils.

Matthew 4:25. Δεκαπόλεως] a strip of land with ten cities (Josephus, Vit. 9), chiefly inhabited by the heathen, on the other side of the Jordan, in the north-east of Palestine. As to the towns themselves, which were reckoned as included in it, and to which Scythopolis, Gadara, Hippo, and Pella certainly belonged, there was, so early as the time of Pliny (H. N. v. 16), no unanimity of opinion, Lightfoot, Hor. p. 563 ff.; Vaihinger in Herzog, III.; Holtzmann in Schenkel’s Bibellex.

πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου] as in Matthew 5:15, Matthew 19:1, Mark 3:8, a geographical name: Peraea (Josephus, Bell. ix. 3. 3; Plin. v. 15), the land east of the Jordan, from Mount Hermon down to the river Arnon.

CHAPTER 5

Matthew 5:1. αὐτῷ] is wanting in Lachm., after B. Correction, with a view to improve the style.

Matthew 5:5. Lachm. Tisch. have this verse before Matthew 5:4, but on too weak authority (D, 33, Lat. Verss. Syrcur Or. Eus. and other Fathers). A logical bringing together of the πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι and of the πραεῖς.

Matthew 5:9. αὐτοί] bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. 8, wanting in C D א, 13, 134, Lat. Verss. Syr. Hil. But how easily would the omission occur in writing, since here the similarly ending υἱοί follows (otherwise in Matthew 5:4 ff.)!

Matthew 5:11. ῥῆμα] is deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, after B D א, Vulg. It. and other Verss. and some Fathers. But as the word is altogether unnecessary as far as the meaning is concerned, it might easily be omitted, especially after the syllable PON.

ψευδόμενοι] is wanting only in D, Codd. of the It., and some Fathers, including Origen. Suspected, indeed, by Griesbach, and deleted by Fritzsche, Tisch. 7; wrongly, however, since the word is quite decisively attested (again restored by Tisch. 8). A definition that appeared so much a matter of course might easily be passed over.

Matthew 5:13. βληθῆναι ἔξω καί] Lachm. Tisch. 8; βληθὲν ἔξω, after B C א, 1, 33. An attempt to help out the style.

Matthew 5:22. εἰκῆ] is wanting in B א, 48, 198, Vulg. Aeth. Or. and some other witnesses. Expressly rejected as spurious as early as Jerome and Augustin. Retr. i. 19, and Pseud.-Athan. Iren. and Hil. place it after ὀργ. Deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch. It is an inappropriate addition, resulting from bias, although of very ancient date (already in Syr. It. Eus.).

Matthew 5:25. The second σε παραδῷ is wanting only in B א, 1, 13, 124, 127* Arm. Aeth. 13, 124, 127* Chrys. Hilar. Arn. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. Passed over as unnecessary, because its emphasis was mistaken.

Matthew 5:27. ἐῤῥέθη] Elz. adds τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, for which, however, decisive testimony is wanting. Taken from Matthew 5:21; Matthew 5:33.

Matthew 5:28. ἐπιθ. αὐτήν] Elz.: ἐπιθ. αὐτῆς, against decisive testimony. א, 236, Clem. Or. Chrys. Isid. Tert. have no pronoun at all. So Fritzsche and Tisch. 8. But the testimony for αὐτήν is too strong, and the omission might easily have arisen from its being unnecessary.

Matthew 5:30. βληθῇ εἰς γέενναν] Lachm. and Tisch.: εἰς γέενναν ἀπέλθῃ, after B D? א, Curss. and many Verss. and Fathers; it is uncertain whether also in Or. Correctly; the Received reading is derived from Matthew 5:29.

Matthew 5:31. ὅτι] is wanting in B D L א, Curss. Vulg. It. Chrys. Suspected by Griesbach, deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly. An addition that easily suggested itself. See the exegetical remarks on Matthew 2:23.

Matthew 5:32. ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων, after B K L M Δ Π א, Curss. Vulg. It. and other verss. A change made in accordance with Matthew 5:22; Matthew 5:28; Luke 16:18.

μοιχᾶσθαι] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : μοιχευθῆναι. So B D א, Curss. Theoph. Or. Chrys. Theod. A gloss (to be seduced to adultery) to distinguish it from μοιχᾶται, which follows. Lachm. has afterwards καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσας, after B and some Curss., connected with the reading πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων at the beginning of the verse.

Matthew 5:39. ῥαπίσει] B א, 33: ῥαπίζει; so Tisch. 8. Correctly; the future is a conformation to Matthew 5:41.

Matthew 5:42. δίδου] Lachm. and Tisch.: δός, after B D א, 13, 124, Clem. The Received reading is taken from Luke 6:30.

Matthew 5:44. τοῖς μισοῦσιν] Elz.: τοὺς μισοῦντας, against the best and most numerous witnesses. To exchange, with Lachm. and Tisch., the whole passage from εὐλογ. to μις. ὑμᾶς, after B א, Curss. Copt. Syrcur and many Fathers (including Or. Eus.), and to explain it as an interpolation from Luke, is too bold, since in Luke 6:27 f. the sentences stand in different order. Omissions, however, caused by the Homoeoteleuta might easily occur. ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑμᾶς καί is, however, very suspicious; it is wanting in B א, Curss. and many Verss. Or. (five times; he has the words twice, but then καὶ διωκ. ὑμᾶς is wanting); also in Cypr. Aug. Lucif. and in others stands after διωκ.; it therefore betrays itself as an interpolation from Luke 6:28.

Matthew 5:47. ἀδελφούς] φίλους, in E K L M S Δ Π, Curss. Arm. Goth. Bas. Lucif., is a gloss.

ἐθνικοί] Elz.; Matthaei and Scholz have τελῶναι, against B D Z א, Curss. Verss. and Fathers. Brought hither from Matthew 5:46.

Matthew 5:48. ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς] Lachm. and Tisch.: ὁ οὐράνιος; also approved by Griesb., in accordance with very important witnesses. Is to be preferred; the Received reading flowed as a gloss from Matthew 5:45.

Matthew 5:1. See on the Sermon on the Mount, the exposition of Tholuck, ed. 5, 1872. [Achelis, Die Bergpredigt, 1875.] Luther’s exposition (sermons of 1530), which appeared in 1532.

τοὺς ὄχλους] see Matthew 4:25. The evangelist does not determine either the time or place precisely, yet he by no means agrees with Luke 6:17.

The μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ are not the twelve apostles (Fritzsche, Hilgenfeld), against which Matthew 9:9 is already decisive, but, besides the first four that we selected (Matthew 4:18 ff.) His disciples generally, “qui doctrinam ejus sectabantur,” Grotius.

εἰς τὸ ὄρος] The article is not indefinite: upon a mountain (Luther, Kuinoel), which explanation of the article is always incorrect (Bengel on Matthew 18:7), but also not generic; upon the hilly district, or on the heights (Ebrard, Bleek), as ὄρος in the singular (on the plural, comp. Matthew 18:12, Matthew 24:16) in the N. T. is always only a single hill, as in classical writers; but τὸ ὄρος designates that hill which is situated in the place, where Jesus saw the ὄχλους. Comp. John 6:3; Euth. Zigabenus: τὸ ὄρος τὸ πλησίον. Others (Fritzsche, de Wette) make it the well-known hill; comp. Delitzsch: “the Sinai of the New Testament;” Ewald: “the holy hill of the gospel history.” These are arbitrary presuppositions, opposed to the analogy of Matthew 14:23, Matthew 15:29. It is a misuse of the article, however, to assume that in the Gospels the same mountain is always designated by τὸ ὄρος (Gfrörer, heil. Sage, I. p. 139; B. Bauer; Volkmar). Tradition points out the “mount of beatitudes” as near the town of Saphet; see Robinson, Palestine, III. p. 485. Comp. also Schubert, III. p. 233; Ritter, Erdk. XV. 1, p. 387; Keim, Gesch. J. II. p. 236.

Matthew 5:2. Ἀνοίγειν τὸ στόμα] after פָּתַח פֶּה; Vorstius, de Hebraismis, p. 703 ff. Individual instances also amongst classical writers; Aristophanes, Av. 1720; Aeschylus, Prom. 612; Lucian. Philops. 33. This phrase belongs to the distinctly descriptive style of narrative, and denotes of itself nothing else than the opening of the mouth to speak, where the connection alone indicates whether in this descriptive element the emphasis of solemnity, of boldness, or the like is contained or not. Comp. on 2 Corinthians 6:11; Ephesians 6:19. Here, where the first extensive discourse of Jesus, which forms the great programme for the membership of His kingdom, follows, the solemn character of the moment, “He opened His mouth,” is not to be mistaken; compare Matthew 13:35. A similar indication of purpose in Job 3:1, Daniel 10:16, Acts 8:35; Acts 10:34, but not in Acts 8:14. Luther well says, “There the evangelist makes a preface and shows how Christ placed Himself to deliver the sermon which He intended; that He goes up a mountain, sits down, and opens His mouth, that men may see that He was in earnest.”

αὐτούς] τοὺς μαθητάς. Jesus at first directed His discourse to the entire circle of His disciples, but kept also in view the ὀχλοί, who, according to Matthew 7:28, pressed after Him, and became hearers of the discourse; see also Luke 6:20; Luke 7:1.

Matthew 5:3-10. The beatitudes in general, in order to set forth, first, in a general way, the moral conditions of future participation in the Messiah’s kingdom.—“That is, indeed, a fine, sweet, friendly beginning of His teaching and sermon. For He does not proceed, like Moses, or a teacher of the law, with commands, threats, and terrors, but in a most friendly manner, with pure attractions and allurements, and pleasant promises,” Luther.

μακάριοι] “Initiale hoc verbum toties repetitum indicat scopum doctrinae Christi,” Bengel. What the blessedness is (אֲשְׁרֵי) which He means, is stated by all the causal sentences[395] with ὅτι in Matthew 5:3-10, viz. that which is based on this, that they will attain the salvation of the kingdom, which is nigh at hand.

οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι] the עֲנָוִים, אֶבְיוֹנִים (see Isaiah 61:1; Isaiah 66:2, and the post-exilian Psalm 37:11) were those who, according to the theocratic promise of the O. T., had to expect the Messianic blessedness (Luke 4:18). Jesus, however, according to Matthew, transports the idea of the poor (les miserables) from the politico-theocratic realm (the members of the oppressed people of God, sunk in poverty and external wretchedness) into the purely moral sphere by means of the dative of more precise definition, τῷ πνεύματι (comp. Matthew 5:8): the poor in reference to their spirit, the spiritually poor—that is, those who feel, as a matter of consciousness, that they are in a miserable, unhappy condition; comp. Isaiah 57:15; Proverbs 29:23. The ΠΤΩΧΕΊΑ intended is then subjectively determined according to the consciousness of the subject, so that these latter (comp. Matthew 5:4-6) are conceived of as those who feel within them, the opposite of having enough, and of wanting nothing in a moral point of view; to whom, consequently, the condition of moral poverty and helplessness is a familiar thing,—as the praying publican, Luke 18:10 (the opposite in Revelation 3:17; 1 Corinthians 4:8), was such a poor man. We have neither to supply an “also” before τῷ πνεύματι, nor, with Baur, to explain it as if it meant οἱ πτωχοὶ, ἀλλὰ τῷ πνεύματι πλούσιοι; comp. 2 Corinthians 6:10. Chrysostom is substantially correct (comp. Theophylact): οἱ ταπεινοὶ κ. συντετριμμένοι τὴν διάνοιαν. Comp. de Wette in the Stud. von Daub und Creuzer, III. 2, p. 309 ff.; de morte expiat. p. 86 f. Jerome strikingly says: “Adjunxit spiritu, ut humilitatem intelligeres, non penuriam.” Comp. ὑψηλὸς πνεύματι, Ecclesiastes 7:8. They are not different from the μὴ βλέποντες in John 9:39. They know that in point of knowledge and moral constitution they are far from divine truth. The declaration that such are blessed, however, at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount, is in perfect accordance with the fundamental condition of participation in the kingdom of the Messiah, the ΜΕΤΑΝΟΕῖΤΕ, with the call to which both Jesus and John began their public appearance. The ΠΤΩΧΕΊΑ Τῷ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΙ, is the precondition of ΠΛΟΥΤΕῖΝ ΕἸς ΘΕΌΝ (Luke 12:21), and of becoming a true ΠΛΟΎΣΙΟς Τῷ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΙ (Barnabas 19). These poor people are humble, but we are not to say that πτωχ. τ. πν. signifies the humble (in answer to Kuinoel and older interpreters); for which reason we have not to appeal to Isaiah 66:2, where רוּחַ does not agree with עָנִי. Fritzsche, in a way that is not in harmony with the moral nature and life of the whole discourse, limits the meaning to that of discernment: “Homines ingenio et eruditione parum florentes;” so also Chr. Fritzsche, Nov. Opusc. p. 241, in which meaning (consequently equivalent to οἱ πτωχοὶ τῇ διανοίᾳ, as Origen, de princ. iv. 22, calls the Ebionites) the saying was already made a subject of ridicule by Julian. Older Catholics (Maldonatus and Corn. a Lapide), after Clement of Alexandria and many Fathers, taking ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΙ of the self-determination, misused our passage in support of the vow of voluntary poverty. On the other hand, Calovius strikingly remarks: “Paupertas haec spiritualis non est consilii, sed praecepti.” Others (Olearius, Michaelis, Paulus) connect τῷ πνεύματι with μακάριοι: the poor are spiritually happy. Opposed to this is the position of the words and Matthew 5:8. Moreover, no example is found in the N. T. or in the Jewish writings, where, in the case of beatitudes, to the ΜΑΚΆΡΙΟς, or אַשְׁרֵי, or טֹוּבֵי, any more precise designation of fortune was immediately subjoined. Comp. especially, Knapp, Scripta var. arg. pp. 351–380. According to Köstlin, p. 66, the τῷ πνεύματι, which is not expressly read in the Clementines (see Homily xv. 10) and Polycrates ii. (as also τὴν δικαιος. Matthew 5:6), is said to be a limiting addition proceeding from later reflection, one of the many changes which must be assumed as having taken place in the original collection of discourses; comp. also Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Bleek, Wittichen, Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1862, p. 323; Holtzmann, p. 176; Schenkel, and others. But see on Luke 6:23.

Ἡ ΒΑς. Τ. ΟὐΡ.] the kingdom of heaven belongs to them (see on Matthew 3:2), namely, as a certain possession in the future. Comp. the following futures. Observe in all the beatitudes, Matthew 5:3-10, the symmetrically emphatical position of αὐτῶν, αὐτοί; it is just they who.

[395] These causal sentences justify also the usual enumeration of the Makarisms as the “seven beatitudes.” For vv. 3 and 10 contain the same promise, which, therefore, is to be counted only once in order to retain the number seven; comp. Ewald, Jahrb. I. p. 133; also Köstlin and Hilgenfeld. Others, like Weizsäcker and Keim, counting ver. 10 specially with the others, arrive at the number eight. But Delitzsch, to bring out an analogy with the Decalogue, reckons, besides the μακάριοι in ver. 11, the χαίρετε κ. ἀγαλλ. also in ver. 12, as “the full-sounding finale,” and in this way knows how to force out ten beatitudes.

Matthew 5:4. Οἱ πενθοῦντες] Comp. Isaiah 61:2; Isaiah 57:17 f. After Chrysostom, these have frequently been understood as those who mourned over their own sins and those of others. These are not excluded, but they are not exclusively or specially meant by the general expression (Keim). They are generally those who are in suffering and distress. Think, for example, of Lazarus, of the persecuted Christians (John 16:20; Hebrews 12:11), of the suffering repentant ones (2 Corinthians 7:9), and so on; for that no unchristian πενθεῖν, no λύπη τοῦ κόσμου, is meant, is (2 Corinthians 7:10) understood of itself from the whole surroundings. The πενθοῦντες shall, Romans 8:18, 2 Corinthians 4:17, John 14:13, be comforted as a matter of fact in the Messiah’s kingdom by the enjoyment of its blessedness (Luke 2:25; Luke 16:25), therefore the Messiah Himself is also called מְנַחֵם (Schoettgen, Hor. II. p. 18; Wetstein, I. p. 665). According to the beatitudes, which all refer to the Messiah’s kingdom, there is no mention of temporal comfort by the promise of the forgiveness of sins, and so on. This in answer to Kienlen in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1848, p. 681.

Matthew 5:5. According to Psalm 37:11, where the LXX. have οἱ δὲ πραεῖς κληρονομήσουσι γῆν. The πραεῖς (Matthew 11:29, Matthew 21:5) are the calm, meek sufferers relying on God’s help, who, without bitterness or revenge as the ταπεινοὶ κ. ἡσύχιοι (Isaiah 66:2), suffer the cruelties of their tyrants and oppressors. The opposite is χαλεποί (Plat. Pol. vi. p. 493 B), πικροί (Dem. 315, 5), ἄγριοι, and the like; Plat. Def. p. 412 D: πραότης κατάστασις κινήσεως τῆς ὑπʼ ὀργῆς· κρᾶσις ψυχῆς σύμμετρος. Comp. 1 Peter 3:4. The very ancient popular (Genesis 15:7 f.) theocratic conception: to come into possession of the land (of (Palestine) (in Psalms 37 : after the expulsion of their haughty enemies), has been raised to its antitypical Christian idea, so that the Messiah’s kingdom and the receiving possession of it is intended. Comp. on Galatians 3:18; Ephesians 1:11.