성경 주석서

Matthew 5:14. Τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου] As the natural light illumines the world, which in itself is dark, so are ye intended to spiritually enlighten humanity. Christ is principaliter the Light (John 1:4; John 9:8; John 9:12, al.); the disciples mediate (Ephesians 3:9), as the mediators of His divine truth to men; and all Christians in general are, as those who are enlightened, also, on their part, bringers of light, and light in the Lord (Php 2:15; Ephesians 5:8).

οὐ δύναται πόλις, κ.τ.λ.] If you would desire timidly to withdraw into concealment (comp. Matthew 5:11; Matthew 5:13), then that would be conduct as opposed to the purpose for which you are destined as if a town set on a hill should wish to be concealed, or if one were to place (Matthew 5:15) a light under a bushel.

No definite town is intended; Saphet has been conjectured; see, on the other hand, Robinson, Pal. III. p. 587. We are not to think of Jerusalem (whose destination the disciples are, in the opinion, of Weizsäcker, to realize, p. 336). It is just any city in general situated upon a hill.

Matthew 5:15. Ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον] Fulgentius, Matthew 3:6 : “lucernamque modio contegit.” The article denotes the grain measure that is at hand in the house. On μόδιος, comp. Plut. Demetr. 33. It was one-sixth of the μέδιμνος, the μέδιμνος, according to Boeckh, 2602 Paris cubic inches [nearly 12 gallons English]. What Hebrew measure did Jesus mention? most probably מְאָה, as in Mark 13:33.

The καί is the consecutivum: and, and thus, that is, placed upon the candlestick; comp. Matthew 4:19; Maetzner, ad Lycurgum, p. 253. On the lamps which were in domestic use, and the candlesticks upon which they were placed, see as regards the Greeks, Hermann, Privatalterth. Matthew 20:23; Becker, Charikl. II. p. 214 ff.; as to the Greek expression λυχνία, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 313.

Matthew 5:16. Οὕτω] like a burning lamp upon its stand.

τὸ φῶς ὑμῶν] the light, of which you are the trusted possessors. This shines before men, if the disciples come forward publicly in their office with fidelity and courage, do not draw back, but spread abroad the gospel boldly and freely.

ὅτως ἴδωσιν ὑμῶν, κ.τ.λ.] that they may see the excellent works done by you. These are not their virtues in general, but, in accordance with the whole context from Matthew 5:11, their ministry as faithful to its obligations, their specific works as disciples, which, however, are also of a moral nature.

καὶ δοξάσωσι, κ.τ.λ.] that He has made you fit (2 Corinthians 3:5) to perform such works, they must recognise Him as their author; comp. Matthew 9:8; 1 Peter 2:12. The opposite, Romans 2:24.

τ. πατ. ὑμῶν τ. ἐν τοῖς οὐρ.] see on Matthew 6:9. This designation of God, which Christ gives forth from the fundamental standpoint of His gospel, already presupposes instructions previously given to the disciples upon the point. Observe, moreover, that here it is not ὑμῶν which, as formerly, has the emphasis.

Matthew 5:17.[399] A connection with what precedes is not to be artificially sought out. Jesus breaks off and introduces the new section without any intermediate remarks, which corresponds, precisely to its pre-eminent importance (for He shows how the Christian δικαιοσύνη, having its root in that of the Old Testament, is its consummation). On μὴ νομίς. ὅτι ἠλθ., comp. Matthew 10:34.

Ἤ] never stands for ΚΑΊ (see Winer, p. 410 [E. T. 549 f.]; comp. on 1 Corinthians 11:27), but is always distinctive. Here, to abrogate the one or the other. I have to abrogate neither that nor this. The νόμος is the divine institute of the law, which has its original document in the Pentateuch. The further Old Testament revelation, in so far as its final aim is the Messiah and His work, is represented by οἱ προφῆται, who make up its principal part; accordingly, Ὁ ΝΌΜΟς and οἱ προφῆται summarily denote the whole Old Testament revelation (comp. Luke 16:6), partly as a living divine economy, as here; partly as γραφή, as in Luke 24:27; Acts 24:14; Acts 28:23; Romans 3:21. Moreover, in the expression tow ΤΟῪς ΠΡΟΦΉΤΑς we are not to think of their predictions as such (the Greek Fathers, Augustine, Beza, Calovius, and others; also Tholuck, Neander, Harnaek, Bleek, Lechler, Schegg, and others), as nobody could imagine that their abrogation was to be expected from the Messiah, but, as the connection with νόμος shows (and comp. Matthew 7:12, Matthew 22:40; Luke 16:29), and as is in keeping with the manner in which the idea is carried out in the following verses, their contents as commands, in which respect the prophets have carried on the development of the law in an ethical manner (Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 36 f.). In νόμος, however, to think merely of the moral law is erroneous, as it always signifies the entire law, and the distinction between the ritualistic, civil, and moral law is modern; comp. on Romans 3:20. If, afterwards, sentences are given from the moral law, yet these are only quotations by way of illustration from the whole, from which, however, the moral precepts very naturally suggested themselves for quotations, because the idea of righteousness is before the mind. He has fulfilled the entire law, and in so doing has not destroyed the slightest provision of the ritualistic or civil code, so far as its general moral idea is concerned, but precisely everything which the law prescribes is raised to an ideal, of which the old legal commands are only στοιχεῖα. Theophylact well illustrates the matter by the instance of a silhouette, which the painter Οὐ ΚΑΤΑΛΎΕΙ, but carries out to completion, ἀναπληροῖ.

καταλῦσαι] often employed by classical writers to denote the dissolution of existing constitutions (specially also of the abrogation of laws, Isocr. p. 129 E; Polyb. iii. 8. 2), which are thereby rendered non-existent and invalid; comp. 2Ma 2:22; John 7:23; also ΝΌΜΟΝ ΚΑΤΑΡΓΕῖΝ, Romans 3:31; ἈΘΕΤΕῖΝ, Hebrews 10:28; Galatians 3:15.

The ΠΛΉΡΩΣΙς of the law and the prophets is their fulfilment by the re-establishment of their absolute meaning, so that now nothing more is wanting to what they ought to be in accordance with the divine ideas which lie at the foundation of their commands. It is the perfect development of their ideal reality out of the positive form, in which the same is historically apprehended and limited. So substantially, Luther, Calvin (comp. before them Chrysostom; he, however, introduces what is incongruous), Lightfoot, Hammond, Paulus, Gratz, de Wette, Olshausen, Ritschl, Ewald, Weiss, Hilgenfeld; likewise Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 314 ff., and others. Comp. Tholuck (who, however, brings together the too varying elements of different explanations), also Kahnis, Dogmat. I, p. 474, who understands it as the development of what is not completed into something higher, which preserves the substance of the lower. This explanation, which makes absolute the righteousness enjoined and set forth in the law and the prophets, is converted into a certainty by the two verses that follow. The matter is represented by πληρ. as a making complete (John 15:11; 2 Corinthians 10:6), in opposition to καταλῦσαι, which expresses the not allowing the thing to remain. Others (Bretschneider, Fritzsche): facere quae de Messia pre-scripta sunt; others (Käuffer, B. Crusius, Bleek, Lechler, Weizsäcker, after Beza, Eisner, Vorst, Wolf, and many older interpreters): legi satisfacere, as in Romans 13:8, where, in reference to the prophets, πληρ. is taken in the common sense of the fulfilment of the prophecies (see specially, Euth. Zigabenus, Calovius, and Bleek), but thereby introducing a reference which is not merely opposed to the context (see Matthew 5:18 f.), but also an unendurable twofold reference of πληρ.[400] Luther well says: “Christ is speaking of the fulfilment, and so deals with doctrines, in like manner as He calls ‘destroying’ a not acting with works against the law, but a breaking off from the law with the doctrine.” The fulfilling is “showing the right kernel and understanding, that they may learn what the law is and desires to have.”

I did not come to destroy, but to fulfil; the object is understood of itself, but the declaration delivered in this general way is more solemn without the addition of the pronoun.

[399] Special writings upon the passage:—Baumgarten, doctrina J. Ch. de lege Mos. ex oral. mont. 1838; Harnack, Jesus d. Christ oder der Erfüller d. Gesetzes, 1842; J. E. Meyer, über d. Verhältn. Jesu und seiner Jünger zum alttest. Gesetz. 1853. See especially, Ritschl, altkathol. K. p. 35 ff.; Bleek in d. Stud. u. Krit. 1853, p. 304; Lechler, ibidem, 1854, p. 787 ff.; Weiss, ibidem, 1858, p. 50 ff., and bibl. Theol. § 27; Ewald, Jahrb. X. p. 114 ff. The collection of sayings is to be simply regarded as the source of this section, not any special treatise upon the position of Jesus towards that law (Holtzmann); comp. Weiss in d. Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 56 f.

[400] Vitringa, who compares נמר, even brings out the meaning “to expound.” The explanation of Kuinoel goes back to the legi satisfacere, but gives as meaning, docendo vivendoque stabilire. Comp. Keim, “to teach the law, to do it, and to impose it.” The older dogmatic exegetes, who explained it by satisfacere, here found the satisfactio activa. See, for example, Er. Schmid and Calovius; recently, Philippi, vom thät. Gehors. Chr. p. 34; Baumgarten, p. 15. On the other hand, B. Crusius and also Tholuck. According to Bleek, p. 304, Christ has fulfilled the moral law by His sinless life, the ceremonial law by His sacrificial death, by means of which the prophecies also are fulfilled. According to Lechler, Jesus fulfils the law as doer, by His holy life and sacrificial death; as teacher, in teaching mankind rightly to understand and fulfil the commandments.

REMARK.

The Apostle Paul worked quite in the sense of our passage; his writings are full of the fulfilment of the law in the sense in which Christ means it; and his doctrine of its abrogation refers only to its validity for justification to the exclusion of faith. It is without any ground, therefore, that this passage, and especially Matthew 5:18 f., have been regarded by Baur (neutest. Theol. p. 55) as Judaistic, and supposed not to have proceeded in this form from Jesus, whom, rather in opposition to the higher standpoint already gained by Him, (Schenkel), the Apostle Matthew has apprehended and edited in so Judaistic a manner (Köstlin, p. 55 f.), or the supposed Matthew has made to speak in so anti-Pauline a way (Gfrörer, h. Sage, II. p. 84); according to Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschr. 1867, p. 374, Matthew 5:17 is indeed original, but in accordance with the view of the Hebrew gospel; Matthew 5:18 f., however, is an anti-Pauline addition; Weizsäcker sees in Matthew 5:19 only an interpolation; but Schenkel finds in Matthew 5:18 f. the proud assertion of the Pharisee, not Jesus’ own conviction. Paul did not advance beyond this declaration (comp. Planck in d. theol. Jahrb. 1847, p. 268 ff.), but he applied his right understanding boldly and freely, and in so doing the breaking up of the old form by the new spirit could not but necessarily begin, as Jesus Himself clearly recognised (comp. Matthew 9:16; John 4:21; John 4:23 f.) and set forth to those who believed in His own person and His completed righteousness (comp. Ritschl). But even in this self-representation of Christ the new principle is not severed from the O. T. piety, but is the highest fulfilment of the latter, its anti-typical consummation, its realized ideal. Christianity itself is in so far a law. Comp. Wittichen, p. 328; Holtzmann, p: 457 f.; Weizsäcker, p. 348 f.; see also on Romans 3:27; Galatians 6:2; 1 Corinthians 9:21.

Matthew 5:17-48. Messianic fulfilment of the law by the setting forth of which Jesus now, after He had made clear to the disciples their high destiny, desired to establish, before all other things the relation of Sis ministry to the religion of the Old Testament, introducing it, indeed, with μὴ νομίσητε, κ.τ.λ.; because the thought of an abrogation of the law by the Messiah (which was actually current among the Jews, upon the basis of Jeremiah 31:31, see Gfrörer, Jahrh. d. Heils, II. p. 341), and therewith a renewal of religion from the very foundation, might easily suggest itself so as to become highly injurious, and might give to the work of the disciples themselves an altogether perverted direction, as it was, moreover, maliciously laid hold of by their enemies in order to accuse the Lord (Matthew 26:61) and His disciples (Acts 6:14; Acts 21:21). The more designedly Jesus introduces and carries through this part (of His discourse), the less does it suffice to assume the occasion thereto as arising from the law retiring into the background in His daily life, and from a neglect of the law thus inferred (Keim); or from this, that Jesus was accustomed to set out, not from the law, but from the universal truths of faith, from testimonies of nature and life (Weizsäcker, p. 346). In this way the twice sharply emphasized “destroy” especially would appear altogether out of proportion.

Matthew 5:18. Ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν] for verily (ἀμήν = ἀληθῶς, Luke 9:27), that is, agreeably to the truth, do I tell you. What He now says serves as a confirmation of what preceded. This form of assurance, so frequently in the mouth of Christ, the bearer of divine truth, is not found in any apostle.

ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ, κ.τ.λ.] until heaven and earth shall have passed away. These words of Jesus do not indicate a terminus, after which the law shall no longer exist (Paulus, Meander, Lechler, Schleiermacher, Planck, Weizsäcker, and others), but He says: onwards to the destruction of the world the law will not lose its validity in the slightest point, by which popular expression (Luke 16:17; Job 14:12) the duration of the law after the final catastrophe of the world is neither taught nor excluded. That the law, however, fulfilled as to its ideal nature, will endure in the new world, is clear from 1 Corinthians 13:3 (ἀγάπη); 1 Peter 1:25; 2 Peter 3:3 (δικαιοσύνη). The unending authority of the law is also taught by Bar 4:1; Tob 1:6; Philo, vit. Mos. 2. p. 656; Joseph, c. Ap. ii. 38, and the Rabbins. See Bereschith R. x. 1, “omni rei suus finis, coelo et terrae suus finis, una excepta re, cui non suus finis, haec est lex.” Schemoth R. vi., “nulla litera aboletur a lege in aeternum.” Midrash Cohel. f. 71, 4, (lex) “perpetuo manebit in secula seculorum.” The passage in 1 Corinthians 15:28 is not opposed to our explanation; for if God is all in all, the fulfilled law of God yet stands in its absolute authority.

ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται] not: until all the prophecies are fulfilled, that would then be down to the Parousia (Wetstein, J. E. Meyer, comp. Ewald); nor even till all is carried out theocratically which I have to perform (Paulus), or what lies shut up in the divine decree (Köstlin), or even until the event shall occur by means of which the observance of the law becomes impossible, and it falls away of itself (Schleiermacher); but, in keeping with the context, until all which the law requires shall he accomplished (Matthew 6:10), nothing any longer left unobserved. This sentence is not co-ordinate to the first ἕως, but subordinate (Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 36): “So long as the world stands shall no iota[401] of the law pass away till all its prescriptions shall be realized.” All the requirements of the law shall be fulfilled; but before this fulfilment of all shall have begun,[402] not a single iota of the law shall fall till the end of the world. Fritzsche: till all (only in thought) is accomplished. He assumes, accordingly, agreeably to the analogous use of conditional sentences (Heindorf and Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 67 E; Kühner, II. 2, p. 988 f.), a double protasis: (1) ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ, κ.τ.λ., and (2) ἝΩς … ΓΈΝΗΤΑΙ. But the parallel passages, Matthew 24:34, Luke 21:32, are already opposed to this; and after the concrete and lively ἝΩς ἊΝ ΠΑΡΈΛΘῌ Ὁ ΟὐΡΑΝῸς Κ. Ἡ Γῆ, this general and indefinite ἝΩς ἊΝ ΠΆΝΤΑ ΓΈΝΗΤΑΙ would be only a vague and lumbering addition. As correlative to ἝΝ and ΜΊΑ, ΠΆΝΤΑ can only mean all portions of the law, without, however, any definite point of time requiring to be thought of, in which all the commands of the law will be carried out, according to which, then, the duration of the present condition of the world would be conformed. This thought is rendered impossible by the nearness of the Parousia, according to Matthew 24:29; Matthew 24:34, as well as by the growth of the tares until the Parousia, according to Matthew 13:30. The thought is rather, the law will not lose its binding obligation, which reaches on to the final realization of all its prescriptions, so long as heaven and earth remain.

Observe, moreover, that the expression in our passage is different from Matthew 24:35, where the permanency of the λόγοι of Christ after the end of the world is directly and definitely affirmed, but that in this continued duration of the ΛΌΓΟΙ of Christ the duration of the law also is implied, i.e. according to its complete meaning (in answer to Lechler, p. 797); comp. on Luke 16:17. “The δικαιοσύνη of the new heavens and of the new earth will be no other than what is here taught,” Delitzsch. So completely one with the idea of the law does Jesus in His spiritual greatness know His moral task to be, not severed from the latter, but placed in its midst.

[401] Ἰῶτα, the smallest letter, and κεραία, horn, a little stroke of writing (Plut. Mor. p. 1100 A, 1011 D), especially also in single letters (Origen, ad Psalms 33), by which, for example, the following letters are distinguished, כ and ב, ר and ד, ה and ח. See Lightfoot, Schoettgen, and Wetstein. Both expressions denote the smallest portions of the law; see ver. 19.

[402] In this is contained the perpetually abiding obligation of the law; for that condition of things, in which no part of the law remains unfulfilled, in which, consequently, all is accomplished, will never occur until the end of the world. Of the πάντα, moreover, nothing is to be excluded which the law Contains, not even the ritualistic portions, which are to be morally fulfilled in their ideal meaning, as e.g. the Levitical prescription regarding purification by moral purification, the sacrificial laws by moral self-sacrifice (comp. Romans 12:1), and so on, so that in the connection of the whole, in accordance with the idea of πλήρωσις, not even the smallest element will perish, but retains its importance and its integral moral connection with the whole. Comp. Tholuck; Gess, Christi Pers. und Werk, I. p. 292; and before him, Calvin on ver. 17.

Matthew 5:19. Conclusion from Matthew 5:18. On ὃς ἐάν with the conjunctive of the aorist, denoting that which was probably to happen in the future (the contingent futurum exactum), see Winer, p. 287 f. [E. T. 385]; Kühner, II. 2, p. 929; ἐάν for ἄν, see Winer, p. 291 [E. T. 3–90].

λύσῃ] like καταλῦσαι, Matthew 5:17;[403] Fritzsche and Arnoldi (after Castalio, Beza, Wolf, and others): transgressus fuerit, on account of the ποιήσῃ in the opposition; comp. also Ritschl, p. 40. But this ΠΟΙΉΣῌ partly forms a very appropriate antithesis to the ΛΎΣῌ in our sense, which, after ΚΑΤΑΛῦΣΑΙ in Matthew 5:17, would be abandoned only from arbitrariness; partly there is by no means wanting between ΛΎΕΙΝ and ΔΙΔΆΣΚΕΙΝ an appropriate, i.e. a climactic, distinction (they shall declare it to be of no authority, and teach accordingly); partly it is not credible that Jesus should have declared that the transgressor of the law was ἐλάχιστον ἐν τῇ βας. τ. οὐρανῶν, see Matthew 11:11. Doing (ποιήσῃ) and teaching (διδάξῃ) refer, as a matter of course, without it being necessary to supply any object besides the general word “is” (translated: whosoever shall have done and taught it), to that which is required in the smallest commandment, and that in the sense of the πλήρωσις, Matthew 5:17.

ΤῶΝ ἘΝΤΟΛῶΝ ΤΟΎΤΩΝ ΤῶΝ ἘΛΑΧΊΣΤΩΝ] ΤΟΎΤΩΝ points back to what is designated by ἸῶΤΑ and ΚΕΡΑΊΑ in Matthew 5:18, not forwards to Matthew 5:22; Matthew 5:28 (Bengel); ἘΛΑΧΊΣΤΩΝ refers, therefore, not to the Pharisaic distinctions between great and small commandments (see especially, Wetstein, p. 295 f.), but to what Jesus Himself had just designated as ἰῶτα and ΚΕΡΑΊΑ, those precepts which in reality are the least important. They stand, however, in accordance with the ΠΛΉΡΩΣΙς of the law, in essential organic connection with the ideal contents of the whole, and can therefore be so little regarded as having no authority, that rather he who does this (ΛΎΣῌ), and teaches others to act in this manner (ΔΙΔΆΞῌ), will obtain only one of the lowest places (one of the lowest grades of dignity and happiness) in the kingdom of the Messiah. He is not to be excluded (as Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Calovius, Wolf, Bengel, and others have misinterpreted the meaning of ἐλάχ. κληθ.), because his antinomianism is not a principle, not directed against the law as such, but only against individual precepts of the law, which in themselves are small, and whose importance as a whole he does not recognise.[404] Comp. 1 Corinthians 3:15.

Note the correlation of τῶν ἐλαχίστων … ἐλάχιστος … μέγας.

[403] Comp. on λύειν in the sense of abrogating, overturning of laws, John 7:23; Herod, iii. 82; Demosth. xxxi. 12. 186. 14. Ebrard (on Olshausen) erroneously explains it: “the mechanical dissolution of a law into a multitude of casuistical and ritualistic precepts.” The τούτων τῶν ἐλαχίστων should have prevented this view. Amongst Greek writers also the simple verb represents the compound that has preceded it; comp. on Romans 15:4.

[404] Ver. 19 stands in so essential a connection with the discourse, that the supposition of Olshausen, that Jesus had in view special acts of an antinomian tendency on the part of some of His disciples, appears just as unnecessary as it is arbitrary. Köstlin and Hilgenfeld find here a very distinct disapproval of the Apostle Paul and of the Paulinites, who break free from the law; nay, Paul, thinks Köstlin, was actually named by Jewish Christians the smallest (Ephesians 3:8), as he so names himself (1 Corinthians 15:9). A purely imaginary combination.

Matthew 5:20. Γάρ] Unnecessary difficulties have been raised on account of this connection (Ritschl and Bleek, who even declare δέ to be more appropriate), and the obvious sense passed over (de Wette, who, as well as Hilgenfeld, refers back to Matthew 5:17). Jesus does not state any ground for recognizing why there must be distinctions of rank in the kingdom (Ritschl), which must be understood as a matter of course; but He assigns the reason—and how important was that for the vocation of the disciples!—for the ποιήσῃ κ. διδάξῃ which He had just uttered, in accordance with its necessary connection: “For if ye do not unite acting with teaching, then can ye not enter into the kingdom, being upon the same stage of righteousness as the scribes and Pharisees” (Matthew 23:2 f., 14).

περισς. πλεῖον is to be rendered: shall have been more abundant than.[405] Comp. περοσσεύειν ὑπέρ τινα, 1Ma 3:30.

ἡ δικαιοσύνη ὑμῶν] your moral righteousness, as in Matthew 5:6; Matthew 5:10, not the justitia fidei (Calovius), although the truly moral life rests upon the latter.

τῶν γραμματ. κ. Φαρις.] well-known comparatio compendiaria for τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῶν, κ.τ.λ., Kühner, II. p. 847. It is understood, besides, as a matter of course, that Jesus here has in view the false righteousness of the Pharisees in general, so that nobler manifestations, like Gamaliel, Nicodemus, and others, do not determine His general judgment.

[405] These men thought and appeared to make themselves prominent by abundant acts of δικαιοσύνη, whilst they “ceremonialem et forensem morali missa tutati sunt” (Bengel). An abounding in righteousness on the part of His disciples in a higher degree and measure of morality, which πλεῖον, however, in accordance with the actual relation of the thing compared, contains in itself an essentially quite different kind of δικαιοσύνη, is required by Christ on the ground of faith in Him. That external righteousness, whilst the heart is impure, “does not belong to heaven, but to hell” (Luther).

Matthew 5:21. There now follow on to the end of the chapter six—neither five (Hilgenfeld) nor seven (Köstlin)—antithetic examples of the fulfilling of the law of Jesus, not merely derived from the Decalogue, or from its second table (Keim), but from the Pentateuch generally; not, however, of an antinomian kind, consequently not in opposition to the divine law itself (Chrysostom and many Fathers, Maldonatus, Neander, Bleek, Socinians and Arminians), but opposed, indeed, to all the manifold limitations and one-sided apprehensions and applications of the same, as it was represented and followed out in life by the common traditional Judaism, and specially by the Pharisees, without insight into the deeper unity and the purely moral absolute meaning. Comp. also Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 599 f.; Harless, d. Ehescheidungsfrage, 1861, p. 7 f.; Weiss, Keim. That use of the law produced a false legalism, without sincerity and virtue, in opposition to which Jesus wishes to develope and assert the true and full righteous morality out of the divine law.

ἠκούσατε] from the law which is read before you (John 12:34; Romans 2:13; Galatians 4:21; Acts 15:21), and from the instruction which you have received regarding its exposition.

τοῖς ἀρχαίοις] may grammatically be taken not only as a dative (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Luther, Erasmus, Grotius, Wetstein, Bengel, and many others; also Tholuck, Neander, de Wette, Ritschl, Bleek, Weizsäcker), but also as an ablative: by the ancients (see Kühner, II. 1, p. 368 f.; Winer, p. 206 [E. T. 277]); so Beza, Piscator, Schoettgen, Raphel, and many; also Paulus, Kuinoel, Fritzsche, Olshausen, Baumgarten, Ewald, Lechler, Keim. On the first rendering, which most obviously suggests itself (Romans 9:12; Romans 9:26; Galatians 3:16; Revelation 6:11; Revelation 9:4), the ancients are the Jewish generations of earlier times (before Christ), to which Moses and his followers (Matthew 23:2 f.), the scribes, spoke (de Wette, Ritschl), not simply the Israelites in the time of Moses, to whom the latter spoke (Neander, Bleek); on the latter view it is Moses (who would not have to be excluded, as Keim maintains), and his ancient expositors learned in the Scripture; for there follow their sayings, which are partly without, partly accompanied with, additions proceeding from the scribes. The decision between these two views is given not merely by the constant usage of the N. T., which joins ἐῤῥέθη with the dative, but also by the antithesis ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, in which ἐγώ corresponds to the logical subject of ἐῤῥέθη, and ὑμῖν to τοῖς ἀρχαίοις; the latter consequently cannot itself be the subject. Luther therefore rightly renders: that it is said to them of old time.[406] Pointless objections are made by Keim, II. p. 248, who even finds in this view something opposed to the sense; because the people of the present day have not yet heard of that which was enjoined on them of old time, but of what has been enjoined upon themselves. On the other hand, it is to be recollected that it was precisely a peculiarity of the Jewish method of instruction, and still is so, to refer the present generation to those of old time, to inculcate upon the former the παράδοσις which had been common in ancient times, and had been already given to their forefathers. Thus the people of the present time have certainly heard in the synagogues what was said to them of old time. Comp., moreover, Diodorus Siculus xxii. 20 : καλῶς εἴρηται τοῖς παλαῖοις, ὅτι, κ.τ.λ.

οὐ φονεύσεις] Exodus 20:12. The prohibition refers to the act, though not by itself, but as the effect of anger, of hostility, and so on; for there is also a putting to death which is permitted, nay, even commanded. The Pharisaic explanation and application of the legal saying was confined to the literal prohibition of the act; the fulfiller of the law lays open the whole disposition that deserves punishment, which, as the ethical condition of the act, was aimed at by the prohibition of the latter. The following words contain a traditional addition, although one not alien to the law, by the scribes, who interpreted that prohibition externally.

κρίσις, according to Matthew 5:22, opposed to the Sanhedrin, is the local court, found, according to Deuteronomy 16:18, in every city of Palestine, to which it belonged to take cognizance of and to punish even murder (execution by the sword), 2 Chronicles 19:5; Josephus, Antt. iv. 8. 14. According to the Rabbins, it consisted of twenty-three members; according to Josephus, of seven. See generally, Tholuck, Keil, Arch. II. p. 250 ff. To the higher court of justice, the Sanhedrin, Matthew 5:22, it belonged to take cognizance also of crimes punishable by stoning.

[406] Instead of ἐῤῥέθη, Lachmann and Tischendorf have, after B D E K V, the form ἐῤῥήθη. Both forms are found in Plato (see Heindorf, ad Gorg. p. 46), to whom, however, Schneider, ad Pol. V. p. 450 A, everywhere assigns the latter as the proper one. The first is the more common in the later Greek, and therefore to be preferred in the N. T. See in general, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 447. Comp. on Romans 9:12; Galatians 3:16.