Comentários bíblicos

CHAPTER 16

Matthew 16:3. ὑποκριταί] omitted before τὸ μέν in C* D L Δ, Curss. Verss. Aug. Deleted by Lachmann (who has καί instead, only after C**) and Tisch. Correctly; borrowed from Luke 12:56.

In accordance with important testimony, Lachm. and Tisch. have correctly deleted τοῦ προφήτου, Matthew 16:4 (comp. Matthew 12:39), as also αὐτοῦ, Matthew 16:5.

Matthew 16:8. ἐλάβετε] Lachm.: ἔχετε, after B D א, Curss. Vulg. It., and other Verss. (not Or.). Correctly; ἐλάβ. was more likely to be derived mechanically from Matthew 16:7 than ἔχετε to have been adopted from Mark 8:17. Had the latter been the case, we should likewise have found ἔχομεν in Matthew 16:7.

Matthew 16:11. ἄρτου] Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.: ἄρτων, which Griesb. likewise approved, in accordance with a preponderance of testimony. The sing, would naturally come more readily to the transcribers, and that on account of the material rather than the numerical contrast.

For προσέχειν, B C* L א, Curss. Verss. Or. have: προσέχετε δέ (D, Curss. and Verss., however, omitting the δέ). Correctly adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. The infinitive, as well as the omission of δέ, originated in the reference of the words not having been understood.

Matthew 16:12. τοῦ ἄρτου] Tisch. 8 : τῶν Φαρισαίων κ. Σαδδουκ., only after א* 33, Syrcur; Lachm. has τῶν ἄρτων, which, however, is not so well supported as in Matthew 16:11 (B L א**), besides having the appearance of being simply conformed to this verse.

The reading of Tisch. 8 is somewhat of a gloss.

Matthew 16:13. με] is omitted after τίνα in B א and several Verss. and Fathers; in C it is found after λέγ. Deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch., bracketed by Lachm. Omitted because, from the circumstance of τ. υἱὸν τ. ἀνθρ. following (otherwise in Mark and Luke), it seemed superfluous and out of place.

Matthew 16:20. διεστείλατο] Orig. already found ἐπετίμησεν in Codd. So Lachm. after B* D, Arm. Taken from Mark 8:30, Luke 9:21, for διαστέλλω occurs nowhere else in Matthew.

ὁ Χριστός] Elz., after numerous and important Codd. (also C א**): Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστός. But Ἰησοῦς is omitted by very important authorities, and, as it is out of place in the present connection, the transcriber must have inserted it mechanically.

Matthew 16:23. μου εἶ] B C א, 13, 124: εἶ ἐμοῦ (so Lachm. Tisch. 8), or εἶ μου. D, Marcell., in Eus. Vulg. It. al.: εἶ ἐμοί (so Fritzsche). With such a want of unanimity among the authorities, the reading of the Received text cannot be said to have a preponderance of testimony, while the variations turn the scales in favour of εἶ ἐμοῦ.

Matthew 16:26. ὠφελεῖται] Lachm. Tisch.: ὠφεληθήσεται, after B L א, Curss. Verss. Or. Cyr. Chrys. Altered to be in conformity with the verbs in the future that precede and follow. Comp. also Mark 8:36-37.

Matthew 16:28. τῶν ὧδε ἑστώτων] Elz.: τῶν ὧδε ἑστηκότων, after K M Π. Fritzsche: τῶν ὧδε ἑστῶτες, after Ev. 49. Both are to be rejected, owing to the testimony being too inadequate. Scholz and Tisch. 7 : ὧδε ἑστῶτες, after E F G H V X Γ Δ, Curss. No doubt τῶν ὧδε ἑστώτων is supported by the preponderating testimony of B C D L S U א, Curss. Or. Ephr. Chrys. Epiph. Theodoret, Damasc., and adopted by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. 8; still it is clearly taken from Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27. It therefore remains that ὧδε ἑστῶτες is the correct reading.

Matthew 16:1 ff. Comp. Mark 8:11 ff. Not a duplicate of the incident recorded in Matthew 12:38 (Strauss, de Wette, Bruno Bauer, Schneckenburger, Volkmar, Weizsäcker, Bleek, Scholten), but a second demand for a sign, and that from heaven, in which respect it is distinguished from the first. With regard to the alliance between Pharisees and Sadducees, supposed by some to be utterly improbable (de Wette, Strauss, Weiss, Scholten), it is sufficient to say, with Theophylact: κἂν τοῖς δόγμασι διίσταντο Φαρισαῖοι καὶ Σαδδουκαῖοι, ἀλλά γε κατὰ Χριστοῦ συμπνέουσι· σημεῖον δὲ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ζητοῦσιν, ἐδόκουν γὰρ, ὅτι τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς σημεῖα ἀπὸ δαιμονικῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ἐν Βεελζεβοὺλ γίνονται. In the unbelieving hostility with which they are animated, they demand of Him the very highest sign which the Messiah would be expected to give (Matthew 24:29 f.; Joel 3:3 f.), intending thereby to have Him put to the test, but thinking, all the time, that it would be beyond His power to comply with their demand.

ἐπηρώτησαν] Their challenge was put in the form of inquiry.

The compound ἐπερωτᾶν never means: to request, to beg; see note on Matthew 15:23.

Their questions had reference to such a sign, by way of Messianic credential, as, coming from heaven, would be visible to their outward eye.

ἐπιδεῖξαι] spectandum praebere, John 2:18.

Matthew 16:2-3 f.[454] Lightfoot, p. 373: “Curiosi erant admodum Judaei in observandis tempestatibus coeli et temperamento aëris.” Babyl. Joma f. 21. 8; Hieros. Taanith f. 65. 2. For Greek and Roman testimonies relative to the weather signs in our passage, see Wetstein.

εὐδία] clear weather! An exclamation in which it is not necessary to supply ἜΣΤΑΙ, except, perhaps, in the way of helping the grammatical analysis, as also in the case of σήμερον χειμών (stormy weather to-day!). For the opposite of ΕὐΔΊΑ and ΧΕΙΜΏΝ, comp. Xen. Hell. ii. 3. 10 : ἐν εὐδίᾳ χειμῶνα ποιοῦσιν.

στυγνάζων] being lowering. See note on Mark 10:22.

ΤῸ ΠΡΌΣΩΠΟΝ] “Omnis rei facies externa,” Dissen, ad Pind. Pyth. vi. 14, p. 273.

τὰ δὲ σημεῖα τῶν καιρῶν] the significant phenomena connected with passing events, the phenomena which present themselves as characteristic features of the time, and point to the impending course of events, just as a red sky at evening portends fine weather, and so on. The expression is a general one, hence the plural ΤῶΝ ΚΑΙΡῶΝ; so that it was a mistake to understand the ΣΗΜΕῖΑ as referring to the miracles of Christ (Beza, Kuinoel, Fritzsche). Only when the reproach expressed in this general form is applied, as the Pharisees and Sadducees were intending to apply it, to the existing καιρός, do the miracles of Christ fall to be included among the signs, because they indicate the near approach of the Messiah’s kingdom. In like manner the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy, such as was to be traced in the events that were then taking place (Grotius), was to be regarded as among the signs in question, as also the Messianic awakening among the people, Matthew 11:12 (de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius). According to Strauss, the saying in Matthew 16:2-3 is inconceivable. But the truth is, it was peculiarly in keeping with the thoughtful manner of Jesus, if, when a sign from heaven was demanded, He should refer those demanding it to their own practice of interpreting the appearances of the sky, so as to let them see how blinded they were to the signs that already existed. A similar saying is found in Luke 12:54 f., where, however, it is addressed to the multitude. There is no reason for thinking that it appears in its authentic form only in Matthew (de Wette), or only in Luke (Schleiermacher, Holtzmann), for there is nothing to prevent us from supposing that Jesus may have used similar and in itself very natural language on several occasions.

ΚΑῚ ΚΑΤΑΛΙΠ. ΑὐΤ. ἈΠῆΛΘΕ] depicting in a simple way the “justa severitas” (Bengel) shown toward those incorrigibles. Comp. Matthew 21:17.

Comp., besides, the note on Matthew 12:39.

[454] The whole passage from ὀψίας on to οὐ δύνασθε, ver. 3, is omitted in B V Χ Γ א, Curss. Codd. in Jerom. Syrcur Arm. Or. (?), while in E it is marked with an asterisk. Tisch. 8 encloses it in brackets. The omission is certainly not to be explained on the physical ground (Bengel) that these signs of the weather are not applicable to every climate, but from the fact that a similar saying does not happen to be found in the corresponding passage in Mark.

Matthew 16:5. This, according to Fritzsche, is the voyage mentioned in Matthew 15:39, so that the disciples are supposed to have come shortly after “in eum ipsum locum, quem Jesus cum Pharisaeis disputans tenebat.” Unjustifiable deviation from the very definite account in Mark 8:13. After disposing of the Pharisees and Sadducees, Jesus crossed over again to the east side of the lake along with His disciples; but Matthew mentions only οἱ μαθηταί, because they alone happen to form the subject of ἐπελάθοντο, though Matthew 16:6 shows, beyond all doubt, that Jesus crossed along with them.

ἐπελάθοντο] is neither to be taken (Erasmus, Calvin, Paulus, Hilgenfeld) as a pluperfect (see, on the other hand, note on John 18:24), nor as equivalent to “viderunt se oblitos esse” (Beza, Kuinoel, Fritzsche), but thus: after the disciples had reached the east side, they forgot to provide themselves with bread (to serve them for a longer journey). After coming on shore they should have obtained a supply of provisions in view of having a further journey before them, but this they forgot. According to Mark 8:14 ff., which in this instance also is the more authentic version, the following conversation is not to be understood as having taken place in the boat (Keim, Weiss), but in the course of the further journey after going on shore.

Matthew 16:6. The craft and malice of the Pharisees and Sadducees were still fresh in His memory, Matthew 16:1-4.

ζύμην τὴν διδαχήν] ἐκάλεσεν, ὡς ὀξώδη καὶ σαπράν (Euth. Zigabenus); see Matthew 16:12. The allusion is to their peculiar sectarian views, in so far as they deviated from the law. The expression is explained differently in Luke 12:1. Comp. note on Galatians 5:9; 1 Corinthians 5:6. For the figurative use of שְׂאֹר by the Rabbis (as denoting the infecting influence of any one who is bad), see Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 2303. Lightfoot on this passage. Used differently again in Matthew 13:33.

Matthew 16:7 f. Owing to the notion of bread being associated in their minds with that of leaven, the words of Jesus led them to notice that their supply of the former article was exhausted, so that they supposed all the time that His object was to warn them against taking bread from the Pharisees and Sadducees.

διελογίζοντο] not disceptabant (Grotius, Kypke, Kuinoel), but: they consulted among themselves, i.e. they deliberate (λέγοντες) over the matter within their own circle without saying anything to Jesus, who, however, from His being able to penetrate their thoughts, is quite aware of what is going on, Matthew 16:8. Comp. Xen. Mem. iii. 5. 1.

ὅτι] not: recitative, but: (He says that) because we have not provided ourselves with bread. In Matthew 16:8 it means: over the fact, that.

τί διαλογ.] why, and so on, how meaningless and absurd it is!

Matthew 16:9 f. After those two miracles you have so recently witnessed (Matthew 14:15, Matthew 15:32), have you still so little penetration as not to understand that the thing to which I am alluding is not literal bread, which you ought to have depended (ὀλιγόπιστ.) on my being able to supply whenever occasion might require, but rather to something of a spiritual nature? Jesus lays no more stress here than He does elsewhere upon the physical benefit of His bread-miracle (de Wette), but simply makes use of it in the way of suggesting deeper reflection.

The difference between κόφ. and σπυρ. does not lie in σπυρίς being larger (Bengel, which does not follow from Acts 9:25), but in the fact that κόφινος is a general term, whereas σπυρίς denotes a food-basket in particular. See note on Matthew 14:20, Matthew 15:37.

Matthew 16:11. Πῶς] how is it possible! Astonishment in which a certain amount of censure is expressed.

προσέχετε δέ] see critical notes. It is not necessary to supply εἶπον (Paulus, Fritzsche), but we are rather to understand that after the question ending with εἶπον ὑμῖν, Jesus repeats, and with a view to its being yet more deeply pondered, the warning given in Matthew 16:6, in which case δέ is simply continuative (autem): But (let me say again) beware, and so on.