Comentários bíblicos

Matthew 7:4-5. Or how will it be morally possible for thee to say, and so on. The πῶς, like τί (cur), Matthew 7:3, expresses what is morally absurd. “Est enim proprium stultitiae, aliorum vitia cernere, oblivisci suorum,” Cic. Tusc. iii. 30. 73.

καὶ ἰδοὺ, κ.τ.λ.] The more emphatic from there being no ἐστι; and lo, the beam in thine eye!

ἐκβάλω] Conjunct. hortatory, and in the present instance, in the sense of calling upon oneself (used also in the singular, see Kühner, II. 1, p. 185; Nägelsbach on Iliad, p. 404, ed. 3; Bornemann, in d. Sächs. Stud. 1846, p. 30).

ὑποκριτά] Hypocrite, who pretendest to be free from faults. The attribute is here taken from his demeanour as seen from its objective side, while the subjective side, which here presents itself as hypocrisy, is the conceit of self-delusion.

διαβλέψεις] neither imperative nor permissive (thou mayest see), but future. The result of self-amendment will be the earnest effort to help others to amendment Observe the compound (correlative of the simple verb, Matthew 7:3) intenta acie spectabis. Comp. Plat. Phaed. p. 86 D; Arist. de Som. 3; Plut. Mor. p. 36 E.

Matthew 7:6. The endeavour to correct the faults of others must be confined within its proper limits, and not allowed to become a casting of holy things to the dogs. As is usual, however, in the case of apophthegms, this progress in the thought is not expressed by a particle (ἀλλά). To abandon the idea of connection (Maldonatus, de Wette, Tholuck), or to suppose (Kuinoel, Neander, Bleek; Weiss doubtful) that Matthew 7:6-11, at least Matthew 7:6, do not belong to this passage, is scarcely warranted.

τὸ ἅγιον] the holy, not the holy flesh, בְּשַׂר קֹדֶשׁ, Jeremiah 11:15, Haggai 2:12, the flesh of sacrifices (v. d. Hardt, Paulus, Tholuck), which, besides, would require to be more precisely designated, otherwise there would be just as much reason to suppose that the holy bread, לחם קדש (1 Samuel 21:5), or any other meat-offering (Leviticus 22:2), was meant. Christ has in view the holy in general, figuratively designating in the first clause only the persons, and then, in the second, the holy thing. What is meant by this, as also by τοὺς μαργαρίτας immediately after, is the holy, because divine evangelic, truth by which men are converted, and which, by τοὺς μαργαρ. ὑμῶν, is described as something of the highest value, as the precious jewel which is entrusted to the disciples as its possessors. For Arabian applications of this simile, comp. Gesenius in Rosenm. Rep. I. p. 128.

Dogs and swine, these impure and thoroughly despised animals, represent those men who are hardened and altogether incapable of receiving evangelic truth, and to whom the holy is utterly foreign and distasteful. The parallelism ought to have precluded the explanation that by both animals two different classes of men are intended (the snappish, as in Acts 13:46; the filthy livers, Grotius).

μήποτε καταπ., κ.τ.λ., καὶ στραφέντες, κ.τ.λ.] applies to the swine, who are to be conceived of as wild animals, as may be seen from αὐτούς and the whole similitude, so that, as the warning proceeds, the figure of the dogs passes out of view, though, as matter of course, it admits of a corresponding application (Pricaeus, Maldonatus, Tholuck). But this is no reason why the words should be referred to both classes of animals, nor why the trampling should be assigned to the swine and στράφ. ῥήξ. to the dogs (Theophylact, Hammond, Calovius, Wolf, Kuinoel). For the future καταπ. (see the critical remarks), comp. note on Mark 14:2; Matthew 13:15.

ἐν τοῖς ποσὶν αὐτ.] instrumental.

στραφέντες] not: having changed to an attitude of open hostility (Chrysostom, Euth. Zigabenus), or to savagery (Loesner), but manifestly, having turned round upon you from the pearls, which they have mistaken for food, and which, in their rage, they have trampled under their feet; the meaning of which is, lest such men profane divine truth (by blasphemy, mockery, calumny), and vent upon you their malicious feeling toward the gospel. In how many ways must the apostles have experienced this in their own case; for, their preaching being addressed to all, they would naturally, as a rule, have to see its effect on those who heard it before they could know who were “dogs and swine,” so as then to entice them no further with the offer of what is holy, but to shake off the dust, and so on. But the men here in view were to be found among Jews and Gentiles. It is foreign to the present passage (not so Matthew 15:26) to suppose that only the Gentiles as such are referred to (Köstlin, Hilgenfeld).

Matthew 7:7-9. The new passage concerning prayer begins, without any trace of connection with what goes before. Comp. note on Matthew 7:1. It is otherwise in Luke 11:9, which, however, does not affect Matthew’s originality (in answer to Holtzmann, Weiss, Weizsäcker), nor does it warrant the opinion that some connecting terms have been omitted. Influenced by a later tradition, Luke has given the sayings in a connection of his own, and one that, so far as can be discovered, has no claim to be preferred to that of Matthew.

αἰτεῖτε, ζητεῖτε, κρούετε] Climax depicting the rising of the prayer into intense fervour, that “he may thereby urge us all the more powerfully to prayer” (Luther).

Matthew 7:8. The obvious limitation to this promise is sufficiently indicated by ἀγαθά in Matthew 7:11 (1 John 5:14), just as the childlike, therefore believing, disposition of the petitioner is presupposed[426] in Matthew 7:9-11.

Matthew 7:9. ἤ] or, if that were not the case, then, in the analogous human relation must, and so on.

τίς ἐστιν … μὴ λίθον ἐπιδ. αὐτῷ] Dropping of the interrogative construction with which the sentence had begun, and transition to another. A similar change in Luke 11:11. See Fritzsche, Conject. p. 34 ff.; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 243 f. [E. T. 284]. This irregularity is occasioned by the intervening clause, quem si filius poposcerit panem. The sentence is so constructed that it should have run thus: ἢ τίς ἐστιν ἐξ ὑμῶν ἄνθρωπος, ὃν ἐὰν αἰτήσῃ (i.e. ὅς, ἐὰν αὐτὸν αἰτήσῃ, see Kühner, II. 2, p. 913), ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἄρτον, λίθον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ (without μή); but after the relative clause the construction with μή supersedes that at the beginning of the sentence.

μὴ λίθον ἐπιδ. αὐτῷ] surely he will not give him a stone? With regard to the things compared, notice the resemblance between the piece of bread and a stone, and between a fish and a serpent; and on the other hand, the contrast with regard to the persons: ἐξ ὑμῶν ἄνθρωπος, and ὁ πατὴρ ὑμ. ὁ ἐν τ. οὐρανοῖς.

[426] The specific determination of prayer that will certainly be heard, as prayer offered in the name of Jesus (John 14-16), was reserved for a further stage of development. Comp. on Matthew 6:13, note 1. It is not the divine relation to men in general (Baur), but to His own believing ones, that Jesus has in view. Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 67 f., ed. 2.

Matthew 7:11. Πονηροὶ ὄντες] although ye, as compared with God, are morally evil.[427] Comp. Matthew 19:17. Even Kuinoel has given up the false rendering, niggardly (in conformity with Proverbs 23:6; Sir 14:5).

οἴδατε διδόναι] not soletis dare (Maldonatus, Wetstein, Kuinoel), but ye know, understand, how to give (1 Timothy 3:5, and see note on Php 4:12), not as referring, however, to the disposition (de Wette, Fritzsche), which in so doing is rather presupposed, but appropriately pointing to the thoughtful nature of paternal love, which, in spite of the πονηρία, understands how to render possible the giving of good gifts to children.

δόματα ἀγαθά] wholesome gifts, in contrast to the stone and the serpent. For the second ἀγαθά, Luke 11:13 has πνεῦμα ἅγιον—a later substitution of the particular for the general. For the inference a minori ad majus, comp. Isaiah 49:15.

[427] Chrysostom appropriately says: ταῦτα δὲ ἔλεγεν οὐ διαβάλλων τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν, οὐδὲ κακίζων τὸ γένος, ἀλλὰ πρὸς ἀντιδιαστολὴν τῆς ἀγαθότητος τῆς αὐτοῦ (of God) τὴν φιλοστοργίαν τὴν πατρικὴν πονηρίαν καλῶν. It is not original sin, but the historical manifestation of the sin of all men, which is spoken of, of which, however, original sin is the internal, natural root. Comp. Matthew 15:19; John 3:6.

Matthew 7:12. At this point Jesus takes a retrospective glance at all that He has been saying since Matthew 5:17,—beginning with Moses and the prophets,—concerning our duty to our neighbour, but introducing, indeed, many other instructions and exhortations. But putting out of view such matters as are foreign to His discourse, He now recapitulates all that has been said on the duties we owe to our neighbour, so that οὖν points back to Matthew 5:17. The correctness of this view is evident from the following: οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ νόμος, etc., from which it further appears that οὖν does not merely refer back to Matthew 5:1-5 (Kuinoel, Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius). As Luther well observes: “With those words He concludes the instructions contained in those three chapters, and gathers them all into one little bundle.” Fritzsche is somewhat illogical when he says that οὖν generalizes the conclusion from οἴδατε δόματα … τέκνοις ὑμῶν, which proposition, however, was a mere lemma. Ewald thinks that Matthew 7:12 is here in its wrong place, that its original position was somewhere before ἀγαπᾶτε, Matthew 5:44, and might still be repeated after Matthew 5:48; according to Bleek and Holtzmann, founding on Luke 6:31, its original position was after Matthew 5:42. But it is precisely its significant position as a concluding sentence, along with its reference to the law and the prophets, that Luke has taken away from it. Comp. Weiss. On θέλειν ἵνα, see note on Luke 6:31.

οὕτω] not for ταῦτα, as if the matter were merged in the manner (de Wette), but in such a manner, in this way, corresponding, that is, to this your θέλειν.

The truth of this Christian maxim lies in this, that the words ὅσα ἂν θέλητε, etc., as spoken by Jesus, and, on the ground of His fulfilment of the law (οὖν), which presupposes faith in Him, can only mean a willing of a truly moral kind, and not that of a self-seeking nature, such as the desire for flattery.

οὗτος, etc.] for this is the sum of moral duty, and so on.

For parallels from profane writers, see Wetstein; Bab. Schabb. f. 31. 1 : “Quod tibi ipsi odiosum est, proximo ne facias; nam haec est tota lex.” But being all of a negative character, like Tob 4:15, they are essentially different from the present passage. For coincidences of a more meagre kind from Greek writers, see Spiess, Logos Spermat. p. 24.

Matthew 7:13. There now follow some additional concluding exhortations and warnings, which in Luke are partly omitted, partly scattered and displaced (in answer to Calvin, Keim) and abridged. With Matthew 7:13 comp. Luke 13:24. The thought is one of the fundamental thoughts of the Sermon on the Mount.

εἰσέλθετε] where the entering leads to is not stated till Matthew 7:14.

ὅτι] assigning the reason e contrario.

εἰς τὴν ἀπώλειαν] i.e. to eternal death, as being the punishment of such as are condemned in the Messianic judgment. Php 1:28; Hebrews 10:39; 2 Peter 3:7; 2 Peter 3:16. The opposite is ζωή, the eternal life of felicity in the kingdom of the Messiah. Wide gate and broad way; figures representing the pleasures and excesses of sin and wickedness. Strait gate and narrow way; representing, on the other hand, the effort and self-denial which Christian duty imposes. It is only when regenerated that a man comes first to experience the lightness of the yoke (Matthew 11:29), and of the commandments (1 John 5:3), and all the more the further progress he makes in the love of Christ (John 14:15 ff.).

ἡ ἀγάπ. εἰς τ. ἀπώλ.] refers equally to ἡ πύλη (Kühner, II. 1, p. 70 f.), to which again the διʼ αὐτῆς belongs. There is a similar construction in Matthew 5:14, where αὐτήν in like manner refers to πύλη.

Matthew 7:14-15. Τί] quam (Vulg.): how strait is the gate! as conforming to the Sept., which renders מָח in this sense by τί (2 Samuel 6:20; Song of Solomon 7:6; Luke 12:49), though not good Greek. The rendering why, as though there were something sorrowful in the question (Fritzsche), is unsuited to the whole tone of the discourse.

εὑρίσκοντες] The strait gate requires to be sought, so far is it from being readily seen, or from obtruding itself upon the attention.

By most, the gate is erroneously conceived to be at the end of the way; with Bengel, Schegg, and Lange, it is to be understood as at the beginning of it, as opening into it, for which reason, in Matthew 7:13-14, the gate is mentioned before the way. The entering by the strait gate is therefore the entering into life (into the Messiah’s kingdom), but still brought about through following the narrow way, which is reached by means of the strait gate.

προσέχετε δέ] But in order to find it, beware, and so on.

The ψευδοπροφῆται are not the Pharisees (Tholuck), nor Jews, pretending to be divine messengers (Bleek), nor people like Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:37, de Wette), but false Christian teachers without a divine call (Matthew 24:11; Matthew 24:24), as is evident from Matthew 7:21-23. Comp. Chrysostom, Calvin, Grotius, Calovius. A warning in view of coming events, and such as Jesus knew His followers would soon be needing.

ἐν ἐνδύμασι προβάτ.] dressed in sheep’s clothing. Here we are not to think of literal sheep skins (Grotius, Kuinoel), seeing that these were worn by others, and were not specially the prophets’ dress (comp. Matthew 3:4), but as emblematic of the outward appearance of innocence and gentleness, not of the external profession of a member of the Christian church (“nominis Christiani extrinsecus superficies,” Tertullian, de praescr. 4), which would have been admissible only if the context had spoken of the church in the light of a flock, in which case the false prophets would have been far more appropriately represented as in shepherds’ clothing. Bengel well remarks: “Vestibus ut si essent oves.”

ἔσωθεν] i.e., according to the figure; under the sheep’s clothing; in reality; in their true inner nature, which is disguised by hypocrisy. With λύκοι ἅρπαγες, as representing soul-destroying agency, comp. Acts 20:29; John 10:12.

Matthew 7:16-18. Ἐπιγνώς.] Ye will know them, not ye should (Luther).

The καρποί are the results of principles, as seen in the whole behaviour, the works (Matthew 7:21; Matthew 7:23; Matthew 12:33), not the doctrines (Jerome, Calvin, Calovius).

ἄκανθαι κ. τρίβολοι] Thorns and thistles occur together in a corresponding figurative sense in Hebrews 6:8.

οὕτω] application of those images to the false prophets, in such a way, however, that the latter, in keeping with ἀπὸ τ. καρπ. αὐτ. (comp. Matthew 7:20), just before, appear again as trees.

A δένδρον ἀγαθόν is, as contrasted with the σαπρόν, a sound, healthy tree; for a σαπρόν is not some tree of an inferior species, but one whose organism is decaying with age, etc., rotten, the σαπρότης of which (Plat. Rep. p. 609 E; Diosc. i. 113), owing to a defective and corrupted state of the sap, admits of nothing in the way of fruit but what is bad, small, and useless. Comp. ξύλον σαπρόν, Job 41:19. σαπροὶ στέφανοι, Dem. 615. 11. “Bonitas arboris ipsius est veritas et lux interna, etc.; bonitas fructuum est sanctitas vitae. Si fructus essent in doctrina positi, nullus orthodoxus damnari posset,” Bengel. With the οὐ δύναται of the corrupt tree, comp. Romans 8:7 f. In this emphatic οὐ δύναται lies the progressive force of the simile.