Comentários bíblicos

Matthew 2:18. Jeremiah 31:15 (freely quoted according to the Septuagint) treats of the leading away of the Jews to Babylon, whose destiny Rachel, the ancestress of the children of Ephraim, bewails. According to the typically prophetic view in Matthew, the lamentation and mourning of Rachel, represented by the prophet, has an antitypical reference to the murdering of the children of Bethlehem, who are her children, because she was the wife of Jacob, and the mother of Joseph and Benjamin (Genesis 35:18). And this reference was all the more obvious that, according to Genesis 35:19,[370] Rachel was buried at Bethlehem (Robinson, I. p. 373). According to Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Piscator, Fritzsche, Rachel is regarded as the representative of Bethlehem, or of the mothers of Bethlehem. But why, in keeping with the antitypical view of the prophet’s words, should not Rachel herself appear as lamenting over the massacre of those children? Rama, however, where, according to the prophet, that lamentation resounded, is here the type of Bethlehem.

Regarding the position of Rama (now the village er Ram), near to Gibeah, two hours to the north of Jerusalem, belonging at one time to Ephraim, at another to Benjamin, and on its identity, which is denied by others, with the Ramah of Samuel (Gesenius, Thes. III. p. 1275; Thenius, Winer, von Raumer, Keim), see Graf in the Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 858 ff.; Pressel in Herzog’s Encykl. XII. p. 515 f. There the exiles were kept in custody, Jeremiah 40:1.

ΚΛΑΊΟΥΣΑ] The participle, which in general never stands for the finite tense (in answer to de Wette), has here its government either with ἠκούσθη (Fritzsche) or with οὐκ ἤθελε, where καί is to be translated “also” (Rachel weeping … was also inaccessible to consolation; on the distinction between καὶ οὐκ and οὐδέ, see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 212 f.). The first is to be preferred as the most natural and most appropriate to the emotional style, so that ῬΑΧῊΛ ΚΛΑΊΟΥΣΑ links itself on as an apposition, and then the author “sequentium sententiarum gravitate commotus a participio ad verbum finitum deflectit,” Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 30.

On the tragic designation ΟὐΚ ΕἾΝΑΙ, mortuum esse, comp. xlii. 36; Thuc. ii. 44. 2; Herod. iii. 65; Wetstein in loc.; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 515.

[370] Where, however, the words הוא בית לחם are to be regarded as a gloss. See Thenius on 1 Samuel 10:2; Graf in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1854, p. 868.

REMARK.

The slaughter of the children at Bethlehem is closely connected with the appearance of the Magi, and was in its legendary character already extended as early as Justin (c. Tr. 78) to all the children of Bethlehem. Josephus, who makes such minute mention of the cruelty of Herod (Antt. xv. 7. 8, xvi. 11. 3, xvii. 2. 4; see Ottii Spicileg. p. 541), is silent regarding this event, which, had it been known to him as a matter of history, he would most probably have mentioned on account of its unexampled brutality. The confused narrative of Macrobius (Sat. ii. 4)[371] can here determine nothing, because it first proceeded directly or indirectly from the Christian tradition. Finally, the slaughter of the children itself appears not only as an altogether superfluous measure, since, after the surprising homage offered by the Magi, the child, recently born under extraordinary circumstances, must have been universally known in the small and certainly also provincial village of Bethlehem, or could at least have been easily and certainly discovered by the inquiries of the authorities; but also as a very unwise measure, since a summary slaughter of children could by no means give the absolute certainty which was aimed at. To understand the origin of the legend, it is not enough to point back to the typical element in the childhood of Moses, or even to the dangers undergone in childhood by Romulus, Cyrus, and so on (Strauss); but see the Remark after Matthew 2:12. It is arbitrary, however, to exclude the flight of Jesus into Egypt from this cycle of legends, and to explain it historically in an altogether strange fashion, from the terrible commotion in which, after the death of Herod, Jerusalem and the surrounding localities were plunged (Ammon, L. J. I. p. 226 f.). It is indissolubly connected with the slaughter of the children, and stands or falls with it; in the preliminary history of Luke there is no place whatever for it.

[371] Ed. Bipont. p. 341 of Augustus: “Cum audisset, inter pueros, quos in Syria Herodes, rex Judaeorum, intra bimatum jussit interfici, filium quoque ejus occisum, ait: melius est Herodis porcum (ὗν) esse quam filium (υἱόν).” A confusion of the murder of Antipater (Joseph. Antt. vii. 7) with our history, as if a son of the king himself (in answer to Wieseler, Beitr. p. 154) had been among the murdered Syrian children.

Matthew 2:20-21. Τεθνήκασι … ζητοῦντες] is to be understood simply of Herod. The plural is very often used where the conception of a species is to be expressed, and then denotes the subject, not according to number, but chiefly according to the category to which it belongs. Reisig, ad Soph. Oed. C. 966, and Conject. in Aristoph. p. 58; Wunder, ad Soph. O. R. 361; Elwert, Quaestion. ad philolog. sacr. 1860, p. 10 f.; Winer, p. 165 [E. T. 219]. Frequently, particularly in the tragic writers, it contains a special emphasis, Hermann, ad Viger. p. 739, which also announces itself in the present passage. Others (Euth. Zigabenus) regard it as including Herod and his councillors or servants. Matthew 2:19 is decisive against this view. Others (Gratz, B. Crusius, de Wette): the plural is put, because the words are taken from Exodus 4:19. But there the plural is required not only by the πάντες, which stands in the text, but likewise by the whole connection. The resemblance to Exodus 4:19 is either accidental, or, more probably, intentionally selected in the consciousness of being a historical parallel.

εἰς γ. Ἰσρ.] Note the extent and indefiniteness of the designation; Joseph could thus afterwards turn his steps to Galilee without acting in opposition to the instruction. Comp. 1 Samuel 13:19; Ezekiel 11:17.

ζητεῖν τὴν ψυχήν] בַּקֵּשׁ אֶח־נֶפֶשׁ, seek the soul—that is, seek after one’s life (Romans 11:3). The present participle with the article used as a substantive, see Winer, p. 103 f. [E. T. 219]. Comp. Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 238.

Herod died in Jericho (according to Gerlach, in Jerusalem) in the year 750, his genitals and bowels being eaten up of worms (Joseph. Bell. i. 33. 1, 5; Antt. xvii. 6. 5; Euseb. H. E. i. 68), in the thirty-seventh year of his reign, and in the seventieth of his age, Josephus, Antt. xvii. 8. 1, xvii. 9. 3. The tyrant became a prey to despair at his death, an attempt at suicide having failed in his last extremity.

Matthew 2:22. Augustus, after the death of Herod and the complications connected with it,[372] divided the kingdom amongst his three sons in such a manner that Archelaus received the half of the four quarters of the kingdom, namely, Judea, Idumaea, and Samaria; Antipas, Galilee and Perea; Philip, Batanea, Trachonitis, and Auranitis. Both the latter were called Tetrarchs, but Archelaus obtained the title of Ethnarch, Josephus, Antt. xvii. 8. 1, xvii. 11. 4, which was to be exchanged for the title of king should he prove worthy of it. But after nine years he was banished by Augustus on account of his cruelty to Vienne (Josephus, Antt. xvii. 13. 2; B. J. ii. 7. 3), and died there. His territory was added to the province of Syria, and placed under the administration of a procurator.

βασιλεύειν is therefore here taken generally: regnare, as it often is in the classics. On ἀντί, compare Herod. i. 108; Xen. Anab. i. 1, iv. 2; 2 Chronicles 33:20; 1Ma 3:1; 1Ma 9:31; 1Ma 13:4.

ἐφοβήθη] for Archelaus resembled his father in his suspicious and cruel temper, Josephus, Antt. xvii. 11. 2 f.

ἐκεῖ ἀπελθεῖν] a well-known attraction: adverbs of rest with verbs of direction, Matthew 17:20; John 7:35; John 8:21; John 11:8; John 18:3; Romans 15:24; LXX. Deuteronomy 1:37; 2 Samuel 17:18; Winer, p. 439 [E. T. 591]; Bernhardy, p. 349 f. ΓΑΛΙΛΑΊΑς] in the portions of his district belonging to Galilee, (Matthew 15:21, Matthew 16:13; Acts 2:10), so that he avoided Judea, and did not return to Bethlehem. The voluptuary Antipas was known to be more humane than Archelaus.

[372] Comp. Schneckenburger, neutest. Zeitgesch. p. 201 ff.; Hausrath, neut. Zeitgesch. I. p. 284 ff.; Keim in Schenkel’s Bibellex.

Matthew 2:23. Ἐλθών] to Galilee.

εἰς πόλιν] εἰς does not belong to ἐλθών (Fritzsche, Olshausen), but to κατῴκησεν, beside which it stands in Genesis 13:18; κατῴκ. includes the movement connected with the settlement, and that in such a way that the latter was the predominating element in the thought of the writer: he went and settled at Nazareth. Comp. Matthew 4:13; Acts 7:4; 2 Chronicles 19:4. See Kühner, I. p. 471.

Nazareth[373]] in Lower Galilee, in the tribe of Zabulon, situated on a hill (Luke 4:20), with pleasant environs. Robinson, Paläst. III. p. 419 ff.; Ritter, Erdk. XVI. p. 739 ff.; Furer, Wander, durch Paläst. p. 267 ff.; Tobler, Nazar. in Paläst., 1868. Mentioned neither in the O. T. nor in Josephus.

ὅπως] in order that. See Matthew 1:22.

διὰ τῶν προφ.] not the plural of category (Matthew 2:20, so Fritzsche), according to which Isaiah only could be meant, but the prophets generally, Luke 18:31; Romans 1:2.

ὅτι] not the Recitativum, although its use in the Gospel of Matthew cannot be denied, Matthew 7:23, Matthew 9:18, Matthew 14:26, Matthew 27:43; Matthew 27:47, but “that,” as no individual express statement is quoted.

Ναζωραῖος] of Nazareth, Matthew 26:71. In Isaiah 11:1, the Messiah, as the offspring of David, is called נֵצֶר, shoot, with which, in the representation of the evangelist, this designation was identified, only expressed by another word, namely, צֶמַח (Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; Zechariah 6:12; Isaiah 4:2); therefore he wrote, διὰ τῶν προφητῶν. In giving this prophetic title of נצר to the Messiah, he entirely disregards the historical meaning of the same (LXX. Isaiah 11:1 : ἄνθος), keeps by the relationship of the name Nazareth to the word נצר, and recognises, by virtue of the same, in that prophetic Messianic name Nezer, the typical reference to this, that Jesus, through His settlement in Nazareth, was to become a ΝΑΖΩΡΑῖΟς; the translator therefore, rightly apprehending this typical reference, expressed the Hebrew נצר by ΝΑΖΩΡΑῖΟς, although he may have also found in the original Hebrew draft of the Gospel בן נצר, or, more probably, נצרי. The evangelist must in any case have derived the name Nazareth from נצר, and it is likewise probable in itself; see Hengstenberg, Christol. II. p. 124 ff. “Eruditi Hebraei” already referred the ΝΑΖΩΡ. ΚΛΗΘ. back to the נצר; see Jerome on Isaiah 11:1, and, more recently, Piscator, Casaubon, Jansen, Maldonatus, Surenhusius, Bauer (bibl. Theol. I. p. 163), Fritzsche, Gieseler, Kern, Krabbe, de Wette, B. Crusius, Köstlin, Bleek, Hengstenberg, Kahnis, Anger, formerly also Hilgenfeld. But others (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Clericus, Grätz) regard the words as a quotation from a lost prophetical book. But always, where in the N. T. the prophets are quoted, those in the completed canon are meant. Others (Michaelis, Paulus, Kuinoel, Gersdorf, Kaüffer, Olshausen, Ebrard, Lange) are of opinion that Ναζωραῖος refers to the despised and melancholy position of the Messiah depicted by the prophets in accordance with Psalms 22, Isaiah 53. For Nazareth was despised, see John 1:47; John 7:52. But the question here is not as to a prophetic description (of the lowliness of the Messiah), but as to the definite prophetic name (κληθήσεται), to which the settlement in Nazareth may correspond; and, indeed, the evangelist must have found the name itself in the prophets, and not have inserted it ex eventu, namely, because Nazareth served to make the Messiah an object of misapprehension (in answer to Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erfüll. p. 66). For that reason also the opinion of others is to be rejected (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Wetstein, Hilgenfeld), who, after Tertullian and Jerome, take Ναζ. for the Hebrew נָזִיר, that it might be fulfilled … that He shall be (called) a Nazarite. Jesus had neither represented Himself to be such a consecrated person, Matthew 11:19, nor can any passage in the prophets be pointed out as referring to this; therefore Ewald, in opposition to διὰ τῶν προφ., assumes the statement to be taken from an Apocryphal book, in which the Messiah, on His first appearance, was represented as a Nazarite, so that the evangelist was led, from the similarity of the word, to infer a reference to Nazareth. If, however, in Ναζωραῖος the Hebrew נֹצֵר, Preserver, has been supposed to be contained, and that in such a way that it had as its basis either Exodus 34:6 f. (Zuschlag in Guericke’s Zeitschr. 1854, III. p. 417 ff.) or Psalm 31:24 (Riggenbach in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 606 f.), then something entirely foreign is thus imported, as in those passages there is to be found neither a designation of the Messiah nor any prophetic declaration. Still more arbitrary is the reference of Hitzig in the theol. Jahrb. 1842, p. 410, to Isaiah 49:6, where נְצוּרֵי has been taken as singular, and explained as a predicate of the Messiah, as the leader of those who are saved. Delitzsch has referred to Isaiah 42:6; so that Christ is predicted as He who is preserved in dangers (נָצוּר, Isaiah 49:6), whilst Nazareth was His place of concealment.

[373] Upon the form of the name Ναζαρά, which, although attested as ancient in many ways, is yet found only in a few passages in the Mss. of the N. T., and very unequally supported (Tischendorf, 8th ed., has received it into the text in Matthew 4:13, and in Luke 4:16), see Keim, I. p. 319; comp. also Delitzsch, Jesus u. Hillel, p. 13. In the passage before us it is without any support, as well as in Matthew 21:11, and in the remaining passages of the other evangelists, except Luke 1:26; Luke 4:16. The form Ναζαράθ is often found in Mss., as also Ναζαράτ. But it is the admission of Ναζαρέτ (or Ναζαρέθ) alone into the text that can be justified, and that as the standing reading, all the more that even in Matthew 4:13 and in Luke 4:16 there is by no means a decisive predominance of testimony for Ναζαρά, which has no support, moreover, in Acts 10:38. Although Nazara was the original form of the name (see in answer to Ewald’s doubts, Keim, II. p. 421 f.), which is probable, it must notwithstanding have been strange to the evangelists.

REMARK.

The evangelist expresses himself in Matthew 2:23 in such a manner that throughout the narrative Nazareth cannot appear to the reader as the original dwelling-place of Joseph and Mary. Bethlehem rather, according to his account, appears to be intended as such (Matthew 2:22), whilst Nazareth was the place of sojourn under the special circumstances which occurred after the death of Herod. The account given by Luke is quite different. This variation is to be admitted, and the reconciliation of both accounts can only be brought about in an arbitrary manner,[374] which is all the more inadmissible that, on the whole, the narratives of Matthew and Luke regarding the birth and early infancy of Jesus in important points mutually exclude each other. Amid all their other variations, however, in the preliminary history in which they are independent of one another, they agree in this, that Bethlehem was the place of birth, and it is in opposition to the history to relegate this agreement to the sphere of dogmatic reflection, and to transport the birth of Jesus to Nazareth (Strauss, Hilgenfeld, Keim), since the designation of Jesus as belonging to Nazareth (Matthew 13:34; Mark 6:1; Luke 4:19) finds its natural and complete explanation in the short and passing sojourn of His parents at Bethlehem after His birth, whereas, had Jesus Himself been a native of Galilee, He would neither have found a believing reception amongst His people, nor, on the other hand, could His Messiahship have been held to be based on a prophetic foundation. Comp. also Luke 2:39 and John 7:42.

[374] That Joseph, brought to Bethlehem by the census, settled there. Matthew accordingly represents Bethlehem as his dwelling-place. The flight to Egypt, however, again soon broke up the residence in Bethlehem, so that the sojourn was only a passing one, and therefore Luke rightly regarded the subsequent settlement at Nazareth as a return thither. See Neander, Ebrard, Hofmann, Krabbe, Lange. Wieseler’s reasons also (chronolog. Synopse, p. 35 ff.) against the view that Matthew makes Bethlehem appear as the original dwelling-place of Jesus, will not stand. This view is to be regarded, by the account in Matthew, which is to be looked on as independent, and standing by itself, as a necessary exegetical result by means of ver. 22, and is undoubtedly confirmed by ver. 23, where Joseph’s settlement in Nazareth appears as something new, which must occur in order to fulfil a prophetic prediction, so that consequently no reader of Matthew could come to think that Nazareth had been Joseph’s dwelling-place. Wieseler, however, has, moreover, strikingly demonstrated the unhistorical nature of the view that Jesus was born at Nazareth.

CHAPTER 3

Matthew 3:2. καὶ λέγων] Lachm. and Tisch. have merely λέγων, only after B א, Hil. and some Verss. The superfluous καί was easily overlooked.

Matthew 3:3. ὑπό] B C D א, 1, 13, 33, 124, 157, 209, Syrcur Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. It. Sax. read διά; so Griesbach, Gersdorf, Schulz, Lachm., Tisch. Correctly; see on Matthew 2:17.

Matthew 3:4. The position ἦν αὐτοῦ (Lachm., Tisch.) is, by means of B C D א, 1, 209, so sufficiently attested, that it must be preferred to the ordinary position αὐτοῦ ἦν, which spontaneously suggested itself to the copyists.

Matthew 3:6. Ἰορδάνῃ] B C* M Δ א, Curss., and many Verss. and Fathers, add ποταμῷ; so Lachm. and Tisch. 8. Addition from Mark 1:5.

Matthew 3:7. The αὐτοῦ was easily passed over after βάπτισμα as unnecessary; it is wanting, however, only in B א*, Sahid. Or. Hil., but is deleted by Tisch. 8.

Matthew 3:8. καρπὸν ἄξιον] Elz. has καρποὺς ἀξίους, after too weak testimony. Retained by Fritzsche. It arose from the copyists, who deemed the plural more appropriate to the sense, and had Luke 3:8 in view.

Matthew 3:10. δὲ καί] Lachm. Tisch.: δέ, which is so preponderantly attested by B C D M Δ א, Curss. Verss. Or. Ir. Did. Bas., that δὲ καί is to be regarded as introduced from Luke 3:9.

Matthew 3:14. Instead of ὁ δὲ Ἰωάννης, Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have only ὁ δέ, after B א, Sahid. Eus. Correctly; the name was much more easily interpolated than omitted.

Matthew 3:16. The transposition εὐθὺς ἀνέβη in B D א, Curss. Verss. and Fathers (so Lachm. and Tisch.), is a change, which assigned to the εὐθύς its more usual place (Gersdorf, I. p. 485).

αὐτῷ] is bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch., but has a decided preponderance of witnesses in its favour, and its significance was easily misunderstood and passed over.

καί] before ἐρχόμ. is to be defended on decisive testimony, against Tisch. 8; comp. on Matthew 3:2.

Matthew 3:1. Ἐν … ἐκείναις] בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם, Exodus 2:11; Exodus 2:23; Isaiah 38:1. Indefinite determination of time, which, however, always points back to a date which has preceded it. Mark 1:9; Luke 2:1. Here: at the time when Jesus still sojourned at Nazareth. The evangelist passes over the history of the youth of Jesus, and at once goes onwards to the forerunner of the Messiah; for he might not have had at his command any written documents, and sufficiently trustworthy traditions regarding it, since the oldest manner of presenting the gospel history, as still retained in Mark, began first with John the Baptist, to which beginning our evangelist also turns without further delay. It employs in so doing only the very indefinite transition with the same simplicity of unstudied historical writing, as in Exodus 2:11, where by the same expression is meant the time when Moses still sojourned at the court of Egypt, though not the time of his childhood (Matthew 3:10), but of his manhood. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are unnecessary; that of Paulus: in the original document, from which Matthew borrowed the following narrative, something about John the Baptist may have preceded, to which this note of time was appended, which Matthew retained, without adopting that preliminary matter; of Holtzmann: that a look forward to Mark 1:9 here betrays itself; of Schneckenburger (üb. d. erste kanon. Ev. p. 120): that in the gospel according to the Hebrews ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἡρώδου erroneously stood, instead of which Matthew put the indefinite statement before us; of Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 55: in the older narrative, which lay at the foundation of our Matthew, the genealogical tree of Jesus was perhaps followed by ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἡρώδου τοῦ βασιλέως τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἦλθεν (or ἐγένετο) Ἰωάννης; compare also Keim, Gesch. J. I. p. 61. The correct view was already adopted by Chrysostom and his followers, Beza, Camerarius, Bengel: “Jesu habitante Nazarethae, Matthew 2:23; notatur non breve, sed nulla majori mutatione notabile intervallum.” It is Luke 3:1 which first gives the more precise determination of time, and that very minutely.

παραγίνεται] Historic present, as in Matthew 2:13. Euth. Zigabenus: πόθεν ὁ Ἰωάννης παραγέγονεν; ἀπὸ τῆς ἐνδοτέρας ʼρήμου. Opposed to this is the ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ that follows. Matthew has only the more general and indefinite expression: he arrives, he appears. Luke 12:51; Hebrews 9:11.

ὁ βαπτιστ.] Josephus, Antt. xviii. 5. 2 : Ἰωάνν. ὁ ἐπικαλούμενος βαπτιστής.

ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ τῆς Ἰουδαίας] מִדְבַּר יְהוּדָה, Jdg 1:16, Joshua 15:61, a level plain adapted for the feeding of cattle, sparsely cultivated and inhabited,[375] which begins at Tekoa, and extends as far as the Dead Sea. Winer, Realwörterb. s.v. Wüste; Tobler, Denkblätter aus Jerus. p. 682; Keim, Gesch. J. I. p. 484 f. The mention of the locality is more precise in Luke 3:2 f.; but that in Matthew, in which the wilderness is not marked off geographically from the valley of the Jordan, which was justified by the nature of the soil (Josephus, Bell. iii. 10. 7, iv. 8. 2 f.), and involuntarily called forth by the following prophecy, is not incorrect. Comp. Ebrard (in answer to Strauss); Keim, l.c. p. 494.

[375] The idea of a flat surface called מִדְבָּר is given us partially in the Lüne-burger Heath. See generally, Crome, Beiträge zur Erklär. des N. T. p. 41 ff. Not to be confused with עֲרָבָה, steppe, concerning which see Credner in the Stud. u. Krit. 1833, p. 798 ff. Compare in regard to our wilderness, Robinson, Pal. II. p. 431.

Matthew 3:2. Μετανοεῖτε] denotes the transformation of the moral disposition, which is requisite in order to obtain a share in the kingdom of the Messiah. Sanhedrin f. 97, 2 : “Si Israelitae poenitentiam agunt, tunc per Goëlem. liberantur.” In the mouth of John the conception could only be that of the Old Testament (נִחַם, שׁוּב), expressing the transformation according to the moral requirements of the law, but not yet the Christian idea, according to which μετάνοια has as its essential inseparable correlative, faith in Jesus as the Messiah (Mark 1:15), after which the Holy Spirit, received by means of baptism, establishes and completes the new birth from above into true ζωή. John 3:3; John 3:5; Titus 3:5 f.; Acts 2:38.

ἤγγικε] it is near; for John expected that Jesus would set up His kingdom. Comp. Matthew 4:17, Matthew 10:7.

ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν] See Fleck, de regno div. 1829; Weissenbach, Jesu in regno coelor. dignitas, 1868; Keim, Gesch. J. II. p. 40 ff.; Kamphausen, d. Gebet des Herren, p. 56 ff.; Wittichen, d. Idee des Reiches Gottes, 1872. The kingdom of heaven (the plural is to be explained from the popular idea of seven heavens; see on 2 Corinthians 12:2) corresponds to the Rabbinical מלכות השמים (Schoettgen, Diss. de regno coelor. I. in his Horae, I. p. 1147 ff., and Wetstein in loc.),—an expression which is used by the Rabbins mostly indeed in the ethico-theocratic sense, but also in the eventually historical meaning of the theocracy, brought to its consummation by the Messiah (Targum, Mich. Matthew 4:7 b in Wetstein). In the N. T. this expression occurs only in Matthew, and that as the usual one, which, as that which was most frequently employed by Jesus Himself, is to be regarded as derived from the collection of sayings (in answer to Weiss). Equivalent in meaning to it are: βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (also in Matthew, yet much rarer and not everywhere critically certain), βασιλ. τ. Χριστοῦ, ἡ βασιλεία. Comp. Isaiah 20:6; Daniel 2:44, Daniel 7:14 ff., Daniel 7:26 f. The kingdom of the Messiah is designated by ἡ βας. τ. οὐρ., because this kingdom, the consummated theocracy in its glory, is no earthly kingdom, John 18:36, but belongs to heaven, appears to us as descending from heaven, where, up till that time, its blessings, its salvation, and its δόξα are preserved by God for bestowal at some future period. Although among the Jewish people the theocratic idea, of which the prophets were the bearers, had preserved its root,—and from this people alone, in accordance with its divine preparation and guidance, could the realization of this idea, and with it the salvation of the world, proceed, as, indeed, the profounder minds apprehended and cherished the mighty thought of Messiah in the sense of the true rule of God, and of its destination for the world,—yet the common idea of the people was predominantly political and particularistic, frequently stamped with the fanatical thought of a world-rule and with millenarian ideas (the Messiah raises up the descendants of Abraham, then comes the kingdom which lasts a thousand years, then the resurrection and the condemnatory judgment of the heathen, the descent of the heavenly Jerusalem, and the everlasting life of the descendants of Abraham on the earth, which has been transformed along with the whole universe). In the teaching of Christ, however, and in the apostolic writings, the kingdom of the Messiah is the actual consummation of the prophetic idea of the rule of God; and as it is unaccompanied by millenarian ideas (which exist only in the non-apostolic Apocalypse), so also is it without any national limitation, so that participation therein rests only on faith in Jesus Christ, and on the moral renewal which is conditioned by the same, and “God all in all” is the last and highest aim, without the thought of the world-rule, and the expectation of the renewal of the world, of the resurrection, of the judgment, and also of the external glory losing their positive validity and necessity,—thoughts which rather form the subject of living Christian hope amidst all the struggles and oppressions of the world. Moreover, those expressions, βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, κ.τ.λ., never signify anything else than the kingdom of the Messiah (Koppe, Exc. I. ad Thess.), even in those passages where they appear to denote the (invisible) church, the moral kingdom of the Christian religion, and such like; or to express some modern abstraction of the concrete conception,[376] which is one given in the history,—an appearance which is eliminated by observing that the manner of expression is frequently proleptic, and which has its historical basis in the idea of the nearness of the kingdom, and in the moral development which necessarily precedes its manifestation (comp. Matthew 11:12; Matthew 12:28; Matthew 16:19). Comp. on Romans 14:17; 1 Corinthians 4:20; Colossians 1:13; Colossians 4:11; Matthew 6:10. That John the Baptist also had, under divine revelation, apprehended the idea of the Messiah’s kingdom in the ethical light, free from any limitation to the Jewish people (John 1:29), without, however, entirely giving up the political element, is already shown by Matthew 3:7 ff. It cannot, however, be proved, and is, considering the divine illumination of the Baptist, improbable, and also without any foundation in Matthew 11:3, that too much has been put into his mouth by ascribing to him the definite announcement of the kingdom. If Josephus, in his account of John, makes no mention of any expression pointing to the Messiah,[377] yet this may be sufficiently explained from his want of susceptibility for the higher nature of Christianity, and from his peculiar political relation to the Romans.

[376] e.g. an organized commonwealth under the principle of the divine will (Tholuck); arrangement of things in which this will has come to its consummation, and now alone is operative (Hofmann). Schleiermacher: “The idea of the kingdom of God must have originated in Christ from His self-consciousness and His perception of sin, if He conceived of His life as disseminated among the masses”.

[377] Antt. xviii. 5. 2 : Κτείνες τοῦτον Ἡρώδης, ἀγαθὸν ἄνδρα καὶ τοὺς Ἰουδαίους κελεύοντα ἀρετὴν ἐπασκοῦντας καὶ τῇ πρὸς ἀλλήλους δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εὐσεβείᾳ χρωμένους βαπτισμῷ συνιέναι· οὕτω γὰρ καὶ τὴν βάπτισιν ἀποδεκτὴν αὐτῷ φανεῖσθαι, μὴ ἐπί τινων ἁμαρτάδων παραιτήσει χρωμένων, ἀλλʼ ἐφʼ ἁγνείᾳ τοῦ σώματος, ἅτε δὴ καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς δικαιοσύνῃ προεκκεκαθαρμένης.

Matthew 3:3. Γάρ] “Causa, cur Johannes ita exoriri tum debuerit, uti Matthew 5:1-2, describitur, quia sic praedictum erat,” Bengel.

Does not belong to John’s discourse, Matthew 3:3, so that by οὗτος he points to himself, as Er. Schmid, Raphel, Fritzsche, Paulus, Rettig in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 205 f., maintain, since so prominent a self-designation has no basis in the connection (John 1:23; on the other hand, John 6:50; John 6:58); further, the descriptive present ἐστί is quite in keeping with παραγίνεται in Matthew 3:1; and αὐτὸς δέ, Matthew 3:4, is quite in keeping with the sense of the objectively and generally delivered prophetic description (the voice of one calling, and so on), and leads to the concrete person thereby intended.

ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ] belongs in the original text to ἑτοιμάσατε, and in the LXX. also there is no reason for separating it from it; but here it belongs to βοῶντος, according to Matthew 3:1 : κηρύσσων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. This in answer to Rettig, Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf. II. p. 77 f., and Delitzsch.

The passage, Isaiah 11:3, quoted according to the LXX., contains historically a summons to prepare the way for Jehovah, who is bringing back His people from exile, and to make level the streets which He is to traverse, after the analogy of what used to take place in the East when rulers set out on a journey (Wetstein and Münthe). In this the evangelist recognises (and the Baptist himself had recognised this, John 1:23) the typically prophetic reference to John as the prophet who was to call on the Jews to prepare themselves by repentance for the reception of the Messiah (whose manifestation is the manifestation of Jehovah). In Isaiah, the voice which calls is that of a herald of Jehovah, who desires to begin his journey; in the Messianic fulfilment, it is the voice of the Baptist.

Faith in a God-sent forerunner runner of the Messiah, based on prophecy (Malachi 3:1; Luke 1:17; Luke 1:76) and confirmed by Jesus Himself (Matthew 11:10, Matthew 17:11), and attested as realized in the appearance of the Baptist, had in various ways (see Bertholdt, Christol. p. 58) assumed the form of the expectation of the return of one of the ancient prophets. Comp. Matthew 16:14; John 1:21.