Комментарии к Библии

Matthew 7:24-27. Epilogue (Luke 6:47-49, which see for comparative exegesis). οὖν, Matthew 7:24, may be taken as referring to the whole discourse, not merely to Matthew 7:21-23 (Tholuck and Achelis). Such a sublime utterance could only be the grand finale of a considerable discourse, or series of discourses. It is a fit ending of a body of teaching of unparalleled weight, dignity, and beauty. The τούτους after λόγους (Matthew 7:24), though omitted in [51], therefore bracketed in W. H[52], is thoroughly appropriate. It may have fallen out through similar ending of three successive words, or have been omitted intentionally to make the statement following applicable to the whole of Christ’s teaching. Its omission weakens the oratorical power of the passage. It occurs in Matthew 7:26.

[51] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.

[52] Westcott and Hort.

Matthew 7:24. Πᾶς ὅστις. Were the reading ὁμοιώσω adopted, this would be a case either of attraction πᾶς for πάντα to agree with ὅστις (Fritzsche), or of a broken construction: nominative, without a verb corresponding, for rhetorical effect. (Meyer, vide Winer, § lxiii., 2, d.)—ἀκούει, ποιεῖ: hearing and doing, both must go together; vide Jam 1:22-25, for a commentary on this logion. “Doing” points generally to reality, and what it means specifically depends on the nature of the saying. “Blessed are the poor in spirit”; doing in that case means being poor in spirit. To evangelic ears the word has a legal sound, but the doing Christ had in view meant the opposite of legalism and Pharisaism.—ὁμοιωθησεται: not at the judgment day (Meyer), but, either shall be assimilated by his own action (Weiss), or the future passive to be taken as a Gerund = comparandus est (Achelis).—φρονίμῳ: perhaps the best rendering is “thoughtful”. The type of man meant considers well what he is about, and carefully adopts measures suited to his purpose. The undertaking on hand is building a house—a serious business—a house not being meant for show, or for the moment, but for a lasting home. A well-selected emblem of religion.—τὴν πέτραν: the article used to denote not an individual rock, but a category—a rocky foundation.

Matthew 7:25. What follows shows his wisdom, justified by events which he had anticipated and provided for; not abstract possibilities, but likely to happen every year—certain to happen now and then. Therefore the prudence displayed is not exceptional, but just ordinary common sense.—καὶ: observe the five καὶ in succession—an eloquent polysyndeton, as grammarians call it; note also the rhythm of the sentence in which the war of the elements is described: down came the rain, down rushed the rivers, blew the winds—sudden, fell, terrible.—προσέπεσον, they fell upon that house: rain on roof, river on foundation, wind on walls. And what happened? καὶ οὐκ ἔπεσεν. The elements fell on it, but it did not fall.—τεθεμελίωτο γὰρ: for a good reason, it was founded on the rock. The builder had seen to that.

Matthew 7:26-27. μωρῷ, Jesus seems here to offend against His own teaching, Matthew 5:22, but He speaks not in passion or contempt, but in deep sadness, and with humane intent to prevent such folly. Wherein lay the second builder’s folly? Not in deliberately selecting a bad foundation, but in taking no thought of foundation; in beginning to build at haphazard and anywhere; on loose sand (ἄμμος) near the bed of a mountain torrent. His fault was not an error in judgment, but inconsiderateness. It is not, as is commonly supposed, a question of two foundations, but of looking to, and neglecting to look to, the foundation. In the natural sphere no man in his senses commits such a mistake. But utterly improbable cases have to be supposed in parables to illustrate human folly in religion.

Matthew 7:27. καὶ … ἄνεμοι: exactly the same phrases as in Matthew 7:25, to describe the oncome of the storm.—προσέκοψαν: a different word for the assault on the house—struck upon it with immediate fatal effect. It was not built to stand such rough handling. The builder had not thought of such an eventuality.—ἔπεσεν, καὶ ἦν ἡ πτῶσις αὐτῆς μεγάλη: not necessarily implying that it was a large building, or that the disaster was of large dimensions, like the collapse of a great castle, but that the ruin was complete. The fool’s house went down like a house of cards, not one stone or brick left on another.

Allegorising interpretation of the rain, rivers and winds, and of the foundations, is to be avoided, but it is pertinent to ask, what defects of character in the sphere of religion are pointed at in this impressive parabolic logion? What kind of religion is it that deserves to be so characterised? The foolish type is a religion of imitation and without forethought. Children play at building houses, because they have seen their seniors doing it. There are people who play at religion, not realising what religion is for, but following fashion, doing as others do, and to be seen of others (Matthew 6:1). Children build houses on the sea sand below high-tide mark, not thinking of the tide which will in a few hours roll in and sweep away their houselet. There are men who have religion for to-day, and think not of the trial to-morrow may bring.

Matthew 7:28. Concluding statement as to the impression made by the discourse. A similar statement occurs in Mark 1:22; Mark 1:27, whence it may have been transferred by Matthew. It may be assumed that so unique a teacher as Jesus made a profound impression the very first time He spoke in public, and that the people would express their feelings of surprise and admiration at once. The words Mark puts into the mouth of the audience in the synagogue of Capernaum are to the life (vide comments there). They saw, and said that Christ’s way of speaking was new, not like that of the scribes to which they had been accustomed. Both evangelists make the point of difference consist in “authority”.

Matthew 7:29. ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων: Fritzsche supplies, after ἔχων, τοῦ διδάσκειν, and renders, He taught as one having a right to teach, because He could do it well, “scite et perite,” a master of the art. The thought lies deeper. It is an ethical, not an artistic or æsthetical contrast that is intended. The scribes spake by authority, resting all they said on traditions of what had been said before. Jesus spake with authority, out of His own soul, with direct intuition of truth; and, therefore, to the answering soul of His hearers. The people could not quite explain the difference, but that was what they obscurely felt.

CHAPTER 8.

THE HEALING MINISTRY OF JESUS.

These two chapters consist mainly of miracle narratives, the greater number being reports of healing acts performed by Jesus, nine in all, being the second part of the programme sketched in chap. Matthew 4:23-25. These wonderful works are not to be regarded, after the manner of the older apologists, as evidential signs appended to the teaching on the hill to invest it with authority. That teaching needed no external credentials; it spoke for itself then as now. These histories are an integral part of the self-revelation of Jesus by word and deed; they are demonstrations not merely of His power, but above all, of His spirit. Therein lies their chief permanent interest, which is entirely independent of all disputes as to the strictly miraculous character of the events. This collection is not arranged in chronological order. The connection is topical, not temporal.

Matthew 8:1-4. The leper (Mark 1:40-45; Luke 5:12-16). This is the first individual act of healing reported in this Gospel, chap. Matthew 4:23-24 containing only a general notice. It is a very remarkable one. No theory of moral therapeutics will avail here to eliminate the miraculous element. Leprosy is not a disease of the nerves, amenable to emotional treatment, but of the skin and the flesh, covering the body with unsightly sores. The story occurs in all three Synoptics, and, as belonging to the triple tradition, is one of the best attested. Matthew’s version is the shortest and simplest here as often, his concern being rather to report the main fact and what Christ said, than to give pictorial details. Possibly he gives it as he found it in the Apostolic Document both in form and in position, immediately after Sermon on Mount, so placed, conceivably, to illustrate Christ’s respectful attitude towards the law as stated in Matthew 5:17 (cf. Matthew 8:4 and vide Weiss, Matt. Evan., p. 227).

Matthew 8:1. καταβάντος αὐτοῦ (for the reading vide above). Jesus descended from the hill towards Capernaum (Matthew 8:5), but we must beware of supposing that the immediately following events all happened there, or at any one place or time. Mark seems to connect the cure of the leper with the preaching tour in Galilee (Mark 1:40), and that of the palsied man with Christ’s return therefrom (Matthew 2:1). Jesus had ascended the hill to escape the pressure of human need. He descends, in Matt.’s narrative, to encounter it again—ἠκολούθησαν, large crowds gather about and follow Him.—ἰδοὺ, the sign mark of the Apostolic Document according to Weiss; its lively formula for introducing a narrative.—προσεκύνει, prostrated himself to the ground, in the abject manner of salutation suitable from an inferior to one deemed much superior, and also to one who had a great favour to ask.—Κύριε: not implying in the leper a higher idea than that of Master or Rabbi.—ἐὰν θέλῃς: the leper’s doubt is not about the power, for he probably knows what marvellous things have been happening of late in and around Capernaum, but about the will, a doubt natural in one suffering from a loathsome disease. Besides, men more easily believe in miraculous power than in miraculous love. θέλῃς, present subjunctive, not aorist, which would express something that might happen at a future time (vide Winer, § xlii., 2, b).—καθαρίσαι—of course the man means to cleanse by healing, not merely to pronounce clean. This has an important bearing on the meaning of the word in next ver.—ἥψατο, touched him, not to show that He was not under the law, and that to the pure nothing is unclean (Chrys., Hom. xxv.), but to evince His willingness and sympathy. The stretching out of the hand does not mean that, in touching, He might be as far off as possible to avoid defilement and infection (Weiss-Meyer). It was action suited to the word.—θέλω, “I will,” pronounced in firm, cordial tone, carefully recorded by all the evangelists. καθαρίσθητι, naturally in the sense of the man’s request. But that would imply a real miracle, therefore naturalistic interpreters, like Paulus and Keim, are forced to take the word in the sense of pronouncing clean, the mere opinion of a shrewd observer. The narrative of Matthew barely leaves room for this hypothesis. The other evangelists so express themselves as to exclude it.—ἐκαθαρίσθη: forthwith the leprosy disappeared as if by magic. The man was and looked perfectly well.