圣经注释书

Matthew 2:18 : still another prophetic reference, erem. 31:15, freely reproduced from the Sept[10]; pathetic and poetic certainly, if the relevance be not conspicuously apparent. The evangelist introduces the prophetic passage in this case, not with ἵνα, but with τότε (Matthew 2:17), suggesting a fulfilment not regarded as exclusive. The words, even in their original place, are highly imaginative. The scene of Rachel weeping for her children is one of several tableaux, which passed before the prophet’s eye in a vision, in a dream which, on awaking, he felt to be sweet. It was poetry to begin with, and it is poetry here. Rachel again weeps over her children; hers, because she was buried there, the prophet’s Ramah, near Gibeah, north of Jerusalem, standing for Bethlehem as far to the south. The prophetic passage did not create the massacre; the tradition of the massacre recalled to mind the prophecy, and led to its being quoted, though of doubtful appositeness in a strict sense. Jacob’s beloved wife seems to have occupied an imaginative place also in Rabbinical literature. Wünsche quotes this from the Midrasch: “Why did Jacob bury Rachel on the way to Ephratah or Bethlehem? (Genesis 35:16). Because he foresaw that the exiles would at some future time pass that way, and he buried her there that she might pray for them” (Beiträge, p. 11). Rachel was to the Hebrew fancy a mother for Israel in all time, sympathetic in all her children’s misfortunes.

[10] Septuagint.

Matthew 2:19-21. Joseph’s return. Τελευτήσαντος δὲ τ. Ἡρ: Herod died in 750 U. C. in his 70th year, at Jericho, of a horrible loathsome disease, rotten in body as in soul, altogether an unwholesome man (vide Joseph, Bell, i. 33, 1–5; Antiq., xvii. 6, 5; Euseb., H. E., i. 6, 8). The news of his death would fly swiftly, and would not take long to reach Egypt.There would be no need of an angel to inform Joseph of the fact. But his anxieties would not therefore be at an end. Who was to succeed Herod? Might he not be another of the same type? Might disorder and confusion not arise? Would it be safe or wise to return to Palestine? Guidance was again needed, desired, and obtained.—ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος … λέγων: the guidance is given once more in a dream (κατʼ ὄναρ). The anxious thoughts of the daytime are reflected in the dream by night, and the angelic message comes to put an end to uncertainty.

Matthew 2:20. Ἐγερθεὶς … Ἰσραήλ: it is expressed in the same terms as those of the message directing flight to Egypt, except of course that the land is different, and the order not flee but return. “Arise, take the child and His mother.” The words were as a refrain in the life of Joseph in those critical months.—τεθνήκασι γὰρ: in this general manner is the death of Herod referred to, as if in studious avoidance of the dreaded name. They are dead. The plural here (οἱ ζητοῦντες), as often, expresses a general idea, a class, though only a single person is meant (vide Winer, § 27, 2, and Exodus 4:19). But the manner of expression may indicate a desire to dissipate completely Joseph’s apprehensions. There is nothing, no person to fear: go! Matthew 2:21. ὁ δὲ ἐγερθεὶς … Ἰσραήλ: prompt obedience follows, but νυκτός (Matthew 2:14) is omitted this time. Joseph may wait till day; the matter is not so urgent. Then the word was φεῦγε. It was a flight for life, every hour or minute important.

Matthew 2:22-23. Settlement in Nazareth in Galilee. Joseph returns with mother and child to Israel, but not to Judaea and Bethlehem.—ἀκούσας … Ἡρῴδου: Archelaos reigns in his father’s stead. A man of kindred nature, suspicious, truculent (Joseph., Ant., 17, 11, 2), to be feared and avoided by such as had cause to fear his father.—βασιλεύει, reigns, not in the strict sense of the word. He exercised the authority of an ethnarch, with promise of a royal title if he conducted himself so as to deserve it. In fact he earned banishment. At Herod’s death the Roman emperor divided his kingdom into four parts, of which he gave two to Archelaus, embracing Judaea, Idumaea and Samaria; the other two parts were assigned to Antipas and Philip, also sons of Herod: to Antipas, Galilee and Peraea; to Philip, Batanea, Trachonitis and Auranitis. They bore the title of Tetrarch, ruler of a fourth part (Joseph., Ant., 17, 11, 4).—ἐφοβήθη ἐκεῖ ἀπελθεῖν. It is implied that to settle in Judaea was the natural course to follow, and that it would have beer followed but for a special reason. Schanz, taking a hint from Augustine, suggests that Joseph wished to settle in Jerusalem, deeming that city the most suitable home for the Messiah, but that God judged the despised Galilee a better training school for the future Saviour of publicans, sinners and Pagans. This hypothesis goes on the assumption that the original seat of the family was Nazareth.—ἐκεῖ: late Greek for ἐκεῖσε. In later Greek authors the distinction between ποῖ ποῦ, οἷ οὗ, ὅποι ὅπου, ἐκεῖ and ἐκεῖσε practically disappeared. Rutherford’s New Phrynichus, p. 114. Vide for another instance, Luke 21:2. Others explain the substitution as a case of attraction common in adverbs of place. The idea of remaining is in the mind = He feared to go thither to abide there. vide Lobeck’s Phryn., p. 44, and Fritzsche.—χρηματισθεὶς τῆς Γαλιλαίας: again oracular counsel given in a dream, implying again mental perplexity and need of guidance. Going to Galilee, Judaea being out of the question, was not a matter of course, as we should have expected. The narrative of the first Gospel appears to be constructed on the assumption that Nazareth was not the original home of the holy family, and to represent a tradition for which Nazareth was the adopted home, Bethlehem being the original. “The evangelist did not know that Nazareth was the original seat of the family.” Weiss, Matt. evang. p. 98.

Matthew 2:23. κατῳκησεν. κατοικεῖν in Sept[11] is used regularly for יָשַׁב in the sense of to dwell, and with ἐν in Luke and Acts (Luke 13:4; Acts 1:20, etc.) in the same sense. Here with εἰς it seems to mean going to settle in, adopting as a home, the district of Galilee, the particular town called Nazareth.—εἰς πόλιν is to be taken along with κατῴ. not with ἐλθὼν. Arrived in Galilee he transferred his family to Nazareth, as afterwards Jesus migrated to Capernaum to carry on there His ministry (Matthew 4:13, where the same form of expression recurs).—Ναζαρέτ, a town in lower Galilee, in the tribe of Zebulon, nowhere mentioned in O. T. or Josephus.—ὅπως πληρωθῇ, etc.: a final prophetic reference winding up the history of the infancy. ὅπως not ἵνα, as usual, but with much the same meaning. It does not necessarily imply that a prophetic oracle consciously influenced Joseph in making his choice, but only that the evangelist saw in that choice a fulfilment of prophecy. But what prophecy? The reference is vague, not to any particular prophet, but to the prophets in general. In no one place can any such statement be found. Some have suggested that it occurred in some prophetic book or oracle no longer extant. “Don’t ask,” says Euthy. Zig., “in what prophets; you will not find: many prophetic books were lost” (after Chrys.). Olearius, in an elaborate note, while not adopting, states with evident sympathy this view as held by others. Jerome, following the Jewish scholars (eruditi Hebraeorum) of his time, believed the reference to be mainly to Isaiah 11, where mention is made of a branch (נָצֶר) that shall spring out of Jesse’s root. This view is accepted by most modern scholars, Catholic and Protestant, the name of the town being viewed as a derivative from the Hebrew word (a feminine form). The epithet Ναζωραῖος will thus mean: “the man of Nazareth, the town of the off-shoot”. De Wette says: “In the spirit of the exegetical mysticism of the time, and applying what the Jews called Midrasch, deeper investigation, the word is used in a double sense in allusion at once to נֵצֶר, Isaiah 11:1, sprout, and to the name of Nazareth”. There may be something in the suggestion that the reference is to Jdg 13:7 : ὅτι Ναζιραῖον θεοῦ ἔσται, and the idea: one living apart in a secluded town. (So Furrer in Die Bedeutung der bibl. Geographie für d. bib. Exegese, p. 15.)

[11] Septuagint.

This final prophetic reference in the history of the infancy is the weakest link in the chain. It is wasted effort to try to show its value in the prophetic argument. Instead of doing this, apologists would act more wisely by frankly recognising the weakness, and drawing from it an argument in favour of historicity. This may very legitimately be done. Of all the incidents mentioned in this chapter, the settlement in Nazareth is the only one we have other means of verifying. Whether it was the original or the adopted home of Jesus may be doubtful, but from many references in the Gospels we know that it was His home from childhood till manhood. In this case, therefore, we certainly know that the historic fact suggested the prophetic reference, instead of the prophecy creating the history. And the very weakness of the prophetic reference in this instance raises a presumption that that was the nature of the connection between prophecy and history throughout. It is a caveat against the critical theory that in the second chapter of Matthew we have an imaginary history of the infancy of Jesus, compiled to meet a craving for knowledge on the subject, and adapted to the requirements of faith, the rudiments of the story consisting of a collection of Messianic prophecies—the star of Jacob, princes bringing gifts, Rachel weeping for her children, etc. The last of the prophetic references would never have occurred to any one, whether the evangelist or any other unknown source of the tradition, unless there had been a fact going before, the settlement in Nazareth. But given the fact, there was a strong desire to find some allusion to it in the O. T. Faith was easily satisfied; the faintest allusion or hint would do. That was in this ease, and presumably in most cases of the kind, the problem with which the Christian mind in the Apostolic age was occupied: not creating history, but discovering in evangelic facts even the most minute, prophetic fulfilments. The evangelist’s idea of fulfilment may provoke a smile, but it might also awaken a feeling of thankfulness in view of what has been stated. It is with the prophetic references in the Gospels as with songs without words. The composer has a certain scene or state of mind in his view, and writes under its inspiration. But you are not in his secret, and cannot tell when you hear the music what it means. But let the key be given, and immediately you find new meaning in the music. The prophecies are the music; the key is the history. Given the prophecies alone and you could with difficulty imagine the history; given the history you can easily understand how religious fancy might discover corresponding prophecies. That the prophecies, once suggested, might react on the facts and lead to legendary modifications is of course not to be denied.

CHAPTER 3.

THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST, AND THE BAPTISM OF JESUS.

This chapter and part of the next, containing the narrative of the temptation (Matthew 4:1-11), form the prelude to the public ministry of Jesus. John, of whom we have not heard before, appears as consecrating Jesus to His Messianic calling by baptism, and from the baptism Jesus passes to the scene of moral trial. In what year of Christ’s life these events happened is not indicated. The new narrative begins with the vague phrase, “in those days”. But it is obvious from the contents that Jesus has now reached manhood; His thoughts and experiences are those of mature years. From childhood to manhood is an absolute blank in our Gospel. The evangelist gives a genesis of Christ’s body, but no genesis of His mind. As we see it in the sequel, it is a miracle of wisdom. It too, doubtless, had its genesis and history, but they are not given or even hinted at. Christ is ushered on the scene an unexplained prodigy. One would like to know how He reached this unprecedented height of wisdom and grace (Luke 2:52). The only possible source of knowledge is reasoning back from the outcome in the full-grown man. Jesus grew, and the final result may reveal in part the means and process of growth. The anti-Pharisaic spirit and clean-cut descriptions of Pharisaic ways imply antecedent study, perhaps in Rabbinical schools. The parables may not have been so extempore as they seem, but may be the ripe fruit of long brooding thought, things new and yet old.

Matthew 3:1-6. John the Baptist appears (Mark 1:1-6, Luke 3:1-6).

Matthew 3:1. ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις: the time when most vaguely indicated. Luke’s narrative here (Matthew 3:1) presents a great contrast, as if with conscious intent to supply a want. John’s ministry is there dated with reference to the general history of the world, and Christ’s age at His baptism is given. Luke’s method is more satisfactory in a historical point of view, but Matthew’s manner of narration is dramatically effective. He passes abruptly to the new theme, and leaves you to guess the length of the interval. A similarly indefinite phrase occurs in the story of Moses (Exodus 2:11). There has been much discussion as to what period of time the evangelist had in view. Some say none, except that of the events to be related. “In those days,” means simply, “in the days when the following events happened” (so Euthy. Zig.). Others suggest explanations based on the relation of our Gospel to its sources, e.g., use of a source in which more was told about John, or anticipation of Mark 1:9, where the phrase is used in reference to Christ’s coming to be baptised. Probably the best course is to take it as referring back from the apostolic age to the great creative epoch of the evangelic history = “In those memorable years to which we look back with wistful reverent gaze”.—παραγίνεται ὁ Ι.: John appears on the stage of history—historical present, used “to give a more animated statement of past events” (Goodwin’s Syntax, p. 11). John ὁ βαπτιστής, well known by this epithet, and referred to under that designation by Josephus (Antiq., xviii. 5, 2, on which vide Schürer; Jewish History, div. i., vol. ii., p. 23). Its currency naturally suggests that John’s baptism was partly or wholly an originality, not to be confounded with proselyte baptism, which perhaps did not even exist at that time.—κηρύσσων, preaching, as well as baptising, heralding the approach of the Kingdom of Heaven, standing especially in N. T. for proclamation of the good news of God, distinct from διδάσκων (Matthew 4:23): a solemn word for a momentous matter.—ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ τ. Ἰουδαίας: scene of the ministry, the pasture lands lying between the central range of hills and the Jordan and the Dead Sea, not all belonging to Judaea, but of the same character; suitable scene for such a ministry.

Matthew 3:2. λέγων introduces the burden of his preaching.—μετανοεῖτε, Repent. That was John’s great word. Jesus used it also when He began to preach, but His distinctive watchword was Believe. The two watchwords point to different conceptions of the kingdom. John’s kingdom was an object of awful dread, Jesus’ of glad welcome. The message of the one was legal, of the other evangelic. Change of mind John deemed very necessary as a preparation for Messiah’s advent.—ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, the Kingdom of Heaven. This title is peculiar to Matthew. In the other Gospels it is called the Kingdom of God. Not used either by John or by Jesus, says Weiss, but to be ascribed to the evangelist. There does not seem to be any urgent reason for this judgment. In Daniel 2:44 the kingdom is spoken of as to be set up by “the God of heaven,” and in the Judaistic period previous to the Christian era, when a transcendent conception of God began to prevail, the use of heaven as a synonym for God came in. Custom might cause it to be employed, even by those who did not sympathise with the conception of God as transcendent, outside and far off from the world (vide note in H. C., p. 55).