Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

24. ten thousand talents.] The Attic talent of silver was equivalent to about 243/. 155. English money; so that ten thousand talents would not fall far short of two millions and a half English. The expression is here perhaps used indefinitely for a very large sum; yet it might be understood literally if we suppose, with Archbishop Trench, that the servant in question is a satrap or governor of a province,

who should have remitted the revenues of his province to the royal treasury. (Cf. Esther ii. 9.) If we suppose the Jewish standard to be adopted, the amount will be still larger; the Jewish silver talent being equivalent to 4061. 55. English, and the gold talent to

double that sum.

25. to be sold.] The Mosaic Law allowed the sale of an insolvent debtor, apparently with his family (see Levit. xxv. 39, 41; Deut. xv. 12; 2 Kings iv. 1). But from the mention of the prison and the tormentors, which were not part of the Jewish Law, it is probable that the imagery is borrowed from a foreign country.

26. I will pay thee all.] "We may detect in these words the voice of self-righteousness, imagining that, if only time were allowed, it could make good all the shortcomings of the past. Thus the words are exceedingly important, as very much explaining to us the later conduct of this man. It is clear that he New Test.-VOL. I.

29 And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.

31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.

32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst

me:

33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?

34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

35 So likewise shall my heavenly

whom this servant represents had never come to a true recognition of the immensity of his debt. Little, in the subjective measure of his own estimate, was forgiven him, and therefore he loved little, or not at all." (Archbishop Trench.)

28. an hundred pence.] Literally, an bundred denarii. The Roman denarius, commonly rendered a penny, was really equivalent to about 8 d. of our money.

29. all.] This word is not found in the F. C. C. best MSS, and may be omitted.

34. the tormentors.] This word probably signifies more than "keepers of the prison," as it is sometimes interpreted. Though there is no evidence of torture being applied to debtors under the Jewish Law, yet the practice was not unknown in other countries. Dr. Arnold (History of Rome,' i. p. 135) contrasts the merciful provisions of the Jewish Law with the severities sanctioned by the Roman (see Aulus Gellius, xx. 1, 45-50; Livy, ii. 23); and Archbishop Trench remarks that in the East, where there is a continual suspicion that those who may appear the poorest are actually in possession of secret hoards of wealth, the torture would be often applied, as it is now, to make the debtor reveal those hoards, or in order to wring the money from the compassion of his friends.

35. So likewise.] (Cf. Ecclus. xxviii. 3, 4.)

H

Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

The sense is complete without them. F. C. C.

their trespasses.] So one of the oldest editors. MSS, and some ancient versions: but the words are omitted in other MSS, and by late

NOTE to CHAPTER XVIII. ON THE LATTER PART OF OUR LORD'S MINISTRY, FROM HIS DEPARTURE FROM GALILEE TO HIS FINAL ENTRY INTO JUDEA.

The probable chronological relation between St. Matthew and the other two Synoptic Evangelists, down to the end of ch. xviii., has already been pointed out in the notes on chaps. viii. 14, ix. ad fin., xii. 1, 46, xiv. 1, 13. It appears that, down to the end of the 18th chapter, the narrative of St. Matthew, though exhibiting some differences as regards arrange ment of events and fulness of detail, corresponds in substance with those portions of the other two Synoptists which terminate at Mark ix. 50, Luke ix. 50. In the latter part of this narrative, St. Luke is far less full than the other Evangelists; the small portion of ch. ix., from verse 18 to verse 50, being all that he has given of the history of our Lord's ministry between the Feeding of the Five Thousand and His final departure from Galilee; a period corresponding to Matt. xiv. 22 to xviii. 35, Mark vi. 45 to ix. 50,1 and embracing nearly six months, from the Passover (John vi. 4) to a time shortly before the Feast of Tabernacles (John vii. 2). The brevity of this part of St. Luke's narrative contrasts remarkably with the fulness of that which follows (ix. 51 to xviii. 14), which treats of a period scarcely noticed at all by the other Evangelists, a period of nearly six months more from our Lord's departure from Galilee to a short time before His final visit to Jeru

salem at the Passover at which He suffered. The silence of the first two Gospels with regard to this period is partly supplied by some incidental notices in St. John, which harmonise in a remarkable manner with the more detailed account of St. Luke.

It will be observed that St. Luke, in this part of his narrative, mentions on three different occasions the circumstance of our Lord's journeying to or towards Jerusalem. On the first occasion we read that "when the time was come (or rather, 'when the days were being accomplished') that He should be received up, He stedfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem."2 On the second, we read that, "He went through the cities and villages, teaching and journeying towards Jerusalem.”3 In the third, that "as He went to Jerusalem He passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee." 4 St. John in like manner records three different journeys to or towards Jerusalem within the same period: the first from Galilee at the time of the Feast of Tabernacles: the second from the place where John baptized (Bethabara, or Bethany beyond Jordan) to Bethany in Judea, on the occasion of the death of Lazarus; the third from Ephraim to Bethany, and thence to Jerusalem six days before the Passover. St. Matthew and St. Mark make no mention of the two

of His prediction. p. 243.)

1 Bp. Ellicott, who notices this difference, observes that St. Luke's design is to record events rather than discourses, while this portion of our Lord's ministry seems to have been devoted to local teaching and preaching rather than to displays of miraculous 6 'Lectures power. on the Life of our Lord,' p. 204.

as

Luke ix. 51. Notwithstanding the attempt of Wieseler to give a different meaning to this passage, it is hardly possible to understand the words τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ἀναλήψεως αὐτοῦ meaning anything else than "the days of His ascension." (Cf. Acts i. 2.) But the words v τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι do not mean when the time 66 was come," but while it "was being accomplished." The expression "the days of His ascension" may be understood as embracing the whole of the period preparatory to that event, after our Lord had foretold His death and resurrection, and had commenced the movements which ended in the accomplishment

3 Luke xiii. 22. 4 Luke xvii. II. John vii. 10.

5

John x. 40, xi. 7.

(Cf. Ellicott, 'Lectures,'

John xi. 54, xii. 1. (Cf. Wieseler, 'Chron. Syn.,' p. 290, Eng. Tr.) The narrative of St. John seems to imply another journey to Jerusalem at the feast of the Dedication, and this journey may perhaps be identified with the second of those mentioned by St. Luke. Patrizzi ('De Evang.,' Lib. iii. Disc. xlviii.) agrees with Wieseler as to the occasion of this journey, but adopts a different explanation of the ὡς ἐν κρυπτῷ, John vii. 10. He supposes that our Lord, when refused hospitality by the Samaritans, crossed the Jordan and travelled through the desert country on the other side, and he identifies this journey with that of Matt. xix. I; Mark x. 1.

former of these journeys, but proceed at once from our Lord's departure from Galilee to His final journey to Jerusalem, which they tell us was through the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan.'

If, then, we can identify the three journeys mentioned by St. John with the corresponding three notices in St. Luke, it will follow that there is no discrepancy between the latter Evangelist and the other two synoptists, but merely that the one records a group of events which the others omit. And there is important incidental evidence in favour of such an identification. As regards the first journey to the Feast of Tabernacles, St. John tells us that it was taken "not openly, but as it were in secret;" and we may also infer that it was performed rapidly, having been commenced after His brethren had gone up. This coincides with the statement of St. Luke, who represents our Lord as travelling through Samaria, which was a shorter and yet a less frequented route than that through Peraa.2 It also explains the conduct of the Samaritans on this occasion, as contrasted with their reception of Him on a former journey (John iv. 40). A Jew, journeying hastily towards Jerusalem at the time of one of the great feasts, would excite the national and religious hostility of the Samaritans far more than one travelling northward with no apparent religious purpose. There is also a remarkable coincidence with regard to the third journey. St. Luke tells us that it was "through the midst of Samaria and Galilee "—an order the reverse of that which would have been necessary in a journey taken directly from north to south. Here St. John comes to our aid by showing that the starting-point of the journey was not any place in Galilee, but Ephraim, on the southern border of Samaria; and St. Matthew and St. Mark complete the coincidence by telling us that our Lord's

1 Matthew xix. 1; Mark x. I.

[ocr errors]

2 Cf. Wieseler, Chron. Syn.,' p. 292, Eng. Tr.; Ellicott, 'Lectures,' pp. 122, 248.

3 Cf. Wieseler, p. 293; Ellicott, p. 249.

The city of Ephraim may perhaps be identified with Ophrah of Benjamin (Josh. xviii. 23; cf. 1 Sam. xiii. 17). Robinson ('Researches,' vol. ii. p. 124) suggests the identity of this Ophrah with the modern Taijibeh, 4 miles E.N.E. of Bethel and 16 from Jerusalem. Wieseler (Chr. Syn., p. 291, Eng. Tr.) infers from Josephus (B. J.,' iv. 99) that it was south of Bethel and thus nearer to Jerusalem. Its position must be near the borders of Samaria and Judea, but probably within the latter province. Cf. Wieseler, 1. c.

Matt. xix. 1; Mark x. I. This coincidence would be almost certain if we could retain the received text of St. Mark, dià Tou Téрay TOÙ 'Iopòávov. But the same interpretation is compatible with what is probably the true text, kal

last journey was through the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan. The entire route is thus given by the different writers: first, from Ephraim northwards through Samaria into Galilee; then by the more usual road from Galilee to Jerusalem, through Peræa, and across the Jordan to Jericho and Jerusalem.

We have thus an explanation of the omission by St. Matthew and St. Mark of many important circumstances recorded by St. Luke, such as the rejection of our Lord by the Samaritans, the mission of the Seventy, the visit to Martha and Mary, the parables of the Good Samaritan, the Barren Fig-tree, the Prodigal Son, the Unjust Steward, the Rich Man and Lazarus, the importunate Widow, the Pharisee and the Publican, &c. All these belong to the period which it did not come within the plan of the former Evangelists to narrate-the period between the close of our Lord's ministry in Galilee and His entry into Judea from beyond Jordan, on His last journey to Jerusalem. The place for this portion of St. Luke in a continuous narrative will be between the 18th and 19th chapter of St. Matthew, or between the 9th and 10th of St. Mark.

Had the narrative of St. Luke proceeded continuously from the end of the 10th to the beginning of the 13th chapter, there would be but little difficulty in treating this part of his gospel as a consecutive account of the events intervening between the close of our Lord's ministry in Galilee and His last visit to Judea and Jerusalem. But the 11th and 12th chapters present features which it is scarcely possible to explain on this supposition, though, various attempts have been made to do so.6 The parallels which occur between these two chapters and various portions of St. Matthew's gospel are too numerous and too close to admit of being all referred to distinct though similar occasions, and if accepted as identical

πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου. The καὶ may be interpreted as explanatory (und zwar, Meyer): "He came into the country bordering Judea and beyond Jordan;" i. e. into Perea the boundary of Judea on the Jordan side. The words need not mean that he passed through Judea into Peræa.

• Thus Greswell (Harmonia' P. iv. sect. xxv-xlv; 'Dissertations,' ii. 517-542) treats the whole narrative (Luke xi. 51, xvii. 19) as continuous and peculiar to St. Luke. Wieseler (Chr. Syn.,' p. 297, Eng. Tr.) maintains the chronological order of St. Luke, though without harmonising in detail, and is followed more elaborately by Tischendorf (Synops. Evang.,' §§ 77-106). The same principle is adopted by Krafft (Chr. u. Harm.'), §§ 107-147). On the other hand Robinson ('Harmony,' Part vi. Eng. ed. p. 92) allows that this portion of St. Luke is wanting in exact chronological arrangement, a conclusion which seems more nearly to agree with the actual phenomena.

cannot be harmonised according to St. Luke's arrangement without extreme violence to the text of St. Matthew. At the same time it may be doubted whether the text of St. Luke taken by itself requires or even suggests such an arrangement. One noteworthy feature of this portion of the gospel is the absence of all definite marks of time or place. At the beginning of the 11th chapter we are merely fold that our Lord "was praying in a certain place;" at verse 14, that he "was casting out a devil, and it was dumb;" at verse 29 His words are only referred to some occasion "when the people were gathered thick together." In the 12th chapter the words spoken to the disciples at verse 22, though akin in matter to the preceding parable, have no note to show that they were spoken at the same time, as is also the case with the words addressed to the multitude at verse 54. In one or two instances, indeed, there is clear evidence that St. Luke is recording an event not narrated by the other Evangelists, and these may possibly, though by no means certainly, be narrated in their chronological place, though in juxtaposition with others probably belonging to a different occasion. Thus the parallel between Luke xi. 33 and viii. 16 shows that the Evangelist was aware of two occasions at least on which similar words were used; the former corresponding to Mark iv. 21, while the latter, which can hardly be identified with Matt. v. 15, is probably recorded by St. Luke alone. A clearer instance is afforded by Luke xi. 39-52, together with the parallel in Matt. xiii. 23-36. By comparing Luke xx. 45-47 it appears here also that this Evangelist was aware of two occasions on which our Lord spoke in a similar manner of the Scribes and Pharisees; the latter of which corresponds in time to the one occasion recorded by St. Matthew, while the former has many coincidences with it in matter. It is possible that St. Matthew may, in this, as well as in other instances, have combined in his narrative the substance of two distinct though similar discourses, one of which may belong to the place assigned to it in Luke xi. 39-51. It is probable also that Luke xx. 45-51 is but an abridged report of the second of these discourses, which may have contained many things repeated from the first and recorded in

that repetition by St. Matthew. But though various conjectures may be hazarded as to the details of those two discourses, the fact that there were two is evident from the narrative of St. Luke alone. A similar explanation may perhaps apply to Luke xii. 39-46, compared with Matt. xxiv. 42-51, though in this case there is not the same positive evidence of two separate discourses.

But when every allowance is made for such instances as may fairly be explained on the hypothesis of similar though distinct events, it seems impossible to apply this hypothesis to all the instances adduced in the preceding table, and equally impossible to construct a satisfactory harmony on the assumption that St. Luke in this part of his gospel is following a strict chronological order, and consequently that all the parallel places in St. Matthew which cannot be regarded as distinct events, must be removed from their contexts, and placed between his 18th and 19th chapters. There remains, however, a third hypothesis, as advocated by Dr. Robinson, and which seems on the whole the best suited to the facts of the case, namely, that St. Luke, at the end of his narrative of our Lord's ministry.in Galilee, and of His journey through Samaria took occasion to insert, by way as it were of appendix to this part of his narrative, an account of various events belonging to the earlier ministry, which, for some reason or other, he had not narrated in their proper chronological places. The absence of definite marks of time and place appears to give some support to this conjecture. If we suppose, with Wieseler, that the mission of the Seventy took place during the journey through Samaria, or just at the close of it, the arrangement of Luke x. may be easily accommodated to this hypothesis. The return of the Seventy would naturally be related out of its chronological order, to place it in a continuous narrative with the mission, and the remaining contents of ch. x. were probably immediately subsequent to the return and narrated along with it. The mission of the Seventy closes the ministry of our Lord in Galilee and Samaria, and chapters xi. and xii. form an appendix to this part of the narrative. Such an hypothesis is not invalidated by words of the Evangelist himself (ch.

The following table of parallels will show how much dislocation the gospel of St. Matthew must undergo to be fitted to such an arrangement :

[blocks in formation]

no

i. 3), in which he speaks of himself as having accurately traced (παρηκολουθηκότι ἀκριβῶς) all things from the beginning (ävwßev), and speaks of his intention to write consecutively (καθεξής). These expressions mean more than that he had traced the entire history of our Lord's life on earth from its commencement, instead of confining himself to one or more detached portions of it, and that he intended to write on a definite principle of arrangement. This principle may, perhaps, be chronological (though this is not implied in the word itself), but it may also be of another kind. Ebrard ('Gospel History,' p. 99, Eng. Tr.) has suggested a different principle of arrangement, which is no doubt difficult to substantiate in all its details, but which is quite as compatible with the word καθεξής as a strictly chronological order. Even supposing the arrangement to be mainly chronological, there would be no inconsistency in an occasional departure from this order, to bring into juxtaposition events otherwise connected with each other, provided that this were done of set purpose,

and not at random. Nor is it impossible that it might be part of this very plan to arrange in the form of an appendix events which had not found a place in the body of the narrative. There is nothing inconsistent with the inspiration of the Evangelist in the supposition that, though accurately informed in respect of all that he has actually stated, he was not informed of the chronological plan of certain events, and consequently did not state it. Such a supposition is surely tenable, unless we maintain the gratuitous assumption that whenever such information had not reached the Evangelist from other sources, it would inevitably be supplied by divine revelation. (A different view from that which Dean Mansel here, partially at least, adopts will be advocated in the supplemental note on Luke ix. 51. The results of some later investigations are there presented. It must, however, be noted that the Dean's position is maintained by Rösger, 'Studien und Kritiken,' 1876, and by Weiss, 'Matthæus-Evangelium.' F. C. C.)

[blocks in formation]

CHAP. XIX.-1, 2. THE DEPARTURE FROM GALILEE.

1. be departed from Galilee.] This is the termination of our Lord's recorded ministry in Galilee. Afterwards we have only a passage through its borders, mentioned Luke xvii. 11. The present departure probably corresponds to Luke ix. 51.

into the coasts of Judaa beyond Jordan.] This does not mean that any part of Judea itself extended beyond Jordan; but that Jesus came into the country beyond Jordan, which with the river itself formed the eastern boundary of Judea. It has been questioned to what journey these words refer. If the received text of Mark x. I be adopted, it is natural to understand them as relating to our Lord's last journey from Ephraim to Jerusalem (John xi. 54, xii. 1), corresponding to Luke xvii. 11. And the same interpreta

tion is also compatible with the amended text of St. Mark (see note at the end of last chapter). Dean Alford, however, interprets the present passage and that of St. Mark as referring to the journey from Jerusalem to the country beyond Jordan (John x. 40). The former supposition, however, seems better suited to the general course of the narrative. The best mode of harmonising this verse with the narratives of St. Luke and St. John, is to suppose a break in the middle: "He departed from Galilee, and (after an interval not recorded by St. Matthew) came into Judea by the way of Peræa." This journey will thus be distinguished from that of Luke ix. 51, which was by the way of Samaria.

3-10. LAW OF DIVORCEMENT. 3. Is it lawful, c.] See on ch. v. 31. It is probable that our Lord's words in the Sermon on the Mount, may have reached the

« PreviousContinue »