Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Matthew 19:1 - 19:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
E.—19:1-20:34. JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM
19:1-12. From Mar_10:1-16
(E) 1. And it came to pass, when Jesus finished these words.] For the formula, cf. 7:28, 11:1, 13:53, 26:1.
(M) He departed from Galilee, and came into the boundaries of Judæ beyond Jordan.] Mar_10:1 has: “And He arose thence, and cometh into the boundaries of Judæ and beyond Jordan.”—ἦθν for Mk.’s hist. present, as often. The addition of ἀὸτςΓλλί marks the editor’s perception of a new stage in Mk.’s Gospel.
(M) 2. And there followed Him many multitudes; and He healed them there.] Mk. has: “And there journey with Him (?) again multitudes; and as He was wont, He was teaching them.”—ἠοοθσν Mt., as often, avoids the hist. pres. σνοεοτι He omits Mk’s Semitic ἀατςas in 15:21 = Mar_7:24 and 26:60 = Mar_14:57, and omits also, as often, Mk.’s πλν—ἐεάεσν The editor substitutes healing for teaching in 14:14 = Mar_6:34, and in 21:14 = Mar_11:18.—ὄλιπλο.] For the addition of πλο, cf. 4:25, 8:1, 18, 13:2, 15:30.
In Mk. most MSS. have σνοεοτιπλνὄλι This is the only occurrence in Mk. of the plural ὄλι But D S1 a b c ff 1 i k q have the singular. σνοεεθιoccurs only here in Mk. D has σνρεα, cf. Mar_3:20. σνοεεθιπό is awkward, and the reading of D al may be original.
(M) 3. And there came to Him Pharisees, tempting Him, and saying, Is it lawful to put away a wife for every cause?] Mk. has: “And Pharisees came and were questioning Him, if it is lawful for a man to put away a wife, tempting Him.” At first sight Mt. seems more likely to be original than Mk. The Jews did not question the legality of divorce. That was legalised by Deu_24:1, Deu_24:2. But they debated about the scope and limits of reasons for divorce. Cf. Gittin 90a, where the views of the schools of Hillel and of Shammai are given. The former allowed divorce for trivial offences, the latter only for some unchaste act. But it is clear that Mt. is editing Mk., and that in κτ πσνατα and (ε) μ ἐὶπρεᾳ v. 9, he has inserted into Mk.’s narrative matter which is really inconsistent with it. In Mk. the Pharisees first put their leading question, Is it lawful to divorce a wife? They themselves would have no doubt of the legality of this, but they test Christ (πιάοτς Mar_2), knowing probably from previous utterances of His that He would reply in words which would seem directly to challenge the Mosaic law. Cf. His criticism of the distinction between clean and unclean meats, Mar_7:14-23. Christ answers with the expected reference to the law, What did Moses command? They state the Old Testament law. Moses sanctioned divorce. Christ at once makes His position clear. The law upon this poin was an accommodation to a rude state of society. But a prior and higher law is to be found in the Creation narrative, “Male and female He created them,” Gen_1:27 LXX., i.e. God created the two sexes that they might be united in the marriage bond, which is, therefore, ideally indissoluble. In answer to a further question of His disciples, the Lord enforces the lesson. A man who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery. A woman who puts away her husband and marries another commits adultery. Upon this point Christ’s teaching passes beyond the ordinary conditions of Jewish society. No woman could divorce her husband by Jewish law. But that is no reason why the Lord should not have expressed himself as Mk. records. There were exceptional cases of divorce by women in Palestine. Cf. Salome, Jos. Ant. xv. 259: “She sent him (Costobar) a bill of divorce, though this was against the Jewish law (and dissolved her marriage with him).” And there is no reason why He may not have been acquainted with the possibility of divorce by women in the West, or why, even if He had not this in view, He may not have emphasised His point by stating the wrongfulness of divorce on either side of the marriage tie. All this is logical and consistent. Compare with it Mt.’s account. The Pharisees are represented as inquiring, Is it lawful to put away a wife on any pretext? Christ answers as in Mk., that marriage from an ideal standpoint is indissoluble. The Pharisees appeal to the law against this judgement. In reply we should expect the Lord, as in Mk., to state the accommodating and secondary character of the legal sanction of divorce, and to reaffirm the sanctity of marriage. But instead, He is represented as affirming that πρεαconstitutes an exception. Thus He tacitly takes sides with the severer school of Jewish interpretation of Deu_24, and acknowledges the permanent validity of that law thus interpreted in a strict sense, which immediately before He had criticised as an accommodation to a rude state of social life. This inconsistency shows that Mk. is here original, and that κτ πσνατα and (ε) μ ἐὶπρεᾳare insertions by the editor of Mt. into Mk.’s narrative. The motive of these insertions can only be conjectured. But in view of other features of the Gospel, it is probable that the editor was a Jewish Christian who has here judaised, or rather rabbinised Christ’s sayings.1 Just as he has so arranged 15:16-20 as to represent Christ’s attitude to the law to be that of the Rabbinical Jews, who regarded every letter of the law as permanently valid, so here he has so shaped Christ’s teaching about divorce as to make it consonant with the permanent validity of the Pentateuchal law, and harmonious with the stricter school of Jewish theologians. It is probably to the same strain in the editor’s character, the same Jewish Christian jealousy for the honour of the law and for the privileges of the Jewish people, that the prominence given to Peter (see on 16:19, p. 180), and the preservation of such sayings as 10:5-6, 23 is due. And to the same source may probably be attributed the judaising of Christ’s language, in such expressions as “the kingdom of the heavens,” “The Father who is in the heavens.”
3. ε ἔετν See note on 12:10.—κτ πσνατα] cf. Jos. Ant. iv. 253: γνιὸ δ τςσνιοσςβυόεο δαεχῆα κθ ἁδπτῦ ατα.
(M) 4. And He answered and said, Have ye not read, that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female?] Mk. has: “But from the beginning of the creation male and female He made them.” ὁκία ἀʼἀχςis an adaptation to suit the altered order of Mk.’s ἀʼἀχςκίες for which cf. Pesikta R. K. 21 (Wü p. 205): מחתבית ש על.2 ἄσνκὶθλ ἐοηε ατύ is a quotation from the LXX. of Gen_1:27, Gen_5:2.
(M) 5. And said, For this cause shall a man leave the father and the mother, and shall be joined to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh.] Mk. has no “and said,” and omits the second clause of the quotation. The editor has inserted κὶεπνto separate the two quotations, and inserts the clause omitted by Mk. The passage comes from the LXX. (the Hebrew has no “two”) of Gen_2:24, which has ατῦafter πτρ and after μτρ. Luc omits the second ατῦ So Mk. Mt. omits both.
The idea involved in the verses seems to be that God created a single pair, who were therefore destined for one another. It was also written that a man should forsake his parents and cleave to his wife, and that he and his wife should be one flesh. In other words, married couples were in respect of unity, as the first pair created by God, destined for one another. Divorce, therefore, should be out of the question. This conclusion is expressed in the next verse.
(M) 6. So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God joined together, let not man separate.] So Mk. Divorce, therefore, is from an ideal standpoint not to be thought of.
(M) 7. They say to Him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and put away (a wife)?] In Mk. this clause occurs earlier in the narrative in the form, “And he answered and said, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses allowed us to write a bill of divorce, and to put away (a wife).” Mt., as usual, avoids the question in the mouth of the Lord. No Jew would regard Deu_24:1ff. as anything else than a Mosaic command to adopt certain forms in cases of divorce. And yet, as grammatically construed, the passage does not command the giving of a bill of divorce, but assumes that as a matter of practice it will under certain circumstances be given. See Driver, in loc.
8. He saith to them, that Moses for the hardness of your heart allowed you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it hath not been1 so.] That is to say, the toleration of divorce by the law is a departure from the high standard of morality presupposed in the creation of a single pair. Divorce is a bad custom which has grown up amongst a degenerate people, and the Mosaic law tolerated it as an accommodation to a low level of moral custom. Mk. has: “And Jesus said, For the hardness of your heart he wrote for you this commandment.”
9. Mk. has here: “And in the house again, the disciples were asking Him about this.” Mt., as elsewhere, omits Mk.’s vague references to a house. See on 9:1, 15:15, 21, 17:19.
(M) 9. But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, save for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery.] Mk. has: “And He saith to them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, commits adultery against her. And if she who has put away her husband shall marry another, she commits adultery.”—λγ δ] for Mk.’s κὶλγι to make an antithesis with v. 8, cf. Introduction, p. xxxi. The editor omits the last clause as inconsistent with Jewish custom. See on v. 3. Some of the copyists of Mk. have also found it inconvenient, and modified it so as to get rid of the conception of divorce by a woman. See critical note in Swete. A parallel to this saying has already been recorded in 5:32. See note there.
And he who marries her that is put away, commits adultery.] This clause is not in Mk. If genuine (see below), it may be meant to compensate for the omission of Mar_12.
(E) 10. The disciples say to him, If the reason (of divorce) between a man and his wife be so, it is not convenient to marry.] The editor adds three verses which are not in Mk. Vv. 10, 11 are probably an editorial link to connect 12 with the preceding. αταrefers back to αταof v. 3. If the cause or reason of divorce between man and wife be so, i.e. if it is to be limited to unchaste acts, it is better not to marry, because marriage with a woman of bad temper or malicious tongue, e.g., is in that case an intolerable burden which cannot be thrown off.
(E) 11. And He said to them, All do not receive this saying, but those to whom it has been given.] That is, “what you say about the expediency of abstaining from marriage has some truth in it. But it is not practicable for all men, but only for some for whom providence has so destined it, e.g. physical eunuchs, and those who abstain from marriage in order to obey a religious call. If a man feels himself called to do so, let him.” It is clear that if the passage be so interpreted, the disciples instead of receiving an explanation and solution of their difficulty that marriage without facility for divorce would be a burden, receive what amounts to a commendation of abstention from marriage for the kingdom’s sake. In other words, whilst vv. 1-9 are calculated to heighten the conception of marriage, vv. 10-12 are clearly intended to increase respect for those who renounce marriage. This can hardly be an original connection. V. 12 is probably added here by the editor simply because it is concerned in a negative way with the subject of marriage, which has been the subject of vv. 1-9.
If v. 11 be a historical saying of Christ, it looks very much as though it were originally connected with the exposition of Christ’s about divorce as given in Mk., and not with this teaching as modified by Mt. For the saying of the disciples, that if Christ’s exposition of the question of divorce were to hold good, marriage would be a burden better left alone, seems to arise naturally enough from the strict teaching that divorce is not permissible, whilst it is very unexpected in the mouths of Christ’s disciples as a protest against the doctrine that divorce should be limited to cases of adultery. Could not Christ’s disciples endure what the disciples of Shammai submitted to?
It might be possible to interpret the passage in a different direction by referring τνλγντῦο not to the question of the disciples, but to the statement by the Lord of the indissoluble character of the marriage bond, vv. 1-9. “Not all can receive this estimation in their understanding and carry it into practice in their life, but those to whom it has been given by the divine grace. But these can receive it; for just as there are physical eunuchs, so there are spiritual eunuchs, who, knowing marriage to be a sacred and indissoluble bond, abstain from it for the purpose of dedicating their lives to the kingdom.” But the logical consequence of “not all receive this saying (vv. 1-9) but those to whom it has been given,” is not for there are some who abstain from marriage, but for there are some who recognise the sacred nature of the bond, and live married lives without recourse to divorce. The whole section in Mt. suffers from inconsistency of thought due to literary revision and compilation. (ε) μ ἐὶπρεᾳis inconsistent with v. 6, and whilst this verse, and the whole paragraph, 1-9, exalts marriage as an institution of the Creator; v. 12, without depreciating it, emphasises the duty of renouncing it under certain circumstances.—χρῖ] “to contain,” then of the mind “to contain,” “receive,” “hold”: the saying is too sweeping to be universally received and practised.—τνλγντῦο] (see above) either the dictum that it is better not to marry, or less probably the exposition of Christ that marriage is a permanent bond, and should be unbroken by divorce, vv. 4-8.—οςδδτι See on 13:11. ὑῖ δδτιare those who have received spiritual insight, which enables them to receive and practise the high standard involved in “this saying.”
(L) 12. For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of the heavens. He who can receive it, let him receive it.] The verse explains what is meant by οςδδτι Some there are to whom the spiritual capacity to recognise the truth of “this saying” and to practise it has been given. For just as there are physical eunuchs, i.e. men for whom natural infirmity or the cruelty of men has made marriage impossible, so that for them the saying “better not to marry” is a necessary truism; so there are some who have made themselves spiritual eunuchs, i.e. have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom, i.e. because the calls of religious duty have made marriage inexpedient. To such as these spiritual insight has been given which enables them to realise that it is better not to marry. For renunciation of earthly blessings for the sake of the kingdom, cf. vv. 28, 29. The Lord may have had in mind such instances of the renunciation of marriage as the Essenes, or John the Baptist, or some among His disciples.
3. ποεθνε Φρσῖι The words are omitted from Mk. by D S1 a b k. If they are not genuine there, Mt. has inserted them. For his partiality for ποέχσα, see on 4:3; and for the insertion of the Pharisees, cf. 22:34, 41, and Introduction, p. lxxviii.
4. ὁκία] So B 1 22 33 124. κία is probably a reminiscence of Mar_10:6, and is probably genuine.—ὁπισς of אC D Z al S1 S2 latt., though strongly attested, is probably an assimilation to the following ἐοηε, and to the LXX. of Gen_1:27. S1 S2 have: “Have ye not read that He that made the male from the beginning, the female also made?” This is not the original text (Merx), but a clumsy translation which necessitates the omission of ατύ at the end of the clause.—ἄσνκὶθλ έοηε ατύ] is taken by the editor from Mk. If he had wished to suggest the complete equality of the sexes by omitting ατύ, he would also have changed the order of the words to make this clear. κὶεπνis added by Mt. to separate the two quotations. It is omitted by S1, but after the change of Mk.’s κίεςinto ὀκία it suitably introduces the following quotation as a direct command of the Creator expressed in the words of Scripture. S1 ff omit ἐ ἀχς
7. δῦα] S1 S2 introduce a subject “that he that would dismiss his wife should give,” etc.
9. The passage in Mk. runs: ὅ ἅ ἀούῃτνγνῖαατῦκὶγμσ ἄλνμιᾶα ἐʼατν κὶἐνατ ἀούαατνἄδαατςγμσ ἄλνμιᾶα. This has given trouble to the Syriac and Latin translators, who substitute desertion for divorce in the second clause. So S1, who also transposes the clauses: “That woman which leaveth her husband and becometh the wife of another doth indeed commit adultery, and that man which leaveth his wife and taketh another doth indeed commit adultery” (Burkitt). D has κὶἐνγν ἐέθ ἀὸτῦἀδό, and so in substance d a b c ff2 Wellh. Mt. inserts (ε) μ ἐὶπρεᾳafter γνῖαατῦ and omits the harsh ἐʼατν He also omits the whole of the second clause.
B D S2 133 latt. assimilate to 5:32 by substituting πρκὸ λγυπρεα for (ε) μ ἐὶπρεᾳ B C* N further assimilate to 5:32 by substituting πιῖατνμιεθνιfor μιᾶα.1 B N also omit κὶγμσ ἅλνfor the same reason. S2 adds “against against her,” to assimilate to Mk.
κὶὁἀοευέη γμσςμιᾶα] is omitted by אC3 D L S S1 S2 a b e ff1 g1 h. It seems to be a further assimilation to 5:32.
13-22. From Mar_10:13-22.
(M) 13. Then were there brought children to Him, in order that He night place His hands upon them, and pray; and the disciples rebuked them.] Mk. has: “And they were bringing children to Him, in order that He might touch them; and the disciples were rebuking them.”—ττ] see on 2:7.—ποηέθσν Mk. has ποέεο. Mt. substitutes aor. for imperf., as often. For Mt.’s preference for passive verbs, see on 4:1; and cf. ἠέθ, 14:11, for ἥεκνMar_6:28.—τςχῖα ἐιῇατῖ κὶποεξτι Mk. has simply ατνἅηα. Mt.’s words are an editorial explanation.—ἐείηα] aor. for Mk.’s imperf. (A D al latt. (so also Lk. אB al), but אB ἐείηα), as often.
(M) 14. And Jesus said, Allow the children, and forbid them not, to come to Me: for of such is the kingdom of the heavens.] Mk. has: “And Jesus saw and was vexed, and said to them, Allow the children to come to Me; do not forbid them: for of such is the kingdom of God.” It is usual with Mt. to omit verbs like ἠαάτσνas applied to Christ; see on 8:3 and 15:29, and Introduction, p. xxxi.—κὶμ κλεε Mk. rather frequently in the latter part of his Gospel has no connecting link between sayings. Mt. generally supplies a particle. Lk. also has κίhere.—τντιύω ἐτνἡβσλί τνορνν i.e. many qualities characteristic of childhood are necessary to admit people into the kingdom. See on 18:3-5.
(M) 15. Mt. here omits Mk v. 15. He has anticipated it in 18:3-4: And having laid His hands upon them, He departed thence.] Mk. has: “And having taken them in His arms, He was blessing them, having laid His hands upon them. And as He was going forth to travel” (εςὁό). Mt. omits Mk.’s ἐακλσμνς as in 18:2.
16. The connection of sections in Mar_10 is probably purely topical. The relation of Christianity to the marriage question (1-12) suggested the incident of the children (13-16) and the relation of Christianity to wealth (17-27) followed naturally enough. Mt. simply follows Mk.’s guidance.
(M) And, behold, one came to Him, and said, Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?] Mk. has: “And as He was going forth into the way, there ran one, and, kneeling down before Him, was asking Him, Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?”—ἐοεθ ἐεθνκὶἰο] for Mk.’s κὶἐπρυμνυεςὁό. For κὶἰο, see on 1:20.—εςποεθνατ επν abbreviates Mk.’s ποδαὼ ὲ κὶγνπτσςατνἐηώαατν For ποεθν see on 4:3.—δδσαε Mt., in view of his modification of the next verse of Mk., transposes “good” from “Teacher” to “what.”.—σῶζὴ αώιν For “eternal life,” see Dalm. Words, p. 156; Volz, Jü Eschat. p. 368. Mk. has κηοοήω “Inheritance” is a common Jewish metaphor, to express participation in the blessings of the future; cf. Dalm. Words, 125 ff.; Volz, Jü Eschat. p. 306.
(M) 17. And He said to him, Why askest thou Me about the good? One is the good. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.] Mk. has: “And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou Me good? No one is good save one, God. Thou knowest the commandments.” Mt.’s changes are probably intentional, to avoid the rejection by Christ of the title “good,” and the apparent distinction made between Himself and God. In Mk. the meaning seems to be, “Why go out of your way to call one whom you regard as a human Teacher ‘good’? Goodness is a quality of character, and belongs in any full sense to God alone. But God’s goodness is revealed in His commandments, and inheritance of eternal life depends upon keeping them.” Thus the words begin as a rebuke for the thoughtless use of the epithet “good,” and end as an answer to the question, “What shall I do,” etc. Mt., by placing “good” in the main question, is obliged to treat all that follows as a direct answer to the question. The sequence of thought seems to be, “Why askest thou Me about the good? One is good,” i.e. “the good” is not an independent and limited quantity in life which can be ascertained and “done.” It is an attribute of character, and that the divine character. But the goodness of the divine nature is revealed in His commandments. In order to make clear this last thought, which is already implied in Mk., the editor substitutes “But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments,” for Mk.’s “thou knowest the commandments.”
For τρῖ, cf. 23:3 “keep,” i.e. a continual process, not a single act which can be begun and ended (τ πισ ἀαό), as a necessary preliminary to entry into life.
(M) 18. He saith to Him, Of what sort? And Jesus said, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour father and mother; and, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself.] Mk. has: “Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud.” Mt. takes a severer view of the character of the questioner than Mk. By representing him as asking, “What good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?” he makes the question more unintelligent than it is in Mk. Here, by inserting λγιτ, he emphasises the man’s obtuseness. In v. 20, by putting into his mouth, “What lack I yet?” he attributes to him selfsufficiency. And he omits altogether Mk v. 21a. Compare the treatment in Mat_22:34-40 of the questioner described in Mar_12:28-34. πίςmay mean, “What sort of commandment?” cf. 22:36. Or πῖςmay be hardly distinguishable from τς “Which commandments?” cf. Blass, p. 176; Win.-Schm. p. 241. See on 24:42.— ο φνύες κτλ Mk. has μ φνύῃ, κτλ After μ ψυοατρσς Mk. has μ ἀοτρσς(so אA B2 C D latt.). This may be a reminiscence of Exo_21:10, or Deu_24:14 (LXX. A F), or Ecclus 4:1. Mt. omits it (if it was in his text of Mk., but B S1 omit there), and substitutes after “honour father and mother,” “thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” This comes from Lev_19:18, and occurs again in 22:39 = Mar_12:31 = Luk_10:27, whence it is here taken. The first four clauses come from Exo_20:13-16 or Deu_5:17-20. In Mk. the order μ μι. μ φν is attested by A N X al latt., but μ φν μ μι. in א B C al S1. Mt. has this latter order, which is that of the Massoretic Text of Ex. and Dt., and of the LXX. A F. In. Ex. B has ο μι. ο κε. ο φν and in Dt. ο μι. ο φν ο κε. Thus Mk. (א B C al S1) and Mt. agree in order with the Heb. (M.T.) and the LXX. (A F Luc.). The other order, ο μι. ο φν ο κε., represented by Mk. (A N X al latt.), Luk_18:20, LXX. (B in Dt.), Philo, is now supported by the Hebrew Papyrus published in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæ xxv. Pt. 1. pp. 34-56. Mk. has the conjunctive for the indicative of the LXX. Mt. assimilates to the LXX.
(M) 19. τμ τνπτρ κὶτνμτρ] Mk. has συafter πτρ, and in Ex. LXX. B omits the second συ Mt. (אB C* D al) omits the pronoun altogether as in 15:4. It is twice inserted by S1 S2 and some old latt., but can hardly be genuine. This is surprising, since the tendency in Mt. is to assimilate Mk.’s quotations to LXX. not to deviate from it.
(M) 20. The young man saith to Him, All these things I observed: what lack I yet?] Mk. has: “And he said, Teacher, all these things I observed from my youth.”—ὁναίκς Mt. has formed a nominative for the verb out of Mk.’s ἐ νόηό μυ which he omits. He also omits Mk.’s δδσαε and has ἐύααfor ἐυαάη.1 The former is the New Testament form elsewhere; cf. Luk_11:28, Luk_18:21, Joh_12:47, Act_7:53, Act_16:4, Act_21:24, Rom_2:26, Gal_6:13, 1Ti_5:21, 1Ti_5:6:20, 2Ti_1:12, 2Ti_1:14.—τ ἔιὑτρ] is formed out of Mk.’s ἕ σ ὑτρῖin the next verse. See on v. 16.
(M) 21. Jesus said to him, If thou wishest to be perfect, go sell thy possessions, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow Me.] Mk. has: “And Jesus looking on him loved him, and said to him, One thing is lacking to thee: go sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow Me.” Mt. omits the first clause, in accordance with his tendency to drop out clauses which attribute emotion to the Lord; cf. on 8:3, and Introduction, p. xxxi. Moreover, the questioner, as described by Mt., with his obtuse self-complacency, was not lovable. Mt. substitutes: “But if thou wilt be perfect.” What could be said to a man of this sort, one who conceived of eternal life as something to be acquired by merit, as a day labourer earns a wage; one who regarded “goodness” as a definite and ascertainable quantity which could be worked off; one who so misunderstood the commandments, and so deceived himself as to suppose that he had kept them; one who could ask the question, What do I yet lack? “If thou wilt be perfect,” says the Lord. The words are, of course, a descent to the level of the questioner. He thought of perfection as attainable by works, and the Lord took him at his own estimation, and proposed to him a task which would not lead him to perfection, but which would do one of two things. If he obeyed, he might learn in the service of Christ something of the spirit of the gospel, which sets before men the ideal of the divine perfection, 5:48, and which can never conceive of perfection as a goal reached; cf. Luk_17:10. If he found the task too hard for him, he would have learned to be less confident of his own capacity to do the one thing needful for inheritance of eternal life.
For τλιςcf. 5:48.—συτ ὑάχνα for Mk.’s ὅαἔες τ ὑάχναoccurs in 24:47, 25:14, never 1n Mk., but often in Lk.
(M) 22. And the young man when he heard this saying went away grieved: for he had great possessions.] Mk. has: “But his countenance fell at the saying, and he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.” Mt. omits Mk.’s strong word συνσς with its implication of unwillingness to obey Christ’s command, just as he omits Mar_1:45 with its direct disobedience of Christ’s word.
16-22. The section with its striking deviations from Mk. is most easily explained as being derived from the second Gospel. The alteration in v. 17 seems clearly secondary as compared with Mk. On the other hand, the insertions in vv. 17, 19, 21, and the double historic present vv. 18, 20, might seem to point to another source, but are insufficient as a proof of such a source.
Lk. has some points of agreement with Mt. against Mk Both have ἐύαα(Lk. אA B L) for ἐυαάη, both have ορνῖ for ορν, both omit συνσςand substitute ἀοσς both omit μ ἀοτρσς and both omit ἐβέα ατ ἠάηε ατν These agreements are not sufficient to make a second source necessary.
16. δδσαε C E al S1 S2 latt. add ἁαέ assimilating to Mar_10:17.—τ ἀαό] ἀαό is omitted by S1 S2 ff2 238 248 for the same reason.
17. τ μ ἐωᾷ πρ τῦἀαο] So אB D L S1 S2 latt. C E al assimilate to Mk.
εςἐτνὁἀαό] אB D L 1 22 S1 a; and with ὁθο b c ff1 2 S2. C E al assimilate to Mk.
In these verses Mt.’s omission of άαέafter δδσαε his insertion of ὰαό after τ, his change of Mk.’s τ μ λγι ἁαό into τ μ ἐωᾷ πρ τῦάαο, and his change of οδὶ ἀαὸ ε μ εςὁθό into εςέτνὁἀαὁ, seem clearly due to a desire to warn readers of Mk. that the Lord did not refuse, as applied to Himself, a title which He admitted as applicable to God, and did not draw a sharp distinction between Himself and God. That these changes are due to Mt. himself rather than to the copyists of his Gospel, is suggested by the changes made by Mt. in the text of Mk., which are collected on pp. xxxi, xxxii of the Introduction.
The later copyists of the Gospel have assimilated the passage to the text of Mk.
20. ἐύαα אc b C D al S1 S2 a b c e ff2 h q add ἐ νόηό μυfrom Mk.—τ ἔιὑτρ] Om. S1.
21. ἐ ορνῖ] B C D. But אE F have ἐ ορν as in 6:20. S2 adds, “and take thy Cross.” The words are added in Mk. by A N X al a q S1.
23-30. = Mar_10:23-31.
(M) 23. And Jesus said to His disciples, Verily I say to you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of the heavens. And again I say to you.] Mk. has: “And Jesus looking round saith to His disciples, How hardly shall they who have riches enter into the kingdom of God. And the disciples were amazed at His words. And Jesus again answering saith to them, Children, how hard it is to enter into the kingdom of God.” Mt. by abbreviating avoids the redundancy of Mk., cf. Introduction, p. xxiv; and also the amazement of the disciples, cf. Introduction, p. xxxiv. πλνis a reminiscence of the clauses omitted from Mk.
δσόω] is an uncommon word. σσοί occurs in Job_34:30; δσοο, Jer_49:8, Eze_2:6 (Th.); Ditt. Syll. 213. 33, δσόω κιῶ, and in Galen, Arist., Plato, Xenophon, and other writers.
(M) 24. It is easier for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man into the kingdom of the heavens.] Mk. has: “It is easier for a camel to pass through the hole of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”—εκπτρς see on 9:5.—τήαο] for Mk.’s late and rare τυαις—εσλεν Mt. avoids the duplication of the verb δεθῖ, εσλεν in Mk.—ῥφς add to the examples in Lexicons, Ox. Pap. iv. 736, 75, (a.d. 1).
(M) 25. And the disciples when they heard it, were very astonished, saying, Who then can be saved?] Mk. has: “And they were exceedingly astonished, saying to Him, And who can be saved?” Mt. inserts ἀοσνε and μθτί substitutes his favourite σόρ for Mk.’s stronger πρσῶ, omits πὸ ατν and substitutes τςἄαfor κὶτς For τςἄα cf. 18:1, 19:25, 24:45, Mar_4:41. For Mk.’s πὸ ατνsee Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 2366e.
(M) 26. And Jesus looking upon (them) said to them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.] Mk. has: “Jesus looked upon them and saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.” Mt. inserts a conjunction, and substitutes a past tense for λγι as often. He omits the redundant ἀλ ο πρ θῷ cf. Introduction, p. xxiv.
(M) 27. Then Peter answered and said to Him, Behold, we have left all things, and followed Thee; what then shall we have?] Mk. has “Peter began to say to Him, Behold, we have left all things, and followed Thee.”—ττ] Mt. avoids Mk.’s abruptness and his ἤξτ. His insertion of τ ἄαἔτιἡῖ seems intended to relieve the ambiguity of S. Peter’s statement as recorded in Mk., where “Behold we,” etc., is a half-interrogative statement evidently intended to provoke comment. “We have done what the young man could not bring himself to do (v. 22). What reward in heaven shall we have?”
(M) 28. And Jesus said to them, Verily I say to you, That.] Mk. has: “Jesus said, Verily I say to you.” Mt. avoids Mk.’s abruptness. Mt. here inserts the following:
(L) Ye who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.] Lk. has somewhat similar words in 22:28-30.—πλνεεί] After the advent of the Messiah the Jews expected the creation of a new heaven and new earth. Cf. Isa_65:17, Isa_66:22, Deu_32:12 (Onq.), Apoc. Bar 32:6 “the mighty One will renew His creation”; 44:12 “the new world,” cf. Charles’ note on 32:6. πλνεεί is used by Philo, Vita Mos. ii. 12, of the renewal of the world after the Flood, and de Mund. xv. of the restoration of the world after being burned. There seems to be no exact Aramaic equivalent. According to Dalman, Words, p. 177, “new world” would be the nearest.—ὅα κθσ, κτλ cf. Enoch 62:5 “Pain will seize them when they see that Son of Man sit on the throne of His glory”; and see on 16:27.—φλςτῦἸρή] i.e. those to whom they had preached the gospel; cf. 10:6, 23.
(M) 29. And every one who hath left houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for My name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit eternal life.] Mk. has “There is no one who hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for My sake, and for the gospel’s sake, but he shall receive an hundredfold now in this present time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the coming age eternal life.” Mt. avoids Mk.’s harsh construction, οδὶ ἔτνὃ ἀῆε—ἐνμ λβ. In Mk v. 30 the thought is of the many advantages of incorporation into the Christian society. In it the convert should find fresh ties and new interests more satisfying than those from which he had cut himself adrift; cf. 1Co_3:21. But in Mt.’s connection, after the insertion of v. 28, the whole emphasis is on the future reward in the πλνεεί. This is why Mt. omits Mk.’s ννἐ τ κιῷτύῳδωμν for which his κηοοήε is a sort of substitute. The Apostles should sit on thrones; but even the humblest disciple should receive a manifold compensation, and inherit an estate greater than any which he had abandoned, namely, life everlasting.
(M) 30. But many first shall be last; and last first.] The connection of this clause with the preceding is obscure both in Mt. and in Mk. It would seem that the πλο must refer to Christian disciples. All will inherit life everlasting, but many who are now first shall then be last. It seems best (with Swete) to understand the words as a rebuke to the self-complacent spirit implied in S. Peter’s words: “It may be difficult for the rich to enter into the Kingdom, but we who have left all are in no danger of exclusion.” Christ’s words are a warrant for this confidence, and at the same time a rebuke and a warning. The ambiguity lies in the “first” and “last.” Does He mean “Many who first became My disciples will find greater difficulty of entry than many who followed Me at a later period”? Or is the πῶο used of rank rather than of time: “Many who now seem to hold a position of privilege will then find themselves in the lowest place”? Lk. (13:30) has similar words in a different connection, and the saying occurs in the New Sayings of Jesus from Oxyrhynchus, ll. 25-27 in a doubtful context.
23-30. Mt. and Lk. in this section have a number of small points of agreement against Mk.
E.g.: Mat_23 = Luk_18:24 δ—επν Both omit Mk v. 24; but Mt. has a trace of it in πλνδ λγ ὑῖ. Mat_24 = Lk 25 τήαο. Mat_25 = Lk 26 ἀοσνε. Mat_26 = Lk 27 επν and the omission of ἀλ ο πρ θῷ Mat_27 = Lk 28 επν ἠοοθσμν Mat_28= Lk 29 ὁδ—επν Mt 29, Lk 30 πλαλσοα(Mt. B L).
24. βσλίντῦθο] Z curss a b c e S1 S2 have βσλίντνορνν We should certainly expect the latter, but, in editing Mk., Mt. does not seem to have carried out his modifications with absolute uniformity, and he may have left τῦθο here. If so, it was inevitable that it should be altered into τνορνν But in view of the facts given in Introduction, p. lxvii, it must remain probable that τνορννis original here, and that it has been changed into τῦθο to assimilate to Mk.
τἡαο] א B, but א D L X al, τυήαο.
29. μτπ] אC K al S2 add ἢγνῖα which occurs in Luk_18:29. It is omitted here by B D 1 S1 a b e ff 12. It is unnatural here after the express prohibition of divorce in vv. 1-9.
ἐαοτπαίν] So אC D X S1 S2. πλαλσοαas in Lk. is read by B L.
E editorial passages.
M the Second Gospel.
S Syriac version: Sinaitic MS.
al i.e. with other uncial MSS.
LXX. The Septuagint Version.
1 See also p. 167, note 1
Jos. Josephus.
2 Cf. also Ass. Mos. 1:17, 12:4 ab initio creaturœorbis terrarum.
1 γγνν For the perfect cf. 21:21, Dan_12:1 Th. It seems to mean “Moses indeed tolerated divorce; but from the creation onwards it was not and never has been the Divine intention. Behind the Mosaic toleration lay always the ideal implied in Gen_1:27, Gen_5:2.
L the Matthæ Logia.
S Syriac version: Curetonian.
latt. Manuscripts of the Old Latin Version.
Wellh. Wellhausen.
1 It would be natural to suppose that πρκὸ λγυπρεα is original here, if it were not that we should then have to explain why (ε) μ ἐίπρεᾳhas been substituted here only, and not in 5:32. The two phrases maÿbe alternative renderings by the editor of the דדעו of the school of Shammai. See on 5:32.
Dalm. Dalman.
Win.-Schm. Winer-Schmiedel.
X passages in which Mt. and Lk. agree closely, borrowed from an unknown source or sources.
Luc. Lucian.
1 Weiss renders this in Mk. “From all these I guarded myself.” See Meyer’s Comm. 6th ed. in loc., and cf. Act_21:25, 2Ti_4:15.
Th. Theodotion.
Ditt. Dittenberger Sylloge.
Arist. Aristotle.
Ox. Pap. Oxyrhynchus Papyri.
Onq. The Targum of Onkelos.