Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Matthew 16:21 - 16:28
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_16:21-28
(Mar_8:31 to Mar_9:1; Luk_9:21-28)
Of the elders.—The detailed enumeration of these parties proves that there was a general conspiracy on the part of all the Jewish authorities, and hence indicates the rupture of the whole outward theocracy with Christianity.
And rise again the third day.—Even Meyer considers it impossible to reconcile so clear and distinct a prediction of the resurrection with the circumstance that the disciples were so much disheartened by the Lord’s death, as not to expect His restoration to life, and that they did not know what to think of the empty sepulchre, etc. Accordingly, this critic assumes, with Hasert, Neander, de Wette, and others, that Christ had on this occasion indicated His resurrection in a much more indefinite manner than in the text, and that this intimation had assumed the shape of a distinct prediction only ex eventu, and from tradition. Süsskind, Heydenreich, Kuinoel, Ebrard, and others, regard, on the other hand, the narrative in the text as an accurate account of what took place at the time. (See also Leben Jesu, ii. 2, p. 894.) Nor can we see any difficulty in regard to the later conduct of the disciples. As they evidently did not receive Christ’s announcement of His impending death, we cannot wonder at their failing to apprehend and remember what He had said of His resurrection. Besides, until the day of Pentecost, they were very doubtful expositors of the words of Jesus; the figurative and symbolical language employed often leaving them uncertain what to take in a literal and what in a symbolical sense. Hence they frequently explained figurative expressions literally, Mat_16:7; Joh_4:33; Joh_11:12; while, on the other hand, they understood literal expressions figuratively, Joh_6:70; Mat_15:16-17. Accordingly, in this instance also the disciples seem to have remained in doubt in what sense the Lord uttered this solemn and mysterious saying, and that even after He had repeated it a second time, Mar_9:10. Their uncertainty was all the greater from the state of their minds, which assumed an attitude of opposition whenever the Lord made such disclosures. Hence, we conceive that the ἤñîáôï of the Lord (“He began to show them,” etc.) was interrupted by the vehement remonstrance of Peter, just as Peter’s attempted rebuke was interrupted by the Lord’s reproof. In all these instances, we must not picture to ourselves the Lord as delivering lectures ex cathedrâ to His disciples, but as making disclosures and revelations which caused intense commotion. Besides, the statement that the disciples gave way to despair after the death of Jesus, is quite contrary to the account of the Evangelists. The honorable interment, the anointing of the corpse (which must not be regarded as identical with the Egyptian practice of embalming), their meetings, and their going to the grave, sufficiently show that there were gleams of light in their darkest hours. On the other hand, their doubts in regard to the resurrection—even after they had been informed of it—are explained by the prodigious greatness both of the anticipation and of the reality. (The idea, that the language of Jesus was symbolical, and referred to a fresh impulse to be given to His cause, scarcely requires refutation.)
Mat_16:22. Then Peter took Him;— ðñïóëáâüìåíï ò .—He laid his hand upon Him, or seized Him from behind, as if he would have moved Him by main force to alter His purpose. He stopped the Master in this manner for the purpose of remonstrating with Him. Grotius explains it: he embraced Him; Euthymius Zigabenus and Meyer: he took Him aside, êáô ̓ ἰäßáí . The account says nothing of either. When Jesus turned round, He addressed Himself not only to Peter, but also to the other disciples; for, as in his confession, so at this time, Peter represented the general feeling. Meyer rightly infers from the expression Þ ̓ ñîáôï , that Jesus did not allow Peter to finish his address. But we see no reason to conclude that He turned His back upon Peter; the expression, ὁäὲóôñáöåßò , or ἐðéóôñáöåßò (as in Mark), being rather against this supposition. Jesus turned round to Peter and the other disciples; and the command, ὕðáãå ὀðßóù ìïõ , referred to the fact, that in a spiritual sense Peter was attempting to obstruct His path.
Be it far from Thee.—This shall not happen to thee, ἵëåþòó ïé , a proverbial expression, åß ̓ ç äÈåüò being understood: Propitius sit tibi Deus, God be merciful to thee, God preserve thee!—equivalent to the Hebrew äָìִéìָä (2Sa_20:20; 2Sa_23:17; lxx). [The sudden change in Peter from a bold confessor of Christ and rock of His Church, to an adversary and stumbling-block of His Master, although unaccountable on the mythical or legendary fiction-theory of Strauss or Renan, is nevertheless true to life, and easily explained and understood in view of the sanguine, impulsive, and ardent temper of Peter, and in view of the high praise and lofty promise just bestowed upon him, which was a strong temptation to his natural vanity and ambition. The experience of believers confirms the frequent occurrence of the same sudden transition, As there is but one step from the sublime to the ridiculous, from the tragical to the comical, so also in spiritual life opposite extremes often meet, and Satan is most busy to seduce us, when we are most highly exalted and favored by Christ.—P. S.]
Mat_16:23. Get thee [lit.: go, begone] behind Me [out of My sight, away from Me], Satan.— Ὕðáãå ὀðßóùìï õ . See Mat_4:10; Luk_4:8, where Christ uses the same words to Satan in the wilderness. The expression Satan is here used in a more general sense, denoting an Adversary, or Tempter, with an allusion to the satanic element which was unconsciously at work in Peter, and tempted the Saviour away from His true calling and path of duty. The meaning therefore is: “What, is Satan come again to tempt Me, as he did of old? Get thee hence, thou Tempter!” It is scarcely necessary to say that it was not meant as a term of reproach or as a mere expression of abhorrence or contempt. Most Roman Catholic critics adopt the suggestion of Hilary, and maintain that only the first words (Go out of My sight) were addressed to Peter, and the rest (from Satan) to the personal Devil. Maldonatus takes the term “Satan” in the general sense of adversarius, which may he admitted, provided we keep in mind that there was an allusion to Satan himself. As Judas afterward became permanently and consciously, so Peter now became momentarily and unconsciously, a representative of the cause of Satan, who would fain have banished the cross and the kingdom of Christ. In opposition to this, Christ chose the cross as conformable to the divine purpose, as the manifestation of His righteousness, and as the basis of His redemption.
Thou art an offence unto Me.—According to the better reading: My offence, or My stumbling block, óêÜí äáëüíìïõ , which is stronger than ἐìïß (a stumbling-block to Me). The word óêÜíäáëïí a later form of óêáíäÜëçèñïí , a trap-stick; hence a snare, or generally, an obstruction in the way, especially in a metaphorical sense.
Thou mindest (carest for) the things of God, ôὰôïῦ Èåï ῦ .—The things of God as represented by the will of Christ The antithesis to this: the things of men, ôὰ ôῶ íἀí èñþðù í . It deserves notice that human depravity is always expressed by the plural, and not the singular. If the singular is used, the epithet ðáëáéüò is added to Ü ̓ íèñùðïò . The reason is obvious. Human nature is not represented as in itself opposed to God, but only in its present state. The general meaning of the passage is: On this occasion thou thinkest not of what is conformable to the holy counsel of God, but to the sinful inclination of men. Its special application is: Thou rejectest the counsel of Him who has determined to make the cross and its sufferings the ground of salvation, and payest homage to the carnal views and expectations of the Jews concerning a secular kingdom of the Messiah.
Mat_16:24. If any man will come after Me.—This declaration throws light both upon the statement of Christ and the counter-statement of Peter. The impending sufferings of Christ would certainly involve the disciples in similar persecutions and trials, though perhaps not immediately or outwardly. Hence they were unfit to follow Him; nor could He employ them, unless they were ready and willing wholly to surrender themselves to Him, and to suffer for His sake. To follow Jesus requires both inward self-renunciation and an outward manifestation of it, in willing submission to whatever sufferings may befall us as disciples. This renunciation must amount to self-denial, that is, it must become complete abnegation and surrender of our selfish nature and of our self-will. The expression deny himself forms a solemn prophetic contrast to Peter’s later denial of his Lord. Taking up the cross was a proverbial expression; but in this connection referred to readiness to endure even the most painful and ignominious death in following Christ. At the same time, it also alluded to the Lord’s crucifixion, and may be taken as a typical expression for the later death on the cross of Peter himself. See Mat_10:38; John 21.
Here, as at an earlier period of His history, when the first signs of persecution and of popular defection appeared, the Lord left it to the free choice of His disciples whether or not they would continue to follow Him.
Mat_16:25. For whosoever will save his life.—Comp. Mat_10:39 (p. 198). Words these of the deepest import, embodying the fundamental principle both of the hidden and mystical, as well as of the outward and temporal life of a Christian. The fear of death subjects to the bondage of death, Heb_2:15; while readiness to suffer a holy death for Christ’s sake opens up before us true life. This is our watchword in baptism, Romans 4; and, indeed, in all our Christianity.
Mat_16:26. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose (forfeit, æçìéùèῇ ) his own soul?—If his soul be forfeited by this bargain. The explanation, “and damage,” or “injure, his own soul,” falls entirely short of the meaning of the expression. The following four propositions are implied in the statement of the text, which is intended to show that a man will lose his life except he follows Christ: 1. Whoever seeks to save his life by ungodly means, wishes for a portion of worldly gain. 2. But to gain the world (as such) in a selfish and sinful manner, implies the loss of the soul. 3. This loss is infinitely greater than even the gain of the whole world, assuming that such were possible. 4. In truth, whoever has lost his own soul for the world has gained even the world only in appearance, but lost it in reality.
Or what shall a man give In exchange [lit.: as an exchange] for his soul ( ἀíôÜëëáãìá øõ÷ῆò ).—A proof that the loss of the soul is perpetual and irreparable. If a man loses his soul, he can find no equivalent for it within the whole range of the apparent possessions of this world, by which to ransom it from its bondage unto death. ἈíôÜëëáãì á , properly counter-price. The price which a man gives is the Ü ̓ ëëáãìá ; the counter-price which a man receives is the ἀíô Üëëáãìá . Hence the expression, giving an ἀíôÜëëáãìá (not taking it), must imply the idea: “if the bargain should be broken off.” This is, indeed, possible in secular transactions, but not when a man has bartered his soul for the world; since, in point of fact, he has gained only an illusory demoniacal image or likeness of the world, not the world itself (see Leben Jesu, ii. 2, p. 899).—The Lord here shows that the desire and endeavor of gaining the world really lay at the root of the carnal Messianic hopes of the Jews, as, indeed, had already appeared in the third temptation by which He was assailed at the commencement of His course, Matthew 4. A caricature this of the real êëçñïíïìßá .
The next verse shows that the Lord referred not merely to a negative damage, but also to a positive punishment.
Mat_16:27. For it shall come to pass that the Son of Man shall come.— ÌÝëëåéãÜñ . [Emphatically placed at the beginning of the sentence.] Not a simple future, but meaning: the event is impending that He shall come, He is about to come. On this second advent, see Mat_24:25; 2 Thessalonians 2; Revelation 19, 20, etc.—In the glory of His Father.—Not merely as the representative of the Father in the judgment which is to be executed, but as the Founder of a new world, the Centre and Author of the new creation ( ðáëéããåíåóßá ). He will reward every man according to his work,— ðñᾶîé í , or the total outward manifestation of his inner life as a believer or unbeliever. This reference to the second advent is specially intended to prove the former statement: “Whosoever will lose his life for My sake shall find it.”
Mat_16:28. There are some of those standing hare.—[The twelve then present, and immediately addressed, and the crowd referred to, Mar_8:34.] Various explanations of this difficult passage have been offered. 1. Chrysostom and many others hold that the limit, until they see the Son of Man coming, etc., refers to the history of the Transfiguration, immediately following. 2. Grotius, Capellus, Wetstein, Ebrard, [Alford, Owen], etc., apply it to the destruction of Jerusalem and the founding of the Church. 3. Dorner interprets it of the conquests and progress of the gospel 4. Meyer and others apply the expression to the proximity of the second advent itself, and assume that the disciples understood in a literal sense, and hence misunderstood, Christ’s figurative statements about His ideal advent. 5. De Wette seems in the main to agree with the opinions of Grotius, Wetstein, sub (2): “According to Mark and Luke, Christ merely predicted the advent of His kingdom.” But we question whether Mar_9:1 can be separated from Mar_8:38, or Luk_9:27 from Luk_16:26. 6. In our opinion, it is necessary to distinguish between the advent of Christ in the glory of His kingdom within the circle of His disciples, and that same advent as applying to the world generally and for judgment. The latter is what is generally understood by the second advent; the former took place when the Saviour rose from the dead and revealed Himself in the midst of His disciples. Hence the meaning of the words of Jesus is: The moment is close at hand when your hearts shall be set at rest by the manifestation of My glory; nor will it be the lot of all who stand here to die during the interval. The Lord might have said that only two of that circle would die till then, viz., Himself and Judas. But in His wisdom He chose the expression, “some standing here shall not taste of death,” to give them exactly that measure of hope and earnest expectation which they needed.
Taste of death.— Ãåí ́ åóèáé èáíÜôï õ , a rabbinical, Syriac, and Arabic mode of expression; death being represented under the figure of a bitter cup or goblet.
2. The prediction of Christ’s death.—Two points here require to be kept in view: 1. The difference of the times when, and 2. the difference of the persons to whom, Jesus spoke. The more obscure intimations took place at an earlier period, and were made to a wider circle of Christ’s hearers. Hence also they are more frequently recorded under these circumstances in the Gospel of John. But, after the last decisive events, Jesus made the most full and clear disclosures on this subject within the circle of His disciples. Nor could He have concealed His impending death from the disciples, when the Pharisees had so manifestly laid snares for Him over the whole land.
3. The prospect of the resurrection on the third day.—The progressive clearness with which it was announced, was closely connected with the prophecies of the Old Testament. It is a mere sophism on the part of certain critics to maintain that Jesus should at once have derived full knowledge of it either from the Old Testament or from His own supernatural consciousness. Christ was conscious of embodying in His person the fulfilment of the Old Testament. In its pages He found everywhere indications of the progressive experience of His life, or of His humiliation and exaltation. In the most general manner this principle was embodied in the history of the covenant-people itself. But the curve of humiliation and exaltation seemed always to become stronger, the more exalted the life of those who occupied prominent places in the theocracy. With these saints of old, it seemed to descend into ever lower and more awful depths, and again equally to rise into more glorious heights. This contrast, which appeared distinctly even in the history of Abraham, came out more fully in his successors—in Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, and Elijah. But Christ would not only discover this fundamental principle in the history of the Jewish people and its most prominent representatives, but also trace it in numberless features of Old Testament history: in the Book of Psalms, in the types of the law, and in the utterances of the prophets. It seemed as if this curve were the distinguishing characteristic of things great and small. Thus every page of the Old Testament would convey to the Lord not only the certainty of His death, but also the assurance of His resurrection; just as the fundamental idea of the pointed arch may be traced in every part of a Gothic cathedral. But how could Jesus predict that He would rise on the third day? Hasert (on the Predictions of Christ concerning His death and resurrection) replies: “According to the regular course of nature, in the process of the separation between soul and body, the absence of all traces of life during three days, is regarded as an evidence of death.” But Christ was assured in the Spirit that He should not see corruption (Psalms 16; Act_2:27; Act_2:31). Thus He drew from the depth of His thean-thropic consciousness evidence, explanation, and assurance of the types and predictions of the Old Testament—all these being sealed, as it were, by the administration of His Father in the experiences of His life.—(On the remarks of Strauss against the predictions of Jesus, see Ebrard, p. 540.)
4. When the Lord informed His disciples about His approaching sufferings, He at the same time announced to them His return in glory. In doing this, He might well set before them His approaching advent in the resurrection in the full glory of His final advent at the end of the world, since to believers His resurrection implied His final advent, being the principle of His full glory. Comp. the concluding discourses of Jesus in the Gospel according to John; and Php_2:6-11. We also observe a distinct gradation in these revelations: Mat_16:21; Mat_17:22-23; Mat_20:18-19; Mat_26:2.
Starke:—Zeisius: Christ the pattern of Christian teachers, as gradually and carefully progressing from the easier to the more difficult lessons.—Hedinger: Christ must suffer, and thus enter into glory, Luk_24:26.—The doctrines of Christ’s sufferings and resurrection must always be conjoined.—A mere good opinion is not sufficient.—Canstein; Our best friends, so far as this world is concerned, are often our greatest enemies in spiritual and heavenly matters.—To the carnal men of the world, the crucified Saviour is still either a stumbling-block, or else foolishness, 1Co_1:23; 2Co_10:4-5.—Hedinger: Be not lifted up by knowledge or prosperity: how easily mayest thou fall, and from an angel become a Satan!—Zeisius: All carnal wisdom which opposeth itself to the word and will of God, is only devilish, however great or plausible it may appear.—Majus: If the truth is at stake, we must not spare our dearest friends.—If we do not deny ourselves, we cannot bear the cross.—It is the duty of believers to die unto self and to five unto Christ.—Majus; What appears to us to be gain, must be regarded as loss for Christ’s sake, Php_3:7-8.—Quesnel: The loss of the soul can never be repaired.—If thou sufferest injustice at a human tribunal, wait with confidence for the future righteous judgment of Christ.
Lisco:—After death, the resurrection. Through death to life; through shame to glory; by the cross to the crown; through defeat to victory! Thus Christ, and thus His people.—Suffering is inseparable from following Christ.—To take up the cross denotes our readiness to suffer.—Fear of suffering is fatal.—Glorious reward of grace which will follow suffering.
Gerlach:—Confession and suffering must go together.
Heubner:—Human wisdom would dissuade us from making sacrifices for the sake of duty.—Jesus regarded and treated every one as Satan who wished to turn Him aside from His heavenly mission.—To dissuade from duty is not friendship, but seduction.—Luther: What is the Papacy at the present day, but the carnal kingdom which the Jews expect from the Messiah!—As with Christ, so with His followers, the path to exaltation is through humiliation.—Christ’s frankness in announcing the fate of His disciples.—The Christian’s mode of calculation.—The loss of what is eternal cannot be compensated by the gain of earthly possessions.—The future is no illusion.
[On the infinite value and possible loss of the soul, Mat_16:26.—M. Henry: 1. Every man has a soul of his own; 2. it is possible for the soul to be lost, and there is danger of it; 3. if the soul is lost, it is the sinner’s own losing, and his blood is on his own head; 4. one soul is more worth than all the world; so the winning of the world is often the losing of the soul; 6. the loss of the soul cannot be made up by the gain of the whole world; 7. if the soul be once lost, it is lost forever, and the loss can never be repaired or retrieved.—P. S.]
Footnotes:
Mat_16:21.—[Forth is unnecessary and may be omitted. The Greek is ἀðὸ ôüôå .—P. S.]
Mat_16:21.—[Better: that, ü ̓ ôé , without how, which dates from Tyndale.—P. S.]
Mat_16:21.—[The Vulgate correctly translates resurgere; Luther, Ewald, and Lange: auferstehen, rise; taking ἐãåñèῆíáé in the middle sense, as In Mat_8:15; Mat_8:26 ( ὴãÝðèç , she arose); 9:6 (arise); 17:7 (arise); 25:7 (arose); 26:46; 27:52, 64, etc Wiclif, Tyndale, and the Genevan Bible had it correctly: to rise again; but Cranmer changed It into the passive, and this was retained In King James’s version, although the intervening Bishops’ Bible (ed. 1583) followed the older rendering.—P. S.]
Mat_16:22.—[̓ ÉÉñïóëáÂüìåíïò may be rendered: taking hold of him (English Vers, and Lange), or taking him aside, to himself, apart from others (Euthym. Zigab., Ewald, Meyer, Conant). The first is stronger. See the Exeg. Note.— P. S.]
Mat_16:22.— Ἤñîáôï . The difference of readings is hero Important Cod. B. omits Þ ̓ ñîáôï and reads: ëÝëåé áí ̓ ôø ͂ ἐðéôéìῶí . Cod. D. and others: Þ ̓ ñîáôï áὐô ø ͂ ἐðéôéìῦí êáὶ ëÝãåéí . Similarly the text. rec. [Cod. Sinait reads, like the text, rec.: çñ îáôï åðéôéìáí áíôù ëåøùí . So also Tischendorf and Lachmann (except that the latter places õὐôø ͂ before ἐðéôéìᾶí ; while Alford here follows the reading of Cod. Vaticanus, omitting Þ ̓ ñîáôï . This verb Implies that the Lord Interrupted Peter and prevented him from finishing the rebuke.—P. S]
Mat_16:23.—[Or, turned round, ἐðéóôñáöåßò , as Lange reads, following D., K., L., etc., instead of the lect. rec. óôñáöåß ò .—P. S.]
Mat_16:23.—[Satan is the proper translation of the Vulgate (satana), and nearly all the English and German versions, and is not to be weakened into the more general adversary. The word occurs 34 times in the N. T. (generally with the art, sometimes without it), and is always the Hebrew proper name for the Devil, ὁ äéýÂäëïò , the Prince of evil. See Exeg. Note.—P. S.]
Mat_16:23.—[So Lange: du bist mein Aergerniss, literally according to the reading of the text. rec.: óêÜí äáëüíõïí åῖ ̓ (Tischendorf), or Åῖ ̓ ἐìïῦ (Lachmann following Cod. Vaticanus, with which here, as very often, Cod. Sinaiticus agrees). Åῖ ̓ ἐìïῦ and the Lat. Vulgate: sc á ndalum es mihi , is more mild and looks like a later modification. Lachmann’s text here ( ἐìïῦ ) is the same in sense with the received text ( ìïõ ).—P. S.]
Mat_16:23—[ Ïὐöñïí åῖò ôὰ ôïí ͂ Èåïῦ , ἀëëὰ ôὰôῶí ἀíèñþðùí , thou art not [illegible]mex ded like God but like men, or thou art not of the mind of God. but of men. or thou mindest not the things of God, but of men. Lange: du denkest nicht auf das was Gottes ist, etc.; Ewald; du sinnest nicht was Gottes, sondern was der [illegible] All English versions from Wiclif to James have savorest. This is a Latinism from sapere and the Vulgate rendering: non sapisea quœ, Dei sunt, and must nut be taken in the usual sense of the transitive verb to savor, i.e., to relish, to delight in. Campbell makes it too strong by translating: relishest.—P. S.]
Mat_16:26 —The future ὠöåëçèÞóåôáé is strongly attested by Codd. B., L., al., against ὠöåëåῖôáé , but may be conformed to the following äὠóåé . [ ὨöåëçèÞóåôáé is also sustained by Cod. Sinait., and adopted by Tischendorf Lachmann, Tregelles, and Alford.—P. S.]
Mat_16:26.—[Own is an unnecessary addition, and implies a contrast to another man’s soul.—P. S.]
Mat_16:28 — Ôῶí ῶ ̔ äå ἑäôþôùí , warranted by B., C., D., etc.
[Maldonatus, who dwells at great length on Mat_16:18-19 (pp. 217–224), disposes of Mat_16:23 very briefly. He refers the term Satan correctly to Peter, bat in a wider sense, and accounts for the severity by the importance of the subject, not by the guilt of Peter: At cur tam acriter reprehendit? non tam quod Petri culpa, si qua tamen fuit, quam quod rei. de qua agebatur, magnitudo merebatur. Schegg, one of the latest Roman Catholic commentators (Die heil. Evang., Munich, 1857, vol. ii. p. 376) admits in strong language the awful severity of the rebuke, one of the severest ever uttered, but gets over the difficulty by three considerations: (1) that the rebuke was intended for all the apostles, whom Peter presented in their aversion to Christ’s suffering, as before in his faith (which is correct): (2) that the primacy promised in Mat_16:18 was not yet actually conferred on him (which admits the force of the rebuke); (3) that the transfer of the primacy does not create a new man (which admits the possibility of the pope’s falling under the same condemnation as Peter). Bengel, in his Gnomon, warns Rome: “Videat Petra romana, ne cadat sub censuram versus 23.” —P. S.]
[Or stumbling-stone, which would be in keeping with the metaphorical Petros, a foundation-stone. Compare ëßèïò ðñïóêüììáôïò êáὶ ðÝôñá óêáíäÜëïõ a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence, as Peter himself calls Christ for those who are disobedient, while to them who believe He is the chief corner stone, elect and precious. 1Pe_2:7.—P. S.]
[As Lather has it in his version: Schaden nehmen or leiden an seiner Seele, instead of seine Seele einbüssen, or ihrer verlustig werden, animæ detrimentum pati (Vulg.), to suffer the loss of his soul (or his higher life), to forfeit it, as a penalty for a fault or a crime. This is the true force of æçìéùèῇ , which should be translated forfeit, to distinguish It from the more general term ὰðïëὲóç , Mat_16:25. Comp. the parallel passage, Luk_9:25 : ἑáõôὸí ἀðïëÝóáòÞ ̓ æçìéùèåßò , having lost or forfeited himself, i.e., his whole being. øõ÷Þ in this connection, of course, does not mean, as in Mat_16:25, the perishing life of the body (which a man can not lose and at the same time gain the whole world), but the true eternal life of the soul, which begins in this world by faith in Christ and will be fully developed in the world to come. The word øí÷Þ has the double meaning life and soul, for which there is no corresponding term in English or German.—P. S.]
[Comp. J. A. Alexander in loc.: “The Lord pursues the awful supposition farther, to the verge of paradox and contradiction, but with terrible advantage to the force of this transcendent argument....A man may lose his present life and yet lire on and have a better life in lieu of It; but when he loses his eternal life, he is himself lost, lost forever, and the thought of compensation or recovery involves a contradiction.”—P. S.]
[A Barnes refers the passage to the day of Pentecost and the founding of the church. J. A. Alexander gives it a more general and indefinite application to the gradual and progressive establishment of Ch list’s kingdom, especially the effusion of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and the destruction of Jerusalem, as the two salient points, between which, as those of its inception and consummation, lies the lingering death of the Mosaic dispensation, and the gradual erection of Messiah’s kingdom. This is the last passage of Scripture on which the lamented Dr. Jos. Addison Alexander of Princeton commented in full. Of the remaining chapters of the Gospel of Matthew he left, a few days before his death in 1860, merely a meagre analysis, “as though he anticipated the approaching interruption of his earthly labors”—P. S.]