Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 12:40 - 12:40
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_12:40. Τοῦ κήτους ] the monster of the deep, Hom. Il. v. 148; Od. iv. 446; Buttmann, Lexil. II. p. 95. The allusion is to the well-known story in Jon_2:1.
Jesus was dead only a day and two nights. But, in accordance with the popular method of computation (1Sa_30:12 f.; Mat_27:63), the parts of the first and third day are counted as whole days, as would be further suggested by the parallel that is drawn between the fate of the antitype and that of Jonah.[446]
The sign of Jonah has nothing to do with the withered rod that budded, Numbers 17 (in answer to Delitzsch); Jonah is the type.
[446] But the question as to what Jesus meant by ἔσται … ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ τῆς γῆς , whether His lying in the grave (so the greater number of expositors), or His abode in Hades (Tertullian, Irenaeus, Theophylact, Bellarmin, Maldonatus, Olshausen, König, Lehre von Christi Höllenfahrt, Frankf. 1842, p. 54; Kahnis, Dogmat. I. p. 508), is determined by καρδία τἥς γῆς , to which expression the resting in the grave does not sufficiently correspond; for the heart of the earth can only indicate its lowest depths, just as καρδία τῆς θαλάσσης means the depths of the sea in Jon_2:4, from which the biblical expression καρδία in our present passage seems to have been derived. Again, the parallel in the κοιλία τοῦ κήτους is, in any case, better suited to the idea of Hades than it is to that of a grave cut out of the rock on the surface of the earth. If, on the other hand, Jesus Himself has very distinctly intimated that His dying was to be regarded as a descending into Hades (Luk_23:43), then ἔσται … ἐν τῇ καρδ . τ . γ . must be referred to His sojourn there. There is nothing to warrant Güder (Erschein. Chr. unter d. Todten, p. 18) in disputing this reference by pointing to such passages as Exo_15:8; 2Sa_18:14. We should mistake the plastic nature of the style in such passages as those, if we did not take ìÅë as referring to the inmost depth.
REMARK.
Luke (Mat_11:30) gives no explanation of the sign of Jonah (Mat_5:40), as is also the case with regard to Mat_16:4 (where, indeed, according to Holtzmann, we have only a duplicate of the present narrative). Modern critics (Paulus, Eckermann, Schleiermacher, Dav. Schulz, Strauss, Neander, Krabbe, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ammon, Bleek, Weizsäcker, Schenkel) have maintained that what Jesus meant by the sign of Jonah was not His resurrection at all, but His preaching and His whole manifestation, so that Mat_12:40 is supposed to be an “awkward interpolation,” belonging to a later period (Keim), an interpolation in which it is alleged that an erroneous interpretation is put into Jesus’ mouth. But (1) if in Mat_12:41 it is only the preaching of Jonah that is mentioned, it is worthy of notice that what is said regarding the sign is entirely brought to a close in Mat_12:40, whereupon, by way of threatening the hearers and putting them to shame, Mat_12:41 proceeds to state, not what the Ninevites did in consequence of the sign, but what they did in consequence of the preaching of Jonah; and therefore (2) it is by no means presupposed in Mat_12:41 that the Ninevites had been made aware of the prophet’s fate. (3) Of course, according to the historical sense of the narrative, this fate consisted in the prophet’s being punished, and then pardoned again; but according to its typical reference, it at the same time constituted a σημεῖον , deriving its significance for after times from its antitype as realized in Christ’s resurrection; that it had been a sign for the Ninevites, is nowhere said. (4) If Jesus is ranked above Jonah in respect of His person or preaching, not in respect of the sign, this, according to what has been said under observation 1, in no way affects the interpretation of the sign. (5) The resurrection of Jesus was a sign not merely for believers, but also for unbelievers, who either accepted Him as the Risen One, or became only the more confirmed in their hostility toward him. (6) Mat_12:40 savours entirely of the mode and manner in which Jesus elsewhere alludes to His resurrection. Of course, in any case, he is found to predict it only in an obscure sort of way (see on Mat_14:21), not plainly and in so many words; and accordingly we do not find it more directly intimated in Mat_12:40, which certainly it would have been if it had been an interpretation of the sign put into the Lord’s mouth ex eventu. The expression is a remarkable parallel to Joh_2:21, where John’s explanation of it as referring to the resurrection has been erroneously rejected. It follows from all this that, so far as the subject-matter is concerned, the version of Luk_11:30 is not to be regarded as differing from that of Matthew, but only as less complete, though evidently proceeding on the understanding that the interpretation of the Jonah-sign is to be taken for granted (Mat_16:4).