Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 15:5 - 15:5
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_15:5 f. Δῶρον ] sc. ἐστι , ÷ÈøÀáÌÈï , a gift, κατʼ ἐξοχήν , namely, to God, i.e. to the temple. See Lightfoot and, in general, Ewald, Alterth. p. 81 ff. Vulgate, Erasmus, Castalio, Maldonatus connect δῶρον with ὠφεληθῇς : a temple-offering, which will be given by me, will bring a blessing to thee. The conjunctive, however, is clearly independent of ἐάν . Chrysostom observes correctly: δῶρόν ἐστι τοῦτο τῷ θεῷ , ὃ θέλεις ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῆναι καὶ οὐ δύνασαι λαβεῖν .
There is an aposiopesis after ὠφεληθῇς , whereupon Jesus proceeds in His discourse with καὶ οὐ μὴ τιμής . But your teaching is: “Whoever will have said to his father: It is given to the temple, whatever thou wouldest have got from me by way of helping thee” (the Jews, of course, understood the apodosis to be this: he is not bound by that commandment, but the obligation is transferred to his Corban). And (in consequence of this vow) he will certainly not be honouring. Comp. Käuffer, de ζωῆς αἰων . notione, p. 32 f., and Beza, de Wette, Keim. Some, however, postpone the aposiopesis till the close, and understand καὶ οὐ μὴ τιμής . as forming part of what is supposed to be spoken by the Pharisees in their teaching: But whosoever says … and does not honour … (he is not liable to punishment). So Fritzsche. But this is not in keeping with usage as regards οὐ μή ; nor is it in itself a probable thing that the Pharisees should have said quite so plainly that the honouring of parents might be dispensed with. Others, again, reject the aposiopesis, and regard καὶ οὐ μὴ τιμ . etc. as an apodosis, taking the words, like the expositors just referred to, as forming part of what is understood to be spoken by the Pharisees: “whoever says … he is not called upon, in such cases, to honour his parents as well.” Such, after Grotius, is the interpretation of Bengel, Olshausen, Bleek; comp. Winer, p. 558 [E. T. 750, note]. According to this view, καί would be that of the apodosis (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 636) in a relative construction (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 146). But οὐ μὴ τιμ . does not mean: he need not honour, but: he assuredly will not honour; or, as Ewald and Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 391, explain it, he shall not honour,—which direct prohibition from the lips of such wily hypocrites as those Pharisees, is far less conceivable than the prudent aposiopesis above referred to.
For ὠφελεῖσθαί τι ἔκ τινος , comp. Thuc. vi. 12. 2 : ὠφεληθῇ τι ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς , Lys. xxi. 18, xxvii. 2; Aesch. Prom. 222; Soph. Aj. 533. More frequently with ὑπό , παρά , ἀπό . The opposite of it is: ζημιοῦσθαί τι ἔκ τινος , Dem. lii. 11. For the passive with accusative of the thing, see Kühner, II. 1, p. 279 f.
καὶ ἠκυρώσατε ] and you have thereby deprived of its authority. ἠκυρ . is placed first for sake of emphasis, and is stronger than παραβαίνετε in Mat_15:3. That such vows, leading to a repudiation of the fifth commandment, were actually made and held as binding, is evident from Tr. Nedarim v. 6, ix. 1. Joseph, c. Ap. i. 22.
Mat_15:6 is a confirmation, and not a mere echo, of what is said in Mat_15:3.