Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 23:35 - 23:35
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_23:35. Ὃπως ἔλθῃ , κ . τ . λ .] Teleology of the divine decree: in order that all the righteous (innocent) blood (Jon_1:14; Joe_3:19; Psa_94:21; 1Ma_1:37) may come upon you, i.e. the punishment for shedding it. Comp. Mat_27:25. The scribes and Pharisees are regarded as the representatives of the people, and for whom, as their leaders, they are held responsible.
αἷμα ] “ter hoc dicitur uno hoc versu, magna vi,” Bengel. And it is δίκαιον , because it contains the life (see on Act_15:20). Comp. Delitzsch, Psych, p. 242.
ἐκχυνόμενον ] present, conceived of as a thing going on in the present, Kühner, II. 1, p. 116. A vivid picture, in which we seem to see the blood still actually flowing. On the later form ἐκχύνω for ἐκχέω , see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 726.
ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ] according to the canonical narrative (see below).
Ζαχαρίου υἱοῦ Βαραχίου ] refers to 2Ch_24:20, where Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, is said to have been stoned to death by order of King Joash, ἐν αὐλῇ οἴκου κυρίου . Comp. Joseph. Antt. ix. 8. 3. The detail contained in μεταξὺ , κ . τ . λ ., renders the narrative more precise, and serves to emphasize the atrocious character of a deed perpetrated, as this was, on so sacred a spot. Since, according to the arrangement of the books in the Hebrew Canon, Genesis stood at the beginning and 2 Chronicles at the end, and since the series here indicated opens with the case of Abel (Gen_4:10; Heb_11:4), so this (2Ch_24:20) is regarded as the last instance of the murder of a prophet, although, chronologically, that of Urijah (Jer_26:23) belongs to a more recent date. The Rabbinical writers likewise point to the murder of this Zacharias as one of a peculiarly deplorable nature; see Targum Lam_2:20; Lightfoot on our passage. And how admirably appropriate to the scope of this passage are the words of the dying Zechariah: éÅøÆà éÀäÉåÈä åÀéÄãÀøùÑ , 2Ch_24:22; comp. with Gen_4:10! If this latter is the Zacharias referred to in the text, then, inasmuch as the assumption that his father had two names (scholion in Matthaei, Chrysostom, Luther, Beza, Grotius, Elsner, Kanne, bibl. Unters. II. p. 198 ff.) is no less arbitrary than the supposition that υἱοῦ Βαραχ . is a gloss (Wassenbergh, Kuinoel), there must, in any case, be some mistake in the quoting of the father’s name (de Wette, Bleek, Baumgarten-Crusius). It is probable that Jesus Himself did not mention the father’s name at all (Luk_11:51), and that it was introduced into the text from oral tradition, into which an error had crept from confounding the person here in question with the better known prophet of the same name, and whose father was called Barachias (Zec_1:1). Comp. Holtzmann, p. 404. This tradition was followed by Matthew; but in the Gospel of the Hebrews the wrong name was carefully avoided, and the correct one, viz. Jehoiada, inserted instead (Hilgenfeld, N. T. extra can. IV. p. 17, 11). According to others, the person referred to is that Zacharias who was murdered at the commencement of the Jewish war, and whose death is thus recorded by Joseph. Bell. iv. 6. 4 : δύο δὲ τῶν τολμηροτάτων ( ζηλωτῶν ) προσπεσόντες ἐν μεσῷ τῷ ἱερῷ διαφθείρουσι τὸν Ζαχαρίαν υἱὸν τοῦ Βαρούχου . So Hammond, Krebs, Hug, Credner, Einl. I. p. 207, Gfrörer, Baur, Keim. It is the opinion of Hug that Jesus, as speaking prophetically, made use of the future tense, but that Matthew substituted a past tense instead, because when this Gospel was written the murder had already been committed (after the conquest of Gamala). Keim likewise finds in this a hint as to the date of the composition of Matthew. But apart from the fact that the names Barachias and Baruch are not one and the same, and that the reading in the passage just quoted from Josephus is doubtful (Var. Βαρισκαίου ), the alleged substitution of the aorist for the future would be so flagrantly preposterous, that a careful writer could scarcely be expected to do anything of the sort. As against this whole hypothesis, see besides Theile in Winer’s neu. krit. Journ. II. p. 405 ff., Kuhn in the Jahrb. d. Theol. I. p. 350 ff. Finally, we may mention, only for the sake of recording them, the ancient opinions (in Chrysostom and Theophylact) that the Zacharias referred to in our passage was either the minor prophet of that name, or the father of the Baptist (see Protevang. Jac. 23). The latter view is that of Origen, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Theophylact, and several others among the Fathers (see Thilo, Praef. p. lxiv. f.); and recently of Müller in the Stud. u. Krit. 1841, p. 673 ff.
μεταξὺ τοῦ ναοῦ , κ . τ . λ .] between the temple proper and the altar of burnt-offerings in the priests’ court.