Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 7:24 - 7:27
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_7:24-27. Conclusion of the whole sermon, but, as appears from οὖν , taking the form of an inference from what is said immediately before, where admission into the Messianic kingdom is made to depend on moral obedience.
πᾶς οὖν ὅστις , κ . τ . λ .] The nominative with rhetorical emphasis placed anacolouthologically at the beginning in Mat_10:14, Mat_13:12, Mat_23:16. See Kühner, II. 1, p. 42; Winer, p. 534 f. [E. T. 718].
ὁμοιώσω ] This future, as well as ὁμοιωθήσεται , Mat_7:26, is not to be taken as referring to the comparison immediately following (which is the common view), which is not warranted by the interrogatory passages, Mat_11:16, Mar_4:30, Luk_7:31; Luk_13:18; Luk_13:20, but to be understood (like ὁμολογήσω in Mat_7:23) of the day of judgment (Tholuck), when Christ will make him who yields obedience to those sayings of His, like (i.e. demonstrate as matter of fact that he is like) a wise man, and so on. Ὁμοιόω therefore does not here denote comparare, but the actual making him like to (Plat. Rep. p. 393 C; Mat_6:8; Mat_25:1; Mat_13:24; Rom_9:29). See the scholion of Photius in Matthaei, ad Euth. Zig. p. 290. De Wette is at one with Fritzsche as regards ὁμοιώσω , but differs from him, however, in his view of ὁμοιωθήσεται as referring to the future result that is developing itself.
φρονίμῳ ] as in Mat_25:2.
ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν ] upon the rock. No particular rock is intended, but the category, as in Mat_7:26 : upon the sand.
Observe the emphatic, nay solemn, polysyndeta, and (instead of ὅτε or ἐπεί , followed by a statement of the consequence; Krüger, Xen. Anab. p. 404; Kühner, II. 2, p. 782 f.) the paratactic mode of representation in Mat_7:25; Mat_7:27, as also the important verbal repetition in Mat_7:27, where, in the last of the assaults, προσέκοψαν (they assailed it) is only a more concrete way of describing the thing than the corresponding προσέπεσον of Mat_7:25. The three points in the picture are the roof, the foundation, and the sides of the house.
On the pluperfect τεθεμελίωτο without the augment, see Winer, p. 70 [E. T. 85].
μεγάλη ] “magna, sane totalis,” Bengel.
The meaning of this simple but grand similitude, harmonizing in some of its features with Eze_13:11 ff., is this: Whoever conforms to the teaching just inculcated is certain to obtain salvation in my kingdom, though trying times may await him; but he who is disobedient will lose the expected felicity, and the dire catastrophe that is to precede the advent of the Messiah will overwhelm him with ἀπώλεια (inasmuch as the Messiah, at His coming, will consign him to eternal death).
With regard to the Sermon generally, the following points may be noted:—
(1.) It is the same discourse which, though according to a different tradition and redaction, is found in Luk_6:20-49. For although it is there represented as occurring at a later date and in another locality (Mat_7:17), and although, in respect of its contents, style, and arrangement it differs widely from that in Matthew, yet, judging from its characteristic introduction and close, its manifold and essential identity as regards the subject-matter, as well as from its mentioning the circumstance that, immediately after, Jesus cured the sick servant in Capernaum (Luk_7:1 ff.), it is clear that Matthew and Luke do not record two different discourses (Augustine, Erasmus, Andr. Osiander, Molinaeus, Jansen, Büsching, Hess, Storr, Gratz, Krafft), but different versions of one and the same (Origen, Chrysostom, Bucer, Calvin, Chemnitz, Calovius, Bengel, and most modern commentators).
(2.) The preference as regards originality of tradition is not to be accorded to Luke (Schneckenburger, Olshausen, Wilke, B. Bauer, Schenkel, and, in the main, Bleek and Holtzmann), but to Matthew (Schleiermacher, Kern, Tholuck, de Wette, Weiss, Weizsäcker, Keim), because, as compared with Matthew, Luke’s version is so incomplete in its character, that one sees in it merely the disjointed fragments of what had once been a much more copious discourse. In Matthew, on the other hand, there is that combination of full detail, and sententious brevity, and disregard of connection, which is so natural in the case of a lengthened extemporaneous and spirited address actually delivered, but not suited to the purpose of a mere compiler of traditions, to whose art Ewald (Jahrb. I. p. 131) ascribes the structure of the discourse. The Sermon on the Mount is omitted in Mark. But the view that this evangelist originally borrowed it, though in an abridged form, from Matthew’s collection of our Lord’s sayings, and that the place where it stood in Mar_3:19, just before καὶ ἔρχ . εἰς οἶκον , may still be traced (Ewald, Holtzmann), rests on the utterly unwarrantable supposition (Introduction, sec. 4) that the second Gospel has not come down to us in its original shape. On the other hand, see especially Weiss. Besides, there is no apparent reason why so important a passage should have been entirely struck out by Mark, if it had been originally there.
(3.) Since the original production of Matthew the apostle consisted of the λόγια τοῦ κυρίου (Introduction, sec. 2), it may be assumed that the Sermon on the Mount, as given in the present Gospel of Matthew, was in all essential respects one of the principal elements in that original. However, it is impossible to maintain that it was delivered (and reproduced from memory), in the precise form in which it has been preserved in Matthew. This follows at once from the length of the discourse and the variety of its contents, and is further confirmed by the circumstance that Matthew himself, according to Mat_9:9, did not as yet belong to the number of those to whom it had been addressed. By way of showing that the Sermon on the Mount cannot have been delivered (Luk_6:20) till after the choice of the Twelve (Wieseler, Tholuck, Hilgenfeld, Ebrard, Bleek, Holtzmann, Keim), reasons of this sort have been alleged, that, at so early a stage, Jesus could not have indulged in such a polemical style of address toward the Pharisees. This, however, is unsatisfactory, since even a later period would still be open to a similar objection. On the other hand, it is to be observed further, that so important a historical connection (viz. with the choice of the Twelve) could not fail to have been preserved among the ancient traditions recorded by Matthew if such connection had actually existed, while again it is in accordance with the natural development of tradition, to suppose that the presence of the μαθηταί (Mat_5:1), which is historically certain, as well as the numerous important references to the calling of the disciples, may have led to the adoption of a later date in the subsequent traditions. Those who represent the evangelist as introducing the Sermon at an earlier stage than that to which it strictly belongs, are therefore charging him with gross confusion in his determination of the place in which it ought to stand. But although Matthew was not present himself at the Sermon on the Mount, but only reports what he learned indirectly through those who were so, still his report so preserves that happy combination of thoughtful purpose with the freedom of extemporaneous speech which distinguished the discourse, that one cannot fail clearly enough to recognise its substantial originality. This, however, can only be regarded as a relative originality, such as makes it impossible to say not only to what extent the form and arrangement of the discourse have been influenced by new versions of the λόγια on the one hand, and new modifications of the Gospel on the other, but also how much of what our Lord altered on some other occasion has been, either unconsciously or intentionally, interwoven with kindred elements in the address. But, in seeking to eliminate such foreign matters, critics have started with subjective assumptions and uncertain views, and so have each arrived at very conflicting results. Utterly inadmissible is the view of Calvin and Semler, which has obtained currency above all through Pott (de natura atque indole orat. mont. 1788) and Kuinoel, that the Sermon on the Mount is a conglomerate, consisting of a great many detached sentences uttered by Jesus on different occasions,[428] and in proof of which we are referred especially to the numerous fragments that are to be found scattered throughout Luke. No doubt, in the case of the Lord’s Prayer, Mat_6:9 ff., the claim of originality must be decided in favour of Luke’s account. Otherwise, however, the historical connection of Luke’s parallel passages is such as, in no single instance, to justify their claim to the originality in question. In fact, the connection in which most of them stand is less appropriate than that of Matthew (Luk_11:34-36 compared with Mat_6:22 f.; Luk_16:17 compared with Mat_5:18; Luk_12:58 ff. compared with Mat_5:24 ff.; Luk_16:18 compared with Mat_5:32), while others leave room for supposing that Jesus has used the same expression twice (Luk_12:33 f. comp. Mat_6:19-21; Luk_13:24 comp. Mat_7:13; Luk_13:25-27 comp. Mat_7:22 f.; Luk_14:34 comp. Mat_5:13; Luk_16:13 comp. Mat_6:24) on different occasions, which is quite possible, especially when we consider the plastic nature of the figurative language employed. For, when Luke himself makes use of the saying about the candle, Mat_5:15, on two occasions (Mat_8:16, Mat_11:23), there is no necessity for thinking (as Weiss does) that he has been betrayed into doing so by Mar_4:21. Luke’s secondary character as regards the Sermon on the Mount is seen, above all, in his omitting Jesus’ fundamental exposition of the law. In deriving that exposition from some special treatise dealing with the question of Jesus’ attitude towards the law, Holtzmann adopts a view that is peculiarly untenable in the case of the first Gospel (which grew directly out of the λόγια ); so, on the other hand, Weiss, 1864, p. 56 f.
[428] Strauss compares the different materials of the discourse to boulders that have been washed away from their original bed; while Matthew, he thinks, has shown special skill in grouping together the various cognate elements. This is substantially the view of Baur. Both, however, are opposed to the notion that Luke’s version is distinguished by greater originality. Holtzmann ascribes to Matthew the arrangement and the grouping of the ideas, while to Jesus again he ascribes the various apothegms that fill up the outline. Weizsäcker regards the discourse as fabricated, and having no reference to any definite situation, with a view, as he thinks, to show the relation of Jesus to the law, and therewith its introduction into the kingdom of God; what interrupts this branch of the discourse, which was sketched as a unity, viz. Mat_5:11 f., Mat_6:9 ff., Mat_7:21-23, are inexplicable additions, and Mat_7:1-23 contains insertions which have a general relationship to the principal thoughts. According to Weiss, the following passages in particular belong to the insertions: Mat_5:13-16, Mat_5:25 f., Mat_6:7-15, Mat_6:19-34, Mat_7:7-11. The discourse, moreover, is said to have begun originally with only four beatitudes.
(4.) Those whom Jesus addressed in the Sermon on the Mount were, in the first instance, His own disciples (Mat_5:1), among whom were present some of those who were afterwards known as the Twelve (Mat_4:18 ff.), for which reason also a part of the discourse has the apostolic office distinctly in view; but the surrounding multitude (Mat_7:28) had also been listening, and were deeply astonished at the instruction they received. Accordingly, it may well be supposed that though Jesus’ words were intended more immediately for the benefit of His disciples (Mat_5:2), the listening multitude was by no means overlooked, but formed the outer circle of His audience, so that by look and gesture He could easily make it appear what was intended for the one circle and what for the other; comp. Mat_5:2. What is said of ancient oratory is no less true of the animation with which Jesus spoke: “in antiqua oratione oculus, manus, digitus vice interpretis funguntur” (Wolf, ad Leptin. p. 365). These observations will suffice to explain the presence of a mixed teaching suited to the outer and inner circle, partly ideal and partly of a popular and less abstract character (in answer to Wittichen, Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1862, p. 318 ff.).
(5.) The object of the sermon cannot have been the consecration of the apostles (Zacharias, Pott, Ewald, Jahrb. I. p. 129), partly because the connection in which Luke places this address with the choosing of the Twelve is not to be preferred to the historical connection given in Matthew (see above, under 2); partly because Matthew, who does not record any passage containing special instructions for the apostles till ch. 10, makes no mention whatever of such an object (he only says ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς , Mat_5:2); and partly because the contents are, as a whole, by no means in keeping with such a special aim as is here supposed. Judging from the contents, the object of Jesus, as the fulfiller of the law and the prophets, is to set forth the moral conditions of admission to the approaching Messianic kingdom. But the principle of a morality rooted in the heart, on which He insists, is, seeing that it is His disciples that are immediately addressed, necessarily faith in Him, as Luther especially has so often and so ably maintained (comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 598 ff., Tholuck). The whole discourse is a lively commentary on the words with which Jesus introduced His public ministry: μετανοεῖτε , ἤγγικε γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν , setting forth the great moral effects of the μετάνοια which He requires, and declaring them to be the condition of Messianic bliss for those who believe in Him. So far the discourse may be correctly described as the inaugural address of His kingdom, as its “magna charta” (Tholuck), less appropriately as the “compendium of His doctrine” (de Wette).
(6.) The passages in which Jesus plainly reveals Himself as the Messiah (Mat_5:17 f., Mat_7:21 ff.) are not at variance with Mat_16:17 (see note on this passage), but fully harmonize with the Messianic conviction of which He was already possessed at His baptism, and which was divinely confirmed on that occasion, and with which He commenced His public ministry (Mat_4:17); just as in the fourth Gospel, also, He gives expression to His Messianic consciousness from the very outset, both within and beyond the circle of His disciples. Consequently, it is not necessary to suppose that a ὕστερον πρότερον (de Wette, Baur) has taken place, which, according to Köstlin, had already been forced into the λόγια ; nor need we allow ourselves to be driven to the necessity of assigning a later date to the discourse (Tholuck, Hilgenfeld). Besides, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus does not as yet assume to Himself any express or formal designation as Messiah, although a Messianic sense of the importance of His ἐγώ runs through the entire discourse; and the notion that His consciousness of being the Messiah only gradually developed itself at a later period (Strauss, Schenkel, Weissenbach), is contrary to the whole testimony of the Gospels.