Luke · Chapter 6
And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.
And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?
John Wesley
V. 2. Why do ye-St. Matthew and Mark represent the Pharisees as proposing the question to our Lord himself. It was afterward, probably, they proposed it to his disciples.
Adam Clarke
Verse 2. Which is not lawful] See on Matthew 12:2-8.
Joseph Benson
Verses 1-5. On the second sabbath after the first — The original expression here, en Sabbatw deuteroprwtw, says Dr. Whitby, “should have been rendered, In the first sabbath after the second day, namely, of unleavened bread; for, after the first day of the passover, (which was a sabbath, Exodus 12:16,) ye shall count unto you (said God) seven sabbaths complete, Leviticus 23:15, reckoning that day for the first of the week, which was therefore called, deuteroprwton, the first sabbath from this second day of unleavened bread; (the 16th of the month;) the second was called deuterodeuteron, the second sabbath from that day; and the third, deuterotriton, the third sabbath from that second day; and so on, till they came to the seventh sabbath from that day; that is, to the forty-ninth day, which was the day of pentecost. The mention of the seven sabbaths, to be numbered with relation to this second day, answers all that Grotius objects against this exposition. Epiphanius expressly says, Our Lord’s disciples did what is here recorded, tw sabbatw, tw meta thn hmeran twn azumwn, on the sabbath following the [second] day of unleavened bread. And if pentecost was called the feast of harvest, Exodus 23:16, (as Bochart, Mr. Mede, Dr. Lightfoot, and the Jews say,) because then their barley and wheat harvest was gathered in, this feast could not be pentecost, as Grotius conjectures, because then the corn must have been gathered in, and therefore could not have been plucked by Christ’s disciples in the field.” There are other expositions of the phrase, but this seems by far the most probable. He went through the corn-fields, &c. This paragraph is largely explained in the notes on Matthew 12:1- 8; and Mark 2:23-28.
Daniel Whedon
§ 33. THE DISCIPLES PLUCKING THE EARS OF CORN, 1-5.
Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28.
1. Second Sabbath after the first—This phrase is in the Greek deuteroprwtw, the Latin Vulgate secundum-primum, that is, literally, second-first. The phrase second Sabbath after the first is a very incorrect translation. The phrase second-first assumes that there is a succession of numerical counts, so that there may be a first series of 1, 2, 3, and a second series, and perhaps a third or more. Each first of these successive series would then be a first-first, a second-first, a third-first, and so on; this present instance being the second-first. But as this is the only occurrence of this compound term anywhere in literature, the meaning is very doubtful. In fact the word itself is omitted in some manuscripts, and is quite possibly a marginal insertion incorporated into the text. Perhaps some manuscripts had second, others first, and both were finally conjoined into second-first. We give different interpretations; the first by Bishop Pearce, as follows: In the opinion of some, the Jews had three first Sabbaths; namely, the first Sabbath after the Passover; that after the feast of the Pentecost; and that after the feast of Tabernacles. According to which opinion, this second-first Sabbath must have been the first Sabbath after the Pentecost. So we have the first Sunday after Epiphany; the first after Easter; the first after Trinity; and the first in Lent.
The next interpretation supposes that the second-first Sabbath is the first Sabbath after the second day of the Passover; which second day of Passover was the day of the wave-sheaf. This day of the wave-sheaf was the ritual beginning of the harvest; previous to which it was unlawful for any Jew to pluck or eat parched corn or green ears. And as the day of the wave-sheaf was the beginning of the harvest, so the Pentecost was the great thanksgiving feast of the completed harvest or ingathering; the ending of the harvest. Between the wave-sheaf and the Pentecost were seven weeks; that is, as seven days are a week of days, so these seven weeks were a week of weeks. Of course this seven weeks included seven Sabbaths. And the first of these Sabbaths being the first after the second day of the Passover, was called the second-first Sabbath; the next Sabbath would be the second-second; the next would be the second-third, and so on through the seven.
Although this is the most prevalent interpretation, it is not obvious how the second after the first would naturally be called the second-first. The third interpretation is that proposed by Wieseler and adopted by Tischendorf, Van Oosterzee, Ellicott, and other modern scholars. The Mosaic law had not only a week of seven days, and a week of seven weeks, but also a week of seven years; the seventh of which was a sabbatical year. Now according to Wieseler’s chronology the commencement of our Lord’s ministry was in a sabbatical year. The first Sabbath in the first of the seven years would be the first-first Sabbath; the first Sabbath of the second year would be the second-first, and so on through the sabbatic series of years. This would make the Sabbath when the disciples plucked the barley to be the first Sabbath of Nisan, in the year of the building of Rome 782. Wieseler adduces a single passage from Clemens Alexandrinus showing that the first Sabbath of the year was technically called first Sabbath. If his chronological scheme be admitted, it furnishes a very natural meaning to the term.
And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;
Adam Clarke
Verse 3. What David did] See on Mark 2:26, 27.
Joseph Benson
Verses 1-5. On the second sabbath after the first — The original expression here, en Sabbatw deuteroprwtw, says Dr. Whitby, “should have been rendered, In the first sabbath after the second day, namely, of unleavened bread; for, after the first day of the passover, (which was a sabbath, Exodus 12:16,) ye shall count unto you (said God) seven sabbaths complete, Leviticus 23:15, reckoning that day for the first of the week, which was therefore called, deuteroprwton, the first sabbath from this second day of unleavened bread; (the 16th of the month;) the second was called deuterodeuteron, the second sabbath from that day; and the third, deuterotriton, the third sabbath from that second day; and so on, till they came to the seventh sabbath from that day; that is, to the forty-ninth day, which was the day of pentecost. The mention of the seven sabbaths, to be numbered with relation to this second day, answers all that Grotius objects against this exposition. Epiphanius expressly says, Our Lord’s disciples did what is here recorded, tw sabbatw, tw meta thn hmeran twn azumwn, on the sabbath following the [second] day of unleavened bread. And if pentecost was called the feast of harvest, Exodus 23:16, (as Bochart, Mr. Mede, Dr. Lightfoot, and the Jews say,) because then their barley and wheat harvest was gathered in, this feast could not be pentecost, as Grotius conjectures, because then the corn must have been gathered in, and therefore could not have been plucked by Christ’s disciples in the field.” There are other expositions of the phrase, but this seems by far the most probable. He went through the corn-fields, &c. This paragraph is largely explained in the notes on Matthew 12:1- 8; and Mark 2:23-28.
Daniel Whedon
§ 33. THE DISCIPLES PLUCKING THE EARS OF CORN, 1-5.
Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28.
1. Second Sabbath after the first—This phrase is in the Greek deuteroprwtw, the Latin Vulgate secundum-primum, that is, literally, second-first. The phrase second Sabbath after the first is a very incorrect translation. The phrase second-first assumes that there is a succession of numerical counts, so that there may be a first series of 1, 2, 3, and a second series, and perhaps a third or more. Each first of these successive series would then be a first-first, a second-first, a third-first, and so on; this present instance being the second-first. But as this is the only occurrence of this compound term anywhere in literature, the meaning is very doubtful. In fact the word itself is omitted in some manuscripts, and is quite possibly a marginal insertion incorporated into the text. Perhaps some manuscripts had second, others first, and both were finally conjoined into second-first. We give different interpretations; the first by Bishop Pearce, as follows: In the opinion of some, the Jews had three first Sabbaths; namely, the first Sabbath after the Passover; that after the feast of the Pentecost; and that after the feast of Tabernacles. According to which opinion, this second-first Sabbath must have been the first Sabbath after the Pentecost. So we have the first Sunday after Epiphany; the first after Easter; the first after Trinity; and the first in Lent.
The next interpretation supposes that the second-first Sabbath is the first Sabbath after the second day of the Passover; which second day of Passover was the day of the wave-sheaf. This day of the wave-sheaf was the ritual beginning of the harvest; previous to which it was unlawful for any Jew to pluck or eat parched corn or green ears. And as the day of the wave-sheaf was the beginning of the harvest, so the Pentecost was the great thanksgiving feast of the completed harvest or ingathering; the ending of the harvest. Between the wave-sheaf and the Pentecost were seven weeks; that is, as seven days are a week of days, so these seven weeks were a week of weeks. Of course this seven weeks included seven Sabbaths. And the first of these Sabbaths being the first after the second day of the Passover, was called the second-first Sabbath; the next Sabbath would be the second-second; the next would be the second-third, and so on through the seven.
Although this is the most prevalent interpretation, it is not obvious how the second after the first would naturally be called the second-first. The third interpretation is that proposed by Wieseler and adopted by Tischendorf, Van Oosterzee, Ellicott, and other modern scholars. The Mosaic law had not only a week of seven days, and a week of seven weeks, but also a week of seven years; the seventh of which was a sabbatical year. Now according to Wieseler’s chronology the commencement of our Lord’s ministry was in a sabbatical year. The first Sabbath in the first of the seven years would be the first-first Sabbath; the first Sabbath of the second year would be the second-first, and so on through the sabbatic series of years. This would make the Sabbath when the disciples plucked the barley to be the first Sabbath of Nisan, in the year of the building of Rome 782. Wieseler adduces a single passage from Clemens Alexandrinus showing that the first Sabbath of the year was technically called first Sabbath. If his chronological scheme be admitted, it furnishes a very natural meaning to the term.
How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?
Adam Clarke
Verse 4. After this verse, the Codex Bezæ and two ancient MSS. quoted by Wechel, have the following extraordinary addition: th auth qeasamenov tina ergazomenon tw sabbatw, eipen autw, anqrwpe, ei men oidav ti poieiv makariov ei\ ei de mh oidav epikataratov, kai
parabathv eitou nomon. On the same day, seeing one working on the Sabbath, he said unto him, Man, if indeed thou knowest what thou dost, blessed art thou; but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed, and art a transgressor of the law. Whence this strange addition proceeded, it is hard to tell. The meaning seems to be this: If thou now workest on the Jewish Sabbath, from a conviction that that Sabbath is abolished, and a new one instituted in its place, then happy art thou, for thou hast got Divine instruction in the nature of the Messiah’s kingdom; but if thou doest this through a contempt for the law of God, then thou art accursed, forasmuch as thou art a transgressor of the law. The Itala version of the Codex Bezæ, for parabathv, transgressor, has this semi-barbaric word, trabaricator.
Joseph Benson
Verses 1-5. On the second sabbath after the first — The original expression here, en Sabbatw deuteroprwtw, says Dr. Whitby, “should have been rendered, In the first sabbath after the second day, namely, of unleavened bread; for, after the first day of the passover, (which was a sabbath, Exodus 12:16,) ye shall count unto you (said God) seven sabbaths complete, Leviticus 23:15, reckoning that day for the first of the week, which was therefore called, deuteroprwton, the first sabbath from this second day of unleavened bread; (the 16th of the month;) the second was called deuterodeuteron, the second sabbath from that day; and the third, deuterotriton, the third sabbath from that second day; and so on, till they came to the seventh sabbath from that day; that is, to the forty-ninth day, which was the day of pentecost. The mention of the seven sabbaths, to be numbered with relation to this second day, answers all that Grotius objects against this exposition. Epiphanius expressly says, Our Lord’s disciples did what is here recorded, tw sabbatw, tw meta thn hmeran twn azumwn, on the sabbath following the [second] day of unleavened bread. And if pentecost was called the feast of harvest, Exodus 23:16, (as Bochart, Mr. Mede, Dr. Lightfoot, and the Jews say,) because then their barley and wheat harvest was gathered in, this feast could not be pentecost, as Grotius conjectures, because then the corn must have been gathered in, and therefore could not have been plucked by Christ’s disciples in the field.” There are other expositions of the phrase, but this seems by far the most probable. He went through the corn-fields, &c. This paragraph is largely explained in the notes on Matthew 12:1- 8; and Mark 2:23-28.
Daniel Whedon
4. How—After this verse two or three ancient manuscripts have a remarkable addition in the following words: “On the same day, seeing one working on the Sabbath, He said unto him, Man, if indeed thou knowest what thou dost, blessed art thou; but if thou knowest not, thou art accursed and a transgressor of the law.”
By this anecdote Jesus is made to assume that under his dispensation the Sabbath is abolished. If the man does not know this abolishment, and so is purposing to violate the Sabbath, he is, in heart and will, a transgressor. If, however, he knows what he is doing, namely, working under a dispensation without a sabbath, he is then a Christian, and works in accordance with conscience, right, and law. But as no such assumption of the abolition of the Sabbath is founded on any thing that Jesus ever taught, we hold the passage as not containing a genuine saying of Jesus.
(1.) We have said in our introduction to this volume, p. 6, that very few traces exist of our Lord’s sayings outside of our canonical gospels. Mr. Westcott, in his Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 445-453, has made a collection of all such sayings and doings to be found either in the canonical epistles or in the early Christian writers. The entire number, including those that appear to be variations of gospel passages, is thirty two. Very few of these could be accepted as genuine. The only one incontestably genuine is found in Acts 20:35.
(2.) In regard to this present passage we fully agree with Grotius (against Van Oosterzee) that it was “interpolated by some Marcionite.” Marcion was a so-called heretic, living near the close of the apostolic day. He was an anti-Judaic ultraist, who not only, with St. Paul, rejected the necessity of keeping the Mosaic law for salvation, but even contemned not only the Mosaic law, but the God of the Old Testament, as an evil being. The Ebionites and Marcionites were opposite extremes. (See note on ver. 20.)
Marcion accepted the Gospel of Luke, (being the most Gentile of the four,) but mutilated it to suit his own purposes. (See note on Matthew 5:17.) Now the assumption that the Sabbath is abrogated under the New Testament is not only unsustainable and false, but; as being a repudiation of the law, even during the life of Jesus, and by Jesus, is truly Marcionite in its character. And being an interpolation, we believe Grotius was right in saying, “I think it was inserted by some Marcionite.”
But the passage, though spurious, strikingly illustrates how rectitude depends upon the interior motive, view, or purpose. If the man knew not the sabbath law to have been abolished, it was his purpose to break the law; and of that intentional transgression he was guilty. The law existed for him. Whatever is not of faith is sin.
§ 34. THE HEALING OF THE WITHERED HAND, 6-11.
Matthew 12:9-21; Mark 3:1-12.
See notes on the parallel section in Matthew.
And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
Joseph Benson
Verses 1-5. On the second sabbath after the first — The original expression here, en Sabbatw deuteroprwtw, says Dr. Whitby, “should have been rendered, In the first sabbath after the second day, namely, of unleavened bread; for, after the first day of the passover, (which was a sabbath, Exodus 12:16,) ye shall count unto you (said God) seven sabbaths complete, Leviticus 23:15, reckoning that day for the first of the week, which was therefore called, deuteroprwton, the first sabbath from this second day of unleavened bread; (the 16th of the month;) the second was called deuterodeuteron, the second sabbath from that day; and the third, deuterotriton, the third sabbath from that second day; and so on, till they came to the seventh sabbath from that day; that is, to the forty-ninth day, which was the day of pentecost. The mention of the seven sabbaths, to be numbered with relation to this second day, answers all that Grotius objects against this exposition. Epiphanius expressly says, Our Lord’s disciples did what is here recorded, tw sabbatw, tw meta thn hmeran twn azumwn, on the sabbath following the [second] day of unleavened bread. And if pentecost was called the feast of harvest, Exodus 23:16, (as Bochart, Mr. Mede, Dr. Lightfoot, and the Jews say,) because then their barley and wheat harvest was gathered in, this feast could not be pentecost, as Grotius conjectures, because then the corn must have been gathered in, and therefore could not have been plucked by Christ’s disciples in the field.” There are other expositions of the phrase, but this seems by far the most probable. He went through the corn-fields, &c. This paragraph is largely explained in the notes on Matthew 12:1- 8; and Mark 2:23-28.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 5. The Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. Some ancient copies add, “And that same day, Jesus seeing a man at work on the sabbath, said to him, Friend, if thou knowest what thou art doing, thou art happy; if otherwise, thou art not happy, but a transgressor of the law.”
Daniel Whedon
§ 33. THE DISCIPLES PLUCKING THE EARS OF CORN, 1-5.
Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28.
1. Second Sabbath after the first—This phrase is in the Greek deuteroprwtw, the Latin Vulgate secundum-primum, that is, literally, second-first. The phrase second Sabbath after the first is a very incorrect translation. The phrase second-first assumes that there is a succession of numerical counts, so that there may be a first series of 1, 2, 3, and a second series, and perhaps a third or more. Each first of these successive series would then be a first-first, a second-first, a third-first, and so on; this present instance being the second-first. But as this is the only occurrence of this compound term anywhere in literature, the meaning is very doubtful. In fact the word itself is omitted in some manuscripts, and is quite possibly a marginal insertion incorporated into the text. Perhaps some manuscripts had second, others first, and both were finally conjoined into second-first. We give different interpretations; the first by Bishop Pearce, as follows: In the opinion of some, the Jews had three first Sabbaths; namely, the first Sabbath after the Passover; that after the feast of the Pentecost; and that after the feast of Tabernacles. According to which opinion, this second-first Sabbath must have been the first Sabbath after the Pentecost. So we have the first Sunday after Epiphany; the first after Easter; the first after Trinity; and the first in Lent.
The next interpretation supposes that the second-first Sabbath is the first Sabbath after the second day of the Passover; which second day of Passover was the day of the wave-sheaf. This day of the wave-sheaf was the ritual beginning of the harvest; previous to which it was unlawful for any Jew to pluck or eat parched corn or green ears. And as the day of the wave-sheaf was the beginning of the harvest, so the Pentecost was the great thanksgiving feast of the completed harvest or ingathering; the ending of the harvest. Between the wave-sheaf and the Pentecost were seven weeks; that is, as seven days are a week of days, so these seven weeks were a week of weeks. Of course this seven weeks included seven Sabbaths. And the first of these Sabbaths being the first after the second day of the Passover, was called the second-first Sabbath; the next Sabbath would be the second-second; the next would be the second-third, and so on through the seven.
Although this is the most prevalent interpretation, it is not obvious how the second after the first would naturally be called the second-first. The third interpretation is that proposed by Wieseler and adopted by Tischendorf, Van Oosterzee, Ellicott, and other modern scholars. The Mosaic law had not only a week of seven days, and a week of seven weeks, but also a week of seven years; the seventh of which was a sabbatical year. Now according to Wieseler’s chronology the commencement of our Lord’s ministry was in a sabbatical year. The first Sabbath in the first of the seven years would be the first-first Sabbath; the first Sabbath of the second year would be the second-first, and so on through the sabbatic series of years. This would make the Sabbath when the disciples plucked the barley to be the first Sabbath of Nisan, in the year of the building of Rome 782. Wieseler adduces a single passage from Clemens Alexandrinus showing that the first Sabbath of the year was technically called first Sabbath. If his chronological scheme be admitted, it furnishes a very natural meaning to the term.
And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man whose right hand was withered.
John Wesley
V. 6. Matthew 12:9; Mark 3:1.
Adam Clarke
Verse 6. Whose right hand was withered.] See Clarke on
“Matthew 12:10”, &c. The critic who says that xhran ceira signifies a luxated arm, and that the stretching it out restored the bone to its proper place, without the intervention of a miracle, deserves no serious refutation. See Clarke on “Luke 6:10”.
Joseph Benson
Verses 6-11. And on another sabbath he entered into the synagogue — The service of which he and his disciples seem to have generally attended: and there was a man whose right hand was withered — Of the miracle here recorded, see notes on Matthew 12:9-13; and Mark 3:1-5; where all the circumstances of it are noticed.
Richard Watson
Verse 6. A man whose right hand was withered, See notes on Matthew 12:9-14.
And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against him.
Adam Clarke
Verse 7. Watched him] parethroun, They maliciously watched him. This is the import of the word, Luke 14:1; 20:20, and in the parallel place, Mark 3:2. See Raphelius on the last-quoted text, who has proved, by several quotations, that this is the proper meaning of the term. An accusation against him.] Instead of kathgorian auton, his accusation, several eminent MSS. and versions add kata, against, which I find our translators have adopted.
Joseph Benson
Verses 6-11. And on another sabbath he entered into the synagogue — The service of which he and his disciples seem to have generally attended: and there was a man whose right hand was withered — Of the miracle here recorded, see notes on Matthew 12:9-13; and Mark 3:1-5; where all the circumstances of it are noticed.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 7. The scribes and pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath day. This more fully illustrates their asking a sign. Burning with enmity, they affected to seek the truth; but as neither miracle nor cloud of glory will convert the devil, let us pray to be delivered from him, and seek the truth with a docile mind; for the meek he will guide in judgment. Psalms 25:9Psalm 25:9.
Richard Watson
Verse 7. That they might find an accusation, kathgorian, the matter of an accusation, against him so as to proceed against him judicially, and arraign him before the council of twenty-three, as a Sabbath-breaker. See notes on Matthew 12:14.
But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth.
Joseph Benson
Verses 6-11. And on another sabbath he entered into the synagogue — The service of which he and his disciples seem to have generally attended: and there was a man whose right hand was withered — Of the miracle here recorded, see notes on Matthew 12:9-13; and Mark 3:1-5; where all the circumstances of it are noticed.
Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it?
John Wesley
V. 9. To save life or to kill-He just then probably saw the design to kill him rising in their hearts.
Adam Clarke
Verse 9. I will ask you one thing] I will put a question to you. See on Mark 3:4, 5.
Joseph Benson
Verses 6-11. And on another sabbath he entered into the synagogue — The service of which he and his disciples seem to have generally attended: and there was a man whose right hand was withered — Of the miracle here recorded, see notes on Matthew 12:9-13; and Mark 3:1-5; where all the circumstances of it are noticed.
And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other.
Adam Clarke
Verse 10. Whole as the other.] Many MSS., both here and in the parallel place, Mark 3:5, omit the word ugihv, whole. Griesbach leaves it out of the text. The hand was restored as the other. But had it only been a luxated joint, even allowing, with a German critic, that the bone regained its place by the effort made to stretch out the arm, without the intervention of a miracle, it would have required several weeks to restore the muscles and ligaments to their wonted tone and strength. Why all this learned labour to leave God out of the question?
Joseph Benson
Verses 6-11. And on another sabbath he entered into the synagogue — The service of which he and his disciples seem to have generally attended: and there was a man whose right hand was withered — Of the miracle here recorded, see notes on Matthew 12:9-13; and Mark 3:1-5; where all the circumstances of it are noticed.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 10. Stretch forth thy hand. This was a miracle of defiance to the malicious scribes, but of great mercy to the poor man, that he might now earn his bread. It was a miracle of demonstration to the Saviour’s mission, and a seal of true religion.
And they were filled with madness; and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus.
Adam Clarke
Verse 11. They were filled with madness] Pride, obstinacy, and interest, combined together, are capable of any thing. When men have once framed their conscience according to their passions, madness passes for zeal, the blackest conspiracies for pious designs, and the most horrid attempts for heroic actions. QUESNEL.
Joseph Benson
Verses 6-11. And on another sabbath he entered into the synagogue — The service of which he and his disciples seem to have generally attended: and there was a man whose right hand was withered — Of the miracle here recorded, see notes on Matthew 12:9-13; and Mark 3:1-5; where all the circumstances of it are noticed.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 11. They were filled with madness: anoia, distracted, deprived of mind. Violent anger has that effect: ira est furor. They were utterly confounded before God, and disgraced before the people. Awful is the state of men who fight against heaven, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.
John Wesley
V. 12. In the prayer of God-The phrase is singular and emphatical, to imply an extraordinary and sublime devotion. Mark 3:13.
Adam Clarke
Verse 12. In prayer to God.] Or, in the prayer of God: or, in the oratory of God, en th proseuch tou qeou. So this passage is translated by many critics; for which Dr. Whitby gives the following reasons: As the mountain of God, Exodus 3:1; 4:27; the bread of God, Leviticus 21:17; the lamp of God, 1 Samuel 3:3; the vessels of God, 1 Chronicles 22:19; the altar of God, Psalms 43:4Psalm 43:4; the sacrifices of God, Psalms 51:17Psalm 51:17; the gifts of God, Luke 21:4; the ministers of God, 2 Corinthians 6:4; the tabernacle of God, 2 Chronicles 1:3; the temple of God, Matthew 21:12; the synagogues of God, Psalms 74:8Psalm 74:8; are all things consecrated or appropriated to God’s service; so proseuch tou qeou must, in all reason, be a house of prayer to God; whence it is called topov proseuchv, a place of prayer, 1 Mac. iii. 46; and so the word is certainly used Acts 16:13; and by Philo, in his oration against Flaccus, where he complains that ai proseucai, their houses for prayer were pulled down, and there was no place left in which they might worship God, or pray for Cæsar; and by Josephus, who says the multitude was gathered eiv thv proseuchn, into the house of prayer: and so Juvenal, Sat. iii. v. 296, speaks to the mendicant Jew:-
Ede ubi consistas; in qua te quæro proseucha?
In what house of prayer may I find thee begging?
See on Acts 16:13. But on this it may be observed, that as the mountains of God, the wind of God, the hail of God, the trees of God, &c., mean very high mountains, a very strong wind, great and terrible hail, very tall trees, &c., so proseuch tou qeou, here, may be very properly translated the prayer of God; i.e. very fervent and earnest prayer; and though dianuktereuwn may signify, to lodge in a place for a night, yet there are various places in the best Greek writers in which it is used, not to signify a place, but to pass the night in a particular state. So Appian, Bell. Pun. en toiv oploiv dienuktereuve meq~ apantwn-He passed the night under arms with them all. Idem, Bell. Civ. lib. v. dienuktereuon-They passed the night without food, without any regard to the body, and in the want of all things. See more examples in Kypke, who concludes by translating the passage thus: He passed the night without sleep in prayers to God. Some of the Jews imagine that God himself prays; and this is one of his petitions: Let it be my good pleasure, that my mercy overcome my wrath. See more in Lightfoot.
Joseph Benson
Verses 12, 13. And it came to pass in those days — Namely, of his teaching near the sea of Galilee; that he went out into a mountain to pray — Jesus, seeing the general notice which was taken of his appearance, and the desire which multitudes manifested of being further informed concerning the design of his coming, and the nature of his doctrine, determined to choose a number of persons who should assist and succeed him in his ministerial work. And as the office which he intended to assign them was of great importance, even to the remotest ages, previous to his choice of them, he retired to a mountain in the neighbourhood, and, notwithstanding all the labours of the preceding day, continued all night in prayer to God; so much was his heart enlarged on this momentous occasion. The original phrase, en th proseuch tou qeou, is singular and emphatical, being literally, in the prayer of God, implying an extraordinary and sublime devotion. Or, if the word proseuch be taken for the proper name of a place, the clause may be rendered, he continued all night in the oratory, or prayer-place, of God; the Jews having many houses on mountains, and by the sides of rivers, &c., set apart for prayer. These houses, it is well known, were open at the top, and planted round with trees. This is the sense in which Drusius, Prideaux, Whitby, Hammond, and many other good critics, understand the expression. This interpretation does not alter the meaning of the passage, for as Jesus went up to the mountain to pray, we cannot avoid supposing that he spent the greatest part of the night in acts of devotion. And when it was day he called to him his disciples — Mark says, whom he would. And of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles — A name which well expressed the office for which they were designed. These he now fixed upon, that for some time they might be always with him, in order that from his own mouth they might learn the doctrine which they were, in due time, to preach through the world; “that they might see his glory, John 1:14, the transcendent glory of the virtues which adorned his human life; and that they might be witnesses of all the wonderful works which he should perform, and by which his mission from God was to be clearly demonstrated. The twelve were thus to be qualified for supplying the people with that spiritual food which their teachers neglected to give them; and that both before and after their Master’s death. Accordingly, when they had continued with Jesus as long as was necessary for this end, he sent them out by two and two into Judea, on the important work of preparing the people for his reception, who was the true shepherd. Hence he named them apostles, that is, persons sent out. But the name was more peculiarly applicable to them, and their office was raised to its perfection, after Christ’s ascension, when he sent them out into all the world with the doctrine of the gospel, which he enabled them to preach by inspiration, giving them power at the same time to confirm it by the most astonishing miracles. That this was the nature of the new dignity which Jesus now conferred on the twelve, is evident from John 20:21, where we find him confirming them in the apostolical office: as my Father hath sent me, so send I you; I send you upon the same errand, and with the same authority: I send you to reveal the will of God for the salvation of men. And I bestow on you both the gift of tongues and the power of working miracles, that you may be able to preach the doctrine of salvation in every country, and to confirm it as divine, in opposition to all gainsayers.” — Macknight. Of the probable reason why the number of twelve was fixed upon rather than any other, and for a further elucidation of the passage, see the notes on Mark 3:13-17; and Matthew 10:1-4. After their election, the twelve accompanied Jesus constantly, lived with him on one common stock as his family, and never departed from him, unless by his express appointment.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 12. He continued all night in prayer to God. This was the night before he commissioned the twelve to preach; and nothing can more strikingly inculcate on ministers the necessity of prayer before they enter on their work, and before they ascend the pulpit. We must always go from speaking with God to speak for God. Prayer brings us into the state in which we ought to be. It humbles and prepares our minds for the reception of divine light and assistance. It gives us power to call the Lord Father, and to plead with him in the sanctuary in a way that language cannot describe. And as to preaching, knowing whose servants we are, we magnify the ministry in that spirit of faith, piety, and love, that all who hear must recognize the unction and presence of the Lord. It is thus with ministers when they are stripped of self, and clothed with the glory of the Lord.
Daniel Whedon
12. In those days—A customary Hebrew phrase, indefinite in its character, intended to refer to the general period or era of which the author has written or is about to write. Went out—Out of synagogue and city; from the crowded haunts of men. Solemn was the exchange from town to mountain; from man to God. A mountain—Rather the mountain; and this phrase, the mountain, to orov, occurs so ordinarily in the Greek of the Gospels that a German sceptic wittily remarks that “there is but one mountain in the gospels.” But this supposed argument against their truth Ebrard learnedly reverses in their favour. Palestine is, on the whole, not a plain interspersed with mountains, but an extensive mountain-level intersected by vales and lowlands. The mountain is therefore the ordinary table-land, the mountain-level, the second story of the region, including an occasional lofty peak or ridge, like Tabor, Hermon, and in the present case, the double brow of Hattin. Hattin was the mountain-summit into which our Lord ascended for a night of prayer; and the plain of verse 17, is the table-land or lower mountain plain upon which the sermon was delivered. All night—The ordination sermon was preceded by a whole night of prayer! So solemn a work is the holy ministry! With what depth of devotion ought the young minister, after this example of Jesus, to consecrate himself to God when about to take his ordination vows! In prayer to God—God being in the genitive, it would read literally in prayer of God. Yet there is not a little plausibility in the rendering in a proseucha; that is, a prayer-house or chapel of God. The Jews, it is certain, were accustomed to erect oratories or chapels of private devotion. Both Philo and Josephus make mention of them. The Jews say that when R. Jochanan visited the camp of Vespasian the Roman General, he was asked by the Roman what personal favour he desired, and the Rabbi replied, “I desire nothing but this school of Jabneh, that I may teach disciples and fix therein an oratory.” It is very natural to suppose that an oratory in the mountain was the place of Jesus’s prayer. See Kitto’s Bib. Encyc. on the word Proseucha.
Richard Watson
Verse 12. In prayer to God. — Proseuch tou Qeou, here, is taken by some for one of the proseuchæ, or places of prayer, which they think distinct from the synagogues, and more ancient, and in which men prayed not together but apart. That proseuchæ was but another name for synagogue appears, however, most probable; but however this may be, there is no reason for departing here from the common interpretation, that our Lord on this, as on many other occasions, spent the night in the open air alone, in meditation and prayer. In order to ensure more absolute solitude, he seems to have generally chosen a mountain for these special exercises. The genitive case, after proseuch, is a genitive of the object, and has the force of prov, with an accusative: he continued all night in prayer TO GOD. It is not improbable that our Lord spent this night in prayer preparatory to the solemn business of choosing the twelve apostles, which he did the next day.
And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;
John Wesley
V. 13. Matthew 10:2; Mark 3:14; Acts 1:13.
Adam Clarke
Verse 13. He chose twelve] eklexamenov ap~ autwn, He chose twelve OUT of them. Our Lord at this time had several disciples, persons who were converted to God under his ministry; and, out of these converts, he chose twelve, whom he appointed to the work of the ministry; and called them apostles, i.e. persons sent or commissioned by himself, to preach that Gospel to others by which they had themselves been saved. These were favoured with extraordinary success: 1. Because they were brought to the knowledge of God themselves. 2. Because they received their commission from the great Head of the Church. And 3. Because, as he had sent them, he continued to accompany their preaching with the power of his Spirit. These three things always unite in the character of a genuine apostle. See on Matthew 10:1-4.
Joseph Benson
Verses 12, 13. And it came to pass in those days — Namely, of his teaching near the sea of Galilee; that he went out into a mountain to pray — Jesus, seeing the general notice which was taken of his appearance, and the desire which multitudes manifested of being further informed concerning the design of his coming, and the nature of his doctrine, determined to choose a number of persons who should assist and succeed him in his ministerial work. And as the office which he intended to assign them was of great importance, even to the remotest ages, previous to his choice of them, he retired to a mountain in the neighbourhood, and, notwithstanding all the labours of the preceding day, continued all night in prayer to God; so much was his heart enlarged on this momentous occasion. The original phrase, en th proseuch tou qeou, is singular and emphatical, being literally, in the prayer of God, implying an extraordinary and sublime devotion. Or, if the word proseuch be taken for the proper name of a place, the clause may be rendered, he continued all night in the oratory, or prayer-place, of God; the Jews having many houses on mountains, and by the sides of rivers, &c., set apart for prayer. These houses, it is well known, were open at the top, and planted round with trees. This is the sense in which Drusius, Prideaux, Whitby, Hammond, and many other good critics, understand the expression. This interpretation does not alter the meaning of the passage, for as Jesus went up to the mountain to pray, we cannot avoid supposing that he spent the greatest part of the night in acts of devotion. And when it was day he called to him his disciples — Mark says, whom he would. And of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles — A name which well expressed the office for which they were designed. These he now fixed upon, that for some time they might be always with him, in order that from his own mouth they might learn the doctrine which they were, in due time, to preach through the world; “that they might see his glory, John 1:14, the transcendent glory of the virtues which adorned his human life; and that they might be witnesses of all the wonderful works which he should perform, and by which his mission from God was to be clearly demonstrated. The twelve were thus to be qualified for supplying the people with that spiritual food which their teachers neglected to give them; and that both before and after their Master’s death. Accordingly, when they had continued with Jesus as long as was necessary for this end, he sent them out by two and two into Judea, on the important work of preparing the people for his reception, who was the true shepherd. Hence he named them apostles, that is, persons sent out. But the name was more peculiarly applicable to them, and their office was raised to its perfection, after Christ’s ascension, when he sent them out into all the world with the doctrine of the gospel, which he enabled them to preach by inspiration, giving them power at the same time to confirm it by the most astonishing miracles. That this was the nature of the new dignity which Jesus now conferred on the twelve, is evident from John 20:21, where we find him confirming them in the apostolical office: as my Father hath sent me, so send I you; I send you upon the same errand, and with the same authority: I send you to reveal the will of God for the salvation of men. And I bestow on you both the gift of tongues and the power of working miracles, that you may be able to preach the doctrine of salvation in every country, and to confirm it as divine, in opposition to all gainsayers.” — Macknight. Of the probable reason why the number of twelve was fixed upon rather than any other, and for a further elucidation of the passage, see the notes on Mark 3:13-17; and Matthew 10:1-4. After their election, the twelve accompanied Jesus constantly, lived with him on one common stock as his family, and never departed from him, unless by his express appointment.
Daniel Whedon
13. Chose twelve—The successive stages of apostolic induction are, first, the admitting to a more intimate association of one and another as disciples, John 1:35-52; second, a choice of one or several at a time to be strictly his intimate followers in order to be his future preachers, Luke 5:1-11; third, the formation of the whole into an organism of twelve, under the title of apostles, as specified in the present verse; fourth, a sending of them forth upon a trial mission, Matthew 10:1-42; fifth, their endowment with the apostolic keys, Matthew 16:13-20; sixth, their qualification for the exercise of their inspired and miraculous apostolic authority by the Pentecostal effusion of the Spirit. Acts 2:4. Under these officers the apostolic Church was formed, the inspired Gospels and Epistles were written, and the canon of the New Testament was selected and fixed for the Church of the future. Whom also he named apostles— They had before been friends and disciples; now he appropriates for their wearing the new and illustrious church-title, APOSTLES. It is to be noted that in the following catalogue their names are given by couples, doubtless to indicate how they were assorted in sending them forth two by two. First, then, were the two brothers of Bethsaida, Simon and Andrew; next the second pair of Bethsaidan brothers, cousins to Jesus, James and John; then Philip and Nathaniel surnamed Bartholomew.
See SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE at the end of this chapter.
Richard Watson
Verse 13. And of them he chose twelve. — See the notes on Matthew 10:1, &c.
Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,
Joseph Benson
Verses 14-16. Simon, whom he also named Peter — Matthew, Mark, and Luke have all given us a catalogue of the names of the apostles; and their exactness in this particular is greatly to be praised. For as the apostleship clothed the person on whom it was conferred with the high authority of directing the religious faith of mankind, it was of no small importance to the world to know who they were to whom that dignity belonged. In these catalogues, Simon is first named, not because he was of greater dignity than the rest, but because he was one of the most early followers of Christ, and the first that was called to a stated attendance upon him, and a person whose remarkable zeal and piety rendered him a kind of leader among the others. These reasons are so evidently sufficient for his being named first, that it is strange any should have attempted to prove from that circumstance, that Christ invested him with authority over his brethren; when we never find any such thing declared by Christ, or claimed by Peter, or owned by any of the other apostles, but rather find many scriptures which appear to look a contrary way; Matthew and Luke mention Andrew next to Peter, as being his brother, and one of Christ’s first disciples. The names of James and John follow, as having been called next, (see Matthew 4:21,) and being persons of great eminence for piety and usefulness, and James is placed before John, as being the elder brother. The names of the others seem to be placed nearly, at least, in the order in which they became disciples. Judas Iscariot, however, though, perhaps, not last called, is named last, because he was the traitor. But whatever might be the reason of ranking the apostles in the catalogue in the order in which we find them, we are certain they are not ranged according to their dignity; for, had that been the case, the order of the names would have been exactly the same in all the evangelists, which it is not, Andrew being placed the second in order, as we have observed, by Matthew and Luke, and the fourth by Mark; and Thomas being placed before Matthew by that apostle, and after him by Mark and Luke. To this may be added, on supposition that the apostles are ranked in the catalogues according to their dignity, it would follow, that John and Matthew, whose praise is in all the churches, on account of their writings, were inferior to apostles who are scarce once named, except in the catalogues. With regard to the epithet, or surname, (Zelotes, the Zealous,) added by Luke here to the name of Simon; because there was a particular sect or faction, among the Jews, termed the Zealots, who, in later times, under colour of zeal for God, committed all imaginable disorders, some are of opinion, that Simon the apostle had formerly been one of this faction. But as there is no mention made of that sect till a little before the destruction of Jerusalem, (Josephus, Bell., 4:3,) we may rather suppose that this epithet was added to his name on account of his uncommon zeal in matters of true piety and religion.
Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes,
John Wesley
V. 15. Simon called Zelotes-Full of zeal; otherwise called Simon the Canaanite.
Adam Clarke
Verse 15. Called Zelotes] Some Jews gave this name to themselves, according to Josephus, (War, b. iv. c. iii. s. 9, and vii. c. viii. s. 1,) “because they pretended to be more than ordinarily zealous for religion, and yet practised the very worst of actions.” “But this (says the judicious Bp. Pearce) Josephus says of the zealots, at the time when Vespasian was marching towards Jerusalem. They probably were men of a different character above forty years before; which was the time when Jesus chose his twelve apostles, one of whom had the surname of the Zealot.” It is very probable that this name was first given to certain persons who were more zealous for the cause of pure and undefiled religion than the rest of their neighbours; but like many other sects and parties who have begun well, they transferred their zeal for the essentials of religion to nonessential things, and from these to inquisitorial cruelty and murder. See on Matthew 10:4.
Joseph Benson
Verses 14-16. Simon, whom he also named Peter — Matthew, Mark, and Luke have all given us a catalogue of the names of the apostles; and their exactness in this particular is greatly to be praised. For as the apostleship clothed the person on whom it was conferred with the high authority of directing the religious faith of mankind, it was of no small importance to the world to know who they were to whom that dignity belonged. In these catalogues, Simon is first named, not because he was of greater dignity than the rest, but because he was one of the most early followers of Christ, and the first that was called to a stated attendance upon him, and a person whose remarkable zeal and piety rendered him a kind of leader among the others. These reasons are so evidently sufficient for his being named first, that it is strange any should have attempted to prove from that circumstance, that Christ invested him with authority over his brethren; when we never find any such thing declared by Christ, or claimed by Peter, or owned by any of the other apostles, but rather find many scriptures which appear to look a contrary way; Matthew and Luke mention Andrew next to Peter, as being his brother, and one of Christ’s first disciples. The names of James and John follow, as having been called next, (see Matthew 4:21,) and being persons of great eminence for piety and usefulness, and James is placed before John, as being the elder brother. The names of the others seem to be placed nearly, at least, in the order in which they became disciples. Judas Iscariot, however, though, perhaps, not last called, is named last, because he was the traitor. But whatever might be the reason of ranking the apostles in the catalogue in the order in which we find them, we are certain they are not ranged according to their dignity; for, had that been the case, the order of the names would have been exactly the same in all the evangelists, which it is not, Andrew being placed the second in order, as we have observed, by Matthew and Luke, and the fourth by Mark; and Thomas being placed before Matthew by that apostle, and after him by Mark and Luke. To this may be added, on supposition that the apostles are ranked in the catalogues according to their dignity, it would follow, that John and Matthew, whose praise is in all the churches, on account of their writings, were inferior to apostles who are scarce once named, except in the catalogues. With regard to the epithet, or surname, (Zelotes, the Zealous,) added by Luke here to the name of Simon; because there was a particular sect or faction, among the Jews, termed the Zealots, who, in later times, under colour of zeal for God, committed all imaginable disorders, some are of opinion, that Simon the apostle had formerly been one of this faction. But as there is no mention made of that sect till a little before the destruction of Jerusalem, (Josephus, Bell., 4:3,) we may rather suppose that this epithet was added to his name on account of his uncommon zeal in matters of true piety and religion.
Daniel Whedon
15. Simon called Zelotes—See note on Matthew 10:4. The sect of Zealots consisted of a body of men who held it unlawful to submit to a foreign power, and hence were frequently rebellious to a bloody extent against the Roman dominion. The Sicarii or assassins, who appeared later in Jewish history, and were celebrated for a lawless use of the dagger, belonged to this sect. Van Oosterzee remarks “that while Matthew associates Judas Iscariot with this Simon Zelotes, Luke associates him with Jude brother of James.” This he thinks arose, not from a varying tradition, but from a varying practice of our Lord, who allowed not Judas always to retain the same companion for fear of his corrupting influence.
And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.
Joseph Benson
Verses 14-16. Simon, whom he also named Peter — Matthew, Mark, and Luke have all given us a catalogue of the names of the apostles; and their exactness in this particular is greatly to be praised. For as the apostleship clothed the person on whom it was conferred with the high authority of directing the religious faith of mankind, it was of no small importance to the world to know who they were to whom that dignity belonged. In these catalogues, Simon is first named, not because he was of greater dignity than the rest, but because he was one of the most early followers of Christ, and the first that was called to a stated attendance upon him, and a person whose remarkable zeal and piety rendered him a kind of leader among the others. These reasons are so evidently sufficient for his being named first, that it is strange any should have attempted to prove from that circumstance, that Christ invested him with authority over his brethren; when we never find any such thing declared by Christ, or claimed by Peter, or owned by any of the other apostles, but rather find many scriptures which appear to look a contrary way; Matthew and Luke mention Andrew next to Peter, as being his brother, and one of Christ’s first disciples. The names of James and John follow, as having been called next, (see Matthew 4:21,) and being persons of great eminence for piety and usefulness, and James is placed before John, as being the elder brother. The names of the others seem to be placed nearly, at least, in the order in which they became disciples. Judas Iscariot, however, though, perhaps, not last called, is named last, because he was the traitor. But whatever might be the reason of ranking the apostles in the catalogue in the order in which we find them, we are certain they are not ranged according to their dignity; for, had that been the case, the order of the names would have been exactly the same in all the evangelists, which it is not, Andrew being placed the second in order, as we have observed, by Matthew and Luke, and the fourth by Mark; and Thomas being placed before Matthew by that apostle, and after him by Mark and Luke. To this may be added, on supposition that the apostles are ranked in the catalogues according to their dignity, it would follow, that John and Matthew, whose praise is in all the churches, on account of their writings, were inferior to apostles who are scarce once named, except in the catalogues. With regard to the epithet, or surname, (Zelotes, the Zealous,) added by Luke here to the name of Simon; because there was a particular sect or faction, among the Jews, termed the Zealots, who, in later times, under colour of zeal for God, committed all imaginable disorders, some are of opinion, that Simon the apostle had formerly been one of this faction. But as there is no mention made of that sect till a little before the destruction of Jerusalem, (Josephus, Bell., 4:3,) we may rather suppose that this epithet was added to his name on account of his uncommon zeal in matters of true piety and religion.
Daniel Whedon
16. Judas the brother of James—See note on Matthew 10:3. This “was the man of three names.” His given name doubtless was Judah; his two surnames, Lebbeus and Thaddeus, were words of nearly the same meaning, signifying hearty or courageous.
And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases;
John Wesley
V. 17. On a plain-At the foot of the mountain.
Adam Clarke
Verse 17. And stood in the plain] In Matthew 5:1, which is supposed to be the parallel place, our Lord is represented as delivering this sermon on the mountain; and this has induced some to think that the sermon mentioned here by Luke, though the same in substance with that in Matthew, was delivered in a different place, and at another time; but, as Dr. Priestly justly observes, Matthew’s saying that Jesus was sat down after he had gone up to the mountain, and Luke’s saying that he stood on the plain when he healed the sick, before the discourse, are no inconsistencies. The whole picture is striking. Jesus ascends a mountain, employs the night in prayer; and, having thus solemnly invoked the Divine blessing, authoritatively separates the twelve apostles from the mass of his disciples. He then descends, and heals in the plain all the diseased among a great multitude, collected from various parts by the fame of his miraculous power. Having thus created attention, he likewise satisfies the desire of the people to hear his doctrine; and retiring first to the mountain whence he came, that his attentive hearers might follow him and might better arrange themselves before him-Sacro digna silentio mirantur omnes dicere. HORACE. All admire his excellent sayings with sacred silence. See Bishop Newcome’s notes on his Harmony of the Gospels, p. 19.
Joseph Benson
Verses 17-19. And he came down with them, &c. — After he had acquainted these twelve persons with his design, and had given them such private instructions as he judged necessary to render their attendance on him subservient to the execution of their important office, he came down from the mountain with them, and stood in the neighbouring plain; where were assembled, not only the rest of his disciples, but a great multitude of people collected from parts at a great distance from each other, namely, not only out of all Judea and Jerusalem, but from the coast of Tyre and Sidon — Many of whom came to hear and be instructed by his discourses, and others to be healed of their diseases: circumstances these which prove beyond contradiction, how universal the persuasion now was, that he was a divinely-commissioned teacher; and that real miracles were wrought by him. And the whole multitude sought to touch him, &c. — In order to multiply the proofs of his mission, and to render them indubitable, he caused virtue to go out from himself, and to heal all, without exception, who came and touched, though it were but his clothes, in expectation of being healed; and that, in some instances, in which Christ did not so much as take any apparent notice of the cases. By this benignity he put the cure in the power of the diseased themselves; and wrought many more miracles than could have been performed in the way of a formal application to him for a cure.
Richard Watson
Verse 17. And stood in the plain. — Those who think that St. Luke, in what follows, has given an abridgment of the sermon on the mount, reconcile this account of our Lord’s having delivered it in the plain with that of St. Matthew, who says that it was delivered from the mountain, by supposing that the plain spoken of was an elevated table land, on the declivity of the mountain, where his audience might conveniently stand. This presents no material difficulty; but there are reasons on the other side of greater weight: the sermon on the mount was not delivered after the choosing of the twelve apostles, but the calling of the four at the sea of Tiberias; and St. Luke has united with passages from the sermon on the mount, several others which were not delivered at that time, but on various occasions. Notwithstanding, therefore, the objection that this discourse has the same exordium and the same peroration as in Matthew’s version of it, and that by both evangelists Christ is represented as having returned to Capernaum, after having delivered it, it cannot be the same discourse preached on the same occasion. It contains many of the same passages of Divine wisdom and eloquence, which, however, only shows that our Lord sometimes chose to deliver the same truths in the same or nearly similar words, and that in discourses of considerable length; and it is confirmatory of this, that St. Luke himself, who has nowhere, like St. Matthew, recorded the sermon on the mount at full length, has preserved the account of another portion of the same sermon, as having been spoken by Christ on an entirely different occasion. See Mathew 12:22, &c. Parts of this sermon were therefore at other times repeated, with some variations.
And they that were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed.
Joseph Benson
Verses 17-19. And he came down with them, &c. — After he had acquainted these twelve persons with his design, and had given them such private instructions as he judged necessary to render their attendance on him subservient to the execution of their important office, he came down from the mountain with them, and stood in the neighbouring plain; where were assembled, not only the rest of his disciples, but a great multitude of people collected from parts at a great distance from each other, namely, not only out of all Judea and Jerusalem, but from the coast of Tyre and Sidon — Many of whom came to hear and be instructed by his discourses, and others to be healed of their diseases: circumstances these which prove beyond contradiction, how universal the persuasion now was, that he was a divinely-commissioned teacher; and that real miracles were wrought by him. And the whole multitude sought to touch him, &c. — In order to multiply the proofs of his mission, and to render them indubitable, he caused virtue to go out from himself, and to heal all, without exception, who came and touched, though it were but his clothes, in expectation of being healed; and that, in some instances, in which Christ did not so much as take any apparent notice of the cases. By this benignity he put the cure in the power of the diseased themselves; and wrought many more miracles than could have been performed in the way of a formal application to him for a cure.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 18. They that were vexed with unclean spirits — were healed. “Morbo vexari,” says Albert, grievous cases of melancholy, excited by demons: a double affliction, both of body and mind.
And the whole multitude sought to touch him: for there went virtue out of him, and healed them all.
Joseph Benson
Verses 17-19. And he came down with them, &c. — After he had acquainted these twelve persons with his design, and had given them such private instructions as he judged necessary to render their attendance on him subservient to the execution of their important office, he came down from the mountain with them, and stood in the neighbouring plain; where were assembled, not only the rest of his disciples, but a great multitude of people collected from parts at a great distance from each other, namely, not only out of all Judea and Jerusalem, but from the coast of Tyre and Sidon — Many of whom came to hear and be instructed by his discourses, and others to be healed of their diseases: circumstances these which prove beyond contradiction, how universal the persuasion now was, that he was a divinely-commissioned teacher; and that real miracles were wrought by him. And the whole multitude sought to touch him, &c. — In order to multiply the proofs of his mission, and to render them indubitable, he caused virtue to go out from himself, and to heal all, without exception, who came and touched, though it were but his clothes, in expectation of being healed; and that, in some instances, in which Christ did not so much as take any apparent notice of the cases. By this benignity he put the cure in the power of the diseased themselves; and wrought many more miracles than could have been performed in the way of a formal application to him for a cure.
And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.
John Wesley
V. 20. In the following verses our Lord, in the audience of his newly-chosen disciples, and of the multitude, repeats, standing on the plain, many remarkable passages of the sermon he had before delivered, sitting on the mount.
He here again pronounces the poor and the hungry, the mourners, and the persecuted, happy; and represents as miserable those who are rich, and full, and joyous, and applauded: because generally prosperity is a sweet poison, and affliction a healing, though bitter medicine. Let the thought reconcile us to adversity, and awaken our caution when the world smiles upon us; when a plentiful table is spread before us, and our cup is running over; when our spirits are gay; and we hear (what nature loves) our own praise from men.
Happy are ye poor-The word seems here to be taken literally: ye who have left all for me. Matthew 5:3.
Adam Clarke
Verse 20. Blessed be ye poor] See the sermon on the mount paraphrased and explained, Matt. 5, 11, 7. {Matthew 5:1,ffMatthew 11:1ff, Matthew 7:1ff.}
Joseph Benson
Verse 20. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples — The multitude that pressed to touch Jesus, in order to be healed, being at length rendered still and quiet, he turned to his disciples, and in their audience, and that of the multitude, repeated, standing on the plain, many remarkable passages of the sermon he had before delivered, sitting on the mount; which for the importance and variety of matter contained in it was, of all his sermons, the most proper to be remembered by the twelve disciples, now that they were constituted apostles, and appointed to preach. “The Evangelist Matthew, having recorded the former sermon in its place, judged it unnecessary to give this repetition of it here. But if the reader is of opinion that the two sermons are the same, because this in Luke comes immediately after the election of the twelve apostles, as that in Matthew comes after the calling of the four disciples, Simon, Andrew, James, and John, let him consider, in the first place, that the calling of the four disciples, which precedes the sermon in Matthew, is without doubt a fact entirely different from the election of the twelve apostles preceding the sermon in Luke, and happened long before it. Besides, the sermon in Luke was preached immediately after the election of the twelve, whereas a large tour through Galilee, which may have taken up some months, intervened between the calling of the four disciples and the sermon in Matthew. And to name no more differences, the sermon recorded by Matthew was delivered on a mountain, in a sitting, posture; whereas, when he pronounced this, which Luke speaks of, he was in a plain, or valley, where he could not sit because of the multitude which surrounded him, but stood with his disciples. But though there was not so much evident disagreement in the facts preceding these two sermons, the reader might easily have allowed that they were pronounced at different times, because he will find other instances of things really different, notwithstanding in their nature they may be alike, and were preceded, and also followed, by like events. For instance, the commission and instructions given to the seventy, were, in substance, the same with the commission and instructions given to the twelve, Matthew 10., and were introduced after the same manner: The harvest is plenteous, &c., Matthew 9:37. Yet from Luke himself it appears they were different, that evangelist having related the mission of the twelve as a distinct fact, Luke 9:1. So likewise the two miraculous dinners were not only like each other in their natures, but in their circumstances also, for they were introduced by the same discourses, and followed by like events; particularly at the conclusion of both, Jesus passed over the sea of Galilee. Nevertheless, both being found in the same evangelist, no reader can possibly think them the same.” — Macknight. Dr. Whitby and Dr. Doddridge view this subject in exactly the same light. “Hardly any thing,” says the latter, “that I have observed in the common harmonies surprises me more than that so many of them make this discourse to be the very sermon on the mount, recorded at large by Matthew. That was delivered by Christ sitting on a mountain, this standing in a plain; and, which weighs yet much more with me, there is such a difference in the expression, when the parallel passages come to be compared, that it seems evident the evangelists have not related it exactly, if they meant to give us the same. On the other hand, there appears not the least difficulty in supposing that Christ might here repeat a part of what he had delivered some months before to another auditory, and probably at some greater distance than just in the same neighbourhood. For it is plain from other instances, that this is nothing more than what he often had occasion to do. Compare Matthew 9:32-34 with Matthew 12:22, 24; and 16:21 with 17:23; and 20:17-19.” This, therefore, for the reasons above stated, being evidently a different sermon from that delivered on the mount, and preached to a different auditory, and on a different occasion; and there being here only four of the eight beatitudes mentioned in that sermon, and not one of these being expressed in the same words which are there used; it is not necessary that they should be understood in the same sense. The poor here may either mean the poor in spirit; the hungry, those that hunger after righteousness; and the mourners, those that sorrow after a godly manner to repentance, 2 Corinthians 7:9; or the condition added to the last clause, verse 22, for the Son of man’s sake, may be understood as implied in all the clauses, and that those disciples of Christ only are pronounced blessed, who are exposed to, and patiently suffer, poverty, hunger, grief, or persecution for his sake, that they may obtain that kingdom, and that reward in heaven, which he hath promised to his faithful servants. Indeed our Lord’s words are only addressed to his disciples, verse 20, he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed, (or rather, happy, as makarioi means,) are ye poor, &c. — As to those who are not the true disciples of Christ, but are ignorant and wicked, or carnal and worldly, however poor, destitute, afflicted, or reproached they may be in this world, they are not happy, but miserable, and in the way to be miserable for ever. We must therefore say, in explanation of this passage, the poor are happy if they be enriched with divine knowledge and grace; for they are entitled to the kingdom of God in all its transcendent and eternal glories. They that hunger now, and are destitute of all the comfortable accommodations of life, are happy if they feel that nobler appetite, by which the pious soul longs after improvements in holiness: for the time is near when they shall be filled with what they long for, and shall be made partakers of the most substantial and valuable blessings. Happy are they who now weep and mourn under a sense of sin, or under that wholesome discipline of affliction, by which God reduces his wandering children, and trains them up to superior virtue; for all their sorrow shall pass away like a dream, and they shall ere long laugh and rejoice in a complete deliverance from it. They whom men hate, separate from their company, and reproach, &c., for the Son of man’s sake, are happy, for that glorious and powerful and gracious Person, on whose account they are thus treated, is abundantly able, and as willing as able, amply to recompense them for all they suffer for his sake. And therefore far from being dismayed and overwhelmed with trouble and distress, at such abuses and assaults, they ought to rejoice and leap for joy, fully assured that their reward in heaven will be in proportion to their sufferings on earth. Besides, such persecuted followers of Christ may comfort themselves with this consideration, that the servants of God, in all ages, have been treated in a similar manner.
Daniel Whedon
§ 36. SERMON ON THE MOUNT, 20-49.
Matthew 5:1—7:29.
We assume without doubt, what Dr. Nast has at length well proved, that Luke here furnishes the same Sermon on the Mount with Matthew, being a briefer report and less nearly verbatim. The slight difference in arrangement of some of the parts is doubtless owing to the variation in the particular original oral tradition, which Luke may have for the first time reduced to writing, or have received in authentic written form.
In order to harmonize the arrangement of Luke’s report of the Sermon with that of Matthew we must read the verses in the following order: 20-26, 29-30, 27, 28, 32-42. Verses 34 and 35 in Luke are additional matter.
20. Blessed be ye poor—From the fact that Luke in an abbreviated form furnishes a blessing upon the poor, (omitting the phrase in spirit as given by Matthew,) and a woe in verse 24 upon the rich, it has been maintained by some that Luke, if not our Lord himself, belonged to a sect or class of men who held to the intrinsic sin of riches and merit of poverty. A body of heretics, under the name of Ebionites, arose very early in the Christian Church, formed of primitive Jews, who held our Lord to be a mere man, maintained the Jewish ritual, and asserted the great merit of absolute poverty. This sect developed itself early in the second century. Writers like Renan assert that Luke’s Gospel possesses, in passages like this, a strong Ebionitish tinge. But it is well known that Luke was associated intimately with St. Paul, who was the great champion against this very sort of Jewish ultraism, and whose doctrines were the opposite of Ebionitism. If, as we suppose, Luke received a share of the matter of the Peraean gospel from James the Lord’s brother, (see our notice of Luke, p. 2,) resident pastor or bishop of Jerusalem, it is very likely that the passages that seem to bear hard upon the pride of wealth were furnished by him. For, though no Ebionite, James was strongly Judaic and severely ascetic in his tendencies, as his Epistle shows. In the second place, to say that rich men are wicked, especially in a given age, and to say that wealth in itself is a sin, are very different things. It is the tendency indeed of wealth upon the depraved heart of man to produce an oppressive spirit. And there are times when, as a class, the rich are so utterly oppressors that the very term rich acquires a sameness of meaning with the term oppressive; and in such ages piety and rectitude may be so exclusively with the poor that the virtuous may be naturally designated by the term poor. Yet in the days of an Abraham or a Solomon, piety may dwell in the tents of the rich and in the palaces of the noble, while vice and degradation may prevail among the rustics and the rabble. Thus the rich may be in spirit poor, that is, virtuous; and the poor may be rich in feeling, that is, riotous and oppressive. In the days of Herod and of Jesus, though there were noble exceptions, such as Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and probably some in Herod’s household, to be rich and to be wicked were about the same thing. That this fact should appear in the very language of the Gospels is no indication of Ebionite tendencies.
Richard Watson
Verse 20. Blessed be ye poor, &c. — See notes on Matthew 5:1, &c.
Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 21. Blessed are ye that hunger now, for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now, for ye shall laugh. These words may be regarded as fraught with consolation for the poor, provided their poverty is connected with piety. And true piety, as in the case of Lazarus, sheds a celestial glory on the most abject condition of human life.
Daniel Whedon
§ 36. SERMON ON THE MOUNT, 20-49.
Matthew 5:1—7:29.
We assume without doubt, what Dr. Nast has at length well proved, that Luke here furnishes the same Sermon on the Mount with Matthew, being a briefer report and less nearly verbatim. The slight difference in arrangement of some of the parts is doubtless owing to the variation in the particular original oral tradition, which Luke may have for the first time reduced to writing, or have received in authentic written form.
In order to harmonize the arrangement of Luke’s report of the Sermon with that of Matthew we must read the verses in the following order: 20-26, 29-30, 27, 28, 32-42. Verses 34 and 35 in Luke are additional matter.
20. Blessed be ye poor—From the fact that Luke in an abbreviated form furnishes a blessing upon the poor, (omitting the phrase in spirit as given by Matthew,) and a woe in verse 24 upon the rich, it has been maintained by some that Luke, if not our Lord himself, belonged to a sect or class of men who held to the intrinsic sin of riches and merit of poverty. A body of heretics, under the name of Ebionites, arose very early in the Christian Church, formed of primitive Jews, who held our Lord to be a mere man, maintained the Jewish ritual, and asserted the great merit of absolute poverty. This sect developed itself early in the second century. Writers like Renan assert that Luke’s Gospel possesses, in passages like this, a strong Ebionitish tinge. But it is well known that Luke was associated intimately with St. Paul, who was the great champion against this very sort of Jewish ultraism, and whose doctrines were the opposite of Ebionitism. If, as we suppose, Luke received a share of the matter of the Peraean gospel from James the Lord’s brother, (see our notice of Luke, p. 2,) resident pastor or bishop of Jerusalem, it is very likely that the passages that seem to bear hard upon the pride of wealth were furnished by him. For, though no Ebionite, James was strongly Judaic and severely ascetic in his tendencies, as his Epistle shows. In the second place, to say that rich men are wicked, especially in a given age, and to say that wealth in itself is a sin, are very different things. It is the tendency indeed of wealth upon the depraved heart of man to produce an oppressive spirit. And there are times when, as a class, the rich are so utterly oppressors that the very term rich acquires a sameness of meaning with the term oppressive; and in such ages piety and rectitude may be so exclusively with the poor that the virtuous may be naturally designated by the term poor. Yet in the days of an Abraham or a Solomon, piety may dwell in the tents of the rich and in the palaces of the noble, while vice and degradation may prevail among the rustics and the rabble. Thus the rich may be in spirit poor, that is, virtuous; and the poor may be rich in feeling, that is, riotous and oppressive. In the days of Herod and of Jesus, though there were noble exceptions, such as Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and probably some in Herod’s household, to be rich and to be wicked were about the same thing. That this fact should appear in the very language of the Gospels is no indication of Ebionite tendencies.
Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake.
Adam Clarke
Verse 22. They shall separate you] Meaning, They will excommunicate you, aforiswsin umav, or separate you from their communion. Luke having spoken of their separating or excommunicating them, continues the same idea, in saying that they would cast out their name likewise, as a thing evil in itself. By your name is meant their name as his disciples. As such, they were sometimes called Nazarenes, and sometimes Christians; and both these names were matter of reproach in the mouths of their enemies. So James (James 2:7) says to the converts, Do they not blaspheme that worthy name by which ye are called? So when St. Paul (in Acts 24:5) is called a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes, the character of a pestilent fellow, and, that of a mover of sedition, is joined to it; and, in Acts 28:22, the Jews say to Paul, As concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against; and this is implied in 1 Peter 4:14, when he says, If ye be reproached for the NAME of Christ, i.e. as Christians; agreeably to what follows there in 1 Peter 4:16, If any man suffer as a Christian, &c. In after times we find Pliny, Epist. x. 97, consulting the Emperor Trajan, whether or no he should PUNISH the NAME ITSELF, (of Christian,) though no evil should be found in it. NOMEN IPSUM, etiam si flagitiis careat, PUNIATUR. See PEARCE.
Daniel Whedon
§ 36. SERMON ON THE MOUNT, 20-49.
Matthew 5:1—7:29.
We assume without doubt, what Dr. Nast has at length well proved, that Luke here furnishes the same Sermon on the Mount with Matthew, being a briefer report and less nearly verbatim. The slight difference in arrangement of some of the parts is doubtless owing to the variation in the particular original oral tradition, which Luke may have for the first time reduced to writing, or have received in authentic written form.
In order to harmonize the arrangement of Luke’s report of the Sermon with that of Matthew we must read the verses in the following order: 20-26, 29-30, 27, 28, 32-42. Verses 34 and 35 in Luke are additional matter.
20. Blessed be ye poor—From the fact that Luke in an abbreviated form furnishes a blessing upon the poor, (omitting the phrase in spirit as given by Matthew,) and a woe in verse 24 upon the rich, it has been maintained by some that Luke, if not our Lord himself, belonged to a sect or class of men who held to the intrinsic sin of riches and merit of poverty. A body of heretics, under the name of Ebionites, arose very early in the Christian Church, formed of primitive Jews, who held our Lord to be a mere man, maintained the Jewish ritual, and asserted the great merit of absolute poverty. This sect developed itself early in the second century. Writers like Renan assert that Luke’s Gospel possesses, in passages like this, a strong Ebionitish tinge. But it is well known that Luke was associated intimately with St. Paul, who was the great champion against this very sort of Jewish ultraism, and whose doctrines were the opposite of Ebionitism. If, as we suppose, Luke received a share of the matter of the Peraean gospel from James the Lord’s brother, (see our notice of Luke, p. 2,) resident pastor or bishop of Jerusalem, it is very likely that the passages that seem to bear hard upon the pride of wealth were furnished by him. For, though no Ebionite, James was strongly Judaic and severely ascetic in his tendencies, as his Epistle shows. In the second place, to say that rich men are wicked, especially in a given age, and to say that wealth in itself is a sin, are very different things. It is the tendency indeed of wealth upon the depraved heart of man to produce an oppressive spirit. And there are times when, as a class, the rich are so utterly oppressors that the very term rich acquires a sameness of meaning with the term oppressive; and in such ages piety and rectitude may be so exclusively with the poor that the virtuous may be naturally designated by the term poor. Yet in the days of an Abraham or a Solomon, piety may dwell in the tents of the rich and in the palaces of the noble, while vice and degradation may prevail among the rustics and the rabble. Thus the rich may be in spirit poor, that is, virtuous; and the poor may be rich in feeling, that is, riotous and oppressive. In the days of Herod and of Jesus, though there were noble exceptions, such as Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and probably some in Herod’s household, to be rich and to be wicked were about the same thing. That this fact should appear in the very language of the Gospels is no indication of Ebionite tendencies.
Richard Watson
Verse 22. When they shall separate you from their company. — Otan aforiswsin umav, when they shall excommunicate you, or cast you out of their synagogues.
Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.
Adam Clarke
Verse 23. Did-unto the prophets.] See 1 Kings 18:4; 19:20; 2 Chronicles 24:21; 36:16; Nehemiah 9:26.
Daniel Whedon
§ 36. SERMON ON THE MOUNT, 20-49.
Matthew 5:1—7:29.
We assume without doubt, what Dr. Nast has at length well proved, that Luke here furnishes the same Sermon on the Mount with Matthew, being a briefer report and less nearly verbatim. The slight difference in arrangement of some of the parts is doubtless owing to the variation in the particular original oral tradition, which Luke may have for the first time reduced to writing, or have received in authentic written form.
In order to harmonize the arrangement of Luke’s report of the Sermon with that of Matthew we must read the verses in the following order: 20-26, 29-30, 27, 28, 32-42. Verses 34 and 35 in Luke are additional matter.
20. Blessed be ye poor—From the fact that Luke in an abbreviated form furnishes a blessing upon the poor, (omitting the phrase in spirit as given by Matthew,) and a woe in verse 24 upon the rich, it has been maintained by some that Luke, if not our Lord himself, belonged to a sect or class of men who held to the intrinsic sin of riches and merit of poverty. A body of heretics, under the name of Ebionites, arose very early in the Christian Church, formed of primitive Jews, who held our Lord to be a mere man, maintained the Jewish ritual, and asserted the great merit of absolute poverty. This sect developed itself early in the second century. Writers like Renan assert that Luke’s Gospel possesses, in passages like this, a strong Ebionitish tinge. But it is well known that Luke was associated intimately with St. Paul, who was the great champion against this very sort of Jewish ultraism, and whose doctrines were the opposite of Ebionitism. If, as we suppose, Luke received a share of the matter of the Peraean gospel from James the Lord’s brother, (see our notice of Luke, p. 2,) resident pastor or bishop of Jerusalem, it is very likely that the passages that seem to bear hard upon the pride of wealth were furnished by him. For, though no Ebionite, James was strongly Judaic and severely ascetic in his tendencies, as his Epistle shows. In the second place, to say that rich men are wicked, especially in a given age, and to say that wealth in itself is a sin, are very different things. It is the tendency indeed of wealth upon the depraved heart of man to produce an oppressive spirit. And there are times when, as a class, the rich are so utterly oppressors that the very term rich acquires a sameness of meaning with the term oppressive; and in such ages piety and rectitude may be so exclusively with the poor that the virtuous may be naturally designated by the term poor. Yet in the days of an Abraham or a Solomon, piety may dwell in the tents of the rich and in the palaces of the noble, while vice and degradation may prevail among the rustics and the rabble. Thus the rich may be in spirit poor, that is, virtuous; and the poor may be rich in feeling, that is, riotous and oppressive. In the days of Herod and of Jesus, though there were noble exceptions, such as Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and probably some in Herod’s household, to be rich and to be wicked were about the same thing. That this fact should appear in the very language of the Gospels is no indication of Ebionite tendencies.
But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.
John Wesley
V. 24. Miserable are ye rich-If ye have received or sought your consolation or happiness therein.
Adam Clarke
Verse 24. - 26. But wo unto you that are rich!] The Pharisees, who were laden with the spoils of the people which they received in gifts, &c. These three verses are not found in the sermon, as recorded by Matthew. They seem to be spoken chiefly to the scribes and Pharisees, who, in order to be pleasing to all, spoke to every one what he liked best; and by finesse, flattery, and lies, found out the method of gaining and keeping the good opinion of the multitude.
Joseph Benson
Verses 24, 25. But wo, &c. — Here we see that this discourse differs very materially from the sermon on the mount; there our Lord pronounced blessings only, here he denounces curses; or, to speak more properly, he compassionately bewails the condition of persons of a contrary character to that of those pronounced happy in the preceding verses. For, as Grotius justly observes, the expression, ouai umin, wo unto you, “vox est dolentis, non irâ incensi,” is the expression of one lamenting, [or bewailing the unhappy condition of another,] not of one inflamed with anger. It is like that used by our Lord, Matthew 24:19, wo to them that are with child, &c., in those days; an expression which no one can understand otherwise than as a declaration of the unhappiness of women in these circumstances, at such a time of general calamity as is referred to. The parallel passage in Luke 23. 29 where we have the same prophecy, makes this evident. As our Lord, therefore, in the former sentences, pronounces the poor, the needy, the mournful, and the persecuted happy, so he here pronounces the rich, the jovial, and the applauded, miserable; the circumstances in which such are placed being peculiarly insnaring, and the danger being great lest they should be so taken up with the transient pleasures of time, as to forget and forfeit everlasting happiness. His words may be thus paraphrased: Miserable are ye rich — If ye have received or sought your consolation or happiness in your riches. Miserable are you that are full — Of meat and drink, and worldly goods, and take up with these things as your portion; for you shall ere long hunger — Shall fall into a state of great indigence and misery, aggravated by all the plenty which you enjoyed and abused. Miserable are you that laugh — That spend your lives in mirth and gayety, or are of a light, trifling spirit; for you shall mourn and weep — You have reason to expect a portion in those doleful regions, where, without intermission and without end, you shall be abandoned to weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth. “Our Lord’s malediction,” [declaration,] says a modern author, “is not inconsistent with the apostle’s precepts, which command Christians always to rejoice. Neither is the mirth against which the wo is here denounced to be understood of that constant cheerfulness of temper, which arises to true Christians from the comfortable and cheerful doctrines with which they are enlightened by the gospel, the assurance they have of reconciliation with God, the hope they have of everlasting life and the pleasure they enjoy in the practice of piety and the other duties of religion. But it is to be understood of that turbulent, carnal mirth, that levity and vanity of spirit, which arises, not from any solid foundation, but from sensual pleasure, or those vain amusements of life by which the giddy and the gay contrive to make away their time; that sort of mirth which dissipates thought, leaves no time for consideration, and gives them an utter aversion to all serious reflections.” Persons who continue to indulge themselves in this sort of mirth through life, shall weep and mourn eternally, when they are excluded from the joys of heaven, and banished for ever from the presence of God, by the light of whose countenance all the blessed are enlightened, and made transcendently happy.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 24-26. Woe to you that are rich, and yet uncharitable. The four woes which here follow the four beatitudes, form a striking contrast, and illustrate the portrait by darker shades. All could not be written which the Saviour said. Those who are full, enjoying health, affluence, and ease, are difficult to be apprised of danger; and those who are applauded by the world, bear strong marks of friendship for the world. These woes are not however to be understood as execrations, but as designating an unhappy state. He said of christians flying from Jerusalem, woe to those that are pregnant, and to those that give suck in those days.
Daniel Whedon
24-26. We have no hesitation still to assume, as in the notes of the parallel passage in Matthew, that our Saviour pronounced for each Blessed an antithetical Woe, which Matthew wholly omits and Luke but partially supplies. And if these are two reports of the same discourse, then what we have noted in Matthew holds good, namely, that the limitation of the objects and sphere of both benedictions and woes are within the compass of religious things, it of course follows that the riches, the laughter, the fulness condemned by the woes, are things adverse in spirit to right and holiness. It is not riches or laughter in themselves, but the wantonness of spirit, the revelry of heart, in the spirit of a wicked and riotous age, against which our Lord threatens a future destitution and mourning. The contrast between these blessings and woes coincides with the great antithesis between right and wrong, between religion and irreligion, between holiness and wickedness, between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan, which must ever appear to the pure eye in the entire history, temporal and eternal, of God and man.
The term woe is indeed softer than the term cursed, pronounced by Jesus, as judge, in the sentence of the final day, in Matthew 25:41. This word woe blends compassion with judgment; for it is pronounced in the day of grace and mercy; yet it indicates a destiny as terrible and as irrevocable, though uttered in a tone of genuine pathos, as that final Depart ye cursed. From that unmitigated finality, though pronounced by the same lips, all pathos has departed; for the era of judgment without mercy has arrived.
Richard Watson
Verse 24. Wo unto you that are rich. — Not as rich, but rich men living in the spirit and after the example of the world. He alludes immediately to the opulent, proud, and luxurious Pharisees and Sadducees; yet against all rich men, in all ages, who forget God, this terrible wo lies, — that in this world they have received their consolation, and no felicity awaits them in another. — Campbell has a note to caution us against considering these woes uttered by our Lord as imprecations. Perhaps in that he is right; but when he says, that “if we regard them as authoritative denunciations of judgments, this is the same thing.” he forgets our Lord’s character as a judge. A judge may pronounce a sentence without uttering an imprecation; and though he alleges that the office of judge is a part of that glory to which he was afterward raised, this only refers to the actual exercise of judgment upon persons. The authoritative denunciation of punishment against classes of persons or characters, the connection of certain penalties with certain offences, are both judicial; and these he frequently announced in the time of his humility: so that these woes are not mere declarations of consequences, or warnings, which any teacher as well as our Lord himself might use: with him they assumed a higher and more solemn character.
Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep.
John Wesley
V. 25. Full-Of meat and drink, and worldly goods. That laugh-That are of a light trifling spirit.
Joseph Benson
Verses 24, 25. But wo, &c. — Here we see that this discourse differs very materially from the sermon on the mount; there our Lord pronounced blessings only, here he denounces curses; or, to speak more properly, he compassionately bewails the condition of persons of a contrary character to that of those pronounced happy in the preceding verses. For, as Grotius justly observes, the expression, ouai umin, wo unto you, “vox est dolentis, non irâ incensi,” is the expression of one lamenting, [or bewailing the unhappy condition of another,] not of one inflamed with anger. It is like that used by our Lord, Matthew 24:19, wo to them that are with child, &c., in those days; an expression which no one can understand otherwise than as a declaration of the unhappiness of women in these circumstances, at such a time of general calamity as is referred to. The parallel passage in Luke 23. 29 where we have the same prophecy, makes this evident. As our Lord, therefore, in the former sentences, pronounces the poor, the needy, the mournful, and the persecuted happy, so he here pronounces the rich, the jovial, and the applauded, miserable; the circumstances in which such are placed being peculiarly insnaring, and the danger being great lest they should be so taken up with the transient pleasures of time, as to forget and forfeit everlasting happiness. His words may be thus paraphrased: Miserable are ye rich — If ye have received or sought your consolation or happiness in your riches. Miserable are you that are full — Of meat and drink, and worldly goods, and take up with these things as your portion; for you shall ere long hunger — Shall fall into a state of great indigence and misery, aggravated by all the plenty which you enjoyed and abused. Miserable are you that laugh — That spend your lives in mirth and gayety, or are of a light, trifling spirit; for you shall mourn and weep — You have reason to expect a portion in those doleful regions, where, without intermission and without end, you shall be abandoned to weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth. “Our Lord’s malediction,” [declaration,] says a modern author, “is not inconsistent with the apostle’s precepts, which command Christians always to rejoice. Neither is the mirth against which the wo is here denounced to be understood of that constant cheerfulness of temper, which arises to true Christians from the comfortable and cheerful doctrines with which they are enlightened by the gospel, the assurance they have of reconciliation with God, the hope they have of everlasting life and the pleasure they enjoy in the practice of piety and the other duties of religion. But it is to be understood of that turbulent, carnal mirth, that levity and vanity of spirit, which arises, not from any solid foundation, but from sensual pleasure, or those vain amusements of life by which the giddy and the gay contrive to make away their time; that sort of mirth which dissipates thought, leaves no time for consideration, and gives them an utter aversion to all serious reflections.” Persons who continue to indulge themselves in this sort of mirth through life, shall weep and mourn eternally, when they are excluded from the joys of heaven, and banished for ever from the presence of God, by the light of whose countenance all the blessed are enlightened, and made transcendently happy.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 24-26. Woe to you that are rich, and yet uncharitable. The four woes which here follow the four beatitudes, form a striking contrast, and illustrate the portrait by darker shades. All could not be written which the Saviour said. Those who are full, enjoying health, affluence, and ease, are difficult to be apprised of danger; and those who are applauded by the world, bear strong marks of friendship for the world. These woes are not however to be understood as execrations, but as designating an unhappy state. He said of christians flying from Jerusalem, woe to those that are pregnant, and to those that give suck in those days.
Daniel Whedon
24-26. We have no hesitation still to assume, as in the notes of the parallel passage in Matthew, that our Saviour pronounced for each Blessed an antithetical Woe, which Matthew wholly omits and Luke but partially supplies. And if these are two reports of the same discourse, then what we have noted in Matthew holds good, namely, that the limitation of the objects and sphere of both benedictions and woes are within the compass of religious things, it of course follows that the riches, the laughter, the fulness condemned by the woes, are things adverse in spirit to right and holiness. It is not riches or laughter in themselves, but the wantonness of spirit, the revelry of heart, in the spirit of a wicked and riotous age, against which our Lord threatens a future destitution and mourning. The contrast between these blessings and woes coincides with the great antithesis between right and wrong, between religion and irreligion, between holiness and wickedness, between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan, which must ever appear to the pure eye in the entire history, temporal and eternal, of God and man.
The term woe is indeed softer than the term cursed, pronounced by Jesus, as judge, in the sentence of the final day, in Matthew 25:41. This word woe blends compassion with judgment; for it is pronounced in the day of grace and mercy; yet it indicates a destiny as terrible and as irrevocable, though uttered in a tone of genuine pathos, as that final Depart ye cursed. From that unmitigated finality, though pronounced by the same lips, all pathos has departed; for the era of judgment without mercy has arrived.
Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.
John Wesley
V. 26. Wo to you when all men shall speak well of you-But who will believe this?
Joseph Benson
Verse 26. Wo unto you — Miserable are you; when all men speak well of you — Because such universal applause is not to be gained without sinful compliances. “For,” as Dr. Whitby observes, “he that will be pleasing to all must speak things grateful to all, and do what they like; now that cannot be good which is grateful to bad men: thus the false prophets, whom the Jews commended, spake to them smooth things, and prophesied lies, because the people loved to have it so; they prophesied of peace, when war was at hand; they strengthened the hands of evil doers, Jeremiah 23:14, and daubed the ruinous wall with untempered mortar, Ezekiel 13:10, 11.”
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 24-26. Woe to you that are rich, and yet uncharitable. The four woes which here follow the four beatitudes, form a striking contrast, and illustrate the portrait by darker shades. All could not be written which the Saviour said. Those who are full, enjoying health, affluence, and ease, are difficult to be apprised of danger; and those who are applauded by the world, bear strong marks of friendship for the world. These woes are not however to be understood as execrations, but as designating an unhappy state. He said of christians flying from Jerusalem, woe to those that are pregnant, and to those that give suck in those days.
Daniel Whedon
26. All men. Of the use of the word men, see Matthew 10:17.
Richard Watson
Verse 26. When all men speak well of you. — There is no more reason to suppose that these words were spoken to the apostles, by way of hypothetic caution, than that the woes in the preceding verses were addressed to them. The Jewish priests and doctors are the persons still intended. — They were universally popular; all men spake well of them; they were “of the world,” and the world in them “loved its own;” but this, says our Lord, only proved them to be deceivers, for so did their fathers to the false prophets. In a wicked age, only those who prophesy smooth things can be popular.
But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
John Wesley
V. 27. But I say to you that hear-Hitherto our Lord had spoken only to particular sorts of persons: now he begins speaking to all in general. Matthew 5:44.
Joseph Benson
Verses 27, 28. But I say unto you which hear — You who hear me now, and you who in future ages shall hear my gospel. Hitherto our Lord had spoken only to particular sorts of persons; now he begins speaking to all in general. Love your enemies, &c. — The disposition which my gospel cherishes in its votaries, is that of love and kindness, even to the evil and unthankful; and therefore all who hear the gospel ought to be of this disposition. See on Matthew 5:44.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 27-29. Love your enemies. Such is the example of providence, for our heavenly Father sends rain on the just and on the unjust. Quite the reverse is the conduct of man; he kills his enemies, and often in so doing is killed himself. We must in all things behave towards them with the kindness of God towards us; we must pray for them, and perform all good offices towards them. This extinguishes unhallowed fires by withholding fuel. We must turn the other cheek to their rebukes; and when they perceive that grace reigns, they will be awed at Jehovah’s presence.
Daniel Whedon
27-38. Christian laws of conciliation and benevolence. Matthew 5:38-48.
Richard Watson
Verse 27. Love your enemies &c. — See note on Matthew 5:44. No man, says one justly, had ever lived who would have invented this precept. The strongest passions of the heart oppose it, the most inveterate prejudices of all nations and all climates disavow and contradict it. We may regard it as an absolute certainty, therefore, that the invention of man would never have produced this precept; and less perhaps than any other a Jew, by whom hatred of some descriptions of enemies was supposed to be a principle of duty.
Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
Joseph Benson
Verses 27, 28. But I say unto you which hear — You who hear me now, and you who in future ages shall hear my gospel. Hitherto our Lord had spoken only to particular sorts of persons; now he begins speaking to all in general. Love your enemies, &c. — The disposition which my gospel cherishes in its votaries, is that of love and kindness, even to the evil and unthankful; and therefore all who hear the gospel ought to be of this disposition. See on Matthew 5:44.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 27-29. Love your enemies. Such is the example of providence, for our heavenly Father sends rain on the just and on the unjust. Quite the reverse is the conduct of man; he kills his enemies, and often in so doing is killed himself. We must in all things behave towards them with the kindness of God towards us; we must pray for them, and perform all good offices towards them. This extinguishes unhallowed fires by withholding fuel. We must turn the other cheek to their rebukes; and when they perceive that grace reigns, they will be awed at Jehovah’s presence.
Daniel Whedon
27-38. Christian laws of conciliation and benevolence. Matthew 5:38-48.
And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.
John Wesley
V. 29. To him that smiteth thee on the cheek-Taketh away thy cloak-These seem to be proverbial expressions, to signify an invasion of the tenderest points of honour and property.
Offer the other-Forbid not thy coat-That is, rather yield to his repeating the affront or injury, than gratify resentment in righting your self; in any method not becoming Christian love. Matthew 5:39.
Adam Clarke
Verse 29. Thy cloak-thy coat] In Matthew 5:40, I have said that COAT, citwna, signifies under garment, or strait coat; and CLOAK, imation, means upper garment, or great coat. This interpretation is confirmed by the following observations of Bishop Pearce. The citwn was a tunica, or vestcoat, over which the Jews and other nations threw an outer coat, or gown, called a cloak, Matthew 5:40, (which is meant by imation,) when they went abroad, or were not at work. Hence the common people at Rome, who did not usually wear, or had no right to wear, the toga, are called by Horace tunicatus popellus, Epist. i. 7, 65. This account of the difference between the citwn and the imation appears plainly from what Maximus Tyrius says, The inner garment which is over the body they call citwniskon, and the outer one the imation. And so Plutarch, (in NUPT. p. 139, ed. Fran. 1620,) speaking of a man who felt the heat of the sun too much for him, says that he put off, ton citwna, tw imatiw, his vestcoat also with his cloak.
Joseph Benson
Verses 29, 31. To him, &c. — You who hear my gospel ought to be patient under injuries, as well as benevolent toward the unthankful. To him that smiteth thee on thy cheek — that taketh away thy cloak — These seem to be proverbial expressions, to signify an invasion of the tenderest points of honour and property. Offer the other, &c. Forbid not thy coat — That is, rather yield to his repeating the affront, or injury, than gratify resentment in righting yourself, in any method not becoming Christian love. Give to every man — Friend or enemy, what thou canst spare, and he really wants; and of him that taketh away thy goods — By borrowing; ask them not again — If he be insolvent: or, do not exact them if it will distress the person concerned to repay thee: rather lose them, if consistent with other duties, than demand them by a legal process. Dr. Doddridge translates and paraphrases the clause thus: “From him that taketh away thy possessions, in an injurious manner, do not immediately demand them back in the forms of law, but rather endeavour, by gentle methods, to reduce the offender to reason.” The Greek expression, tou airontov ta sa, here rendered, taketh away thy goods, properly signifies, taketh them away violently, or by fraud. But, as Dr. Macknight observes, “Whatever sense we put on our Lord’s precept, it must be understood with the limitations which common sense directs us to make; namely, that we give and lend freely to all who ask, or permit them to retain what they have unjustly taken, provided only that it be a thing of small account, which we can easily spare, and the persons who ask or take such things be in real necessity.” And as ye would that men should do unto you, &c. — See note on Matthew 7:12.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 27-29. Love your enemies. Such is the example of providence, for our heavenly Father sends rain on the just and on the unjust. Quite the reverse is the conduct of man; he kills his enemies, and often in so doing is killed himself. We must in all things behave towards them with the kindness of God towards us; we must pray for them, and perform all good offices towards them. This extinguishes unhallowed fires by withholding fuel. We must turn the other cheek to their rebukes; and when they perceive that grace reigns, they will be awed at Jehovah’s presence.
Daniel Whedon
27-38. Christian laws of conciliation and benevolence. Matthew 5:38-48.
Richard Watson
Verses 29-38. See the notes on the sermon on the mount in Matthew. There are, however, a few variations in expression, which may here be noticed.
Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
John Wesley
V. 30. Give to every one-Friend or enemy, what thou canst spare, and he really wants:
and of him that taketh away thy goods-By borrowing, if he be insolvent, ask them not again. Matthew 5:42.
Adam Clarke
Verse 30. Ask them not again.] Or, Do not beg them off. This probably refers to the way in which the tax-gatherers and Roman soldiers used to spoil the people. “When such harpies as these come upon your goods, suffer the injury quietly, leaving yourselves in the hand of God, rather than attempt even to beg off what belongs to you, lest on their part they be provoked to seize or spoil more, and lest you be irritated to sue them at law, which is totally opposite to the spirit and letter of the Gospel; or to speak bad words, or indulge wrong tempers, which would wound the spirit of love and mercy.” Of such as these, and of all merciless creditors, who even sell the tools and bed of a poor man, it may be very truly said:- Tristius haud illis monstrum, nec sævior ulla
Pestis et ira deum Stygiis sese extulit undis:-
Diripiunt dapes, contactaque omnia fædant
Immundo:-
VIRG. Æn. iii. ver. 214
“Monsters more fierce offended heaven ne’er sent
From hell’s abyss, for human punishment:-
They snatch the meat, defiling all they find.”
DRYDEN.
However, it is probable that what is here spoken relates to requiring a thing speedily that had been lent, while the reason for borrowing it still continues. In Ecclus. 20:15, it is a part of the character of a very bad man, that to-day he lendeth, and tomorrow will he ask it again. From Luke 6:27 to Luke 6:30 our blessed Lord gives us directions how to treat our enemies. 1. Wish them well. 2. Do them good. 3. Speak as well of them as possible. 4. Be an instrument of procuring them good from others; use your influence in their behalf. 5. Suffer patiently from them contempt and ill treatment. 6. Give up your goods rather than lose your meekness and charity towards them. The retaliation of those who hearken not to their own passion, but to Christ, consists in doing more good than they receive evil. Ever since our blessed Saviour suffered the Jews to take away his life, it is by his patience that we must regulate our own. Quesnel.
Joseph Benson
Verses 29, 31. To him, &c. — You who hear my gospel ought to be patient under injuries, as well as benevolent toward the unthankful. To him that smiteth thee on thy cheek — that taketh away thy cloak — These seem to be proverbial expressions, to signify an invasion of the tenderest points of honour and property. Offer the other, &c. Forbid not thy coat — That is, rather yield to his repeating the affront, or injury, than gratify resentment in righting yourself, in any method not becoming Christian love. Give to every man — Friend or enemy, what thou canst spare, and he really wants; and of him that taketh away thy goods — By borrowing; ask them not again — If he be insolvent: or, do not exact them if it will distress the person concerned to repay thee: rather lose them, if consistent with other duties, than demand them by a legal process. Dr. Doddridge translates and paraphrases the clause thus: “From him that taketh away thy possessions, in an injurious manner, do not immediately demand them back in the forms of law, but rather endeavour, by gentle methods, to reduce the offender to reason.” The Greek expression, tou airontov ta sa, here rendered, taketh away thy goods, properly signifies, taketh them away violently, or by fraud. But, as Dr. Macknight observes, “Whatever sense we put on our Lord’s precept, it must be understood with the limitations which common sense directs us to make; namely, that we give and lend freely to all who ask, or permit them to retain what they have unjustly taken, provided only that it be a thing of small account, which we can easily spare, and the persons who ask or take such things be in real necessity.” And as ye would that men should do unto you, &c. — See note on Matthew 7:12.
Daniel Whedon
30. Give to every man that asketh of thee—Whether Jew, Samaritan, or Gentile. Let thy charity be bounded by no personal motives, and limited by nothing but the golden rule which immediately follows this precept. Ask them not again—See note on Matthew 5:38.
Some commentators understand the phrase taketh away, in the Greek, to mean the expense of our charitable bestowments. In the paragraph 32-34 our Lord beautifully expands on the duties of the Christian to be better than anybody else. A Christian, says Cecil, if he be a shoemaker, should be the best shoemaker in the town. The assurance is given, in verse 35, that of all these efforts to do eminent goodness, our reward shall be great.
Richard Watson
Verses 29-38. See the notes on the sermon on the mount in Matthew. There are, however, a few variations in expression, which may here be noticed.
And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
Joseph Benson
Verses 29, 31. To him, &c. — You who hear my gospel ought to be patient under injuries, as well as benevolent toward the unthankful. To him that smiteth thee on thy cheek — that taketh away thy cloak — These seem to be proverbial expressions, to signify an invasion of the tenderest points of honour and property. Offer the other, &c. Forbid not thy coat — That is, rather yield to his repeating the affront, or injury, than gratify resentment in righting yourself, in any method not becoming Christian love. Give to every man — Friend or enemy, what thou canst spare, and he really wants; and of him that taketh away thy goods — By borrowing; ask them not again — If he be insolvent: or, do not exact them if it will distress the person concerned to repay thee: rather lose them, if consistent with other duties, than demand them by a legal process. Dr. Doddridge translates and paraphrases the clause thus: “From him that taketh away thy possessions, in an injurious manner, do not immediately demand them back in the forms of law, but rather endeavour, by gentle methods, to reduce the offender to reason.” The Greek expression, tou airontov ta sa, here rendered, taketh away thy goods, properly signifies, taketh them away violently, or by fraud. But, as Dr. Macknight observes, “Whatever sense we put on our Lord’s precept, it must be understood with the limitations which common sense directs us to make; namely, that we give and lend freely to all who ask, or permit them to retain what they have unjustly taken, provided only that it be a thing of small account, which we can easily spare, and the persons who ask or take such things be in real necessity.” And as ye would that men should do unto you, &c. — See note on Matthew 7:12.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 31. As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them. This is called the golden rule of equity. It is a primitive law, being found among profane writers, as well as in the Hebrew scriptures. It is a law always at hand, the living umpire in every man’s breast. The most illiterate can read it, unless he be blinded by passion, or biassed by interest.
Daniel Whedon
27-38. Christian laws of conciliation and benevolence. Matthew 5:38-48.
Richard Watson
Verses 29-38. See the notes on the sermon on the mount in Matthew. There are, however, a few variations in expression, which may here be noticed.
For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
John Wesley
V. 32. It is greatly observable, our Lord has so little regard for one of the highest instances of natural virtue, namely, the returning love for love, that he does not account it even to deserve thanks.
For even sinners, saith he, do the same: men who do not regard God at all. Therefore he may do this, who has not taken one step in Christianity.
Adam Clarke
Verse 32. For sinners also love those that love them.] I believe the word amartwloi is used by St. Luke in the same sense in which telwnai, tax-gatherers, is used by St. Matthew, Matthew 5:46, 47, and signifies heathens; not only men who have no religion, but men who acknowledge none. The religion of Christ not only corrects the errors and reforms the disorders of the fallen nature of man, but raises it even above itself: it brings it near to God; and, by universal love, leads it to frame its conduct according to that of the Sovereign Being. “A man should tremble who finds nothing in his life besides the external part of religion, but what may be found in the life of a Turk or a heathen.” The Gospel of the grace of God purifies and renews the heart, causing it to resemble that Christ through whom the grace came. See Clarke’s note on “Luke 7:37”.
Joseph Benson
Verses 32-36. If ye love them which love you, what thank have ye — What great thanks are due to you on that account? For there are some sentiments of gratitude common even to the worst of men, which incline the most scandalous sinners to love those that love them, and to profess an affectionate regard for those by whom they have been treated with respect and kindness. Here, says Theophylact, “If you only love them that love you, you are only like the sinners and heathen; but if you love those who do evil to you, you are like to God; which therefore will you choose? to be like sinners or like God?” Here we see that our Lord has so little regard for one of the highest instances of natural virtue, namely, the returning love for love, that he does not account it even to deserve thanks. For even sinners, saith he, do the same — Men who do not regard God at all. Therefore he may do this who has not taken one step in Christianity. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive — And that, perhaps, with considerable advantage to yourselves; what thank have ye? — What favour do you show in that? or, what extraordinary thanks are due to you on that account? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive, ta isa, equal favours, in return. But love ye your enemies — Ye who profess to be my disciples. See on Matthew 5:43-45. Do good and lend, hoping for nothing again — Do good to those from whom you have no expectation of receiving any favour in return; and lend, in cases of great distress, even when you have little reason to expect what is lent to be repaid. Because the Greek expression, mhden apelpizontev, has, in no Greek author, the sense here, and in most translations, given to it, namely, hoping for nothing again; many commentators have declared in favour of the signification affixed to it by the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions; neminem desperare facientes, causing no man to despair: the copies from which these translations were made reading mhden’, with an apostrophe, for mhdena. But, as Dr. Whitby observes, “this is putting a double force upon the words; 1st, reading, without the authority of any MS., mhdena, no man, for mhden, nothing; and, 2d, interpreting apelpizein, to cause to despair; of which sense they give no instance.” The context seems evidently to justify our translation of the clause; for the preceding words are, If ye lend to them, par’ wn elpizete apolabein, from whom ye hope to receive again, namely, what you lend, or a similar favour, what thank have ye, for sinners also lend to sinners to receive as much again. It then naturally follows, But do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again — That is, lend not you on so mean an account, but even when you do not hope to have that returned which you lend, or to receive at some future time a like favour from the person you lend to. And whereas we are told that the word apelpizw bears no such sense, “I hope,” says the doctor, “the credit of Stephanus, who says the word is rightly rendered by the Vulgate, nihil inde sperantes, hoping for nothing thence; and of Casaubon, who says apelpizein is to hope for something from a person or matter; may be sufficient to support the credit of our translation; especially when we read, in the Life of Solon, that he made no law against parricides, dia to apelpisai, because he did not expect that such a crime would be committed; and find this like composition of the word apecein, when it signifies apo tinov ecein, to receive from any one; and in the word apesqiein, which is used for apo tinov esqiein, to eat of any thing.” It must be acknowledged, however, that the more common and classical meaning of the term is, despero, to despair; and accordingly Dr. Campbell, with many others, renders the clause, not at all, or nowise despairing: observing, among several other arguments in support of this translation, “That what commonly proves the greatest hinderance to our lending, particularly to needy persons, is the dread that we shall never be repaid. It is, I imagine, to prevent the influence of such an over-cautious mistrust, that our Lord here warns us not to shut our hearts against the request of a brother in difficulties. Lend cheerfully, as though he had said, without fearing the loss of what shall be thus bestowed. It often happens that, even contrary to appearances, the loan is thankfully returned by the borrower; but if it should not, remember (and let this silence all your doubts) that God charges himself with what you give from love to him, and love to your neighbour: he is the poor man’s surety.” It may not be improper to add, that several Latin MSS., agreeably to this interpretation, read nihil desperantes, “nothing despairing.” Our Lord enforces the exhortation by adding, and your reward shall be great, probably even in this world, in the temporal prosperity with which God, in the course of his providence, will bless you: for to him that hath, uses aright what he hath, shall be given, and he shall have more abundance, Matthew 13:12. But if you are not recompensed in this world you certainly shall be in the world to come: for God is not unfaithful to forget our work and labour of love, which we show to his name. And ye shall be the children of the Highest — His genuine children, resembling him, bearing the image of his goodness; for he is kind unto the unthankful and the evil — Causing the undeserved benefits of the sun and rain to descend upon them, and conferring on them of his free unmerited bounty other innumerable benefits daily. Be ye therefore merciful — Compassionate, kind, beneficent, to the unworthy; as your Father also is merciful — Continually setting you an example of gratuitous goodness; as all his works, whether of creation, providence, or grace, amply declare. See notes on Matthew 5:44-48.
Daniel Whedon
27-38. Christian laws of conciliation and benevolence. Matthew 5:38-48.
Richard Watson
Verse 32. What thank have ye? — Cariv here includes the misqov, reward, as mentioned in the parallel places of Matthew. — What praiseworthy act do you perform, and what reward shall you receive?
And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
Joseph Benson
Verses 32-36. If ye love them which love you, what thank have ye — What great thanks are due to you on that account? For there are some sentiments of gratitude common even to the worst of men, which incline the most scandalous sinners to love those that love them, and to profess an affectionate regard for those by whom they have been treated with respect and kindness. Here, says Theophylact, “If you only love them that love you, you are only like the sinners and heathen; but if you love those who do evil to you, you are like to God; which therefore will you choose? to be like sinners or like God?” Here we see that our Lord has so little regard for one of the highest instances of natural virtue, namely, the returning love for love, that he does not account it even to deserve thanks. For even sinners, saith he, do the same — Men who do not regard God at all. Therefore he may do this who has not taken one step in Christianity. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive — And that, perhaps, with considerable advantage to yourselves; what thank have ye? — What favour do you show in that? or, what extraordinary thanks are due to you on that account? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive, ta isa, equal favours, in return. But love ye your enemies — Ye who profess to be my disciples. See on Matthew 5:43-45. Do good and lend, hoping for nothing again — Do good to those from whom you have no expectation of receiving any favour in return; and lend, in cases of great distress, even when you have little reason to expect what is lent to be repaid. Because the Greek expression, mhden apelpizontev, has, in no Greek author, the sense here, and in most translations, given to it, namely, hoping for nothing again; many commentators have declared in favour of the signification affixed to it by the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions; neminem desperare facientes, causing no man to despair: the copies from which these translations were made reading mhden’, with an apostrophe, for mhdena. But, as Dr. Whitby observes, “this is putting a double force upon the words; 1st, reading, without the authority of any MS., mhdena, no man, for mhden, nothing; and, 2d, interpreting apelpizein, to cause to despair; of which sense they give no instance.” The context seems evidently to justify our translation of the clause; for the preceding words are, If ye lend to them, par’ wn elpizete apolabein, from whom ye hope to receive again, namely, what you lend, or a similar favour, what thank have ye, for sinners also lend to sinners to receive as much again. It then naturally follows, But do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again — That is, lend not you on so mean an account, but even when you do not hope to have that returned which you lend, or to receive at some future time a like favour from the person you lend to. And whereas we are told that the word apelpizw bears no such sense, “I hope,” says the doctor, “the credit of Stephanus, who says the word is rightly rendered by the Vulgate, nihil inde sperantes, hoping for nothing thence; and of Casaubon, who says apelpizein is to hope for something from a person or matter; may be sufficient to support the credit of our translation; especially when we read, in the Life of Solon, that he made no law against parricides, dia to apelpisai, because he did not expect that such a crime would be committed; and find this like composition of the word apecein, when it signifies apo tinov ecein, to receive from any one; and in the word apesqiein, which is used for apo tinov esqiein, to eat of any thing.” It must be acknowledged, however, that the more common and classical meaning of the term is, despero, to despair; and accordingly Dr. Campbell, with many others, renders the clause, not at all, or nowise despairing: observing, among several other arguments in support of this translation, “That what commonly proves the greatest hinderance to our lending, particularly to needy persons, is the dread that we shall never be repaid. It is, I imagine, to prevent the influence of such an over-cautious mistrust, that our Lord here warns us not to shut our hearts against the request of a brother in difficulties. Lend cheerfully, as though he had said, without fearing the loss of what shall be thus bestowed. It often happens that, even contrary to appearances, the loan is thankfully returned by the borrower; but if it should not, remember (and let this silence all your doubts) that God charges himself with what you give from love to him, and love to your neighbour: he is the poor man’s surety.” It may not be improper to add, that several Latin MSS., agreeably to this interpretation, read nihil desperantes, “nothing despairing.” Our Lord enforces the exhortation by adding, and your reward shall be great, probably even in this world, in the temporal prosperity with which God, in the course of his providence, will bless you: for to him that hath, uses aright what he hath, shall be given, and he shall have more abundance, Matthew 13:12. But if you are not recompensed in this world you certainly shall be in the world to come: for God is not unfaithful to forget our work and labour of love, which we show to his name. And ye shall be the children of the Highest — His genuine children, resembling him, bearing the image of his goodness; for he is kind unto the unthankful and the evil — Causing the undeserved benefits of the sun and rain to descend upon them, and conferring on them of his free unmerited bounty other innumerable benefits daily. Be ye therefore merciful — Compassionate, kind, beneficent, to the unworthy; as your Father also is merciful — Continually setting you an example of gratuitous goodness; as all his works, whether of creation, providence, or grace, amply declare. See notes on Matthew 5:44-48.
Daniel Whedon
27-38. Christian laws of conciliation and benevolence. Matthew 5:38-48.
Richard Watson
Verses 29-38. See the notes on the sermon on the mount in Matthew. There are, however, a few variations in expression, which may here be noticed.
And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
Adam Clarke
Verse 34. Of whom ye hope to receive] Or, whom ye expect to return it. “To make our neighbour purchase, in any way, the assistance which we give him, is to profit by his misery; and, by laying him under obligations which we expect him in some way or other to discharge, we increase his wretchedness under the pretence of relieving it.”
Joseph Benson
Verses 32-36. If ye love them which love you, what thank have ye — What great thanks are due to you on that account? For there are some sentiments of gratitude common even to the worst of men, which incline the most scandalous sinners to love those that love them, and to profess an affectionate regard for those by whom they have been treated with respect and kindness. Here, says Theophylact, “If you only love them that love you, you are only like the sinners and heathen; but if you love those who do evil to you, you are like to God; which therefore will you choose? to be like sinners or like God?” Here we see that our Lord has so little regard for one of the highest instances of natural virtue, namely, the returning love for love, that he does not account it even to deserve thanks. For even sinners, saith he, do the same — Men who do not regard God at all. Therefore he may do this who has not taken one step in Christianity. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive — And that, perhaps, with considerable advantage to yourselves; what thank have ye? — What favour do you show in that? or, what extraordinary thanks are due to you on that account? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive, ta isa, equal favours, in return. But love ye your enemies — Ye who profess to be my disciples. See on Matthew 5:43-45. Do good and lend, hoping for nothing again — Do good to those from whom you have no expectation of receiving any favour in return; and lend, in cases of great distress, even when you have little reason to expect what is lent to be repaid. Because the Greek expression, mhden apelpizontev, has, in no Greek author, the sense here, and in most translations, given to it, namely, hoping for nothing again; many commentators have declared in favour of the signification affixed to it by the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions; neminem desperare facientes, causing no man to despair: the copies from which these translations were made reading mhden’, with an apostrophe, for mhdena. But, as Dr. Whitby observes, “this is putting a double force upon the words; 1st, reading, without the authority of any MS., mhdena, no man, for mhden, nothing; and, 2d, interpreting apelpizein, to cause to despair; of which sense they give no instance.” The context seems evidently to justify our translation of the clause; for the preceding words are, If ye lend to them, par’ wn elpizete apolabein, from whom ye hope to receive again, namely, what you lend, or a similar favour, what thank have ye, for sinners also lend to sinners to receive as much again. It then naturally follows, But do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again — That is, lend not you on so mean an account, but even when you do not hope to have that returned which you lend, or to receive at some future time a like favour from the person you lend to. And whereas we are told that the word apelpizw bears no such sense, “I hope,” says the doctor, “the credit of Stephanus, who says the word is rightly rendered by the Vulgate, nihil inde sperantes, hoping for nothing thence; and of Casaubon, who says apelpizein is to hope for something from a person or matter; may be sufficient to support the credit of our translation; especially when we read, in the Life of Solon, that he made no law against parricides, dia to apelpisai, because he did not expect that such a crime would be committed; and find this like composition of the word apecein, when it signifies apo tinov ecein, to receive from any one; and in the word apesqiein, which is used for apo tinov esqiein, to eat of any thing.” It must be acknowledged, however, that the more common and classical meaning of the term is, despero, to despair; and accordingly Dr. Campbell, with many others, renders the clause, not at all, or nowise despairing: observing, among several other arguments in support of this translation, “That what commonly proves the greatest hinderance to our lending, particularly to needy persons, is the dread that we shall never be repaid. It is, I imagine, to prevent the influence of such an over-cautious mistrust, that our Lord here warns us not to shut our hearts against the request of a brother in difficulties. Lend cheerfully, as though he had said, without fearing the loss of what shall be thus bestowed. It often happens that, even contrary to appearances, the loan is thankfully returned by the borrower; but if it should not, remember (and let this silence all your doubts) that God charges himself with what you give from love to him, and love to your neighbour: he is the poor man’s surety.” It may not be improper to add, that several Latin MSS., agreeably to this interpretation, read nihil desperantes, “nothing despairing.” Our Lord enforces the exhortation by adding, and your reward shall be great, probably even in this world, in the temporal prosperity with which God, in the course of his providence, will bless you: for to him that hath, uses aright what he hath, shall be given, and he shall have more abundance, Matthew 13:12. But if you are not recompensed in this world you certainly shall be in the world to come: for God is not unfaithful to forget our work and labour of love, which we show to his name. And ye shall be the children of the Highest — His genuine children, resembling him, bearing the image of his goodness; for he is kind unto the unthankful and the evil — Causing the undeserved benefits of the sun and rain to descend upon them, and conferring on them of his free unmerited bounty other innumerable benefits daily. Be ye therefore merciful — Compassionate, kind, beneficent, to the unworthy; as your Father also is merciful — Continually setting you an example of gratuitous goodness; as all his works, whether of creation, providence, or grace, amply declare. See notes on Matthew 5:44-48.
Daniel Whedon
27-38. Christian laws of conciliation and benevolence. Matthew 5:38-48.
Richard Watson
Verse 34. If ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive. — Either the interest of money lent, and then this is a traffic in money, and no favour; or under stipulation of some equivalent return in any other way. In either case the beneficent character of the act is destroyed. It ceases to be a religious act: it implies no true charity to men; no faith in God’s providence; no implicit subjection to his commands. It is therefore enjoined to lend, hoping for nothing again; not including the sum lent, for that would destroy the difference between lending and giving; but without hope of earthly advantage, that so it might be a generous and self-denying act.
But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
Adam Clarke
Verse 35. Love ye your enemies] This is the most sublime precept ever delivered to man: a false religion durst not give a precept of this nature, because, without supernatural influence, it must be for ever impracticable. In these words of our blessed Lord we see the tenderness, sincerity, extent, disinterestedness, pattern, and issue of the love of God dwelling in man: a religion which has for its foundation the union of God and man in the same person, and the death of this august being for his enemies; which consists on earth in a reconciliation of the Creator with his creatures, and which is to subsist in heaven only in the union of the members with the head: could such a religion as this ever tolerate hatred in the soul of man, even to his most inveterate foe?
Lend, hoping for nothing again] mhden apelpizontev. The rabbins say, he who lends without usury, God shall consider him as having observed every precept. Bishop Pearce thinks that, instead of mhden we should read mhdena with the Syriac, later Arabic, and later Persic; and as apelpizein signifies to despair, or cause to despair, the meaning is, not cutting off the hope (of longer life) of any man, neminis spem amputantes, by denying him those things which he requests now to preserve him from perishing.
Joseph Benson
Verses 32-36. If ye love them which love you, what thank have ye — What great thanks are due to you on that account? For there are some sentiments of gratitude common even to the worst of men, which incline the most scandalous sinners to love those that love them, and to profess an affectionate regard for those by whom they have been treated with respect and kindness. Here, says Theophylact, “If you only love them that love you, you are only like the sinners and heathen; but if you love those who do evil to you, you are like to God; which therefore will you choose? to be like sinners or like God?” Here we see that our Lord has so little regard for one of the highest instances of natural virtue, namely, the returning love for love, that he does not account it even to deserve thanks. For even sinners, saith he, do the same — Men who do not regard God at all. Therefore he may do this who has not taken one step in Christianity. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive — And that, perhaps, with considerable advantage to yourselves; what thank have ye? — What favour do you show in that? or, what extraordinary thanks are due to you on that account? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive, ta isa, equal favours, in return. But love ye your enemies — Ye who profess to be my disciples. See on Matthew 5:43-45. Do good and lend, hoping for nothing again — Do good to those from whom you have no expectation of receiving any favour in return; and lend, in cases of great distress, even when you have little reason to expect what is lent to be repaid. Because the Greek expression, mhden apelpizontev, has, in no Greek author, the sense here, and in most translations, given to it, namely, hoping for nothing again; many commentators have declared in favour of the signification affixed to it by the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions; neminem desperare facientes, causing no man to despair: the copies from which these translations were made reading mhden’, with an apostrophe, for mhdena. But, as Dr. Whitby observes, “this is putting a double force upon the words; 1st, reading, without the authority of any MS., mhdena, no man, for mhden, nothing; and, 2d, interpreting apelpizein, to cause to despair; of which sense they give no instance.” The context seems evidently to justify our translation of the clause; for the preceding words are, If ye lend to them, par’ wn elpizete apolabein, from whom ye hope to receive again, namely, what you lend, or a similar favour, what thank have ye, for sinners also lend to sinners to receive as much again. It then naturally follows, But do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again — That is, lend not you on so mean an account, but even when you do not hope to have that returned which you lend, or to receive at some future time a like favour from the person you lend to. And whereas we are told that the word apelpizw bears no such sense, “I hope,” says the doctor, “the credit of Stephanus, who says the word is rightly rendered by the Vulgate, nihil inde sperantes, hoping for nothing thence; and of Casaubon, who says apelpizein is to hope for something from a person or matter; may be sufficient to support the credit of our translation; especially when we read, in the Life of Solon, that he made no law against parricides, dia to apelpisai, because he did not expect that such a crime would be committed; and find this like composition of the word apecein, when it signifies apo tinov ecein, to receive from any one; and in the word apesqiein, which is used for apo tinov esqiein, to eat of any thing.” It must be acknowledged, however, that the more common and classical meaning of the term is, despero, to despair; and accordingly Dr. Campbell, with many others, renders the clause, not at all, or nowise despairing: observing, among several other arguments in support of this translation, “That what commonly proves the greatest hinderance to our lending, particularly to needy persons, is the dread that we shall never be repaid. It is, I imagine, to prevent the influence of such an over-cautious mistrust, that our Lord here warns us not to shut our hearts against the request of a brother in difficulties. Lend cheerfully, as though he had said, without fearing the loss of what shall be thus bestowed. It often happens that, even contrary to appearances, the loan is thankfully returned by the borrower; but if it should not, remember (and let this silence all your doubts) that God charges himself with what you give from love to him, and love to your neighbour: he is the poor man’s surety.” It may not be improper to add, that several Latin MSS., agreeably to this interpretation, read nihil desperantes, “nothing despairing.” Our Lord enforces the exhortation by adding, and your reward shall be great, probably even in this world, in the temporal prosperity with which God, in the course of his providence, will bless you: for to him that hath, uses aright what he hath, shall be given, and he shall have more abundance, Matthew 13:12. But if you are not recompensed in this world you certainly shall be in the world to come: for God is not unfaithful to forget our work and labour of love, which we show to his name. And ye shall be the children of the Highest — His genuine children, resembling him, bearing the image of his goodness; for he is kind unto the unthankful and the evil — Causing the undeserved benefits of the sun and rain to descend upon them, and conferring on them of his free unmerited bounty other innumerable benefits daily. Be ye therefore merciful — Compassionate, kind, beneficent, to the unworthy; as your Father also is merciful — Continually setting you an example of gratuitous goodness; as all his works, whether of creation, providence, or grace, amply declare. See notes on Matthew 5:44-48.
Daniel Whedon
27-38. Christian laws of conciliation and benevolence. Matthew 5:38-48.
Richard Watson
Verses 29-38. See the notes on the sermon on the mount in Matthew. There are, however, a few variations in expression, which may here be noticed.
Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
Adam Clarke
Verse 36. Be ye therefore merciful] Or, compassionate; oiktirminev, from oiktov, commiseration, which etymologists derive from eikw to give place, yield, because we readily concede those things which are necessary to them whom we commiserate. As God is ever disposed to give all necessary help and support to those who are miserable, so his followers, being influenced by the same spirit, are easy to be entreated, and are at all times ready to contribute to the uttermost of their power to relieve or remove the miseries of the distressed. A merciful or compassionate man easily forgets injuries; pardons them without being solicited; and does not permit repeated returns of ingratitude to deter him from doing good, even to the unthankful and the unholy. See Clarke on “Matthew 5:7”.
Joseph Benson
Verses 32-36. If ye love them which love you, what thank have ye — What great thanks are due to you on that account? For there are some sentiments of gratitude common even to the worst of men, which incline the most scandalous sinners to love those that love them, and to profess an affectionate regard for those by whom they have been treated with respect and kindness. Here, says Theophylact, “If you only love them that love you, you are only like the sinners and heathen; but if you love those who do evil to you, you are like to God; which therefore will you choose? to be like sinners or like God?” Here we see that our Lord has so little regard for one of the highest instances of natural virtue, namely, the returning love for love, that he does not account it even to deserve thanks. For even sinners, saith he, do the same — Men who do not regard God at all. Therefore he may do this who has not taken one step in Christianity. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive — And that, perhaps, with considerable advantage to yourselves; what thank have ye? — What favour do you show in that? or, what extraordinary thanks are due to you on that account? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive, ta isa, equal favours, in return. But love ye your enemies — Ye who profess to be my disciples. See on Matthew 5:43-45. Do good and lend, hoping for nothing again — Do good to those from whom you have no expectation of receiving any favour in return; and lend, in cases of great distress, even when you have little reason to expect what is lent to be repaid. Because the Greek expression, mhden apelpizontev, has, in no Greek author, the sense here, and in most translations, given to it, namely, hoping for nothing again; many commentators have declared in favour of the signification affixed to it by the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions; neminem desperare facientes, causing no man to despair: the copies from which these translations were made reading mhden’, with an apostrophe, for mhdena. But, as Dr. Whitby observes, “this is putting a double force upon the words; 1st, reading, without the authority of any MS., mhdena, no man, for mhden, nothing; and, 2d, interpreting apelpizein, to cause to despair; of which sense they give no instance.” The context seems evidently to justify our translation of the clause; for the preceding words are, If ye lend to them, par’ wn elpizete apolabein, from whom ye hope to receive again, namely, what you lend, or a similar favour, what thank have ye, for sinners also lend to sinners to receive as much again. It then naturally follows, But do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again — That is, lend not you on so mean an account, but even when you do not hope to have that returned which you lend, or to receive at some future time a like favour from the person you lend to. And whereas we are told that the word apelpizw bears no such sense, “I hope,” says the doctor, “the credit of Stephanus, who says the word is rightly rendered by the Vulgate, nihil inde sperantes, hoping for nothing thence; and of Casaubon, who says apelpizein is to hope for something from a person or matter; may be sufficient to support the credit of our translation; especially when we read, in the Life of Solon, that he made no law against parricides, dia to apelpisai, because he did not expect that such a crime would be committed; and find this like composition of the word apecein, when it signifies apo tinov ecein, to receive from any one; and in the word apesqiein, which is used for apo tinov esqiein, to eat of any thing.” It must be acknowledged, however, that the more common and classical meaning of the term is, despero, to despair; and accordingly Dr. Campbell, with many others, renders the clause, not at all, or nowise despairing: observing, among several other arguments in support of this translation, “That what commonly proves the greatest hinderance to our lending, particularly to needy persons, is the dread that we shall never be repaid. It is, I imagine, to prevent the influence of such an over-cautious mistrust, that our Lord here warns us not to shut our hearts against the request of a brother in difficulties. Lend cheerfully, as though he had said, without fearing the loss of what shall be thus bestowed. It often happens that, even contrary to appearances, the loan is thankfully returned by the borrower; but if it should not, remember (and let this silence all your doubts) that God charges himself with what you give from love to him, and love to your neighbour: he is the poor man’s surety.” It may not be improper to add, that several Latin MSS., agreeably to this interpretation, read nihil desperantes, “nothing despairing.” Our Lord enforces the exhortation by adding, and your reward shall be great, probably even in this world, in the temporal prosperity with which God, in the course of his providence, will bless you: for to him that hath, uses aright what he hath, shall be given, and he shall have more abundance, Matthew 13:12. But if you are not recompensed in this world you certainly shall be in the world to come: for God is not unfaithful to forget our work and labour of love, which we show to his name. And ye shall be the children of the Highest — His genuine children, resembling him, bearing the image of his goodness; for he is kind unto the unthankful and the evil — Causing the undeserved benefits of the sun and rain to descend upon them, and conferring on them of his free unmerited bounty other innumerable benefits daily. Be ye therefore merciful — Compassionate, kind, beneficent, to the unworthy; as your Father also is merciful — Continually setting you an example of gratuitous goodness; as all his works, whether of creation, providence, or grace, amply declare. See notes on Matthew 5:44-48.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 36. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. When injured by others we should consider the fallen state of man, and what we ourselves are, as well by practice as by nature. We should consider the provocations and strong temptations to which men are exposed, all of which should prompt mankind to show all the mercy which the safety of the state, or circumstances, will allow. In doing so, we have the promise that we shall obtain mercy.
Daniel Whedon
27-38. Christian laws of conciliation and benevolence. Matthew 5:38-48.
Richard Watson
Verse 36. Be ye therefore merciful. — In the parallel place in Matthew it is “perfect.” And by both we are taught that our perfection consists in love. The mercifulness here spoken of is not only pity to the miserable, but benignity to all; and, as it is used by the Hebrews, implied the exercise of every kind of beneficence. The root of this is unfeigned charity; and the true love of our neighbour, according to the intention of the law, can only spring from the true love of God, that is, loving him supremely and habitually with all the powers of the soul. This is our perfection in its ROOT and FRUIT.
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Adam Clarke
Verse 37. Judge not] See Clarke on “Matthew 7:1”. “How great is the goodness of God, in being so willing to put our judgment into our own hands as to engage himself not to enter into judgment with us, provided we do not usurp the right which belongs solely to him in reference to others!” Condemn not] “Mercy will ever incline us not to condemn those unmercifully whose faults are certain and visible; to lessen, conceal, and excuse them as much as we can without prejudice to truth and justice; and to be far from aggravating, divulging, or even desiring them to be punished.”
Forgive] The mercy and compassion which God recommends extend to the forgiving of all the injuries we have received, or can receive. To imitate in this the mercy of God is not a mere counsel; since it is proposed as a necessary mean, in order to receive mercy. What man has to forgive in man is almost nothing: man’s debt to God is infinite. And who acts in this matter as if he wished to receive mercy at the hand of God! The spirit of revenge is equally destitute of faith and reason.
Joseph Benson
Verses 37, 38. Judge not, &c. — See notes on Matthew 7:1, 2; 6:14,
15. Give — Liberally to those that need your assistance; and it shall be given unto you — For your kindness and liberality will naturally gain you love and respect; and God also, by his supernatural grace, will influence men’s hearts in your favour. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over — “Our Lord makes use of these three phrases to express all the different kinds of good measure, according to the different nature of the things measured. Some of them, to make the measure good, must be pressed down and trodden; some of them must be shaken, as the several kinds of grain; and some of them must be running over, such as all sorts of liquors. The figure of giving this good measure into one’s bosom, is an allusion to the eastern habits, which were long pieces of cloth wrapped round their bodies, and girded up with a girdle. Their garments being of this kind, they could receive into their lap or bosom a considerable quantity of such dry goods as they sold by measure.” — Macknight. For with the same measure that ye mete it shall be measured, &c. — Amazing goodness! So we are permitted even to carve for ourselves! We ourselves are, as it were, to tell God, how much mercy he shall show us! And can we be content with less than the very largest measure? Give, then, to man, what thou designest to receive of God.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 37. Judge not that a man’s secret intentions are evil, unless from other parts of his conduct there be a fair ground of inference. An uncharitable judgment is proof that we ourselves have an evil heart. And where proof of evil does appear, condemn not. The offender may have bitterly repented; he may have made some reparation of his fault unknown to us. And when such favourable reforms take place, forgive, and ye shall be forgiven. Blessed is the man whose sins and iniquities are remembered no more.
Daniel Whedon
27-38. Christian laws of conciliation and benevolence. Matthew 5:38-48.
Richard Watson
Verses 29-38. See the notes on the sermon on the mount in Matthew. There are, however, a few variations in expression, which may here be noticed.
Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.
John Wesley
V. 38. Into your bosom-Alluding to the mantles the Jews wore, into which a large quantity of corn might be received.
With the same measure that ye mete with, it shall be measured to you again-Amazing goodness! So we are permitted even to carve for ourselves! We ourselves are, as it were, to tell God how much mercy he shall show us! And can we be content with less than the very largest measure? Give then to man, what thou designest to receive of God.
Adam Clarke
Verse 38. Give, and it shall be given] “Christian charity will make no difficulty in giving that which eternal truth promises to restore. Let us give, neither out of mere human generosity, nor out of vanity, nor from interest, but for the sake of God, if we would have him place it to account. There is no such thing as true unmixed generosity but in God only; because there is none but him who receives no advantage from his gifts, and because he engages himself to pay these debts of his creatures with an excessive interest. So great is the goodness of God, that, when he might have absolutely commanded us to give to our neighbour, he vouchsafes to invite us to this duty by the prospect of a reward, and to impute that to us as a desert which he has a right to exact of us by the title of his sovereignty over our persons and estates.”
Men live in such a state of social union as renders mutual help necessary; and, as self-interest, pride, and other corrupt passions mingle themselves ordinarily in their commerce, they cannot fail of offending one another. In civil society men must, in order to taste a little tranquillity, resolve to bear something from their neighbours; they must suffer, pardon, and give up many things; without doing which they must live in such a state of continual agitation as will render life itself insupportable. Without this giving and forgiving spirit there will be nothing in civil society, and even in Christian congregations, but divisions, evil surmisings, injurious discourses, outrages, anger, vengeance, and, in a word, a total dissolution of the mystical body of Christ. Thus our interest in both worlds calls loudly upon us to GIVE and to FORGIVE.
Bosom.] kolpon, or lap. Almost all ancient nations wore long, wide, and loose garments; and when about to carry any thing which their hands could not contain, they used a fold of their robe in nearly the same way as women here use their aprons. The phrase is continually occurring in the best and purest Greek writers. The following example from Herodotus, b. vi., may suffice to show the propriety of the interpretation given above, and to expose the ridiculous nature of covetousness. “When Croesus had promised to Alcmæon as much gold as he could carry about his body at once, in order to improve the king’s liberality to the best advantage, he put on a very wide tunic, (kiqwna megan,) leaving a great space in the BOSOM, kolpon baqun, and drew on the largest buskins he could find. Being conducted to the treasury, he sat down on a great heap of gold, and first filled the buskins about his legs with as much gold as they could contain, and, having filled his whole BOSOM, kolpon, loaded his hair with ingots, and put several pieces in his mouth, he walked out of the treasury, &c.” What a ridiculous figure must this poor sinner have cut, thus heavy laden with gold, and the love of money! See many other examples in Kypke and Raphelius. See also <19C907>Psalm 129:7; Proverbs 6:27; 17:23. The same measure that ye mete withal, it shall be measured to you again.] The same words we find in the Jerusalem Targum on Genesis 38:26. Our Lord therefore lays down a maxim which themselves allowed.
Joseph Benson
Verses 37, 38. Judge not, &c. — See notes on Matthew 7:1, 2; 6:14,
15. Give — Liberally to those that need your assistance; and it shall be given unto you — For your kindness and liberality will naturally gain you love and respect; and God also, by his supernatural grace, will influence men’s hearts in your favour. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over — “Our Lord makes use of these three phrases to express all the different kinds of good measure, according to the different nature of the things measured. Some of them, to make the measure good, must be pressed down and trodden; some of them must be shaken, as the several kinds of grain; and some of them must be running over, such as all sorts of liquors. The figure of giving this good measure into one’s bosom, is an allusion to the eastern habits, which were long pieces of cloth wrapped round their bodies, and girded up with a girdle. Their garments being of this kind, they could receive into their lap or bosom a considerable quantity of such dry goods as they sold by measure.” — Macknight. For with the same measure that ye mete it shall be measured, &c. — Amazing goodness! So we are permitted even to carve for ourselves! We ourselves are, as it were, to tell God, how much mercy he shall show us! And can we be content with less than the very largest measure? Give, then, to man, what thou designest to receive of God.
Daniel Whedon
27-38. Christian laws of conciliation and benevolence. Matthew 5:38-48.
Richard Watson
Verse 38. Good measure, &c. — Sometimes good or equal measure with that ye have meted; but often more, even pressed down or shaken together, according to the nature of the substances, the measure being made to hold more of one thing by pressing down, of another by shaking together: and running over; so that all the terms intimate a liberal return whether of good for good, or of evil for evil. The phrase, into your bosom, eiv ton kolpon, refers to the use made of the folds of their long robes to carry dry articles, as corn or fruits.
And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?
John Wesley
V. 39. He spake a parable-Our Lord sometimes used parables when he knew plain and open declarations would too much inflame the passions of his hearers. It is for this reason he uses this parable,
Can the blind lead the blind?-Can the scribes teach this way, which they know not themselves? Will not they and their scholars perish together? Can they make their disciples any better than themselves? But as for those who will be my disciples, they shall be all taught of God; who will enable them to come to the measure of the stature of the fulness of their Master. Be not ye like their disciples, censuring others, and not amending yourselves. Matthew 15:14.
Adam Clarke
Verse 39. Can the blind lead the blind?] This appears to have been a general proverb, and to signify that a man cannot teach what he does not understand. This is strictly true in spiritual matters. A man who is not illuminated from above is utterly incapable of judging concerning spiritual things, and wholly unfit to be a guide to others. Is it possible that a person who is enveloped with the thickest darkness should dare either to judge of the state of others, or attempt to lead them in that path of which he is totally ignorant! If he do, must not his judgment be rashness, and his teaching folly?-and does he not endanger his own soul, and run the risk of falling into the ditch of perdition himself, together with the unhappy objects of his religious instruction?
Joseph Benson
Verses 39, 40. And he spake a parable, &c. — Our Lord sometimes used parables, when he know plain and open declarations would too much inflame the passions of his hearers. It is for this reason that he uses this parable. Can the blind lead the blind — Can the scribes teach this way, which they know not themselves? Will not they and their scholars perish together? The disciple is not above his master — Can they make their disciples any better than themselves? If the master be ignorant, foolish, and wicked, will not the scholar, or disciple, be so likewise? But every one that is perfect — Or, perfected, as kathrtismenov means: that is, perfectly instructed by Christ’s doctrine, and perfectly renewed by his grace: whose mind is fully enlightened, and his heart entirely changed: made wise unto salvation by God’s word, and endued with all the graces of his Spirit; shall be as his Master — Shall come to the measure of the stature of his Master’s fulness, shall be conformed to the image of God’s Son, and as he was, shall be in this world, 1 John 4:17.
Daniel Whedon
39. Parable—Matthew 15:14. This passage, like many others, our Lord may be supposed to have uttered on more than one occasion. It seems in the sermon on the mount to have come in after Matt, 7:20.
Richard Watson
Verse 39. Can the blind, &c. — See the note on Matthew 15:14.
The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.
John Wesley
V. 40. Matthew 10:24; John 15:20.
Adam Clarke
Verse 40. Every one that is perfect] Or, thoroughly instructed, kathrtismenov:-from katartizw, to adjust, adapt, knit together, restore, or put in joint. The noun is used by the Greek medical writers to signify the reducing a luxated or disjointed limb. It sometimes signifies to repair or mend, and in this sense it is applied to broken nets, Matthew 4:21; Mark 1:19; but in this place, and in Hebrews 13:21; 2 Timothy 3:17, it means complete instruction and information. Every one who is thoroughly instructed in Divine things, who has his heart united to God, whose disordered tempers and passions are purified and restored to harmony and order; every one who has in him the mind that was in Christ, though he cannot be above, yet will be as, his teacher-holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.
“The disciple who perfectly understands the rules and sees the example of his master, will think it his business to tread exactly in his steps, to do and suffer upon like occasions, as his master did: and so he will be like his master.” WHITBY.
Joseph Benson
Verses 39, 40. And he spake a parable, &c. — Our Lord sometimes used parables, when he know plain and open declarations would too much inflame the passions of his hearers. It is for this reason that he uses this parable. Can the blind lead the blind — Can the scribes teach this way, which they know not themselves? Will not they and their scholars perish together? The disciple is not above his master — Can they make their disciples any better than themselves? If the master be ignorant, foolish, and wicked, will not the scholar, or disciple, be so likewise? But every one that is perfect — Or, perfected, as kathrtismenov means: that is, perfectly instructed by Christ’s doctrine, and perfectly renewed by his grace: whose mind is fully enlightened, and his heart entirely changed: made wise unto salvation by God’s word, and endued with all the graces of his Spirit; shall be as his Master — Shall come to the measure of the stature of his Master’s fulness, shall be conformed to the image of God’s Son, and as he was, shall be in this world, 1 John 4:17.
Daniel Whedon
40. Disciple… master—A similar expression, but for a different purpose, occurs in Matthew 10:25. Here the inferiority of the servant is affirmed in regard to his moral perfection; there it is mentioned to show that the servant must expect persecutions as well as his master.
Richard Watson
Verse 40. The disciple is not above his Master, &c. — As the preceding parable appears to have no connection with what goes before, so this remark seems to stand wholly disconnected with the parable. These are golden sayings of our Lord, a sort of text on which no doubt he enlarged in the discourse. To be perfect, in a disciple of Christ, is to be fully instructed in his Lord’s doctrine, and in spirit and temper fully conformed to it, or what he himself, in another place, calls being “sanctified by the truth.” That our Lord is here speaking of his own disciples, is clear from his saying the disciple is not above his Master, meaning that it cannot be, it is a thing impossible; which would not be true of the disciples of a human master, for by them he might be excelled. however excellent. No disciple of Christ can, however, rise above his Master, who is introduced apparently for the express purpose of impressing us the more forcibly with the height of our POSSIBLE attainments through the grace of God: for every one that is perfect shall be as his Master. Katartizein is to compact or knit together, hence to make ready, to perfect; and, applied to teaching, fully to instruct. Every fully instructed disciple therefore shall be as his Master; in other words, the end of our discipleship is to be made like Christ; and this shall be the glorious result, if we continue to follow him. “The mind that was in Christ” shall be in us; and it is only as we advance in this state of conformity to our Saviour that we approve ourselves as his true disciples. For as every perfectly instructed or prepared disciple thinks, wills, and acts in the same manner as his Master, so are we to THINK, WILL, and ACT like Christ.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Adam Clarke
Verse 41. And why beholdest thou the mote] See this explained on Matthew 7:3-5.
Joseph Benson
Verses 41, 42. And why beholdest thou the mote — See notes on Matthew 7:3-5. Be not ye like the disciples of the Pharisees, censuring others, and not amending yourselves.
Daniel Whedon
§ 36. SERMON ON THE MOUNT, 20-49.
Matthew 5:1—7:29.
We assume without doubt, what Dr. Nast has at length well proved, that Luke here furnishes the same Sermon on the Mount with Matthew, being a briefer report and less nearly verbatim. The slight difference in arrangement of some of the parts is doubtless owing to the variation in the particular original oral tradition, which Luke may have for the first time reduced to writing, or have received in authentic written form.
In order to harmonize the arrangement of Luke’s report of the Sermon with that of Matthew we must read the verses in the following order: 20-26, 29-30, 27, 28, 32-42. Verses 34 and 35 in Luke are additional matter.
20. Blessed be ye poor—From the fact that Luke in an abbreviated form furnishes a blessing upon the poor, (omitting the phrase in spirit as given by Matthew,) and a woe in verse 24 upon the rich, it has been maintained by some that Luke, if not our Lord himself, belonged to a sect or class of men who held to the intrinsic sin of riches and merit of poverty. A body of heretics, under the name of Ebionites, arose very early in the Christian Church, formed of primitive Jews, who held our Lord to be a mere man, maintained the Jewish ritual, and asserted the great merit of absolute poverty. This sect developed itself early in the second century. Writers like Renan assert that Luke’s Gospel possesses, in passages like this, a strong Ebionitish tinge. But it is well known that Luke was associated intimately with St. Paul, who was the great champion against this very sort of Jewish ultraism, and whose doctrines were the opposite of Ebionitism. If, as we suppose, Luke received a share of the matter of the Peraean gospel from James the Lord’s brother, (see our notice of Luke, p. 2,) resident pastor or bishop of Jerusalem, it is very likely that the passages that seem to bear hard upon the pride of wealth were furnished by him. For, though no Ebionite, James was strongly Judaic and severely ascetic in his tendencies, as his Epistle shows. In the second place, to say that rich men are wicked, especially in a given age, and to say that wealth in itself is a sin, are very different things. It is the tendency indeed of wealth upon the depraved heart of man to produce an oppressive spirit. And there are times when, as a class, the rich are so utterly oppressors that the very term rich acquires a sameness of meaning with the term oppressive; and in such ages piety and rectitude may be so exclusively with the poor that the virtuous may be naturally designated by the term poor. Yet in the days of an Abraham or a Solomon, piety may dwell in the tents of the rich and in the palaces of the noble, while vice and degradation may prevail among the rustics and the rabble. Thus the rich may be in spirit poor, that is, virtuous; and the poor may be rich in feeling, that is, riotous and oppressive. In the days of Herod and of Jesus, though there were noble exceptions, such as Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and probably some in Herod’s household, to be rich and to be wicked were about the same thing. That this fact should appear in the very language of the Gospels is no indication of Ebionite tendencies.
Richard Watson
Verse 41. The mote that is in thy brother’s eye. — See the note on Matthew 7:3.
Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.
Joseph Benson
Verses 41, 42. And why beholdest thou the mote — See notes on Matthew 7:3-5. Be not ye like the disciples of the Pharisees, censuring others, and not amending yourselves.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 42. Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye. The history of man is the history of crime. Factions, wars, and depredations roll in succession like the billows of the ocean. Our ethic writers abound with strong censures on public morals; their high tone assumes the hallowed toga, the robe of equity. On a nearer approach, we make the painful discovery, that beneath the robe, the heart of the censor is really not better than that of the censured. This justifies the strong language of the Holy One against all who disguise their own faults by the reprehension of other men.
Daniel Whedon
§ 36. SERMON ON THE MOUNT, 20-49.
Matthew 5:1—7:29.
We assume without doubt, what Dr. Nast has at length well proved, that Luke here furnishes the same Sermon on the Mount with Matthew, being a briefer report and less nearly verbatim. The slight difference in arrangement of some of the parts is doubtless owing to the variation in the particular original oral tradition, which Luke may have for the first time reduced to writing, or have received in authentic written form.
In order to harmonize the arrangement of Luke’s report of the Sermon with that of Matthew we must read the verses in the following order: 20-26, 29-30, 27, 28, 32-42. Verses 34 and 35 in Luke are additional matter.
20. Blessed be ye poor—From the fact that Luke in an abbreviated form furnishes a blessing upon the poor, (omitting the phrase in spirit as given by Matthew,) and a woe in verse 24 upon the rich, it has been maintained by some that Luke, if not our Lord himself, belonged to a sect or class of men who held to the intrinsic sin of riches and merit of poverty. A body of heretics, under the name of Ebionites, arose very early in the Christian Church, formed of primitive Jews, who held our Lord to be a mere man, maintained the Jewish ritual, and asserted the great merit of absolute poverty. This sect developed itself early in the second century. Writers like Renan assert that Luke’s Gospel possesses, in passages like this, a strong Ebionitish tinge. But it is well known that Luke was associated intimately with St. Paul, who was the great champion against this very sort of Jewish ultraism, and whose doctrines were the opposite of Ebionitism. If, as we suppose, Luke received a share of the matter of the Peraean gospel from James the Lord’s brother, (see our notice of Luke, p. 2,) resident pastor or bishop of Jerusalem, it is very likely that the passages that seem to bear hard upon the pride of wealth were furnished by him. For, though no Ebionite, James was strongly Judaic and severely ascetic in his tendencies, as his Epistle shows. In the second place, to say that rich men are wicked, especially in a given age, and to say that wealth in itself is a sin, are very different things. It is the tendency indeed of wealth upon the depraved heart of man to produce an oppressive spirit. And there are times when, as a class, the rich are so utterly oppressors that the very term rich acquires a sameness of meaning with the term oppressive; and in such ages piety and rectitude may be so exclusively with the poor that the virtuous may be naturally designated by the term poor. Yet in the days of an Abraham or a Solomon, piety may dwell in the tents of the rich and in the palaces of the noble, while vice and degradation may prevail among the rustics and the rabble. Thus the rich may be in spirit poor, that is, virtuous; and the poor may be rich in feeling, that is, riotous and oppressive. In the days of Herod and of Jesus, though there were noble exceptions, such as Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and probably some in Herod’s household, to be rich and to be wicked were about the same thing. That this fact should appear in the very language of the Gospels is no indication of Ebionite tendencies.
For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Adam Clarke
Verse 43. Corrupt fruit] karpon sapron, literally, rotten fruit: but here it means, such fruit as is unfit for use. See on Matthew 7:17-20.
Joseph Benson
Verses 43-45. For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit, &c. — See notes on Matthew 7:16-20; 12:33-35. For of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh — The meaning of this whole passage is, as a tree is known to be either good or bad by its fruit, so a man is known to be either good or bad by his words; especially when he speaks of the characters and actions of others, or pretends to rebuke them. On such occasions he will, either by the charitable and mild constructions which he puts upon the doubtful actions of others, show himself to be a good man; or, by his uncharitable and harsh interpretations, demonstrate the wickedness of his own heart.
Daniel Whedon
43, 44. Matthew 7:16-18.
For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.
Joseph Benson
Verses 43-45. For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit, &c. — See notes on Matthew 7:16-20; 12:33-35. For of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh — The meaning of this whole passage is, as a tree is known to be either good or bad by its fruit, so a man is known to be either good or bad by his words; especially when he speaks of the characters and actions of others, or pretends to rebuke them. On such occasions he will, either by the charitable and mild constructions which he puts upon the doubtful actions of others, show himself to be a good man; or, by his uncharitable and harsh interpretations, demonstrate the wickedness of his own heart.
Daniel Whedon
43, 44. Matthew 7:16-18.
A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.
Adam Clarke
Verse 45. A good man] See Clarke on “Matthew 12:35”.
Joseph Benson
Verses 43-45. For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit, &c. — See notes on Matthew 7:16-20; 12:33-35. For of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh — The meaning of this whole passage is, as a tree is known to be either good or bad by its fruit, so a man is known to be either good or bad by his words; especially when he speaks of the characters and actions of others, or pretends to rebuke them. On such occasions he will, either by the charitable and mild constructions which he puts upon the doubtful actions of others, show himself to be a good man; or, by his uncharitable and harsh interpretations, demonstrate the wickedness of his own heart.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 45. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good. He sees the creation full of God; he improves the passing events so as to administer grace to those that hear, and turns the barren heath into a garden. He is mighty in the scriptures, lively in apprehension, and apt to teach. — The Reflections will be found on Matthew 5.-7.
Daniel Whedon
45. See Matthew 12:35.
And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
John Wesley
V. 46. And why call ye me Lord, Lord-What will fair professions avail, without a life answerable thereto? Matthew 7:21.
Adam Clarke
Verse 46. Lord, Lord] God judges of the heart, not by words, but by works. A good servant never disputes, speaks little, and always follows his work. Such a servant a real Christian is: such is a faithful minister, always intent either on the work of his own salvation, or that of his neighbour; speaking more to God than to men; and to these as in the presence of God. The tongue is fitly compared by one to a pump, which empties the heart, but neither fills nor cleanses it. The love of God is a hidden spring, which supplies the heart continually, and never permits it to be dry or unfruitful. Quesnel.
Joseph Benson
Verses 46-49. And why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? — What will fair professions avail, without a life answerable thereto? Our Lord’s words may also refer to what he had just spoken in praise of good words. As if he had said, Though I have thus spoken, you must take notice, that it is in a particular case especially that your good words will manifest the state of your hearts to be good, namely, when the characters and actions of others are spoken of and censured. Good words, on many other occasions, are of no avail; for the best advices given to others, verse 42, or the fairest speeches imaginable addressed to me, your Master, and your giving me the highest titles of respect, are of no manner of signification, if you do not keep my commandments, and possess the graces, and practise the duties which I describe and enjoin. And the flood arose — Here is an allusion to the violent rains and sweeping floods in the eastern countries, in the winter. “Though the rains are not extremely frequent at that season, yet, when it does rain, the water pours down with great violence for three or four days and nights together, enough to drown the whole country. Such violent rains in so hilly a country as Judea must occasion inundations very dangerous to buildings within their reach, by washing the soil from under them, and occasioning their fall.” — Harmer. See the notes on Matthew 7:21-29; where the contents of this paragraph are explained. “May these beautiful, striking, and repeated admonitions, which our Saviour gives us of the vanity of every profession which does not influence the practice, be attended to with reverence and fear! We are building for eternity; may we never grudge the time and labour of a most serious inquiry into the great fundamental principles of religion! May we discover the sure foundation, and raise upon it a noble superstructure, which shall stand fair and glorious when hypocrites are swept away into everlasting ruin, in that awful day in which heaven and earth shall flee away from the face of him that sits upon the throne! Revelation 20:11.” — Doddridge.
Daniel Whedon
46-49.—Matthew 7:21-29.
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE TO VERSE 13.
The Sacred Numbers.
The choosing of the Twelve suggests the subject of the Sacred Numbers apparent in Scripture. (See Stuart on the Apocalypse, vol. ii, p. 409.) The decimal numbers, tens, hundreds, thousands, etc., are obviously founded on the practical ease and beauty of these numbers, which have rendered them the basis of arithmetic the world over. Assuming the unit as the seed of numbers, then the unit added to THREE makes the sacred FOUR, (3+1=4;) THREE added to FOUR makes the SEVEN, (3+4=7;) and THREE into FOUR makes TWELVE, (3x4=12.)
NUMBER THREE.
Three is emphatically the divine number, as indicative of the Creator, or original being—God. The divine substance, being pure, original, simple, spiritual substance, is unit. This—God incommunicable—the dim background of Deity, generates a Revealer or manifested self, and thence a third all-pervading Effluence. In this and other modes, perhaps all the great primary religions of the world, from the eastern verge of China to the western shore of Ireland, nay, including the continent of America, are more or less clearly TRINITARIAN.
In the Hindoo theology Para-Brama is the background, who developes into Brahma, the Creator, Vishnu, the Preserver, and Shiva, the Destroyer and Renewer. Among the Buddhists, we have the Trine—Buddhas, the Revealer, Dharmas, the Revealed, and Sanghas, the hosts who obey revelation. In the Chaldee oracles, it is said, “Unity hath produced a second, which dwells in it and shines in intellectual light; from this proceeds a third, which shines through the whole world.” The Phenician theology assigns to the universe a triplet principium—Jupiter, that is, the heavens, the earth, and love, which unites the two. Among the Chinese, the name of deity is Tao; that is, the Three-one. The celebrated Tao-Tsee says that “Tao [the original godhead] is by his nature one; but the first has produced a second; the second a third; and these three have created all things.” Among the Persians, from Zervane Akerene, or the Uncreated Time, was generated Oromasd, the good, and Ahriman, the evil. They also had Mithras as mediator-god between the good and evil, to whom they assigned the triangle as a symbol. Among the Egyptians, from Athor, or the original Night, were the three, Kneph, Phthas, and Osiris; which, in the natural world, are symbolized by light, fire, and sun; and in the ideal world by omnipotence, wisdom, and goodness.
Among the Greeks and Romans the number three often appears in sacred things. Virgil (Eclog. 8:73) says: “These three threads, diversified by three different colours, I bind around; three times I carry the effigy around these altars; the god delights in this uneven number.” This Servius, the ancient commentator, identifies with “the threefold number that [the Romans] assigned to the supreme god, from whom is the beginning, middle, and end.” Plutarch, (de Isid., c. 46:) the greatest and divinest nature consists of three. And Plato (de Leg. 4:716) says: “God, according to the ancient saying, contains the beginning, the end, and the middle of all things.” Among the Hebrews no mere impersonal god, or abstract divine substance, appears. Nor does the Old Testament distinctly and explicitly reveal a trinity, as such. Still an occult plurality in the Godhead seems implied in various ways. The ordinary term for deity is Elohim, which is a plural noun. Says Simon Ben Joachi, an ancient rabbi, as quoted by Dr. Clark on Genesis 1:1: “Come, see the mystery of the word Elohim; there are three degrees, and each degree by itself alone; and yet they are all one, and joined together in one, and not divided from each other.” In view of this fact, and the plural name, Elohim, we cannot but recognize a reference to this occult divine plurality in the phrases in Genesis: Let US make man, Let US go down, Become like one of US. The trine benediction in Numbers 6:24-26 illustrates the triple nature of this plurality, to which we may parallel as a beautiful interpretation the Christian benediction, so properly used in dismissing our congregations, 2 Corinthians 13:14: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,” etc.; as well as the formula of baptism, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The trisagion or thrice-holy of Isaiah, Holy, Holy, Holy, (chap. 6:3,) repeated Revelation 4:8, have the same occult reference, and in this last passage the trine description of eternity, which is, and was, and is to come, being an expansion of the meaning of the word Jehovah, develops an occult trinity even in that incommunicable name.
The triangle, as symbolical of Deity, is a most expressive image of the trine nature. It is in use among the Hindoos. A triangle, with its point upward, is the symbol of Shiva; with the point downward, of Vishnu. Among the Chinese the same symbol is used for the divinities. A tripod they call spirit, from its symbolical signification. This visible and tangible emblem conveys to us a very vivid impression of the general faith of the religious world in a trinity of the divine nature.
THE SACRED NUMBER FOUR.
As the number three indicated God, so the number four indicated the creation. For four contains and depends upon three for its existence, and yet requires a unit to be added to make it different from three. As three represents the divine, so four represents the created or mundane. The followers of that most ancient of Greek theosophists, Pythagoras, paid mystic regard to the number four; invented for it a peculiar name, the Tetraktys, by which they swore. The tetraktys they held to be an emblem of the kosmos, or the universal order or creation. This is a most obvious idea; for the square is the most orderly of figures. A surface of squares, unlike a surface of circular figures, will adjust or square to each other, without interspace or discrepancy. Besides, all solids were conceived to have the four dimensions—length, breadth, height, and depth. And the most perfect of all solids and the most perfect emblem of the kosmos, the CUBE, “consists of fours throughout.”
This relation between the four and the kosmos being once the starting-point, we might expect that four would be detected in various arrangements of the world. Four are the elements—earth, air, fire, and water. Four are the cardinal points whose lines intersect the globe. Four are the seasons that sweep over its face. The biblical use of the number four is not as plentiful and decided as of some other numbers. Four quarters or points are assigned to the heavens and to the earth— Ezekiel 7:2; Zechariah 1:18-21; Revelation 7:1; 20:8. The heavens are divided into four great constellations—Job 9:9; 38:31. In the vision of Ezekiel, chap. 1, as well as in Revelation, there appears the clearest reference to the four of creation. The four living creatures, which seem in fact to be symbols of the creation, and several other fours embraced in this vision, receive much elucidation from our discussion. THE SACRED NUMBER SEVEN.
Commentators have been in the habit of saying, without exactly knowing the meaning of their own words, certainly without knowing their full meaning, that the number seven is “a number of completeness and perfection.” How it is any more a number of completeness and perfection than six, eight, or ten, they have not proceeded to show. But from the views here presented, a meaning comes into their words. Seven is (3+4=7) the sum of three and four, and thus embraces in its comprehension the entire sum of existence, both God and creation—Theos and kosmos. This is, therefore, most truly a number of completeness and perfection. The act of the creation shows God and kosmos in combination. It is the Great Three involving the Great Four, and thus running through the Great Seven. The great week of creation, Genesis ii, then, is simply the great periods in which the seven is coming into complete expansion. “The mystical square of the Hindoos, which is used as an amulet.” says Stuart, “is designed to represent the world. It contains three rows of squares (a union of three and four) joined together and marked with unit numbers, so that if read in any direction the sum of them is fifteen. The form [embracing the nine digits] is thus: The number five thus occupies the middle station and designates the soul of the world; the other numbers designate the world; the even ones the earthly elements; the uneven ones the heavenly elements. Man, as an image of the world, a real mikrokosmov, [microcosm or little world,] is drawn by the Hindoos upon this magic square with his hands and feet extended to the four corners.”
And it is through the creative week that we develop the almost uniform use to which we see the number seven applied, namely, as a measure of the time of any completed sacred performance. The order of ideas, as we should trace it, is as follows: First. Seven, as the sacred 3+4, is the measure of the accomplishment of the 3+4 in creation. Second. It becomes, thence, in a reduced pattern, the measure of the ordinary week; and thence, Third. It becomes the measure of other holy seasons or rounds of sacred performance. Hence it became a ritual number. Seven days was the feast of the passover kept. After a lapse of seven days circumcision was performed. Purification from touch of a corpse lasted seven days. These are but a small part of the instituted performance of seven-day duties. On the seventh month was the holy convocation at the feast of trumpets. (Numbers 29:1.) Seven weeks after the wave offering Pentecost commenced. After seven times seven years was the jubilee. The blood of propitiation was sprinkled seven times. So that there was not only the seven or week of days, but the week of months and the week of years. And there was not only the week of times but the week of things.
The week being thus an established measure, its number of seven becomes a measure of anything of a sacred character within a fair proportion. The seventh year gave Jacob his wife, and the seventh year emancipated any Hebrew servant. Wedding feasts were seven days. Seven years was Solomon building the temple. Jericho was taken with a storm of sevens. Cain was to have a sevenfold vengeance, and Lamech seventy sevens. God will chasten seven times, Leviticus 26:28; and Israel shall flee seven ways, Deuteronomy 28:7, 25. Pharaoh’s dreams abounded in sevens. Sevens of clean animals entered the ark seven days before the flood commenced. The same number out of the circle of Hebraisms is sacredly used by Balaam. (Numbers 23:1.) It was used in the times and land of Job. (Job 5:19.) It is even a sacred number with regal Babylon. (Daniel 3:19; 4:16.)
From this train of thought we have a clear illustration of the original establishment, the patriarchal retention, the wide diffusion of the week-division, and the consequent perpetual obligation of the sabbath or weekly sacred rest. Perhaps the change from the Jewish to the Christian week might herefrom be also shown to be an easy idea. Other suggestions arise which we must here omit.
In the New Testament, besides Mark 8:8, and Luke 8:2, and Luke 11:26, the Apocalypse is profuse of symbolic sevens. Seven are the Churches of Asia, the spirits before the throne, the golden candlesticks, the stars, the eyes which are the spirits of God, the horns and eyes of the lamb, the uttering thunders, the seals, the trumpets, the vials, the heads and crowns of the dragon, the heads of the beast, the hills and kings of Rome. The clearest chronological prophecy of the Messiah in the entire Old Testament, that of Daniel 9:25, embraces a period of seventy sevens. The half of seven appears in several of the numbers which figure largely in prophetic expositions. Half-seven years are the three years and six months of Luke 4:25; James 5:17; the forty-two months of Revelation 11:2; 13:5; the time, times, and half time of Daniel 7:25; 12:7; Revelation 12:14; and the 1260 days of Revelation 11:13; 12:6. Twice seven appears thrice in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus; a clear indication of its constructive character. See note on Matthew 1:17. THE SACRED NUMBER TWELVE.
As three added to four is so eminent a sacred number, so three multiplying four (3x4=12) is bound to be, at least in some degree, sacred. But the distinctive nature of these different sacred figures has hardly been clearly noted. As unit is primary, unwrought, simple substance, so three is the divine number, four the mundane number, seven the ritual number, and twelve the governmental number. This product of the 3x4 found a happy coincidence for itself, first, in the twelve signs of the zodiac, within which the sun’s course is circumscribed, and the twelve annual moon-changes or months; and, perhaps, derives thence something of its governmental character. Its next coincidence is found with the twelve sons of Jacob, and thence the twelve tribes of Israel. In this its governmental character was completed. But many of the ancient governmental conformities to this number were clearly to be derived from the Israelite twelvedom of tribes. And we see that an anxious respect was paid to this number when the generational basis in some measure failed. The tribe of Levi had no allotment of territory, and Joseph’s two sons were called in to make up the complement of the twelve states. So in Revelation 7, where the idolatrous tribe of Dan is expunged and Levi counted, the deficit is supplied in the same way.
Twelve were the Arabian tribes descended from Ishmael, and twelve the Saracen tribes, even to the time of Mohammed. Twelve were the most ancient Egyptian dynasties. Twelve states formed the Ionian confederacy. Twelve were the associations of Achaians in Peloponnesus; twelve the towns founded by Cecrops in Attica; twelve were the tables of Roman law; by twelves the Etrurians classified their magistrates; twelve were the parts of Plato’s Republic; twelve the counsellors of the Phaeacian king, and twelve the ancient members of the court of Areopagus.
“In the Scriptures,” says Professor Stuart, “we might naturally expect to find the number twelve often introduced on account of the twelve tribes of Israel. Thus in Exodus 15:27, twelve. fountains of water at Elim; Exodus 24:4, twelve pillars around the altar; Leviticus 24:5, twelve cakes of showbread; Exodus 28:10, 21, twelve gems in the breastplate of the high priest; Numbers 7:3, 87; 29:17, offerings of different kinds by twelves; Numbers 7:84-87, various vessels to be made for the temple by twelves; Numbers 13:3, seq., twelve spies to the land of Canaan; Joshua 4:3, twelve stones from the Jordan, carried by twelve men and thrown into a monumental heap; 1 Kings 4:7, 26, twelve prefects of Solomon’s household, and twelve thousand horsemen; 1 Kings 7:25, twelve brazen oxen supporting the laver; 1 Kings 10:20, twelve brazen lions near the throne; Ezekiel 43:16, the altar twelve cubits long and broad; not to mention many other twelves. In the New Testament the twelve apostles take the lead. In the Apocalypse we have twelve thousand in each of the twelve tribes, who are sealed in the forehead as the servants of God. (Revelation 7:4, seq.) In Revelation 21:12, seq., we have an account of the New Jerusalem with twelve gates, (comp. Ezekiel 48:31, seq.,) and twelve angels to keep them, and the names of the twelve tribes are written on them; there are also twelve rows of stones in the foundation of the walls, on which the names of the twelve apostles are inscribed. Besides all this the city measures twelve thousand furlongs, and its walls are twelve times twelve cubits high.” That our Saviour intended the number of his twelve apostles to symbolize with the twelve patriarchs, is, we think, clear, from the symbolical promise, that they should “sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Matthew 19:28. The same care for the preservation of the duodecimal number of patriarchal tribes reappears in the preservation of the apostolic number, by the election of Matthias in the place of Judas. That there is a divine idea in this, is evident from the symbolical usages in the Apocalypse. In Revelation 12:1, the woman that symbolizes the Church has upon her head a crown of twelve stars. And the tree of life, emblem of Gospel grace, has twelve manner of fruits; that is, a monthly harvest, thus combining therein a Mosaical and apostolic allusion.
Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
Adam Clarke
Verse 47. I will show you] ~upodeixw, I will show you plainly. I will enable you fully to comprehend my meaning on this subject by the following parable. See this word explained Matthew 3:7.
Joseph Benson
Verses 46-49. And why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? — What will fair professions avail, without a life answerable thereto? Our Lord’s words may also refer to what he had just spoken in praise of good words. As if he had said, Though I have thus spoken, you must take notice, that it is in a particular case especially that your good words will manifest the state of your hearts to be good, namely, when the characters and actions of others are spoken of and censured. Good words, on many other occasions, are of no avail; for the best advices given to others, verse 42, or the fairest speeches imaginable addressed to me, your Master, and your giving me the highest titles of respect, are of no manner of signification, if you do not keep my commandments, and possess the graces, and practise the duties which I describe and enjoin. And the flood arose — Here is an allusion to the violent rains and sweeping floods in the eastern countries, in the winter. “Though the rains are not extremely frequent at that season, yet, when it does rain, the water pours down with great violence for three or four days and nights together, enough to drown the whole country. Such violent rains in so hilly a country as Judea must occasion inundations very dangerous to buildings within their reach, by washing the soil from under them, and occasioning their fall.” — Harmer. See the notes on Matthew 7:21-29; where the contents of this paragraph are explained. “May these beautiful, striking, and repeated admonitions, which our Saviour gives us of the vanity of every profession which does not influence the practice, be attended to with reverence and fear! We are building for eternity; may we never grudge the time and labour of a most serious inquiry into the great fundamental principles of religion! May we discover the sure foundation, and raise upon it a noble superstructure, which shall stand fair and glorious when hypocrites are swept away into everlasting ruin, in that awful day in which heaven and earth shall flee away from the face of him that sits upon the throne! Revelation 20:11.” — Doddridge.
Daniel Whedon
46-49.—Matthew 7:21-29.
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE TO VERSE 13.
The Sacred Numbers.
The choosing of the Twelve suggests the subject of the Sacred Numbers apparent in Scripture. (See Stuart on the Apocalypse, vol. ii, p. 409.) The decimal numbers, tens, hundreds, thousands, etc., are obviously founded on the practical ease and beauty of these numbers, which have rendered them the basis of arithmetic the world over. Assuming the unit as the seed of numbers, then the unit added to THREE makes the sacred FOUR, (3+1=4;) THREE added to FOUR makes the SEVEN, (3+4=7;) and THREE into FOUR makes TWELVE, (3x4=12.)
NUMBER THREE.
Three is emphatically the divine number, as indicative of the Creator, or original being—God. The divine substance, being pure, original, simple, spiritual substance, is unit. This—God incommunicable—the dim background of Deity, generates a Revealer or manifested self, and thence a third all-pervading Effluence. In this and other modes, perhaps all the great primary religions of the world, from the eastern verge of China to the western shore of Ireland, nay, including the continent of America, are more or less clearly TRINITARIAN.
In the Hindoo theology Para-Brama is the background, who developes into Brahma, the Creator, Vishnu, the Preserver, and Shiva, the Destroyer and Renewer. Among the Buddhists, we have the Trine—Buddhas, the Revealer, Dharmas, the Revealed, and Sanghas, the hosts who obey revelation. In the Chaldee oracles, it is said, “Unity hath produced a second, which dwells in it and shines in intellectual light; from this proceeds a third, which shines through the whole world.” The Phenician theology assigns to the universe a triplet principium—Jupiter, that is, the heavens, the earth, and love, which unites the two. Among the Chinese, the name of deity is Tao; that is, the Three-one. The celebrated Tao-Tsee says that “Tao [the original godhead] is by his nature one; but the first has produced a second; the second a third; and these three have created all things.” Among the Persians, from Zervane Akerene, or the Uncreated Time, was generated Oromasd, the good, and Ahriman, the evil. They also had Mithras as mediator-god between the good and evil, to whom they assigned the triangle as a symbol. Among the Egyptians, from Athor, or the original Night, were the three, Kneph, Phthas, and Osiris; which, in the natural world, are symbolized by light, fire, and sun; and in the ideal world by omnipotence, wisdom, and goodness.
Among the Greeks and Romans the number three often appears in sacred things. Virgil (Eclog. 8:73) says: “These three threads, diversified by three different colours, I bind around; three times I carry the effigy around these altars; the god delights in this uneven number.” This Servius, the ancient commentator, identifies with “the threefold number that [the Romans] assigned to the supreme god, from whom is the beginning, middle, and end.” Plutarch, (de Isid., c. 46:) the greatest and divinest nature consists of three. And Plato (de Leg. 4:716) says: “God, according to the ancient saying, contains the beginning, the end, and the middle of all things.” Among the Hebrews no mere impersonal god, or abstract divine substance, appears. Nor does the Old Testament distinctly and explicitly reveal a trinity, as such. Still an occult plurality in the Godhead seems implied in various ways. The ordinary term for deity is Elohim, which is a plural noun. Says Simon Ben Joachi, an ancient rabbi, as quoted by Dr. Clark on Genesis 1:1: “Come, see the mystery of the word Elohim; there are three degrees, and each degree by itself alone; and yet they are all one, and joined together in one, and not divided from each other.” In view of this fact, and the plural name, Elohim, we cannot but recognize a reference to this occult divine plurality in the phrases in Genesis: Let US make man, Let US go down, Become like one of US. The trine benediction in Numbers 6:24-26 illustrates the triple nature of this plurality, to which we may parallel as a beautiful interpretation the Christian benediction, so properly used in dismissing our congregations, 2 Corinthians 13:14: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,” etc.; as well as the formula of baptism, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The trisagion or thrice-holy of Isaiah, Holy, Holy, Holy, (chap. 6:3,) repeated Revelation 4:8, have the same occult reference, and in this last passage the trine description of eternity, which is, and was, and is to come, being an expansion of the meaning of the word Jehovah, develops an occult trinity even in that incommunicable name.
The triangle, as symbolical of Deity, is a most expressive image of the trine nature. It is in use among the Hindoos. A triangle, with its point upward, is the symbol of Shiva; with the point downward, of Vishnu. Among the Chinese the same symbol is used for the divinities. A tripod they call spirit, from its symbolical signification. This visible and tangible emblem conveys to us a very vivid impression of the general faith of the religious world in a trinity of the divine nature.
THE SACRED NUMBER FOUR.
As the number three indicated God, so the number four indicated the creation. For four contains and depends upon three for its existence, and yet requires a unit to be added to make it different from three. As three represents the divine, so four represents the created or mundane. The followers of that most ancient of Greek theosophists, Pythagoras, paid mystic regard to the number four; invented for it a peculiar name, the Tetraktys, by which they swore. The tetraktys they held to be an emblem of the kosmos, or the universal order or creation. This is a most obvious idea; for the square is the most orderly of figures. A surface of squares, unlike a surface of circular figures, will adjust or square to each other, without interspace or discrepancy. Besides, all solids were conceived to have the four dimensions—length, breadth, height, and depth. And the most perfect of all solids and the most perfect emblem of the kosmos, the CUBE, “consists of fours throughout.”
This relation between the four and the kosmos being once the starting-point, we might expect that four would be detected in various arrangements of the world. Four are the elements—earth, air, fire, and water. Four are the cardinal points whose lines intersect the globe. Four are the seasons that sweep over its face. The biblical use of the number four is not as plentiful and decided as of some other numbers. Four quarters or points are assigned to the heavens and to the earth— Ezekiel 7:2; Zechariah 1:18-21; Revelation 7:1; 20:8. The heavens are divided into four great constellations—Job 9:9; 38:31. In the vision of Ezekiel, chap. 1, as well as in Revelation, there appears the clearest reference to the four of creation. The four living creatures, which seem in fact to be symbols of the creation, and several other fours embraced in this vision, receive much elucidation from our discussion. THE SACRED NUMBER SEVEN.
Commentators have been in the habit of saying, without exactly knowing the meaning of their own words, certainly without knowing their full meaning, that the number seven is “a number of completeness and perfection.” How it is any more a number of completeness and perfection than six, eight, or ten, they have not proceeded to show. But from the views here presented, a meaning comes into their words. Seven is (3+4=7) the sum of three and four, and thus embraces in its comprehension the entire sum of existence, both God and creation—Theos and kosmos. This is, therefore, most truly a number of completeness and perfection. The act of the creation shows God and kosmos in combination. It is the Great Three involving the Great Four, and thus running through the Great Seven. The great week of creation, Genesis ii, then, is simply the great periods in which the seven is coming into complete expansion. “The mystical square of the Hindoos, which is used as an amulet.” says Stuart, “is designed to represent the world. It contains three rows of squares (a union of three and four) joined together and marked with unit numbers, so that if read in any direction the sum of them is fifteen. The form [embracing the nine digits] is thus: The number five thus occupies the middle station and designates the soul of the world; the other numbers designate the world; the even ones the earthly elements; the uneven ones the heavenly elements. Man, as an image of the world, a real mikrokosmov, [microcosm or little world,] is drawn by the Hindoos upon this magic square with his hands and feet extended to the four corners.”
And it is through the creative week that we develop the almost uniform use to which we see the number seven applied, namely, as a measure of the time of any completed sacred performance. The order of ideas, as we should trace it, is as follows: First. Seven, as the sacred 3+4, is the measure of the accomplishment of the 3+4 in creation. Second. It becomes, thence, in a reduced pattern, the measure of the ordinary week; and thence, Third. It becomes the measure of other holy seasons or rounds of sacred performance. Hence it became a ritual number. Seven days was the feast of the passover kept. After a lapse of seven days circumcision was performed. Purification from touch of a corpse lasted seven days. These are but a small part of the instituted performance of seven-day duties. On the seventh month was the holy convocation at the feast of trumpets. (Numbers 29:1.) Seven weeks after the wave offering Pentecost commenced. After seven times seven years was the jubilee. The blood of propitiation was sprinkled seven times. So that there was not only the seven or week of days, but the week of months and the week of years. And there was not only the week of times but the week of things.
The week being thus an established measure, its number of seven becomes a measure of anything of a sacred character within a fair proportion. The seventh year gave Jacob his wife, and the seventh year emancipated any Hebrew servant. Wedding feasts were seven days. Seven years was Solomon building the temple. Jericho was taken with a storm of sevens. Cain was to have a sevenfold vengeance, and Lamech seventy sevens. God will chasten seven times, Leviticus 26:28; and Israel shall flee seven ways, Deuteronomy 28:7, 25. Pharaoh’s dreams abounded in sevens. Sevens of clean animals entered the ark seven days before the flood commenced. The same number out of the circle of Hebraisms is sacredly used by Balaam. (Numbers 23:1.) It was used in the times and land of Job. (Job 5:19.) It is even a sacred number with regal Babylon. (Daniel 3:19; 4:16.)
From this train of thought we have a clear illustration of the original establishment, the patriarchal retention, the wide diffusion of the week-division, and the consequent perpetual obligation of the sabbath or weekly sacred rest. Perhaps the change from the Jewish to the Christian week might herefrom be also shown to be an easy idea. Other suggestions arise which we must here omit.
In the New Testament, besides Mark 8:8, and Luke 8:2, and Luke 11:26, the Apocalypse is profuse of symbolic sevens. Seven are the Churches of Asia, the spirits before the throne, the golden candlesticks, the stars, the eyes which are the spirits of God, the horns and eyes of the lamb, the uttering thunders, the seals, the trumpets, the vials, the heads and crowns of the dragon, the heads of the beast, the hills and kings of Rome. The clearest chronological prophecy of the Messiah in the entire Old Testament, that of Daniel 9:25, embraces a period of seventy sevens. The half of seven appears in several of the numbers which figure largely in prophetic expositions. Half-seven years are the three years and six months of Luke 4:25; James 5:17; the forty-two months of Revelation 11:2; 13:5; the time, times, and half time of Daniel 7:25; 12:7; Revelation 12:14; and the 1260 days of Revelation 11:13; 12:6. Twice seven appears thrice in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus; a clear indication of its constructive character. See note on Matthew 1:17. THE SACRED NUMBER TWELVE.
As three added to four is so eminent a sacred number, so three multiplying four (3x4=12) is bound to be, at least in some degree, sacred. But the distinctive nature of these different sacred figures has hardly been clearly noted. As unit is primary, unwrought, simple substance, so three is the divine number, four the mundane number, seven the ritual number, and twelve the governmental number. This product of the 3x4 found a happy coincidence for itself, first, in the twelve signs of the zodiac, within which the sun’s course is circumscribed, and the twelve annual moon-changes or months; and, perhaps, derives thence something of its governmental character. Its next coincidence is found with the twelve sons of Jacob, and thence the twelve tribes of Israel. In this its governmental character was completed. But many of the ancient governmental conformities to this number were clearly to be derived from the Israelite twelvedom of tribes. And we see that an anxious respect was paid to this number when the generational basis in some measure failed. The tribe of Levi had no allotment of territory, and Joseph’s two sons were called in to make up the complement of the twelve states. So in Revelation 7, where the idolatrous tribe of Dan is expunged and Levi counted, the deficit is supplied in the same way.
Twelve were the Arabian tribes descended from Ishmael, and twelve the Saracen tribes, even to the time of Mohammed. Twelve were the most ancient Egyptian dynasties. Twelve states formed the Ionian confederacy. Twelve were the associations of Achaians in Peloponnesus; twelve the towns founded by Cecrops in Attica; twelve were the tables of Roman law; by twelves the Etrurians classified their magistrates; twelve were the parts of Plato’s Republic; twelve the counsellors of the Phaeacian king, and twelve the ancient members of the court of Areopagus.
“In the Scriptures,” says Professor Stuart, “we might naturally expect to find the number twelve often introduced on account of the twelve tribes of Israel. Thus in Exodus 15:27, twelve. fountains of water at Elim; Exodus 24:4, twelve pillars around the altar; Leviticus 24:5, twelve cakes of showbread; Exodus 28:10, 21, twelve gems in the breastplate of the high priest; Numbers 7:3, 87; 29:17, offerings of different kinds by twelves; Numbers 7:84-87, various vessels to be made for the temple by twelves; Numbers 13:3, seq., twelve spies to the land of Canaan; Joshua 4:3, twelve stones from the Jordan, carried by twelve men and thrown into a monumental heap; 1 Kings 4:7, 26, twelve prefects of Solomon’s household, and twelve thousand horsemen; 1 Kings 7:25, twelve brazen oxen supporting the laver; 1 Kings 10:20, twelve brazen lions near the throne; Ezekiel 43:16, the altar twelve cubits long and broad; not to mention many other twelves. In the New Testament the twelve apostles take the lead. In the Apocalypse we have twelve thousand in each of the twelve tribes, who are sealed in the forehead as the servants of God. (Revelation 7:4, seq.) In Revelation 21:12, seq., we have an account of the New Jerusalem with twelve gates, (comp. Ezekiel 48:31, seq.,) and twelve angels to keep them, and the names of the twelve tribes are written on them; there are also twelve rows of stones in the foundation of the walls, on which the names of the twelve apostles are inscribed. Besides all this the city measures twelve thousand furlongs, and its walls are twelve times twelve cubits high.” That our Saviour intended the number of his twelve apostles to symbolize with the twelve patriarchs, is, we think, clear, from the symbolical promise, that they should “sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Matthew 19:28. The same care for the preservation of the duodecimal number of patriarchal tribes reappears in the preservation of the apostolic number, by the election of Matthias in the place of Judas. That there is a divine idea in this, is evident from the symbolical usages in the Apocalypse. In Revelation 12:1, the woman that symbolizes the Church has upon her head a crown of twelve stars. And the tree of life, emblem of Gospel grace, has twelve manner of fruits; that is, a monthly harvest, thus combining therein a Mosaical and apostolic allusion.
He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.
Adam Clarke
Verse 48. He is like a man, &c.] See on Matthew 7:24-27.
Joseph Benson
Verses 46-49. And why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? — What will fair professions avail, without a life answerable thereto? Our Lord’s words may also refer to what he had just spoken in praise of good words. As if he had said, Though I have thus spoken, you must take notice, that it is in a particular case especially that your good words will manifest the state of your hearts to be good, namely, when the characters and actions of others are spoken of and censured. Good words, on many other occasions, are of no avail; for the best advices given to others, verse 42, or the fairest speeches imaginable addressed to me, your Master, and your giving me the highest titles of respect, are of no manner of signification, if you do not keep my commandments, and possess the graces, and practise the duties which I describe and enjoin. And the flood arose — Here is an allusion to the violent rains and sweeping floods in the eastern countries, in the winter. “Though the rains are not extremely frequent at that season, yet, when it does rain, the water pours down with great violence for three or four days and nights together, enough to drown the whole country. Such violent rains in so hilly a country as Judea must occasion inundations very dangerous to buildings within their reach, by washing the soil from under them, and occasioning their fall.” — Harmer. See the notes on Matthew 7:21-29; where the contents of this paragraph are explained. “May these beautiful, striking, and repeated admonitions, which our Saviour gives us of the vanity of every profession which does not influence the practice, be attended to with reverence and fear! We are building for eternity; may we never grudge the time and labour of a most serious inquiry into the great fundamental principles of religion! May we discover the sure foundation, and raise upon it a noble superstructure, which shall stand fair and glorious when hypocrites are swept away into everlasting ruin, in that awful day in which heaven and earth shall flee away from the face of him that sits upon the throne! Revelation 20:11.” — Doddridge.
Daniel Whedon
46-49.—Matthew 7:21-29.
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE TO VERSE 13.
The Sacred Numbers.
The choosing of the Twelve suggests the subject of the Sacred Numbers apparent in Scripture. (See Stuart on the Apocalypse, vol. ii, p. 409.) The decimal numbers, tens, hundreds, thousands, etc., are obviously founded on the practical ease and beauty of these numbers, which have rendered them the basis of arithmetic the world over. Assuming the unit as the seed of numbers, then the unit added to THREE makes the sacred FOUR, (3+1=4;) THREE added to FOUR makes the SEVEN, (3+4=7;) and THREE into FOUR makes TWELVE, (3x4=12.)
NUMBER THREE.
Three is emphatically the divine number, as indicative of the Creator, or original being—God. The divine substance, being pure, original, simple, spiritual substance, is unit. This—God incommunicable—the dim background of Deity, generates a Revealer or manifested self, and thence a third all-pervading Effluence. In this and other modes, perhaps all the great primary religions of the world, from the eastern verge of China to the western shore of Ireland, nay, including the continent of America, are more or less clearly TRINITARIAN.
In the Hindoo theology Para-Brama is the background, who developes into Brahma, the Creator, Vishnu, the Preserver, and Shiva, the Destroyer and Renewer. Among the Buddhists, we have the Trine—Buddhas, the Revealer, Dharmas, the Revealed, and Sanghas, the hosts who obey revelation. In the Chaldee oracles, it is said, “Unity hath produced a second, which dwells in it and shines in intellectual light; from this proceeds a third, which shines through the whole world.” The Phenician theology assigns to the universe a triplet principium—Jupiter, that is, the heavens, the earth, and love, which unites the two. Among the Chinese, the name of deity is Tao; that is, the Three-one. The celebrated Tao-Tsee says that “Tao [the original godhead] is by his nature one; but the first has produced a second; the second a third; and these three have created all things.” Among the Persians, from Zervane Akerene, or the Uncreated Time, was generated Oromasd, the good, and Ahriman, the evil. They also had Mithras as mediator-god between the good and evil, to whom they assigned the triangle as a symbol. Among the Egyptians, from Athor, or the original Night, were the three, Kneph, Phthas, and Osiris; which, in the natural world, are symbolized by light, fire, and sun; and in the ideal world by omnipotence, wisdom, and goodness.
Among the Greeks and Romans the number three often appears in sacred things. Virgil (Eclog. 8:73) says: “These three threads, diversified by three different colours, I bind around; three times I carry the effigy around these altars; the god delights in this uneven number.” This Servius, the ancient commentator, identifies with “the threefold number that [the Romans] assigned to the supreme god, from whom is the beginning, middle, and end.” Plutarch, (de Isid., c. 46:) the greatest and divinest nature consists of three. And Plato (de Leg. 4:716) says: “God, according to the ancient saying, contains the beginning, the end, and the middle of all things.” Among the Hebrews no mere impersonal god, or abstract divine substance, appears. Nor does the Old Testament distinctly and explicitly reveal a trinity, as such. Still an occult plurality in the Godhead seems implied in various ways. The ordinary term for deity is Elohim, which is a plural noun. Says Simon Ben Joachi, an ancient rabbi, as quoted by Dr. Clark on Genesis 1:1: “Come, see the mystery of the word Elohim; there are three degrees, and each degree by itself alone; and yet they are all one, and joined together in one, and not divided from each other.” In view of this fact, and the plural name, Elohim, we cannot but recognize a reference to this occult divine plurality in the phrases in Genesis: Let US make man, Let US go down, Become like one of US. The trine benediction in Numbers 6:24-26 illustrates the triple nature of this plurality, to which we may parallel as a beautiful interpretation the Christian benediction, so properly used in dismissing our congregations, 2 Corinthians 13:14: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,” etc.; as well as the formula of baptism, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The trisagion or thrice-holy of Isaiah, Holy, Holy, Holy, (chap. 6:3,) repeated Revelation 4:8, have the same occult reference, and in this last passage the trine description of eternity, which is, and was, and is to come, being an expansion of the meaning of the word Jehovah, develops an occult trinity even in that incommunicable name.
The triangle, as symbolical of Deity, is a most expressive image of the trine nature. It is in use among the Hindoos. A triangle, with its point upward, is the symbol of Shiva; with the point downward, of Vishnu. Among the Chinese the same symbol is used for the divinities. A tripod they call spirit, from its symbolical signification. This visible and tangible emblem conveys to us a very vivid impression of the general faith of the religious world in a trinity of the divine nature.
THE SACRED NUMBER FOUR.
As the number three indicated God, so the number four indicated the creation. For four contains and depends upon three for its existence, and yet requires a unit to be added to make it different from three. As three represents the divine, so four represents the created or mundane. The followers of that most ancient of Greek theosophists, Pythagoras, paid mystic regard to the number four; invented for it a peculiar name, the Tetraktys, by which they swore. The tetraktys they held to be an emblem of the kosmos, or the universal order or creation. This is a most obvious idea; for the square is the most orderly of figures. A surface of squares, unlike a surface of circular figures, will adjust or square to each other, without interspace or discrepancy. Besides, all solids were conceived to have the four dimensions—length, breadth, height, and depth. And the most perfect of all solids and the most perfect emblem of the kosmos, the CUBE, “consists of fours throughout.”
This relation between the four and the kosmos being once the starting-point, we might expect that four would be detected in various arrangements of the world. Four are the elements—earth, air, fire, and water. Four are the cardinal points whose lines intersect the globe. Four are the seasons that sweep over its face. The biblical use of the number four is not as plentiful and decided as of some other numbers. Four quarters or points are assigned to the heavens and to the earth— Ezekiel 7:2; Zechariah 1:18-21; Revelation 7:1; 20:8. The heavens are divided into four great constellations—Job 9:9; 38:31. In the vision of Ezekiel, chap. 1, as well as in Revelation, there appears the clearest reference to the four of creation. The four living creatures, which seem in fact to be symbols of the creation, and several other fours embraced in this vision, receive much elucidation from our discussion. THE SACRED NUMBER SEVEN.
Commentators have been in the habit of saying, without exactly knowing the meaning of their own words, certainly without knowing their full meaning, that the number seven is “a number of completeness and perfection.” How it is any more a number of completeness and perfection than six, eight, or ten, they have not proceeded to show. But from the views here presented, a meaning comes into their words. Seven is (3+4=7) the sum of three and four, and thus embraces in its comprehension the entire sum of existence, both God and creation—Theos and kosmos. This is, therefore, most truly a number of completeness and perfection. The act of the creation shows God and kosmos in combination. It is the Great Three involving the Great Four, and thus running through the Great Seven. The great week of creation, Genesis ii, then, is simply the great periods in which the seven is coming into complete expansion. “The mystical square of the Hindoos, which is used as an amulet.” says Stuart, “is designed to represent the world. It contains three rows of squares (a union of three and four) joined together and marked with unit numbers, so that if read in any direction the sum of them is fifteen. The form [embracing the nine digits] is thus: The number five thus occupies the middle station and designates the soul of the world; the other numbers designate the world; the even ones the earthly elements; the uneven ones the heavenly elements. Man, as an image of the world, a real mikrokosmov, [microcosm or little world,] is drawn by the Hindoos upon this magic square with his hands and feet extended to the four corners.”
And it is through the creative week that we develop the almost uniform use to which we see the number seven applied, namely, as a measure of the time of any completed sacred performance. The order of ideas, as we should trace it, is as follows: First. Seven, as the sacred 3+4, is the measure of the accomplishment of the 3+4 in creation. Second. It becomes, thence, in a reduced pattern, the measure of the ordinary week; and thence, Third. It becomes the measure of other holy seasons or rounds of sacred performance. Hence it became a ritual number. Seven days was the feast of the passover kept. After a lapse of seven days circumcision was performed. Purification from touch of a corpse lasted seven days. These are but a small part of the instituted performance of seven-day duties. On the seventh month was the holy convocation at the feast of trumpets. (Numbers 29:1.) Seven weeks after the wave offering Pentecost commenced. After seven times seven years was the jubilee. The blood of propitiation was sprinkled seven times. So that there was not only the seven or week of days, but the week of months and the week of years. And there was not only the week of times but the week of things.
The week being thus an established measure, its number of seven becomes a measure of anything of a sacred character within a fair proportion. The seventh year gave Jacob his wife, and the seventh year emancipated any Hebrew servant. Wedding feasts were seven days. Seven years was Solomon building the temple. Jericho was taken with a storm of sevens. Cain was to have a sevenfold vengeance, and Lamech seventy sevens. God will chasten seven times, Leviticus 26:28; and Israel shall flee seven ways, Deuteronomy 28:7, 25. Pharaoh’s dreams abounded in sevens. Sevens of clean animals entered the ark seven days before the flood commenced. The same number out of the circle of Hebraisms is sacredly used by Balaam. (Numbers 23:1.) It was used in the times and land of Job. (Job 5:19.) It is even a sacred number with regal Babylon. (Daniel 3:19; 4:16.)
From this train of thought we have a clear illustration of the original establishment, the patriarchal retention, the wide diffusion of the week-division, and the consequent perpetual obligation of the sabbath or weekly sacred rest. Perhaps the change from the Jewish to the Christian week might herefrom be also shown to be an easy idea. Other suggestions arise which we must here omit.
In the New Testament, besides Mark 8:8, and Luke 8:2, and Luke 11:26, the Apocalypse is profuse of symbolic sevens. Seven are the Churches of Asia, the spirits before the throne, the golden candlesticks, the stars, the eyes which are the spirits of God, the horns and eyes of the lamb, the uttering thunders, the seals, the trumpets, the vials, the heads and crowns of the dragon, the heads of the beast, the hills and kings of Rome. The clearest chronological prophecy of the Messiah in the entire Old Testament, that of Daniel 9:25, embraces a period of seventy sevens. The half of seven appears in several of the numbers which figure largely in prophetic expositions. Half-seven years are the three years and six months of Luke 4:25; James 5:17; the forty-two months of Revelation 11:2; 13:5; the time, times, and half time of Daniel 7:25; 12:7; Revelation 12:14; and the 1260 days of Revelation 11:13; 12:6. Twice seven appears thrice in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus; a clear indication of its constructive character. See note on Matthew 1:17. THE SACRED NUMBER TWELVE.
As three added to four is so eminent a sacred number, so three multiplying four (3x4=12) is bound to be, at least in some degree, sacred. But the distinctive nature of these different sacred figures has hardly been clearly noted. As unit is primary, unwrought, simple substance, so three is the divine number, four the mundane number, seven the ritual number, and twelve the governmental number. This product of the 3x4 found a happy coincidence for itself, first, in the twelve signs of the zodiac, within which the sun’s course is circumscribed, and the twelve annual moon-changes or months; and, perhaps, derives thence something of its governmental character. Its next coincidence is found with the twelve sons of Jacob, and thence the twelve tribes of Israel. In this its governmental character was completed. But many of the ancient governmental conformities to this number were clearly to be derived from the Israelite twelvedom of tribes. And we see that an anxious respect was paid to this number when the generational basis in some measure failed. The tribe of Levi had no allotment of territory, and Joseph’s two sons were called in to make up the complement of the twelve states. So in Revelation 7, where the idolatrous tribe of Dan is expunged and Levi counted, the deficit is supplied in the same way.
Twelve were the Arabian tribes descended from Ishmael, and twelve the Saracen tribes, even to the time of Mohammed. Twelve were the most ancient Egyptian dynasties. Twelve states formed the Ionian confederacy. Twelve were the associations of Achaians in Peloponnesus; twelve the towns founded by Cecrops in Attica; twelve were the tables of Roman law; by twelves the Etrurians classified their magistrates; twelve were the parts of Plato’s Republic; twelve the counsellors of the Phaeacian king, and twelve the ancient members of the court of Areopagus.
“In the Scriptures,” says Professor Stuart, “we might naturally expect to find the number twelve often introduced on account of the twelve tribes of Israel. Thus in Exodus 15:27, twelve. fountains of water at Elim; Exodus 24:4, twelve pillars around the altar; Leviticus 24:5, twelve cakes of showbread; Exodus 28:10, 21, twelve gems in the breastplate of the high priest; Numbers 7:3, 87; 29:17, offerings of different kinds by twelves; Numbers 7:84-87, various vessels to be made for the temple by twelves; Numbers 13:3, seq., twelve spies to the land of Canaan; Joshua 4:3, twelve stones from the Jordan, carried by twelve men and thrown into a monumental heap; 1 Kings 4:7, 26, twelve prefects of Solomon’s household, and twelve thousand horsemen; 1 Kings 7:25, twelve brazen oxen supporting the laver; 1 Kings 10:20, twelve brazen lions near the throne; Ezekiel 43:16, the altar twelve cubits long and broad; not to mention many other twelves. In the New Testament the twelve apostles take the lead. In the Apocalypse we have twelve thousand in each of the twelve tribes, who are sealed in the forehead as the servants of God. (Revelation 7:4, seq.) In Revelation 21:12, seq., we have an account of the New Jerusalem with twelve gates, (comp. Ezekiel 48:31, seq.,) and twelve angels to keep them, and the names of the twelve tribes are written on them; there are also twelve rows of stones in the foundation of the walls, on which the names of the twelve apostles are inscribed. Besides all this the city measures twelve thousand furlongs, and its walls are twelve times twelve cubits high.” That our Saviour intended the number of his twelve apostles to symbolize with the twelve patriarchs, is, we think, clear, from the symbolical promise, that they should “sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Matthew 19:28. The same care for the preservation of the duodecimal number of patriarchal tribes reappears in the preservation of the apostolic number, by the election of Matthias in the place of Judas. That there is a divine idea in this, is evident from the symbolical usages in the Apocalypse. In Revelation 12:1, the woman that symbolizes the Church has upon her head a crown of twelve stars. And the tree of life, emblem of Gospel grace, has twelve manner of fruits; that is, a monthly harvest, thus combining therein a Mosaical and apostolic allusion.
But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.
Adam Clarke
Verse 49. The ruin of that house was great.] On this passage, father Quesnel, who was a most rigid predestinarian, makes the following judicious remark. “It is neither by the speculations of astrologers, nor by the Calvinian assurance of predestination, that we can discover what will be our portion for ever: but it is by the examination of our heart, and the consideration of our life, that we may in some measure prognosticate our eternal state. Without a holy heart and a holy life, all is ruinous in the hour of temptation, and in the day of wrath.” To this may be added, He that believeth on the Son of God, hath the WITNESS in HIMSELF: 1 John 5:10.
The subjects of this chapter have been so amply explained and enforced in the parallel places in Matthew, to which the reader has been already referred, that there appears to be no necessity to make any additional observations.
ST. LUKE
Joseph Benson
Verses 46-49. And why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? — What will fair professions avail, without a life answerable thereto? Our Lord’s words may also refer to what he had just spoken in praise of good words. As if he had said, Though I have thus spoken, you must take notice, that it is in a particular case especially that your good words will manifest the state of your hearts to be good, namely, when the characters and actions of others are spoken of and censured. Good words, on many other occasions, are of no avail; for the best advices given to others, verse 42, or the fairest speeches imaginable addressed to me, your Master, and your giving me the highest titles of respect, are of no manner of signification, if you do not keep my commandments, and possess the graces, and practise the duties which I describe and enjoin. And the flood arose — Here is an allusion to the violent rains and sweeping floods in the eastern countries, in the winter. “Though the rains are not extremely frequent at that season, yet, when it does rain, the water pours down with great violence for three or four days and nights together, enough to drown the whole country. Such violent rains in so hilly a country as Judea must occasion inundations very dangerous to buildings within their reach, by washing the soil from under them, and occasioning their fall.” — Harmer. See the notes on Matthew 7:21-29; where the contents of this paragraph are explained. “May these beautiful, striking, and repeated admonitions, which our Saviour gives us of the vanity of every profession which does not influence the practice, be attended to with reverence and fear! We are building for eternity; may we never grudge the time and labour of a most serious inquiry into the great fundamental principles of religion! May we discover the sure foundation, and raise upon it a noble superstructure, which shall stand fair and glorious when hypocrites are swept away into everlasting ruin, in that awful day in which heaven and earth shall flee away from the face of him that sits upon the throne! Revelation 20:11.” — Doddridge.
Daniel Whedon
46-49.—Matthew 7:21-29.
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE TO VERSE 13.
The Sacred Numbers.
The choosing of the Twelve suggests the subject of the Sacred Numbers apparent in Scripture. (See Stuart on the Apocalypse, vol. ii, p. 409.) The decimal numbers, tens, hundreds, thousands, etc., are obviously founded on the practical ease and beauty of these numbers, which have rendered them the basis of arithmetic the world over. Assuming the unit as the seed of numbers, then the unit added to THREE makes the sacred FOUR, (3+1=4;) THREE added to FOUR makes the SEVEN, (3+4=7;) and THREE into FOUR makes TWELVE, (3x4=12.)
NUMBER THREE.
Three is emphatically the divine number, as indicative of the Creator, or original being—God. The divine substance, being pure, original, simple, spiritual substance, is unit. This—God incommunicable—the dim background of Deity, generates a Revealer or manifested self, and thence a third all-pervading Effluence. In this and other modes, perhaps all the great primary religions of the world, from the eastern verge of China to the western shore of Ireland, nay, including the continent of America, are more or less clearly TRINITARIAN.
In the Hindoo theology Para-Brama is the background, who developes into Brahma, the Creator, Vishnu, the Preserver, and Shiva, the Destroyer and Renewer. Among the Buddhists, we have the Trine—Buddhas, the Revealer, Dharmas, the Revealed, and Sanghas, the hosts who obey revelation. In the Chaldee oracles, it is said, “Unity hath produced a second, which dwells in it and shines in intellectual light; from this proceeds a third, which shines through the whole world.” The Phenician theology assigns to the universe a triplet principium—Jupiter, that is, the heavens, the earth, and love, which unites the two. Among the Chinese, the name of deity is Tao; that is, the Three-one. The celebrated Tao-Tsee says that “Tao [the original godhead] is by his nature one; but the first has produced a second; the second a third; and these three have created all things.” Among the Persians, from Zervane Akerene, or the Uncreated Time, was generated Oromasd, the good, and Ahriman, the evil. They also had Mithras as mediator-god between the good and evil, to whom they assigned the triangle as a symbol. Among the Egyptians, from Athor, or the original Night, were the three, Kneph, Phthas, and Osiris; which, in the natural world, are symbolized by light, fire, and sun; and in the ideal world by omnipotence, wisdom, and goodness.
Among the Greeks and Romans the number three often appears in sacred things. Virgil (Eclog. 8:73) says: “These three threads, diversified by three different colours, I bind around; three times I carry the effigy around these altars; the god delights in this uneven number.” This Servius, the ancient commentator, identifies with “the threefold number that [the Romans] assigned to the supreme god, from whom is the beginning, middle, and end.” Plutarch, (de Isid., c. 46:) the greatest and divinest nature consists of three. And Plato (de Leg. 4:716) says: “God, according to the ancient saying, contains the beginning, the end, and the middle of all things.” Among the Hebrews no mere impersonal god, or abstract divine substance, appears. Nor does the Old Testament distinctly and explicitly reveal a trinity, as such. Still an occult plurality in the Godhead seems implied in various ways. The ordinary term for deity is Elohim, which is a plural noun. Says Simon Ben Joachi, an ancient rabbi, as quoted by Dr. Clark on Genesis 1:1: “Come, see the mystery of the word Elohim; there are three degrees, and each degree by itself alone; and yet they are all one, and joined together in one, and not divided from each other.” In view of this fact, and the plural name, Elohim, we cannot but recognize a reference to this occult divine plurality in the phrases in Genesis: Let US make man, Let US go down, Become like one of US. The trine benediction in Numbers 6:24-26 illustrates the triple nature of this plurality, to which we may parallel as a beautiful interpretation the Christian benediction, so properly used in dismissing our congregations, 2 Corinthians 13:14: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,” etc.; as well as the formula of baptism, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The trisagion or thrice-holy of Isaiah, Holy, Holy, Holy, (chap. 6:3,) repeated Revelation 4:8, have the same occult reference, and in this last passage the trine description of eternity, which is, and was, and is to come, being an expansion of the meaning of the word Jehovah, develops an occult trinity even in that incommunicable name.
The triangle, as symbolical of Deity, is a most expressive image of the trine nature. It is in use among the Hindoos. A triangle, with its point upward, is the symbol of Shiva; with the point downward, of Vishnu. Among the Chinese the same symbol is used for the divinities. A tripod they call spirit, from its symbolical signification. This visible and tangible emblem conveys to us a very vivid impression of the general faith of the religious world in a trinity of the divine nature.
THE SACRED NUMBER FOUR.
As the number three indicated God, so the number four indicated the creation. For four contains and depends upon three for its existence, and yet requires a unit to be added to make it different from three. As three represents the divine, so four represents the created or mundane. The followers of that most ancient of Greek theosophists, Pythagoras, paid mystic regard to the number four; invented for it a peculiar name, the Tetraktys, by which they swore. The tetraktys they held to be an emblem of the kosmos, or the universal order or creation. This is a most obvious idea; for the square is the most orderly of figures. A surface of squares, unlike a surface of circular figures, will adjust or square to each other, without interspace or discrepancy. Besides, all solids were conceived to have the four dimensions—length, breadth, height, and depth. And the most perfect of all solids and the most perfect emblem of the kosmos, the CUBE, “consists of fours throughout.”
This relation between the four and the kosmos being once the starting-point, we might expect that four would be detected in various arrangements of the world. Four are the elements—earth, air, fire, and water. Four are the cardinal points whose lines intersect the globe. Four are the seasons that sweep over its face. The biblical use of the number four is not as plentiful and decided as of some other numbers. Four quarters or points are assigned to the heavens and to the earth— Ezekiel 7:2; Zechariah 1:18-21; Revelation 7:1; 20:8. The heavens are divided into four great constellations—Job 9:9; 38:31. In the vision of Ezekiel, chap. 1, as well as in Revelation, there appears the clearest reference to the four of creation. The four living creatures, which seem in fact to be symbols of the creation, and several other fours embraced in this vision, receive much elucidation from our discussion. THE SACRED NUMBER SEVEN.
Commentators have been in the habit of saying, without exactly knowing the meaning of their own words, certainly without knowing their full meaning, that the number seven is “a number of completeness and perfection.” How it is any more a number of completeness and perfection than six, eight, or ten, they have not proceeded to show. But from the views here presented, a meaning comes into their words. Seven is (3+4=7) the sum of three and four, and thus embraces in its comprehension the entire sum of existence, both God and creation—Theos and kosmos. This is, therefore, most truly a number of completeness and perfection. The act of the creation shows God and kosmos in combination. It is the Great Three involving the Great Four, and thus running through the Great Seven. The great week of creation, Genesis ii, then, is simply the great periods in which the seven is coming into complete expansion. “The mystical square of the Hindoos, which is used as an amulet.” says Stuart, “is designed to represent the world. It contains three rows of squares (a union of three and four) joined together and marked with unit numbers, so that if read in any direction the sum of them is fifteen. The form [embracing the nine digits] is thus: The number five thus occupies the middle station and designates the soul of the world; the other numbers designate the world; the even ones the earthly elements; the uneven ones the heavenly elements. Man, as an image of the world, a real mikrokosmov, [microcosm or little world,] is drawn by the Hindoos upon this magic square with his hands and feet extended to the four corners.”
And it is through the creative week that we develop the almost uniform use to which we see the number seven applied, namely, as a measure of the time of any completed sacred performance. The order of ideas, as we should trace it, is as follows: First. Seven, as the sacred 3+4, is the measure of the accomplishment of the 3+4 in creation. Second. It becomes, thence, in a reduced pattern, the measure of the ordinary week; and thence, Third. It becomes the measure of other holy seasons or rounds of sacred performance. Hence it became a ritual number. Seven days was the feast of the passover kept. After a lapse of seven days circumcision was performed. Purification from touch of a corpse lasted seven days. These are but a small part of the instituted performance of seven-day duties. On the seventh month was the holy convocation at the feast of trumpets. (Numbers 29:1.) Seven weeks after the wave offering Pentecost commenced. After seven times seven years was the jubilee. The blood of propitiation was sprinkled seven times. So that there was not only the seven or week of days, but the week of months and the week of years. And there was not only the week of times but the week of things.
The week being thus an established measure, its number of seven becomes a measure of anything of a sacred character within a fair proportion. The seventh year gave Jacob his wife, and the seventh year emancipated any Hebrew servant. Wedding feasts were seven days. Seven years was Solomon building the temple. Jericho was taken with a storm of sevens. Cain was to have a sevenfold vengeance, and Lamech seventy sevens. God will chasten seven times, Leviticus 26:28; and Israel shall flee seven ways, Deuteronomy 28:7, 25. Pharaoh’s dreams abounded in sevens. Sevens of clean animals entered the ark seven days before the flood commenced. The same number out of the circle of Hebraisms is sacredly used by Balaam. (Numbers 23:1.) It was used in the times and land of Job. (Job 5:19.) It is even a sacred number with regal Babylon. (Daniel 3:19; 4:16.)
From this train of thought we have a clear illustration of the original establishment, the patriarchal retention, the wide diffusion of the week-division, and the consequent perpetual obligation of the sabbath or weekly sacred rest. Perhaps the change from the Jewish to the Christian week might herefrom be also shown to be an easy idea. Other suggestions arise which we must here omit.
In the New Testament, besides Mark 8:8, and Luke 8:2, and Luke 11:26, the Apocalypse is profuse of symbolic sevens. Seven are the Churches of Asia, the spirits before the throne, the golden candlesticks, the stars, the eyes which are the spirits of God, the horns and eyes of the lamb, the uttering thunders, the seals, the trumpets, the vials, the heads and crowns of the dragon, the heads of the beast, the hills and kings of Rome. The clearest chronological prophecy of the Messiah in the entire Old Testament, that of Daniel 9:25, embraces a period of seventy sevens. The half of seven appears in several of the numbers which figure largely in prophetic expositions. Half-seven years are the three years and six months of Luke 4:25; James 5:17; the forty-two months of Revelation 11:2; 13:5; the time, times, and half time of Daniel 7:25; 12:7; Revelation 12:14; and the 1260 days of Revelation 11:13; 12:6. Twice seven appears thrice in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus; a clear indication of its constructive character. See note on Matthew 1:17. THE SACRED NUMBER TWELVE.
As three added to four is so eminent a sacred number, so three multiplying four (3x4=12) is bound to be, at least in some degree, sacred. But the distinctive nature of these different sacred figures has hardly been clearly noted. As unit is primary, unwrought, simple substance, so three is the divine number, four the mundane number, seven the ritual number, and twelve the governmental number. This product of the 3x4 found a happy coincidence for itself, first, in the twelve signs of the zodiac, within which the sun’s course is circumscribed, and the twelve annual moon-changes or months; and, perhaps, derives thence something of its governmental character. Its next coincidence is found with the twelve sons of Jacob, and thence the twelve tribes of Israel. In this its governmental character was completed. But many of the ancient governmental conformities to this number were clearly to be derived from the Israelite twelvedom of tribes. And we see that an anxious respect was paid to this number when the generational basis in some measure failed. The tribe of Levi had no allotment of territory, and Joseph’s two sons were called in to make up the complement of the twelve states. So in Revelation 7, where the idolatrous tribe of Dan is expunged and Levi counted, the deficit is supplied in the same way.
Twelve were the Arabian tribes descended from Ishmael, and twelve the Saracen tribes, even to the time of Mohammed. Twelve were the most ancient Egyptian dynasties. Twelve states formed the Ionian confederacy. Twelve were the associations of Achaians in Peloponnesus; twelve the towns founded by Cecrops in Attica; twelve were the tables of Roman law; by twelves the Etrurians classified their magistrates; twelve were the parts of Plato’s Republic; twelve the counsellors of the Phaeacian king, and twelve the ancient members of the court of Areopagus.
“In the Scriptures,” says Professor Stuart, “we might naturally expect to find the number twelve often introduced on account of the twelve tribes of Israel. Thus in Exodus 15:27, twelve. fountains of water at Elim; Exodus 24:4, twelve pillars around the altar; Leviticus 24:5, twelve cakes of showbread; Exodus 28:10, 21, twelve gems in the breastplate of the high priest; Numbers 7:3, 87; 29:17, offerings of different kinds by twelves; Numbers 7:84-87, various vessels to be made for the temple by twelves; Numbers 13:3, seq., twelve spies to the land of Canaan; Joshua 4:3, twelve stones from the Jordan, carried by twelve men and thrown into a monumental heap; 1 Kings 4:7, 26, twelve prefects of Solomon’s household, and twelve thousand horsemen; 1 Kings 7:25, twelve brazen oxen supporting the laver; 1 Kings 10:20, twelve brazen lions near the throne; Ezekiel 43:16, the altar twelve cubits long and broad; not to mention many other twelves. In the New Testament the twelve apostles take the lead. In the Apocalypse we have twelve thousand in each of the twelve tribes, who are sealed in the forehead as the servants of God. (Revelation 7:4, seq.) In Revelation 21:12, seq., we have an account of the New Jerusalem with twelve gates, (comp. Ezekiel 48:31, seq.,) and twelve angels to keep them, and the names of the twelve tribes are written on them; there are also twelve rows of stones in the foundation of the walls, on which the names of the twelve apostles are inscribed. Besides all this the city measures twelve thousand furlongs, and its walls are twelve times twelve cubits high.” That our Saviour intended the number of his twelve apostles to symbolize with the twelve patriarchs, is, we think, clear, from the symbolical promise, that they should “sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Matthew 19:28. The same care for the preservation of the duodecimal number of patriarchal tribes reappears in the preservation of the apostolic number, by the election of Matthias in the place of Judas. That there is a divine idea in this, is evident from the symbolical usages in the Apocalypse. In Revelation 12:1, the woman that symbolizes the Church has upon her head a crown of twelve stars. And the tree of life, emblem of Gospel grace, has twelve manner of fruits; that is, a monthly harvest, thus combining therein a Mosaical and apostolic allusion.
John Wesley
V. 1. The first Sabbath-So the Jews reckoned their Sabbaths, from the passover to pentecost; the first, second, third, and so on, till the seventh Sabbath (after the second day.) This immediately preceded pentecost, which was the fiftieth day after the second day of unleavened bread. Matthew 12:1; Mark 2:23.
Adam Clarke
Verse 1. On the second Sabbath after the first] en sabbatw deuteroprwtw, In the first Sabbath after the second. What does this mean? In answering this question, commentators are greatly divided. Dr. Whitby speaks thus: “After the first day of the passover, (which was a Sabbath, Exodus 12:16,) ye shall count unto you seven Sabbaths complete, Leviticus 23:15, reckoning that day for the first of the first week, which was therefore called deuteroprwton, the first Sabbath from the second day of unleavened bread; (the 16th of the month;) the second was called deuterodeuteron, the second Sabbath from that day; and the third, deuterotriton, the third Sabbath from the second day; and so on, till they came to the seventh Sabbath from that day, i.e. to the 49th day, which was the day of pentecost. The mention of the seven Sabbaths, to be numbered with relation to this second day, answers all that Grotius objects against this exposition.” WHITBY’S Notes.
By this Sabbath seems meant that which immediately followed the two great feasts, the first and last day of the passover, and was therefore the second after the proper passover day. The words in the Greek seem to signify, the second first Sabbath; and, in the opinion of some, the Jews had three first Sabbaths: viz. the first Sabbath after the passover; that after the feast of pentecost; and that after the feast of tabernacles. According to which opinion, this second first Sabbath must have been the first Sabbath after the pentecost. So we have the first Sunday after Epiphany; the first after Easter; the first after Trinity; and the first in Lent. Bp. PEARCE. This was the next day after the passover, the day in which they were forbidden to labour, Leviticus 23:6, and for this reason was termed Sabbath, Leviticus 23:15; but here it is marked by the name, second first Sabbath, because, being the day after the passover, it was in this respect the second; and it was also the first, because it was the first day of unleavened bread, Exodus 12:15, 16. MARTIN.
I think, with many commentators, that this transaction happened on the first Sabbath of the month Nisan; that is, after the second day of the feast of unleavened bread. We may well suppose that our Lord and his disciples were on their way from Jerusalem to Galilee, after having kept the passover. Bp. NEWCOME.
The Vulgar Latin renders deuteroprwton, secundoprimum, which is literal and right. We translate it, the second Sabbath after the first, which is directly wrong; for it should have been the first Sabbath after the second day of the passover. On the 14th of Nisan, the passover was killed; the next day (the 15th) was the first day of the feast of unleavened bread; the day following (the 16th) the wave sheaf was offered, pursuant to the law, on the morrow after the Sabbath: Leviticus 18:11. The Sabbath, here, is not the seventh day of the week, but the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, let it fall on what day of the week it would. That and the seventh day of that feast were holy convocations, and therefore are here called Sabbaths. The morrow, therefore, after the Sabbath, i.e. after the 16th day of Nisan, was the day in which the wave sheaf was offered; and after that seven Sabbaths were counted, and fifty days completed, and the fiftieth day inclusively was the day of pentecost. Now these Sabbaths, between the passover and pentecost, were called the first, second, &c., Sabbaths after the second day of the feast of unleavened bread. This Sabbath, then, on which the disciples plucked the ears of corn, was the first Sabbath after that second day. Dr. Lightfoot, has demonstrably proved this to be the meaning of this sabbaton deuteroprwton, (Hor. Hebraic. in locum,) and from him F. Lamy and Dr. Whitby have so explained it. This Sabbath could not fall before the passover, because, till the second day of that feast, no Jew might eat either bread or parched corn, or green ears, (Leviticus 23:14.) Had the disciples then gathered these ears of corn on any Sabbath before the passover, they would have broken two laws instead of one: and for the breach of these two laws they would infallibly have been accused; whereas now they broke only one, (plucking the ears of standing corn with one’s hand, being expressly allowed in the law, Deuteronomy 23:25,) which was that of the Sabbath. They took a liberty which the law gave them upon any other day; and our Lord vindicated them in what they did now, in the manner we see. Nor can this fact be laid after pentecost; because then the harvest was fully in. Within that interval, therefore, this Sabbath happened; and this is a plain determination of the time, according to the Jewish ways of reckoning, founded upon the text of Moses’s law itself. Dr. WOTTON’S Miscellaneous Discourses, &c., vol. i. p. 269.
The word deuteroprwtw, the second first, is omitted by BL, four others, Syriac, later Arabic, all the Persic, Coptic, Æthiopic, and three of the Itala. A note in the margin of the later Syriac says, This is not in all copies. The above MSS. read the verse thus: It came to pass, that he walked through the corn fields on a Sabbath day. I suppose they omitted the above word, because they found it difficult to fix the meaning, which has been too much the case in other instances.
Joseph Benson
Verses 1-5. On the second sabbath after the first — The original expression here, en Sabbatw deuteroprwtw, says Dr. Whitby, “should have been rendered, In the first sabbath after the second day, namely, of unleavened bread; for, after the first day of the passover, (which was a sabbath, Exodus 12:16,) ye shall count unto you (said God) seven sabbaths complete, Leviticus 23:15, reckoning that day for the first of the week, which was therefore called, deuteroprwton, the first sabbath from this second day of unleavened bread; (the 16th of the month;) the second was called deuterodeuteron, the second sabbath from that day; and the third, deuterotriton, the third sabbath from that second day; and so on, till they came to the seventh sabbath from that day; that is, to the forty-ninth day, which was the day of pentecost. The mention of the seven sabbaths, to be numbered with relation to this second day, answers all that Grotius objects against this exposition. Epiphanius expressly says, Our Lord’s disciples did what is here recorded, tw sabbatw, tw meta thn hmeran twn azumwn, on the sabbath following the [second] day of unleavened bread. And if pentecost was called the feast of harvest, Exodus 23:16, (as Bochart, Mr. Mede, Dr. Lightfoot, and the Jews say,) because then their barley and wheat harvest was gathered in, this feast could not be pentecost, as Grotius conjectures, because then the corn must have been gathered in, and therefore could not have been plucked by Christ’s disciples in the field.” There are other expositions of the phrase, but this seems by far the most probable. He went through the corn-fields, &c. This paragraph is largely explained in the notes on Matthew 12:1- 8; and Mark 2:23-28.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Verse 1. On the second sabbath after the first. The Hebrew law is, Leviticus 23:11, on the morrow after the sabbath, the priest shall wave the sheaf east and west, north and south, to denote the universal gratitude which all the earth should pay to heaven for the gift of the harvest. “The Baithuseans,” says Dr. Lightfoot, “contend that the first day of the passover should be on the sabbath, that the offering of the sheaf might fall on the first day of the week. And likewise, that the feast of pentecost might fall also on the first day of the week.
“Against this the rabbins contend, that by the morrow after the sabbath must be understood the morrow after the sabbatical day, or on the first day of the week. Rabban Johanan (John) disputing with a Baithusean, says, you shall number fifty days. Leviticus 23:16. Deuteronomy 16:9. His meaning is, if the first of the seven days of the feast of the passover fall on the sabbath, then the sheaf being offered the next day, the feast of pentecost also will fall on the next day after the seventh sabbath. But if it happen in the middle of the week, then from the offering of the sheaf [of barley] we must count not seven sabbaths, but fifty days. “The Baithuseans for this warmth of dispute, say that Master Moses loved Israel, and knowing that the feast of pentecost lasted but one day, appointed the oblation of the sheaf on the morrow after the sabbath, that the people might rejoice for two days.”
Daniel Whedon
§ 33. THE DISCIPLES PLUCKING THE EARS OF CORN, 1-5.
Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28.
1. Second Sabbath after the first—This phrase is in the Greek deuteroprwtw, the Latin Vulgate secundum-primum, that is, literally, second-first. The phrase second Sabbath after the first is a very incorrect translation. The phrase second-first assumes that there is a succession of numerical counts, so that there may be a first series of 1, 2, 3, and a second series, and perhaps a third or more. Each first of these successive series would then be a first-first, a second-first, a third-first, and so on; this present instance being the second-first. But as this is the only occurrence of this compound term anywhere in literature, the meaning is very doubtful. In fact the word itself is omitted in some manuscripts, and is quite possibly a marginal insertion incorporated into the text. Perhaps some manuscripts had second, others first, and both were finally conjoined into second-first. We give different interpretations; the first by Bishop Pearce, as follows: In the opinion of some, the Jews had three first Sabbaths; namely, the first Sabbath after the Passover; that after the feast of the Pentecost; and that after the feast of Tabernacles. According to which opinion, this second-first Sabbath must have been the first Sabbath after the Pentecost. So we have the first Sunday after Epiphany; the first after Easter; the first after Trinity; and the first in Lent.
The next interpretation supposes that the second-first Sabbath is the first Sabbath after the second day of the Passover; which second day of Passover was the day of the wave-sheaf. This day of the wave-sheaf was the ritual beginning of the harvest; previous to which it was unlawful for any Jew to pluck or eat parched corn or green ears. And as the day of the wave-sheaf was the beginning of the harvest, so the Pentecost was the great thanksgiving feast of the completed harvest or ingathering; the ending of the harvest. Between the wave-sheaf and the Pentecost were seven weeks; that is, as seven days are a week of days, so these seven weeks were a week of weeks. Of course this seven weeks included seven Sabbaths. And the first of these Sabbaths being the first after the second day of the Passover, was called the second-first Sabbath; the next Sabbath would be the second-second; the next would be the second-third, and so on through the seven.
Although this is the most prevalent interpretation, it is not obvious how the second after the first would naturally be called the second-first. The third interpretation is that proposed by Wieseler and adopted by Tischendorf, Van Oosterzee, Ellicott, and other modern scholars. The Mosaic law had not only a week of seven days, and a week of seven weeks, but also a week of seven years; the seventh of which was a sabbatical year. Now according to Wieseler’s chronology the commencement of our Lord’s ministry was in a sabbatical year. The first Sabbath in the first of the seven years would be the first-first Sabbath; the first Sabbath of the second year would be the second-first, and so on through the sabbatic series of years. This would make the Sabbath when the disciples plucked the barley to be the first Sabbath of Nisan, in the year of the building of Rome 782. Wieseler adduces a single passage from Clemens Alexandrinus showing that the first Sabbath of the year was technically called first Sabbath. If his chronological scheme be admitted, it furnishes a very natural meaning to the term.
Richard Watson
1 Christ reproveth the Pharisees’ blindness about the observation of the Sabbath, by Scripture, reason, and miracle: 13 chooseth twelve apostles: 17 healeth the diseased: 20 preacheth to his disciples before the people of blessings and curses: 27 how we must love our enemies: 46 and join the obedience of good works to the hearing of the word: lest in the evil day of temptation we fall like a house built upon the face of the earth, without any foundation.
CHAPTER 6. Verse 1. On the second Sabbath after the first. — On this phrase, en sabbatw deuteroprwtw, says Simon, there are eight different explications, and all conjectural; and even the Syriac and Arabic versions, though so much nearer in time and place to Palestine, show plainly, that their authors did not understand it. Happily nothing depends upon it; and it only adds another proof that this gospel was written, as it professes, by one intimately familiar with Jewish customs and modes of expression. — That most generally received, is sanctioned by Scaliger, Lightfoot, Whitby, Lamy, and others. On the second day of unleavened bread, or of the passover week, Leviticus 23:10, 16, took place the offering of the sheaf or first fruits of the harvest. Thence they reckoned fifty days to the pentecost. The deutero-prwton, or second-first Sabbath, is the first Sabbath after this second day of unleavened bread. The second Sabbath would be called deutero-deuteron the third, deutero-triton; but of this, no instances can be quoted, or this view of the matter would be established. This view is originally drawn from Theophylact, who explains the Sabbath in question as the first of the seven Sabbaths between the passover and the pentecost. This is supported by the season of the year; for when our Lord went through the corn fields, the corn was standing ripe, or nearly so, in the fields. On this transaction, see the notes on Matthew 12:1, &c.