§ 696a 12:1–45 Divine Wisdom against Human Sophistication—Four incidents, 1–8; 9–14; 22–37; 38–45, furnish our Lord with an opportunity to show his divine wisdom in action against the ‘wisdom’ of this world; cf. 11:25–27. They show how simple and kind is the one, how tortuous and ruthless the other.
1–8 First Sabbath Question: the Ears of Corn (Mk 2:23–28; Lk 6:1–5)—1–2. To judge by the order of Mk and Lk (Mt uses his vague ‘at that time’, cf. 11:25; 14:1) it is shortly after the call of Matthew. Jesus and his disciples take a short Sabbath walk (about half a mile) through the fields. Reaping and threshing were two of the thirty-nine works forbidden on the Sabbath. Later rabbinic casuistry regarded plucking the ears as reaping, and rubbing between the hands (Lk) as threshing (Edershei7120m 2, 56, 783). The watchful Pharisees were already of this persuasion. 3–4. Refusing to enter into casuistical discussion Jesus solves the question on the principle that necessity excuses from such ‘positive’ law. He makes this principle irrefutable for his audience by citing the example of the great David, 1 Kg 21:1–6. From the anger of Saul David had fled to Nob of Benjamin where the Tabernacle then was. Achimelech the high-priest allowed him to eat of the twelve loaves called often ‘of the face’ (because placed in God’s presence in the sanctuary) or ‘of proposition’ (προθέσεως, i.e. ‘placed before’; cf. Lev 24:5–9). This offering was renewed weekly, the withdrawn loaves being eaten (by reason of their sacred character) by the priests. Yet David’s necessity prevailed over this positive law and the exception had the high-priest’s sanction. § b 5–6. Our Lord adds (Mt only) that the temple-sacrifice offered on the Sabbath, Lev 23:25; 24:8–9; Num 28:9, is a literal infringement of the sabbath-rest. A remark inviting the obvious retort: the temple service stands alone and clearly transcends all other duties. But the retort is boldly anticipated: There is something greater (μεῖζον) than the temple here. The presence of Jesus turns the field into a sanctuary. The saying opens up limitless horizons (Lebreton). In conjunction with other sayings (notably Jn 2:19; cf. Dubarle, R7121B 48 [1939] 21–44) it offers the person of Jesus as the great substitute for the old sanctuary—a substitution already hinted in Messianic prophecy (e.g. Is 28:7–22; Mic 3:12–5:1; Ez 11:16; Dan 9:23–27; cf. Feuillet, R7122B 56 [1949] 70–5 and notes to Mt 24:30). 7. (Mt only). The quotation is telling (Os 6:6; cf. on 9:12–13, where it has been used already). These Pharisees have not penetrated the spirit even of the old Law. Otherwise they would not have allowed their legal scruples to oust prudent and charitable judgement of the guiltless disciples. 8. Why guiltless? Because their master, the Son of Man (§ 690a), is Master (κύριος) of the divinely instituted Sabbath and can dispense at will. ‘Taken in the light of the preceding verses this claim to be “Lord of the Sabbath”, like so much else in the gospel, cannot adequately be explained by anything short of Christ’s divinity’ (W7123V).
§ c 9–14 Second Sabbath Question: Withered Hand (Mk 3:1–6; Lk 6:6–11)—On another Sabbath (Lk) in the synagogue (prob. of Capharnaum, cf. Mk 1:21; 3:1) a man with a withered hand was present, probably asking a cure. The scribes and Pharisees (Lk) are there to trap our Lord in act (Mk, Lk) and speech (Mt). In their eyes only danger of death could excuse the administration of extraordinary remedies on the Sabbath (Edershei7124m 2, 59–60). 11–13. (Mt only). Our Lord’s reply (clear in sense but Semitic in form and awkwardly translated) is not explicitly abstract and final (unlike 8) but primarily practical and deterrent. It halts the Pharisees by making them see their scruples in due perspective. In the case of a beast, their own property, no Sabbath-scruples; in the case of a man, a mere individual to them, a singular delicacy of conscience! Underlying the argument however (and explicitly in Mk 3:4) there is also the principle that a good act is permissible at any time. Our Lord, far from condemning the procedure in favour of a sheep implicitly approves it as a dictate of common prudence. It is a frontal attack upon Sabbath-casuistry, for which in general cf. Edershei7125m 2, 777–87. On our Lord’s sorrow and anger on this occasion cf. Mk 3:5. 14. For the Pharisees this act of defiance following on the others (cf. 9:4 ff. 9:11 ff.; 12:2 ff.) was the last straw. Already decided on our Lord’s death they are now concerned only with procedure. This they discuss with the supporters of Antipas (‘Herodians’ Mk 3:6, see note).
§ d 15–21 The Gentle Messias (cf Mk 3:7–12; Lk 6:17–19)—Jesus knew (either naturally or super-naturally) the murderous mind of his enemies; he therefore withdraws to the country districts. When the appointed time came he would deliberately walk into the enemy camp (Mt 20:17–19; Lk 13:22, 33; Jn 11:16); meanwhile there was work to do; cf. 10:23. He did not intend that he should be ‘made known’ as the Messias and popularly so acclaimed. He was no demagogue but the gentle ‘Servant of God’ described by Isaias, Is 42:1–4; 41:9. In the form of this quotation Mt is influenced partly by the Heb. text, partly by LX7126X, partly by his own purpose in using it. Thus ‘My beloved’ (‘my chosen one’, HT, LX7127X) recalls the ‘beloved son’ of the Baptism; cf. 3:16–17 where the ‘spirit’ also appears. ‘He shall not contend’ (‘provoke dispute’) is a reasonable adjustment (‘shout aloud’, HT, LX7128X) to fit the withdrawal of our Lord, 15, from unseemly and useless dispute with the Pharisees. The ‘Gentiles’ of 21 (lit7129. ‘nations’, ἔθνη as in LX7130X) replace the ‘islands’ (i.e. ‘distant lands’) of HT; it is an equivalent but more suitable expression for a Gospel which is to close with the words ‘teach all nations’. The general sense of the passage here, as in Isaias, is that the ‘Servant of God’ will expound (God’s) integral truth to the nations outside Israel (‘shew judgement’, 18; ‘judgement’, κρίσις rendering the Heb. mišpāṭ, a word which here embraces the whole revelation of God to his people, cf. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah, 2, 35 f.). 19. The triumph of this ‘Servant’s’ mission will come not by noisy propaganda, 19, nor by harsh measures, 20. On the contrary, he will be tender with the (spiritually) weak and prudent with the souls in which the divine light is flickering out—the ‘injured reed’ and the ‘smouldering wick’ (D7131V ‘smoking flax’). This is to be his firm policy right to the end when he shall establish God’s truth victorious (by his Resurrection?). Thenceforward the whole world will find its hopes in his ‘name’—in his Person as revealed by his works and by those who tell of them.
§ e 22–24 Exorcism and Pharisaic Calumny (Lk 11:14–15; cf. Mk 3:22)—22. The miracle is similar to that of 9:32–34 with the added detail (absent from Lk 11:14) that the possessed man was not only dumb but blind. It is possible that Mt returns to the same miracle here (in the context of the condemnation of the Pharisees) to tell of the controversy merely hinted at in 9:34. Alternatively (Prat, 1, 313) 9:32–34 may be an anticipation. It is possible that we have two distinct miracles but this hypothesis would seem to imply that our Lord did not reply to the grave calumny of 9:34. This would be surprising. 23. Among the crowd there are tentative murmurs: Is this man perhaps (μήτι—only half-incredulous) the Son of David? (the Messias; cf. 1:1 note). 24. With the Pharisees are scribes from Jerusalem (Mk)—evidently the plot, 14, goes forward and the Jerusalem Sanhedrin is in action. ‘This man’, they say, scornfully echoing the crowd’s phrase, ‘is himself possessed by the prince of devils [Mk] who, through him, casts out the minor demons’. The accusation is desperate and (as our Lord will show) absurd. For ‘Beelzebub’ cf. 10:25 note.
§ f 25–30 Our Lord’s Retort: Significance of his Exorcism (Mk 3:23–27; Lk 11:17–23)—Jesus, supernaturally aware of the Pharisees’ mind, first demonstrates the absurdity, 25–26, and dishonesty, 27, of the charge. He then passes to the positive conclusion to be drawn from his exorcisms, 28–29, and throws down a challenge, 30. 25. The general principle is axiomatic: a divided kingdom (as Israel knew to its cost) is devoured piecemeal by its foes; indeed civil dissension in even smaller communities (civic or domestic is calamitous. 26. The particular and topical application is obvious. The great ‘Adversary’ (šāṭān; cf. 4:10 note) of all goodness is himself no exception. Our Lord appeals implicitly not to a single instance of exorcism (which Satan might instigate for his own subtle ends) but to repeated examples; cf. e.g. 8:16. If this were a set policy it would be the policy of a fool which Satan is not. Satan, therefore, does not cast out himself (i.e. his satellites—the paradoxical expression underlines the contradiction in the Pharisaic argument. 27. The argument, moreover, issues from prejudice. The Pharisees were the spiritual leaders of the nation at large. Among their disciples, therefore (‘children’—a Semitism) were some who at least claimed to enjoy a certain success in exorcism (Jos., Ant. 8, 2, 5; Ac 19:13–14; Mk 9:38). Why did not the Pharisees denounce them? Such exorcists are therefore living witnesses and (were the question put to them) perforce judges of their own spiritual teachers. § g 28. Satan excluded, there remains the one alternative—the spiritual power of God. That our Lord freely wields this power, without effort or restriction, is clear proof that he is the founder of a new era—the ‘kingdom of God’ (usually ‘of the heavens’ in Mt but here used to balance the phrase ‘spirit of God’). 29. How can it be otherwise since our Lord is already pillaging Satan’s kingdom? Satan, therefore, must be helpless. He is helpless not because weak or careless but because Jesus, stronger than he has overcome him just as a robber may overpower a strong and vigilant householder. This victory has already taken place (with the Incarnation?); it remains only to gather the spoils. 30. It is a climax of history, a time for decisions. There are only two possible choices—God or Satan. Our Lord speaks with a calm assurance of dignity which recalls his manner of speech in Jn. He will not accept tolerant neutrality nor benevolent suspension of judgement. The words are addressed probably to the waverers, hardly to the Pharisees who are clearly his enemies. The ‘gathering’ and ‘scattering’ metaphor is obscure. It is probably neither agricultural nor pastoral but general: all work is dissipation of energy when not united with the cause of Jesus.
§ 697a 31–32 Blasphemy of the Spirit (Mk 3:28–30; Lk 12:10)—The meaning of ‘blasphemy of the Spirit’ is to be determined by the context. In the first place, it is blasphemy against (objective genitive) the holy Spirit; cf. 32. But, secondly, what precisely is the sin in question? The context (to which 31–32 are closely tied; cf. ‘therefore’ in 31 and even more explicitly Mk 3:30) is decisive. The sin referred to is one of which an example has just been furnished by the Pharisees. They have perversely attributed to Satan what is clearly the work of God. This is only one example of conscious, hardened rejection of God’s proffered light—the root-vice of the Pharisees (cf. Jn 9:41; 3:19 f.) as of others. This is the direct affront of the Spirit of wisdom; cf. e.g. 1 Cor 2:10–13. It is the sin ‘that remaineth’, Jn 9:41. Why does it ‘remain’? Why is it unforgivable? Of its very nature. Man cannot be saved without the gifts of God, one of which is forgiveness. If these gifts are perseveringly refused nothing can be done. ‘It is called “unforgivable” because of its very nature it precludes those things (i.e. the dispositions) which induce forgiveness. However, we cannot thus exclude the power and mercy of God which can find a way of forgiveness … by which, as it were miraculously, he heals such sinners’, ST7132 II, 2, 14, a. 3. Even in this hypothesis of a ‘quasi-miraculous’ grace the sinner is presumed to accept it. At that moment and to that extent he ceases to affront the Spirit; he ceases to be a blasphemer of the Spirit because he has (though tardily) accepted God’s light. Our Lord’s statement is therefore literally true: it shall never be forgiven because it refuses to be forgiven. The ‘word against the Son of Man’ is, though grave, forgivable. To assail the human conduct of our Lord (e.g. 9:11 or even 16:22) is an insult to his compassionate humanity but it proceeds from a misreading of God’s ways. It may presuppose a religious, if indocile, spirit. It finds some excuse in the fact that the Word has taken flesh and is, to that degree, veiled. But an attack upon the Son of Man when manifestly wielding the power of the Spirit is conscious malice—an attack upon the Spirit himself.
§ b 33–35 Attack upon Pharisaic Hypocrisy (cf. Lk 6:45)—33. A maxim already used by our Lord, 7:17–20, is now given a different turn. It is a direct assault on the Pharisees for their blasphemous words, 24, an appeal, in the spirit of 30, for a downright attitude and for clear issues. Nature knows no deception: from good fruit one may argue a healthy tree. Not so the Pharisees. From their customary pious discourses one would not guess at their inward corruption. They are as dangerous, therefore, as a brood of vipers. Let them reform inwardly or at least show their corruption outwardly in speech. The form of 33 is awkward. 7133*Black, 148 f., suggests the Aramaic original: A good tree makes, i.e. produces, good fruit etc.—the participle for ‘makes’ having been read as an imperative. 34. They are an unnatural and repellent phenomenon because words are customarily the ‘heart’s overflow’ (KN7134T) and if the store of the heart is good, the mouth dispenses what is good (35).
§ c 36–37 The Idle Word (Mt only)—In the present context our Lord’s words sound a grave warning for the Pharisees. If every casual (ἀργός, i.e. do-nothing, lazy) word will be accountable for (the text does not necessarily imply ‘condemned’), how searching will be the examination of considered pronouncements like the deliberate blasphemy of the Pharisees! 37 has the ring of a proverb, particularly as ‘thou’ replaces the ‘you’ of the previous verse. The ‘words’ are a sure criterion of acquittal (‘justification’) or condemnation since, if we except the Pharisaic monstrosity of 34, they are the index of the heart, 34, 35.
§ d 38–42 Attack upon Pharisaic Unbelief (Lk 11:29–32)—38. After the rebuff of the Pharisees, 24–34, others continue the conversation (‘answered and said’, cf. the Aramaic idiom ‘aneh we’amar, i.e. ‘spoke up and said’, in which there is no suggestion of answering a question but merely of reacting to certain circumstances or words; e.g. Dan 2:26). They ask for a convincing proof of our Lord’s Messianic mission—a ‘sign’ of their own choosing more startling than the miracles so far witnessed; see 16:1, § 703f. 39. Ignoring the veneer of politeness our Lord directly attacks the questioners as representatives of an evil and ‘adulterous’ race, faithless to God, Israel’s spouse; cf. Os 2; Ez 16, etc. A sign will indeed be given but, as a race, they shall reject it; cf. 41. 40. The sign is the Resurrection though the word is not spoken, and the allusion remains cryptic until the event unveils it. If we remember that analogies are not designed to be urged too far, the likeness is striking between the OT presentation of Jonas’s story and our Lords’ burial (though again the term is not used) and Resurrection. As the fish (κήτος, sea-beast KN7135T) swallows Jonas so the earth shall swallow-up the Son of Man. The disappearance is ‘for three days and three nights’ in each case. In Jon 1:17 this phrase may or may not indicate 72 hours; Heb. usage makes the expression ambiguous (cf. e.g. Est 4:16 with Est 5:1 and the Jewish method of reckoning part of a day, month or year for the whole; S7136B I, 649). In our Lord’s case it certainly does not indicate 72 hours as the evangelist, though faithfully recording the expression, well knew, 16:21; 17:23; 20:19. In any case, the general analogy is enough and this point should be remembered also when it is objected that Jonas was body and soul in the fish and our Lord’s body only in the tomb or when it is urged that ‘the heart of the earth ‘is as deep in the earth (and therefore Limbo?) as the ‘belly’ is in the fish. § e 41. The example of the Ninevites will rise accusing at the final reckoning. (It is possible, however, that the words ‘in judgement’ have been added by the Greek translator; the original Aramaic would then read simply ‘shall rise with this generation’, i.e. in the Aramaic idiom ‘dispute with, reproach’, Black, 97.) It will put the incredulous Pharisees to shame—their missionary was not a mere prophet but the Son of Man himself. 42. Cf. 1 Kg 10:1 ff. This fresh contrast is of another order: it suggests not the impenitence of the Pharisees but their refusal to recognize the true wisdom offered them. The queen of Sheba (in SW. Arabia, called the Yemen, i.e. ‘the south’) travelled far to hear one whose wisdom, though proverbial in Israel, did not compare with this.
§ f 43–45 Hypocritical and Cynical Pharisees warned of their Danger (Lk 11:24–26)—By means of a comparison suggested by the present exorcism incident, 22–24, Jesus warns his opponents against a false sense of security. There is peril in over-confidence—in the calm assurance of the Pharisees conscious of Israel’s privileged status, unconscious of spiritual need. They cannot afford to refuse the help of Jesus who alone opposes Satan with the Spirit of God, 28–29. 43. The unclean spirit (‘unclean’ as opposed to the ‘holy’ Spirit) appears as a tenant not necessarily evicted but perhaps simply seeking a change of residence. 44. He finds the waterless countryside unsuitable and decides to return to his old home. To his delight it is still untenanted (σχολάζοντα), cleaned and decorated (κεκοσμένου). 45. Anxious to share his good fortune (there is no suggestion of gathering forces for a battle) he invites a whole band (‘seven’—the number of completion) of like-minded spirits. Packed with this unclean horde the house is made dirtier than ever. Applied to this ‘wicked generation’ the comparison invites it to consider the possibility that the God-favoured house of Israel may, through sheer indifference, be open—with vacant possession—to Satan. Such indifference will make the state of Israel more desperate (though not yet hopeless) than its condition was before God’s call of Abraham. The unprivileged pagans will be in better case.
§ g 46–50 True Kindred of Christ (Mk 3:31–35; Lk 8:19–21—46. The episode has no obvious logical connexion with the rest of the section nor is it clear that it took place at this time: Mt’s apparently precise indication (‘as he was yet speaking’) is, in reality, his own vague connecting formula, 9:18; 17:5; 26:47. Mt, who is primarily interested in our Lord’s pronouncement, 48–49, does not say why his ‘brethren ‘sought him (see Mk 3:21 where the ‘friends’ are probably relations, i.e. ‘brethren’; cf. Mk 3:31–32). Of this passage Lagrange pointedly remarks: ‘The presence of our Lord’s mother on this occasion no more proves that she shares the sentiments of the others than does her presence at the foot of the Cross’. She is there simply because she wants to be near him. 47–48. The house (cf. 13:1) is full, Mk 3:20. Mary and the ‘brethren’ are outside. Our Lord is informed. (47 is unnecessary and absent from MSS B & S and from the early Syr7137. versions. It is excluded, probably rightly, by Hort and von Soden). Our Lord takes up the words of his informant to drive home a lesson. 49–50. With a gesture and a word he sets the example of complete detachment (enjoined on his followers in 10:37) in the interests of the Father. He acknowledges no kinship but with those who are obedient and therefore genuine children of the one Father. His mother was dear to him for the same reason, Lk 1:38. For such he uses the nearest and dearest terms—brother, sister, mother—but ‘father’ is reserved for his Father in heaven. The terms ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ in 12:50 do not necessarily define the word ‘brethren’ of 12:46 f. which (cf. Mk 3:32; 6:3) is actually to be understood of ‘relations’ in general. To indicate relationship of affection our Lord was restricted to the terms ‘brother’, ‘sister’ because the terms of more distant relationship (‘cousin’, ‘aunt’, etc.) would be absurd used in a figurative sense.
§ 698a 13:1–53 The Parables of the Kingdom—The foregoing chapter presented our Lord and the Pharisees; in ch 13 our Lord turns to ordinary folk. In contrast with the direct teaching of the Sermon, chh 5–7, his teaching is now in ‘parables’. They are of various kinds, but the subject throughout this ‘day of parables’ is one—the kingdom of God, the great subject of our Lord’s preaching, 4:17; 10:7; cf. Lk 4:42–43; 10:9; Ac 1:3. The term ‘parable’ (παραβολή) means ‘comparison’. The Gospel parables may be defined as: fictitious though likely stories designed to clarify a moral lesson or doctrinal truth by means of comparison; cf. Prat, I, 320–1; 549–54. The parable is a comparison to be taken as a whole; its details are inserted merely to make the story live. In this it is distinguished from the allegory which is a chain of metaphors of which each link has its own significance. It follows that the lesson of the parable inclines to simplicity and clarity; the lessons of the allegory are multiple and tend to obscurity. Yet some allegories may be clear and some parables obscure by reason of the circumstances of their utterance or of the difficulty of the subject treated. The gospel parables, especially those concerning the Kingdom, often contain allegorical elements. This phenomenon has been used to prove that such parables have been decorated with allegory by the evangelists. Jesus, it has been claimed, would not have used allegory since it would obscure his message. In this theory the evangelists, anxious to explain to pagan and Jew the blindness of the Messias’s own people, have deliberately obscured the parables with allegorical elements. The theory is exaggerated. Allegory and parable are similar literary forms and the intrusion of allegory into parable is a natural process (7138*C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, London 1936). Moreover, the mixture of the two is equally characteristic of the rabbinic ‘parables’ in the first centuries of the Christian era; cf D. Buzy, Introduction aux Paraboles Evangéliques, Paris 1912, 148–54.
§ b 1–2 The Setting (Mk 4:1; Lk 8:4)—Mt’s phrase ‘the same day’ may be as vague as his other phrase ‘at that time’, or (if intended to be exact) may apply only to some of the parables in the chapter. Leaving the house (cf. 12:46; on this ‘house’, Matthew’s own with some probability, cf. Lagrange, Mt, 76 f.) our Lord goes down to the lakeside. So that all may see and hear he addresses the throngs from one of the boats moored there.
3–9 The Sower (Mk 4:3–9; Lk 8:5–8)—3–4. In Palestine the farmer sows after the first autumn rains (usually November). His hedgeless fields are bordered, and often traversed, by stony paths. Willy-nilly some seed, scattered from his basket, must fall on the track (‘on’ rather than ‘by’—παρὰ is probably a mistranslation of the ambiguous Aramaic ‘al; cf. Lk 8:5 where the seed is ‘trodden under foot’, Black 120). The greedy Palestinian sparrow is not slow to seize it. 5–6. Even in Galilee the stony soil lies thin on outcrops of rock. The very lightness of such soil favours too rapid growth (perhaps within a few hours) and the sun, still strong in November, will shrivel the delicate shoot unsustained by moisture from a deep root. 7–8. The Palestinian farmer prefers to cut his weeds. The result is disastrous: they stifle everything in the vicinity. As for the more fortunate seed, it is a mistake to look for botanical precision in a parable. Our Lord’s figures are selected at random to illustrate the abounding virtue of the seed. In special cases one seed may produce (even in Palestine) two or three hundred grains of cereal (B7139i 8 [1927] 84–5), but the ordinary Palestinian farmer (from whom our picture is taken) is content with an average yield of 12 to 1. 9. Far from wishing to puzzle his audience our Lord seriously asks them to reflect upon his words. His formula (again in 11:15; 13:43, cf. Deut 29:4 where the absence of the listening ‘ear’ suggests guilt) implies that in these matters goodwill facilitates understanding; cf. Jn 3:21.
§ c 10–17 Purpose of the Parables (Mk 4:10–12; Lk 8:9–10—10. The disciples (not only the Twelve; cf. Mk 4:10, W7140V) seem puzzled at this indirect method of teaching. Their question, however, was not put until they were alone with Jesus, Mk 4:10. 11. The notion of the ‘kingdom of heaven’ embodies the hidden design (μυστήριον) of God. The mass of the Jewish people were ill-prepared for a direct and sudden revelation of its profound nature. The indirect teaching by parable must for the time suffice; direct light would only blind. But the inner circle of disciples, willing to be taught and destined to teach, can and must be told. It should however be noticed that this inner circle was not a closed circle. It was open for all who heard the parables to show their goodwill by making further inquiries. 12. Our Lord observes that a worldly practice, common but not admirable, here finds its spiritual application. The rich are flattered with gifts, the poor suffer violence and loss. Those who accept and are rich in the gifts of God (which include docility, pliant will, generous heart) amass further treasures; cf. Jn 1:16. The spiritual pauper has only himself to blame (cf. ‘Ask and it shall be given’, 7:7)—and this explains how an axiom of unjust worldly practice can have its counterpart in the spiritual order. He is said, by a paradoxical hyperbole, to lose what he has—which is nothing. The application of this dictum to the present situation seems to presuppose some fault (as it does in 25:29 where it is used again) on the part of the people at large. § d 13. This fault is a lack of spiritual perception. Confronted with this, our Lord did not withdraw as he did from the actively malignant Pharisees, 12:15. He mercifully remained to do what he could in the circumstances. Like stupid children the people could learn only from little stories—analogies which, though helpful, could not plumb the depths of the mysterious ‘Kingdom’. 14–15. Cf. Is 6:9–10. Isaias had been thwarted by the same dispositions. His experience rehearsed that of the Messias-Prophet as the OT history in general was a rehearsal of the Messianic era. Mt reproduces the LX7141X version (translate: Assuredly you shall hear … assuredly you shall see but …). This softens the harsh (but heartbroken) irony of the Semitic imperatives: Hear and understand not! See and comprehend not! Harden the heart …’ (cf. Is 6:9 with notes). The words expand, by more literal quotation, those of 13 and like them they explain why our Lord is forced to use parables. Whether the purpose of the parables is of chastisement or of benefit is much discussed. In effect we cannot exclude either element. § e The difficulties of the texts, however, (especially Mk) must be resolved in the light of three certain facts. First: our Lord’s own love for this people; his mission is mercy not judgement; he has come to save that which was lost, 18:11. Second: the parable is designed not to obscure but to clarify; absolutely speaking, it is not the most direct and efficient form of teaching, but relatively to the capacity of the audience’s mind and heart it may be the only possible one; the only alternative would be silence. Third: graces refused become matter for condemnation. The question is treated at some length in, e.g. Buzy, Introduction aux Paraboles, 231–413; A. Charue, L’lncrédulité des Juifs dans le Nouveau Testament, Gembloux 1929,141–4; Durand, E7142R 107 (1906) 256–71; Lagrange R7143B 7 (1910) 5–35 and L’Evangile de Jésus-Christ, Paris 1932, 168–71; Lebreton, Life and Teaching of Jesus Christ (Eng. tr.), London 1935, 239–53; F. Prat, Jésus-Christ, 1, 340–1; Skrinjar, B7144i 11 (1930) 291–321; 426–49; 12 (1931) 27–40. 16–17. Our Lord does not praise the docility of the disciples, but invites them to be grateful for God’s free gift. Born in less happy times men as just as they and even the prophets could only peer into the great dim future, 1 Pet 1:10 ff. In that future, now present, the disciples are privileged to live and not only to live but to be the pupils of the Master in the new era; cf. ‘therefore’ in 18.
§ 699a 18–23 The Sower Parable explained (Mk 4:13–20; Lk 8:11–15)—‘You therefore’, says our Lord, ‘hear ye the parable’. Actually it is the meaning of the parable that they are about to hear, but in Aramaic there is no exact expression for ‘significance, explanation’; cf. similar defective phrases in Mk 4:10; 9:10; Lk 8:11; Joüon 86 f. The seed is the doctrine (λόγος) of the Kingdom, sown by our Lord and later by the Apostles. For three classes of men it remained fruitless. 19. In some it is a total lack of spiritual appreciation. The ‘word’ lies unregarded. Satan alone benefits. ‘This is he that was sown by the wayside’. ‘The various kinds of soil represent the various kinds of hearers. But since the fate of the seed really represents the spiritual fate of the hearers, the seed and the hearers are in part identified’, W7145V. 20–21. In others there is a thin layer of spiritual perception, but the superficial are given to sudden and ephemeral enthusiasms. The quick growth is not of deep root and soon disappears; the personal sacrifice entailed and even active opposition ‘presently’ (i.e. ‘immediately’, εὐθύς) prove a snare in the moral path of such men. 22. The third category is of those in whom the root strikes deepest. Yet here too the seed will not come to maturity if side by side with it grow preoccupation with the affairs of the world and particularly with the seductive glamour (W7146V) of riches. 23. Not all the successful seed bears the same fruit, but in all cases it is abundant; cf. 8 note.
§ b 24–30 The ‘Cockle’ (Mt only)—The parable has a setting similar to the previous one and completes it. 24. From the outset our Lord makes it clear that he is speaking of the Kingdom; contrast 3. But, in the rabbinic manner, the term of the comparison is said to be ‘a man who sowed’ when, in reality it is the whole situation which is thus compared; cf. also 13:31, 33, 45, 47; 20:1; 22:2; 25:1. 25–26. The ‘cockle’ is the lolium temulentum (so named from its effect of dizziness on men and cattle)—more accurately not ‘tares’ (KN7147T) but ‘darnel’ (W7148V). It is sown secretly and in spite. The weed is indistinguishable from the wheat until its more slender ear appears. 27–29. This plant (rare in England) is common in Palestine, but the servants are astonished at the amount. The farmer himself immediately senses the hand of an enemy, but it is too late, or too early, to act: the roots of weed and wheat are intertwined. 30. He must wait until the ears are ripe and then the wheat, which grows higher than the weed, may be cut near its head while the sickle leaves the weed untouched. It is unusual to sheave weeds, but then it is unusual to sow them: it is an unusual operation to meet an unusual case. Nevertheless there may be allegory here though the sheaving is not mentioned again in the explanation; 40 mentions only the gathering and burning. For the explanation of the parable see notes to 37–42.
§ c 31–32 The Mustard-Seed (Mk 4:30–32; Lk 13:18–19)—Once again it is not precisely to the seed that the Kingdom is compared but to the whole situation; see on 24. It would seem wiser, therefore, not to attempt to emphasize the pungency or other property of the seed except its apparent insignificance which is an integral part of the parable. This would be allegory without warrant. In the world of nature, as in the word of history, insignificant beginnings may be misleading. It is so with the world-event known as the Kingdom of Heaven. The human activity of our Lord was limited, its immediate results unspectacular. The mustard-plant is the brassica nigra of the botanists. The seed, proverbially tiny (cf. 17:20 and S7149B 1, 669) is not in fact the smallest known, but our Lord is not giving a lesson in botany. It is the smallest of the familiar seeds, DB7150V 5, 1601. Its bush is common on the banks of the Jordan and of the Galilean Lake, often reaching a height of 12 ft and therefore called a ‘tree’ by the Arabs; cf. Biever, Conférences de Saint Etienne (1911) 281. That the ‘birds of heaven come and dwell in its branches’ recalls the prophecy of Ez 17:22–24 where the ‘tree’ (a cedar) is the future Messianic kingdom and ‘every bird and winged thing’ the people of all the nations. This reminiscence seems to warrant for the ‘birds’ the allegorical sense of all peoples.
§ d 33 The Leaven (Lk 13:20–21)—The preceding parable stressed the contrast between small beginnings and enormous end; the present one covers the intermediate process. The Kingdom’s development is not a matter of almost inevitable, natural growth from its Old Testament beginnings. It is the issue of forces intrinsic to the element (the yeast) now for the first time implanted in the world. These forces work powerfully, secretly, in every corner. The yeast is small compared with the dough, perhaps one ounce to sixteen or seventeen pounds of flour nowadays in Palestine: cf. Buzy, 178. The ‘measure’ chosen by our Lord for his parabolic purpose is the σᾶτον (Aram, sā’ṯā’; Heb. se’āh), which is one-third of an ephah. The ‘three measures’ are therefore equivalent to one ephah, the unit of capacity slightly more than our ‘bushel’, R7151B 28 (1931) 212. This large amount is chosen to illustrate not the size of the kingdom (cf. previous parable) but the power of the ‘yeast’.
§ e 34–35 Parabolic Teaching foreshadowed (cf. Mk 4:33–34)—Mt again seizes the opportunity of pointing out the reflexion of the New Order in the Old. The psalmist in 77(78):2, about to expound the mystery of God’s way with his people, dubs his exposition a ‘parable’ (māšāl; LX7152X παραβολή; in this case a didactic poem). Struck by the word itself, so apt to the teaching he describes. Mt points to the divinely constituted precedent. He insinuates the uniformity existing between the teaching method in the word of God of old and that of the Son of God now. But he insinuates, too, as elsewhere when he quotes the OT, that the psalmist’s words would be more profoundly true on our Lord’s lips. This last point appears to be emphasized by the form in which Mt puts the second half of the quotation. Unlike the first half it is not identical with LX7153X but seems to be a more impressive translation of the Heb. ‘Enigmatic things of old’ (HT, LX7154X—referring in the psalm to the early days of Israel’s history) becomes: ‘Things concealed from the time of the foundation’ of the world; cf. 25:34. The psalmist (‘Asaph’ is named in Ps 77:1 and called ‘prophet’ in 2 Par 29:30) had a much more restricted purpose. Our Lord’s doctrine is not contained within the temporal or spatial bounds of Israel.
§ f 36–43 Cockle Parable explained (Mt only)—Not all the elements of the parable are allegorical. The sleepers of 25, for example, are not careless pastors; nor does the ‘binding’ of 30 indicate that not one of the wicked shall escape. Such applications may be tentatively made, and were often made by the Fathers, but they were not made by our Lord. He explains the allegory of the main elements only. The conditions described in the parable are said to be those of the early Church, e.g. by 7155*G. D. Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel according to St Matthew, (Oxford 1946) 97; 107. The implication is that the parable, in its present form, is not traceable to Christ. This position, however, makes no allowance for our Lord’s divine foreknowledge and refuses him even human foresight. It also ignores the fact (cf. 1 Cor 5:2) that in the early Church the ‘cockle’ was not always allowed to go unmolested until the ‘harvest’. This attitude of the early Christians makes it evident that they did not consider our Lord as laying down exhaustive legislation for a fully constituted society. It makes it still more evident that the parable-allegory is not the invention of the early Church. Moreover, the objection forgets that the problem of God’s tolerance (cf. note to 13:39) was not to rise only in the distant future—one of the Twelve was already a traitor, as Jesus knew; cf. Lagrange, Mt. § g 36. Dismissing the multitudes our Lord returns to the house; 13:1 note. The disciples, emboldened by his words, 11, ask a more detailed explanation of the parable of which, doubtless, they already have the general meaning. 37–38. The field is the world—or that part of it in which the Son of Man has sown. The seed is not now the Word, as in 19, but every ‘citizen’, every loyal subject, of the Kingdom (in Semitic phrase: ‘child of the kingdom’). The ‘cockle’ is the offspring of evil (or ‘of the Evil One’?) i.e. evil deeds and evil men alike; 41 note. 39. The Evil One himself is the spiteful enemy of the Son of Man, attacking him indirectly and by stealth. The explanation takes a leap to the end of the world; the intermediate period of growth is not mentioned, presumably because here it is not significant. It appears, therefore, that the object of the parable is not to define the duties of the leaders in the early Church but simply to explain God’s tolerance of evil. The angels who execute God’s judgements (Bonsirven 1, 235) gather the crop, wheat and weed. 40. The emphasis on the fate of the ‘cockle’ (40–42; the ‘wheat’ goes unmentioned) is in accord with the purpose of the parable: the exercise of retribution is only delayed. § h 41. The Son of Man must present a perfect Kingdom to his Father, hence it is he who executes judgement (cf. Jn 5:27) through his ministers. (This quiet assumption of authority should not go unnoticed.) These will cleanse the Kingdom of scandals (of acts constituting a moral snare for the faithful) and of those responsible for them (cf. the same distinction in 18:7; cf. also in HT, Soph 1:3 of which our Lord’s phrase is probably a reminiscence: ‘I will destroy … scandals together with the wicked’). 42. The cockle will be cast into the ‘furnace of fire’, a contemporary synonym for the place of the damned, Bonsirven 1, 537. The ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ sorts ill with the suggestion of burning, but the phrase is stereotyped in Mt (8:12; 22:13; 25:30; in which places it is more naturally associated with the ‘exterior darkness’). 43. Finally a word of comfort for the disciples. Their future glory is expressed in terms familiar to Jewish thought (Dan 12:3; Wis 3:7 and the uninspired 4 Esd 7:97; and cf. Bonsirven 1, 520 f.). The Kingdom thus purified now passes from the hand of the Son and becomes the kingdom of the Father; cf. 1 Cor 15:24. For the concluding formula cf. 13:19 note.
§ 700a 44 The Treasure (Mt only)—Mt records this and the following parable without either preamble or explanation. Doubtless the two were proposed to all, like the previous parables. Explanation was scarcely necessary; they are already sufficiently clear. A man finds buried treasure, struck perhaps by his random spade, in another’s field—not an unlikely experience in a country familiar with invasion and flight; cf. Jos., BJ 1, 7, 5, 2. He buries it again for security and in his joy (W7156V) goes off and sells his possessions (the significant trait of this parable as of the next). He buys the field, clearly without acquainting the owner (landlord or employer, presumably) of his discovery. The morality of his action need not be discussed: it lies outside the purpose of the parable which is to teach that the Kingdom is worth the sacrifice of all worldly possessions (cf. 10:37–39).
§ b 45–46 The Pearl (Mt only)—A pendant of the former parable with the same moral. The parable naturally finishes with the acquisition (again, at all costs) of the single and valuable pearl. The merchant may have turned connoisseur but, in any case, he is parabolically pictured as retaining the pearl; suggestion of re-sale would have injured the parable.
§ c 47–50 The Drag-Net (Mt only)—From pictures of farm and kitchen and market-place our Lord turns to that of lake-fishing, equally familiar to the Galileans. The net (often about one-quarter of a mile in length and about 6 to 10 feet in depth) is sustained by cork floats and weighted with lead. The men on shore pay out the net as the boatmen, holding the other end, describe a wide arc in the lake until they disembark further along the bank. The net, now semicircular, is evenly drawn towards the shore by both parties. Of the thirty or so species of fish in the Lake of Galilee none is worthless (σαπρός) though the cat-fish (clarias macracanthus) being scale-less was not eaten by practising Jews, Lev 11:9; Deut 14:9. It is unnecessary, however, to seek ichthyological exactitudes: the moral of the parable demands a mixture of bad and good (as in the ‘Cockle’ parable) and the picture becomes subservient. 49–50. The application of the parable is similar to that of the ‘Cockle’ (without the epilogue concerning the ‘just’) of which it is a twin. Both parables make it clear that the Kingdom exists amid earthly conditions before it reaches its final stage of perfection.
§ d 51–52 The Scribe in the Kingdom (Mt only)—The disciples assert that they have grasped the implications of the foregoing parables of the Kingdom. Our Lord in reply defines the advantage of such understanding. It is only when he possesses this comprehension of the Kingdom (διὰ τοῦτο) that the ‘scribe’, thus instructed, becomes comparable to the careful householder. Old garments have not been destroyed but put away in his store-cupboard ready for emergencies. The new must not be used to patch the old, 9:16, but the old has its subservient uses. The ‘scribe’ (or law-learned) of the new order (cf. 23:34), unlike his counterpart of the old, has the essentials of the Old Law at his finger-tips precisely because he possesses the knowledge of the Kingdom which is the perfection of the Law, 5:17. He is in a position to expound the working-out of God’s design not only in its preliminary expression (the Mosaic dispensation) but in its present activity (the Kingdom in being) and even in its consummation, 39–43; 49–50.
§ e 53–58 Hostile Reception at Nazareth (Mk 6:1–6a; Lk 4:22b–30)—53–54. From the account of the parables Mt (having already, in chh 8–9, narrated the miracles of Mk 4:35–41; 5:1–20, 21–43) takes us straight to Nazareth, our Lord’s home-town; cf. 21:11, Mk 1:9. It is Jesus’ second visit; cf. 4:13 and Lk 4:16–30. His teaching in their synagogue astounds them, 7:29 note. They know he has not been trained in the rabbinic schools at Jerusalem. Moreover, they have heard of miracles worked, though not at Nazareth (another source of complaint; cf. Lk 4:23–29). 55–56. With the public our Lord passed for the son of Joseph the carpenter (τέκτων—joiner and housebuilder; cf. Höpfl, B7157i 4 [1923] 41–5). His ‘brethren’ are known to the people of Nazareth: James, Joseph (or Jose; Mk 6:3), Simon, Jude. James is called ‘brother of the Lord’ in Gal 1:19; nevertheless he is certainly not a son of our Lady but of another Mary (‘of Cleophas’, cf. Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40; Jn 19:25) who is also the mother of Joseph (Jose); cf. §§ 672–3. If the first two named are only cousins (the Greek term ‘brethren’ represents the more general Aramaic ’aḥ) it is scarcely likely that Simon and Jude, named last, are closer relations (Lagrange, L’Evangile, 193–4. On the question of the ‘brethren’ of the Lord; cf. §§ 672–3). 57–58. Contemptuous familiarity was a psychological obstacle. Our Lord sadly notes this irrational but common attitude. He works only a few unspectacular cures (Mk), evidently upon some of the few who accepted him. He could give nothing (cf. note to Mk 6:5) to those who refused his gifts.
§ 701a D. Round and About Galilee: Formation of the Apostles—14:1–20:16.
14:1–12 Antipas, Jesus, the Baptist (Mk 6:14–29; Lk 9:7–9; 3:19–20)—1–2. Antipas (called ‘Herod’ on his coins), son of Herod the Great by Malthace the Samaritan, was tetrarch (‘ruler in that quarter’ KN7158T) of Galilee and Peraea (4 b.c. to a.d.39). He was living probably in his new town of Tiberias on the SW. bank of the Lake when reports of our Lord’s activity became too persistent to ignore. Only guilty superstition could have prompted his absurd conjecture, if, indeed, it is to be taken seriously; cf. Lk 9:9. His courtiers had other ideas, Mk 6:15. 3–4. The imprisonment of John had taken place before our Lord began his Galilean ministry, 4:12. Its cause was John’s denunciation of Antipas’s adulterous marriage, Lev 18:16; 20:21. Herodias was the wife of his half-brother Philip—not Philip, tetrarch of Trachonitis and Iturea, Lk 3:1, but a private individual. To make the case worse, Antipas, though the Baptist does not mention it, was the uncle of Herodias. 5. Mt, unlike Mk, content with general statements of events, does not mention the murderous intent of Herodias, though cf. 8. Nor does he represent as adequately as Mk 6:20 the vacillating character of Antipas, fascinated by John, half-persuaded by Herodias, held back by fear of John’s many supporters. This perplexity seems to have lasted for nearly a year. § b 6. The scene was the banquet-hall of the fortress-palace of Machaerus (Mkāwer; cf. Jos., Ant. 18, 5, 2). The castle, rebuilt by Herod the Great, lay between Callirhoe and the Arnon. It stood in the mountains of Moab on the southern border of Antipas’s Peraean dominion, cf. Abel 2, 371 f. The occasion was the birthday of Antipas; cf. Schürer, 1, 2, 26 f. In place of the usual courtesans danced Salome, daughter of Herodias by her first husband; cf. Jos., Ant. 18, 5, 4. This condescension of a young princess of the blood (perhaps about fifteen years old at the time, certainly not more than twenty) was doubtless instigated by the far-sighted Herodias. 7–8. Antipas fell into the trap. The girl’s mother then instructed her (προβιβάζω: not ‘instruct before’, D7159V; and cf. Mk 6:24) to ask for the head of the Baptist who lay in the dungeons. The girl herself pertly added ‘here, in a dish’; cf. Mk 1:24–25. 9. The unexpected and cold-blooded request sobered Antipas. He was being rushed into an act which did not suit his policy, 5, nor entirely answer his feelings, Mk 6:20. He was a king (tetrarch in fact, ‘king’ in popular speech; cf. Holzmeister, Historia Aetatis Novi Testamenti, Rome 1932, 54) and a royal, if drunken, oath could not be recalled—if uttered in public! 10–11. The courageous Baptist died a martyr’s death for the sanctity of marriage. His head went fitly back to the woman who had schemed so carefully for it. 12. Antipas possibly silenced his strange conscience by allowing the disciples of John to bury the body. For the subsequent history of Antipas, Herodias, Salome, cf. Jos., Ant. 18, 5, 1–4.
§ c 13–21 First Multiplication of Loaves (Mk 6:31–44; Lk 9:10b–17; Jn 6:1–15)—13. If Mt’s formula is not a transitional cliché it implies that our Lord’s suggestion of repose for his disciples (Mk) was reinforced by the fate of the Baptist, 12, and the sinister reflexion of Antipas, 2. The people were evidently excited; Antipas might act; our Lord used his human prudence and retired to a place ‘apart’, i.e. not so much secluded as removed from the crowds. He and his disciples were on the west side of the Lake (cf. 22, 34), presumably near Capharnaum, Mk 6:32. They quietly withdrew from Antipas’s territory and sailed to that of Philip the tetrarch, to the neighbourhood of Bethsaida Julias in Gaulanitis; cf. Lk 9:10. The crowds, not to be thwarted, followed on foot; doubtless they had observed whither the boat was heading. The distance (7160c 6 m.) was almost twice that by sea, but the disciples, in need of rest, were in no hurry and the crowd arrived first, Mk 6:33. Its numbers had increased as it went. 14. Our Lord’s heart could never resist suffering. In the broad, uncultivated plain that lies to the SE. of Bethsaida between hills and sea he healed the sick. He taught the simple folk, too, Mk 6:34. 15. The work went on until late afternoon (‘evening’: ὀψίας, cf. 23). Our Lord took no heed but the hungry disciples called his attention to the fact that the time (for refreshment?) had slipped by. They were perhaps not thinking solely of the multitudes! 16–17. The Master’s command must have left them dumbfounded. It was Peter’s brother, Jn 6:8, who told of the boy with the five cheap (barley) loaves and the two dried fish. This remark of Andrew’s was not meant to be helpful—Philip had already calculated that two hundred days’ labour would not buy the necessary provender. § d 18–19. The plain of Bethsaida is green in spring at the time of the Pasch, Jn 6:4, and all sat down on the grass in companies, Mk 6:40, at our Lord’s bidding. He evidently wished to give the impression of a formal meal and, in the same spirit, he invoked a blessing like the father of a family. The breaking of the bread also, being mentioned by all four evangelists, is evidently significant: our Lord repeated this action just one year later, at the Last Supper, 26:26. It would appear that the ceremony was deliberately symbolic of the Holy Eucharist but the symbolism is our Lord’s: the very sober account of the evangelists suggests historical intention on their part and not mere symbolism. Moreover, the presence of the fish and the absence of wine does not suggest that we have here a mere symbol of the Eucharist. (On the opinions of non-Catholic critics cf. Lagrange, Mt, 170 f.) Whether the bread increased in our Lord’s hands or in the Apostles’ does not appear. 20–21. The prodigality of God’s gifts does not excuse human waste and the remnants are gathered up. They fill twelve baskets (the property, perhaps, of the twelve Apostles) whereas the original amount had been carried in one—the boy’s. The ‘baskets’ here are ‘hampers’ in 15:37 (second multiplication) and the distinction is preserved when our Lord recalls the two miracles, 16:9–10. It would seem that the distinction is not merely literary: ‘The κόφινος of 14:20 appears to have been a strong wicker “basket” ’ (as used for farmwork) ‘the σφυρίς of 15:37 a larger “hamper” used chiefly for food (cf. Ac 9:25)’ (W7161V note to Mt 16:9–10).
§ e 22–33 Our Lord (Mk 6:45–52; Jn 6:16–21) and Peter (Mt only) walk on the Waters—22–23. The miracle of the loaves had dangerously excited the people, Jn 6:14 f. It was important that the Apostles should not share their political frenzies; our Lord therefore dispatched them boatwards (εἰς πλοῖον) while he sent the people home. He did not rejoin the Apostles who evidently waited at the lakeside until night fell (Jn 6:17. In Mt and Mk ὀψία as in 15, but here, apparently, bearing the meaning ‘night’, cf. Lagrange, Mk, 173). Instead, he slipped away from the crowd to pray in the hills surrounding the plain. 24–25. The Apostles left without him, but made poor progress against the high (Jn) and contrary wind. Driven, no doubt, off their course they were in midlake (over 3 m. out; Jn) making little headway. There was only one way to rejoin the dispirited Apostles and our Lord took it. The time was between 3 and 6 in the morning—the ‘fourth watch’ of the night according to the Roman reckoning used by the Jews at this time, S7162B 1, 688 f. 26–27. The cry of the Apostles: ‘It is a ghost’ proceeded from the apparent impossibility of any other explanation. The familiar voice calmed and convinced. § f 28–31. Peter now appears for the first time with his high qualities and their endearing human defects. He is devoted to his Master and sublimely confident in him but, conscious suddenly of self, he cries out in fright. The hand of Jesus is ready and his reproach gentle: ‘Of little faith!’ If this could be said of Peter for his momentary fear, what of us? asks St Jerome, P7163L 26, 104. 32–33. To Peter on the water and now to the Apostles in the boat it is clear that they are safe with their Master: the wind drops as he joins them. The Apostles (‘those in the boat’, cf. 22) are carried away. They confess the divinity of their Master (cf. § 50g), who with divine power has walked the waters; cf. Job 9:8. Their confession is, however, a sudden outburst due to the pressure of miracle upon miracle. Peter’s calm and considered profession in 16:16 is clearly regarded by Mt as of much higher quality, 16:17; And cf. Scripture, 1 (1946) 32 f.
§ g 34–36 Miracles at Gennesaret (Mk 6:53–56)—Stretching for 7164c 4 m. along the west side of the Lake between ‘Ain Tabgha and Magdala and less than 2 m. S. of Capharnaum is a rich plain about 2 m. broad at its widest part. It is not improbable that the name of this plain was Gennesar and that the name Gennesaret (not ‘Genesar’ DV), with the feminine suffix, is that of a village in the vicinity of Capharnaum (Lagrange, Mk, 177). The inhabitants immediately recognized our Lord who was well known in neighbouring Capharnaum. As usual, they ran (Mk) to fetch their sick. Many were healed by the touch of the tassel (κράσπεδον; cf. 9:20 note) of his cloak.
§ 702a 15:1–20 Legal Cleanness and Purity of Heart (Mk 7:1–23).
15:1–10 Attack and Counter-attack (Mk 7:1–13)—1–2. The quiet atmosphere of the last two chapters is now broken upon by the renewed attack of the Pharisees who meanwhile have not been idle. This time reinforcements for the local Pharisees have come from Jerusalem itself in the person of Scribes. (The distinction is Mk’s; Mt is not concerned with this detail.) These complain that the disciples do not observe the prescribed ceremonial handwashings before, during and after the meal (‘when they eat bread’—a Semitism). These prescriptions were carefully laid down not in the Law but in the oral tradition of the ‘ancients’ (i.e. of the early Rabbis). Towards the end of the 2nd cent. a.d. they were codified in written form in the Mishnah (tract: Yadayim or ‘Hands’). Such traditions were held in even higher esteem than the Law itself. S7165B 1, 692; for the minutiae of the handwashing ordinances, cf. S7166B 1, 689–705, Edershei7167m 2, 9–12. 3. Our Lord declines an aimless discussion of sophistries and sharply attacks the spirit that prompted the objection. As once before (12:7 note) he might have denounced explicitly the legal zeal that had suffocated charity. Instead, he fights them on their own ground and shows how this blind devotion to ‘the tradition of the ancients’ had driven them to ‘transgress’ (he uses their own word, 2) the law of God himself. He supports the accusation with one example. § b 4. The law of God on duties to parents was unequivocal (the citations are from Ex 20:12, or Deut 5:16, and Ex 21:17). 5. This, most certainly, God said; ‘whereas you say that if anyone should utter this sentence to father or mother: “Any property of mine from which you might draw benefit is Qorban”, then he will not (need to) honour his father’. Mt obscures the already involved sentence by translating the technical term ‘Qorban’ (‘offering, gift’ consecrated, i.e. to God); Mk keeps the Aramaic term and explains it. The use of this word ‘Qorban’, though not implying that the property in question would be actually given to the temple, had the effect of a sacred oath isolating that property from any claims. That these claims included those even of filial duty was the opinion of at least some of the Rabbis in our Lord’s time (cf. Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, 3, 2; cf. also Edershei7168m 2, 21; Bonsirven 2, 163, note 7). Later reforms may have been due to criticism such as our Lord’s in the present passage. To sustain the validity of such a vow, therefore, was in effect (though the Pharisees would not deduce this conclusion in so many words) to relax the divine command always to honour father and mother, 4a; indeed such an oath is equivalent to a curse, 4b. It declares null (ἀκυροῦν: D7169V ‘made void’) the divine law. § c 7–9. Again sacred history repeats itself (13:14 f. note). Isaias, 29:13, had also been confronted with hypocrites and his denunciation applied equally to this Messianic age. The quotation, practically identical with Mk 7:6 f., is from LX7170X, slightly adjusted though not abbreviated. It is given a slightly different turn. The prophet (cf. HT) had complained of the Law observed from human motives; the evangelists complain of the Law unobserved through human ‘traditions’. On the lips the word ‘Qorban’ has a pious sound but, as our Lord’s example shows, it may hide the heart’s contempt for the express will of God.
§ d 15:10–20 The True Perspective (Mk 7:14–23)—We observe three grades of teaching adapted to three classes of listeners. The malevolent have their charge rebutted, and no more, 3–9; the ordinary folk, now gathered together by our Lord, receive positive, though prudently veiled, instruction with an invitation to reflect upon it, 10–11 To the disciples, interested enough to ask, Jesus explains himself more fully, 15–20. 10–11. It seems odd that our Lord should summon the crowd to hear this one sentence. It is possible, therefore, that Mt and Mk have selected it from a longer discourse. The dictum of 11 would remain obscure for the multitude who, it seems, were unaware of the circumstances, 1–2, that prompted it. Moreover, for those imbued with the food-distinctions of the Law (Lev 11 etc.) the implications of 11b would be unthinkable. The startling implications are there nevertheless, as Mk 7:19 observes. But the immediate application of our Lord’s saying is determined by the context. The unwashed hand, thought the Pharisees, communicates its uncleanness to the food and so to the eater. There is no suggestion, 2, that the food itself was illegal and consequently our Lord’s retort to the crowds does not explicitly touch the Mosaic distinction of foods but only the superstitious precautions of the ‘tradition of the ancients’. He affirms that to eat with clean or unclean hands can have no moral significance because the very food handled has none. He will explain later, 18–19, what he means by ‘what cometh out of the mouth’. § e 12–14. (Mt only but cf. Lk 6:39). The disciples are perturbed; the recognized religious leaders, evidently present in the crowd, have taken serious offence at ‘this word’ of 11. Perhaps they saw more clearly than the simple folk that our Lord’s words touched not only the ‘tradition’ but—in their logical conclusion—the Law itself. What they could not see was the possibility that certain elements of the Law might be transient and ill-suited to the fullness of time. Such incomprehension was excusable and the Apostles long shared it; cf. Ac 10:9–15. Not blindness only but refusal to see was the sin of the Pharisees, Jn 9:41. They would not lower themselves by humbly asking explanations. But their whole regime, being not of God, would pass and our Lord warns the disciples against setting any store by hostility even on the part of those who were the accepted guides. Only the blind would mistake those for guides who are blind themselves. Jesus, therefore, opens his disciples’ eyes to the blindness of the Pharisees and urges them to have nothing to do with them (ἄφετε αὐτούς, i.e. ‘leave them to their own devices’). 15–16. It is Peter who speaks up (‘answering’, in the Aramaic sense) and asks an explanation of the ‘parable’ (here, as sometimes in OT, enigmatic saying) of 11. He speaks for the disciples. Our Lord reproaches them: At this stage (ἀκμὴν) are even you uncomprehending? § f 17. With unusual energy and realism (Lagrange) our Lord declares that food, of itself, is an object indifferent to the spiritual soul; it is matter only for the digestive process. 18. Of no spiritual import, therefore, what goes into the mouth but what proceeds from it. For the mouth is the overflow of the inmost heart, 12:34, and the heart, in Semitic idiom, is the factory of evil or good intent. 19. Having reached this point in the reasoning there is no further need for the opposition (into the mouth; out of the mouth) of 17–18. The sins mentioned in 19 are therefore not confined to sins of the tongue. They are embraced by the term ‘wicked purposes’ (W7171V; D7172V ‘evil thoughts’) and include four sins of act and two (false witness; blasphemies) of the tongue. 20. Our Lord (in Mt, not Mk) rounds off the whole controversy with a concluding reference to its starting-point, 2—the Semitic literary phenomenon known as ‘inclusion’ (cf. Lagrange, Mt, lxxxi).
§ 703a 15:21–28 The Canaanite Woman (Mk 7:24–30)—21. This incident, one of the most touching in the gospel and treated with a delicate realism unusual in Mt, takes place in the pagan district of Tyre and Sidon; cf. 11:21 note. This Phoenician territory borders Galilee on the north. It is possible that our Lord leaves Israelitic ground to give his disciples the respite which they had been recently denied, 14:13 note. 22. Mt uses the term ‘Canaanite’ (Mk ‘Syrophoenician’) to underline the significance of a miracle worked for one who belonged to the hereditary enemies of Israel. The term is not inaccurate: this district, colonized by Canaanites, Gen 10:15, was still basically Canaanite. The woman salutes our Lord with the Messianic title ‘Son of David’; see on 1:1; 9:27. The phrase must have spread with his reputation beyond the confines of Israel, 4:24 note. 23. (Mt only). The realistic reference to the disciples’ intervention is strangely absent from Mk. Mt’s Greek translator is evidently independent of Mk here. Since it is not his habit to enter into detail of this kind, it is clear that the detail is not invented ‘to heighten the effect’ (7173*Allen, 169) but rather that the translator has under his eye ‘a second and longer account (than Mk’s)’. Yet even here the lifelike quality of the incident is due as much to what is implied as to what is expressed. Our Lord’s silence (we gather) naturally drives the poor mother to the disciples. These are more concerned to rid themselves of the annoyance but, as our Lord’s reply in 24 hints, they suggest that the only way to do so is to dismiss her with the request granted. § b 24. Our Lord’s personal concern (like that of the Apostles on their first mission; 10:6 note) is with Israel. His remark recalls that made to his mother at Cana, Jn 2:4, where, evidently, the tone was sufficiently kindly to encourage. 25. In any case, the woman’s quick eyes have seen him at last open his mouth. She seizes the slight advantage and falls at his feet with a cry for pity. 26. The words of Jesus are not as harsh as they read and they seem deliberately to invite a riposte. That they are a little parable turned into allegory only by the situation lessens the shock of the words. (On parable and allegory cf. notes to ch 13.) Moreover, the term ‘dogs’ (κυνάρια not κύνες) would be better rendered ‘little dogs’, ‘pet dogs’; it serves to bring out the importance of priority for the children yet eliminates the absolute idea of contempt. 27. Nevertheless the remark would have checked one with a vestige of pride (contrast Naaman, 4 Kg 5:11–12) as our Lord well knows. But the woman’s simple humility rises to the occasion and there is wit in her reply: ‘How true’ (or: ‘Please!’ cf. Phil 4:3; Phm 20; Benoit) ‘Lord! for the little dogs also get their meal—from the crumbs that fall’. The woman quaintly turns the parable to her own advantage: it is true, she implies, as far as it goes, but it has not been taken far enough. As a mother she knows that she would not thus rob her children of bread, but she also knows their table-manners and how the floor is kept clean. 28. The Sacred Heart is won by a faith that stood so sharp a test. When the woman got home she found her child well again (Mk).
§ c 15:29–31 Cures at the Lakeside (cf. Mk 7:31–37)—Jesus with his disciples leaves the district of Tyre and Sidon for the Lake of Galilee; for this journey cf. Mk 7:31. The scene of the miracles appears to be the NE. side of the Lake where the hills fall to the plain. The sick were laid down at his feet (not ‘cast down’; the Semitic verbs for ‘to throw’—e.g. Aramaic remāh-are often used in the sense of ‘to put, place’; Joüon, 101). In 31, ‘the maimed healed’ should be read (Merk etc.) though omitted by V7174g, DV, W7175V. From the fact that the crowds praise ‘the God of Israel’ it would be bold to argue that they were pagans; cf. Lk 1:68; Ac 13:7.
§ d 15:32–39 Second Multiplication of Loaves (Mk 8:1–10)—The evangelists plainly record the multiplications as two separate miracles. Each narrates them in close succession (Mt chh 14–15; Mk chh 6 and 8) and subsequently refers to them as two separate events, Mt 16:9–10; Mk 8:19–20. If the unexpectant attitude of the disciples on this second occasion seem surprising, we should remember the months that had elapsed since the former miracle, the occasions on which the disciples must have since gone hungry without a miracle being worked, their very proper diffidence in asking for a miracle, 23. 32. The disciples therefore leave it to our Lord to comment on the hunger of the crowds. He does so. Their provisions are exhausted after three days with him, far from their homes (Mk). Jesus proposes a dilemma: they have no food here yet he will not send them elsewhere. He is clearly inviting the disciples to ask for a solution like the previous one, 14:19. So far, the text does not exclude (rather it suggests) a previous multiplication of loaves. 33–34. The disciples’ remark is cautious, perhaps even a sly suggestion: Whence should we [emphatic] have …? They express their own helplessness, not necessarily his. Moreover, their answer to our Lord’s question: How many loaves? is not the helpless one of 14:17 (‘only five’) but simply ‘Seven’, as if in this case the information was not regarded as useless. § e 35–37. The multitude (4,000 here, 5,000 in ch 14) sat on the ground—there was no ‘green grass’ as on the previous occasion, Mk 6:39; it was summer. The number of hampers (W7176V; see on 14:20) corresponds, not to the number of the Apostles (unlike 14:20) but to the original number of loaves, thus more directly signalizing the abundance of the miracle. 39. It appears that our Lord sets sail for the western bank of the Lake since it is on this bank that he would be most likely to meet the Pharisees, 16:1, and since it is to the eastern side that he later sails, 16:5, to go to Caesarea Philippi, 16:13, via Bethsaida Julias, Mk 8:22. But the point of arrival, Magadan, (‘Dalmanutha’ in Mk) is unknown. It is probable however (Abel 2, 373) that the form, certainly authentic, represents ‘Magdala’ (cf. 27:55 note) just as the ‘Migdal’ of Jos 15:37 is transcribed ‘Magada’ in the Vatican Codex. (Mk’s ‘coasts—i.e. district—of Dalmanutha’ may represent an Aramaic original: lig̱lîlā’ dilme‘ōnāṯēh or ‘to the place of his abode’; cf. R7177B 53 (1946) 373–84 and Mk 8:10.)
§ f 16:1–12 Leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mk 8:11–21; Lk 12:54–56; cf. Mt 12:38–39; Lk 12:1b)—The incident of 1–4 serves as introduction to the lesson of 5–12. 1. Pharisees and Sadducees forget their differences and make common cause against the new teacher. The situation is similar to that of 12:38 ff. (see note) but the Sadducees here take the place of the Scribes, our Lord’s answer is notably different and the reference to Jonas is curt (on the ‘doublet’ question cf. Lagrange, Mt, liv). They issue a cynical challenge (‘tempting’, i.e. putting to the test). They demand a Messianic sign descending from (Mt: ἐκ) the physical heavens. This ‘sign’ is possibly a repetition of the ‘manna’ miracle of Mosaic times (cf. Jn 6:30 ff.) which times were in Jewish tradition (Edershei7178m, 1, 176), a rehearsal of the Messianic age; in particular, the Messias was to bring down manna from heaven for his people; cf. Lagrange, Jn, 175. Their ill-will had contrived to explain away our Lord’s miracles (e.g. 9:34; cf. Jn 9:18–29) and he refuses to work wonders at their dictation; cf. his similar attitude in Lk 23:8–9. 2–3. He ironically concedes their ability to recognize natural portents in the heavens but adroitly invites them to discern supernatural portents on earth among the blind, the lame, the deaf (cf. 11:4 f.), announcing the new Messianic day. 4 has possibly (Buzy, Lagrange) with the exception of the ominous, valedictory phrase, been imported hither by translator or copyist from 12:39. § g 5. Jesus and his disciples sail for the eastern shore of the Lake. Distracted by dispute or by unexpected departure the disciples had not made their usual provision: only one old loaf lay in the boat, Mk 8:14. 6–7. Jesus bids his disciples beware of the corrupting element (‘leaven’, cf. 1 Cor 5:6) which is the outlook (‘doctrine’) of his recent questioners. The word ‘leaven’ reminds the disciples who exclaim: ‘We have forgotten the bread!’ (omit ‘because’: the ὅτι of 7 is probably recitative). 8–12. After witnessing the two miracles of the loaves (14:17–21; 15:34–38 with notes) the disciples needed no great faith to exclude worry about material things; still less should they have implicitly attributed this worry to their Master. Our Lord has only to repeat his original remark (doubtless with an emphasis on its second half) to make its metaphorical meaning clear. Doctrinally the Pharisees and Sadducees had little in common, the ‘doctrine’ therefore is their common cynicism, so recently displayed, with regard to the ‘signs of the times’. Our Lord’s warning is not unnecessary: unlike the Pharisees and Sadducees the disciples did not ignore his Galilean miracles but they were inclined to forget them and to miss their full significance, 8–10.
§ 704a 13–20 Peter’s Profession and Primacy (Mk 8:27–30; Lk 9:18–21)—13. After reaching the east bank of the Lake and after the cure of the blind man at Bethsaida Julias, Mk 8:22–26, our Lord takes his disciples to the district of Caesarea Philippi on the extreme northern frontier of Palestine, 2 or 3 m. E. of Dan. Here in fertile country rises one of the largest sources of the Jordan. It is a natural site for the sanctuary of Pan (hence Panias; Arab. Baniyas) built there by the predominantly Greek population in the 3rd cent. b.c. In our Lord’s time the town itself was new-built by Philip the tetrarch in 3–2 b.c. and named Caesarea in honour of Caesar Augustus. It boasted a temple to Augustus built by Herod the Great 7179c 20 b.c. Here where ‘men worshipped side by side the forces of nature and the incarnation of political power’ the divinity of Christ was first clearly professed; cf. SH7180G 473–8. Our Lord asks for the rumours of his identity, not to inform himself but to lead up to his next question. In Mt (‘Son of Man’; Mk and Lk: ‘I’) we are already prepared for ‘Son of God’ which is to follow, 16. 14. In Galilee at Antipas’s court there was a superstitious rumour of the Baptist’s resurrection. Other circles felt the Messianic atmosphere and thought of Elias the precursor (but cf. 17:10 note) or of Jeremias, Israel’s champion at a time of national crisis (cf. 2 Mac 15:13–16); the Messianic age was associated, too, with the return of other prophets; cf. 4 Esd 2:18. It is strange that none mentions rumours of the Messias himself which must have been recently circulating; cf. Jn 6:15). § b 15–16. Our Lord expects more from his companions and pupils, but it is only Peter who makes the decisive and immediate reply acknowledging his Messiahship. In Mt (only) he goes on to profess the divinity of his master; cf. § 50g. Peter’s formula ‘the son of the living God’ is found, with slight variation, on the lips of Caiaphas, Mk 14:61, and for its acceptance Jesus is declared guilty of blasphemy. He accepts it here and in terms which make it clear that Peter’s conception of his dignity is not merely a deduction of Messiahship from adequate human premisses; cf. 11:4–6. 17–19. Human considerations (‘flesh and blood’) such as reasoning from miracle and prophecy could have led Peter to a confession of Messiahship—no great marvel there. That the Father, not the Son, had revealed shows how profound was the significance of Peter’s words even if Peter himself had not yet fully sounded their depth. By this revelation the Father had singled out Peter as the natural foundation for his Son’s society and our Lord, as ever, follows his Father’s lead. Faith in the divinity of Christ must henceforth be a criterion of the true society of Christ. The Son of God now echoes and outdoes the generosity of the son of Jonah. At last he explains the name (apparently of his own invention) promised to Simon at the first encounter, Jn 1:42, and confirmed on the occasion of Simon’s call, Mt 4:18; cf. 10:2. § c The name in Aramaic is Kēphā, i.e. ‘Rock’ or ‘Stone’. The Greek translator judged πέτρος ‘stone’ more suitable, being masculine in form, for Simon’s name and kept πέτρα ‘rock’ for the foundation-material demanded by the metaphor. The original language, however, leaves no room for distinction: Thou art Kepha and upon this kēphā.… The ‘church’ (ἐκκλησία, the customary LX7181X rendering of the Hebrew qāhāl, i.e. religious assembly, congregation) is the new society of Christ’s faithful answering to, and supplanting, the OT qāhāl. Simon is to be the ultimate authority on earth of this society which is itself the hierarchical body described in 18:15–18. By reason of this rock-foundation the malignant powers will not prove stronger than (κατισχύσουσιν) the citadel-society. The phrase ‘gates of Hell’ needs some explanation. The term ‘gates’ in Hebrew is often used of the fortified city itself (Gen 22:17; 24:60; Is 14:31, etc.) ‘Hell’ (Hades), dwelling-place of demons (four times in this sense in the Apocalypse, cf. Allo, L’Apocalypse, Paris 1933, 101, and cf. Lk 16:23) is not merely ‘death’ (an idea which would confuse the warlike image) but the activity of forces hostile to the cause of Good. The promise is therefore not one of immortality for Peter (Harnack)—a meaning that would require also (against the natural construction of the sentence) that the pronoun ‘it’, 18, be referred to ‘rock’ and not to ‘church’. In 19 the metaphor changes: the besieged citadel founded on a rock now becomes the Kingdom with its Chancellor to whom Christ will in due time commit his own keys, Jn 21:15–17. The gift of the keys implies responsible stewardship as the keys of Eliacim, Is 22:22, implied stewardship of the Davidic household. This idea serves as a bridge from the rock-metaphor to the more direct definition of Peter’s powers (Lagrange). § d These powers are of effective ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ in the spiritual order on earth. The ‘binding and loosing’ (rabbinical terms for excluding from (‘binding’) or granting readmission to the community or for declaring forbidden or permitted according to the Law) must be understood as containing all that is implicit in the gift of the keys, i.e. all powers necessary to the well-being of the kingdom including any positive legislative power which may prove necessary in the future. (On the authenticity etc. of the Petrine text cf. B7182i 1 (1920) 240–64 and DB7183V (S) II, 546–64.) 20. The title ‘Son of God’ refers to our Lord’s personal dignity, the term ‘Christ’ to his function. The latter might politically excite the crowds; it alone, therefore, is the direct object of his prohibition.