§ e 15–22 The Tribute Question (Mk 12:13–17; Lk 20:20–26)—15–16. The Pharisees seek to trap Jesus with a question. To hide the trap they do not approach him themselves but send their students (not yet Rabbis). With these are the Herodians, a political and not a religious sect, supporters of the Herodian princes; in this respect they did not share the Pharisees’ outlook which was anti-Herodian. Both parties were at one, however, in their interim policy of subservience to Rome. It was to their common interest to scotch a movement which threatened or seemed to threaten the status quo. They open the debate with a compliment calculated to disarm. They insist, tendentiously, upon the Master’s well-known independence of thought (e.g. 7:29) and outspoken expression even against the person of the ruling power, Lk 13:31 f. It seems from this emphasis that they hope for an anti-Roman decision which later they were forced to fabricate, Lk 23:2. The word ‘tribute’ (κῆνσος) here apparently embraces all taxes (capitation, land-tax, etc.) payable to the civil power. The question is dishonest: Pharisees and Herodians had long since adjusted their conscience to the payment. But it presents Jesus with a dilemma. Should he advise non-payment, as they hope and expect, he becomes indictable to Rome. The pseudo-Messias, Judas the Galilean, had perished for this very cause, twenty years before in a.d. 7. Should he advise payment he loses his Messianic credit with the people for whom Messianism spelt independence of foreign yoke. 18. Our Lord, knowing the insincerity of the question, could refuse to answer but does not. § f 19. As usual (e.g. 21:31–40) he asks the objectors to contribute to their own downfall and they show him a silver denarius (cf. 17:23–26, note), the Roman coin with which the taxes were so often paid. 20. The coin was probably of Tiberius (a.d. 14–37) with, on the obverse, the laureate head of this emperor and the inscription: ‘Ti (berius) Caesar Divi Aug (usti) F (ilius) Augustus’ (HD7243B 3, 427 f.). 21. Plainly the coin came from Caesar, it is right that it should be returned (ἀπόδοτε) to him. These civil transactions are on one plane, God’s rights on another. There is no inevitable clash, provided (as was the case in the relationship of Rome and Jewry) that the civil demands did not encroach upon the duties of man to God. 22. The answer is a simple one. But it amazes the adversaries because they have no suspicion of the simple principle from which it emerges. Messianism is for them inevitably a political movement and their dilemma, 17, consequently exhaustive and fatal. It is the spiritual nature of our Lord’s Messianism that provides the third alternative which is, not compromise, but due delimitation of spheres; cf. Jn 18:36 f.

§ 713a 23–33 Bodily Resurrection attacked (Mk 12:18–27, 34^b; Lk 20:27–40)—The Sadducees, 3:7–10, note, now appear on the scene not, as the Pharisees had attempted, to involve Jesus with the political authorities, but with a question of Jewish doctrine and practice. They seek either to score a point off the Pharisees by winning his support or else, if our Lord defends the Pharisees’ doctrine, to make game of him. The Sadducees, despite the fact that from their ranks the priests were chosen, believed the one God to be uninterested in his creation. They therefore denied divine providence, the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body. The Pharisees’ doctrine of bodily resurrection was firmly held but, to judge by certain texts, crass (Bonsirven 1, 482–5). In the question put to our Lord, therefore, another dilemma is implied: either a very material conception of resurrection or no resurrection at all. As before, our Lord has a third alternative to propose, 30, which proceeds from the high spirituality of his mind. 23–27. The Sadducees quote Deut 25:5 enunciating the ‘levirate’ law. They propose a case in which each of seven brothers, all being childless, had successively equal rights over the one wife. What when these rights become simultaneous after death? It reduces the idea of bodily resurrection to absurdity! § b 28–30. The objection shows ignorance of God’s power to raise man and woman bodily to the chaste condition of the angels who, being immortal, need not to reproduce their kind. 31–32. It shows ignorance, too, of the very Scriptures they have ventured to quote. Our Lord chooses a text from Ex 3:6 (not, e.g., from the clear text of Dan 12:1–2) perhaps because, as is highly probable, the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch as having full canonical authority. In its original setting, the revelation in the ‘burning bush’, the text strictly implies that the God who was now speaking with Moses was the same God as his ancestors adored. Here our Lord draws out its fuller sense after a fashion no Rabbi could resent. The living God could not be named after a dead thing; yet God himself uses the title ‘God of Abraham’. Abraham, therefore, still lives. Nor is it only of the soul’s continuing life that our Lord speaks. In the first place, this is not the difficulty, 25, 28; in the second place, Jewish theology did not distinguish immortality and bodily resurrection, 2 Mac 12:43 f. Thus the Pharisees, believing in immortality, accepted resurrection; the Sadducees denied the first and therefore the second. There was no third school. It is against this theological background that our Lord’s argument must be read. If Abraham lives at all (and the Exodus text proves that he does) he lives with a view to bodily resurrection. And indeed even outside this background but within the total OT context the words of Exodus are significant. Setting aside explicit texts (e.g. Pss 15(16) 10–11; 48(49) 16; 72(73) 24) the whole OT protests that God could never desert his servants—he is their God as he is the God of Abraham. Neither Abraham, therefore, nor any other faithful servant can perish utterly. 33. Again the admiration (cf. 22) and again, it seems, because the objectors have not grasped the simple principle, viz. the spiritual nature even of bodily resurrection. Evidently the Sadducees had never thus heard their difficulty answered by the Pharisees.

§ c 34–40 The Great Commandment (Mk 12:28–34a; cf. Lk 10:25–28)—34. The new approach to Jesus has in Mt the air of a conspiracy unless we read (Lagrange) against the weight of MS evidence: the Pharisees ‘gathered about him’ (ἐπ ʼαὐτόν) instead of ‘gathered together’ (ἐπι τὸ αὐτό). In this latter reading the Pharisees are presented as pursuing the attack (though, cf. infra, they have chosen an unsuitable representative). The former reading shows them somewhat conciliated by the repulse of the Sadducees. 35–36. One versed in the Law puts a question probably debated in the schools (S7244B 1, 900–5). The 613 commandments of the Law were subdivided into ‘light’ and ‘grave’, infringements of the latter being expiated only by death. These again were subdivided into small and great. Our Lord’s questioner is concerned only with the greatest of all. In Mk 12:28 he seems sincere; in Mt the word ‘tempting’ suggests the opposite. The solution lies perhaps in the wide sense of this word (πειράζων; perhaps ‘probing’, ‘sounding’, cf. Prat 2, 222); or possibly the lawyer’s initial hostility softened as the conversation advanced. 37–38. The words of the commandment, Deut 6:5, were familiar: they opened the twice-daily prayer—the Shema‘; cf. Mk 12:29. They urged the submission of the heart (in Hebrew idiom, the centre of intelligence) and the soul (principle of sensitive faculties—emotion etc.) to God. And this ‘with thy whole strength’ (Mt’s ‘mind’ is probably due to the Greek translator). 39. It is more surprising that our Lord joins to this the love of neighbour, Lev 19:18. The fact that he speaks of the ‘second’ commandment without being asked shows his unwillingness to separate the two. Love of neighbour and love of God are child and parent. The two commandments are ‘like’ because true love of neighbour is but an overflow of true love of God. As our Lord is the first to present these two precepts as one so he is the first to give the widest meaning to the word ‘neighbour’; cf. his explanation of the term on a similar, but apparently not the same, occasion in Lk 10:25–37. 40. From this double support hang (κρέμαται) ‘Law and Prophets’. The last phrase significantly repeats 5:17 so that ‘we now understand what this divine system was that Jesus had come not to destroy but to bring to perfection. It was essentially the law of charity’ (Lagrange, Mt, 432).

§ d 41–46 The Messias Son and Lord of David (Mk 12:35–37a; Lk 20:41–44)—41–42. The recent question, 17, has betrayed a political conception of the Messias, 22, note; our Lord now invites reflexion. That the Messias was to be of the Davidic dynasty was the constant teaching of the prophets, Is 11:1; Jer 23:5; Ez 34:23 etc., and there is no hesitation in the Pharisees’ reply. 43–46. Yet in the Davidic psalm 109 (110) were written the inspired words: ‘Yahweh said to my lord: Sit at my right hand’. The Pharisees evidently admitted that the Davidic ‘my lord’ referred to the Messias. The Rabbis of the next two centuries, probably influenced by our Lord’s argument repeated and developed by the early Christians, did not. The psalm-verse, especially with its suggestion of the Messianic throne of Dan 7:28, emphasized the transcendental nature of the Messias. ‘Son of David’ is therefore not an adequate description of him. Our Lord leaves them with this thought. If honestly pursued it could take the Pharisees and others (cf. Mk 12:35) from ideas of a political Messias to the notion of one whose work was to be as spiritual as his origin.

§ 714a 23:1–36 Discourse on the Scribes and Pharisees (Mk 12:38–40; Lk 20:45–47; cf. Lk 11:37–54)—The whole chapter is a warning to those who are or may be deceived by the worst elements in Pharisaism. It is with this in view that our Lord mercilessly exposes them. Note, however, that the recurrent ‘Woe!’ is not a curse but a portentous expression of grief; cf. 24:19.

§ b 1–7 The Pharisees and their Victims—1–4. When the scribes and Pharisees faithfully expound the Law it is on the teaching-chair of Moses that they sit (ἐκάθισαν, aorist equivalent to the Semitic stative ‘imperfect’; Black, 93). Accordingly they must be obeyed. But this obedience should not lead to imitation because they are hypocrites at heart. The letter of the Law they observe, not without ingenuity, but not its spirit; cf. Jn 7:19–23. On the contrary, the casuistic interpretations of the Law that over-burdened the conscience of others, Ac 15:40, served to extricate the Pharisees themselves from many an obligation; cf. Edershei7245m 2, 777. They take pains to make neat and heavy parcels and to lift them on to the shoulders of others. With their own shoulders, nay with their own fingers they will not carry them an inch; cf. Lagrange, L’Evangile, 337. 5–7. (Mk 12:38–39; Lk 20:47.) Their show is hollow though it is the basis of their prestige. They seek to impress others with their zeal for the Law by making their phylacteries more noticeable. The ‘phylacteries’ (φυλακτήρια, i.e. safeguards, amulets; Aram. t^ep̱illîn, literally ‘prayers’) were tiny, oblong, leather-covered cases containing four strips of parchment on which were written the texts, Ex 13:1–10, 11–16; Deut 6:4–9; 11:13–21, the monotheistic profession of faith. Here the word is evidently used to include the ribbons or thongs by which the cases were fastened, one to the forearm, another to the forehead, at the time of morning-prayer. The practice derived from an unduly literal interpretation of Ex 13:9, 16. Our Lord condemns neither phylacteries nor tassels, 9:20–22, § 691f, but only the ostentatious piety that makes them conspicuous. The low respectful bow in sight of all, the title Rabbi (‘master’, ‘teacher’) delighted the scribes and Pharisees.

§ c 8–12 Danger of Imitation (Mt only)—Our Lord turns to his disciples. As he had not condemned phylacteries so in 7 does he not forbid the title ‘Rabbi’ but the vain complacency taken in it. It is in this sense that the injunction of 8 is to be understood. Our Lord is not out to reform current nomenclature; he is concerned with the spirit, not with the letter. But the use, 9, or acceptance, 8, 10, of any adulation that threatens to intrude between man and God is sternly forbidden. All human titles are only shadows of God’s authority from which they derive, Eph 3:15. Unless this is clearly understood, ‘call no one on earth “Abi” ’, ‘father’, a term sometimes used of the great Rabbis; cf. Edershei7246m 2, 408–10. Note that our Lord is not a grammarian regulating the use of terms: he is a doctor of the spirit. He forbids any acknowledgement of fatherhood that obscures the fatherhood of God, nothing more. If we make no allowance for the concreteness and brevity of his phrases we reduce either them to absurdity (e.g. 6:3) or him to inconsistency (e.g. Jn 18:23, cf. § 686d). He would not forbid a human son to use the word ‘father’ nor would he forbid the term if addressed to one who is God’s representative; in this second case, indeed, it serves to remind its user of the fatherhood of God. Nor must the Christian disciple pose as an independent spiritual guide (10, καθηγητής). He himself is subject to one Teacher (διδάσκαλος, 8) and one Guide, 10—our Lord himself (the term ‘Christ’, if a scribal insertion, nevertheless renders the sense rightly). They have one Father who is in heaven. The principle of graded authority remains (11; cf. 20:26, note) but the spirit in which that authority is wielded must be one of humility. For 12, cf. 18:4, note.

§ d 13–31 The Seven Woes—13. First Woe: opposition and obstacle to the Kingdom. A general denunciation. Our Lord’s anger is explained by the harm he sees done to simple folk. The formalism of scribes and Pharisees has blocked the entrance even to our Lord’s own kingdom. It has darkened the public mind and made it incapable of appreciating the need for inward religion or even of recognizing its presence. 14. An insertion from Mk 12:40. 15. Second Woe: proselytism to bad purpose (Lk 11:52). Not content with obstructing entrance to the Kingdom, the Pharisees seek, with immense zeal, to draw ignorant pagans down to their own level and to make them too consciously sin against the proffered light of Christ. On the intense and successful Jewish proselytism of this period, cf. Schürer 2, 2, 303–27. Often twice as fanatical as the born-Jew the newcomer is twice as surely established in the infernal dominion (‘son of’ in this Semitic sense=‘belonging to’). 16–22. Third Woe: casuistry; a sample. § e 16–19. The Scribes and Pharisees, blind themselves, have absurdly assumed the role of guide. To illustrate the blindness our Lord chooses an example (or contrives a characteristic, if non-existent, case) of their attitude to vows. On the annulment of these they were an ingenious court of appeal. The terms of the vow were closely scrutinized without regard to the original intention of the one who had made it. Their verdict would be either: ‘It is nothing’ (it is no vow) or ‘He is under obligation’. Two individual illustrations of this attitude are given, 16, 18. Vows naming the gold (apparently the votive-offerings) in the temple and vows naming the sacrifice (‘gift’) on the altar. These are declared ‘valid’; vows on the temple or altar itself are declared void. But our Lord turns the casuistry against them, 17, 19. If they are determined to make these distinctions (though distinctions in this matter are out of place, cf. 20–22), surely the house of God and his chosen altar are more sacred than man’s possessions. These last are sacred only when, and because, they become offerings. Even casuistry should have reached a conclusion contradictory to that of the scribes. 20–22. But, in truth, there is no room for it. A sacred vow, whatever its terms, is made in the presence of God. And (22—a final thrust), contrary to the explicit decision of the Jewish doctors, the invocation of ‘heaven’ in place of the divine name makes not the slightest difference. It is the intention and not the word that tells. § f 23–24. Fourth Woe: false perspectives (Lk 11:42). 23. The minutiae of the tithe-laws (based on Lev 27:30) on all comestible plants were truly astonishing, Edershei7247m 2, 412. Even the small seasoning herbs, ‘mint, dill, cummin’, were not forgotten. The practice is not condemned, nor is it enjoined, despite the misleading Semitic downrightness of the phrase ‘these things [‘justice’ etc.] you should have practised without neglecting the other [tithe]’. But it surely should not be found incompatible with the weightier matters of the Law—justice to one’s neighbour (κρίσις, i.e. mišpāṭ; cf. Deut 10:18), sympathy for him (ἔλεος), good faith in dealings with him [πίστις; cf. Ps 32 (33):4; Gal 5:22 (23)]. 24. This fantastic situation is illustrated in massive hyperbole. Such conduct is compared to that of one who would carefully filter from his cup a tiny gnat (lest he incur some legal impurity) leaving there a camel. Attention is sometimes called to the play on words (gml’, qlm’, qml’; respectively ‘camel’, ‘gnat’, ‘filter’; cf. Lagrange, Mt, 447) which probably indicates that the saying was proverbial. § g 25–26. Fifth Woe: formalism (Lk 11:39–41). Meticulous ceremonial care to avoid legal impurity (cf. Mk 7:4; Schürer 2, 2, 106–11) was not matched by moral scruples. The surface of the crockery was, no doubt, clean, but it held the product of plunder and the means of intemperance: ‘within they [the vessels] are filled from [ἐξ] robbery and excess’. First things first: see that what is within (τὸ ἐντός) is morally pure; it will then confer all necessary purity upon the surface of the container. 27–28. Sixth Woe: hypocrisy (cf. Lk 11:44). The ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ contrast of 25–26 leads on to a formal accusation of hypocrisy. The comparison, deliberately nauseating, is borrowed from the tombs whitened with chalk four weeks before the Pasch to warn pilgrims of the danger of contact and legal impurity; cf. Num 19:16. The eye sees them gleaming in the sun but they cover corruption. By the same paradox the Law-abiding Pharisee is full of lawlessness (ἀνομία); cf. 1–7, note. § h 29–33. Seventh Woe: murder of God’s envoy (Lk 11:47–48). As in 23 it is not the act of honouring their great ancestors, 29, that is condemned but present murderous intention which lays bare the hypocrisy of their protestations. They admit, 30, that it was their fathers who murdered the prophets but seek to disclaim responsibility. Nevertheless, they and our Lord know their murderous intent in his regard; cf. 21:38, 45. The situation of their ‘fathers’ has reappeared and their conduct shows, 31, that they are worthy sons and that their protest, 30, is empty. Bitterly ironical, our Lord urges them to their deadly work: their fathers have killed the servants, 21:35, 36, it is theirs to complete the work and kill the Son. In these words, recalling those of the Baptist (33; cf. 3:7) but unexpected and terrible on the lips of our Lord, the crafty Pharisees are warned of the judgement that condemns to hell. § i 34–36. The crime and its punishment (Lk 11:49–51). To this end (i.e. of 32; 33 is parenthetical) our Lord in his turn (ἰδοὺ ἐγώ, emphatic) is sending (cf. 10:16) his own ‘prophets’ to declare the divine message and ‘wise men’ and ‘scribes’ (cf. 13:52) to apply it. The old order will repeat itself, and with it the opportunity for sacrilegious murder. 35. Thus the chosen race will fitly bear the responsibility for all the innocent blood shed on the ground in the whole course of sacred history. The names of Abel and Zacharias are chosen because Abel’s murder is the first mentioned in the Scriptures, Gen 4:8, and that of the priest Zacharias, 2 Par 24:20–22, the last in the Hebrew order of books. In each case there is question, as here, of a just reckoning to be made, Gen 4:10 f.; 2 Par 24:22. The reference to Zacharias is certainly to the priest of 2 Par 24:20—‘son of Joiada’ and slain in the temple precincts (cf. Lk 11:51)—and not to the prophet, who is called ‘son of Barachias’ in Zach 1:1. There are some faint indications that the reading ‘son of Barachias’ in Mt is not original: the phrase is absent altogether from the Sinaitic MS and from four cursives; it becomes ‘son of Joiada’ in the ‘Gospel of the Nazarenes’ known to Jerome and thought by him to be the original Matthew. Its absence from the parallel place in Lk suggests to many critics that it may be an ancient and mistaken gloss (e.g. 7248* Allen, 7249*Plummer, 7250*Loisy). This theory is accepted by many Catholic exegetes. The question remains unsolved. 36. For all these crimes the nation shall shortly answer. The fall of Jerusalem came forty years later.

§ j 37–39 Lament for Jerusalem (Lk 13:34–35)—37. The sorrow underlying the anger of the denunciations rises to the surface. The city of God, 5:35, assassin of his envoys (cf. 30, 34; 2 Par 24:20 f.; Jer 26:20 ff.; 4 Kg 21:16, etc.) and finally rejecting the reconciliation through the Son! By repeated appeal to Jerusalem (unmentioned in the Synoptics but told in Jn) our Lord has used the most anxious care to protect his own. 38. The city with its temple (‘your house’) will be left forsaken as the prophet had threatened, Jer 22:5—a repetition of the sorrows of the Babylonian exile. 39. But Jesus does not yet speak openly of material ruin. He speaks rather of the spiritual loss his absence will bring. They have heard his last appeal. His mission to them is over. Yet, it seems, he ends on a note of invitation. If Jerusalem should come to hail him as her King, as many on Sunday had saluted him (cf. 21:9, note), she will find him. But not till then. The words are perhaps merely a farewell exhortation though many (as Prat, Lagrange) see in them a promise of the future conversion of Israel to Christ—a conversion which is in fact prophesied by Paul, Rom 11:25. For barren resentment of Jewry we should substitute prayer.

§ 715a 24:1–51 Discourse on ‘the End’ (Mk 13:1–37; Lk 21:5–36).

24:1–3 The Question and its Background (Mk 13:1–4; Lk 21:5–7)—1. Our Lord leaves the temple by the eastern gate and, crossing the Kedron, climbs the slope of Olivet. Turning to look backward down upon the temple buildings the disciples, admiring provincials, exclaim at their massive beauty. 2. Our Lord’s reply is disconcerting. This Herodian temple, begun more than forty years before (20/19 b.c.) and not completely finished until thirty years later (a.d. 64) was even now threatened with total ruin—it was burned and overthrown in a.d. 70. 3. The remark is unexpected and the disciples walk on, perhaps in silence, perhaps in agitated discussion until, reaching the summit, all stop to rest. Our Lord’s four privileged disciples (Mk) put the double question: ‘When?’; ‘What warnings?’. It is difficult to determine whether these questions refer to one event, the time and herald-signs of the destruction of Jerusalem, or to two, the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and the signs of the end of the world. Luke’s words and to a slightly less extent Mk’s seem to suggest one; Mt’s suggest two. It is usual to reconcile the two forms of the question, Mt as against Mk, Lk, by pointing out that for a Jew the destruction of the temple would spell the end of the world itself. In this hypothesis the disciples thought that the two events were to be simultaneous, and our Lord in his reply treats of them together because the first is a figure of the second (‘end of a world’, ‘end of the world’); nevertheless, it is claimed, he removes the disciples’ chronological confusion. It is said that two separate events are certainly discussed in the discourse because one is described as local, imminent, foreseeable through historical happenings while the other is universal, of unknown date, without warning signs.

§ b Another and important theory has been recently presented by A. Feuillet [RS7251R 34 (1947) 303–27; 35 (1948) 544–65; NR7252T 71 (1949) 701–22, 806–28; R7253B 55 (1948) 481–502; 56 (1949) 61–92, 340–64; 57 (1950) 43–62, 180–211]. It is a revival of Augustine’s tentative opinion (P7254L 33, 904–25), later adopted by Calmet and Le Camus, but revised and supported with powerful new arguments. The theory defends the unity of the discourse and holds that the reference throughout is to the destruction of Jerusalem with its double aspect: the end of the old order (‘times of the Jews’) and the opening of the new (‘times of the Gentiles’). The hypothesis does not deny the possibility of a further sense (fuller? typical?) in the discourse. Indeed it follows from the nature of the case that the divine judgement which closes the first act of world-history (the Age of Israel) is the destined model or type of the Last Judgement which is to mark the end of the next (the Age of the Gentiles). This fusion of perspective is in the style of the prophets. For them the ‘Day of Yahweh’ (i.e. of Yahweh’s judgement) has a shifting perspective, the reason being that this ‘day’ is considered more from the theological, transcendental, plane than from the historical and contingent point of view (cf. Scripture, 4 [1950] 222–30, 264–73). But the hypothesis denies that the two themes (end of Jerusalem, end of the world) are juxtaposed so that one part of the discourse refers to the end of Jerusalem, the other to the end of the world; it does not deny that the themes are superimposed (Benoit). St Paul, therefore, could resume certain phrases of the discourse and refer them to the end of the world. Strictly literal interpretation, the theory claims, is satisfied by the historical reference (destruction of Jerusalem) and, in fact, sometimes demands such a reference (e.g. 24; 16–20). The following commentary will briefly state both views. Regarding the form of the disciples’ question Feuillet, emphasizing the text of Mk, Lk, insists that it is explicity concerned with the destruction of Jerusalem and that Mt’s form is capable of the same interpretation. The phrase ‘thy coming’ (παρουσία, a term not used in the gospels except Mt 24) has in the Greek papyri the meaning of a royal visit. Paul certainly uses the word for Christ’s final coming at the end of the world (1 Cor 15:23 etc.) but it may be that in this case as in others he has taken over Mt’s terminology and adapted it to the final coming, R7255B 56 (1949) 75–6, note. On the resemblance between Mt and Paul; cf. 7256*Dodd, E7257T 58 (1947) 293 ff. and critique in D7258R 66 (1948) 367–83; on the likeness of terminology between Mt 24 in particular and 1, 2 Thess cf. Orchard, B7259i 19 (1938) 19–42; the last author concludes that Paul in his apocalyptic ‘has used the same words, ideas and phraseology (as Mt), reshuffled them, and set them down in their new combination’. The ‘consummation of the world’ (συντελεία τοῦ αῖῶνος) sounds more decisive for the end of the world reference than does the term ‘parousia’. Nevertheless the word αἰών signifies not the physical world or universe, but ‘era, epoch’ of human history; for Paul’s use cf. Allo, Vivre et Penser, 1^re Sér., 1941, 179. The ‘era’ here might therefore be that of the old dispensation. In 28:20, where the perspective changes, it is the new, Messianic era.

§ c 4–14 The Beginning of Sorrows (cf. Mk 13:5–13; Lk 21:18–19)—Our Lord does not yet reply directly to the disciples’ question: he is concerned primarily with spiritual issues and with the conduct of the disciples. 4–5. He supposes his own death after which many would come usurping the title that belonged to him—as in fact they did, with grievous results for themselves and their followers. For these political, pseudo-Messiahs who appeared in considerable numbers before the destruction of Jerusalem cf. Jos., BJ 2, 13, 4; 6, 5, 4; Lagrange, Le Messianisme, 21–7. 6–7, Still anxious to warn his own rather than to foretell the future, our Lord speaks of the inward peace the disciples must preserve in a troubled world. The prophetic style he uses does not call for minute verification though this is not lacking for the years before a.d.70. It was a period savage in its wars, ferocious in its very peace (Tacitus, Hist. 3, 2, 1) with war’s usual concomitants: plagues (Tacitus, Annales 16, 13) and famine (Ac 11:28; Jos., Ant. 20, 2, 5); even earthquakes (in towns of Asia Minor, a.d. 61–2; Pompeii in a.d. 63 etc.). All this does not closely concern the Apostles, as the Jerusalem catastrophe will; cf. 15 ff. The ‘end’ of Jerusalem with its final break with the old order is still to come. 8. These calamities are ‘the beginnings of the pangs of childbirth’ (ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων). The world is in travail for a new age (cf. Mic 4:9–10; Apoc 12:2) though the pangs have not reached their climax; cf. 15, note. The sentence, though ominous, is designed to console the disciples; cf. Jn 16:20–22. 9. Pursuing the theme of his disciples’ conduct (cf. 10:17–23, notes) Jesus fortifies them against the future by showing that their fate is neither outside his knowledge nor divorced from his interests (‘for my name’s sake’). § d 10–12. Under the pressure of persecution many shall fall away and even hand one another over to the persecutors. In this divided field religious impostors (cf. 5) reap a rich harvest. (Such a situation in fact developed some years before the Destruction of Jerusalem; Rom 16:17–18; Gal 1:6–9; 2 Cor 11:13 etc.) Faced with this disedifying spectacle the love of God will freeze in the hearts of many. 13. But he will save his soul (cf. Lk 21:19) who has endured perfectly (or ‘to the end’, i.e.—in this context—to the end of life, not of Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the phrase εἰς τέλος—not εἰς τὸ τέλος—probably signifies ‘completely, perfectly’ like the ἕως τέλους of 2 Cor 1:13 and, possibly, the εἰς τέλος of Jn 13:1). 14. But before the ‘consummation’ (τέλος: ‘the end’) which, in view of the following verses, probably now means the end of Jerusalem, the good news of the Kingdom must be announced to the whole world (ἐν ὁλῃ τῇ οἰκουμένῃ). This last phrase, suggesting to modern ears the inhabited world as we now know it, is already used, equivalently, in Rom 1:8 ‘in the whole world’ and the testimony ‘to all nations’ finds its echo in Rom 1:5. Paul registers this universal preaching as a fait accompli as early as a.d. 60, Col 1:23, ten years before the fall of Jerusalem. The verse does not hint, therefore, that the perspective has passed beyond the fall of Jerusalem. Through all the hostile circumstances described, 5–12, the gospel will go steadily forward. 14, too, thus holds a note of consolation for the disciples.

§ 716a 15–28 The Great Tribulation (Mk 13:14–23; Lk 21:20–24)—At last our Lord proceeds to answer the disciples’ question but he is still concerned primarily with practical advice and comfort. 15. The prophet Daniel (Dan 9:27; cf. 11:31; 12:11) had spoken of the ‘devastating hateful thing’ which ‘will be upon the temple’ (LX7260X). The words were verified in 168 b.c. (cf. 1 Mac 1:57; 2 Mac 6:1–5) by the conduct of the hellenizing tyrant Antiochus Epiphanes who set up in the temple an idol and altar to Olympian Zeus. Our Lord speaks of a repetition of such sacrilege and he invites the reader of Daniel to penetrate the deeper prophetic sense of the allusion. (Possibly it is the evangelist himself who invites to this or to an attentive consideration of our Lord’s words.) If Jesus is referring explicitly to the desecration of the temple (‘in a holy place’), the warning would be recognized by the Christians when, in a.d. 68, the Jewish Zealots tyrannized in the temple which they had turned into a fortress. If he is referring to the desecration of the sacred soil of Palestine, it would be the Roman armies bearing down on Jerusalem in a.d. 69 that would be the signal for flight; cf. Lk 21:20. 16. The Christians are to flee from Judaea to the mountains (across Jordan, seemingly). In effect they did leave Jerusalem for Pella before the siege, Eus., HE7261 3, 5, 3. 17–20. Haste will be imperative. Should anyone be taking his ease, eastern-fashion, on the flat-roof let him run down the outer staircase but not go into the house to encumber his flight with baggage. Should he be at work in the field let him not wait even to pick up his cloak. And alas for those forbidden by necessity or by love to leave their burden behind! The disciples must pray that God’s judgement be tempered with mercy. In winter, rushing torrents would stay their flight; sabbath-scruples (cf. Ex 16:29), still felt by the Christians in the early days of the Church, would restrict it to less than one useless mile. § b Many exegetes see in 21 the beginning of a discourse on the end of the world, 21–32. If this is so, its opening conjunction γάρ (‘For’) is a merely formal connective after the manner of apocalypse (cf. e.g. Dan 11:45 with Dan 12:1). Others prefer to see a close connexion (W7262V makes one sentence of 20–21) and refer 21 to the destruction of Jerusalem. In support of this reference is the parallel Lk 21:23b. The ‘great tribulation’, it is urged, like the ‘great distress’ of Lk 21:23b, may still be the concomitant of the destruction. The extravagance of the terms (not, however, entirely absent from 6–7 which certainly refer to the period before the destruction) is not incompatible with this restricted reference. The prophets present local historical events connected with the fortunes of God’s people in grandiose language; cf., e.g. the ‘apocalypse’ of Is 24–27 dealing with the overthrow of the arch-enemy, Assyria. ‘The mere mention of a world-judgement is no proof that the section deals with the end of time. Every intervention of God is a world-judgement’; Kissane, The Book of Isaiah (Dublin 1941) 1, 267. See terms very like those of Mt and referring to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nabuchodonosor, § c Bar 2:2; cf. Is 13:6–10; Jer 4:23–26; 30:7. 22. This verse may suggest the period immediately preceding the end of the world; the time, with its physical trials and moral seductions, 24, is mercifully to be shortened; otherwise the salvation of the chosen Christian faithful would be threatened. The mention of these ‘elect’ is said to prove that the destruction of Jerusalem is not here referred to since the ‘elect’ can be neither the Jewish factions besieged in Jerusalem nor the Christians, because these last left Jerusalem before the siege, 16, note. Nevertheless the argument is not peremptory: Chrysostom (Hom. 76 in Mt) identifies the ‘elect’ with Christians who remained in Jerusalem and explains that it was owing to their presence that God shortened the siege and so preserved a remnant of the Jews. Alternatively it is possible to identify this ‘remnant’ itself with the ‘elect’ of 22 and 24. The ‘remnant of Israel’ is the recurrent theme of the prophets (R7263B 42 [1933] 562–39); it indicates the survivors of the particular national calamity the prophet has in mind, some of whom, not all, will prove worthy of God’s promise. In this view the calamity is the destruction of Jerusalem and the ‘elect’ are the surviving Jews for whom the offer of the Messianic kingdom still lies open. St Paul (Rom 11:7; cf. Rom 11:15) names the ‘remnant’ ‘the elect’, but refers the term to those Jews who have already (c a.d. 56) embraced Christianity. This is because, in his perspective, the crisis has already occurred—the advent, death, resurrection of the Messias; this crisis is entirely a spiritual one, and its ‘survivors’, therefore, are necessarily those who have actually entered the Messianic kingdom. Our Lord’s perspective is different: the crisis is national and yet to come. This difference of perspective means, as in the case of the prophets (Scripture 4 [1950] 223–4), that the the personnel of the ‘remnant’ is different also. The prophetic flavour of the passage is perceptible: divine decree has ‘cut short’ (cf. Dan 9:24) the time of tribulation (the siege of Jerusalem lasted five months)—otherwise no single inhabitant (‘no flesh’; cf. Jer 12:12) would have survived. § d 23–25. The words are addressed indeed to the apostles but only in so far as these represent the faithful who live to see the end (of the world? of Jerusalem?). The pseudo-liberators, 5, appear again. Their deceits are described in the terms of Deut 13:1 where the false prophet announces (Heb. nāṯan; LX7264X δῷ; Mt δώσουσιν; D7265V ‘shew’) various portents. The fulfilment of such predictions, however, is to be taken only as a trial of faith permitted by God, Deut 13:2–3. Their purpose (D7266V ‘inasmuch as to’, but ὥστε here is probably purposive as in 10:1; 27:1; cf. Mk ‘in order to deceive’) will be to win supporters even among the ‘elect’. The reappearance of the ‘deliverers’ in this part of the discourse argues for a reference to a second epoch—the end of the world. But, on the other hand, it may be that our Lord’s intention is simply to indicate that they multiply, as might be expected, as the threat to Jerusalem grows more alarming. 26. The impostor must be left severely alone under whatever guise he present himself: whether coming like a second Moses from the desert, as happened under the procurators Felix, a.d. 52–60, and Florus, a.d. 60–2 (cf. Jos7267. B.J7268.7269 2, 13, 4; Ant. 20, 5, 10) or hidden in the store-rooms (the inmost rooms) surrounding his preparations with the mystery sometimes expected of the Messias (Lagrange, Le Messianisme, 221–4). 27. The ‘lightning’ image suggests a suddenness which might forbid reference to the destruction of Jerusalem which, 15, gives warning of its approach. Yet the argument is not conclusive since the suddenness is not such as to exclude a period of activity for pseudo-messiahs, 24, and the ‘lightning’ image is used by the prophets, Is 30:27 ff.; Zach 9:14, of divine judgements in the course and not at the end of history. The ‘coming’ (παρουσία, 3, note) of the Son of Man is therefore not necessarily a coining for the final and universal judgement; it may be his coming for the judgement upon Israel. 28. A sentence in proverb-form reminiscent of Job 39:30. It possibly means that the final coming of the Son of Man will leave none untouched (Buzy) but similar language is used by the prophets to describe divine judgement on Jerusalem (Jer 7:33 f. etc.) in which case the ‘carcase’ is Jerusalem where the birds of prey will have work to do.

§ e 29–31 After the Tribulation (Mk 13:24–27; Lk 21:25–27)—Almost all commentators refer 29–31 to the end of the world theme. The new theory, however, maintaining the single reference of the whole discourse, insists that Jesus still speaks of the fall of Jerusalem or rather of its counterpart which is the establishment of the Messianic kingdom in power. 29. The consequence of the great disaster is expressed in the prophetic style we have already noted, 21. The serried ranks (ṣ^ebā’ôṯ i.e. ‘marshalled hosts’; D7270V ‘powers’) of God’s heavenly army are in turmoil. As in Is 13:6–10, foretelling the ruin of Babylon, the very heavens are presented as involved in the catastrophe. All agree that these stereotyped terms of prophecy and apocalypse are not to be taken literally whether the reference be to the end of the world or to the end of Jerusalem. It follows that 29 does not settle the problem. It should be noticed, however, that Peter, Ac 2:19 f., uses the very similar language of Joel 2:30 f. not of the end of the world but of the new era formally and spectacularly inaugurated on Pentecost Day. For Peter, Joel’s ‘great and manifest day of the Lord’ has come with the Messianic age. It is instructive (cf. 31, note) that Joel heralds this ‘day’ with a trumpet, Jl 2:1. § f 30. Commonly taken as decisive for the end of the world reference. The Son of Man appears as sovereign judge; the sign is of his triumphant and avenging Cross; the lamentation is not of repentance, which would come too late, but of despair. The opposed view makes ‘the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds’ (cf. Dan 7:13) refer (as in 26:64; see note) to the glorious establishment of his kingdom on earth. The ‘mourning of the tribes’ is taken from Zach 12:10–14 where the ‘mourning’ is not of despair but of repentance for the death of one untimely slain, apparently of David’s house. The repentance is followed, Zach 13:1 ff., by an era of grace. These references to Daniel and Zacharias, it is claimed, both suggest the Messianic era rather than the end of the world (cf. the grouping of the same texts in Apoc 1:7, probably in the same sense; Allo, L’Apocalypse, 61). The ‘sign of the Son of Man in heaven’ is taken to mean the rallying-signal which is the Messias himself (σημεῖον as in Is 11:12). It is a sign perhaps experienced rather than ‘seen’; cf. 26:64, § 720g. It is a ‘heavenly’ sign (once asked for and now to be given, cf. 12:38 ff., § 697d), like the ‘coming in the clouds’, because the Son of Man’s heavenly glory is perceived in the triumphal establishment of his kingdom on earth. The mourning, as in Zach 12:10, is consequent upon the realization of the glory of the Son whose death is thus shown to have been a hideous crime. In this theory, therefore, the sign is ‘Christ the King seen in symbolic vision bearing the marks of his shameful death now as glorious wounds—a vision which forces itself upon the attention of men’. § g 31. The gathering of the elect is variously interpreted according to the sense given to the word ‘elect’ (22, 24, notes). It is usually understood as the fulfilment of the Christian hope for the end of time, 1 Thess 4:17; 2 Thess 2:1, while the ‘trumpet’, 1 Thess 4:15 f., is to awaken the faithful who are supposed dead (Buzy). The second hypothesis, which has referred 30 to the conversion of the nations (‘all tribes of the earth’) who perceive that Christ has risen and reigns, asserts that 31 calls attention to those other members of the Messianic kingdom—the ‘remnant of Israel’ (22, note). The ‘trumpet’, it is held, is only the signal that the Messianic era has opened; it is the rallying-call for God’s people precisely as in Is 27:13. We are reminded that in the Jewish daily prayer (Ṡ^emōnê ‘Esrê, 10) the ‘trumpet’ of 31 and the ‘sign’ of 30 are joined in a petition for the coming of the Messianic age: ‘Sound the great trumpet for our deliverance and raise a standard for the rallying of our exiles!’. The ‘trumpet’ in Mt, as so often in the Apocalypse (Allo, L’Apocalypse, lxi, 122 f.), unlike the ‘last’ trumpet of 1 Cor 15:52, announces perhaps the intervention of God in the course of history and not at its end. In this view the symbolical trumpet is to rally Christ’s own elect—the remnant of Israel dispersed over the known world.

§ 717a 32–35 Parable of the Fig-tree (Mk 13:28–31; Lk 21:28–33)—On the assumption that the preceding verses refer to the end of the world the context of this section causes difficulty, particularly in view of 34. Some (Lagrange, Buzy) suggest that our passage refers back to the destruction of Jerusalem section; others (Prat) find this procedure arbitrary and, yielding to the force of the context, apply 32–35 to the end of the world (34, note). The view which holds for the destruction of Jerusalem theme throughout the discourse claims to offer the more natural explanation of the text, with Lagrange, and also to save the context, with Prat. 32–33. Just as the happy season of summer has its herald-signs, Cant 2:12 f., so the establishment of the Messianic era, counterpart of the destruction of Jerusalem, has its portents, viz. ‘all these things’, 33; cf. ‘these things’ in 3. The events of 5–28 will, as they mature, proclaim the imminence of the Kingdom whose powerful establishment is described, according to the Feuillet view, in 29–31. 34. And indeed none of ‘these things’ is far distant. All shall take place within the lifetime of many now living (‘this generation’; cf 11:16; 12:39; 17:7 etc.). Here, as in 23:36 f., our Lord appears to intend a chronological indication; the alternative explanation (Knabenbauer, Prat) of ‘this generation’ as ‘the Jewish race’ is less probable. 35. That ‘heaven and earth shall pass’ may mean that the old order is to give way to a new world (19:28, note)—the Messianic era, 29. Possibly, however, 35 which is apparently parenthetical and occurs elsewhere (5:18, note) has no reference to the symbolism of 29 and indicates that our Lord’s words (his doctrine in general) are more stable than the physical universe.

§ b 36–41 The Deluge Comparison (Lk 17:26–27, 30, 34–35; cf. Mk 13:32)—36. A return to (Lagrange) or continuation of (Prat) the end of the world theme; or (Feuillet) a continuation of the destruction of Jerusalem theme. Our Lord refuses an exact date though in 34 he seems to define a date within 30–40 years. From this apparent incompatibility the inference is usually drawn that 34 and 36 refer to two different events, respectively the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world. It is admitted however (Ricciotti, Vita di Gesù Cristo, Milan, 1946, 641) that 36 is unexpected in its present place. For this reason, and for others, Feuillet emphasizes the indefiniteness of the time-indication in 34 as opposed to the refused precision (‘day and hour’) in 36. He concludes that 34 and 36 may refer to the one event—the establishment of the Messianic kingdom, the great ‘day’ of Yahweh according to the prophets. He underlines the close similarity between 36 and Ac 1:7f. where our Lord, asked the time of this establishment, refuses to give it and says only (Ac 1:8; cf. Mt 24:14) that the Gospel must first be spread abroad (R7271B 56 [1949] 87 f.). In either case, the exact day and hour is the Father’s secret. No man, no angel, not even the Son (this last phrase, certainly authentic in Mk 13:32, is probably authentic in Mt) knows that. The crescendo is instructive, but there remains the dogmatic difficulty of our Lord’s proclaiming his ‘ignorance’. It should however be remarked in passing that the inclusion of the phrase is a strong witness to the complete honesty of the evangelists. The difficulty (similar to that of 19:17; 20:23; cf. §§ 709b, 710b) is to some degree solved if we remember that it is the constant practice of the incarnate Son to claim no knowledge beyond that which the Father has instructed him to use. This is true even of the gospel of John who indubitably teaches the divinity of Christ; § c cf. Jn 7:16; 14:10. On the dogmatic side it may be said (A. Durand, S.J., NR7272T 71 [1949], 497–503) that in the incarnate Word were two planes of knowledge—divine and total on one plane, human and limited on the other; direct communication between the two being established only by his supernatural ‘infused knowledge’. This last was infused in proportion to the dignity of the man-God and to the needs of his redemptive work (e.g. knowledge of his own divinity and Messianic character; gift of prophecy). It is doubtful if the knowledge of the time of the world’s ending or of the exact ‘day and hour’ of Jerusalem’s destruction was thus needed; cf. D7273z 2183–5. 37–39. No one knows the hour because (γάρ) in the divine decree the exact time of the coming (παρουσία) is uncertain and sudden. This ‘coming’ is to overtake people at their usual occupations, careless of impending disaster. 40–41. The sudden event ‘will make a sharp distinction between the fate of individuals who up to that moment were in close association’ (Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom., London 1936, 87). The sense of ‘taken’ and ‘left’ will depend upon the identification of the disaster. For those who accept the end of the world context the terms mean ‘taken to God’, ‘left unaccepted’. In the destruction of Jerusalem hypothesis, ‘taken’ means ‘swept away by the catastrophe’ and ‘left’ means spared (as Noe was ‘left’, Gen 7:23) to form part of the chosen ‘remnant’ (RS7274R 35 [1948] 555–8).

§ d 42–44 The Surprised Householder (Lk 12:39–40; cf. Lk 21:34–35)—This, like the deluge-comparison, 39, presents a man overtaken by disaster. It warns the disciples to be wakeful (γρηγορεῖτε). Though you do not know the hour (cf. 36), proceeds our Lord, this ye know (at least), i.e. you can appreciate this, namely, that if a householder knew exactly when (ποίᾳ φυλακῇ) the thief would come he would be prepared. The saying is strange because the disciples themselves do not know ‘the hour’, 36. We are evidently to understand the suppressed implication that the householder, if forewarned of the event but ignorant of the exact hour, would watch all night. As before, 4 ff., our Lord is concerned with the conduct of his disciples. The coming disasters will overwhelm their hope and faith and lead them to rash action (cf. 25–26) unless they stand in calm fortitude awaiting the hour of deliverance; cf. Lk 21:28.

§ e 24:45–51 The Parable of the Stewards (Lk 12:41–48)—It is probable that the parable was not spoken on this occasion and that Lk gives its correct setting. It is drawn hither in Mt by an analogy of subject—the ‘watchfulness’ enjoined upon the disciples, 42, in preparation for a divine ‘coming’. But the ‘coming’ in this case is to the individual not to a community, as in Lk. The parable is a diptych. 45–47. The first picture presents the faithful superintendent of the household, always giving ‘them their food in due time’. He is found so doing when his master comes. From supervision of the servants he is promoted to superintendence of all his master’s affairs. This steward would appear to represent the disciple placed by Christ, the Master (ὁ κύριος), in a post of responsibility. The coming of the Master (it is not described as a ‘return’; Dodd, 159) lacks the solemnity of the ‘coming’ of 24:27, 30. It does not, therefore, suggest more than the ‘coming’ to each individual—the time of reckoning which is death. The word ‘blessed’, 46, and the extravagance of the reward for simple duty, 47, suggest allegory: the disciple, faithful to his earthly responsibilities in the Kingdom, will be associated in heaven with the glorified Son of Man presiding thence over his earthly kingdom; cf. 19:28, note. § f 48–51. In the companion-picture the steward sees in his master’s absence an opportunity for oppression and debauch. The master’s ‘delay’ 48 is probably but ‘a necessary part of the dramatic machinery to produce the situation desired’ (Dodd). In the hypothesis that the ‘coming’ of the Master is the End of the World, the ‘delay’ is taken as an indication that the End may be ‘long a-coming’. The ‘separate him’ of 51 is difficult (διχοτομήσει; W7275V ‘cut him asunder’) though the sawing asunder of a slave’s body was a punishment not unknown in the Greek and Roman periods; cf. Black, 190. Possibly it allegorically figures severe punishment; possibly it is to be rendered ‘cut him off’ (KN7276T), i.e. from the association with the reigning Christ in heaven, 47. His lot is henceforth with the ‘hypocrites’. This last term invites us (cf. 23:13, 15 etc.) to think of the scribes and Pharisees who had cut themselves off from the Kingdom, 23:13. The ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ (cf. 8:11–13, note) has already been associated with individual reprobation, 22:13, and recurs, significantly, in 25:30.

§ 718a 25:1–13 The Ten Virgins (Mt only; but cf. Lk 12:35–39)—The ‘coming’ of the Master described in 24:45–51 is now presented as the coming of the Bridegroom. Here again the ‘coming’ lacks the pomp of 24:29–31 and we think instinctively of the ‘coming’ that tests the individual—death. 1–4. The kingdom of heaven considered in the stage just described (i.e. of the Master’s coming to examine the conduct of his servants; 24:46, 50; this seems indicated by the τότε ὁμοιωθήσεται; D7277V ‘Then shall … be like’) resembles the situation about to be outlined; cf. 13:24, § 699b. The general background is that of a marriage but wants detail and has elements of improbability (Buzy, 326 f.) that perhaps suggest allegory. It is not entirely clear that the ‘virgins’ are bridesmaids since no bride is mentioned throughout (omit ‘and the bride’ from 1; W7278V) and, unless we intrude our knowledge of Palestinian marriage-custom, there is no hint that the virgins go to the bride’s house first; it is to the groom’s they go. The parable is concerned only with the relationship of virgins and groom. The tiny clay lamps hold little oil. The prudent young ladies, foreseeing possible delay, carry small refuelling vessels also. Such lamps are eminently unsuitable for the open-air procession. They are introduced into the parable deliberately, possibly because the more practical torch would not bring in the necessary idea of replenishing-vessels, possibly as symbols of vigilance, Lk 12:35. The bridegroom (called ‘Lord’—κύριε—in 11; cf. 7:22; 24:50) is Christ himself (cf. 9:15; 22:2; Eph 5:25 ff.; Apoc 19:7–9; 21:2. For rabbinic ideas of the Messias wedded to his people cf. Edershei7279m 1, 722 f.; Brierre-Narbonne, Les Prophéties Messianiques de l’A. T. dans la Litérature Juive, Paris 1933, 22 f.). § b 5–8. Wearied with waiting all grew drowsy and fell asleep. This detail serves to underline the delay of the groom. It is not reproved: both wise and foolish have allowed themselves to be overtaken by sleep. The guilt does not lie in this but in the carelessness that had made no provision for all eventualities. The wise, though asleep, are prepared. Nor need the delay of the groom hold an allegorical significance (cf. 24:48, note); it perhaps merely emphasizes the prudence that had provided for it. 9. The rather selfish complacency of the prudent may not be admirable but (as elsewhere; cf. Lk 16:8) it is only their one quality (of preparedness) that is set as a model. It emerges that this quality is a personal one and cannot be supplied by others (note the emphatic pronouns of 3, 7, 9: ‘their own lamps’, ‘for yourselves’, ἑαυτῶν, ἑαυταῖς). 10–13. It is too late now: the groom’s arrival (like the Master’s in 24:50) has caught them unprepared. The wise go in with the groom to the marriage-feast; cf. 22:2, note. The door fast-shut, the invocation ‘Lord’, the strange and solemn repudiation by the bridegroom, are all unlifelike and betray the application of the parable. This is explicitly made in 13: prudent provision for the Lord’s coming, whenever it be.

§ c 14–30 The Talents (cf. Lk 19:11–27)—Our Lord had said, 24:45, that the true servant must be faithful and prudent. The parable of the Virgins illustrates the prudence that makes the Christian live with a view to the coming of the Bridegroom. The parable of the Talents illustrates the faithfulness required of each Christian in the administration of goods committed to him by the Master. 14–15. The ‘watchfulness’ mentioned in 13 is necessary because (For it is as when’: ὥσπερ γὰρ) the situation under discussion is comparable to the one about to be described. In proportion to the financial ability of each of his servants (with the intention, therefore, of their making profit for him) the Master commits to them various sums. A huge sum to the first, a small fortune to the second, a not inconsiderable amount to the third. For the ‘talent’ cf. 18:24, § 707b. 16–17. The first and the second lose no time (the ‘immediately’ of 15 is to be taken with 16: Straightway he that had received …; W7280V) in doubling each his master’s money by hard work. Presumably this result was achieved only ‘after a long time’, 19, when the master returned; cf. 25:5; 24:48, note. 18. The third hid his talent, doubtless in the form of current coins, in a hole in the ground for safety. 19. The long absence of the master throws into relief the sustained diligence of the first and second servants and the persistent laziness of the third. § d 20–23. The faithful conduct of some few business-matters (the amounts, though huge, are as nothing to the master and in comparison with the reward) is rewarded by a post of greater importance. The application of the parable shines through the sentence: Enter thou into the joy [i.e. the joyful banquet; Joüon, 157; cf. 25:10, note] of thy Lord! The faithful servant shares with Jesus (cf. 25:34) the joy of the Father’s kingdom and apparently (cf. 25:21, 23) is associated with the King’s administration of the earthly kingdom so long as it lasts; cf. 19:28, note. 24–25. The lazy servant throws the responsibility upon the master. Experience tells him, he suggests, that the master is an exacting man. It seems that he stops short of an accusation of dishonesty. He develops the term ‘exacting’ in two farming-images: ‘reaping where thou hast not sown’, ‘garnering where thou hast not winnowed’ (W7281V). They are operations in which the master has had no personal share, from which nevertheless he expects profit. It is the classical objection to the ‘capitalist’. The servant alleges that his timidity proceeded from a knowledge of this. He considers that the return of the talent absolves him from blame. 26–27. The master immediately unmasks the true motive of the servant’s conduct: sloth. Even granted this caricature of himself, he argues, the servant should have had the wit and will if not to trade, as the others have done, at least to bank the money. On Jewish bankers cf. Edershei7282m 2, 463 f. The master would thus have received the interest. § e 28–29. To the first servant, who has shown himself able to bear great responsibility, the master transfers the idle ‘talent’. Yet the servant has already ‘entered into the joy of his Lord’. One, therefore, again receives the impression (cf. 21, 23) that ‘the faithful servant of Christ is awarded a stewardship of a higher order in heaven (cf. Lk 16:9–12) and associated more closely than ever with the furthering of the Kingdom’s interests’ (Feuillet). In human affairs responsibility is increasingly added to the able and willing. This is true, mutatis mutandis, of the Kingdom, 29. 30. The punishment is directly contrasted with the reward. The lazy servant is thrust out from the joy and light of the king’s banquet-hall; cf. 8:12, § 689e The parable primarily teaches that God’s gifts, of nature and especially of grace, are held in stewardship and must not be allowed to lie idle. They are to be used to further his kingdom; cf. 5:13–16. It emerges, secondarily, that the standard of God’s judgement is relative to the opportunities offered: ‘the greater the gifts, the greater the account demanded’ (Gregory the Great, P7283L 76, 1106).

§ f 25:31–46 The Last Judgement (Mt only)—The preceding parables have dealt with God’s particular assessment of the conduct of individuals—an assessment which is repeated throughout the course of the earthly Kingdom’s history as each individual comes to his account. Our Lord now passes to a description of the universal and final Assize. ‘Between 24:1–44 and 25:31–46 there is this in common, viz. that in each case a collective judgement closes an era in the history of salvation, and there is a solemn intervention of the Son of Man.… But the analogy stops there.… The first tableau, 24:1–44, presents a purely collective judgement, taking place in time, without any reference to sanctions in the eternal world; this is followed by a new stage in the history of man’s religious evolution—a new cosmos. The second tableau describes a judgement not only collective but individual also; when it is finished, human history is at an end; man goes to eternal life or to eternal loss’, Feuillet. Contemporary Jewish thought, too, appears to distinguish a judgement inaugurating the Messianic era (‘days of the Messias’; cf. 19:28, § 709e) and another judgement, strictly eschatological, which introduces the eternal world, Bonsirven, 1, 486–93. Even the second of these has, for the Rabbis, a tinge of nationalism: Israel would receive preferential treatment from God the Judge, Bonsirven 1, 500–3. Our Lord, speaking here of this second and final judgement, shows no trace of nationalism. The judgement by which the kingdom of the Son is purified before becoming the kingdom of the Father is decided exclusively on religious grounds. 31. Of this final judgement the Messias had not been imagined as the independent Judge. Our Lord, however, unhesitatingly assumes this office. He goes further (cf. 40, 45) and decides the issue on man’s attitude to himself. This situation ‘constitutes a declaration (of divinity) almost as solemn as the one he was to make when he presented himself to the Sanhedrin as Son of God’, Lagrange. § g 32–33. Man is fitly judged by the Son of Man and the judgement is universal. The ‘sheep’, for their mild expression and docility, are a suitable image of the faithful followers of Christ the shepherd, Jn 10:3, 4, 27. They are distinguished from the ‘goats’ (cf. Ez 34:17), mistrustful of eye and intractable of conduct, aptly chosen as their wicked counterpart. The right hand then, as now, was considered as the place of favour. 34. The ‘king’, the enthroned Son of Man of 31, invites the good to the kingdom of his royal Father. They are blessed of (i.e. ‘by’ or ‘belonging to’; cf. Jn 11:29) that Father who, in his eternal decree had foreknown his own and prepared for their happiness; cf. 5:4, note. 35–36. Why this reward? Because the King himself had been by them fed, harboured, clothed; visited in sickness and in captivity. The Son of Man thus identifies himself with the cause of all men whom, as the Servant of God, Is 53, he purchased with his death. 37–40. Christian disciples at least could not doubt that they had done these things for the love of Christ, Mk 9:40, nevertheless they could not have realized, without our Lord’s assurance, that these were favours personal to him. This was all the more remarkable in that the visible objects of those favours were often their own enemies and perhaps his; cf. our Lord’s own instructions in 5:46. But the astonishment of the just at the judgement is merely a literary presentation of the lesson. In effect, after this revelation of our Lord’s, they will henceforth see Christ in all the needy, friend or foe. § h 41–46. The sentence of the wicked, expressed more briefly than the invitation of the just, is a terrible one. Instead of ‘Come!’, ‘Depart!’; in place of the Kingdom, ‘everlasting fire’. God had prepared for man the Kingdom, not the fire, Wis 2:23 f.; this last was prepared only for the rebellious Satan (cf. 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 6) and his satellites whom, in rabbinic tradition, the archangel Sammael (Satan) had dragged with him to their doom, S7284B 1, 983 f. The Jewish texts do not agree on the eternity of punishment (Bonsirven 1, 538–41) but our Lord’s terms clearly suggest a definitive separation of good from bad when the last and solemn judgement is declared.

§ 719a F. The Passion 26:1–27:66.

26:1–5 The Conspiracy (Mk 14:1–2; Lk 22:1–2)—1–2. The long discourse of chh 24–25 is over (note Mt’s familiar formula; cf. 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1). It is Wednesday, two days before the Friday of our Lord’s death. 3–4. Even as our Lord is speaking (if Mt’s usually vague ‘then’ is here intended as a chronological note; otherwise cf. Jn 11:47–53) the Sanhedrin holds an informal meeting in the palace (not ‘courtyard’; cf. Joüon, 159 f.) of its president Caiaphas (Iosepos Kaiaphas), high-priest from a.d.18–36). 5. Haste is imperative yet the impending feast of the Pasch, anniversary of the birth of the nation, is an obstacle being a time of Messianic excitement. Moreover, the Galilean pilgrims and others have triumphantly escorted Jesus into the city on the previous Sunday. Had Judas not intervened it seems that the arrest would have been deferred.

§ b 6–13 Anointing at Bethany (Mk 14:3–9; Jn 12:1–8)—Though the incident took place on the Saturday before Palm Sunday, Jn 12:1, Mt and Mk place it in this Passion-context as a prophetic rehearsal of the burial-rites. 6. The host bears the common name of Simon, one of ten such in NT. He has suffered from some form of leprosy (cf. 8:2, § 689b), hence his soubriquet. He was possibly the father of Martha, Mary and Lazarus (cf. Jn 12:2–3) but more probably all three were guests at Simon’s house. 7. From a flask of onyx (‘alabaster-box’) Mary pours the ointment that would have cost a contemporary labourer his whole year’s salary or a Roman legionary sixteen months’ pay (300 denarii; Mk 14:5). 8–9. It would have bought bread for thousands, Jn 6:7. The extravagance shocks the utilitarian but it is a salutary warning that the protest is most loudly voiced by Judas, Jn 12:4, who had no love of the poor, Jn 12:6. 10–11. Jesus is far from opposing efforts to conquer pauperism; he simply remarks a fact: the disciples will have ample opportunity after he has gone to care for the poor. 12–13. Consciously or unconsciously, Mary has lovingly enacted a prophecy of our Lord’s death. The generous tone of his prediction, remarkably fulfilled, is in sharp contrast to the mean protest of 9.

§ c 14–16 Judas at Work (Mt only)—Mt resumes the thread of the historical narrative after the break in 6–13. Presumably it is still Wednesday. The traitor, reproachfully called ‘one of the twelve’, was the only non-Galilean Apostle, 10:1–4, § 692e. He had evidently reached the conclusion that nothing material was to be gained from associating with a Messias who preached sacrifice and who had so little appreciation of the value of money, 9. The sum agreed upon for the treachery is the equivalent of 120 denarii; cf. 7, note. The ‘pieces of silver’ are staters; cf. 17:24, note. The sum was a natural one for the priests to choose because the Law laid it down as the price for a human person (a slave; Ex 21:32).

§ d 17–19 Preparation for the Supper; Thursday (Mk 14:12–16; Lk 22:7–13)—All the evangelists are agreed that our Lord died on the day preceding the Sabbath, i.e. on Friday, Mk 15:42; Lk 23:54; Jn 19:31. The day of the Supper is therefore certainly Thursday. 17. The ‘feast of the Azymes’ (i.e. of ‘unleavened bread’), so called from the week’s abstention from leavened bread, was celebrated from the evening of 14th Nisan to the evening of 21st Nisan. On the evening of the 14th the paschal lamb was slain and the paschal supper celebrated with unleavened bread. The term ‘feast of the Azymes’ (alternatively ‘feast of the Pasch’) was applied in particular to the first day of the week’s feast, from sunset 14th to sunset 15th. The ‘first day of the Azymes’ (Mt) ‘on which it was necessary that the pasch should be killed’, Lk 22:7, is evidently used here (as e.g. in Josephus) in the wider sense of the phrase to include the whole day on the evening of which the paschal supper was eaten. It seems evident (Mk 14:14; Lk 22:11; see however W7285V 1, 362–5) that our Lord actually celebrated the Jewish paschal supper; cf. J. Jeremias, Die Abendmahls-worte Jesu, Göttingen, 1949⁷²⁸⁶². Nevertheless, John 18:28 makes it clear that our Lord’s enemies celebrated the paschal supper on the evening of the following day, Friday, and the Synoptics themselves describe the Friday morning as such a busy time for priest and Pharisee (Sanhedrin meeting, delation to Pilate, etc.) that it is difficult to imagine Friday being the 15th Nisan, one of the greatest feasts of the calendar with abstention from business and work. It seems probable that our Lord and the Galilean pilgrims celebrated the paschal supper on the day before the Jerusalemites, i.e. on the evening of Nisan 13th. If it were celebrated at all it would be with unleavened bread (essential to the paschal rite) and therefore the evangelists may speak of Nisan 13th as ‘the first day of the Azymes’. Cf. §§ 739e 768a-c. § e 18. Our Lord is outside the city (perhaps he has spent the night in prayer on Olivet, cf. Lk 21:37; Jn 18:2) but it was obligatory to eat the paschal lamb in Jerusalem, Bonsirven 2, 123. The disciples (Peter and John; Lk 22:8) are therefore sent into the city to one whose name the evangelists suppress, perhaps for prudence’ sake. It appears from Mt (‘the Master saith’) that the man was a friend of our Lord and willing to put a private room at his disposal despite the crowded conditions of the town at festal times. The hour of our Lord’s destiny has struck (his ‘time’—as in Jn 7:6–8).

§ f 20–25 Prophecy of Treason (Mk 14:17–21; Lk 22:14, 21–23)—20. When the sun had set (cf. Ex 12:8), the thirteen lay at table. The guests would lie on mats or mattresses, resting on the left arm, the right being used for eating. If the order was that of the Roman triclinium, three sides of the square (or oval) were used by the guests, the fourth being left open for convenience of service. (For positions at table cf. Jn 13:23 ff., § 802g). Judas, keeping up appearances, was still with the Apostles, but in the course of the meal our Lord attempts to touch his conscience. 21–23. Our Lord’s answer to the question of the troubled Apostles insists on the intimacy, not the identity, of the traitor. The traitor is at table now; he has dipped (or ‘is dipping’ as in Mk 14:20; cf. Joüon 162) his herbs (first course of the paschal meal) in the dish of sauce that passes round the table. 24. That the Son of Man goes freely to his death (cf. Jn 8:14, 21 f. etc.) is no excuse. 25. Judas probably puts his question in a low voice or possibly in concert with the others, 22. The answer is not a direct affirmative (Aramaic has hên or hēn for ‘yes’) but it agrees with the statement made and at the same time calls attention to the fact that the first speaker has provoked agreement; it therefore implicitly invites the first speaker to salutary reflection; cf. 26:64; 27:11. Judas must have left the table almost immediately—his knowledge of discovery would make his position intolerable; it is therefore improbable that he was present for the institution of the holy Eucharist. Lk 22:21 gives the impression that Judas was still at table for the Institution but his phrase is placed before the Institution by Mt 26:23 and Mk 14:18.

§ 720a 26–29 The Holy Eucharist (Mk 14:22–25; Lk 22:15–20; cf. 1 Cor 11:23–25)—The Holy Eucharist appears to have been instituted within the framework of the paschal supper, but its importance eclipses the traditional Jewish elements which go unemphasized, therefore, in the gospel accounts. The institution took place probably when the principal course (the lamb) was over, 1 Cor 11:25. 26. The bread is unleavened—the only type available after the noon preceding the paschal supper. Our Lord blesses it (or ‘gives thanks’ over it: εὐλογήσας, εὐχαριστήσας in Lk 22:19 and 1 Cor 11:24) and breaks. As he gives it to the disciples (Lk 22:19 ἕδωκεν λέγων) he says ‘This [that I hand to you] is my body’. In view of the clear belief and practice of the early Church it is becoming increasingly old-fashioned to question the plain meaning of the words; the present custom is rather to deny that Jesus spoke them and to credit them to Paul the ‘sacra-mentalist’; cf. Coppens DB7287V (S) 2, 1150 f., 1155 f. 27. The chalice was in all probability the third cup of the paschal supper. It followed the eating of the lamb and, being itself followed by a long blessing, was called ‘the chalice of benediction’; cf. 1 Cor 11:16.

§ b 28. A new covenant had been promised through Jeremias, Jer 31:31; the old Sinaitic covenant had been sealed with the sacrificial blood of animals (Ex 24:8 ‘Behold the blood of the covenant!’). Both reference and inference are unmistakable—the new covenant is now being liturgically concluded with the sacrificial blood of Christ. The sacred blood is considered either in the state of being shed or as now dedicated to its shedding (ἐκχυννόμενον, present participle, possibly with future meaning; Joüon 163). The Apostles (‘Drink ye all from it’) are to make the sacrifice their own and thus achieve its purpose which (most fully expressed by Mt) is the expiation of the sins of many (ὑπὲρ πολλῶν) by the death of One (cf. 20:28). 29 is placed by Lk 22:18 before the Institution, probably rightly because the reflexion is more naturally made before the thought of the Apostles has been raised to the higher plane of the chalice of Christ’s blood. The reason for its present place in Mt and Mk is that each, concerned only with those elements of the Last Supper which were to endure, does not speak of the first half of the paschal celebration. Consequently the cup, though the third, is mentioned only once and the dictum of 29 used by Jesus of an earlier cup, is perforce joined with the Eucharistic cup. ‘This fruit of the vine’ (the phrase is taken from the Jewish ritual benediction) seems, therefore, to refer to the unconsecrated cup: our Lord declares his imminent death and the happy reunion in the eternal Kingdom (‘of my Father’) where all is new, Apoc 21:1, 5. Note: St Luke appears to have in mind the ‘Kingdom’ on earth, the Church, and the Eucharistic banquet which is the ‘Pasch’ of the Messianic era; cf. R7288B 48 (1939) 357–93.

§ c 30–35 Prediction of Desertion and Denial (Mk 14:26–31; cf. Lk 22:31–34; Jn 13:36–38)—30. The Jewish paschal supper ends with the singing of the ‘Hallel’ (‘praise’) psalms, 113:8–18; 114–117 (V7289g), and, the religious rite over, conversation turns to other topics. At the Last Supper it is our Lord who discourses, Jn 14:1–17:24, but the discourse is not reported in the Synoptics. The time is probably about 10 p.m. and the little company passes through the town in an easterly direction, crosses the Kedron valley and turns left along the western slope of Olivet. A walk of nearly a mile brings them to Gethsemani. 31. Either on the way or while still in the supper-room (cf. Lk Jn; Mt’s ‘then’ is often merely stylistic and not chronological) the disciples are told of their impending desertion: ‘You will all lose courage over me’ (KN7290T). Our Lord quotes Zach 13:7 to illustrate the general principle that the flock owes its strength and unity to the shepherd (especially this flock to this shepherd). The illustration is borrowed from the history of king Sedecias, a timid ‘shepherd’ who, attacked by the Babylonians, abandoned the capital and its inhabitants to their fate, 4 Kg 25:4. 32–35. In the general consternation the Resurrection prophecy again goes unheeded as also, it would appear, 28:10, the Galilean assignation. Peter’s indignation outdoes his respect and draws upon him a detailed prophecy of his own moral fall. The ‘cock-crow’ in Mt is probably the second—the dawn-crow at about 5 a.m. Mk mentions two, 14:30; the earliest cock-crow at paschal time is reported as 2:30 a.m., Lagrange, L’Evangile, 542. Between 35 and 36 there is a pregnant silence. Our Lord leaves the event to make reply, 25–56.