2477.28, The Son of Man comes like the lightning.
Mt (Lk elsewhere, 17) repeats the warning against being led away by rumours of Messiah’s having been seen in various retired places (ef. Apoc. Bar 48%4)—so showing the topic of the hour when he wrote. The comparison of Messiah’s Coming to lightning is found in Apoc. Bar 538f-, ef. 721 (Apoc. A’, not long before 70), being suggested apparently by the imagery of Dn 75.
2429-31, The Coming of the Son of Man.
Here εὐθέως points to an early date for Mt, ἐ.6. before a.p, T0. The signs of y.2” are the conventional ones derived from pro- phecies like Is 1810. 844, and appear in varying forms in the three Synoptics. Υ 305 καὶ τότε φανήσεται τὸ σημεῖον τ. υἱοῦ T. ἀνθρ. ἐν οὐρανῷ, kK. τότε κόψονται πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς is peculiar to Mt. The former half is akin to Did, 106 καὶ τότε φανήσεται τὰ σημεῖα τῆς ἀληθείας" πρῶτον σημεῖον ἐκπε- τάσεως ἐν οὐρανῷ: the latter comes from Zec 1210. (ef, Rey 17). In y.3%, where it is parallel to Mk and Lk, Mt has τοῦ οὐρανοῦ after τῶν νεφελῶν, as in Dn 713, whence all derive their language. In “1 Mt, as distinct from Mk, speaks of the angels sent forth, as Messiah’s (αὐτοῦ) ; of their agency in gathering the elect (ἐπισυνάξουσιν); and of the ‘great trumpet’ which summons these. ‘This last Jewish trait appears not only in 1 Th 415, 1 Co 15%, Rey. 8%-914 107 1115, but also in Did, 166 in the same position, πρῶτον σημεῖον ἐκπετάσεως ἐν οὐρανῷ (Mt), εἶτα σημεῖον φωνῆς σάλπιγγος (Mt81), καὶ τὸ τρίτον ἀνάστασίς νεκρῶν (see Mt 9553); οἵ, its Prayers for the Gathering of the Church ἀπὸ τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς OF ἀπὸ τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων (see Zec 28, Dt 304) into God’s Kingdom (94 105).
2452.33, The parable of the Fig-tree. 243+42, The exact time of the Coming unknown.
Mt, like Lk, goes its own way after ν 86, citing the Noachic Deluge for the way in which the Parousia will surprise men (ef. Lk 17% 99), and intimating how it will separate neighbours (cf. Lk 17&). Here the independence of Mt’s tradition is specially evident. At v.42 the three are once more parallel in thought. But each ends the solemn call to vigilance in its own way, Mt being fullest. Its form seems to reflect the dangers of its day, viz. bad stewardship of the sacred charge of fellow-servants, and fellowship with the worldlings (v.48), men being thrown off guard by their Lord’s long delay. This is just the state of things in the Christian section of Asc. Jsaiw@ 8, where the faithless shepherds are spoken of. Such shall share the lot of the ‘hypocrites,’ the term by which Pharisaic Jews were spoken of in the circle whose tradition Mt inherited (6% 5-16 75 157 2218 23188.)—another link with the Didaché (81-2 ‘ Let not your fasts be μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν ᾽).
(h) The Genealogy.—This is of importance for our Evangelist’s scope and method. As Zahn says (The Apostles’ Creed, 126 ff., cf. Hinleitung in das NT, ii. 271 ff.), this Gospel is ‘a carefully arranged account of events of which a superficial
MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF
knowledge is for the most part assumed.’ We find ‘not the simple confession that Jesus is the prom- ised Messiah. The point kept strictly in view from the first page to the last is much more apolo- getic, and, so far as it is unavoidable, polemic.’ In spite of all so bitterly urged against Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah, that claim is absolutely true. Thus, though the Jews scoff at His obscure origin, He fulfils the prophecy of the Messiah. It is trom this point of view that we must read’ch. 1 and, as Zahn well shows, much in ch. 2 likewise. Mt lays before his readers a genealogy artificially con- structed in terms of the throne-succession in the Davidie line, and not that of the actual progenitors of Joseph (as in Lk). But why, we ask, should he go out of his way to make certain additions, need- less to a bare genealogy, including four women’s names ? Above all, why choose ὁ women whose characters are highly offensive to Jewish, and in three cases out of four to every human, feeling’ ? Zahn alleges ‘the same apologetic purpose which governs his account of the Conception and Birth of Jesus’; and even argues that the well-known Jewish slander that Jesus was a son of shame (ef. Laible, Jesus Christ in the Talmud, p. 7 ff.), is itself pre- supposed by Mt’s genealogy, just as 28-1 presup- poses the Jewish story that the disciples stole the body of Jesus. This is going too far, even were the direction followed the right one. But this is doubtful. There was another Jewish objection to be met. Granting Joseph’s paternity,—which the Jews always assume in the Gospels,—was Joseph of Davidie descent? And further, was God likely to send Messiah as the son of a carpenter, even though of Davidie stock? To this twofold query Mt’s genealogy is a reply; and to the latter phase of it the additions already alluded to are an im- plicit rebuke.* The God who chose from various brethren the younger son’s line, and who over- ruled unlikely unions to continue the chosen seed, —this God of Israel ever worketh according to His own good pleasure, and His ways of sovereign elective freedom are often marvellous in men’s eyes. Thus it is in the home of the humble, yet Davidic, carpenter Joseph, that Messiah Jesus has really been born. How, it is Mt’s next step to show in 18%,