+ So Neander, Bleek, Tholuck(?), Kuin6l, Godet, Achelis, Feine, Wendt, B. Weiss, Bacon, and others. It is the view of Kostlin, Feine, Hilgenfeld, and H. Holtzmann, that this verse as it now appears is Judaized, to make it a polemic against the heathen (cf. above on Mt 518f.); reference is made to the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, ix. 6, which reads, ‘ But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptized into the name of the Lord. This was what the Lord referred to when He said ‘‘Give not that which is holy unto the dogs.”’ Ibbeken thinks the verse refers to the use by Christians of heathen tribunals, as in 1 Co 61-4. Neither of these views is required to explain this teaching, which has an excellent general sense and import.
SERMON ON THE MOUNT 4]
In Mt 774=Lk 11-8 we have another section extraneous to the historical discourse, whose presence here seems fortuitous, since it stands in no topical association with its context.* The teaching herein contained is that God is ready and willing to give all His blessings to men, since He is a loving Father who provides—better than any human parent’'t—for His children. Men, there- fore, are to feel free to pray to Him for all things. The thought is similar to that set forth in Mt 6-*4 ; but there the attention was fixed upon the physical necessities, while here the thought is of all kinds of blessings, spiritual not less than material. The injunction to pray is thrice re- peated, ‘ask—seek—knock,’ without difference of meaning in the several clauses, in order to produce great emphasis. Jesus promises absolutely that our prayers shall be answered by God; the obvious and necessary conditions can be easily supplied from His other teaching. Thus, all prayer must be made with the intent and in the spirit of the Lord’s Prayer (Mt 6°8), for the sole purpose of the Kingdom (Mt 6*), and with full submission to God’s will (Mt 26%: #*), Our petitions must permit God to answer them in the way which He knows to be best, and our trust in His wisdom, power, and love must be complete.
Mt 7°=Lk 6%, as already noted, closes this section of the Sermon, and in some sense con- stitutes the capstone of the whole discourse. The oov which introduces the verse (mistakenly dropped from N*L) seems to mark this general relation. Matthew gives the saying in a fuller, more rounded form than Luke,t and adds the clause, ‘for this is the law and the prophets.’§ The idea contained
*So Achelis, Feine, Godet, B. Weiss, Wendt, Bacon, and others. Futile efforts have been made by Chrysostom, Augus- tine, Luther, Stier, and Tholuck to find a logical relation of these verses to the verses which precede them. Feine, Weizsiicker, H. Holtzmann, and B. Weiss think that Luke has the original setting for the paragraph, which may be true; but it is also possible that in both Gospels this material is detached. In Luke, at any rate, it has received a topical association. A com- parison of the two accounts shows practical identity of the first two verses in each: the second two verses in each account vary, but have the same thought; and Luke adds a third clause about the ‘egg and the scorpion’ (v.12), perhaps to balance the threefold ‘ask, seek, knock.’ ‘The last verse of each account (Mt 711=Lk 1118) is quite the same, with two significant exceptions: (a) instead of Matthew’s eyalé Luke has aveduc &yiov, Which Tholuck, Achelis, and even Steinmeyer regard as a gloss, due to the prominence which the Holy Spirit, as the personification of all good things, attained in primitive Christian thought ; (0) instead of Matthew's o rarip duay o év roils ovpavois, Luke has 6 rarip o & odpuvov, a peculiar expression of which various explanations are given; see Feine, Jahrb. f. Protest. Theol. 1885, p. 74; Achelis, Bergpredigt, p. 886; H. Holtzmann, Hand-Comm. w. d. Synoptiker, p. 125. The Lukan reading as it stands cannot be original. Some text-witnesses delete the second 6, but this is only a makeshift. Perhaps the é& odpaved came in under the influence of the wvsdua a&yioy, to indicate the place from which the Spirit was given; and then, subsequently, the & otpxved was imperfectly turned to account in connexion with the 6 rar4p.
+ The phrase, ‘if ye then, being evil’ (revypo/), contrasts men, in their imperfect, selfish, and sinful lives, with God, who is perfect in love and holiness. The argument is @ minore ad majus : if limited love provides some good things, how much more will absolute love provide? ‘
{Mt 712 ravro ody bom Ex OéAnre ive momo Spiv of &vOpu-ror, obras rock vméis wollte cedrois- olrws yop toriv 6 voLeos zai ob apogirat. Lik 681 zoel xabds Otrsre iva roidiow vuesv of cevlparos, rote avrois oolws. It would be difficult to explain these two divergent forms as coming from a common Greek original ; perhaps they represent two lines of transmission, arising from two different translations into Greek of the same brief Aramaic utterance. It is noticeable that in this verse, as in the Beati- tudes, the Lord’s Prayer, and other portions of the discourse, Matthew gives the sayings of Jesus in a fuller, finer literary form, which in every instance has commended itself to the Christian Church as the better expression of Jesus’ thought and spirit. ‘ ‘