[4914] Deut. xxiv. 1.
[4915] Yebam. 63 b; Gitt. 90 a, b.
[4916] Gitt. iv. 7.
[4917] Keth. vii. 6.
[4918] Erub. 41 b.
[4919] Yebam. 63 b.
[4920] Gitt. iv. 7, 8.
[4921] These words are omitted by St. Mark in his condensed account. But so far from regarding, with Meyer, the briefer account of St. Mark as the original one, we look on that of St. Matthew as more fully reproducing what had taken place.
[4922] The clause, St. Matt. xix. 4, should, I think, be thus pointed: He Who made them, at the beginning made them, &c.'
[4923] Used in the same sense, for example, Baba B. 8 b.
[4924] Deut. xxi. 11.
[4925] Kidd. 21 b.
[4926] Canon Cook argues this with great ingenuity.
[4927] Pes. 112 a.
[4928] Sot. v. 1.
[4929] St. Mark x. 10.
[4930] St. Matt. xix. 10-12.
[4931] This is the view commonly taken. But the saying' may, without much difficulty, be also applied to that of Christ.
[4932] For, it is not merely to practise outward continence, but to become in mind and heart a eunuch.
[4933] Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 1, 25-40.
[4934] The mistaken literalism of application on the part of Origen is well known. Such practice must have been not unfrequent among Jewish Christians, for, curiously enough, the Talmud refers to it, reporting a conversation between a Rabbi and such a Jewish Christian eunuch ({hebrew}), Shabb. 152 a. The same story is related, with slight alterations, in the Midrash on Eccles. x. 7, ed. Warsh. p. 102 a, last four lines. Any practice of this kind would have been quite contrary to Jewish law (Pes. 112 b; Shabb. 110 b).
[4935] St. Matt. xix. 13-15 St. Mark x. 13-16; St. Luke xviii. 15-17.
[4936] The other places in which the verb occurs are: St. Matt. xx. 24; xxi. 15; ? xxvi. 8; St. Mark x. 41; xiv. 4; St. Luke xiii. 14; the substantive in 2 Cor. vii. 11.
[4937] The and' before hinder' should be omitted according to the best MSS.
[4938] St. Matt. xviii. 3.
[4939] As Mr. Brown McClellan notes, in his learned work on the New Testament, the word is an intensitive compound form of blessing, especially of dearest friends and relations at meeting and parting.' __________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER XXIII. THE LAST INCIDENTS IN PERÆA - THE YOUNG RULER WHO WENT AWAY SORROWFUL - TO LEAVE ALL FOR CHRIST - PROPHECY OF HIS PASSION - THE REQUEST OF SALOME, AND OF JAMES AND JOHN.
(St. Matt. xix. 16-22; St. Mark x. 17-22; St. Luke xviii. 18-23; St. Matt. xix. 23-30; St. Mark x. 23-31; St. Luke xviii. 24-30; St. Matt. xx. 17-19; St. Mark x. 32-34: St. Luke xviii. 31-34; St. Matt. xx. 20-28; St. Mark x. 35-45.)
As we near the goal, the wondrous story seems to grow in tenderness and pathos. It is as if all the loving condescension of the Master were to be crowded into these days; all the pressing need also, and the human weaknesses of His disciples. And with equal compassion does He look upon the difficulties of them who truly seek to come to Him, and on those which, springing from without, or even from self and sin, beset them who have already come. Let us try reverently to follow His steps, and learn of His words.
As He was going forth into the way' [4940] - we owe this trait, as one and another in the same narrative, to St. Mark - probably at early morn, as He left the house where He had for ever folded into His Arms and blessed the children brought to Him by believing parents - His progress was arrested. It was a young man,' a ruler,' [4941] probably of the local Synagogue, [4942] who came with all haste, running,' and with lowliest gesture [kneeling], [4943] to ask what to him, nay to us all, is the most important question. Remembering that, while we owe to St. Mark the most graphic touches, [4944] St. Matthew most fully reports the words that had been spoken, we might feel inclined to adopt that reading of them in St. Matthew [4945] which is not only most strongly supported, but at first sight seems to remove some of the difficulties of exposition. This reading would omit in the address of the young ruler the word good' before Master, what good thing shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?' and would make Christ's reply read: Why askest thou Me concerning the good [that which is good]? One there is Who is good.' This would meet not only the objection, that in no recorded instance was a Jewish Rabbi addressed as Good Master,' but the obvious difficulties connected with the answer of Christ, according to the common reading: Why callest thou Me good? none is good, save only One: God.' But on the other side it must be urged, that the undoubted reading of the question and answer in St. Mark's and St. Luke's Gospels agrees with that of our Authorised Version, and hence that any difficulty of exposition would not be removed, only shifted, while the reply of Christ tallies far better with the words Good Master,' the strangeness of such an address from Jewish lips giving only the more reason for taking it up in the reply: Why callest thou Me good? none is good save only One: God.' Lastly, the designation of God as the only One good' agrees with one of the titles given Him in Jewish writings: The Good One of the world' ({hebrew}). [4946] [4947]