¢ exception, not the rule—done occa- sionally for special reasons, dur- ing the hours of sleep. hanz says the lamp burned all night, and that when they wanted darkness they put it on the floor and covered it with the “ bushel”. Tholuck also thinks people might cover the light when they wished to keep it burning, when they had occasion to leave
τή---1δ.
τὴν λυχνίαν καὶ "λάμπει πᾶσι τοῖς ἐν τῇ oikia.
103
16. οὕτω λαμψάτω z Lk. xvii
2
” a a 24. τὸ φῶς ὑμῶν ἔµπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὅπως ἴδωσιν ὑμῶν τὰ "καλὰ Acts xii.7.
ἔργα, καὶ δοξάσωσι τὸν πατέρα ὑμῶν τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.
2 Cor. iv.
a Cf. Mt.
xxvi. 10, Mk. xiv. 6, for an example of a “ good work”.
the room for a time. Weiss, on the other hand, thinks it would be put under a cover only when they wished to put it out (Matt.-Evan., p. 144). But was it ever put out? Not so, according to Benzinger (Heb. Arch., p. 124).
Ver. 16. οὕτω. Do yeas they do in cottage life: apply the parable.—Aap- ψάτω, let your light shine. Don’t use means to prevent it, turning the rare exception of household practice into the rule, so extinguishing your light, or at least rendering it useless. Cowards can always find plausible excuses for the policy of obscuration—reasons of pru- dence and wisdom: gradual accustom- ing of men to new ideas; deference to the prejudices of good men; avoidance of rupture by premature outspokenness ; but generally the true reason is fear of unpleasant consequences to oneself. Their conduct Jesus represents as dis- loyalty to God.—érrws, etc. The shining of light from the good works of disciples glorifies God the Father in heaven. The hiding of the light means withhold- ing glory. The temptation arises from the fact—a stern law of the moral world it is—that just when most glory is likely to accrue to God, least glory comes to the light-bearer; not glory but dishonour and evil treatment his share. Many are ready enough to let their light shine when honour comes to themselves. But their “light” is not true heaven-kindled light; their works are not καλὰ, noble, heroic, but πονηρὰ (vii. 17), ignoble, worthless, at best of the conventional type in fashion among religious people, and wrought often in a spirit of vanity and ostentation. This is theatrical goodness, which is emphatically not what Jesus wanted. Euthy. Zig. says: ov κελεύει θεατρίζειν τὴν ἀρετὴν.
Note that here, for the first time in the Gospel, Christ’s distinctive name for God, ‘“Father,’”’ occurs. It comes in as a thing of course. Does it presuppose previous instruction? (So Meyer.) One might have expected so important a topic as the nature and name of God to have formed the subject of a distinct lesson. But Christ’s method of teaching was not scholastic or formal, He defined terms by discriminating use; Father, e.g., as a name for God, by using it as a motive to
noble conduct. The motive suggested throws light on the name. God, we learn, as Father delights in noble conduct; as human fathers find joy in sons who acquit themselves bravely. Jesus may have given formal instruction on the point, but not necessarily. This first use of the title is very significant. It is ful, solemn, impressive: your Father, He who is in the heavens; so again in ver. 45. It is suggestive of reasons for faith- fulness, reasons of love and reverence. It hints at a reflected glory, the reward of heroism. The noble works which glorify the Father reveal the wcrkers to be sons. The double-sided doctrine of this /ogion of Jesus is that the divine is revealed by the heroic in human conduct, and that the moral hero is the true son of God. Jesus Himself is the highest illustration of the twofold truth.