Vv. 17-20. Fesus defines His position. At the period of the Teaching on the Hill Jesus felt constrained to define His ethi- cal and religious position all round, with reference to the O. T. as the recognised authority, and also to contemporary presentations of righteousness. The disciples had already heard Him teach in the synagogues (Matt. iv. 23) ina manner that at once arrested attention and led hearers to recognise in Him a new type
of teacher (Mk. i. 27), entirely different
from the scribes (Mk. i. 22). The sen- tences before us contain just such a statement of the Teacher’s attitude as the previously awakened surprise of His audiences would lead us to expect. There is no reason to doubt their sub- stantial authenticity though they may not reproduce the precise words of the speaker ; no ground for the suggestion of Holtzmann (H. C.) that so decided a position either for or against the law was not likely to be taken up in Christ’s time, and that we must find in these vv. an anti-Pauline programme of the Judaists. At a first glance the various statements may appear inconsistent with each other. And assuming their genuineness, they might easily be misunderstood, and give rise to disputes in the apostolic age, or be taken hold of in rival interests. The words of great epoch-making men gene- rally have this fate. Though apparently contradictory they might all proceed
|
ος an accus. with inf.
Cor. v.17. James i. 10. ε here only.
from the many-sided mind of Jesus, and be so reported by the genial Galilean publican in his Logia. The best guide to the meaning of the momentous declara- tion they contain is acquaintance with the general drift of Christ’s teaching (vide Wendt, Die Lehre Fesu, ii., 330). Verbal exegenis will not do much for us. We must bring to the words sympathetic insight ἵπτο the whole significance of Christ's ministry. Yet the
itself, well weighed, is more luminous than at first it may seem.
Ver. 17. Mn νοµίσητε: These words betray a consciousness that there was that in His teaching and bearing which might create such an impression, and are a protest against taking a surface impression for the truth.—xatradteat, to abrogate, to set aside in the exercise of legislative authority. What freedom of mind is implied in the bare suggestion of this as a possibility! To the ordinary religious Jew the mere conception would appear a profanity. A greater than the O. T,, than Moses and the prophets, is here. But the Greater is full of rever- ence for the institutions and sacred books of His people. He is not come to disannul either the law or the pro- phets, ἢ before τ. προφ. is not = καὶ. “Law” and ‘ Prophets” are not taken here as one idea = the O. T. Scriptures, as law, prophets and psalms seem to be in Lk. xxiv. 44, but as distinct parts, with reference to which different atti- tudes might conceivably be taken up. # implies that the attitude actually taken up is the same towards both. The pro- phets are not to be conceived of as coming under the category of law (Weiss), but as retaining their distinc- tive character as revealers of God's nature and providence, Christ's attitude towards them in that capacity is the same as that towards the law, though the Sermon contains no illustrations under that head. ‘The idea of God and of salvation which Jesus taught bore the same relations to the O. T. revelation as His doctrine of righteousness to the O. T. law” (Wendt, Die L. F., ii., 344). —trAnpe@cat: the common relation is ex- pressed by this weighty word. Christ