Vv. 26-27. pwp@, Jesus seems here to offend against His own teaching, v. 22, but He speaks not in passion or con- tempt, but in deep sadness, and with humane intent to prevent such folly.
136
b Lk. ii, 34. ὅστις ᾠκοδόμησε τὴν οἰκίαν avrod! ἐπὶ τὴν ἄμμον: 27. καὶ κατέβη
om. xi. 11. i Ch. xxii. 33. Mk. i. κοψαν 2 22; xi. 18.
« ‘ κ, c ‘
ἡ βροχὴ καὶ ἦλθον of ποταμοὶ καὶ ἔπνευσαν οἱ ἄνεμοι, καὶ προσέ-
τῇ οἱ , > , \ ο» , 9 ο κ lal 2 A παζλ ” η οἰκιᾳ εκεινη, και επεσε" και HVT TTWOLS αύτης µεΥςλη.
Ξ ‘ a Lk. iv. 32 28. Kat ἐγένετο ὅτε συνετέλεσεν ὃ 6 ᾿Ιησοῦς τοὺς λόγους τούτους,
(ail in ref. i to Christ's doctrine),
j Mk. i.22.
ἐξεπλήσσοντο οἱ ὄχλοι ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ: 29. ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς | ἐξουσίαν ἔχων, καὶ οὐχ ὡς of γραμματεῖς."
_l αυτον before την οικιαν in ΔΝ ΡΖΣ as in νετ. 24.
2 Some copies have προσερρηξαν. * ετελεσεν In NBCZE.
4 After ypapperets ΔΒΔΣ have avrew (W.H. and other editors).
add και οι φαρισαιοι (W.H. margin).
Wherein lay the second builder’s folly ? Not in deliberately selecting a bad foundation, but in taking no thought of foundation; in beginning to build at haphazard and anywhere; on loose sand (ἄμμος) near the bed of a mountain torrent. His fault was not an error in judgment, but inconsiderateness. It is not, as is commonly supposed, a question of two foundations, but of looking to, and neglecting to look to, the foundation. In the natural sphere no man in his senses commits such a mistake. But utterly improbable cases have to be supposed in parables to illustrate human folly in religion.— Ver. 27. kat... ἄνεμοι: exactly the same phrases as in ver. 25, to describe the oncome of the storm.— προσέκοψαν: a different word for the assault on the house—struck upon it with immediate fatal effect. It was not built to stand such rough handling. The builder had not thought of such an eventuality.—€weoev, καὶ ἦν ἡ πτῶσις αὐτῆς µεγάλη: not necessarily implying that it was a large building, or that the disaster was of large dimensions, like the collapse of a great castle, but that the ruin was complete. The fool’s house went down like a house of cards, not one stone or brick_left on another. Allegorising interprétation of the rain, rivers and winds, and of the foundations, is to be avoided, but it is pertinent to ask, what defects of character in the sphere of religion are pointed at in this impressive parabolic Jogion ? What kind of religion is it that deserves to be so characterised? The foolish type is a religion of imitation and without fore- thought. Children play at building houses, because they have seen their seniors doing it. There are people who play at religion, not realising what religion is for, but following fashion,
Some copies
doing as others do, and to be seen of others (Matt. vi. 1). Children build houses on the sea sand below high-tide mark, not thinking of the tide which will in a few hours roll in and sweep away their houselet. There are men who have religion for to-day, and think not of the trial to-morrow may bring.
Ver. 28. Concluding statement as to the impression made by the discourse. A similar statement occurs in Mk. 1, 22, 27, whence it may have been transferred by Matthew. It may be assumed that 5ο unique a teacher as Jesus made a pro- found impression the very first time He spoke in public, and that the people would express their feelings of surprise and admiration at once. The words Mark puts into the mouth of the audience in the synagogue of Capernaum are to the life (vide comments there). They saw, and said that Christ’s way of speak- ing was new, not like that of the scribes to which they had been accustomed. Both evangelists make the point of difference consist in ‘‘authority”’.