17ο ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ ΧΙ.
Fle vi et ὁ "ἐρχόμενος, ἢ ἕτερον SmpocSoxdpuev; 4. Kal ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ
ε x. 37, 2 “"Inoois εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, “ Πορευθέντες ἀπαγγείλατε “lwdvvg, & ἀκούετε vii. 19; Καὶ βλέπετε" 5. τυφλοὶ "ἀναβλέπουσι, καὶ] χωλοὶ περιπατοῦσι - viii. 40.
2 Pet. iit. 12, 14 (all with accus.).
νεκροὶ ἐγείρονται, καὶ
e Ch. κκ. 34. Mk. x. 51. Lk. xviii. 41 (= to recover sight).
1 The texts show some unimportant variations in ref. to the και in this and the
following clauses.
disciples, possibly the same men who brought the news. There would be con- stant coming and going between Galilee and Machzrus. The construction is Hebraistic = sent by the hand of.—Ver. 3. εἶπεν αὐτῷ, said to Jesus, by them, of οουτςε.- -Σὺ el: the question a grave one and emphatically expressed: Thou, art Thou 6 épxydpevos? Art Thou He whom I spoke of as the One coming after me when I was baptising in the Jordan (iii. rr)? It is a question whether Jesus be indeed the Christ. Lutteroth, basing on the hypothesis that for popular Jewish opinion the Christ and the coming One (a prophet like Moses) were different per- sons, interprets the question thus: “ Art Thou, Jesus, whom I know to be the Christ, also the coming Prophet, or must we expect another to fill that réle ?””"—4 ἕτερον, not ἄλλον, which would have been more appropriate on Lutteroth’s view =a numerically distinct person. ἔτ. suggests a different kind of person.— προσδοκῶμεν: may be present indicative (for future) as Beza and Fritzsche take it, or present subjunctive deliberative = ought we to look ? (Meyer-Weiss, Holtz., H.C.), the latter preferable. What was the animus or psychological genesis of the question? Doubt in John’s own mind, or doubt, bred of envy or jealousy, in the minds of his disciples, or not doubt on Baptist’s part, but rather incipient faith? Alternative (2), universal with the fathers (except Tertullian, vide de prescrip., 8, de baptis., 10); (1) common among modern commentators; (3) fav- oured by Keim, Weizsacker, and Holtz., H.C.: ‘“beginnende Disposition zum Glauben an Jesu Messianitat”. The view of the fathers is based on a sense of decorum and implicit reliance on the exact historical value of the statements in fourth Gospel; No. (3), the budding faith hypothesis, is based on too scepti- cal a view as to the historic value of even the Synoptical accounts of John’s early relations with Jesus; No. (1) has every- thingin its favour. The effect of con- finement on John’s prophetic temper, the
In the best MSS. there is a και before νεκροι.
general tenor of this chapter which obvi- ously aims at exhibiting the moral isola- tion of Jesus, above all the wide differ- ence between the two men, all make for it. Jesus, it had now become evident, was a very different sort of Messiah from what the Baptist had predicted and de- siderated (vide remarks on chap. iii. 11- 15). Where were the axe and fan and the holy wind and fire of judgment? Too much patience, tolerance, gentle- ness, sympathy, geniality, mild wisdom in this Christ for his taste.
Vv. 4-6. Answer of Fesus. Ver. 4. ἀπαγγείλατε |.: go back and report to Fohn for his satisfaction —& ἀκ. καὶ βλέπετε, what you are hearing and see- ing, not so much at the moment, though Luke gives it that turn (vii. 21), but habitually. They were not to tell their master anything new, but just what they had told him before. The one new ele- ment is that the facts are stated in terms. fitted to recall prophetic oracles (Isaiah xxxv. 5, lxi. 1), while, in part, a historic recital of recent miracles (Matt. viii., ix.). Probably the precise words of Jesus are not exactly reproduced, but the sense is obvious. Tell John your story over again and remind him of those prophetic texts. Let him study the two together and draw his own conclusion. It was a virtual in- vitation to John to revise his Messianic idea, in hope he would discover that after all love was the chief Messianic charism. —Ver. 5. ἀναβλέπονσιν: used also in classics to express recovery of sight.— κωφοὶ, here taken to mean deaf, though in ix. 32, 33, it means dumb, showing that the prophecy, Isaiah xxxv. 5, is in the speaker’s thoughts. —wrwxol: vague word, might mean literal poor (De W.} or spiritual poor, or the whole people in its national misery (Weiss, Matt. Evan.), best defined by such a text as ix. 36, and such facts as that reported in ix. 10-13.— εὐαγγελίζονται: might be middle = the poor preach, and so taken by Euthy. Zig. (also as an alternative by Theophy.), for ‘“‘what can be poorer than fishing (ἀἁλιευτικῆς) 2’ The poor in that case=