276
νᾶσθε, μὴ εἰδότες τὰς γραφάς, μηδὲ τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ Θεοῦ.
30. ἐν
γὰρ τῇ ἀναστάσει οὔτε γαμοῦσιν, οὔτε ἐκγαμίζονται,] ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἄγγελοι
τοῦ Θεοῦ év? οὐρανῷ εἶσι.
31. περὶ δὲ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῶν νεκρῶν,
οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑμῖν ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, λέγοντος, 32. :᾿Εγώ εἰμ.
ὁ Θεὸς ᾽Αβραάμ, καὶ 6 Θεὸς Ισαάκ, καὶ 6 έστιν ὅ ὃ Θεὸς Θεὸς ” νεκρῶν, ἀλλὰ ζώντων.
Θεὸς Ιακώβ; Οὐκ
33. Καὶ ἀκούσαντες
οἱ ὄχλοι ἐξεπλήσσοντο ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῆ αὐτοῦ.
34. Οἱ δὲ Φαρισαῖοι, ἀκούσαντες ὅτι ἐφίμωσε τοὺς Σαδδουκαίους,
v Lk vil. 30; fs X. 25; xi. TUVY) 45; Χιν
θησαν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό, 35. καὶ ἐπηρώτησεν els ἐξ αὐτῶν " νομικός, Fit. Π 13, πειράζων αὐτόν, καὶ λέγων, 36. “Διδάσκαλε, ποία ἐντολὴ μεγάλη
1 γαμµιζονται in ΝΒΗΙ,; the compound in many uncials,
2 S9BL have τω before ουρανω. 3 NQD (Tisch.) omit ο.
meaning clear. Tisch. and W.H. omit.
5 και λεγων is probably a mechanical addition.
DAZ omit. W.H. in brackets, * The second θεος is wanting in BDA al.
It has been added to make the
It is wanting in NBL 33, Egypt.
verss.; found in DAZ. Tisch. and W.H. omit.
μὴ εἰδότες, etc.: doubly ignorant ; of the Scriptures and of God’s power, the latter form of ignorance being dealt with first.— Ver. 30. ἐν yap τ. ἀναστάσει might be rendered, with Fritzsche, in the re- surrection life or state, though in strict- ness the phrase should be taken as in νετ. 28.—as ἄγγελοι, as angels, so far as marriage is concerned, not necessarily implying sexlessness as the Fathers supposed.—év τῷ οὐρανῷ refers to the resurrected dead (Weiss), not to angels (Meyer) = they live an angelic life in heaven; by the transforming power of God.—Ver. 31. Thus far of the mode, now of the fact of resurrection.—oix ἀνέγνωτε, have ye not read? Many times, but not with Christ’s eyes. We find what we bring.—ré ῥηθὲν ὑμῖν, that said to you; to Moses first, but a word in season for the Sadducaic state of mind.—Ver. 32. ᾿Εγώ ely, etc., quoted from Ex. iii. 6. The stress does not lie on εἶμι, to which there is nothing corre- sponding in the Hebrew, but on the relation implied in the title: God of Abraham. Note in this connection the repetition of the Divine name before each of the patriarchal names, and here the article 6 before θεὸς each time (not so in Sept.). The idea is that the Eternal could not stand in such intimate con- nection with the merely temporal. The argument holds a fortiori in reference to Christ’s name for God, Father, which compels belief in human immortality, and
in the immortality of all, for God is Father of all men, whereas the text quoted might avail in proof only of the immor- tality of the great ones, the heroes of the race.—ovx ἔστιν 6 θεὸς, with the article θεὸς is subject, and the idea: God does not belong to the dead ; without, it would be predicate = He is not a God of the dead. Onsecond θεὸς vide critical notes.
Vv. 34-40. The great commandinent (Mk. xii. 28-34).—In a still more marked degree than in the case of the man in quest of eternal life, Mk.’s account pre- sents the subject of this incident in a more favourable light than that of Mt. The difference must be allowed to stand. Mk.’s version is welcome as showing a good side even in the scribe or Pharisee world.—Ver. 34. ἀκούσαντες, hearing ; not without pleasure, if also with annoy- ance, at the uniform success of Jesus.— ἐφίμωσεν: silenced, muzzled, from φιµός, a muzzle (ver. 12, used in literal sense in Deut. xxv. 4).—Ver. 35. εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν one of the men who met together to con- sult, after witnessing the discomfiture of the scribes, acting in concest with them, and hoping to do better.—voptrds : here only in Mt., several times in Lk. for the scribe class = a man weli up in the law.—Ver. 36. mola ἐντολὴ; what sort of a commandment ? it is a question not about an individual commandment, but about the qualities that determine greatness in the legal region. This was a question of the schools. The dis-