The Pulpit Commentary — Matthew — Volume 1 — Section 171

Jewish prnctioes. A perverse literalism has natural also ro reg 1rd the first clause of foun<l here a direct reference to the Euchar- Luke xii. 58, "As ... him," as l!.n expan- ist. For reasonable adaptations ( cf. even in sion of the corresponding olause in our ver, • Didaohe,' § xiv.) of tl1ese two verses to this. see W nkrland, 'Doctrine of the Eucha- 25 rather than this as e. compression of that. rist,' eh. xiii. § 4 (pp. 359---.362, Oxford, 1868). This apparent reminiscence in Luke of what And there rememberest, etc. For the spirit is given in our vers.. 24 and 25a points to of 1·ecollection may well culminate with the the connexion of vers, 24-26 in Matthew culminating action. Lightfoot ('Hor. Hebr.') being original, and to it having been broken shows that e,·en the Jews taug·ht such a postpouement of the sacrifice if theft was by Luke or by the framer of the source that remembered. He therefore thinks that the he used. stress is on "ought"(..-.): "For that which A fmther stage in our Lord's warning. the Jeu;s restrained only to pecunio.ry A man must not only seek reconciliation. damages, Christ extends to all offences with the injured person (ver. 23), and the.I agaiust om brother." But he overlooks the in preference to fulfilling the holiest service fact that, while the Jewish precept had re- ference to a sin (or even the neglect of some (ver. 24), but he must do eo the more because ceremonial rule, cf. Mishna, 'Pes. ,' iii. 7) of the danger of postponing reconciliation. vitiating the offering, there is no thought of It is noteworthy that our Lord in this verso this here (vi& supra). Thy brother (ver. does not define on whose side the cause of 22, note). Ought. So from Tyndale down- the qua.rrel lies. wards. Revised Version, aught, here and apparently al ways, after the spelling now Ver. 25.-Agree with. And that no& preferred as marking the difference from the with a merely formal reconciliation, but re- verb. conciliation based on e. permanent kindly Ver. 2i.-P'irst. Joined in the Authorized feeling towards him (1a8, ebvowv). Professol' Version and Revised Version to "be recon- 1110.rgoliouth suggests that. this is a con- ciled," and rightly, since the point is not firmation of what he thinks is the original "the unavoidable, surprising, nay, repellent text of Ecclus. xvili. 20, "Before judgmen& removal of one's self from the temple" beg off" (' Inaugural Leot.,• p. 28: 1890). (Meyer), but reconciliation. Be reconciled Thine adversary. Primarily the •injured (oia>..71.cfyrJB,); here only in theNcwTest.ament. brother ('Vide infra). Quickly. For such There seems to be no essential difference is not the tendency of the human heart. between thiB and Ktt-ralvl.&.aac,, ('llideThayer). Whiles. Delay not in making reconcilia- Yers. 25, 26.-Pa.rallel passage: Luke tion while you have opportunity. Tho.yer compares Cant. i. 12. Thou art. On the xii. 58, 59. The question of the relation of indicative, cf. Winer, § x:li. b, ::I. 2. a, note the two passages, as regards both language (p. 371, trans. 1870). In the way with him; an<l original connexion, is exceedingly Revised Version, with the manuscripts, with difficult. As to the former, the verbal him in the way. The right reading implies ilifi'erences seem to be such as would hardly that the proximity of the persons may per- haps not last throughout" the way." "'fhe hu ve been made on purpose, and to be rather way" is the road to the judge, e.s explained due to memory; yet the agreement is too in Luke. But being on the road to him ie minute to be the reBUlt of memory of e. hero not presented as a possibility (Luke), Gospel only oral Perhaps memory of e. but ae a certainl,y. For so, in fact, it is. Lest docuwent best satisfies the conditions. As . . , fue adversary (ver. 26, note) deliver thee. Translating from the language of to the original connexion of the verses, parable to that of fact, it is only if recon- they, especially ver. 26, can hardly have ciliation has not been ma.de, if the heart ie bc,en spoken twice. Most critics suppose still unforgiving and quarrelsome, that God tLat St. Luke gives them in their proper the Judge will take notice of the offence. context; but if so, it is curious that two of And the judge . . . to the officer (-rt; lnr11- pfrn) ; i.e. the officer whoae duty it was to his words, vrrcf-yeu, u,r,/MaxBcu, seem to exe'cute the judge's commands ( cf. Lightfoot, recall our preceding ver. 2i. One word 'Hor. Hehr.,' for illustrations), The expres- might Lave been a mere coincidence, but sion here belongs to the figure; but in oh. h£Lr<lly two. It is not likely that these xiii. 41 similar duties are predicated of the words in vcr. 24 were derived from Luke, angels. If the figure was derived from the synagogue, the officer would doubtless for this supposes a double process in St. be the chazzan, of which, indeed, i,,rr,pl-r71r llatthew's mind, rejecting them from ver. is the technical rendering (of. Schurer, 25 and placing them in ver. 24. It is more II. ii. p. 66). And thou be oo.st. (Kal {J>.. 11- on. v. 1-48.J THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW.