The Pulpit Commentary — Matthew — Volume 2 — Section 9

mnny such pctrnblee epnko he the word unto Homilies, Porphyry as quoted hy Jcr(Jme thorn, ns they wore nble to hear it; and and remarks by Ensebius. Dr. Hort(' Ai" without a parable spe.ke he not unto them : pendix ') writes, "It is clifficult not to think 'Hualou genuine. There was a strong temp- but privately to his own disciples he ex- tation to omit it (cf. xxvii. 9; Mc. i. 2); pounded all things." The ea.me general and, though its insertion might be ac- idcn underliee our present verees, but al- counted for by nn impulse to supply the though eacli evnngolist appears to have need name or the best known prophet, the the so.me words as a basis, he ha.e worked evidence or the actual operalion of such nn impulse is much more triflini than might them out in Ilia own cho.racteristic way. have been a.ntici pated . . . . The erroneous For wliile both writers contra.tt our Lord's introduction of Isaiah's name is limited to treatment of the multitudes and hie treat- two paSMges, and in each case to a single ment of the disciples in the matter of Latin manuscript." If it be genuine, it is a parables, St. Mark Lo.rely alludes to his parallel case to the reading" Jeremiah " in- stead of "Zecharia.h" in eh. xxvii. 9, for using them ae a. judicial punishment npon which no satisfactory explanation has yet the people, and St. Matthew meroly hints been suggested. A simple error of memory here at the fact that Christ explained them (cf.Alford) on the part of on.,who shows him- to his disciples (eee fmther, ver. 35b, note). self so well acquainted with Hebrew cus- It will be noticed that our verses ha. ve toms and modes of thought e.s our evangelist much in common with the thought of ver. does, is perhaps the most improbable of all solutions. Possibly, just as there were 10, sqq. It seems juet possible that both summaries of legal maxims current in our paragraphs had one common nucleus from Lord's time (cf. eh. v. 21, note), so there which they were ea.eh developed. But were in Hebrew-Christian circles well-known e,ocording to existing evidence, ver. 10, sqq., sets of quotations from the Old Testament.. e.nd the parallel passages in Mark and Luke which were not expressly divided one from serve to introduce explanatory matter to the another (cf. Rom. iii. 10-18), and which were referred to under the name of tl.e author dieoiplee, and our present verses with the of the but known paasage. (Observe that parallel in Mark to close a series of parables. this would distinguil,h these summaries from Ver. 34.-All these things (.-a.ii.-a. ..-&v.-a.). liturgical quotations.) Thn.s Zachariah'& .d.ZZ seems to imply that the four preceding mention of the potter (x.i. 13) was placed parables are but· o. few typical ones taken in connexion with Jeremiah' s visit to the from a larger collection (cf. Mark, "with potter's house, e.nd with his warning of the many such parables:" also vers. 3, 51). possible rejection of Israel (Jer. xvili. 1-6; Sl)ake J'esus unto the multitude in parables; cf. xix. 1-11); cf. further Pnsey's remarks in parables unto the multitudes (Revised on the pe.ssage in Zecharia.h, and Ps. l:nviii. Version); for the order of the Greek is the 2 (or perhaps 1-3), where Israel is bid same e.s in the next clause. Observe the listen to the lessons derived from their " po.ralleliem " of the two clauses ( contre.st ancestors' behaviour, with the warning in Mark). Is it due to the iniluence of Hebrew Ise.. vi. 9, 10 (cf. our vers. 34, 35 with Yer; Christians ? And without a parable spake H). We have an example of a simi.l.a.r he not (nothing, Revised Version, ou3lv) unto connexion of pas~ages in Mark i. 2, 3, where them. As happens often in Semitic writers Mai. iii. 1 is closely joined to Isa. xl. 3. (of. St. John's Gospel), the thought of the Observe that if St. Mark had copied his preceding clause is now expressed negatively, source (e:z: hypotheBi) to the end of the and yet a fresh thought is added, nau,ely, q notation from Malachi, o.nd for some reason that he spako in parables alono. Nothing omitted the next quotation, he might very (Revised Version); i.e. under these circum- easily have still retained the na.me "Isaiah" stances, when l!Ll'go crowds of Galilmans with which he introduces his double quota- were listening t.o him. Spake (h,&.A.e,: con- tion. Had he done so, we should have had trast h,aJ\'flu•v before): i.e. during this another parallel to our present verse and period. eh. xxvii. 9. The prophet. If "I:;a.iah" be Ver. 35.-That it might be fulfilled (oh. i. not genuine, this refers to "Asaph the 22, note) whioh was spoken by (through., seer" (2 Chron. xxix. 30), who w11.s the Revised Version ; eh. i. 22, note) the recognized author of the psalm. So D.,vid prophet; rather, Isaiah the prophet, accord- is called "a prophet" in Acts ii. 30. ing to the margin of Westcptt and Hort, on Saying, I will open my mouth (eh. v. 2, the evidence of the original hand of the note) in parables; I will utter things which Sinaitic nnd a few cursive manuscripts, the have been kept aeoret from the found1:1tion Rushworth Latin Gospels, a mo.nusm·ipt of the world. From Ps. lxniii. 1, 2. 'l'ho of the ..dl:Lhiopic Version, the Clementine first clause of the quobtion is verb"IIY the  10 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW. [on. xm. 1-68..