Q. 224. It may help in this question to see that Matthew’s Gospel is Jewish in character. Its genealogy begins with Jesus as Son of David, and so King of Israel. Hence the phrase “kingdom of heaven,” a dispensational term derived from Daniel 2:4444And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. (Daniel 2:44), is characteristic of this Gospel. The Jews expected this kingdom to be manifested upon the earth. But the Lord takes occasion in Chapter 11 to disabuse their minds of this notion, by contrasting the kingdom in a public form with it, the latter being open to faith only. He thus shows the true hope of Israel to be heavenly in character, and hence the necessity of violently breaking down everything in the shape of rites and ceremonies that would be likely to oppose faith.
Luke on the other hand displays the grace of God towards the Gentiles who had been, as it seemed, so long forgotten in His outward dealings. To the Jews He had manifested Himself from the beginning, and had amply proved in every way His mercy towards them. But Israel would none of Him or His kingdom; therefore He turns to the nations whom they despised. Hence the genealogy in Luke goes up to Adam as father of all men, and in keeping with this the Lord says “The law and the prophets were until John.” Both of these were Jewish in character, and belonged to the old state of things. But God is bringing in something different now, “the kingdom of God is preached and all men press into it,” the “all” including both Jew and Gentile in contrast with Jews only, as before.
The preposition εἰς has the sense of “direction towards, reaching, if not hindered;” never “against” in the sense of violent contact. In such a case επι would be used; as Luke 21:1010Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: (Luke 21:10). “nation shall rise against (επι) nation, and kingdom against (επι) kingdom.”
I venture to assert that all men did not “violently oppose” the kingdom. Surely the disciples for instance instead of opposing had entered into it in prospect.
J. L. (p. 304) follows Bloomfield and others in his view of Romans 1:1818For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; (Romans 1:18); but I give from another what seems to be the mind of the Spirit. “ I understand therefore that ver. 18 gives, first the general description of human ungodliness in every phrase, and then the unrighteousness which was at that time most conspicuous in the Jews, who combined with practical injustice a tenacious hold or possession of the truth; the former demonstrated to the end of Romans 1; the latter (after the transition of Chapter 2:1-16) pursued from Chapter 2:17 to 3:20.” W. T. H.
Q. 14, p. 18. The arguments used by H. S. on pp. 125-6, appears to resolve themselves into three, which may be stated thus: —(1) The account in Matthew and Hark takes place two days before the Passover, bat John’s six days before. (2) In Matthew and Luke the head is anointed, but in John the feet. (3) The incident in Matthew and Mark took place in the house of Simon the leper, but that in John in the house of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus.
Now that these difficulties may be surmounted is, I think, shown from the following facts. (1) A careful survey of the passages seems to show that the accounts in Matthew and Mark are inserted out of strict chronological order (“Now when Jesus was in Bethany” &c. Matthew 26:66Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, (Matthew 26:6). And while he was in Bethany,” &c. Mark 16:33And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? (Mark 16:3) (R. V.) (2) This may be said to be only the variations of different accounts. In neither place it is said or implied that the feet only, or the head only were anointed. Besides, the propriety of the distinction has been noticed in the Editor’s answer, Christ having been described in Matthew as the Son of David, and in Mark as the Servant (the head anointed), but in John as the Son of God (the feet anointed.)
(3) This is an ill founded argument. Is it right to affirm that because Martha served, that the supper took place in her house? if so, why is it specially noted that Lazarus “was one of them that sat at the table with him?” Our Lord’s affection for Lazarus and his sisters were very good reasons why Simon should invite them—his neighbors.
In conclusion let it be noticed how incredible it seems that two anointings should occur in five days with so many points of resemblance, and in fact not plainly distinguishable. If there were two, it is hard to suppose that the disciples would make similar objections (Matthew 26:8,98But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste? 9For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor. (Matthew 26:8‑9)) Mark 14:4,54And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made? 5For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her. (Mark 14:4‑5)), after Judas had been so sharply rebuked (John 12:4,54Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, 5Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? (John 12:4‑5)). If it be said that Lazarus is not mentioned in Matthew and Mark, it must not be forgotten that his name does not occur in those Gospels, and that the event making him famous is not recorded in the Chapter previous, as in John. W. J. H.
Q. 185, page 163. Judas did not pay the money for the field; though he may have intended to purchase it, or even have made the commencement of the bargain which the priests thought best to fulfill. Doubtless Judas did not believe the cause of Christ would last, and very likely he selected this spot as a dwelling place for himself and his family, (Psalms 109:99Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. (Psalm 109:9)).
It may be interpreted as a colloquial expression by which we attribute to a man the consequence of his actions when such were not designed or expected by him. Compare Genesis 42:3838And he said, My son shall not go down with you; for his brother is dead, and he is left alone: if mischief befall him by the way in the which ye go, then shall ye bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the grave. (Genesis 42:38); 1 Kings 14:1616And he shall give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam, who did sin, and who made Israel to sin. (1 Kings 14:16); Romans 14:1515But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. (Romans 14:15); 1 Corinthians 7:1,101Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. (1 Corinthians 7:1)
10And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: (1 Corinthians 7:10); 1 Timothy 4:1616Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee. (1 Timothy 4:16). W. J.
Q. 272. “ In waving, the offering was turned to the four corners of the earth, and also to heaven, as an acknowledgment that He to whom it was offered was Lord and giver of all. In the heaving, it was signified that the offering was raised from earth, and was dedicated to Him whose glory is revealed in heaven.”—Bishop Wordworth. H. A. W.
25. p. 16. It seems to be taken for granted on all hands, that the word.. von must needs mean instead of, or in the place of, as if it had no other sense. If such were the case, there would certainly be some excuse for the difficulty. Seeing however that the word has a great variety of meanings (I counted 28 the other day), why not select the one most in unison with the context? Now if the word for be taken in the sense of AS which is one of its many meanings, the difficulty at once vanishes.
Read “baptized as the dead,” in accordance with Romans 6:3,43Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:3‑4), &c., or as those who have died (in Christ) which is recognized in baptism, and immediately we get, instead of a bewildering question utterly irreconcilable to the context, one, which upon the very face of it is beautifully appropriate, and which is borne out by the whole argument.
The death and resurrection of believers, in that of the Lord Jesus, was first taught orally, Acts 17:1818Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection. (Acts 17:18), and it would seem that the teaching of the” figure” in baptism always accompanied it. From the several examples given to us, we may fairly infer that those who believed received and understood both. These forthwith testified their belief in both, by adopting the “figure” of baptism as the answer of their conscience. 1 Peter 3:2121The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: (1 Peter 3:21). To the first believers therefore, the question in the above form would be perfectly simple and intelligible, yea, very cogent, for they had professed. their belief in both by baptism. In order to be consistent with themselves therefore, if they take away the resurrection, as some of them did (see verse 12), they must also take away the latter half of the figure, and where are they then? Manifestly in death. This at once reduces baptism, in their case, to an absurdity. And herein is the gist of the questions he puts to them. For who would go into the water, i.e. into death, if there were no coming out of it, i.e. resurrection? Bat if they do both, that is, “baptize,” they at once acknowledge the resurrection. Here the apostle places those cavilers “on the horns of a dilemma,” just as our Lord did the Pharisees by the baptism of John. Looked at in this light one can readily perceive how pungent the apostle’s questions must have been to those who, notwithstanding that they denied the resurrection, had gone blindly through the performance of the “figure” of it (as doubtless many do still). Hence the question “why?” But as everything to the believer depends on this truth, (ver. 13-17) and, must stand or fall with it, the apostle may well exclaim “What shall they do who have been baptized as dead ones,” or as those who have died in Christ “if the dead rise not at all?” Not, as those who have been baptized in the place of some others who are dead, as commonly understood.
T. P.
“Jesting,” means rather the polished raillery of the man of fashion, than buffoonery or ribaldry—See a good explanation of the passage (and excellent rules for conversation) in Dean Goulburn’s book “The Little Word.” C. A. K.
Q. 337 εἰς cannot mean “until” without considerable forcing may not the passage mean that the law convicts us of our inability, and so brings us to Christ for pardon and instruction: the παιδαγωγος never taught, I believe (except perhaps the alphabet), he took the children to the Master. G. A. K.
Although the Athenian “Pedagogue” did not instruct, the word generally is used (See Liddell and Scott) for a teacher or instructor.
“To” or “up to” may be a better rendering than “until” but there is no “bringing” in the passage at all, moreover, the law could not bring to Christ before Christ came. —Ed.]
Q. 240. It is quite clear that what our Lord said was directed to the Pharisees (not his true disciples) who were among His followers or disciples ver. 14 and 15. We start with the fact that the “certain rich man” and “his steward” were much alike in principle, one did wrong, and the other commended him. “Make to yourselves,” &c. I believe, is directed by our Lord to the Pharisees who were covetous and practiced great dishonesty therewith, yet in their own conceit they were very wise but our Lord shows that whatever end. is obtained by such practices here that there is a future state, that if a man gain the world there is no profit if he lose his own soul. Surely this was a word to the worldly wise, the self-righteous, and covetous. Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that when ye die they (the friends of the unrighteous mammon) may receive you into (not merely earthly homes) but into everlasting habitations, and could we not add, there shall be weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth. H. A. D.
(The beginning of the Chapter “and he said also, &c.,” contrasted with 15:3 shows clearly that, whereas that Chapter was addressed to the Pharisees this parable is not, but as is expressly stated, to the disciples, “and I say unto you” could hardly mean any others than those in ver. 1. Do we not get an illustration of the very principles in 1 Timothy 6:1717Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; (1 Timothy 6:17), &c. The injustice exists only in the parable, and disappears when it is applied, for we do not rob God, as did the steward by using His goods to the best advantage. Ed.)