Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer.

Critical and exegetical hand-book to the Gospel of Matthew (Volume 1) online

. (page 24 of 48)
Online LibraryHeinrich August Wilhelm MeyerCritical and exegetical hand-book to the Gospel of Matthew (Volume 1) → online text (page 24 of 48)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


lowed by Tisch. 8, omit x.l ri virin altogether. In conformity
with Luke xii. 22. Ver. 28. Instead of av%dvu, xoma, and vrjjtei,
Lachm. and Tisch. have the plurals, after B X, Curss. Ath. Chrys.
Correctly. See Luke xii. 27. Likewise in ver. 32, where
Lachm. and Tisch. have !-/r/?jroDff/i>, the sing, is used to conform
with Luke xii. 30. Ver. 33. r. /3a<r. r. 6to\j x. r. otxa/off.
auroD] Lachm. : r. dixaioa. xal T^V /Saff/Xs/av aOroy, only after B.
In N, r. 6to\j is wanting ; and its omission, in which Tisch. 8 con-
curs, is favoured by the testimony of the reading in B. Several
Verss. and Fathers also leave out r. &oD, which, as being a
supplement, ought to be deleted. The testimony is decisive,
however, in favour of putting r. I3aff. first. Ver. 34. ra. eaurqs]
Lachm. and Tisch. have merely saurqs, according to important
testimony. Correctly ; from the genitive not being understood,
it was attempted to explain it by means of ra, and in other

ways (tip! savr^g, tavrqv, saury).

Ver. 1. Connection : However (irpoae^ere Se, be upon your
guard), to those doctrines and prescriptions regarding the true
Siicaioa-vvr), I must add a warning with reference to the prac-
tice of it (iroieiv, 1 John iii. 7), This warning, stated in
general terms in ver. 1, is then specially applied in ver. 2 to
almsgiving, in ver. 5 to prayer, and in ver. 16 to fasting.



200 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Accordingly Si/caiocrvvr) is righteousness generally (v. 6, 10, 20),
and not benevolence specially, which, besides, it never means,
not even in 2 Cor. ix. 10, any more than npnv (not even in
Prov. x. 2-, xi. 4 ; Dan. iv. 24), which in the LXX., and that
more frequently by way of interpretation, is rendered by
\T]fj,oavvii, in which the SiKaioa-vw) manifests itself by acts
of charity; comp. Tob. ii. 14, xii. 9. On et 8e /irfye, after
which we are here to supply Trpoae^ere rrjv Siicaiocrvv. v/ju. fj,rj
nroielv, etc., see on 2 Cor. xi. 16. pia-dov . . . ovpavols]
See on v. 12, 46.

Ver. 2-. M r) vdhTrla-rjff] do not sound a trumpet, meta-
phorically : make no noise and display until it (Chrysostom,
Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus). Comp. Achill. Tat. viii.
p. 507; Cic. ad Div. xvi. 2-1: " te buccinatorem fore exis-
timationis meae." Prudent, de Symmach. ii. 68. Here e/ivrp.
refers to> the idea of a person sounding a trumpet, which
he holds up to his mouth. Others (Calvin, Calovius, Wolf,
Paulus, also rives referred to by Euth. Zigabenus) render :
cause not a trumpet to be sounded before tJiee. They think that,
in order to make a display, the Pharisees had actually made
the poor assemble together by the blowing of trumpets. But
the expression- itself is as decidedly incompatible with this
extraordinary explanation as it is with the notion that what is
meant (Homberg, Schoettgen) is the sound produced by the
clinking of the money, dropped into the alleged trumpet-like
chests in the temple (see on Mark xii. 41), and this notwith-
standing that it is added, eV T. <rvvary. n. ev T. pi')/*. On the
injunction generally, eomp. Babyl. Chagig. f. v. 1 : " E. Jannai
vidit quendam nummum pauperi dantem palam ; cui dixit :
praestat non dtedisse, quam sic dedisse." In the synagogues it
was the practice to collect the alms on the Sabbath ; Lightfoot
and Wetstein on this passage. viroKptraC] in classical
writers means actors; in the New Testament, hypocrites.
" Hypocrisis est mixtura inalitiae cum specie bonitatis," Bengel.
aTre^ova-i . . . avTwii] inasmuch as they have already
attained what was the sole object of their liberality, popular
applause, and therefore have nothing more to expect, atre-^eiv,
to have obtained, to have fully received. See on Phil. iv. 18.



CHAP. VI. 3-5. 201

Ver. 3. 2ov Be] in emphatic contrast to hypocrites. /U.T;
f) apiffrepd aov, /c.r.X] The right hand gives, let not
the left hand know it. Proverbial way of expressing entire
freedom from the claiming anything like self-laudation. For
sayings of a similar kind among the Fathers, see Suicer, Thes.
I. p. 508. De Wette, following Paulus, thinks that what is
referred to is the counting of the money into the left hand
before it is given away with the right. This is out of place,
for the warning is directed, not against a narrow calculating,
but against an ostentatious almsgiving. For the same reason
we must object to' the view of Luther, who says : " When you
are giving alms with the right hand, see that you are not
seeking to receive more with the left, but rather put it behind
your back," and so on,.

Ver. 4. 'O P\eirwv ev ro3 tcpwrrrat] who sees, i.e. knows
what goes on in secret, where He is equally present. Grotius
and Kuinoel arbitrarily take the words to be equivalent to ra
ev rc3 Kp. aw TO 5 a TTO Stooge* aoi] He Himself will reward
you, that is, at the Messianic judgment (i.e. ev TO> fyavepw,
2 Cor. v. 10); avro<j forms a contrast to the human rewards,
which the hypocrites, with their ostentatious ways of acting,
managed to secure in the shape of applause from, their fellow-
men, ver. 2.

Ver. 5. OVK ea-ea-de] See the critical remarks. The future,
as in v. 48. OTI] as in v. 45. <pi\ovcriv] tliey have
pleasure in it, they love to 'do it, a usage frequently met with
in classical writers (Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 910 f.), though
in the New Testament occurring only here and in xxiii. 6 f.
eo-T cores] The Jew stood, while praying, with the face
turned toward the temple or the holy of holies, 1 Sam. i. 26 ;
1 Kings viii. 22; Mark xi. 25; Luke xviii. 11; Lightfoot,
p. 292 f. ; at other times, however, also in a kneeling posture,
or prostrate on the ground. Therefore the notion of fixi, immo-
biles (Maldonatus), is not implied in the simple eo-reSr., which,
however, forms a feature in the picture ; they love to stand
there and pray. ev rat? yovtais T. TT\.] not merely when
they happen to be surprised, or intentionally allow themselves
to be surprised (de Wette), by the hour for prayer, but also at



202 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

other times besides the regular hours of devotion, turning the
most sacred duty of man into an occasion for hypocritical
ostentation.

Ver. 6. Tapeiov] any room in the interior of the house, as
opposed to the synagogues and the streets. We are there-
fore not to think exclusively of the closet in the strict
sense of the word, which was called inrepwov ; see note on
Acts i. 13. For the expression, comp. Isa. xxvi. 20 ; for
rafjuelov, conclave, see Xen. Hell. v. 4. 5 ; Matt. xxiv. 26 ; Sir.
xxix. 12; Tob. vii. 17. aTroSdxrei <roi\ for thy undemon-
strative piety. It is not public prayer in itself that Jesus con-
demns, but praying in an ostentatious manner ; rather than this,
He would have us betake ourselves .to a lonely room. Theophy-
lact : o T07T09 ov (SKdirrei,, dXA,' o T/JOTTO? ical 6 O7co7ro9.

Ver. 7. A e] indicating a transition to the consideration of
another abuse of prayer. f3arTo\oyelv] (Simplic. ad Epict.
p. 340) is not to be derived, with Suidas, Eustathius, Erasmus,
from some one of the name of Battus (passages in Wetstein),
who, according to Herod, v. 155, was in the habit of stammer-
ing, but, as already Hesychius correctly perceived (tcaTa pi^aiv
n)<? <jxovf)<i), is to be regarded as a case of onomatopoeia (comp.
jBarraXo? as a nickname of Demosthenes, ^arrapi^co, /Sarra-
pto-/i05, fiaTTapta-Tris), and means, properly speaking, to stammer,
then to prate, to babble, the same thing that is subsequently
called iro\v\oyia. B N have the form ySarraXo^ ; see
Tisch. 8. ol edvi/coi] Whose prayers, so wordy and full of
repetitions (hence, fatigare Deos\ were well known. Terent.
Heautont. v. i. 6 ff. In Eabbinical writers are found recom-
mendations sometimes of long, sometimes of short, prayers
(Wetstein). For an example of a Battological Jewish prayer,
see Schoettgen, p. 58 f., comp. Matt, xxiii. 15 ; and for dis-
approval of long prayers, see Eecles. v. 1, Sir. vii. 14. ev
T7) 7ro\v\oyia avr&v] in consequence of their much speaking ;
they imagine that this is the cause of their being heard. As
to the thing, consider the words of Augustine : " Absit ab
oratione multa locutio, sed non desit multa precatio, si fervens
perseveret intentio ; " the former, he adds, is " rem necessariam
superfluis agere verbis," but the multum precari is : " ad eum,



CHAP. VI. 8, 9. 203

quern precamur, diuturna et pia cordis excitatione pulsare "
(Ep. 130. 20, adprobam).

Ver. 8. Ovv] seeing that you are expected to shun heathen
error. olSe yap, /c.r.X] so that, this being the case, that
(3aTTo\oyeiv is superfluous.

Ver. 9. " Having now rebuked and condemned such false
and meaningless prayer, Christ goes on to prescribe a short,
neat form of His own to show us how we axe to pray, and
what we are to pray for," Luther. The emphasis is, in the
first place, on oi/T<9, and then on vftek, the latter in contrast
to the heathen, the former to the /SarroXoyeiy ; while ovv is
equivalent to saying, " inasmuch as ye ought not to be like
the heathen when they pray." Therefore, judging from the
context, Christ intends ourw? .to point to the prayer which
follows as an example of one that is free from vain repetitions,
as an example of what a prayer ought to be in respect of its
form and contents if the fault in question is to be entirely
avoided, not as a direct prescribed pattern (comp. Tholuck),
excluding other ways of expressing ourselves in prayer. The
interpretation, " in hunc sensum " (Grotius), is at variance with
the context ; but that of Fritzsche (in some 'brief way such as
this) is not " very meaningless " (de Wette), but correct,
meaning as he does, not brevity in itself, but in its relation to
the contents (for comprehensive brevity is the opposite of the
vain repetitions). On the Lord's Prayer, which now follows,
see Kamphausen, d. Gebet d. Herrn, 1866 ; J. Hanne, in d.
Jahrb. f.D. Th. 1866, p. 507 ff.; and in Schenkel's Bibellex.
II. p. 346 ff. According to Luke xi. l,the same prayer, though
in a somewhat shorter form, was given on a different occasion.
In regard to this difference of position, it may be noted: (1)
That the prayer cannot have been given on both occasions, and
so given twice (as I formerly believed) ; for if Jesus has
taught His disciples the use of it as early as the time of the
Sermon on the Mount, it follows that their request in Luke
xi. 1 is unhistorical ; but if, on the contrary, the latter is
historical, then it is impossible that the Lord's Prayer can
have been known in the circle of the disciples from the date
of the Sermon on the Mount. (2) That the characteristic



204 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

brevity of Luke's version, as compared with the fulness of
that of Matthew, tells in favour of Luke's originality ; but,
besides this, there is the fact that the historical basis on which
Luke's version is founded leaves no room whatever to suspect
that legendary influences have been at work in its formation,
while it is perfectly conceivable that the author of our version
of Matthew, when he came to that part of the Sermon on the
Mount where warnings- are directed against meaningless repe-
titions in prayer, took occasion also to put this existing model
prayer into our Lord's mouth. Schleiermacher, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Sieffert, Olshausen, Neander, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek,
Holtzmann, Weiss, Weizsacker, Schenkel, Hanne, Kamphausen,
also rightly declare themselves against the position of the
prayer in Matthew as unhistorical. The material superiority
of Matthew's version (see especially Keim) remains unaffected
by this verdict. On the Marcionitic form, especially in the
first petition, and on the priority of the same as maintained
by Hilgenfeld, Zeller, Volkmar, see the critical notes on Luke
xi. 24. Trdrep rjfiwv] This form of address, which rarely
occurs in the O. T. (Isa. Ixiii. 1 6 ; Deut. xxxii. 6 : in the
Apocrypha, in Wisd. ii. 16, xiv. 3; Sir. xxiii. 1, li. 10;
Tob. xiii. 4 ; 3 Mace. vL 3), but which is constantly em-
ployed in the N. T. in accordance with the example of Jesus,
who exalted it even into the name for God (Mark xiv. 36 ;
Weisse, Evangdienfr. p. 200 ff.), brings the petitioner at once
into an attitude of perfect confidence in the divine love ;
" God seeks to entice us with it," and so on, Luther. 1 But
the consciousness of our standing as children in the full and
specially Christian sense (eomp. on v. 9), it was not possible
perfectly to express in this address till a later time, seeing
that the relation in question was only to be re-established by
the atoning death. o iv rots ovpavois] distinguishes Him
who is adored in the character of Father as the true God, but
the symbolical explanations that have been given are of an

1 In his translation, Luther renders it here and in Luke xi. 2 by unser Vater ;
in the Catechism and manuals of prayer and baptism, Vater unser, after the
Latin Pater noster. See Rienecker in d. Stud. u. Krlt. 1837, p. 323 f. Kamp-
hausen, p. 30 f.



CHAP. VI. 9. 205

arbitrary character (Kuinoel, " Deus optime maxime, benignis-
sime et potentissime;" de Wette, " the elevation of God above
the world ;" Baumgarten-Crusius, " God who exists for all
men ;" Hanne, " Father of all "). Surely such a line of inter-
pretation ought to have been precluded by ver. 10, as well as by
the doctrine which teaches that Christ has come from heaven
from the Father, that He has returned to heaven to the right
hand of the Father, and that He will return again in majesty
from heaven. The only true God, though everywhere present
(2 Chron. ii. 6), nevertheless has his special abode in heaven ;
heaven is specially the place where He dwells in majesty, and
ivhere the throne of His glory is set (Isa. Ixvi. 1 ; Ps. ii. 4,
cii. 19, cxv. 3; Job xxii. 12ff.; Acts vii. 55, 56; 1 Tim.
vi. 16), from which, too, the Spirit of God (iii. 16 ; Acts ii.),
the voice of God (iii. 17 ; John xii. 28), and the angels of God
(John i. 52) come down. Upon the idea of God's dwelling-
place is based that very common Jewish invocation D'wai? u*3K
(Lightfoot, p. 229), just as it may be affirmed in a general
way that (comp. the #eot ovpaviwves of Homer) " Traj/re? rov
av&Tarco T&> 0LO) TOTTOv aTToSiSoaat," Aristot. de Coelo, i. 3.
Comp. generally, Ch. F. Fritzsche, nov. Opusc. p. 2 1 8 ff.
Augustine, Ep. 187. 16, correctly thinks there may be an
allusion to the heavenly temple, " ubi est populus angeloruni,
quibus aggregandi et coaequandi sumus, cum finita peregrina-
tione quod promissum est suniserimus." On heaven as a
plural (in answer to Kamphausen), comp. note on 2 Cor. xii. 2 ;
Eph. iv. 10. aryiacr6r)Ta>] Chrysost, Euth. Zigabenus,
&o%aa-6iJT(o ; more precisely, let it be kept sacred (Ex. xx. 8 ;
Isa. xxix. 23). God's name is, no doubt, "holy in itself"
(Luther), objectively and absolutely so ; but this holiness must
be asserted and displayed in the whole being and character of
believers (" ut non existiment aliquid sanctum, quod magis
offendere timeant," Augustine), inwardly and outwardly, so
that disposition, word, and deed are regulated by the acknow-
ledged perfection of God, and brought into harmony with it.
Exactly as in the case of Vfaty, Lev. x. 3, xxii. 2, 32 ; Ezek.
xxviii. 22, xxxviii. 23; Num. xx. 13; Sir. xxxiii. 4; 1 Pet.
iii. 15. TO ovopd <rov] Everything which, in its distinctive



206 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

conception, Thy name embraces and expresses, numen tuum,
Thy entire perfection, as the object revealed to the believer
for his apprehension, confession, and worship. So rrirp DB>,
Ps. v. 12, ix. 1.1; Isa. xxix. 23; Ezek. xxxvi. 23; and
frequently also in the Apocrypha. Everything impure, repug-
nant to the nature of God, is a profanation, a /Se/S^XoOz/ TO
ovofj,a TO aytov (Lev. xviii. 21). Observe once more that the
three imperatives in w. 9, 10 are not meant to express the
idea of a resolution and a vow (Hanne, comp. Weizsacker),
which is opposed to Trpoarev^ea-de, but they are al-rrj^aTa
(Phil. iv. 6), supplications and desires, as in xxvi. 39, 42.

Ver. 10. 1 'EX0eT&>, /e.r.X.] Let the kingdom of the Messiah
appear. This was likewise a leading point in the prayers of
the Jews, especially in the Kaddisch, which had been in
regular use since the captivity, and which contained the
words, Eegnet tuum regnum ; redemptio mox veniat. Hence the
canon, nra ru' rvota m jw na-a ba. Bab. Berac. f. 40. 2.
Here, likewise, the kingdom of God is no other than the king-
dom of the Messiah, the advent of which was the supreme
object of pious longing (Luke ii. 25, xvii. 20 ; Mark xv. 43 ;
Luke xxii. 18, xxiii. 51 ; 2 Tim. iv. 8). This view of the
kingdom and its coming, as the winding up of the world's
history, a view which was also shared by the principal Fathers
(Tertullian, Chrysostom, Augustine, Euth. Zigabenus), is the
only one which corresponds with the historical conception of
the /SaatXeta T. 6eov throughout the whole of the N. T. ; comp.
on iii. 2, the kingdom comes with the Messiah who comes to
establish it; Mark xi. 9, 10; Luke xxiii. 42. The ethical
development (xiii. 31 ff., xxiv. 14 ; comp. on iii. 2, v. 3 ff., 48 ;
also on Acts iii. 21), which necessarily precedes the advent of
the kingdom (Luke xix. 11) and prepares the way for it, and
with which the diffusion of Christianity is bound up, xxviii. 1 9
(Grotius, Kuinoel), 'forms the essential condition of that advent,
and through eXflereo, /e.r.X., is thus far indirectly (as the means
toward the wished-for end) included in the petition, though

1 On the inverted order of the second and third petition in Tertullian, see
Nitzsch in the Stud, u, Krit. 1830, p. 846 ff. This transposition appeared more
logical and more historical.



CHAP. VI. 11. 207

not expressly mentioned in so many words, so that we are not
called upon either to substitute for the concrete conception of
the future kingdom (Luke xxii. 18) one of an ethical, of a
more or less rationalistic character (Jerome, Origen, Wetstein :
of the moral sway of Christianity ; Baumgarten-Crusius : the
development of the cause of God among men), or immediately
to associate them together. This in answer also to Luther
(" God's kingdom comes first of all in time and here below
through God's word and faith, and then hereafter in eternity
through the revelation of Christ"), Melanchthon, Calvin, de
Wette, Tholuck, " the kingdom of God typified in Israel, coming
in its reality in Christ, and ever more and more perfected by
Him as time goes on;" comp. Bleek. yevr)0ijTca>, /e.r.X]
May Thy will (vii. 21; 1 Thess. iv. 3) be done, as by the angels
(Ps. ciii. 21), so also by men. This is the practical moral
necessity in the life of believers, which, with its ideal re-
quirements, is to determine and regulate that life until the
fulfilment of the second petition shall have been accomplished.
" Thus it is that the third petition, descending into the depths
of man's present condition and circumstances, damps the glow
of the second," Ewald. " Coelum norma est terrae, in qua
aliter alia fiunt omnia," Bengel. Accordingly the will of God
here meant is not necessarily the voluntas decernens (Beza),
but praecipiens, which is fulfilled by the good angels of heaven.
This petition, which is omitted in Luke, is not to be taken
merely as an explanation (Kamphausen) of the one which
precedes it, nor as tautological (Hanne), but as exhibiting to
the petitioner for the kingdom the full extent of moral require-
ment, without complying with which it is impossible to be
admitted into the kingdom when it actually comes. As,
according to ver. 33, the Christian is called upon to strive
after the kingdom and the righteousness of God; so here,
after the petition for the coming of the kingdom, it is asked
that righteousness, which is the thing that God wills, may be
realized upon the earth.

Ver. 11. Tbv dprov] same as DH?, victus ; Gen. xviii. 5;
Prov. xxx. 8 ; 2 Thess. iii. 12 ; Sir. x. 26 ; Wisd. xvi. 20.
rbv eirioiHriov] occurring nowhere else in the Greek language



208 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

but here and in Luke xi. 3. See Origen, de Oral. 27 : eot*re
ire7r\acf6ai VTTO rwv evay<ye\t<TTQ)v. It is possible that it may
be derived from ovcria, and accordingly the phrase has been
supposed to mean : the food necessary for subsistence, ^n Dr6,
Prov. xxx. 8. So Syr., Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylact,
Euth. Zigabenus, Etym. M. ; Beza, Maldonatus, Kuinoel, Tho-
luck, Ewald (de Wette undecided), Arnoldi, Bleek, Weizsacker,
Keim, Hanne, and probably this explanation has also given
rise to the rendering "daily bread" (It., iChrysostom, Luther),
e</7/A609, Jas. ii. 15; comp. Victorinus, <c. Ar, ii. p. 273,
Augustine. But ova La does not mean subsistence (o-uarrao-t?),
but (Ast, Lex. Plat. II. p. 491 f.) essence, as also reality, and,
finally, possessions, res familiaris, in which sense also it is to
be taken in Soph. Track. 907 (911), where the words ra?
amuSa<? ovarias denote a home without .children. In deriv-
ing the expression, therefore, from ovvia, the idea of necessary
food * must be brought out in a very indirect way (as Gregory
of Nyssa : that which is requisite or sufficient for the support
of the body ; comp. Chrysostom, Tholuck, Hitzig). Again, if
the word were to be derived from ova-la (elvai), it would have
to be spelt, not eVtoyo-io?, but eirov<rio<s, in a way analogous to
the forms eirovaia, overplus, eVoyo-toiS^?, non-essential, which
come from elvai. Forms in which there is either a different
preposition (such as Trepiovcnos], or in which the derivation
has no connection with elvai, (as eViop/cetv), have been brought
forward without any reason with a view to support the above
ordinary explanation. After all this we must, for reasons
derived from grammatical .considerations (in answer to Leo

1 To this amounts also the view of Leo Meyer in Kuhn's Zeitschr. f. vergleich.
Sprachforsch. VII. 6, p. 401 ff., who, however, regards the word as expressing
adjectively the idea of the aim involved in the l-ri : "what If! is." In this
Kamphauseu substantially concurs. The word is said to be derived from
irt7nti : "belonging to," in which the idea of being "sufficient" or necessary is
understood to be implied. But in that case we should also have expected to
find imvirios, and besides, \vtlim certainly does not mean to belong to, but to be
by, also to be standing over, to impend, and so on. This explanation of inovim;
is an erroneous etymological conjecture. Bengel very properly observes : " /
non semper quidem in compositione ante vocalem amittit, sed amittit tamen in
ix-nrnr." [See Lightfoot, A Fresh Revision of the, English New Testament,
Appendix on the words \-rnut us, nfiavrnf. ED.]



CHAP. VI. 11. 209

Meyer, Weizsacker, Kamphausen, Keim), prefer the other
possible derivation from r) cTrtova-a (therefore from eirievai),
dies crastinus (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 464; Prov. xxvii. 1),
which is already expressly given by Ambrose, lib. v. de sacram.
4. 24, and according to which we should have to interpret the
words as meaning to-morrow's bread. 1 So Ar., Aeth., Copt,
Sahid., Erasmus, Annot., Scaliger, Salmasius, Grotius, Wolf,
Bengel, Wetstein, Valckenaer, Schol. I. p. 190, and V; also
Winer, p. 92 [E. T. 120], Fritzsche, Kauffer, Scliegg, D61-
linger, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Schenkel, Wittichen. This
explanation, furnished historically by the Gospel according to
the Hebrews, where Jerome found "ino, is recommended in the
context by the o-rfpepov, which, besides, has no correlative, nor
is it incompatible with ver. 34, where the taking no thought
for to-morrow does not exclude, but rather presupposes (1 Pet.
v. 7), the asking for to-morrow's bread, while, moreover, this
request is quite justified as a matter of prayer, considering how
certain is the uncertainty of life's duration. The granting
to-day of to-morrow's bread is, accordingly, the narrow limit
which Christ here assigns to prayers for earthly objects, a
limit not open to the charge of want of modesty (Keim), inas-
much as it is fixed only at de die in diem. Of late, Olshausen
and Delitzsch ("the bread necessary for man's spiritual and
physical life") have again adopted, at least along with the
other view, the erroneous explanation, exegetically inconsis-
tent with a-rifMepov, but originating in a supposed perverse
asceticism, and favoured by the tendency to mystical interpre-
tation generally, no less than by the early (Irenaeus, Haer.
iv. 18) reference to the Lord's Supper in particular, the
explanation, namely, that what is here meant is supernatural?

1 Not what is necessary for the next meal (Rettig in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838,



Online LibraryHeinrich August Wilhelm MeyerCritical and exegetical hand-book to the Gospel of Matthew (Volume 1) → online text (page 24 of 48)