At [vi. 19], the thread of strict connexion is broken, according to the admission of Paulus, and so far all expositors are bound to agree with him. But his position, that notwithstanding the admitted lack of coherence in the succeeding collection of sentences, Jesus spoke them consecutively, is not equally tenable; on the contrary, our more recent critics have all the probabilities on their side when they suppose, that in this latter half of the Sermon on the Mount Matthew has incorporated a variety of sayings uttered by Jesus on different occasions. First stands the apothegm on earthly and heavenly treasures ([19–21]), which Luke, with more apparent correctness, inserts in a discourse of Jesus, the entire drift of which is to warn his adherents against earthly cares ([xii. 33 f.]). It is otherwise with the next sentence, on the eye being the light of the body. Luke annexes this to the apothegm already mentioned on the light that is to be exhibited; now as the light λύχνος, placed on a candlestick, denotes something quite distinct from what is intended by the comparison of the eye to a light, λύχνος, the only reason for combining the two apothegms lies in the bare word λύχνος: a rule of association which belongs properly to the dictionary, and which, beyond it, is worse than none. Then follows, also without any apparent connexion, the apothegm on the two masters, appended by Luke to the parable of the steward, with which it happens to have the word Mammon, μαμωνᾶς, in common. Next comes, in [Matthew v. 25–34], a dissuasion from earthly solicitude, on the ground that natural objects flourish and are sustained without anxiety on their part; in Luke, this doctrine is consistently united with the parable (found only in the third gospel) of the man who, in the midst of amassing earthly treasures, is summoned away by death ([xii. 22 ff.]).[32] The warning not to be blind to our own faults while we are sharp-sighted and severe towards those of others ([vii. 1–5]), would, if we rejected the passage from [v. 19, of chap, vi.] to the end, form a suitable continuation to the previous admonition against Pharisaic sanctimoniousness ([vi. 16–18]), and might, therefore, have belonged to the original body of the discourse.[33] This is the more probable because Luke has the same warning in his Sermon on the Mount ([37 f.], [41 f.]), where it happens to assort very well with the preceding exhortation to mercifulness; but at [v. 39] and [40], and part of [38], it is interrupted by subjects altogether irrelevant. The text, With what measure ye mete, etc., is very inappropriately interposed by Mark ([iv. 24]), in a passage similar in kind to one of Luke’s intermediate miscellanies. [V. 6, in Matthew], is equally destitute of connexion and parallel; but the succeeding assurances and arguments as to the efficacy of prayer ([v. 7–11]), are found in [Luke xi. 9], very fitly associated with another parable peculiar to that Evangelist: that of the friend awaked at midnight The apothegm, What ye would that men should do unto you, etc., is quite isolated in Matthew; in Luke, it has only an imperfect connexion.[34] The following passage ([v. 13 f.]) on the strait gate στενὴ πύλη is introduced in Luke ([xiii. 23]) by the question addressed to Jesus: Are there few that be saved? εἰ ὀλίγοι οἱ σωζόμενοι; which seems likely enough to have been conceived by [[342]]one who knew that Jesus had uttered such a saying as the above, but was at a loss for an occasion that might prompt the idea; moreover, the image is far less completely carried out in Luke than in Matthew, and is blended with parabolical elements.[35] The apothegm on the tree being known by its fruits ([v. 16–20]), appears in Luke ([vi. 43 ff.]), and even in Matthew, farther on ([xii. 33 ff.]), to have a general application, but in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount, it has a special relation to the false prophets; in Luke, it is in the last degree misplaced. The denunciation of those who say to Jesus, Lord, Lord, but who, on account of their evil deeds will be rejected by him at the day of judgment ([21–23]), decidedly presupposes the Messiahship of Jesus, and cannot therefore, have well belonged to so early a period as that of the Sermon on the Mount; hence it is more appropriately placed by Luke ([xiii. 25 ff.]). The peroration of the discourse is, as we have mentioned, common to both Evangelists.
The foregoing comparison shows us that the discourses of Jesus, like fragments of granite, could not be dissolved by the flood of oral tradition; but they were not seldom torn from their natural connexion, floated away from their original situation, and deposited in places to which they did not properly belong. Relative to this effect, there is this distinction between the three first Evangelists; Matthew, like an able compiler, though far from being sufficiently informed to give each relic in its original connexion, has yet for the most part succeeded in judiciously associating analogous materials; while the two other Evangelists have left many small fragments just where chance threw them, in the intervals between longer discourses. Luke has laboured in some instances to combine these fragments artificially, but he could not thus compensate for the absence of natural connexion.
§ 77.
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE TWELVE. LAMENTATIONS OVER THE GALILEAN CITIES. JOY OVER THE CALLING OF THE SIMPLE.
The first gospel ([x.]) reports another long discourse as having been delivered by Jesus, on the occasion of his sending out the twelve to preach the kingdom of heaven. Part of this discourse is peculiar to the first gospel; that portion of it which is common to the two other synoptists is only partially assigned by them to the same occasion, Luke introducing its substance in connexion with the mission of the seventy ([x. 2 ff.]), and in a subsequent conversation with the disciples ([xii. 2 ff.]). Some portion of the discourse is also found repeated both in Matthew and the other Evangelists, in the prophetic description given by Jesus of his second advent.
In this instance again, while the older harmonists have no hesitation in supposing a repetition of the same discourse,[36] our more recent critics are of opinion that Luke only has the true occasions and the original arrangement of the materials, and that Matthew has assembled them according to his own discretion.[37] Those expositors who are apologetically inclined, maintain that Matthew was not only conscious of here associating sayings uttered at various times, but presumed that this would be obvious to his readers.[38] On the other hand, it is justly observed that the manner in which the discourse is [[343]]introduced by the words: These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them ([v. 5]); and closed by the words: when Jesus made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, etc. ([xi. 1]); proves clearly enough that it was the intention of the Evangelist to give his compilation the character of a continuous harangue.[39]
Much that is peculiar to Matthew in this discourse, appears to be merely an amplification on thoughts which are also found in the corresponding passages of the two other synoptists; but there are two particulars in the opening of the instructions as detailed by the former, which differ specifically from anything presented by his fellow Evangelists. These are the limitation of the agency of the disciples to the Jews ([v. 5], [6]), and the commission (associated with that to announce the kingdom of heaven and heal the sick, of which Luke also speaks, [ix. 2]), to raise the dead: a surprising commission, since we know of no instances previous to the departure of Jesus, in which the apostles raised the dead; and to suppose such when they are not narrated, after the example of Olshausen, is an expedient to which few will be inclined.
All that the synoptists have strictly in common in the instructions to the twelve, are the rules for their external conduct; how they were to journey, and how to behave under a variety of circumstances ([Matt. v. 9–11], [14]; [Mark vi. 8–11]; [Luke ix. 3–5]). Here, however, we find a discrepancy; according to Matthew and Luke, Jesus forbids the disciples to take with them, not only gold, a scrip, and the like, but even shoes, ὑποδήματα, and a staff, ῥάβδον; according to Mark, on the contrary, he merely forbids their taking more than a staff and sandals, εἰ μὴ ῥάβδον μόνον and σανδάλια. This discrepancy is most easily accounted for by the admission, that tradition only preserved a reminiscence of Jesus having signified the simplicity of the apostolic equipment by the mention of the staff and shoes, and that hence one of the Evangelists understood that Jesus had interdicted all travelling requisites except these; the other, that these also were included in his prohibition. It was consistent with Mark’s love of the picturesque to imagine a wandering apostle furnished with a staff, and therefore to give the preference to the former view.
It is on the occasion of the mission of the seventy, that Luke ([x. 2]) puts into the mouth of Jesus the words which Matthew gives ([ix. 37 f.]) as the motive for sending forth the twelve, namely, the apothegm, The harvest truly is ready, but the labourers are few; also the declaration that the labourer is worthy of his hire ([v. 7], comp. [Matt x. 10]); the discourse on the apostolic salutation and its effect ([Matt. v. 12 f.]; [Luke v. 5 f.]); the denunciation of those who should reject the apostles and their message ([Matt. v. 15]; [Luke v. 12]); and finally, the words, Behold, I send you forth as lambs, etc. ([Matt. v. 16]; [Luke v. 3]). The sequence of these propositions is about equally natural in both cases. Their completeness is alternately greater in the one than in the other; but Matthew’s additions generally turn on essentials, as in [v. 16]; those of Luke on externals, as in [v. 7], [8], and in [v. 4], where there is the singular injunction to salute no man by the way, which might appear an unhistorical exaggeration of the urgency of the apostolic errand, did we not know that the Jewish greetings of that period were not a little ceremonious.[40] Sieffert observes that the instructions which Jesus gave—according to Matthew, to the twelve, according to Luke, to the seventy—might, so far as their tenor is concerned, have been imparted with equal fitness on either [[344]]occasion; but I doubt this, for it seems to me improbable that Jesus should, as Luke states, dismiss his more confidential disciples with scanty rules for their outward conduct, and that to the seventy he should make communications of much greater moment and pathos.[41] The above critic at length decides in favour of Luke, whose narrative appears to him more precise, because it distinguishes the seventy from the twelve. We have already discussed this point, and have found that a comparison is rather to the advantage of Matthew. The blessing pronounced on him who should give even a cup of cold water to the disciples of Jesus ([v. 42]), is at least more judiciously inserted by Matthew as the conclusion of the discourse of instructions, than in the endless confusion of the latter part of [Mark ix. (v. 41)], where ἐὰν (if), and ὃς ἂν (whosoever), seem to form the only tie between the successive propositions.