Matthew Chapter 13 verse 35 Holy Bible

Pulpit Commentary

Pulpit CommentaryVerse 35. - That it might be fulfilled (Matthew 1:22, note) which was spoken by (through, Revised Version; Matthew 1:22, note) the prophet; rather, Isaiah the prophet, according to the margin of Westcott and Hort, on the evidence of the original hand of the Sinaitic and a few cursive manuscripts, the Rushworth Latin Gospels, a manuscript of the AEthiopic Version, the Clementine Homilies, Porphyry as quoted by Jerome, and remarks by Eusebius. Dr. Herr ('Appendix') writes, "It is difficult not to think Ἠσαίου genuine. There was a strong temptation to omit it (cf. 27:9; Mc. Mark 1:2); and, though its insertion might be accounted for by an impulse to supply the name of the best known prophet, the evidence of the actual operation of such an impulse is much more trifling than might have been anticipated .... The erroneous introduction of Isaiah's name is limited to two passages, and in each case to a single Latin manuscript." If it be genuine, it is a parallel case to the reading "Jeremiah" instead of "Zechariah" in Matthew 27:9, for which no satisfactory explanation has yet been suggested. A simple error of memory (cf. Alford) on the part of one who shows himself so well acquainted with Hebrew customs and modes of thought as our evangelist does, is perhaps the most improbable of all solutions. Possibly, just as there were summaries of legal maxims current in our Lord's time (cf. Matthew 5:21, note), so there were in Hebrew-Christian circles well known sets of quotations from the Old Testament, which were not expressly divided one from another (cf. Romans 3:10-18), and which were ferreted to under the name of the author of the best known passage. (Observe that this would distinguish these summaries from liturgical quotations.) Thus Zechariah's mention of the potter (Zechariah 11:13) was placed in connexion with Jeremiah's visit to the potter's house, and with his warning of the possible rejection of Israel (Jeremiah 18:1-6; cf. 19:1-11); cf. further Pusey's remarks on the passage in Zechariah, and Psalm 78:2 (or perhaps 1-3), where Israel is bid listen to the lessons derived from their ancestors' behaviour, with the warning in Isaiah 6:9, 10 (cf. our vers. 34, 35 with ver. 14). We have an example of a similar connexion of passages in Mark 1:2, 3, where Malachi 3:1 is closely joined to Isaiah 40:3. Observe that if St. Mark had copied his source (ex hypothesi) to the end of the quotation from Malachi, and for some reason omitted the next quotation, he might very easily have still retained the name "Isaiah" with which he introduces his double quotation. Had he done so, we should have had another parallel to our present verse and Matthew 27:9. The prophet. If "Isaiah" be not genuine, this refers to "Asaph the seer" (2 Chronicles 29:30), who was the recognized author of the psalm. So David is called "a prophet" in Acts 2:30. Saying, I will open my mouth (Matthew 5:2, note) in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world. From Psalm 78:1, 2. The first clause of the quotation is verbally the same as the LXX., and fairly represents the meaning of the original (אפתחה במשל פי). The second clause is different from the LXX., the first verb being a literal translation from the Hebrew, and the rest a paraphrase. I will utter (ἐρεύξομαι: אביעה): so the LXX. in Psalm 19:2; and cf. Psalm 119:171; Psalm 145:7. Things which have been kept secret (κεκρυμμένα); but the Hebrew is חידות, i.e. "enigmatical sayings." From the foundation of the world. Ἀπὸ καταβολῆς, for κόσμου of the Received Text must be omitted. But the Hebrew מני קדם (i.e. "from of old") hardly, in the context of the psalm, refers further back than the be ginning of the national history of Israel, when the Israelites came out of Egypt. "Asaph... here recounts to the people their history from that Egyptaeo-Sinaitic age of yore to which Israel's national indepen dence and specific position in relation to the rest of the world goes back He will set forth the history of the fathers after the manner of a parable and riddle, so that it may become as a parable, i.e. a didactic history, and its events as marks of interrogation and nota benes to the present age" (Delitzsch). What, however, is the exact connexion of thought in the gospel between the passage as it stands, and its context? The first clause evidently corresponds in meaning to ver. 34; Christ fulfils in a fresh sense the expression of the psalmist by speaking in parables (vide infra). But the second clause brings in a different thought, not found, save very indirectly, in ver. 34, namely, that Christ utters things that be fore were always hidden. What does the evangelist mean by this second clause? (1) Truths never before revealed have now been revealed by Christ's parables, especially by those two which have just been related. For in these it has been affirmed that outsiders, i.e. those belonging to other nations than the Jewish nation, shall seek the protection of the kingdom of heaven, and also that the whole world, including, therefore, these Gentile nations, shall become permeated with its principles. It may well be thought that the clause refers to the announcement of these great truths. (2) This interpretation, however, if taken alone, is not enough. For the evangelist is not speaking of Christ revealing truths to men generally. On the contrary, he says that Christ does not reveal them to the multi tudes, but to his disciples (cf. ver. 10, sqq.) - a contrast which the emphatic language of ver. 34 (τοῖς ὄχλοις αὐτοῖς) would probably suggest, even though it is not expressly mentioned. It is, therefore, likely that it was this latter fact to which the evangelist specially wished to refer by his quotation of the second clause. Hence, to make his meaning clearer, he has modified its language. As he quotes it, not merely "enigmatical sayings," but "things hidden" (and that from the foundation of the world) are uttered by Christ; but these are now no longer "hidden" to those to whom he speaks them. This complete meaning of the clause - revelation to his disciples of truths before hidden - corresponds to the idea of μυστήριον in ver. 11 (where see note) and in St. Paul (cf. especially Romans 16:25), and is merely another side of St. Mark's phrase, "Privately to his own disciples he expounded all things" (cf. supra, vers. 16, 17). It is also possible that κεκρυμμένα, which is not merely negative, so as to mean "unrevealed," but implies a positive concealment, includes a reference to the thought of ἔκρυψας in Matthew 11:25, that God purposely hid these truths from those who were morally unfit to receive them. These, indeed, belonged in general to the times before Christ came, but also "the multitudes" came under this category. If it be asked - What is the relation of the quotation in its context here to the verse in its original context? the easiest answer is that it is only superficial, that the "accidental" employment by the psalmist of the word "parable" was the only reason why the evangelist made the quotation. Yet it may not be quite so; for there was a real similarity between the psalmist teaching his contemporaries by history and Christ teaching his contemporaries by truths couched in narrative form. May we not go even further, and say that in both cases the message was, generally speaking, refused, though in both a remnant of those who heard it were saved (cf also Isaiah 6:9-13; vide supra)?

Ellicott's Commentary

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(35) I will open my mouth in parables.--The quotation illustrates, much in the same way as those in 8:17, 12:17, St. Matthew's peculiar way of dealing with the prophetic language of the Old Testament. He found the word "parable" at the opening of a Psalm (Psalm 78:2). The Psalm itself was in no sense predictive, but simply an historical survey of God's dealings with Israel from the days of the Exodus to those of David. But the occurrence of the word was enough for him. Here was One whose form of teaching answered to that which the Psalmist had described, who might claim the Psalmist's words as His own; and excluding, as he did, the idea of chance from all such coincidences, he could use even here the familiar formula, "that it might be fulfilled."A remarkable various-reading gives, "by Esaias the prophet." It is found in the Sinaitic MS., and had been used before the time of Jerome by a heathen writer (Porphyry) as a proof of St. Matthew's ignorance. Old as it is, however, there is no reason for receiving it as the original reading. The mistake was probably that of a transcriber, misled by the word "prophet," and writing the name after the precedent of Matthew 8:17; Matthew 12:17. If the mistake had been St. Matthew's, it would stand on the same footing as the substitution of Jeremiah for Zechariah in Matthew 27:9. The Psalm is assigned by the superscription to the authorship of Asaph.