Matthew 6

Matthew 6:1

1. The discourse of our Lord now passes from actions to motives; not that He has not spoken to the heart before, but then it was only by inference, now directly.

δικαιοσύνη] not ‘benevolence,’ or ‘alms,’ as צְדָקָה in Rabbinical usage,—for this meaning is never found in the N.T., and in the apocryphal reff. a distinction is made, though the two are coupled closely together. Besides, here we have ἐλεημοσύνη treated of as a distinct head below. It is best then to render δικ., righteousness, as in ch. Matthew 5:20, as a general term including the three duties afterwards treated of.

The words πρὸςτὸθεαθ. clearly define the course of action objected to:—not the open benevolence of the Christian who lets his light shine that men may glorify God, but the ostentation of him whose object is the praise and glory coming from man. ἔστιγὰρκαὶἔμπροσθεντῶνἀνθρώπωνποιοῦντα, μὴπρὸςτὸθεαθῆναιποιεῖνκαὶμὴποιοῦνταἔμπροσθενπἀλιν, πρὸςτὸθεαθῆναιποιεῖν. Chrysostom, Hom. xix. 1, p. 245.

εἰδὲμήγε does not apply to προσέχετε, so as to mean, ‘if ye do not take heed;’ but to μὴποιεῖν, and means, if ye do. That this is so, is clear from the reff. On the force of the γε, modifying the condition expressed in the εἰ, and concentrating it on the example given, see Klotz ad Devar., p. 527, and ante, p. 308.

Matthew 6:2

2. μὴσαλπίσῃς] A proverbial expression, not implying any such custom of the hypocrites of that day, but the habit of self-laudation, and display of good works in general. οὐχὅτισάλπιγγαςεἶχονἐκεῖνοι, ἀλλὰτὴνπολλὴναὐτῶνἐπιδεῖξαιβούλεταιμανίαντῇλέξειτῆςμεταφορᾶςταύτης, κωμῳδῶνταύτῃκαὶἐκπομπεύωναὐτούς. Chrys. Hom, xix. 1, p. 245. Meyer remarks that the word σαλπίσῃς is tuba canas, not tuba cani cures, and must therefore refer to what the person himself does: but all verbs of action may surely refer to action per alterum, so that this does not decide the point. Many Commentators, among whom are Calvin and Bengel, think that the words are to be taken literally; and Euthym[53] mentions this view: φασὶδέτινεςὅτιὑποκριταὶτότεδιὰσάλπιγγοςσυνεκάλουντοὺςδεομένους. But Lightfoot says, “Non inveni, quæsiverim licet multum serioque, vel minimum tubæ vestigium in præstandis eleemosynis.” See his note, containing an account of the practices of the Jews in giving alms;—and many illustrative passages in Tholuck; among which may be mentioned Cic. ad diversos xvi. 21, ‘te buccinatorem fore existimationis meæ.’

[53] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116

For the classical senses of ὑποκριτής, see Lexx. The N.T. sense, connected with that of “actor,” is unknown to classic Greek, and first found in the LXX. See reff.

ἔμπρ. σου] According to the way in which the former verse is taken, these words are variously understood to apply to the trumpet being held up before the mouth in blowing (as Meyer), or to another person going before (Thol., a[54].).

[54] alii = some cursive mss.

συναγωγαῖς can hardly bear any sense but synagogues, see Matthew 6:5: and if so, the literal meaning of σαλπίσῃς cannot well be maintained. The synagogues, as afterwards the Christian churches, were the regular places for the collection of alms: see Tholuck and Vitringa de Synag. vet. iii. 1. 13.

ἀπέχουσιν] have in full,—exhaust: not have their due reward: see reff. Plutarch in Solon (Wets[55].) says, that he who marries for pleasure, and not for children, τὸνμισθὸνἀπέχει.

[55] Wetstein.

Matthew 6:3

3. σοῦ, emphatic: see ch. Matthew 5:48.

μὴγνώτω] Another popular saying, not to be pressed so as to require a literal interpretation of it in the act of almsgiving, as De Wette and others have done, but implying simplicity, both of intention and act. Equally out of place are all attempts to explain the right and left hand symbolically, as was once the practice. The sound sense of Chrysostom preserves the right interpretation, where even Augustine strays into symbolism: πάλινἐνταῦθαοὐχεῖραςαἰνίττεται, ἀλλʼ ὑπερβολικῶςαὐτὸτέθεικεν. εἰγὰροἷόντέἐστι, φησί, σεαυτὸνἀγνοῆσαι, περισπούδαστονἔστωσοιτοῦτο, κἂναὐτὰςδυνατὸνᾖτὰςδιακονουμέναςχεῖραςλαθεῖν. Hom. xix. 2, p. 246.

Matthew 6:4

4. ὁβλ. ἐντῷκρυπτῷ] Not to be rendered as if it were τὰ (or σε) ἐντῷκρ., or εἰςτὸκρυπτόν, but as the Eng. Vers., seeth in secret: as we say, in the dark; ἐν introducing the element, or sphere, in which.

Matthew 6:5

5. φιλοῦσιν] not so well solent, as amant: they take pleasure, or love: see reff. and Winer, § 54. 4. The meaning solere for φιλεῖν is undoubtedly found: see Tholuck here.

ἑστῶτες] No stress must be laid on this word as implying ostentation; for it was the ordinary posture of prayer. See 1 Samuel 1:26. 1 Kings 8:22 is perhaps hardly a case in point, 2 Chronicles 6:13 being a more specific statement. The command in Mark (Mark 11:25) runs, ὅτανστήκετεπροσευχόμενοι.… See also Luke 18:11; Luke 18:13. Indeed, of the two positions of prayer, considering the place, kneeling would have been the more singular and savouring of ostentation. The synagogues were places of prayer; so that, as Theophyl. (Thol.), οὐβλάπτειὁτόπος, ἀλλὰὁτρόποςκαὶὁσκυπός.

Matthew 6:6

6. εἴσελθεκ.τ.λ.] Both Chrysostom and Augustine caution us against taking this merely literally, τίοὖν; ἐνἐκλησίᾳ, φησίν, οὐδεῖπροσεύχεσθαι; καὶσφόδραμέν, ἀλλὰμετὰγνώμηςτοιαύτης. πανταχοῦγὰρὁθεὸςτὸνσκοπὸνζητεῖτῶνγιγνομένων. ἐπεὶκἂνεἰςτὸταμιεῖονεἰσέλθῃς, καὶἀποκλείσας, πρὸςἐπίδειξιναὐτὸἐργάσῃ, οὐδένσοιτῶνθυρῶνὄφελος. ὅραγοῦνκαὶἐνταῦθαπῶςἀκριβῆτὸνδιορισμὸντέθεικενεἰπὼν “ὅπωςφανῶσιτοῖςἀνθρώποις.” ὥστεκἂντὰςθύραςἀποκλείσῃςτοῦτοπρὸτῆςτῶνθυρῶνἀποκλείσεωςκατορθῶσαίσεβούλεται, καὶτὰςτῆςδιανοίαςἀποκλείεινθύρας. Hom. xix. 3, p. 247. ‘Parum est intrare in cubicula, si ostium pateat importunis, per quod ostium ea quæ foris sunt improbe se immergunt, et interiora nostra appetunt.’ De Serm. Dom. l. ii. c. 3 (11), vol. iii. Cf. Psalms 4:4.

Matthew 6:7

7. βατταλογήσητε] a word probably without any further derivation than an imitation of the sounds uttered by stammerers, who repeat their words often without meaning (κατὰμίμησιντῆςφωνῆς, Hesych[56]). Suidas, Eustath[57], and others, supposed it derived from a certain stammering Battus, Herod. iv. 155. But the name of this Battus seems to have been given from the circumstance; παῖςἰσχνόφωνοςκαὶτραυλός, τῷοὔνομαἐτέθηΒάττος. We have βατταρίζω and its derivatives with the same signification; and Æschines called Demosthenes βάταλος (περὶστ. p. 288. 17 Bekker). Hence the sense has generally been held to be, ‘do not make unmeaning repetitions.’ But most of the Fathers (see the passages in Thol., and in Suicer sub voce) understand by βαττ., the praying περὶτὰἀνωφελῆτεκαὶμάταια (so Greg. Nyss[58]), or λέγειντὰδιεφθαρμέναἔργα, ἢλόγους, ἢνοήματαταπεινὰτυγχάνοντα (Orig[59]), or ὅταντὰμὴπροσήκοντααἰτῶμενπαρὰτῷθεῷδυναστείαςκ. δόξας: &c. Taking the word in its largest meaning, that of saying things irrelevant and senseless, it may well include all these.

[56] Hesychius of Jerusalem, centy. vi.

[57] Eustathius, Bp. of Antioch, 323

[58] Nyssa, Gregory, Bp. of, 371

[59] Origen, b. 185, d. 254

ἐθνικοί] ‘Prece qua fatigent virgines sanctæ minus audientem carmina Vestam?’ Hor. Od. i. 2. 26. ‘Nisi illos (Deos) tuo ex ingenio judicas, Ut nil credas intelligere nisi idem dictum est centies.’ Ter. Heaut. Matthew 6:1. What is forbidden in this verse is not much praying, for our Lord Himself passed whole nights in prayer: not praying in the same words, for this He did in the very intensity of His agony at Gethsemane; but the making number and length a point of observance, and imagining that prayer will be heard, not because it is the genuine expression of the desire of faith, but because it is of such a length, has been such a number of times repeated. The repetitions of Paternosters and Ave Marias in the Romish Church, as practised by them, are in direct violation of this precept; the number of repetitions being prescribed, and the efficacy of the performance made to depend on it.

But the repetition of the Lord’s Prayer in the Liturgy of the Church of England is not a violation of it, nor that of the Kyrie Eleison, because it is not the number of these which is the object, but each has its appropriate place and reason in that which is preeminently a reasonable service. Our Lord was also denouncing a Jewish error. Lightfoot quotes from the Rabbinical writings, ‘Omnis qui multiplicat orationem, auditor.’ Hor. Hebr. in loc. Augustine puts admirably the distinction between much praying and much speaking: ‘Absit ab oratione multa locutio; sed non desit multa precatio, si fervens perseverat intentio. Nam multum loqui, est in orando rem necessariam superfluis agere verbis; multum autem precari, est ad eum quem precamur diuturna et pia cordis excitatione pulsare.

Nam plerumque hoc negotium plus gemitibus quam sermonibus agitur; plus fletu, quam affatu.’ Ep. cxxx. 10 (20), vol. ii. And Chrysostom, in one of his finest strains of eloquence, comments on this verse: μὴτοίνυντῷσχήματιτοῦσώματος, μηδὲτῇκραυγῇτῆςφωνῆς, ἀλλὰτῇπροθυμίᾳτῆςγνώμηςτὰςεὐχὰςποιώμεθαμηδὲμετὰψόφουκαὶἠχῆςκαὶπρὸςἐπίδειξιν, ὡςκαὶτοὺςπλησίονἐκκρούειν, ἀλλὰμετὰἐπιεικείαςπάσηςκαὶτῆςκατὰδιάνοιανσυντριβῆςκαὶδακρύωντῶνἔνδοθεν. Hom. xix. 3, p. 248. Those who have the opportunity should by all means read the whole passage, which is too long for insertion in a note.

Matthew 6:8

8. οἶδενγάρ] εἰοἶδε, φησίν, ὧνχρείανἔχομεν, τίνοςἕνεκενεὔχεσθαιδεῖ; οὐχἵναδιδάξῃς, ἀλλʼ ἵναἐπικάμψῃςἵναοἰκειωθῇςτῇσυνεχείᾳτῆςἐντεύξεως, ἵναταπεινωθῇς, ἵναἀναμνησθῇςτῶνἁμαρτημάτωντῶνσῶν. Chrys. Hom. xix. 4, p. 249. ‘Ipsa orationis intentio cor nostrum serenat et purgat, capaciusque efficit ad accipienda divina munera, quæ spiritualiter nobis infunduntur.’ August. de Serm. Dom. ii. 3 (14).

Matthew 6:9

9. There is very slender proof of what is often asserted, that our Lord took nearly the whole of this prayer from existing Jewish formulæ. Not that such a view of the matter would contain in it any thing irreverent or objectionable; for if pious Jews had framed such petitions, our Lord, who came πληρῶσαι every thing that was good under the Old Covenant, might in a higher sense and spiritual meaning, have recommended the same forms to His disciples. But such does not appear to have been the fact. Lightfoot produces only the most general common-place parallels for the petitions, from the Rabbinical books.

With regard to the prayer itself we may remark, 1. The whole passage, Matthew 6:7-15, is digressive from the subject of the first part of this chapter, which is the discouragement of the performance of religious duties to be seen of men, and is resumed at Matthew 6:16. Neander (Leben Jesu, p. 349, note) therefore supposes that this passage has found its way in here as a sort of accompaniment to the preceding verses, but is in reality the answer of our Lord to the request in Luke 11:1, more fully detailed than by that Evangelist. But to this I cannot assent, believing our Lord’s discourses as given by this Evangelist to be no collections of scattered sayings, but veritable reports of continuous utterances. That the request related in Luke should afterwards have been made, and similarly answered, is by no means improbable. (That he should have thus related it with this Gospel before him, is more than improbable.) 2. It has been questioned whether the prayer was regarded in the very earliest times as a set form delivered for liturgical use by our Lord.

The variations in Luke have been regarded as fatal to the supposition of its being used liturgically at the time when these Gospels were written. But see notes on Luke 11:1. It must be confessed, that we find very few traces of such use in early times. Thol. remarks, “It does not occur in the Acts, nor in any writers before the third century. In Justin Mart. we find, that the προεστώς prays ‘according to his power’ (Apol. i. 67, p. 83, ὁπρ. εὐχὰςὁμοίωςκ. εὐχαριστίαςὅσηδύναμιςαὐτῷἀναπέμπει).… Cyprian and Tert[60] make the first mention of the prayer as an ‘oratio legitima et ordinaria.’ ” An allusion to it has been supposed to exist in 2 Timothy 4:18, where see note. 3. The view of some that our Lord gave this, selecting it out of forms known and in use, as a prayer ad interim, till the effusion of the Spirit of prayer, is inadmissible, as we have no traces of any such temporary purpose in our Saviour’s discourses, and to suppose any such would amount to nothing less than to set them entirely aside.

On the contrary, one work of the Holy Spirit on the disciples was, to bring to their mind all things whatsoever He had said unto them, the depth of such sayings only then first being revealed to them by Him who took of the things of Christ and shewed them to them. John 14:26.

[60] Tertullian, 200

οὕτως] παραδίδωσιτύπονεὐχῆς, οὐχἵναταύτηνμόνηντὴνεὐχὴνεὐχώμεθα, ἀλλʼ ἵναταύτηνἔχοντεςπηγὴνεὐχῆςἐκταύτηςἀρυώμεθατὰςἐννοίαςτῶνεὐχῶν. Euthym[61] Considering that other manners of praying have been spoken of above, the βατταλογία and the πολυλογία, the οὕτως, especially in its present position of primary emphasis, cannot well be otherwise understood than thus, i.e. ‘in these words,’ as a specimen of the Christian’s prayer (the ὑμεῖς holds the second place in emphasis), no less than its pattern. This, which would be the inference from the context here, is decided for us by Luke 11:2, ὅτανπροσεύχησθε, λέγετε.

[61] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116

Πάτερἡμῶν] This was a form of address almost unknown to the Old Covenant: now and then hinted at, as reminding the children of their rebellion (Isaiah 1:2; Malachi 1:6), or mentioned as a last resource of the orphan and desolate creature (Isaiah 63:16); but never brought out in its fulness, as indeed it could not be, till He was come by whom we have received the adoption of sons.

‘Oratio fraterna est: non dicit, Pater meus, tanquam pro se tantum orans, sed Pater noster, omnes videlicet una oratione complectens, qui se in Christo fratres esse cognoscunt.’ Aug[62] Serm. lxiv. 4 App. vol. v. pt. ii. ἀπὸδὲτούτουκαὶἔχθρανἀναιρεῖ, καὶἀπόνοιανκαταστέλλει, καὶβασκανίανἐκβάλλει, καὶτὴνμητέρατῶνἀγαθῶνἁπάντωνἀγάπηνεἰσάγει, καὶτὴνἀνωμαλίαντῶνἀνθρωπίνωνἐξορίζειπραγμάτων, καὶπολλὴνδείκνυσιτῷβασιλεῖπρὸςτὸνπτωχὸντὴνὁμοτιμίαν, εἴγεἐντοῖςμεγίστοιςκαὶἀναγκαιοτάτοιςκοινωνοῦμενἅπαντες. Chrysost. Hom. xix. 4, p. 250.

[62] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395–430

ὁἐντοῖςοὐρανοῖς] These opening words of the Lord’s Prayer set clearly before us the status of the Christian, as believing in, depending upon, praying to, a real objective personal GOD, lifted above himself; to approach whom he must lift up his heart, as the eye is lifted up from earth to heaven. This strikes at the root of all pantheistic error, which regards the spirit of man as identical with the Spirit of God,—and at the root of all Deism; testifying as it does our relation to and covenant dependence on our Heavenly Father.

The local heavens are no further to be thought of here, than as Scripture, by a parallelism of things natural and spiritual deeply implanted in our race (compare Aristotle, περὶοὐρ. i. 3, πάντεςγὰρἄνθρωποιπερὶθεῶνἔχουσινὑπόληψιν, καὶπάντεςτὸνἀνωτάτωτῷθείῳτόπονἀποδιδόασικαὶβάρβαροικαὶἝλληνεςὅσοιπερεἶναινομίζουσιθεούς, δηλονότιὡςτῷἀθανάτῳτὸἀθάνατονσυνηρτημένον), universally speaks of heaven and heavenly, as applying to the habitation and perfections of the High and Holy One who inhabiteth Eternity.

ἁγιασθήτωτὸὄνομάσου] De Wette observes: ‘God’s Name is not merely His appellation, which we speak with the mouth, but also and principally the idea which we attach to it,—His Being, as far as it is confessed, revealed, or known.’ The ‘Name of God’ in Scripture is used to signify that revelation of Himself which He has made to men, which is all that we know of Him (ὄνοματοίνυνἐστὶκεφαλαιώδηςπροσηγορίατῆςἰδίαςποιότητοςτοῦὀνομαζομένουπαραστατική. Orig[63] (Thol.)): into the depths of His Being, as it is, no human soul can penetrate. See John 17:6; Romans 9:17. ἁγιάζω here is in the sense of keep holy, sanctify in our hearts, as in ref. 1 Pet. τὰσεραφὶμδοξάζονταοὕτωςἔλεγονἍγιοςἅγιοςἅγιος, ὥστετὸἁγιασθήτωτοῦτόἐστιδοξασθήτω. Chrys. Hom. xix. 4, p. 250.

[63] Origen, b. 185, d. 254

Matthew 6:10

10. ἐλθέτωἡβασιλείασου] ‘Ut in nobis veniat, optamus; ut in illo inveniamur, optamus.’ Aug[64] Serm. lvi. c. 4 (5), vol. v. pt. i. Thy kingdom here is the fulness of the accomplishment of the kingdom of God, so often spoken of in prophetic Scripture; and by implication, all that process of events which lead to that accomplishment. Meyer, in objecting to all ecclesiastical and spiritual meanings of ‘Thy kingdom,’ forgets that the one for which he contends exclusively, the Messianic kingdom, does in fact include or imply them all.

[64] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395–430

γενηθήτωτὸθ. σου] i.e. not, ‘may our will be absorbed into thy will;’ but may it be conformed to and subordinated to thine. The literal rendering is, Let thy will be done, as in heaven, (so) also on earth.

These last words, ὡςἐνοὐρανῷκαὶἐπὶγῆς, may be regarded as applying to the whole of the three preceding petitions, as punctuated in the text. A slight objection may perhaps be found in the circumstance, that the kingdom of God cannot be said to have come in heaven, seeing that it has always been fully established there, and thus the accuracy of correspondence in the particulars will be marred. It is true, this may be escaped by understanding, May thy kingdom come on earth, so as to be as fully established, as it is already in heaven. So that I conceive we are at liberty to take the prayer either way.

Matthew 6:11

11. τὸνἄρτ. κ.τ.λ.] ἡμῶν—as ‘created for us,’ ‘provided for our use by Thee:’ τὸνδιʼ ἡυᾶςγενόμενον, Euthym[65] The word ἐπιούσιον has been very variously explained. Origen says of it, πρῶτονδὲτοῦτʼ ἰστέον, ὅτιἡλέξιςἡἐπιούσιοςπαρʼ οὐδενὶτῶνἙλλήνωνοὔτετῶνσοφῶνὠνόμασται, οὔτεἐντῇτῶνἰδιωτῶνσυνηθείᾳτέτριπται, ἀλλʼ ἔοικεπεπλάσθαιὑπὸτῶνεὐαγγελιστῶν. The derivations and meanings given may be thus classified (after Tholuck). I. ἐπί, εἶναι: and that, either (1) from the participle, as παρουσία, μετουσία, περιουσία, or (2) from the subst. οὐσία. Against both, an objection is brought that thus it would be ἐπούς., not ἐπιούς.; but this is not decisive; we have ἔποπτος and ἐπίοπτος, ἐπιανδάνω, ἐπίουρα, &c. Against (2) it is alleged that adjectives from substantives in -α and -ια end in -αιος or -ώδης,—ὡραῖος, ἀγοραῖος, βίαιος, and from οὐσία not οὔσιος but οὐσιώδης: συνούσιος, περιούσιος, not being from οὐσία but from the fem. particip.

But this is not always so: we have πολυγώνιος from γωνία, ὑπεξούσιος from ἐξουσία, and ἐνούσιος and ἐξούσιος from οὐσία:—while περιούσιος itself is derived by some from οὐσία. II. ἐπί, ἰέναι: and that, either (1) from the fem. part. ἡἐπιοῦσα, understanding ἡμέρα, or (2) from ὁἐπιών, understanding χρόνος. (1) has much apparently in its favour. In the N.T., LXX, and Josephus, ἡπαροῦσα, ἡπροσιοῦσα, and this expression itself are often found in this elliptic sense. Jerome found for this word, in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, “mahar (מָחָר) quod dicitur crastinus.” (So also crastinum cop[66].) The objection brought against it (Salmas. Suicer), that, viz., from the analogy of δευτεραῖος, τριταῖος, ποσταῖος, &c. does not seem valid to disprove the existence of the more general possessive adj. in -ιος. But the great objection to this derivation is in the sense: which would then be in direct opposition to Matthew 6:34.

Nor does it answer this to say, that by making to-morrow’s bread the subject of prayer we divest ourselves of anxiety respecting it; since our Lord’s command is not to feel that anxiety at all. The same objection will apply to (2) ὁἐπιὼνχρόνος, or to giving (as Grot. a[67].) a wider sense to ἡἐπιοῦσα, as meaning all future time, according to the Hebr. usage of מָחָר. (Cf. venturum or venientem sa[68].) Nor will σήμερον bear the Hebraistic interpretation of ‘from day to day,’ יוֹם יוֹם. Add to this that independently of the discrepancy with Matthew 6:34, Salmasius’s objection to this sense, ‘quid est ineptius, quam panem crastini diei (and we may say א fortiori ‘omnis futuri temporis’) nobis quotidie postulare?’ seems to me unanswerable. Returning then to the derivation from εἶναι, which has in its favour the authority of the Greek fathers, especially of Origen, and of the Peschito (indigentiæ nostræ), Tholuck thinks it most probable that it is formed after the analogy of περιούσιος, from the substantive οὐσία. The substantive signifies not merely existence (as alleged in the 1st edn. of this work), but also subsistence, compare Luke 15:12, where τὸἐπιβάλλονμέροςτῆςοὐσίας is a curious illustration of this word. And even were οὐσία existence only, it would still be open for us to take the meaning of the Greek fathers, ὁἐπὶτῇοὐσίᾳἡμῶνκ. συστάσειτῆςζωῆςσυμβαλλόμενος,—Theophylact: similarly Chr[69], Basil, Greg[70] Nyss[71], and Suidas, and the Etym.

Mag. Thus ἐπιούσιος will be required for our subsistence—proper for our sustenance, after the analogy of ἐπίγαμος, ‘fit for marriage,’ ἐπιδόρπιος, ‘proper for the banquet,’ &c. So that ὁἄρτοςὁἐπιούσιος will be equivalent to St. James’s τὰἐπιτήδειατοῦσώματος (Matthew 2:16), and the expressions are rendered in Sy[72]. by the same word. Thus only, σήμερον has its proper meaning. The τὸκαθʼ ἡμέραν in Luke 11:3 is different; see there.

[65] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116

[66] The Coptic or Memphitic Egyptian version. Fourth century?

[67] alii = some cursive mss.

[68] The Thebaic or Sahidic Egyptian version. Third century?

[69] Chrysostom, Bp. of Constantinople, 397–407: Chr-montf, a MS. cited from Montfaucon; Chr-wlf, Wolfenbüttel MS. of Chr. written in centy. vi.; Chr-Fd, Field’s edn. of the Hom. on Matthew 6:1-34

[70] Gregory, Bp. of Rome, 590–605

[71] Nyssa, Gregory, Bp. of, 371

[72] The Peschito (or simple) Syriac version. Supposed to have been made as early as the second century. The text as edited is in a most unsatisfactory state.

It yet remains to enquire how far the expression may be understood spiritually—of the Bread of Life. The answer is easy: viz. that we may safely thus understand it, provided we keep in the foreground its primary physical meaning, and view the other as involved by implication in that. To explain ἐπιούσιος (as Orig[73] Cyr.-jer[74]), ὁἐπὶτὴνοὐσίαντῆςψυχῆςκατατασσόμενος, and understand the expression of the Eucharist primarily, or even of spiritual feeding on Christ, is to miss the plain reference of the petition to our daily physical wants. But not to recognize those spiritual senses, is equally to miss the great truth, that the ἡμεῖς whose bread is prayed for, are not mere animals, but composed of body, soul, and spirit, all of which want daily nourishment by Him from whom all blessings flow. See the whole subject treated in Tholuck (pp. 353–371): from whom much of this note is taken. Augustine well says (Serm. lviii. 4 (5), vol. v. pt. 1): ‘Quicquid animæ nostræ et carni nostræ in hac vita necessarium est, quotidiano pane concluditur.’ The Vulg. rendering, supersubstantialem (substituted for the old lat. quotidianum), tallies with a large class of patristic interpretations which understand the word to point exclusively to the spiritual food of the Word and Sacraments.

[73] Origen, b. 185, d. 254

[74]-jer. Cyril, Bp. of Jerusalem, 348–386

Matthew 6:12

12. τὰὀφειλ.] i.e. sins, short-comings, and therefore ‘debts’ = παραπτώματα, Matthew 6:14. Augustine remarks (contra Epist. Parmeniani, l. ii. c. 10 (20), vol. ix.): ‘Quod utique non de illis peccatis dicitur quæ in baptismi regeneratione dimissa sunt, sed de iis quæ quotidie de seculi amarissimis fructibus humanæ vitæ infirmitas contrahit.’

ὡςκαί] Not ‘for we also,’ &c. (as in Luke, καὶγὰραὐτοὶἀφ.) nor ‘in the same measure as we also,’ &c. but like as (quippe; not exactly nam, cf. Klotz ad Devar. p. 766. Hartung, Partikellehre, i. p. 460) we also, &c.; implying similarity in the two actions, of kind, but no comparison of degree. See especially the first ref., where manifestly while the kind of act was the same, the degrees were widely different.

‘Augustine uses the testimony of this prayer against all proud Pelagian notions of an absolutely sinless state in this life’ (Trench); and answers the various excuses and evasions by which that sect escaped from the conclusion.

ἀφήκαμεν here implies that (see ch. Matthew 5:23-24) the act of forgiveness of others is completed before we approach the throne of grace.

Matthew 6:13

13. The sentiment is not in any way inconsistent with the Christian’s joy when he πειρασμοῖςπεριπέσῃποικίλοις, James 1:2, but is a humble self-distrust and shrinking from such trial in the prospect. As Euthym[75] says: παιδεύειἡμᾶςὁλόγοςμὴθαῤῥεῖνἑαυτοῖς, μηδʼ ἐπιπηδᾷντοῖςπειρασμοῖςὑπὸθαῤῥότητος … μὴἐπαγομένωνμὲντῶνπειρασμῶνπαραιτητέοναὐτούςἐπαγομένωνδὲἀνδριστέον. The leading into temptation must be understood in its plain literal sense: see ποιήσεισὺντῷπειρασμῷκαὶτὴνἔκβασιν, 1 Corinthians 10:13. There is no discrepancy with James 1:13, which speaks not of the providential bringing about of, but the actual solicitation of, the temptation. Some (e.g.

Isid. Pelus[76] on ch. xxvi. 41, Thl. on Luke 22:46, Aug[77], Bengel, a[78].) have attempted to fix on εἰσενέγκῃς and εἰσελθεῖνεἰςπειρ. the meaning of bringing into the power of, and entering into, so as to be overcome by, temptation. But this surely the words will not bear. ἀλλά must not be taken as equivalent to εἰδὲμή, q. d. ‘but if thou dost, deliver,’ &c., but is rather the opposition to the former clause, and forms in this sense, but one petition with it,—‘bring us not into conflict with evil, nay rather deliver (rid) us from it altogether.’ In another view, however, as expressing the deep desire of all Christian hearts to be delivered from all evil (for τοῦπονηροῦ is here certainly neuter, though taken masculine by Chrys., Thl., Erasm., Beza, a[79].; the introduction of the mention of ‘the evil one’ would seem here to be incongruous. Besides, compare the words of St. Paul, 2 Timothy 4:18, which look very like a reminiscence of this prayer: see note there) these words form a seventh and most affecting petition, reaching far beyond the last. They are the expression of the yearning for redemption of the sons of God (Romans 8:23), and so are fitly placed at the end of the prayer, and as the sum and substance of the personal petitions.

So Augustine very beautifully says (Ep. cxxx. c. 11 (21), vol. ii.): “Cum dicimus libera nos a malo, nos admonemus cogitare, nondum nos esse in eo bono, ubi nullum patiemur malum. Et hoc quidem ultimum quod in dominica oratione positum est, tam late patet, ut homo Christianus in qualibet tribulatione constitutus in hoc gemitus edat, in hoc lacrymas fundat, hinc exordiatur, in hoc immoretur, ad hoc terminet orationem.”

[75] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116

[76] Pelus. Isidore of Pelusium, 412

[77] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395–430

[78] alii = some cursive mss.

[79] alii = some cursive mss.

The doxology must on every ground of sound criticism be omitted. Had it formed part of the original text, it is absolutely inconceivable that all the ancient authorities should with one consent have omitted it. They could have had no reason for doing so; whereas the habit of terminating liturgical prayers with ascriptions of praise would naturally suggest some such ending, and make its insertion almost certain in course of time. And just correspondent to this is the evidence in the var. readd. We find absolutely no trace of it in early times, in any family of MSS. or in any expositors. The Peschito has it, but whether it always had, is another question.

Stier eloquently defends its insertion, but solely on subjective grounds: maintaining that the prayer is incomplete without it, and asserting the right of such “innere Kritit” to over-ride all evidence whatever. It is evident that thus we should have no fixed principles at all by which to determine the sacred text: for what seems to one critic appropriate and necessary, is in the view of another an incongruous addition. It is quite open for us to regard it with Euthymius as τὸπαρὰτῶνθείωνφωστήρωνκ. τ. ἐκκλησίαςκαθηγητῶνπροστεθὲνἀκροτελεύτιονἐπιφώνημα, and to retain it as such in our liturgies; but in dealing with the sacred text we must not allow any à priori considerations, of which we are such poor judges, to outweigh the almost unanimous testimony of antiquity. The inference to be drawn from the words of St. Paul, 2 Timothy 4:18, is rather against than for the genuineness of the doxology. The fact that he there adds a doxology, different from that commonly read here, seems to testify to the practice, begun thus early, of concluding the Lord’s prayer with a solemn ascription of glory to God.

This eventually fell into one conventional form, and thus got inserted in the sacred text.

Matthew 6:14-15

14, 15. Our Lord returns (γάρ) to explain the only part of the prayer which peculiarly belonged to the new law of love, and enforces it by a solemn assurance. On the sense, cf. Mark 11:25, and the remarkable parallel Sir 28:2; ἄφεςἀδίκηματῷπλησίονσου, κ. τότεδεηθέντοςσουαἱἁμαρτίαισουλυθήσονται. See Chrysostom’s most eloquent appeal on this verse, Hom. xix. 7, p. 255, end.

Matthew 6:16

16. ἀφανίζουσιν] “Chrys. διαφθείρουσι, ἀπολλύουσι: Homb., Hammond, colorem auferre, comparing Antiochus, Hom. 55 de invidia, τὸπρόσωπονἐξαφανίζει, pallorem inducit: Erasm., Fritzsche, e conspectu tollere: Elsner, Meyer, to hide, cover up, viz. in mourning costume. But in later Greek the meaning is deformare, to disfigure, (which the exterminare of the vul[80]. may also mean,) as is shewn in many examples cited by Le Clerc h. l., Valcknär on Phœniss. 373, Schäfer ad Dion, de comp. verb. p. 124. In Stobæus, Serm. lxxiv. 62, Nicostratus uses it of women who paint: πόῤῥωδʼ ἂνεἴηκαὶτοῦδεηθῆναιγυνὴὑγιαίνουσακαὶψιμυθίουκαὶὑπʼ ὁφθαλμῷὑπογραφῆςκαὶἄλλουχρώματοςζωγραφοῦντοςκαὶἀφανίζοντοςτὰςὄψεις ‘which be-paints and disfigures the faces.’ The allusion is therefore not to covering the face, which could only be regarded as a sign of mourning, but to the squalor of the uncleansed face and hair of the head and beard, as the contrast of washing and anointing shews.” Tholuck: and this certainly appears to be the right view, especially when we compare Matthew 6:19-20 below. But he seems too hastily to have assumed the meaning in the passage from Stobæus: for there the verb may just as well signify covering, plastering over, as disfiguring. The Etym. Mag. says ἀφανίσαιοἱπαλαιοὐχὶτὸμολῦναιὡςνῦν, ἀλλὰτὸτελέωςἀφανῆποιῆσαι. Suidas, on the other hand, ἀφανίσαιοὐτὸμολῦναικαὶχρᾶναιδηλοῖ, ἀλλὰτὸἀνελεῖνκαὶἀφανὲςποιῆσαι: but it is possible that he may be speaking of its classical sense, as suggested by Le Clerc, who does not however, as Tholuck asserts, cite any examples of the other meaning.

[80] The Vulgate version (A.D. 383), since its completion by Jerome variously emended and edited: quoted from the authorized edition of the Church of Rome put forth by Clement VIII. in 1592, which differs in many respects from the equally authoritative edition of Sixtus V. in 1590. See Horne, pp. 243–257.

Matthew 6:17

17. i.e. ‘appear as usual:’ ‘seem to men the same as if thou wert not fasting.’ It has been observed that this precept applies only to voluntary and private fasts, (such as are mentioned Luke 18:12,) not to public and enjoined ones. But this distinction does not seem to be necessary; the one might afford just as much occasion for ostentation as the other.

Matthew 6:19-20

19, 20. It is to be observed that the qualifying clauses, ἐπὶτῆςγῆς, ἐνοὐρανῷ, belong in each case to the verb θησαυρίζετε, not to the noun θησαυρούς.

βρῶσις] more general in meaning than rust—the ‘wear and tear’ of time, which eats into and consumes the fairest possessions. The θησαυρίζετεθησ. ἐνοὐρ. would accumulate the βαλλάντιαμὴπαλαιούμενα, θησαυρὸνἀνέκλειπτον of Luke 12:33, corresponding to the μισθός of ch. Matthew 5:12, and the ἀποδώσεισοι of Matthew 6:4; Matthew 6:6; Matthew 6:18. Cf. 1 Timothy 6:19; Tob 4:9.

διορύσσουσιν] usually joined with οἰκίαν, as ch. Matthew 24:43.

Matthew 6:21

21. The connexion with the foregoing is plain enough to any but the shallowest reader. ‘The heart is, where the treasure is.’ But it might be replied, ‘I will have a treasure on earth and a treasure in heaven also: a divided affection.’ This is dealt with, and its impracticability shewn by a parable from nature.

Matthew 6:22-23

22, 23. ὁλύχνος] as lighting and guiding the body and its members: not as containing light in itself. Similarly the inner light, the conscience, lights the spirit and its faculties, but by light supernal to itself.

ἁπλοῦς, clear, untroubled in vision, as the eye which presents a well-defined and single image to the brain. πονηρός, perverse, as the eye which dims and distorts the visual images. φωτεινὸς … σκοτεινός: in full light, as an object in the bright sunshine; in darkness, as an object in the deep shade. The comparison is found in Aristotle. Topic, i. 14 (Wets[81].), ὡςὄψιςἐνὀφθαλμῷ, νοῦςἐνψυχῇ: in Galen, and Philo de Mund. Opif.

[81] Wetstein.

εἰοὖνκ.τ.λ.] If then the LIGHT which is in thee is darkness, how dark must the be! i.e. ‘if the conscience, the eye and light of the soul, be darkened, in how much grosser darkness will all the passions and faculties be, which are of themselves naturally dark!’ The opposition is between τὸφῶς and τὸσκότος. This interpretation is borne out by the Vulgate: ‘Ipsæ tenebræ quantæ erunt!’ by Jerome: ‘Si sensus, qui lumen est, animæ vitio caligatur, ipsa putas caligo quantis tenebris obvolvetur!’ and by Chrysostom: ὅτανγὰρὁκυβερνήτηςὑποβρόχιοςγένηται, καὶὁλύχνοςσβεσθῇκαὶὁἡγεμὼναἰχμάλωτοςγένηται, ποίαλοιπὸνἔσταιτοῖςὑπηκόοιςἐλπίς: Hom. xx. 3, p. 264, and Euthymius: εἰοὖντὸφῶςτὸἐνσοί, ὅἐστινὁνοῦς, ὁδωρηθεὶςεἰςτὸφωτίζεινκαὶὁδηγεῖντὴνψυχήν, σκότοςἐστί, τουτέστινἐσκότισται, λοιπὸντὸσκότος, τὸἀπὸτῶνπαθῶν, πόσονἔσται, εἰςτὸσκοτίζειντὴνψυχήν, σκοτισθέντοςτοῦἀνατέλλοντοςαὐτῇφωτός. Augustine (de Serm. Dom. ii. c. 13 (46), vol. iii.) renders it similarly, but understands σκότος to refer to a different thing: ‘Si ipsa cordis intentio, qua facis quod facis, quæ tibi nota est, sordidatur appetitu rerum terrenarum … atque cæcatur: quanto magis ipsum factum, cujus incertus est exitus, sordidum et tenebrosum est!’ So too the Sy[82]. æt[83]. versions; and Erasm.: “Si ratio excæcata id judicat imprimis esse expetendum, quod vel contemnendum, vel neglectui habendum, in quas tenebras totum hominem rapiet ambitio reliquæque animi perturbationes, quæ suapte natura caliginem habent!”—Bucer, Luther. Stier expands this well, Reden Jesu, i. 208, edn. 2, “As the body, of itself a dark mass, has its light from the eye, so we have here compared to it the sensuous, bestial life (ψυχικόν) of men, their appetites, desires, and aversions, which belong to the lower creature. This dark region—human nature under the gross dominion of the flesh—shall become spiritualized, enlightened, sanctified, by the spiritual light: but if this light be darkness, how great must then the darkness of the sensuous life be!” The usual modern interpretation makes τὸσκότοςπόσον a mere expression of the greatness of the darkness thereby occasioned, and thus loses the force of the sentence.

[82] The Peschito (or simple) Syriac version. Supposed to have been made as early as the second century. The text as edited is in a most unsatisfactory state.

[83] The Æthiopic version. Assigned to the fourth century.

Matthew 6:24

24. And this division in man’s being cannot take place—he is and must be one—light or dark—serving God or Mammon.

δουλεύειν] Not merely ‘serve,’ but in that closer sense in which he who serves is the δοῦλος of, i.e. belongs to, and obeys entirely, ὁἸὼβπλούσιοςἦνἀλλʼ οὐκἐδούλευετῷμαμωνᾷ, ἀλλʼ εἶχεναὐτὸςκαὶἐκράτει, καὶδεσπότης, οὐδοῦλοςἦν. Chrysost. Hom. xxi. 1, p. 269. See Romans 6:16-17.

ἢγαρ … ἢ … is not a repetition; but the suppositions are the reverse of one another: as Meyer expresses it, ‘He will either hate A and love B, or cleave to A and despise B:’ ὁεἷς and ὁἕτερος keeping their individual reference in both members. μισεῖν and ἀγαπᾷν must be given their full meaning, or the depth of the saying is not reached: the sense ‘minus diligo, posthabeo’ (Bretschneider) for μισεῖν would not bring out the opposition and division of the nature of man by the attempt.

μαμωνᾷ] Chaldee, מָמוֹנָא, (from אָמַן, confisus est,) riches. ‘Congruit et Punicum nomen, nam lucrum Punice mammon dicitur.’ August, in loc. Mammon does not appear to have been the name of any Syrian deity, as Schleusner asserts. Tholuck has shewn that the idea rests only on the testimony of Papias, an obscure grammarian of the eleventh century. Schl. refers to Tertullian, who, however, says nothing of the kind (see adv. Marc. iv. 33, vol. ii. pp. 439 ff., which must be the place meant, but not specified by Schl.).

Matthew 6:25

25. διὰτοῦτο] A direct inference from the foregoing verse: the plainer, since μεριμνάω (the root being μερίζω) is ‘to be distracted,’ ‘to have the mind drawn two ways.’ The E. V., ‘Take no thought,’ does not express the sense, but gives rather an exaggeration of the command, and thus makes it unreal and nugatory. Be not anxious, would be far better. In Luke 12:29 we have μὴμετεωρίζεσθε, where see note. τῇψυχῇ = περὶτῆςψυχῆς, dat. commodi. See Matthew 6:28.

οὐχὶἡψ.] τοῦτοεἶπεδηλῶνὅτιὁτὸπλεῖονδοὺςἡμῖνκαὶτὸἔλαττονδώσει. πλεῖονδὲτὸμεῖζονλέγει. Euthymius.

Matthew 6:26

26. τὰπετ.] The two examples, of the birds and the lilies, are not parallel in their application. The first is an argument from the less to the greater; that our Heavenly Father, who feeds the birds, will much more feed us: the second, besides this application, which (Matthew 6:30) it also contains, is a reproof of the vanity of anxiety about clothing, which, in all its pomp of gorgeous colours, is vouchsafed to the inferior creatures, but not attainable by, as being unworthy of, us. Notice, it is not said, μὴσπείρετε—μὴθερίζετε—μὴσυνάγετε;—the birds are not our example to follow in their habits, for God hath made us to differ from them—the doing all these things is part of our πόσῳμᾶλλονδιαφέρετε, (Luke 12:24,) and increases the force of the à fortiori; but it is said, μὴμεριμνᾶτε—μὴμετεωρίζεσθε. τίγοῦνὠφελήσειςοὕτωςἐπιτεταμένωςμεριμνῶν; κἂνγὰρμυρίασπουδάσῃς, οὐδώσειςὑετὸνοὐδὲἥλιονοὐδὲπνοὰςἀνέμων, οἷςὁσπόροςκαρπογονεῖ. ταῦταγὰρὁθεὸςμόνοςδίδωσιν. Euthymius.

ὁπατὴρὑμῶν, not αὐτῶν:—thus by every accessory word does our Lord wonderfully assert the truths and proprieties of creation, in which we, his sons, are His central work, and the rest for us. τοῦοὐρ., and afterwards τοῦἀγροῦ, as Thol. remarks, are not superfluous, but serve to set forth the wild and uncaring freedom of the birds and plants. I may add,—also to set forth their lower rank in the scale of creation, as belonging to the air and the field. Who could say of mankind, οἱἄνθρωποιτοῦκόσμου? Thus the à fortiori is more plainly brought out.

Matthew 6:27

27. These words do not relate to the stature, the adding a cubit to which (= a foot and a half) would be a very great addition, instead of a very small one, as is implied here, and expressed in Luke 12:26, εἰοὖνοὐδὲἐλάχιστονδύνασθε, κ.τ.λ.,—but to the time of life of each hearer; as Theophylact on Luke 12:26, ζωῆςμέτραπαρὰμόνῳτῷθεῷ, καὶοὐκαὐτύςτιςἕκαστοςἑαυτῷὁριστὴςτῆςζωῆς. So Hammond, Wolf, Rosenm., Kuinoel, Olsh., De Wette, Meyer, Stier, Tholuck, &c. &c.: and the context seems imperatively to require it: for the object of food and clothing is not to enlarge the body, but to prolong life. The application of measures of space to time is not uncommon. See Psalms 39:5; Job 9:25; 2 Timothy 4:7. In Stobæus, xcviii. 13, we have cited from Mimnermus, ἡμεῖςδʼ οἷάτεφύλλαφύειπολυάνθεμοςὥρη | ἔαρος, ὅτʼ αἶψʼ αὐγὴαὔξεταιἠελίου, | τοῖςἴκελοι, πήχυιονἐπὶχρόνονἄνθεσινἥβης | τερπόμεθα.

Alcæus (Athen[84] x. 7) says, δάκτυλοςἁμέρα: and Diog. Laert. viii. 16 (Thol.) σπιθαμὴτοῦβίου.

[84] Athenagoras of Athens, 177

Matthew 6:28

28. καταμάθετε, implying more attention than ἐμβλέψατε: the birds fly by, and we can but look upon them: the flowers are ever with us, and we can watch their growth. These lilies have been supposed to be the crown imperial, (fritillaria imperialis, κρίνονβασιλικόν, Kaiserkrone,) which grows wild in Palestine, or the amaryllis lutea, (Sir J. E. Smith, cited by F. M.,) whose golden liliaceous flowers cover the autumnal fields of the Levant. Dr.

Thomson, “The Land and the Book,” p. 256, believes the Huleh lily to be meant: “it is very large, and the three inner petals meet above, and form a gorgeous canopy, such as art never approached, and king never sat under, even in his utmost glory. And when I met this incomparable flower, in all its loveliness, among the oak woods around the northern base of Tabor, and on the hills of Nazareth, where our Lord spent His youth, I felt assured that it was this to which He referred.” Probably, however, the word here may be taken in a wider import, as signifying all wild flowers. πῶς is not interrogative, but relative: how they grow.

Matthew 6:29

29. We here have the declaration of the Creator Himself concerning the relative glory and beauty of all human pomp, compared with the meanest of His own works. See 2 Chronicles 9:15-28. And the meaning hidden beneath the text should not escape the student. As the beauty of the flower is unfolded by the Divine Creator-Spirit from within, from the laws and capacities of its own individual life, so must all true adornment of man be unfolded from within by the same Almighty Spirit. See 1 Peter 3:3-4. As nothing from without can defile a man, (ch. Matthew 15:11,) so neither can any thing from without adorn him. Our Lord introduces with λέγωὑμῖν His revelations of omniscience: see ch. Matthew 18:10; Matthew 18:19.

Matthew 6:30

30. τὸνχόρτον] The wild flowers which form part of the meadow-growth are counted as belonging to the grass, and are cut down with it. Cut grass, which soon withers from the heat, is still used in the East for firing. See “The Land and the Book,” p. 341. The pres. part. denotes the habit. “κλίβανος, or Att. κρίβ., a covered earthen vessel, a pan, wider at the bottom than at the top, wherein bread was baked by putting hot embers round it, which produced a more equable heat than in the regular oven (ἰπνός), Herod, ii. 92: Aristoph. Vesp. 1153.” Wilkinson and Webster’s note.

Matthew 6:32

32. οἶδενγάρ] This 2nd γάρ brings in an additional reason: see Xen. Symp. iv. 55.

Matthew 6:33

33. ζητεῖτεπρῶτον] Not with any reference to seeking all these things after our religious duties, e.g. beginning with prayer days of avarice and worldly anxiety, but make your great object, as we say, your first care.

δικαιοσύνην] Not here the forensic righteousness of justification, but the spiritual purity inculcated in this discourse. τήνδικ. αὐτοῦ answers to ἡτελειότηςαὐτοῦ, spoken of in ch. Matthew 5:48, and is another reference to the being as our Heavenly Father is. In the Christian life which has been since unfolded, the righteousness of justification is a necessary condition of likeness to God; but it is not the δικ. αὐτ. here meant. ταῦταπάντα, these things, all of them—the emphasis being on the genus—all such things: πάνταταῦτα, all these things—‘the whole of the things mentioned’—the emphasis being on πάντα,—the fact that all without exception are included. See Winer, § 18. 4.

προστεθ.] There is a traditional saying of our Lord, αἰτεῖτετὰμεγάλα, καὶτὰμικρὰὑμῖνπροστεθήσεταικαὶαἰτεῖτετὰἐπουράνια, καὶτὰἐπίγειαπροστεθήσεταιὑμῖν. Fabric. Cod. Apocr. i. 329. (Meyer.)

Matthew 6:34

34. ἡγὰραὔρ.] for the morrow will care for it, viz. for ἡαὔριον mentioned above: i.e., will bring care enough about its own matters: implying,—“after all your endeavour to avoid worldly cares, you will find quite enough, and more of them when to-morrow comes, about to-morrow itself: do not then increase those of to-day by introducing them before their time.’ A hint, as is the following κακία, that in this state of sin and infirmity the command of Mat 6:31 will never be completely observed.

ἀρκετὸν—κακία: thus, οὐκἀγαθὸνπολυκοιρανίη, Il. β. 204. And the same construction frequently occurs, both in Greek and Latin authors.