Biblical commentary on the New Testament - The Christian ...

Matthew XII. 40-42. 467
adulterous generation. The recently attempted explanation of this
passage which understands the sign of Jonas to be his preaching to
the Ninevites (making v. 40 a misconception by Matthew of the
words of Jesus), springs from an utter mistaking of the entire con-
nection, and sufficiently refutes itself The Saviour's reference to
the history of Jonas contains finally a hint important to the biblical
interpreter for the explanation of that portion of the Old Testament
but with this we are not at present concerned. Jesus elsewhere
(Matth. xvi. 1, ff.) makes use of what occurred to Jonas, to compare
with it his resurrection. The three days and three nights must
be explained according to the Hebrew mode of speaking ; a vvxdi]-
uepov = bSt does not require that just three times twenty-four hours
should have elapsed. The Redeemer rested in the grave on three
days, and thereby fulfilled the prediction. The accuracy of Scrip-
ture never degenerates into minute and anxious precision. Like na-
ture, it combines regularity with freedom ; and hence it affords
scope to liberty, and states and fulfils all prophecies in such a manner
that they may either be believed, or contradicted. The Holy
Scriptures would altogether miss their aim if, by mathematical pre-
cision and strictness, they should compel belief. The parallel between
tv ry KoiXia rov Ki]rovg, in the belly of the ivhale, sea-monster,
and tv rrj Kagdia rijc; yTjg, in the hea7't of the earth, must not be overlooked.
The former words are a quotation from the LXX., which
translates hSti an, Jon. ii. 1, by Kijrog. The Kagdia = aV, signifies
the interior in general. The term seems unsuitable for expressing
repose in the grave ; nor is the parallel very appropriate. Might
not these words have a further reference to the condition of the
soul of Jesus after death ? (Compare Comment, on 1 Pet. iii. 19 ;
Ephes. iv. 8.) The words convey but intimations, and when spoken,
may not have been understood either by the Pharisees or by the
disciples—as was the case with so many other declarations, the full
meaning of which was opened to them only at a subsequent period.
Moreover, the Lord had not as yet distincly spoken of his death.
The whole, therefore, remained, as was proper, in enigmatical ob-
scurity ; it was for the present, as it were a hieroglyph, the deci-
phering of which was reserved for the future. One might say that
in such passages the Redeemer prophesies of and for himself; for,
although doubtless the whole great course of his work was laid open
before his soul when he began it by being baptized in the Jordan ;
it is yet not improbable, that its great individual incidents—especially
his death and all the details connected with it—were but
gradually brought with greater distinctness before his human con-
sciousness. The liistory of the transfiguration (Matth. xvii. 1, seq.)
seems to countenance this view. (Compare, for fuller remarks, the
Commentary.)
: