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

Matthew XVI. 14-16. 545
to their Messianic expectations. The supposed reappearance in
Christ of one of the ancient prophets is doubtless to be understood
of a belief on the part of the Jews in their actual resurrection, not
of the reappearance of their souls in his person (according to the
doctrine of iierentpuxcjoig or ne-eioo)iidTO)oig). For since, according to
Jewish opinion, the Jlrst resurrection (see on Luke xiv. 14, com-
pared with Kev. xx. 5) was connected with the appearance of the
Messiah (his first appearance in humiliation not being dissevered
from his second in glory, but associated with it as the prophets do),
and the setting up of his kingdom, so the idea very readily suggested
itself that forerunners of the resurrection would precede that
mighty period. From no express statements of the Old Testament,
except in the case of Elias, did the opinion derive any su^jport, for
unless violence were done to it, the reference to the j)assage, Isaiah
Hi. 6, seq., is inapplicable. In the New Testament also there is
nothing to favour it (see however, on Moses and Elias at Matth.
xvii. 4), and we can attribute it therefore only toKabbinical legends.
Around the person of Jeremiah especially there had gathered a circle
of traditions (comp. 2 Maccab. ii. 7, 8 ; xv.l4) ; they termed him, by
way of eminence, Trpocprj-rig rod Qeov, prophet of God. Isaiah was also
named among the forerunners of the Messiah, 4 Esra ii. 18. (Comp..
on all connected with this, Berthold Christ. Jud. § 15, p. 58, seq.)
Ver. 15, 16.—Alongside of these opinions of the people re-
specting Jesus, is presented that of the disciples. They declare
him to be the Xptorog = h-sM, Messiah, himself, and thus dissever
themselves from the popular views, which held him to be a. fore-
runner of the Messiah. How far, however, it was this confession of
Jesus as the Messiah which gave occasion to the following words of
Christ, i-iaKapiog el k. t. A., blessed art thou, etc., is not very obvious,
for they were already spoken respecting the disciples when they first
attached themselves to Jesus. (John i. 41, 42.) The whole relation
of the Saviour to his disciples, which must be viewed as implying
an ever advancing development, requires that in this case, their
confession should have been fuller and more complete than before.
For the understanding then of this remarkable passage, Matthew is
specially important, who, though deficient in graphic portraiture,
yet, with all his simplicity and plainness, shews frequently great
profoundness of conception. Thus, after Xptcrrof, Christ, he adds,
by way of 'explanation, 6 vilx; rov Qeov rov ^covrog, the Son of the
living God. This remark is most important in tracing the meaning
of the expression the Son of God. For obviously, the expression
cannot be precisely identical with Xpca-og, since in that case there
would arise a tautology. Its aim must rather be to determine with
more exactness the import of XpiarS^. The natural explanation,,
therefore, is this—at first the disciples, in acknowledging Christ
Vol. I.—35