40<\/strong>. Thou that destroyest the temple<\/em> ] This is the mockery of the Jewish populace, who have caught up the charges brought against Jesus before the Sanhedrin. The taunts of the soldiers are named by St Luke alone: “If thou be the King of the Jews, save thyself” (Mat 23:37<\/span>).<\/p>\n Thou that destroyest the temple … – <\/B>Meaning, Thou that didst boast that thou couldst do it. This was one of the things that had been falsely charged on him. It was intended for painful sarcasm and derision. If he could destroy the temple, they thought he might easily come down from the cross.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 40. Thou that destroyest<\/B><\/I>] Who didst pretend that thou couldst have destroyed the temple, and built it up again in three days. This malicious torturing of our Lord’s words has been noticed before. Cruelty<\/I> is obliged to take refuge in lies<\/I>, in order to vindicate its infamous proceedings.<\/P> <\/P> If thou be the Son of God<\/B><\/I>] Or rather, A son of<\/I> God<\/I>, i.e. a peculiar favourite of the Most-High; not , THE Son of God<\/I>. “It is not to be conceived,” says a learned man, “that every passenger who was going to the city had a competent knowledge of Christ’s supernatural conception by the Holy Spirit, or an adequate comprehension of his character as the<\/I> Messiah, and (‘ ) THE SON OF GOD. There is not a single passiage where Jesus<\/I> is designed to be pointed out as the MESSIAH, THE SON OF GOD, where the article<\/I> is omitted: nor, on the other hand, is this designation ever specified without<\/I> the article<\/I>, thus, ‘ . See Mt 16:16<\/span>; Mt 26:63<\/span>; Mt 28:19<\/span>.”<\/P> <\/p>\n And saying, thou that destroyest the temple<\/strong>,…. The Vulgate Latin, and Munster’s Hebrew Gospel, read, “the temple of God”; and add “ah!” here, as in Mr 15:29<\/span>, and so Beza says it is read in a certain copy. They refer to the charge of the false witnesses against him, who misrepresenting his words in Joh 2:19<\/span>, declared that he gave out that he was able to destroy the temple of Jerusalem, and rebuild it in three days time; wherefore it is added,<\/p>\n and buildest it in three days, save thyself<\/strong>. They reproach him with it, and suggest, that these were vain and empty boasts of his; for if he was able to do any thing of that kind, he need not hang upon the tree, but could easily save himself:<\/p>\n if thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross<\/strong>. The Jews themselves say a that the following words were said to Jesus on the cross,<\/p>\n “if thou be the Son of God, why dost thou not deliver thyself out of our hands?”<\/p>\n As Satan before them, they put an “if” upon the sonship of Christ: and seeing his followers believed in him as the Son of God, and he had owned himself to be so before the sanhedrim, they require a sign of it by his power, and to do that which they believed no mere man in his situation could do; which shows, that they had no other notion of the Son of God, but that he was a divine person: but his sonship was not to be declared by his coming down from the cross, which he could have easily effected, but by a much greater instance of power, even by his resurrection from the dead; and no other but that sign was to be given to that wicked and perverse generation.<\/p>\n a Toldos Jesu, p. 17.<\/p>\n If thou art the Son of God <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). More exactly, “If thou art a son of God,” the very language of the devil to Jesus (Mt 4:3<\/span>) in the early temptations, now hurled at Jesus under the devil’s prompting as he hung upon the Cross. There is allusion, of course, to the claim of Jesus under oath before the Sanhedrin “the Son of God” ( <\/SPAN><\/span>) and a repetition of the misrepresentation of his words about the temple of his body. It is a pitiful picture of human depravity and failure in the presence of Christ dying for sinners. <\/P> <\/p>\n 40. Thou who destroyedst the temple. They charge Christ with teaching falsehood, because, now that it is called for, he does not actually display the power to which he laid claim. But if their unbridled propensity to cursing had not deprived them of sense and reason, they would shortly afterwards have perceived clearly the truth of his statement. Christ had said, <\/p>\n Destroy this temple, and after three days I will raise it up, (Joh 2:19<\/span>\ud83d\ude09 <\/p>\n but now they indulge in a premature triumph, and do not wait for the three days that would elapse from the commencement of its destruction. Such is the daring presumption of wicked men, when, under the pretense of the cross, they endeavor to cut them off from the hope of the future life. “Where,” say they, “is that immortal glory of which weak and credulous men are accustomed to boast? while the greater part of them are mean and despised, some are slenderly provided with food, others drag out a wretched life, amidst uninterrupted disease; others are driven about in flight, or in banishment; others pine away in prisons, and others are burnt and reduced to ashes?” Thus are they blinded by the present corruption of our outward man, so as to imagine that the hope of the future restoration of life is vain and foolish but our duty is to wait for the proper season of the promised building, and not to take it ill if we are now crucified with Christ, that we may afterwards be partakers of his resurrection, (Rom 6:5<\/span>.) <\/p>\n If thou art the Son of God. Wicked men demand from Christ such a proof of His power that, by proving himself to be the Son of God, he may cease to be the Son of God. He had clothed himself with human flesh, and had descended into the world, on this condition, that, by the sacrifice of his death, he might reconcile men to God the Father. So then, in order to prove himself to be the Son of God, it was necessary that he should hang on the cross. And now those wicked men affirm that the Redeemer will not be recognized as the Son of God, unless he come clown from the cross, and thus disobey the command of his Father, and, leaving incomplete the expiation of sins, divest himself of the office which God had assigned to him. But let us learn from it to confirm our faith by considering that the Son of God determined to remain nailed to the cross for the sake of our salvation, until he had endured most cruel torments of the flesh, and dreadful anguish of soul, and even death itself. And lest we should come to tempt God in a manner similar to that in which those men tempted him, let us allow God to conceal his power, whenever it pleases Him to do so, that he may afterwards display it at his pleasure at the proper time and place. The same kind of depravity appears in the other objection which immediately follows: — <\/p>\n (40) Thou that destroyest the temple.<\/strong>Our Lord had not been formally condemned on this charge, the evidence being insufficient, but it had clearly impressed itself on the minds of the people, and was probably that which most worked upon them to demand His death. The other words, If thou be the Son of God, referred to the actual condemnation on the ground of blasphemy (Mat. 26:64-65<\/span>). We may reverently think of the form of the taunt as having recalled that of the Temptation in the Wilderness. Then, as now, the words If thou be the Son of God were as a challenge from the Power of Evil. Now, as then, they were met by the strength of Faith. To accept the challenge would have been to show that He did not trust the Father, just as it would have been not faith, but want of faith, to have cast Himself from the pinnacle of the Temple, and therefore to disown His Sonship in the very act of claiming it.<\/p>\n 40<\/strong>. <\/strong> Thou that destroyest <\/em> Our Saviour’s real words did not express the destroying <\/em> the temple, but rebuilding <\/em> it if they destroyed it. There is a beautiful innocence in the words, which they have to pervert before they can make them condemnable. See note on Mat 26:21<\/span>. Save thyself <\/em> <\/em> Here is their strong argument. The people who had shouted but a day or two ago, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” now plainly see their mistake. If this man were divine, the Messiah, the Son of God, he would certainly never have been caught and crucified. So the chief priests are after all right, and this man is an impostor. See note on Mat 26:51<\/span>. The fact that he is crucified is proof that he ought to be crucified. So are men worshippers of success. Come down from the cross <\/em> All his miracles, his lessons, and the perfection of his character, go for nothing unless he perform this test miracle. Let him show his superiority over his enemies, assert his power, and save his own life. If he does not, then he is so far from being the Messiah that he is justly crucified for maintaining himself to be so.<\/p>\n Mat 27:40<\/span> , Euthymius Zigabenus. We should not fail to notice the parallelism in both the clauses (in opposition to Fritzsche, who puts a comma merely after , and supposes that in both<\/em> instances the imperative is conditioned by ), , . . . being parallel to . ., and to .<\/p>\n , . . .] is an allusion to Mat 26:61<\/span> . For the use of the present<\/em> participle in a characterizing<\/em> sense ( the destroyer<\/em> , etc.), comp. Mat 23:37<\/span> . The allegation of the witnesses, Mat 26:61<\/span> , had come to be a matter of public<\/em> talk, which is scarcely to be wondered at considering the extraordinary nature of it.<\/p>\n Observe, moreover, that here<\/em> the emphasis is on (comp. Mat 4:3<\/span> ), while in Mat 27:43<\/span> it is on .<\/p>\n 40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it<\/em> in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 40. And saying, Thou that, &c.<\/strong> ] Dogs will be barking at the moon (as these dead dogs do here at the Sun of righteousness), At peragit cursus surda Diana suos.<\/em> Christ goes on with the work, nothing retarded by their jeers and buffooneries. Didicit ille maledicere et ego contemnere, <\/em> said he in Tacitus, Non tantum habemus otii, P. C., <\/em> said Augustus to the senate, when they informed him of what such and such had said against him, We are not at leisure to listen to every slight slander raised of us. And of Severus the emperor it is recorded, that his care was, what was to be done by him, not what was said or censured of him. a<\/em> “Do well and hear ill,” is written upon heaven’s gates, said that martyr. Railers are to be reckoned kill-Christs: words may more afflict than blows, Psa 42:3<\/span> ; Psa 42:10<\/span> . As “with a murdering weapon in my bones,” &c.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n a<\/em> , . Dio. <\/p>\n 40. <\/strong> <\/strong> ] Notice the characterizing present participle, as , ch. Mat 4:3<\/span> : thou puller down of.<\/p>\n Mat 27:40<\/span> . ( cf.<\/em> , Mat 23:37<\/span> ), this and the other taunts seem to be echoes of words said to or about Jesus at the trial, of which a report has already gone abroad among the populace. Whether the saying about destroying the temple was otherwise known can only be a matter of conjecture. . .: Jesus had confessed Himself to be the Son of God at the trial (Mat 26:64<\/span> ). : the God of this world and all men of the world have but one thought as to Sonship; of course it means exceptional privilege<\/em> . What can a Son of God have to do with a cross?<\/p>\n Thou that, &c. Perverting the Lord’s words (Joh 2:19). Compare Mat 6:18. <\/p>\n the Son of God. App-98. <\/p>\n from = off. Greek. apo. App-104. Same as in w. 42, 45, 55, 64. <\/p>\n 40. ] Notice the characterizing present participle, as , ch. Mat 4:3 : thou puller down of.<\/p>\n Mat 27:40. , …, saying, etc.) Seven scoffs of His enemies may be counted.[1197]- , in three days) Yea, it was already now the first of them.-, save) They use in mockery the name of Jesus; then that of The Son of God, and that of King, Mat 27:42-43, and His own words, Mat 27:40.- , if thou art the Son of God) cf. ch. Mat 4:3.<\/p>\n [1197] The most heinous robber, when visited with capital punishment, is scarcely ever reviled besides; but the Son of GOD, when hanging on the cross, is most bitingly insulted by word of mouth and by writing, on the part of the rulers and the common people-the Jews, as well as also the Gentiles.-Harm., p. 568.<\/p>\n saying: Gen 37:19, Gen 37:20, Rev 11:10 <\/p>\n that destroyest: Mat 26:61, Luk 14:29, Luk 14:30, Joh 2:19-22 <\/p>\n If: Mat 27:54, Mat 4:3, Mat 4:6, Mat 26:63, Mat 26:64 <\/p>\n come: Mat 16:4, Luk 16:31 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: 2Ki 2:23 – Go up Job 16:4 – shake mine Psa 14:6 – Ye Psa 22:7 – shake Psa 109:25 – when they Psa 119:42 – So shall Oba 1:12 – looked Mat 12:40 – so Mat 27:43 – I am Mar 14:57 – and bare Mar 15:29 – they Luk 2:34 – for a Joh 1:34 – this Joh 11:37 – Could Act 4:27 – the people 2Co 1:19 – the Son<\/p>\n 7:40<\/p>\n To blaspheme means to speak evil, whether in direct falsehood or otherwise. The preceding verse says they reviled him which means to blaspheme, and the present verse tells us some of the false things they said. Jesus never said he would destroy the temple (Joh 2:19), hence this was one of the blasphemous falsehoods they uttered against him. IF thou be the Son of God denotes they understood what was the real issue between Jesus and his enemies. It was not about his personal life nor his knowledge, but it was his identity. That is why the devil dwelt on that question in the temptations (chapter 4:3, 6), and why Jesus asked the question stated in chapter 16:13, 15 and 22:42. All the other questions and facts in the life of Christ are important only in so far as they pertain to the fundamental claim that he is God’s Son.<\/p>\n Mat 27:40. Thou that destroyest the temple, etc. The testimony before the Sanhedrin (chap. Mat 26:61) was taken up by the citizens of Jerusalem, who were proud of their temple. Such taunting of one executed has been repeated often enough, and does not, in itself, show that these spectators were worse than the mass of men.<\/p>\n Save thyself. Power to destroy the temple implies power to do this.<\/p>\n If thou art the Son of God. Another reference to the proceedings before the Sanhedrin (chap. Mat 26:64). The taunt is in a poetic form (Hebrew parallelism); and the crowds at an execution in the east are said to give vent to their feelings in this way still. Mark gives the same taunt in different words, and it was no doubt uttered in many different ways. Luke says (Mat 23:35): the people stood beholding. It appears therefore that the derision of the people was by no means so malignant as that of the rulers. But their taunts were especially ungrateful.<\/p>\n And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest [it] in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. 40. Thou that destroyest the temple ] This is the mockery of the Jewish populace, who have caught up the charges brought against Jesus before the Sanhedrin. The … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 27:40”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24158","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24158","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24158"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24158\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24158"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24158"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24158"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"