{"commentary":{"id":"jamieson-fausset-brown","name":"Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary","website":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamieson-Fausset-Brown_Bible_Commentary","licenseUrl":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/","licenseNotes":null,"licenseNotice":null,"englishName":"Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary","language":"eng","textDirection":"rtl","sha256":"db3d4c8b3c1f32ef9d1430a57392e02bda3a17aac1f9bbe398461de021a3cb13","availableFormats":["json"],"listOfBooksApiLink":"/api/c/jamieson-fausset-brown/books.json","listOfProfilesApiLink":"/api/c/jamieson-fausset-brown/profiles.json","numberOfBooks":66,"totalNumberOfChapters":1187,"totalNumberOfVerses":17056,"totalNumberOfProfiles":0,"languageName":"English","languageEnglishName":"English"},"book":{"id":"MAT","commentaryId":"jamieson-fausset-brown","name":"Matthew","commonName":"Matthew","introduction":"THE author of this Gospel was a publican or tax gatherer, residing at Capernaum, on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. As to his identity with the \"Levi\" of the second and third Gospels, and other particulars, see on Mat 9:9. Hardly anything is known of his apostolic labors. That, after preaching to his countrymen in Palestine, he went to the East, is the general testimony of antiquity; but the precise scene or scenes of his ministry cannot be determined. That he died a natural death may be concluded from the belief of the best-informed of the Fathers--that of the apostles only three, James the Greater, Peter, and Paul, suffered martyrdom. That the first Gospel was written by this apostle is the testimony of all antiquity.\n\nFor the date of this Gospel we have only internal evidence, and that far from decisive. Accordingly, opinion is much divided. That it was the first issued of all the Gospels was universally believed. Hence, although in the order of the Gospels, those by the two apostles were placed first in the oldest manuscripts of the Old Latin version, while in all the Greek manuscripts, with scarcely an exception, the order is the same as in our Bibles, the Gospel according to Matthew is \"in every case\" placed first. And as this Gospel is of all the four the one which bears the most evident marks of having been prepared and constructed with a special view to the Jews--who certainly first required a written Gospel, and would be the first to make use of it--there can be no doubt that it was issued before any of the others. That it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem is equally certain; for as HUG observes [Introduction to the New Testament, p. 316, FOSDICK'S translation], when he reports our Lord's prophecy of that awful event, on coming to the warning about \"the abomination of desolation\" which they should \"see standing in the holy place,\" he interposes (contrary to his invariable practice, which is to relate without remark) a call to his readers to read intelligently--\"Whoso readeth, let him understand\" (Mat 24:15) --a call to attend to the divine signal for flight which could be intended only for those who lived before the event. But how long before that event this Gospel was written is not so clear. Some internal evidences seem to imply a very early date. Since the Jewish Christians were, for five or six years, exposed to persecution from their own countrymen--until the Jews, being persecuted by the Romans, had to look to themselves--it is not likely (it is argued) that they should be left so long without some written Gospel to reassure and sustain them, and Matthew's Gospel was eminently fitted for that purpose. But the digests to which Luke refers in his Introduction (see on Luk 1:1) would be sufficient for a time, especially as the living voice of the \"eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word\" was yet sounding abroad. Other considerations in favor of a very early date--such as the tender way in which the author seems studiously to speak of Herod Antipas, as if still reigning, and his writing of Pilate apparently as if still in power--seem to have no foundation in fact, and cannot therefore be made the ground of reasoning as to the date of this Gospel. Its Hebraic structure and hue, though they prove, as we think, that this Gospel must have been published at a period considerably anterior to the destruction of Jerusalem, are no evidence in favor of so early a date as A.D. 37 or 38--according to some of the Fathers, and, of the moderns, TILLEMONT, TOWNSON, OWEN, BIRKS, TREGELLES. On the other hand, the date suggested by the statement of IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 3.1], that Matthew put forth his Gospel while Peter and Paul were at Rome preaching and founding the Church--or after A.D. 60--though probably the majority of critics are in favor of it, would seem rather too late, especially as the second and third Gospels, which were doubtless published, as well as this one, before the destruction of Jerusalem, had still to be issued. Certainly, such statements as the following, \"Wherefore that field is called the field of blood unto this day\" (Mat 27:8); \"And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day\" (Mat 28:15), bespeak a date considerably later than the events recorded. We incline, therefore, to a date intermediate between the earlier and the later dates assigned to this Gospel, without pretending to greater precision.\n\nWe have adverted to the strikingly Jewish character and coloring of this Gospel. The facts which it selects, the points to which it gives prominence, the cast of thought and phraseology, all bespeak the Jewish point of view from which it was written and to which it was directed. This has been noticed from the beginning, and is universally acknowledged. It is of the greatest consequence to the right interpretation of it; but the tendency among some even of the best of the Germans to infer, from this special design of the first Gospel, a certain laxity on the part of the Evangelist in the treatment of his facts, must be guarded against.\n\nBut by far the most interesting and important point connected with this Gospel is the language in which it was written. It is believed by a formidable number of critics that this Gospel was originally written in what is loosely called Hebrew, but more correctly Aramaic, or Syro-Chaldaic, the native tongue of the country at the time of our Lord; and that the Greek Matthew which we now possess is a translation of that work, either by the Evangelist himself or some unknown hand. The evidence on which this opinion is grounded is wholly external, but it has been deemed conclusive by GROTIUS, MICHAELIS (and his translator), MARSH, TOWNSON, CAMPBELL, OLSHAUSEN, CRESWELL, MEYER, EBRARD, LANGE, DAVIDSON, CURETON, TREGELLES, WEBSTER and WILKINSON, &c. The evidence referred to cannot be given here, but will be found, with remarks on its unsatisfactory character, in the Introduction to the Gospels prefixed to our larger Commentary, pp. 28-31.\n\nBut how stand the facts as to our Greek Gospel? We have not a title of historical evidence that it is a translation, either by Matthew himself or anyone else. All antiquity refers to it as the work of Matthew the publican and apostle, just as the other Gospels are ascribed to their respective authors. This Greek Gospel was from the first received by the Church as an integral part of the one quadriform Gospel. And while the Fathers often advert to the two Gospels which we have from apostles, and the two which we have from men not apostles--in order to show that as that of Mark leans so entirely on Peter, and that of Luke on Paul, these are really no less apostolical than the other two--though we attach less weight to this circumstance than they did, we cannot but think it striking that, in thus speaking, they never drop a hint that the full apostolic authority of the Greek Matthew had ever been questioned on the ground of its not being the original. Further, not a trace can be discovered in this Gospel itself of its being a translation. MICHAELIS tried to detect, and fancied that he had succeeded in detecting, one or two such. Other Germans since, and DAVIDSON and CURETON among ourselves, have made the same attempt. But the entire failure of all such attempts is now generally admitted, and candid advocates of a Hebrew original are quite ready to own that none such are to be found, and that but for external testimony no one would have imagined that the Greek was not the original. This they regard as showing how perfectly the translation has been executed; but those who know best what translating from one language into another is will be the readiest to own that this is tantamount to giving up the question. This Gospel proclaims its own originality in a number of striking points; such as its manner of quoting from the Old Testament, and its phraseology in some peculiar cases. But the close verbal coincidences of our Greek Matthew with the next two Gospels must not be quite passed over. There are but two possible ways of explaining this. Either the translator, sacrificing verbal fidelity in his version, intentionally conformed certain parts of his author's work to the second and third Gospels--in which case it can hardly be called Matthew's Gospel at all--or our Greek Matthew is itself the original.\n\nMoved by these considerations, some advocates of a Hebrew original have adopted the theory of a double original; the external testimony, they think, requiring us to believe in a Hebrew original, while internal evidence is decisive in favor of the originality of the Greek. This theory is espoused by GUERICKS, OLSHAUSEN, THIERSCH, TOWNSON, TREGELLES, &c. But, besides that this looks too like an artificial theory, invented to solve a difficulty, it is utterly void of historical support. There is not a vestige of testimony to support it in Christian antiquity. This ought to be decisive against it.\n\nIt remains, then, that our Greek Matthew is the original of that Gospel, and that no other original ever existed. It is greatly to the credit of DEAN ALFORD, that after maintaining, in the first edition of his Greek Testament the theory of a Hebrew original, he thus expresses himself in the second and subsequent editions: \"On the whole, then, I find myself constrained to abandon the view maintained in my first edition, and to adopt that of a Greek original.\"\n\nOne argument has been adduced on the other side, on which not a little reliance has been placed; but the determination of the main question does not, in our opinion, depend upon the point which it raises. It has been very confidently affirmed that the Greek language was not sufficiently understood by the Jews of Palestine when Matthew published his Gospel to make it at all probable that he would write a Gospel, for their benefit in the first instance, in that language. Now, as this merely alleges the improbability of a Greek original, it is enough to place against it the evidence already adduced, which is positive, in favor of the sole originality of our Greek Matthew. It is indeed a question how far the Greek language was understood in Palestine at the time referred to. But we advise the reader not to be drawn into that question as essential to the settlement of the other one. It is an element in it, no doubt, but not an essential element. There are extremes on both sides of it. The old idea, that our Lord hardly ever spoke anything but Syro-Chaldaic, is now pretty nearly exploded. Many, however, will not go the length, on the other side, of HUG (in his Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 326, &c.) and ROBERTS (\"Discussions of the Gospels,\" &c., pp. 25, &c.). For ourselves, though we believe that our Lord, in all the more public scenes of His ministry, spoke in Greek, all we think it necessary here to say is that there is no ground to believe that Greek was so little understood in Palestine as to make it improbable that Matthew would write his Gospel exclusively in that language--so improbable as to outweigh the evidence that he did so. And when we think of the number of digests or short narratives of the principal facts of our Lord's history which we know from Luke (Luk 1:1-4) were floating about for some time before he wrote his Gospel, of which he speaks by no means disrespectfully, and nearly all of which would be in the mother tongue, we can have no doubt that the Jewish Christians and the Jews of Palestine generally would have from the first reliable written matter sufficient to supply every necessary requirement until the publican-apostle should leisurely draw up the first of the four Gospels in a language to them not a strange tongue, while to the rest of the world it was the language in which the entire quadriform Gospel was to be for all time enshrined. The following among others hold to this view of the sole originality of the Greek Matthew: ERASMUS, CALVIN, BEZA, LIGHTFOOT, WETSTEIN, LARDNER, HUG, FRITZSCHE, CREDNER, DE WETTE, STUART, DA COSTA, FAIRBAIRN, ROBERTS.\n\nOn two other questions regarding this Gospel it would have been desirable to say something, had not our available space been already exhausted: The characteristics, both in language and matter, by which it is distinguished from the other three, and its relation to the second and third Gospels. On the latter of these topics--whether one or more of the Evangelists made use of the materials of the other Gospels, and, if so, which of the Evangelists drew from which--the opinions are just as numerous as the possibilities of the case, every conceivable way of it having one or more who plead for it. The most popular opinion until recently--and perhaps the most popular still--is that the second Evangelist availed himself more or less of the materials of the first Gospel, and the third of the materials of both the first and second Gospels. Here we can but state our own belief, that each of the first three Evangelists wrote independently of both the others; while the fourth, familiar with the first three, wrote to supplement them, and, even where he travels along the same line, wrote quite independently of them. This judgment we express, with all deference for those who think otherwise, as the result of a close study of each of the Gospels in immediate juxtaposition and comparison with the others. On the former of the two topics noticed, the linguistic peculiarities of each of the Gospels have been handled most closely and ably by CREDNER [Einleitung (Introduction to the New Testament)], of whose results a good summary will be found in DAVIDSON'S Introduction to the New Testament. The other peculiarities of the Gospels have been most felicitously and beautifully brought out by DA COSTA in his Four Witnesses, to which we must simply refer the reader, though it contains a few things in which we cannot concur. \n\n\n\nNext: Matthew Chapter 1\n\n","order":40,"numberOfChapters":28,"sha256":"85230502f7845520bbf6f2983f2d40076dbb901c7feac0d1cfa0d62c8b7d54f8","firstChapterNumber":1,"firstChapterApiLink":"/api/c/jamieson-fausset-brown/MAT/1.json","firstChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"jamieson-fausset-brown","book":"MAT","chapter":1},"lastChapterNumber":28,"lastChapterApiLink":"/api/c/jamieson-fausset-brown/MAT/28.json","lastChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"jamieson-fausset-brown","book":"MAT","chapter":28},"totalNumberOfVerses":525},"chapter":{"number":9,"content":[{"type":"verse","number":10,"content":["And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house--The modesty of our Evangelist signally appears here. Luke says (Luk 5:29) that \"Levi made Him a great feast,\" or \"reception,\" while Matthew merely says, \"He sat at meat\"; and Mark and Luke say that it was in Levi's \"own house,\" while Matthew merely says, \"He sat at meat in the house.\" Whether this feast was made now, or not till afterwards, is a point of some importance in the order of events, and not agreed among harmonists. The probability is that it did not take place till a considerable time afterwards. For Matthew, who ought surely to know what took place while his Lord was speaking at his own table, tells us that the visit of Jairus, the ruler of the synagogue, occurred at that moment (Mat 9:18). But we know from Mark and Luke that this visit of Jairus did not take place till after our Lord's return, at a later period from the country of the Gadarenes. (See Mar 5:21, &c., and Luk 8:40, &c.). We conclude, therefore, that the feast was not made in the novelty of his discipleship, but after Matthew had had time to be somewhat established in the faith; when returning to Capernaum, his compassion for old friends, of his own calling and character, led him to gather them together that they might have an opportunity of hearing the gracious words which proceeded out of His Master's mouth, if haply they might experience a like change. \n\nbehold, many publicans and sinners--Luke says, \"a great company\" (Luk 5:29) --came and sat down with him and his disciples. In all such cases the word rendered \"sat\" is \"reclined,\" in allusion to the ancient mode of lying on couches at meals.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":11,"content":["And when the Pharisees--\"and scribes,\" add Mark and Luke (Mar 2:6; Luk 5:21). \n\nsaw it, they said--\"murmured\" or \"muttered,\" says Luke (Luk 5:30). \n\nunto his disciples--not venturing to put their question to Jesus Himself. \n\nWhy eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?--(See on Luk 15:2).\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":12,"content":["But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them--to the Pharisees and scribes; addressing Himself to them, though they had shrunk from addressing Him. \n\nThey that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick--that is, \"Ye deem yourselves whole; My mission, therefore, is not to you: The physician's business is with the sick; therefore eat I with publicans and sinners.\" Oh, what myriads of broken hearts, of sin-sick souls, have been bound up by this matchless saying!\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":13,"content":["But go ye and learn what that meaneth-- (Hos 6:6), \n\nI will have mercy, and not sacrifice--that is, the one rather than the other. \"Sacrifice,\" the chief part of the ceremonial law, is here put for a religion of literal adherence to mere rules; while \"mercy\" expresses such compassion for the fallen as seeks to lift them up. The duty of keeping aloof from the polluted, in the sense of \"having no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness,\" is obvious enough; but to understand this as prohibiting such intercourse with them as is necessary to their recovery, is to abuse it. This was what these pharisaical religionists did, and this is what our Lord here exposes. \n\nfor I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance--The italicized words are of doubtful authority here, and more than doubtful authority in Mar 2:17; but in Luk 5:32 they are undisputed. We have here just the former statement stripped of its figure. \"The righteous\" are the whole; \"sinners,\" the sick. When Christ \"called\" the latter, as He did Matthew, and probably some of those publicans and sinners whom he had invited to meet Him, it was to heal them of their spiritual maladies, or save their souls: \"The righteous,\" like those miserable self-satisfied Pharisees, \"He sent empty away.\"\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":27,"content":["TWO BLIND MEN AND A DUMB DEMONIAC HEALED. (Mat 9:27-34)\n\nAnd when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him--hearing, doubtless, as in a later case is expressed, \"that Jesus passed by\" (Mat 20:30). \n\ncrying, and saying, Thou son of David, have mercy on us--It is remarkable that in the only other recorded case in which the blind applied to Jesus for their sight, and obtained it, they addressed Him, over and over again, by this one Messianic title, so well known--\"Son of David\" (Mat 20:30). Can there be a doubt that their faith fastened on such great Messianic promises as this, \"Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened,\" &c. (Isa 35:5)? and if so, this appeal to Him, as the Consolation of Israel, to do His predicted office, would fall with great weight upon the ears of Jesus.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":28,"content":["And when he was come into the house--To try their faith and patience, He seems to have made them no answer. But \n\nthe blind men came to Him--which, no doubt, was what He desired. \n\nand Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? they said unto him, Yea, Lord--Doubtless our Lord's design was not only to put their faith to the test by this question, but to deepen it, to raise their expectation of a cure, and so prepare them to receive it; and the cordial acknowledgment, so touchingly simple, which they immediately made to Him of His power to heal them, shows how entirely that object was gained.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":29,"content":["Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you--not, Receive a cure proportioned to your faith, but, Receive this cure as granted to your faith. Thus would they carry about with them, in their restored vision, a gracious seal of the faith which drew it from their compassionate Lord.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":30,"content":["And their eyes were opened: and Jesus straitly charged them--The expression is very strong, denoting great earnestness.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":31,"content":["But they, when they were departed, spread abroad his fame in all that country--(See on Mat 8:4).\n\nA Dumb Demoniac Healed (Mat 9:32-34).\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":32,"content":["As they went out, behold, they brought to him a dumb man possessed with a devil--\"demonized.\" The dumbness was not natural, but was the effect of the possession.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":33,"content":["And when the devil--demon. \n\nwas cast out, the dumb spake--The particulars in this case are not given; the object being simply to record the instantaneous restoration of the natural faculties on the removal of the malignant oppression of them, the form which the popular astonishment took, and the very different effect of it upon another class. \n\nand the multitudes marvelled, saying, It was never so seen in Israel--referring, probably, not to this case only, but to all those miraculous displays of healing power which seemed to promise a new era in the history of Israel. Probably they meant by this language to indicate, as far as they thought it safe to do so, their inclination to regard Him as the promised Messiah.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":34,"content":["But the Pharisees said, He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils--\"the demons through the prince of the demons.\" This seems to be the first muttering of a theory of such miracles which soon became a fixed mode of calumniating them--a theory which would be ridiculous if it were not melancholy as an outburst of the darkest malignity. (See on Mat 12:24, &c.).\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":35,"content":["THIRD GALILEAN CIRCUIT--MISSION OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. (Mat. 9:35-10:5)\n\nAnd Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people--The italicized words are of more than doubtful authority here, and were probably introduced here from Mat 4:23. The language here is so identical with that used in describing the first circuit (Mat 4:23), that we may presume the work done on both occasions was much the same. It was just a further preparation of the soil, and a fresh sowing of the precious seed. (See on Mat 4:23). To these fruitful journeyings of the Redeemer, \"with healing in His wings,\" Peter no doubt alludes, when, in his address to the household of Cornelius, he spoke of \"How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil: for God was with Him\" (Act 10:38).\n\nJesus Compassionating the Multitudes, Asks Prayer for Help (Mat 9:36-38). He had now returned from His preaching and healing circuit, and the result, as at the close of the first one, was the gathering of a vast and motley multitude around Him. After a whole night spent in prayer, He had called His more immediate disciples, and from them had solemnly chosen the twelve; then, coming down from the mountain, on which this was transacted, to the multitudes that waited for Him below, He had addressed to them--as we take it--that discourse which bears so strong a resemblance to the Sermon on the Mount that many critics take it to be the same. (See on Luke 6:12-49; and Mat 5:1, Introductory Remarks). Soon after this, it should seem, the multitudes still hanging on Him, Jesus is touched with their wretched and helpless condition, and acts as is now to be described.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":36,"content":["But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted--This reading, however, has hardly any authority at all. The true reading doubtless is, \"were harassed.\" \n\nand were scattered abroad--rather, \"lying about,\" \"abandoned,\" or \"neglected.\" \n\nas sheep, having no shepherd--their pitiable condition as wearied under bodily fatigue, a vast disorganized mass, being but a faint picture of their wretchedness as the victims of pharisaic guidance; their souls uncared for, yet drawn after and hanging upon Him. This moved the Redeemer's compassion.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":37,"content":["Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous--His eye doubtless rested immediately on the Jewish field, but this he saw widening into the vast field of \"the world\" (Mat 13:38), teeming with souls having to be gathered to Him. \n\nbut the labourers--men divinely qualified and called to gather them in.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":38,"content":["Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest--the great Lord and Proprietor of all. Compare Joh 15:1, \"I am the true vine, and My Father is the husbandman.\" \n\nthat he will send forth labourers into his harvest--The word properly means \"thrust forth\"; but this emphatic sense disappears in some places, as in Mat 9:25, and Joh 10:4 --\"When He putteth forth His own sheep.\" (See on Mat 4:1).\n\n\n\n\nNext: Matthew Chapter 10\n\n"]}],"introduction":"MATTHEW'S CALL AND FEAST. ( = Mar 2:14-17; Luk 5:27-32). (Mat 9:9-13)\n\nAnd as Jesus passed forth from thence--that is, from the scene of the paralytic's cure in Capernaum, towards the shore of the Sea of Galilee, on which that town lay. Mark, as usual, pictures the scene more in detail, thus (Mar 2:13): \"And He went forth again by the seaside; and all the multitude resorted unto Him, and He taught them\"--or, \"kept teaching them.\" \"And as He passed by\" \n\nhe saw a man, named Matthew--the writer of this precious Gospel, who here, with singular modesty and brevity, relates the story of his own calling. In Mark and Luke he is called Levi, which seems to have been his family name. In their lists of the twelve apostles, however, Mark and Luke give him the name of Matthew, which seems to have been the name by which he was known as a disciple. While he himself sinks his family name, he is careful not to sink his occupation, the obnoxious associations with which he would place over against the grace that called him from it, and made him an apostle. (See on Mat 10:3). Mark alone tells us (Mar 2:14) that he was \"the son of AlphÃ&brvbrus\"--the same, probably, with the father of James the Less. From this and other considerations it is pretty certain that he must at least have heard of our Lord before this meeting. Unnecessary doubts, even from an early period, have been raised about the identity of Levi and Matthew. No capable jury, with the evidence before them which we have in the Gospels, would hesitate in giving a unanimous verdict of identity. \n\nsitting at the receipt of custom--as a publican, which Luke (Luk 5:27) calls him. It means the place of receipt, the toll house or booth in which the collector sat. Being in this case by the seaside, it might be the ferry tax for the transit of persons and goods across the lake, which he collected. (See on Mat 5:46). \n\nand he saith unto him, Follow me--Witching words these, from the lips of Him who never employed them without giving them resistless efficacy in the hearts of those they were spoken to. \n\nAnd he--\"left all\" (Luk 5:28), \"arose and followed him.\"\n\nThe Feast (Mat 9:10-13).\n\n"},"thisChapterLink":"/api/c/jamieson-fausset-brown/MAT/9.json","thisChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"jamieson-fausset-brown","book":"MAT","chapter":9},"nextChapterApiLink":"/api/c/jamieson-fausset-brown/MAT/10.json","nextChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"jamieson-fausset-brown","book":"MAT","chapter":10},"previousChapterApiLink":"/api/c/jamieson-fausset-brown/MAT/8.json","previousChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"jamieson-fausset-brown","book":"MAT","chapter":8},"numberOfVerses":16}