Page images


another that this is the heir ; come, let us kill him, and ours shall be the inheritance.-εν εαυτοίς] Mk. has προς εαυτούς. Mt. avoids após in this sense ; cf. v.25, and 167 = Mk gi6.

39. And they took him, and cast him outside the vineyard, and M killed him.] Mk. has : “And they took him, and killed him, and cast him outside the vineyard.” Mt., with the history of the Passion in his mind, reverses Mk.'s second and third clauses. Christ was crucified outside the city. See on Lk 2015.

40, 41. When, therefore, the lord of the vineyard shall come, what M will he do to those husbandmen? They say to him, He will evilly destroy the evil ones, and will give the vineyard to other husbandmen, who will render to him the fruits at their seasons.] Mk. has : “What will the lord of the vineyard do?

He will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others.” In Mk. Christ Himself answers the rhetorical question. Mt. places the answer in the mouth of the rulers, that they themselves, as in v.31, may pronounce their own condemnation. This change involves others. Mk.'s abrupt ti moLÝCEL Ó Kúplos Toll

τί ποιήσει ο κύριος του åutteloos must now, as an independent sentence, be rounded off by the anticipation of όταν ούν έλθη, and by the addition of εκείνοις, which had been omitted from Mk? In v.41 kakoÙS KakÛs takes the place of ελεύσεται, which has been transferred to v.40; έκδώσεται, , cf. (deto, v.83, takes the place of Sucel, and a clause is added to round off the sentence. For the phraseology, cf. Ps 18.

42. Jesus saith to them, Did you never read in the Scriptures, M The stone which the builders rejected, this became the head of the corner : from the Lord was this, and it is marvellous in our eyes ?] So Mk., without “Jesus saith to them,” and with “Did you not read this Scripture,” for Mt.'s “Did you never read in the Scriptures.” The quotation is from the LXX of Ps 11722 aütn corresponds to the Heb. neutral pronoun not. “This” means this fact, that the rejected stone became the head of the corner.

43. Therefore I say to you, That the kingdom of God shall be E taken from you, and shall be given to a nation which produceth its fruits.] The words do not occur in Mk. They are an expository comment of the editor. The parable carries forward the thought of the preceding section. The Jewish rulers had adopted towards the Baptist a policy of non-recognition, which involved them in doubts as to the authority of Christ as the Messiah, vv.23-32. Their action was typical and prophetic. They had at all times disobeyed the messengers of God, and were on the point of putting to death the Messiah, the Son of God, and His final Messenger to them. Consequently the divine favour, the kingdom = the vineyard, would be withdrawn from them and given to others. Vv. 41-42 express the same thought under another metaphor. The stone which the builders of Israel, that is, the Jewish authorities, rejected would

become the chief stone in another building. The edifice of Israel's national life was to give place to another building ; cf. 1618 oikoδομήσω μου την εκκλησίαν.-η βασιλεία του θεού] Since the parable as a whole is clearly taken from Mk., there is every reason to suppose that this verse, which is not in Mk., is an editorial comment on the meaning of the parable. The vineyard was to be taken from the Jewish nation; but what term could the editor substitute for the vineyard? What he wished to express was, no doubt, the privileged position of the Jews as the recipients of a divine revelation. But this was just what the Rabbinical writers express by “the sovereignty of the heavens.” When a heathen became a proselyte, and was incorporated into the privileged Jewish people, he was said to take upon himself the sovereignty of the heavens ; see Dalman, Words, p. 97. We might therefore have expected the editor to use the phrase βασιλεία των ουρανών. But since he has throughout the Gospel employed this term for the eschatological kingdom which Christ announced, and which was to be inaugurated when the Son of Man came upon the clouds of heaven, it would have been unsuitable here. For that kingdom had never been the possession of the Jewish rulers, and could not be taken from them. The phrase βασιλεία του θεού, in the sense current among the Jews of the 1st century A.D., of sovereignty of God, seemed more suitable here; and the editor, by using it, once more betrays his Jewish origin, and emphasises his sense of the difference between this phrase in his Gospel and the more frequent Basilela tûv oúpavôv. See on 1228 and 2191, and Introduction, p. lxvii. — ČOve) the conception of the Christian society as an Ovos occurs only here in the Gospel. It has twice been called an ékkinoia, 1617 1817. The word is probably here suggested by

the idea of the Jewish nation, implied in the ypôv. E? 44. And every one who falleth upon this stone shall be dashed in pieces : but upon whomsoever it shall


, it shall scatter him as dust.] The words do not occur in Mk. The stone of v.42 seems to have suggested the stone of Is 814. 15 and the stone of Dn 234. 44-45. The verse apparently means that the rejection of the Messiah, “the son " of v.37 and “the stone" of v., would involve the complete break up of the Jewish polity.--.exuñoa) is borrowed from Dn 24 (Th.), and is used in the same sense as in that passage, namely, to break into small pieces, or to scatter as dust; see Deissm. Bib. Stud. p. 225. See also Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, p. 208.

The verse is omitted by D 33 a beff12 S?It may perhaps be an interpolation from Lk 2018, where the saying occurs in the form πας και πεσών επ' εκείνον τον λίθον, κ.τ.λ. But the verse as it stands in Mt. looks very much like an early gloss, suggested by v.43. That verse seems to be an editorial interpretation of the meaning of the parable. The vineyard was to be given to others, v.41. That is to

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

say, the privileges of the Jewish nation, entrusted to it by God, were to be taken from it and given to others. The editor describes these privileges as “the kingdom of God,” by which he probably means the whole of the special revelation vouchsafed to the Jewish nation. He could hardly have used the term "the kingdom of the heavens,” because he everywhere employs this term to signify the kingdom announced by Christ as coming in the near future. Here the parable necessitates the use of a term to describe some privilege, corresponding to the vineyard, already in the possession of the Jewish nation. It is not very probable that after 'thus interpreting the parable and closing the narrative the editor would have added v.44, which carries the thought back again to v.42 But a later copyist of the Gospel has been reminded by the word ?Ovel (v.43) of a passage in Dn 244 where it is said that the kingdom shall not be left to another people, η βασιλεία αυτού λαώ ετέρω ουκ υπολειφθήσεται, Τh. και αυτη η βασιλεία άλλο έθνος ου μη έάση, LΧΧ. Whilst considering this contrast, his eye was caught by the next clause in Dn., λεπτυνει και λικμήσει πάσας τας βασιλείας. This afforded him the nucleus of an explanatory gloss, v.44, which he has built up out of Dn 245 (Th.), Is 814. 15. How, then, are we to explain Lk 2018? It is natural to say that, if not genuine in Mt., the history of the saying begins with Lk 2018, whence it has been transferred to Mt. But, if I am not mistaken, the history of the clause begins rather with Mt 2148. It was the Ovel of that verse which directed attention to the “other nation ” of Dn 244, and so to the dekuńoel of that passage. It is improbable that the original editor of Mt. inserted v. 44, but it may have been interpolated at a very early date, and may have been read as part of the first Gospel by the author of the third. Or it may have passed from the first Gospel into the third at so early a date that no hint of its spuriousness there is given by the extant witnesses to the text of that Gospel. There is, of course, no reason why the same glossator should not have inserted the words in both Gospels.

45. And the chief priest and the Pharisees heard His parables, M and perceived that He speaks about them.]

46. And seeking to arrest Him, they feared the multitudes, since M they held Him for a prophet.] Mk. has: "They were seeking to arrest Him, and feared the multitude: for they perceived that He spoke the parable with reference to them. And leaving Him, they went away.” Mt., who has another parable to insert, omits the last clause. Mt.'s slight changes of Mk. are intentional. eyvwoav yap in Mk. explains not the immediately preceding clause, but itúrovv aútòv kparñoa. Mt. places the clauses in logical order : (a) the motive," they perceived that He spoke about them”; (6) the consequent action, "seeking to arrest Him”; (c) the hindrance, "they feared the people.” Then to maintain the external form of Mk.'s

[ocr errors]

sentence, he adds another clause stating the ground of époßhongav. -öxnovs) as often, for Mk.'s singular. eis a popýtnu, according to Wellhausen, is Aramaic. We should expect ús, as in v.26.

33-46. Mt. and Lk. agree against Mk. in the following particulars. Both have the order άνθρωπος έφύτευσεν αμπελώνα, Mt 83, Lk 20'. Both insert oi yewypoi, Mt 85, Lk 10. Both insert idóvres, Mt 38, Lk 14. Both insert oủv, Mt 40, Lk 16. Both insert oi ápxiepeis, Mt 45, Lk 19 More important is the fact that Lk. also inserts words almost identical with Mt 44 If Mt 44 be genuine, this agreement might seem to suggest a second source. But since in other respects the texts of Mt. and Lk. read like the result of independent redaction of Mk., it is better to suppose that Lk. had read Mt., and that the agreements just mentioned are due to reminiscence by Lk. of Mt.'s version of the parable.

The editor here adds a parable from the Logia. E XXII. 1. And Jesus answered again, and spake in parables to

them, saying, L 2. The kingdom of the heavens is likened to a human king, who

made a marriage for his son.] For Growwon, see on 1324 For

ανθρώπω βασιλεί, 1823. L 3. And sent his servants to call the invited (guests) to the

marriage: and they were unwilling to come.] L 4. Again, he sent other servants, saying, Say to the invited

(guests), Behold, my feast I have prepared: my oxen and fatlings are slaughtered, and all things are ready: come to the marriage.]

For the double sending, cf. 2 136. L 5, 6. And they, neglecting (the invitation), went away, one to his E estate, and one to his business: and the rest seized his servants,

and ill-treated them, and killed them.]—idov] here = the possessive

pronoun; see Deissm. Bib. Stud. 123. E 7. And the king was angry, and sent his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burnt up their city.]

6, 7. These verses may be due to the editor writing in remembrance of the death of the Baptist, the Crucifixion of the Messiah, the persecution of the Apostles, and the destruction of Jerusalem. V.8 follows well upon v... ok hoav ūčiou suits the indifferent guests of v.5 much better than the executed murderers of v.7. The verse expresses the editor's belief in the connection between the fall of Jerusalem and the Parousia. The marriage feast here

follows the burning of the city. L 8. Then he saith to his servants, The marriage feast is ready,

but the invited (guests) were not worthy.] L 9. Go therefore to the byways, and as many as ye shall find,

invite to the marriage.]-dietódous tûv odôv] Cf. Hdt. i. 199. L 10. And those servants went out into the highways, and gathered

all whom they found, both evil and good: and the marriage feast was supplied with guests.]-ouvyayov) is probably a translation of the Aram. root DJ which in the Piel means to gather,” and in the Hiphil to “bring in,” to “invite.” The subst. Dan means hospitality, e.g. D'on no337, Shabb 1274, Peah, c. i. Trovnpoús prepares the way for vv. 11-14. ---Konpoús te kal] te kaí only here in Mt., te occurs also in 2748 2812.

1-10. So far the editor has adapted a Logian “kingdom ” parable to his context. In the original parable the story of a king who made a marriage feast and invited guests who were indifferent to the invitation, was used to describe the reception accorded to the good news of the coming kingdom of the heavens. By inserting vv.6-7 the editor has adapted this, and brought it into line with Mark's parable of the Husbandmen, and the preceding parable of the Two Sons. The Jewish nation in the person of its rulers had refused to listen to God's call to repentance (2132), had rejected the Messiah (v.8), and had neglected the summons to the marriage feast (226). Consequently, judgement upon them was at hand. Another people would receive their privileges (214 2210), whilst the Jewish metropolis, and with it the Jewish polity, would be destroyed, 227. The next four verses seem to be the closing paragraph of another parable. They are hardly suitable here as a conclusion of vv.1-10, because the people invited in from the streets could hardly be expected to have provided themselves with festal attire. The parable to which 11-14 originally belonged no doubt spoke of an interval between the invitation and the feast, during which the guests were expected to make suitable preparations.

Such a parable is attributed to Jochanan ben Zaccai in B. Shabbath 1534, and to Judah ha Nasi in Midr. Koh 98 (Wünsche, p. 122). A king invited his servants to a feast, but gave

them no fixed time for the meal. The wise attired themselves fittingly, and waited at the palace door. The foolish went away to their work. Suddenly the king issued his summons. The wise came in their festal robes, and the foolish in their working clothes. These were made to stand and watch the wise enjoying the meal. Lk 1415-24 has a parable of similar outline to Mt 221-10. But the language and details are quite different. The two Evangelists clearly are not borrowing from the same written source.

11. And the king went in to behold the guests, and saw there L a man not attired in a wedding garment.] – oúk évdevuévov] cf. Moulton, pp. 231 f.-Oedoao bai] cf. on 17.

12. And he saith to him, Friend, how camest thou in here not L having a wedding garment? And he was reduced to silence. &Taipe] See on 2018.

13. Then the king said to the servants, Bind him feet and hands, L and cast him out into the outer darkness ; there shall be the wailing and the gnashing of teeth.] Parable and fulfilment here inter

« PreviousContinue »