Page images


mingle. In the parable the rejected guest was dismissed from the palace with ignominy. But the editor has in mind the sulfilment of the parable in the expulsion of the unworthy from the kingdom into the darkness of Gehenna, cf. 1341. 42, and gives the ending of the parable in terms more appropriate to its explanation

and fu lilment. For tò okótos, K.T.d, see on 812. L 14. For many are called, but few chosen.] Vv.11-14 do not seem

to suit this connection. The editor has added them apparently because of the similarity of subject matter, a wedding feast 1-10, a wedding garment 11-14. Vv.1-10' in this connection seem clearly prophetic of the fate of the Jewish nation. That is to say, this application is given to the parable by the context into which the editor has set it. But vv.11-14 seem to have no bearing upon this application, unless we suppose that the editor found in the verses some such train of thought as the following. The Jews as a nation would be punished for their rejection of God's call by the destruction of their national polity, vv.1-9. Their privileges would be given to other people, v.10; but though the invitation would be given to all, none would be admitted without the proper qualification, 11-14 It seems clear that the parable from which 11-18 taken originally had reference not to the Jewish nation at all

, but to the Christian society waiting for the coming kingdom. During this period the disciples were to be in a state of readiness, because when the kingdom came all who were not prepared would be rejected. Compare the parable of the Tares, 1324-30. 86-43, and that of the Virgins, 251-18 The wedding garment obviously symbolises

. a condition of readiness and equipment with the necessary quali fication. What this is need not be further defined than by saying that it is the righteousness obtained by obedience to Christ's teaching, 520; or by doing the will of God, 721; or the moral qualifications which Christ recommends, 183; or confession of Him before men, 1032 V.14 seems to express this warning in a proverbial form. Many are called to enter the kingdom, but comparatively few obtain the necessary qualifications, and are ultimately admitted. The words, though they express the same lesson of warning as vv. 11-13, do not seem very harmonious in form with them. They may be a detached saying added here by the editor because of the verbal connection between klytoi and KekAnuévol, vv.3. 4. The contrast between the few and the many is found in 2 Es 81 “The Most High hath made this world for many, but the world to come for few”; 8 “There be many created, but few shall be saved”; cf. 855 “ the multitude of them that perish”; 915 “there shall be more of them which perish, than of them which shall be saved”; Apoc. Bar 4415 "the dwelling of the rest who are many will be in the fire.”

1 Cf. on 619 187.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

15-22. From Mk 1213-17. See Gould in loc.

15. Then the Pharisees went and took counsel how they might M entrap Him in argument.]

16. And they send to Him their disciples with the Herodians, M saying, Teacher, we know that Thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, and carest not for any man; for Thou regardest not the person of men.] Mk. has: “And they send to Him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, that they might ensnare Him in argument. And they came and say to Him, Teacher, We know that Thou art true, and carest not for any man; for Thou regardest not the person of men, but truly teachest the way of God.” In Mk. the “they” must refer to the chief priests and elders and scribes, who have not been mentioned by name since 1127 Mt., who throughout regards the Pharisees as the most bitter of Christ's opponents, and lays stress on their hostility, has inserted chief priests and Pharisees in 2145, and reintroduces them here as the subject of the sentence. For τότε, see on 27. For πορευθέντες, see on 212; and for ovußoúlcov člaßov, 1214. Mt. substitutes παγιδεύειν for Mk.’s αγρεύειν. He retains here, unusually, Mk.'s historic present, årooté Movoiv. He had omitted the Herodians from Mk 39, but retains them here because their presence adds point to the narrative. As supporters of Herod, they would have been glad to denounce to the Roman Government any one who agitated against the political status quo. The rearrangement of clauses in v.18 brings together the two positive sentences followed by the two negative ones. - Tv odòv toll 0600] for ódov, see on 2181. The way of God is the conduct or manner of life which God requires.

17. Tell us, therefore, What thinkest Thou? Is it lawful to give M tribute to Cæsar or not?] Mk. omits the first clause, and adds δωμεν ή μη δωμεν. For τί σοι δοκεί, see on 1725. For Mt.'s omission of the redundant “shall we give or not give," see on 816 ; and for kavoos, 1725.

18. And Jesus perceived their malice, and said, Why tempt ye m Me, ye hypocrites?] Mk. has: “And He knew (eidus) their

] hypocrisy, and said to them, Why tempt ye Me?” Mt. substitutes πονηρίαν for υπόκρισιν, but adds υποκριται.

19. Show to Me the tribute coin. And they brought to Him a M denarius.] Mk. has: “Bring Me a denarius, that I may see it. And they brought (one)." Mk.'s pépere may be due to the fact that Roman denarii would not be current in the Temple, and were, therefore, not likely to be found there. If so, Mt. with his midelare misses the point. See Swete. For mpoo Dépelv, see Introduction, p. Ixxxvi.

20. And He saith to them, Whose is this representation and M legend? They say to Him, Cæsar's.] Mk. has : “And He saith

] . “ to them, Whose is this representation and legend? And they said to Him, Cæsar's." For tóte, see 27.


M 21. Then the saith to them, Render therefore to Cesar the things

of Cæsar, and to God the things of God.] So Mk., with “And Jesus said” and no oủv, which occurs in Mk. about four times as against

about fifty-six occurrences in Mt. For the meaning, see Swete. M 22. And they heard (it), and marvelled, and left Him, and

departed.] Mk. has: "And they were marvelling at Him."— ébavuacav] aor. for Mk.'s imperfect, as often.

15-22. Lk. agrees with Mt. in omitting Suev û den Suev from Mk v.14 ; in δείξατε Lk 24 = Mt 19 επιδείξατε against Mt 16 φέρετε; and in the order απόδοτε-τα Καίσαρος as against Mk.'s τα Καίσαρος απόδοτε. Also in αυτοίς, Mt 21 = προς αυτούς, Lk 25.

23-33. From Mk 1218-27.

23. On that day there came to Him Sadducees, saying that there is no resurrection, and they asked Him.] Mk. has: "And there come Sadducees to Him, who say that there is no resurrection; and they were asking Him.” For εν εκείνη τη ημέρα, see 13'; προσήλθον, see on 4%. Mt. avoids Mk.'s hist. pres. ép xortal, as often.—

êtrepórnoav] Mt. avoids Mk.'s imperf., as often. M 24. Saying, Teacher, Moses said, If a man die, not having

children, his brother should marry his wife, and raise up seed to his brother.] Mk. has : "Saying, Teacher, Moses wrote for us, that if a man's brother die, and leave a wife, and leave no child, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed to his brother." Mk.'s Greek is awkward. In čypayev óti-iva there is a confusion of two constructions, and the threefold iseloos obscures the meaning. Mt. substitutes tis for Tivos ådelpós, thus getting rid of one ádelpós, omits the superfluous iva, omits the unnecessary kai καταλίπη γυναίκα, and substitutes the technical επιγαμβρεύειν for Außy: 1 cf. Gn 388 yaußpevoal atrýv. In Lv 1810 2021 marriage with a deceased brother's wife is forbidden. But Dt 256-10 specifies certain circumstances under which it shall be the duty of a man to contract such a marriage.un èxwv tékva] The Heb. has simply "son," i.e. male issue. But the LXX has onépua, and

Jos. (Ant. iv. 255) interpreted in this sense. M 25. And there were with us seven brethren; and the first, having

married, died, and not having seed, left his wife to his brother.] Mk. has: “Seven brethren there were; and the first took a wife,

and died, and left no seed." M 26. Likewise the second, and the third, to the seventh.] Mk.

has : “And the second took her, and died, not leaving seed. And

the third likewise. And the seven left no seed." M 27. And last of all, the woman died.] So Mk. with čo xatov for

ύστερον. Mt. seven times has ύστερον. M 28. In the resurrection, therefore, of which of them shall she be wife, for all had her?] Mk. has: "In the resurrection, of which of them shall she be wife, for the seven had her as wife?” Mt. avoids Mk.'s repeated "seven” and “wife,” and inserts a connecting particle (ouv).

1 In Dt 256 LXX has kai ouvoiKÝo el aútî for App!), but Aq. has (Kal) étiyajo Bpevo el (a thr).

29. And Jesus answered and said to them, Ye err, not knowing M the Scriptures, nor the power of God.] Mk. has: "Jesus said to them, Do ye not therefore err," etc. Christ's answer is twofold. In denying the possibility of a resurrection, and in supposing that imaginary complications arising out of earthly relationships could be used as an argument against it, they betrayed (a) insufficient knowledge of the law, which, if it did not explicitly teach the doctrine of the resurrection, yet did implicitly teach its possibility; (6) want of faith in the power of God to solve all such difficulties as they alleged. Broadly speaking, a belief in a resurrection was a fundamental doctrine of Jewish literature from the second century B.C. See Charles, Eschatology; Volz, Jüd. Eschat. 240 ff. ; Schürer, 11. ii. 179 ff. But very varied views were held as to its scope. The Sadducees denied it; see Jos. Wars, ii. 165; B. Sanh 90b. So did the Samaritans, who were accused by the Jews of having falsified the Pentateuch in order to obliterate passages which taught it; Sanh 906. Appeal was made on behalf of it to Scripture, e.g. in B. Sanh 906 R. Jochanan appeals to Nu 1828, from which it is deduced that Aaron is eternally living : “Here is also the resurrection of the dead signified." R. Simai appealed to Ex 64 “The Sadducees asked R. Gamaliel, Whence is it proved that the Holy One, blessed be He, will raise the dead? He answered, From the Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa.” There follow citations of Dt 3110, Is 2619, and Ca 710. "He has no part in the world to come,” says the Mishnah (Sanh 101), “who denies that the resurrection can be proved from the Pentateuch.”

80. For in the resurrection they do not marry, nor are given in M marriage, but are as angels in heaven.'] Mk. has: "For when they rise from the dead they do not marry, nor are given in marriage ; but are as angels in the heavens.” The point seems to be that, in the life which follows the resurrection, men will then be as the angels in heaven now are, immortal, and without need of marriage to propagate their kind.

31, 32. But concerning the resurrection of the dead, Have ye M not read that which was said to you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of dead (persons), but of living.] The inference seems to be that when the words were spoken the patriarchs were still

1 εν τω ουρανό. Mk. has εν τοις ουρανοίς, and the plural would accord with the usage of the first Gospel. Cf. 2429. 36 1810. Mk 1332 has the singular in this connection, and Mt. there substitutes the plural, so that the singular in 2280 is all the more unexpected.

living, and that their resurrection was a natural and probable corollary. Cf. the similar inference from Nu 1828 with reference to Aaron, quoted above from Sanh 90b. Mk. has : “But concerning the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, at the Bush how God spake to him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob? He is not God of dead persons, but of living: ye greatly err." The quota

tion is from Ex 38. M 33. And when the multitudes heard, they were astonished at His

teaching.] The editor inserts here words which he has omitted from Mk 1118 “For all the multitude was astonished at His teaching."

23–33. Lk. agrees with Mt. against Mk. in the following:
προσήλθον, Mt 23 = προσελθόντες, Lk 27 και έρχονται, Mk 18.
επηρώτησαν, Mt 23, Lk 27 ; επηρώτων, Mk 18
ύστερον, Mt 27, Lk 32 ; έσχατον, Mk 22.
είπεν, Mt 29, Lk 34 ; έφη, Mk 4.

Both Mt 28 and Lk 83 insert oủv, and both omit craßev aúrnu, και απέθανεν μη καταλιπών σπέρμα from Mk 21.

23. Néyoutes] So & B DalS? S? ("and they say ”). The meaning seems to be that certain Sadducees came and denied ihat there was a resurrection. N« E F al have ol Négoutes; but with this reading we should expect also ol Σαδδουκαίοι. .

30. áryeloi] Add deod, & L. Omit B D 1 209 latt S' S.

34-40. Cf. Mk 1 228-34. E 34. And the Pharisees, having heard that He had silenced the

Sadducees, were gathered together.]
E 35. And one of them asked Him, testing Him.]

Mk. here records the story of a scribe who, approving of Christ's answers, himself asked a question, and expressed great approval of the answer which he received. The story ends with a statement of Christ's appreciation of the character of His questioner. In Mt. the incident takes a different turn. The Pharisees gather together, and one of them puts a question to Christ, testing Him. The whole of Mk.'s continuation of the narrative after Christ's answer is omitted. It is difficult to see in the continual mention of the Pharisees in Mt. any other purpose than a desire to prepare the way for the chapter of denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees which is to follow in ch. 23.

Cf. 2145 “the chief priests and the Pharisees,” 2215 “the Pharisees,” 84 “the Pharisees,” 41 "the Pharisees.” This may account for the unfavourable view taken here of Mk.'s scribe. He was a Pharisee, and came to Christ with hostile intent. Consequently the approval expressed of him by Christ must be dropped, and with it goes what may have seemed to the editor the somewhat patronising words of the scribe in Mk 1232. 83. Cf. the omission

« PreviousContinue »