was supplied with guests.]—σvvyayov] is probably a translation of the Aram. root D which in the Piel means to "gather," and in the Hiphil to "bring in," to "invite." The subst. no means hospitality, e.g. D'n noon, Shabb 127, Peah, c. i. Tovnpous prepares the way for vv.11-14 —πονηρούς τε καί] τε και 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 (2182), had rejected the Messiah (v.39), and had neglected the summons to the marriage feast (225). Consequently, judgement upon them was at hand. Another people would receive their privileges (2143 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 153a, 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.] — ouk évdeduμévov] cf. οὐκ Moulton, pp. 231 f.-beáraσba] cf. on 117.

12. And he saith to him, Friend, how camest thou in here not L having a wedding garment? And he was reduced to silence.]— Taîpe] See on 2013.

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

mingle. In the parable the rejected guest was dismissed from the palace with ignominy. But the editor has in mind the fulfilment 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 filment. For Tò σKÓTOS, K.T.λ, 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 11-13 are 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, 1324-80. 86-48, and that of the Virgins, 251-13. 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 κλŋToί and κεκλημένοι, 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"; "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.

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.]

18. 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 ovpßoúliov čλaßov, 1214. Mt. substitutes παγιδεύειν for Mk.'s ἀγρεύειν. He retains here, unusually, Mk.'s historic present, ἀποστέλλουσιν. He had omitted the Herodians from Mk 3o, 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.16 brings together the two positive sentences followed by the two negative ones.—Tηv odòv Toû beoû] for odov, 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 δῶμεν ἢ μὴ δῶμεν. For Tí σo Soκe, see on 1725. For Mt.'s omission of the redundant "shall we give or not give," see on 816; and for kvσos, 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 ὑπόκρισιν, but adds ὑποκριταί,

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 idei§are misses the point. See Swete. For poor pépew, see Introduction, p. lxxxvi.

ατε

20. And He saith to them, Whose is this representation and M legend? They say to Him, Caesar's.] Mk. has: "And He saith to them, Whose is this representation and legend? And they said to Him, Cæsar's." For Tóre, see 27.

M

M

M

21. Then He saith to them, Render therefore to Cæsar the things of Caesar, and to God the things of God.] So Mk., with "And Jesus said" and no ovv, which occurs in Mk. about four times as against about fifty-six occurrences in Mt. For the meaning, see Swete.

22. And they heard (it), and marvelled, and left Him, and departed.] Mk. has: "And they were marvelling at Him."baúμaσav] aor. for Mk.'s imperfect, as often.

15-22. Lk. agrees with Mt. in omitting Spev μǹ dŵμev from Mk v.14; in Seiέare Lk 24 Mt 19 éπideísare against Mt 16 pépeTE; and in the order ἀπόδοτε—τὰ Καίσαρος as against Mk.'s τὰ Καίσαρος ἀπόδοτε. Also in αὐτοῖς, Mt 21 = πρὸς αὐτούς, 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 ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, see 131; προσῆλθον, see on 43. Mt. avoids Mk.'s hist. pres. pxovтal, as often.— Teрúrησav] 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 öri—iva there is a confusion of two constructions, and the threefold adeλpós obscures the meaning. Mt. substitutes Tus for tivos ådeλpós, thus getting rid of one ἀδελφός, omits the superfluous ἵνα, omits the unnecessary καὶ καταλίπῃ γυναῖκα, and substitutes the technical ἐπιγαμβρεύειν for λáßy: cf. Gn 388 yáμßpevoraι avrýv. In Lv 1816 2021 marriage with a deceased brother's wife is forbidden. But Dt 255-10 specifies certain circumstances under which it shall be the duty of a man to contract such a marriage.—μǹ ëxwv тékva] The Heb. has simply "son," i.e. male issue. But the LXX has σrépμa, and Jos. (Ant. iv. 255) interpreted in this sense.

1

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

M

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."

27. And last of all, the woman died.] So Mk. with coxarov for ὕστερον. Mt. seven times has ὕστερον.

28. In the resurrection, therefore, of which of them shall she be

1 In Dt 255 LXX has κal σvvolkýσei avtŷ for App), but Aq. has (xal) éwiyaμβρεύσει (αυτήν).

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 (ovv).

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; (b) 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 90. Appeal was made on behalf of it to Scripture, e.g. in B. Sanh 90b 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 3116, 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."

30. 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 ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ. Mk. has ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, 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.