39—46.
269
43. Διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅτι ἀρθήσεται ἀφ ὑμῶν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ
Θεοῦ, καὶ δοθήσεται ἔθνει ποιοῦντι τοὺς καρποὺς αὐτῆς.
44. καὶ ὁ
πεσὼν ἐπὶ τὸν λίθον τοῦτον " συνθλασθήσεται: ἐφ ὃν 8 ἂν πέσῃ, «ΙΙ. xx.18
λικμήσει αὐτόν ''
1 45. Καὶ ἀκούσαντες οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ ota Lk xx. 18
Φαρισαῖοι τὰς παραβολὰς αὐτοῦ ἔγνωσαν ὅτι περὶ αὐτῶν λέγει" 46. καὶ {nrodvres αὐτὸν κρατῆσαι, ἐφοβήθησαν τοὺς ὄχλους,
ἐπειδὴ 3 ὡς ὃ προφήτην αὐτὸν εἶχον.
1 This whole ver. (44) is omitted in D, 33, old Latin versions, Orig., etc. Tisch. omits and W.H. bracket. Weiss regards it as genuine, and thinks that if it had come in from Lk. it would have stood after ver. 42.
3 ewer in NBDL 33.
consequence, but not in the same way, or to the same extent. The one is broken, hurt in limb; the other crushed to powder, which the winds blow away. —Aucpyjoe, from Ἀικμός, a winnowing fork, to winnow, to scatter to the winds, implying reduction to dust capable of being so scattered = grinding to powder (conteret, Vulg.). For the distinction taken in this verse, cf. chaps. xi. 6; xii. 31, 32.—Ver. 45. The priests and Pharisees of course perceived the drift of these parabolic speeches about the two sons, the vine-dressers, and the rejected stone, and (ver. 46) would have appre- hended Him on the spot (Lk. xx. το) had they not feared the people.—éwei, since, introducing the reason of the fear, same as in ver. 26.—eis προφήτην = as π., ver. 26, and in xiv. 5, also in reference to John. On this use of εἰς vide Winer, § 32, 4, ὃν
CHAPTER XXII. PARABLE OF ΤΗΕ WEDDING FEAST AND ENCOUNTERS WITH OPPONENTS.— Vv. 1-14. The royal wedding.—This parable is peculiar to Mt.; and while in some respects very suitable to the situation, may not un- reasonably be suspected to owe its place here to the evangelist’s habit of grouping kindred matter. The second part of the parable referring to the man without a wedding robe has noconnection with the present situation, or with the Pharisees who are supposed to be addressed. An- other question has been much discussed, viz., whether this parable was spoken by Jesus at all on any occasion, the idea of many critics being that it is a parable of Christ’s reconstructed by the evangelist or some other person, so as to make it cover the sin and fate of the Jews, the calling of the Gentiles, and the Divine demand for righteousness in all recipients of His grace. The resemblance between
δεις in NBL (Tisch., W.H.).
this parable and that of the Supper, in Lk. xiv. 16-24, is obvious. Assuming that Jesus uttered a parable of this type, the question arises: which of the two forms given by Mt. and Lk. comes nearer to the original? The general verdict is in favour of Luke’s. As to the question of the authenticity of Mt.’s parable, the mere fact that the two parables have a common theme and many features similar is no proof that both could not proceed from Jesus. Why should not the later parable be the same theme handled by the same Artist with variations so as to make it serve a different while connected purpose, the earlier being a parable of Grace, the later a parable of ¥udgment upon grace despised or abused? If the didactic aim of the two parables was as just in- dicated, the method of variation was preferable to the use of two parables totally unconnected. ‘* What is common gives emphasis to what is peculiar, and bids us mark what it is that is judged ” (The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, p. 463). The main objections to the authenticity of the parable are its allegorical character, and its too distinct anticipation of history. The former ob- jection rests on the assumption that Jesus uttered no parables of the allegorical type. On this, vide remarks on the parable of the Sower, chap. xiii.