272
κ Lk. xxiii, 11. εἰσελθὼν δὲ 6 βασιλεὺς "θεάσασθαι τοὺς ἀνακειμένους εἶδεν
55-
ἐκεῖ ἄνθρωπον otk ἐνδεδυμένον ἔνδυμα γάμου: 12. καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ,
Ἑταῖρε, πῶς εἰσῆλθες ὧδε μὴ ἔχων ἔνδυμα γάμου; Ὁ δὲ | ἐφιμώθη.
1 ver. 34.
13. τότε εἶπεν ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῖς διακόνοις, Δήσαντες αὐτοῦ.
k. 1.25; - 2s iv.so. Lk. πόδας καὶ χεῖρας, ἄρατε αὐτὸν καὶ ἐκβάλετεΣ εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ.
1ν. .
35. 1 a a Tim. v.18, ἐξώτερον΄ ἐκεῖ ἔσται 6 κλαυθμὸς καὶ 6 βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων-
14. πολλοὶ γάρ εἶσι κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί.
1 ειπεν after βασιλευς in NBL, cursives (33, etc.). 2 For αρατε a. και εκβ. SYBL have simply εκβαλετε αντον (Tisch., W.H.).
Vv. 11-14. The man without a wedding garment.—Though this feature has no connection with the polemic against the Sanhedrists, it does not follow, as even Weiss (Matthaus-Evang.) admits, that it was not an authentic part of a parable spoken by Jesus. It would form a suit- able pendant to any parable of grace, as showing that, while the door of the king- dom is open to all, personal holiness cannot be dispensed with.—Ver. 11. θεά- σασθαι: we are not to suppose that the king came in to look out for offenders, but rather to show his countenance to his guests and make them welcome.—av@pw- πον, etc.: while he was going round among the guests smiling welcome and speaking here and there a gracious word, his eye lighted on a man without a wedding robe. Only one? More might have been expected in such a company, but one suffices to illustrate the principle. —oix ἐνδεδ.: we have here an example of occasional departure from the rule that participles in the N. T. take pas the negativein all relations.—Ver. 12. ἑταῖρε, as in xx. 13.--πῶς εἰσῆλθες ὧδε: the question might mean, By what way did you come in? the logic of the question being, had you entered by the door you would have received a wedding robe like the rest, therefore you must have come over a wall or through a window, or somehow slipped in unobserved (Koets- veld). This assumes that the guests were supplied with robes by the king’s servants, which in the circumstances is intrinsically probable. All had to come in a hurry as they were, and some would
have no suitable raiment, even had there
been time to put iton. What the custom was is not very clear, The parable leaves this point in the background, and simply indicates that a suitable robe was necessary, however obtained. Theking’s question probably means, how dared you come hither without, etc. 2—pi ἔχων: μὴ
this time, not ov, as in ver. 11, implying blame. Euthymius includes the ques- tion as to how the man got in among the matters not to be inquired into, διὰ τὴν αὐτονομίαν (freedom) τῆς παραβολῆς.--- 6 δὲ ἐφιμώθη, he was dumb, not so much from a sense of guilt as from confusion in presence of the great king finding fault, and from fear of punishment.— Ver. 13. τοῖς διακόνοις, the servants. waiting on the guests, cf. Lk. xxii. 27, John ii. 5.—8yjoavres, ἐκβάλετε: dispro- portionate fuss, we are apt to think, about the rude act of an unmannerly clown. Enough surely simply to turn him out, instead of binding him hand and foot as a criminal preparatory to some fearful doom. But matters of eti- quette are seriously viewed at courts, especially in the East, and the king’s temper is already ruffled by previous insults, which make him jealous for his honour. And the anger of the king serves the didactic aim of the parable, which is to enforce the lesson: sin not because grace abounds. After all the doom of the offender is simply to be turned out of the festive chamber into the darkness of night outside.—éket ἔσται, etc.: stock-phrase descriptive of the misery of one cast out into the darkness, possibly no part of the parable. On this expression Furrer remarks: ‘‘ How weird and frightful, for the wanderer who has lost his way, the night, when clouds cover the heavens, and through the deep darkness the howling and teeth- grinding of hungry wolves strike the ear of the lonely one! Truly no figure could more impressively describe the anguish of the God-forsaken” (Wanderungen, p. 181),—Ver. 14. πολλοὶ yap: if, as yap might suggest, the concluding aphorism referred exclusively to the fate of the unrobed guest, we should be obliged to conclude that the story did not supply a. good illustration of its truth, only one-