273.
15. Τότε πορευθέντες οἱ Φαρισαῖοι συμβούλιον ἔλαβον ὅπως αὐτὸν πι here only
Ἀπαγιδεύσωσιν ἐν λόγῳ.
αὐτῶν μετὰ τῶν Ἡρωδιανῶν, λέγοντες,! “Διδάσκαλε, οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀληθὴς εἶ, καὶ τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ διδάσκεις, καὶ od μέλει σοι περὶ οὐδενός, οὐ γὰρ βλέπεις cis πρόσωπον ἀνθρώπων.
16. καὶ ἀποστέλλουσιν αὐτῷ τοὺς μαθητὰς vide below.
n Mk. xii.14. John x. 13; αι. 6:)) FX Ῥει ν 7 (with περί τινος).
092 Cor, x.7
(τὰ κατὰ πρόσωπον).
1 λεγοντας in NQBL in agreement with µαθητας. The reading λεγοντες has CDAZ al, in its favour, but modern editors prefer the other.
out of many guests called being rejected. But the gnome really expresses the didactic drift of the whole parable. From first to last many were called, but com- paratively few took part in the feast, either from lack of will to be there or from coming thither irreverently.
Vv. 15-22. The tribute question (Mk. xii. 13-17, Lk. xx. 20-26).—In this astute scheme the Sanhedrists, according to Mk., were the prime movers, using other parties as their agents. Here the Pharisees act on their own motion.— Ver. 15. τότε, then, with reference to xxi. 46, when the Sanhedrists were at a loss how to get Jesus into their power.— συμβούλιον ἔλαβον may refer either to process: consulting together; or to result: formed a Ρ]απ.--ὅπως, either how (quomodo, Beza, wie, H. C.), which, however, would more naturally take the future indicative (Fritzsche), or, better, in order ἐλαί.--'παγιδεύσωσιν, they might ensnare, an Alexandrine word, not in classics, here and in Sept. (vide Eccl. ix. 12).—év λόγῳ, by a word, either the question they were to ask (δι ἐρωτήσεως, Euthy.), or the answer they hoped He would give (Meyer). For the idea, cf. Is. xxix. 21.—Ver. 16. ἀποστέλλουσιν, as in Mk. xii. 13; there intelligible, here one wonders why the sent of Mk. should be senders of others instead of acting themselves. The explanation may be that the leading plotters felt themselves to be discredited with Jesus by their notorious attitude, and, therefore, used others more likely to succeed. More than fault-finding is now intended—even to draw Jesus into a compromising πείεταπςε.-- τοὺς μαθητὰς 4., disciples, apparently meant to be emphasised ; {.ε., scholars, not masters ; young men, pre- sumably not incapable of appreciating Jesus, in whose case a friendly feeling towards Him was not incredible, as in the case of older members of the party.—pera 7. Ἡρῳδιανῶν, with Herodians, named here only in Mat.,
-associated with Sadducees in Mk. viii.
15; why so called is a matter of con- jecture, and the guesses are many: soldiers of Herod (Jerome) ; courtiers of Herod (Fritzsche, following Syr. ver.) ; Jews belonging to the northern tetrar- chies governed by members of the Herod family (Lutteroth); favourers of the Roman dominion (Orig., De W., etc.) ; sympathisers with the desire for a national kingdom so far gratified or stimulated by the rule of the Herod family. The last the most probable, and adopted by many: Wetstein, Meyer, Weiss, Keil, Schanz, etc. The best clue to the spirit of the party is their association with the Pharisees here. It presumably means sympathy with the Pharisees in the matter at issue; ᾖ2.6., nationalism versus willing submission to a foreign yoke; only not religious or theocratic, as in case of Pharisees, but secular, as suited men of Sadducaic proclivities. The object aimed at implies such sym- pathy. To succeed the snare must be hidden. Had the two parties been on opposite sides Jesus would have been put on His guard. The name of this party probably originated in a kind of hero-worship for Herod the Great. Vide on xvi. 1.—Aéyovras, etc., the snare set with much astuteness, and well baited with flattery, the bait coming first.— διδάσκαλε, teacher, an appropriate ad- dress from scholars in search of know- ledge, or desiring the solution ofa knotty question.—otSamev, we know, everybody knows. Even Pharisees understood so far the character of Jesus, α5 here appears; for their disciples say what they have been instructed to say. There- fore their infamous theory of a league with Beelzebub (xii. 24) was a sin against light; i.¢e., against the Holy Ghost. Pharisaic scholars might even feel a sentimental, half-sincere admiration for the character described, nature not yet dead in them as in their teachers. The- points in the character specified are—