Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Matthew 21:1 - 21:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
F.—21-28.THE LAST DAYS OF THE MESSIAH’S LIFE
21:1-11. From Mar_11:1-11
(M) 21:1. And when they came near to Jerusalem, and came to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples.] Mk. has: “And when they come near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, He sendeth two of His disciples.”—ἤγσν ἀέτιε] aors. for Mk.’s hist. presents, as often. Mt. inserts a second verb, ἦθν to ease clause α and omits Bethany. This probably is simply due to his tendency to omit redundant details. He feels that one village is sufficient to identify the scene. Βθαή= בתפנ = “house of unripe figs”; cf. Dalm. Gram. p. 191.—ττ] see on 2:7.
(M) 2. Saying to them, Go into the village which is over against you, and straightway you shall find an ass tied up, and a colt with her; loose, and lead to Me.] Mk. has: “And saith, Go (ὑάεε into the village which is over against you, and straightway entering into it, you shall find a colt tied up upon which no one of men ever sat; loose it, and bring.”—λγν for κὶλγι as often.—πρύσε for ὑάεε Cf. a similar change in 28:7 = Mar_16:7. πρύσα occurs once in Mar_9:30 as a variant for πρπρύσα; in Mt. it occurs twenty-eight times. Mt. omits εσοεόεο εςατνas redundant.—ὄο—κὶπλνμτ ατς Mt. adds ὄο in view of the passage which he is about to quote (v. 4). ἀάεεis a more usual word in this connection than Mk.’s φρτ.
(M) 3. And if any one say anything to you, you shall say that the Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.] Mk. has: “And if any one say to you, Why do ye this? Say, The Lord hath need of it and straightway sends it again here” (= will return it). Mt., as often, omits πλν—εθςδ] for κὶεθς as often. In Mk. the subject of ἀοτλε seems to be ὁκρο. “The Lord needs it, and will soon return it.” Mt. seems to make the sentence mean, “and (at your words) he (the man who spoke to you) will send it.”
(O) 4, 5. And this has come to pass, in order that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy King cometh, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of a yoke-bearer.]
τῦοδ γγννἵαπηωῇ For the formula, see Introduction, p. lxiv. The quotation for which the editor has prepared, by inserting ὄο—μτ ατςin v. 2, comes in the main from Zec_9:9.—επτ τ θγτὶΣώ] seems to be a reminiscence of Isa_62:11 LXX. The rest of the quotation agrees with the LXX. of Zec. except in the last seven words, for which the LXX. has: ἐὶὑούινκὶπλννο. Mt.’s ἐὶὄο κὶἐὶπλνυὸ ὑουίυlooks like a translation of the Heb., with adaptation of the words of the LXX. For ὑούιν= ass, see Deissm. Bib. Stud. p. 160 f.
(M) 6. And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them.] Mt. abbreviates Mk vv. 4-6.—πρυέτςδ] for Mk.’s κὶἀῆθν The δ for κί as often. Cf. πρύσα for ἀέχσα, Mat_26:14 = Mar_14:10.
(M) 7. And brought the ass and the colt, and placed upon them their clothes, and He sat upon them.] Mk. has: “And bring the colt to Jesus, and place upon it their clothes; and He sat upon it.”—ἤαο] aor. for Mk.’s hist. pres., as often.—τνὄο κί for the insertion, see on v. 3.—ἐέηε] aor. for Mk.’s hist. pres., as often.—ἑʼατν Mt., in modifying the passage, is not quite careful to make the details harmonious, The Lord could not ride on both animals, and there was no need, therefore, to place clothes on both.—τ ἱάι] Mk., who adds ατν almost certainly means that the disciples managed to find some raiment, which they threw over the colt’s back. Mt. writes τ ἱάι simply as though he understood it to refer to the saddle cloths of the animals.—ἐάωατν If the editor had not just said that they placed clothing upon them, we might take ἐάωατνhere to refer to the ἱάι. But he may have meant it to refer to the animals, regardless of the impossibility of riding more than one at a time.
(M) 8. And the very great multitude spread their garments in the way; and others were cutting branches from the trees, and were spreading (them) in the way.] Mk. has: “And many spread their garments on to the way. And others having cut litter from the fields.”—ὁδ πεσο ὄλς δ for κί as often. For πεσο ὄλςsee on 11:20; and cf. Blass, p. 143.—ἔοτνκάος is the substitution of a more ordinary feature for Mk.’s unusual σιάα κψνε. The editor adds κὶἐτώνο ἐ τ ὁῷto make it clear what was done with the branches. In Mk. this is implied in his abrupt participle κψνε.
(M) 9. And the multitudes who were going before, and who were following, were crying, saying, Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is He who cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest places.] Mk. has: “And they who were going before, and they who were following, were crying, Hosanna: Blessed be He that cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David; Hosanna in the highest places.”—δ] for κί as often.—Ὡαν] See Dalm. Words, 220 f. The word is derived from Psa_118:25, Psa_118:26 השע נ . . . בו האבםיו = “give salvation now—Blessed be He that cometh in the name of the Lord.” השע נ is addressed to God, and is a prayer for help and deliverance. In the source from which Mk. drew, השע had been shortened into the common form הש. Cf. Dalm. Gram. p. 249. Mk., as often, retains a Hebrew or Aramaic phrase; and it is probable that he, without necessarily “being ignorant of its origin and meaning,” believed that it had become a cry of greeting and homage, like our “hail” or “welcome.” Only on this ground can we explain his ὡαν ἐ τῖ ὑίτι, which can only mean, “let those in the heights of heaven say, Hosanna.” Mt., who adds to the first Ὡαν the words τ υῷΔυΐ, must also have supposed ὡαν to be a cry of acclamation. He need not have been ignorant of its philological meaning. The multitudes cried “Hosanna,” i.e. “glory, or hail, or welcome to David’s son.” ελγμνςὁἐχμνςἐ ὀόαιΚρο is the LXX. of Psa_118:26. Mk. adds a clause: ελγμν ἡἐχμν βσλί τῦπτὸ ἡῶ Δυΐ, which Mt. omits as tautologous.—ὡαν ἐ τῖ ὑίτι] Lk. also understood ὡαν to be a cry of acclamation; he renders it by δξ. See note on Luk_19:38.
(M) 10. And when He entered into Jerusalem.] Mk. has: “And He entered into Jerusalem.” Mt. now inserts, All the city was moved, saying, Who is this? And the multitudes said, This is the prophet Jesus, who is from Nazara of Galilee.
8. ἔτωα, second time] א D c e ff2 q. ἐτώνο, א B C al b f ff1 g1 2 h S2. In Mk. ἔτωα is read by most MSS., but ἐτώνο by D S1 curss. The imperf. is probably genuine in Mk. and in the second clause of Mt. Mt. having altered the imperfect into ἔτωα in clause a, continued with imperfs. ἔοτν ἐτώνο in clause b, and in v. 9 ἔρζν א D in Mt. have assimilated ἐτώνο to the ἔτωα of clause a, and of Mk., and in Mk. most MSS. have assimilated ἐτώνο to Mt.’s clause a. Lk.’s ὑετώνο shows that he too had the imperf. in his copy of Mk.
1-10. Mt. and Lk. agree in the following:
ἤγσν Mat_1 = ἤγσν Lk 29; ἐγζυι, Mar_1.
ἀέτιε, Mat_1, Lk 29; ἀοτλε, Mar_1.
λγν Mat_2, Lk 30; κὶλγι Mar_2.
ἀάεε Mat_2, Lk 30; φρτ, Mar_2.
ἐετ, Mat_3, Lk 31; επτ, Mar_3.
ἤαο, Mat_7, Lk 35; φρυι, Mar_7.
ἑυῶ—ἐ τ ὁῷ Mat_8, Lk 36; ατνεςτνὁό, Mar_8.
λγνε, Mat_9, Lk 38.
12-17. From Mar_11:15-19.
(M) 12. And Jesus entered into the temple of God,1 and cast out all who sell and buy in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of those who sell the doves.] Mk. has here: “And He entered into Jerusalem, into the temple: and having looked about at all things, it being already a late hour, He went out to Bethany with the twelve.” The editor of Mt. omits this. For omission of verses of a similar character, cf. the omission of Mar_1:45, Mar_6:12-13. The next three verses in Mk. are 12-14, which contain the first part of the narrative of the fig-tree, the sequel being vv. 20-25. Mt., with the obvious intention of representing the withering of the fig-tree as having taken place immediately upon the word of Christ, postpones vv. 12-14 that he may connect them with 20-25. This brings him, therefore, to Mk 15-19, which he now inserts. The result of these changes may be shown thus:
First day—Mt. Entry. …Cleansing of temple. Return to Bethany.
First day—Mk. Entry. Return to Bethany.
Second day—Mt. Cursing and withering of fig-tree. Teaching, 21:13-25.
Second day—Mk. Cursing of fig-tree. Cleansing of temple.
Third day—Mt.
Third day—Mk. The withered fig-tree. Teaching, 11:27-13.
Mt. has, therefore, shortened Mk.’s sequence of events by one day. Lk. does the same, but does not even suggest that the two days which he mentions were consecutive. He places the entry and the cleansing of the temple on one day, omits the incident of the fig-tree, and introduces teaching parallel to Mat_21:13-25 and Mar_11:27 with “and it came to pass on one of the days.” It is clear that neither Mt. nor Lk. regarded Mk.’s sequence of events as chronologically important in detail. It is not probable that Mt.’s change in Mk.’s order is accidental rather than intentional. But, if so, at Mk v. 12 he came to the words κὶεσλε εςἸρσλμ εςτ ἱρν From these words he passed on by accident to Mk v. 15 κὶἔχνα εςἸρσλμ κὶεσλὼ εςτ ἱρν and he therefore continued with the account of the cleansing of the temple, Mk vv. 15-19. Then finding that he had omitted the cursing of the fig-tree, Mk vv. 12-14, he combined it with the withering of the fig-tree, Mk vv. 20-25.
12. Mk. has: “And they come to Jerusalem: and He entered into the temple, and began to cast out those who sell and who buy in the temple, and He overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of those who sell the doves.”—ἐέαε] the indic., as often, for Mk.’s ἤξτ, and the inf. Mk. adds, “And did not allow any one to carry a vessel through the temple.”
(M) 13. And saith to them, It stands written, My house shall be called a house of prayer; but ye made1 it a lair of robbers.] Mk. has: “And was teaching, and saying, Does it not stand written that My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations? but ye have made it a lair of robbers.”—ὁοκςμυ κτλ the quotation is from the LXX. of Isa_56:7. Mk. seems to have carried the quotation too far. The temple was not, in fact, a house of prayer πσντῖ ἔνσν Mt. omits the words.—σήαο λσῶ] seems to be a reminiscence of Jer_7:11.
(E) 14. And there came to Him blind and lame in the temple; and He healed them.] Mk. has here: “And the chief priests and scribes heard, and were seeking how they might kill Him: for they feared Him, for all the multitude was amazed at His teaching.” Mt. substitutes for this an account of miracles done in the temple which the chief priests saw, and how they heard the children crying, Hosanna, and were vexed. He elsewhere substitutes a statement of healing for Mk.’s statement of teaching. See on 14:14, 19:2. He has already omitted Mk.’s reference to teaching, Mk v. 17. The editor seems to regard the first day as a day of action (vv. 14-15), the second as a day of teaching. Hence Mk.’s ἐίακν 11:17 is, transferred to Mat_21:23, and Mar_11:18 πςγρὁὄλςἐελσεοἐὶτ δδχ ατῦto Mat_22:33.
(E) 15. And the chief priests and scribes seeing the marvellous things that He did, and the children who were crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David, were vexed.]
(L) 16. And said to Him, Dost Thou hear what these say? And Jesus saith to them, Yes; did you never read that “From the mouth of babes and infants Thou didst bring praise to perfection”?] The quotation is from the LXX. of Psa_8:3. The Heb. has “strength” for “praise,” and is, therefore, less adapted to this context. Lk. places sayings parallel to these during the entry into Jerusalem, 19:39-40 “Certain of the Pharisees from the multitude said to Him, Teacher, rebuke Thy disciples. And He answered and said, I say to you, that if these shall be silent, the stones will cry out.” It seems clear that Mt. and Lk. have independent traditions behind them.
(M) 17. And having left them, He went outside the city to Bethany, and passed the night there.] Mk v. 19 has: “And when it became late they were going outside the city.”—ἐῆθν aor. for Mk.’s imp. ἐεοεοτ, as often. But Mk. has ἐῆθνin v. 11.—ηλση Lk. has the same verb in a similar connection, 21:37. It occurs from Homer downwards, and is common in the LXX. It is used of men, Apoll. R. 2. 1284; Diod. 13. 6; Hdt. 8. 9, 9. 37, Xen. Cyrop. 4.
18-22. From Mar_11:2-14, Mar_11:20-25.
(M) 18. And early in the morning, as He made for the city, He was hungry.] Mk. has: “And as they were passing by early in the morning,” v. 20; and: “And on the morrow as they went out from Bethany, He was hungry,” v. 12.
(M) 19. And seeing a fig-tree by the way side, He came to it, and found nothing on it, save leaves alone, and saith to it, There shall no longer be fruit from thee for ever.] Mk. has: “And seeing a fig-tree from afar having leaves, He came, if haply He might find anything on it: and having come to it, He found nothing except leaves; for it was not the season of figs. And He answered and said to it, May no one any longer eat fruit of thee for ever. And the disciples were hearing it.” The editor omits ε ἄατ ερσιἐ ατ κὶἐθν and ὁγρκιὸ οκἦ σκν which might suggest that Christ hoped against probability to find “fruit” and was disappointed. He also modifies the imprecation or wish, Mk 14b, into a solemn prophecy of fact.
(E) 19. And the fig-tree withered away immediately.] Mk., who puts the continuation of the story on the following morning, has no parallel to this.
(M) 20. And the disciples saw it, and marvelled, saying, How immediately did the fig-tree wither away!) Mk. has: “And Peter remembered, and saith to Him, Rabbi, see, the fig-tree which Thou didst curse is withered away.”
(M) 21. And Jesus answered and said to them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, not only shall ye do this of the fig-tree, but if ye shall say to this mountain, Be taken up and cast into the sea, it shall happen.] Mk. has: “And Jesus answered and saith to them, Have faith in God. Verily I say to you, That whosoever shall say to this mountain, Be taken up, and cast into the sea, and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that what he speaks happens, it shall be to him.”—ἀορθὶ δ] for κὶἀορθί, as often.—επν for λγι as often. Mt. omits Mk.’s ὅι as often.—ἐνἔηεπσι] for Mk.’s ἔεεπσι is an assimilation to 17:20.—πσι] here, as in 17:20, means trust in the divine power combined with confidence that he who trusts can make use of the divine power to work miracles. See on 17:20. In Mk. אD curss S1 have ε ἔεε and Mt. may have had this before him. If so, he has changed to ἐνἔηεto assimilate to 17:20.
(M) 22. And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.] Mk. has: “Therefore I say to you, All things whatsoever ye pray and ask, believe that ye received, and it shall be to you.”—ατστ] Mt. omits one of Mk.’s two synonymous verbs; see on 8:3.—πσεοτς i.e. with trust in the power and love of God to grant the request. Mk. adds here: “And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any one; that your Father who is in the heavens may forgive you your trespasses.” The verse seems out of place in Mk., and appears to have been added as an afterthought. It is very possibly an early gloss. The phrase “Father who is in the heavens” occurs nowhere else in Mar_1 If the verse was in the copy of Mk. used by Mt., the latter has omitted it, because he has recorded similar sayings in 6:14, 5:23. A further addition is made in Mk. by the majority of MSS., namely, ε δ ὑεςοκἀίτ οδ ὁπτρὑῶ ὁἐ (τῖ) ορνῖ ἀήε (ὑῖ) τ πρπώααὑῶ. The clause is omitted by אB L S ΔS1 k.
23-27. From Mar_11:27-33.
(M) 23. And when He came into the temple, there came to Him, as He was teaching, the chief priests and elders of the people, saying, By what authority doest Thou these things, and who gave Thee this authority?] Mk. has: “And they come to Jerusalem: and as He was walking in the temple, there come to Him the chief priests, and scribes, and elders, and were saying to Him, By what authority doest Thou these things? or who gave Thee this authority that Thou shouldest do these things?” Mk.’s κὶἔχνα εςἸρσλμ is unnecessary after v. 18.—ποῆθν aor., as often, for Mk.’s hist. present. For ποέχσα, see on 4:3. For the aor. in a, see Blass, p. 45.—δδσοτ] This is to be a day of teaching, as yesterday was of action; see on v. 14.——ποῆθνλγνε] for Mk.’s ἔχνα.—κὶἔεο, as often. Mt. omits Mk.’s redundant ἵατῦαπιςat the end.
(M) 24. And Jesus answered and said to them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell Me, I, too, will tell you by what authority I do these things.] Mk. has: “And Jesus said to them, I will ask you one thing, and answer Me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things.” Mt.’s ὃ ἐνεπτ μικγ ἐῶis a grammatical correction of Mk.’s κὶἀορθτ μικὶἐῶ
(M) 25. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or from men? And they disputed among themselves, saying, If we say, From heaven; He will say to us, Why then did you not believe him?] So Mk. without πθνἦ and with ἀορθτ μι which Mt. omits as redundant, after ἀθώω.—ο δ δεοίοτ] for Mk.’s κὶδεοίοτ, as often.—ἐ ἑυος for Mk.’s πὸ ἑυος For a similar change, cf. Mat_16:7, Mar_8:16. The point seems to be that John had borne witness to Christ as the Messiah. If the authorities had given credence to John, they would have had no need to ask by what authority Jesus acted.—ἐιτύαεατ] πσεενin 8:13, 9:28, 18:6, 21:22 meant to have “trust,” “assurance” in the power and goodness of God or of Christ. But here and in v. 32, 24:23, 26 it has the weaker sense to “give credence to.”
(M) 26. But if we should say, From men; we fear the multitude, for all hold John as a prophet.] Mk. has: “But should we say from men—they feared the multitude. For all held John that he was truly a prophet.”—ἐνδ] is a grammatical correction of Mk.’s harsh ἀλ.—φβύεα avoids Mk.’s aposiopesis.—ἔοσνὡ ποήη] is a correction of Mk.’s εχνὄτςὅιποήη ἦ.
(M) 27. And they answered Jesus, and said, We do not know. He also said to them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.] So Mk. with λγυι for επνand κὶὁἸσῦ λγιατῖ for ἔηατῖ κὶατς
23-27. Mt. and Lk. agree in the following:
ατ δδσοτ, Mat_23; δδσοτςατῦ Luk_1; πρπτῦτςατῦ Mk 27.
λγνε, Mat_23, Luk_2.
ἀορθὶ δ, Mat_24, Luk_8. Mk. has no ἀορθί.
κγ, Mat_24, Luk_3.
επτ, Mat_24; επτ, Luk_8; ἀορθτ, Mk 29.
Both Mk. and Lk. omit ἵατῦαπιςfrom Mk 26 and ἀορθτ μιfrom Mk 30.
ο δ, Mat_25, Luk_5; κί Mk 31.
ἐνδ, Mat_26, Luk_6; ἀλ, Mk 32.
Mk. has here: “And He began to speak to them in parables,” followed by the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen. Mt. inserts first the parable of the Two Sons, then borrows from Mk. that of the Husbandmen, and then adds the parable of the Marriage Feast; thus forming a group of three prophetic parables (cf. Introduction, p. lxv), foretelling the divine judgement impending over the Jewish nation. See Gould on Mar_12:1.
28-32. Parable of the Two Sons.
(L) 28. But what think ye? A man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go to-day work in the vineyard.]—τ δ ὑῖ δκῖ See on 17:25.—ποεθν See on 4:3.
(L) 29. And he answered and said, I am not willing; but afterwards he repented, and went.]
(L) 30. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I (go), sir; and went not.]
(L) 31. Which of the two did the will of the father? They say, The first. Jesus saith to them, Verily I say to you, That the toll-gatherers and the harlots go before you into the kingdom of God.]—πογυι ὑᾶ εςτνβσλίντῦθο] We might have expected the editor to use εςτνβσλίντνορνν so that πογυι would have been a timeless statement of fact, meaning “go” into the kingdom whenever it shall appear, and so practically equivalent to a future; cf. πρδδτι Mar_9:31. It very probably represents an Aramaic participle. The fact that we have τῦθο instead of τνορννmakes it clear that the phrase is not editorial, but that it is derived from the source used. The reason why the editor did not alter it into τνορννis not clear. But (1) he has perhaps once out of fourteen times left τῦθο in a Marcan passage (Mat_19:24). (2) He elsewhere once has a phrase, which he generally alters, e.g. μτ τεςἡέα, 27:63. Contrast 16:21, 17:23, 20:19 (3) He may have felt that here, as in 12:23 the “kingdom of God” of his source was not quite the same as the “kingdom of the heavens” which he elsewhere describes. See also on 21:43. In “go before you into the kingdom” the meaning is not so much, “will go before you into the kingdom when it is inaugurated,” as “obey God by fulfilling John’s command to repent, submit to the divine will, take upon themselves the yoke of the kingdom, and become heirs of its promises.” In other words, the “kingdom” here means rather the condition of preparedness for the coming kingdom than that future kingdom itself. Had the Evangelist written, “will go before you into the kingdom of the heavens,” he would have represented the Lord as foretelling the future admission of the people to whom he was speaking into the kingdom. This was just what the editor wished to avoid. They were to be cast out of the kingdom, 8:12. “Go before you into the kingdom,” on the other hand, emphasises the fact that the toll-gatherers and harlots “go,” and leaves it quite ambiguous whether the persons addressed “go” or not. Like 12:28, this parable probably came from the Logia; and if that is so, the Logia contained not only parables of the kingdom of the heavens, but other sayings and parables in which the phrase “kingdom of God” was used in a sense not always identical with “the kingdom of the heavens.”
(L) 32. For John came to you with the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him: but the toll-gatherers and the harlots believed him: and you saw (it), and did not afterwards repent, so as to believe him.]—ἐ ὁῷδκισνς ὁό here, like the Heb. דְֶֶand the Aramaic אְָֹ, means not so much the path trodden as the manner, custom, method. To come with the way of righteousness is to come as a representative and teacher of righteousness and of her methods. “John came with the way of righteousness,” means “John came, and what he taught was good,” he represented and stood for the manner of life which righteousness demands. See Wellhausen, in loc., and cf. ὁὸ θο, 22:16. The Lord applies the answer of the authorities to their own conduct by way of contrast. They had said that that son was to be approved who, though he was unwilling at first, yet afterwards went into the vineyard. But the Baptist came preaching righteousness, calling men to go into God’s vineyard through the gate of repentance, and they had given no ear to his preaching. In this respect they were like the first son of the parable, who said I am unwilling. But, unlike him, they had not afterwards repented and obeyed the Baptist’s call. On the other hand, the toll-gatherers and the harlots had also been like the first son, but they had changed their mind when John preached, and had obeyed the call. This only hardened the Jewish authorities the more. A vineyard in which outcasts worked was no vineyard for them. A kingdom into which the toll-gatherers could enter was no kingdom for them. Thus toll-gatherers and harlots went before them into the kingdom of God.—τῦπσεσι “gives rather the content than the purpose of μτμλθτ,” Moulton, p. 216. But unless ο be omitted or another negative be inserted before πσεσι it is difficult to make any sense of the clause which will suit this context, except by translating “to believe,” i.e. “and believed him.” See below.
28-31. אC D L al S1 S2 latt have the obedient son first, the disobedient son second.
B reverses the order.
In v. 31 אC L al c f q S2 have πῶο. This seems to be required by the context. The Pharisees could hardly give any other answer, and the Lord’s reply seems to presuppose it. The Pharisees were in part like the first son, i.e. they refused to give heed to John’s preaching. But they were also unlike him, since he came to a better state of mind, whilst they hardened themselves the more.
B has ὕτρς D latt ἔχτς S1 “the last.” In the case of B, which has reversed the order of vv. 29, 30, the Pharisees still approve the conduct of the son who first refused and afterwards went. But D S1 latt make the Pharisees approve the conduct of the son who promised to go and failed to fulfil his promise. Wellhausen believes this to be the original text, and supposes that the Pharisees intentionally gave a perverse answer in order to make pointless the moral which Christ was going to draw from the natural rejoinder. They ought to have answered that the first son did his father’s will, and He would then have contrasted their conduct with that of the son approved by them, and compared them to the son whose conduct they reprehended. But they purposely give the wrong answer, and Christ’s rejoinder, v. 31, is an expression of indignation at their perversity, rather than an explanation of the parable. Merx, too, upholds this reading, and finds in it the original text which has given rise to the other readings. But it seems probable that the order of אC D L al and πῶο are the original.
There would be a natural tendency to transpose this order:
(1) It might be argued that if the first son went, there was no occasion to summon the second;
(2) the fulfilment of the command forms an unexpected climax to the story;
(3) it was natural to identify the disobedient son with the Jew, the obedient son with the Gentile. Along this line of interpretation the latter should come last in chronological order;
(4) the ὕτρνof v. 29 may have had some influence in causing this verse to be placed after v. 30;
(5) further, v. 32 may have suggested the change of order. “John came, and you did not believe” = οκἀῆθ; “the toll-gatherers and harlots believed” = μτμλθὶ ἀῆθ.
On these grounds the order of B might be explained as due to emendation for literary and exegetical reasons, and the substitution of “the last” for “the first” might be supposed to be later than the transposition of order.
But the MS. evidence suggests that the substitution is earlier than the transposition of order, and is the probable cause of it.
The earliest emendation seems to have been the substitution of “the last” (D latt S1) for “the first.” This may be due to antipharisaic motives. The Lord had said of them that “they say and do not.” They must, therefore, be represented as approving of one who said “I go,” and went not. The variations ὕτρς ἔχτςare against the originality of this reading.
The transposition of order seems to have originated in a text in which “the last” had already been adopted, and to have been made by some one who misunderstood the motive which had led to the substitution of “the last” for “the first,” in order to make the Pharisees return the obvious answer.
32. ο μτμλθτ] B 1 13 22 33 latt have οδ. D omits the negative. c e alter its position quod non credidistis. S1 also omits. Burkitt translates “but ye, when ye saw it—at the last have ye changed your mind that ye should believe in Him?” But the clause is not necessarily interrogative in the Syriac. The omission is probably accidental. The clause is very difficult. Mt. has τῦwith the infinitive seven times. In 2:13 and 3:13 with an aorist, of a definite action, in 11:1 and 13:3 with a present, of a continuous action. In 6:8 it occurs after πό Here “did not repent so as to believe” should be τῦπσεενrather than τῦπσεσι But to translate “did not repent of having believed” seems to destroy the sense. The Pharisees had not believed, v. 32. D’s omission of the negative gives a possible rendering “repented so as to believe”; but this seems an unlikely conclusion to the saying. The transposition of the negative by c e also gives a weak finish to the saying, and is probably a translator’s emendation. Δomits the whole of the last clause. This may be due to homœ It is difficult to think that the clause as it stands is original, but if any part is genuine ο or οδ μτμλθτ must have belonged to it; possibly τῦπσεσιατ is a later gloss.
33-46. From Mar_12:1-12. See Briggs, The Messiah of the Gospels, p. 114.
33-46. The labourers in the vineyard.
(M) 33. Hear another parable: There was a man, a householder, who planted a vineyard, and placed round it a fence, and digged in it a press, and built a tower.] Mk. has: “A man planted a vineyard, and placed round (it) a fence, and digged a press, and built a tower.” The details are borrowed from Isa_5:2. For the ἄθωο—οκδσόη ὅτς cf. 13:52 ἀθώῳοκδσόῃὅτς 20:1 ib., 18:23 ἀθώῳβσλῖὅ. Mk. has simply ἄθωο.—φαμνατ πρέηε] Mk. has πρέηε φαμν For Mt.’s order, cf. Isa_5:2.—λνν Mk. has ὑοήιν Is. ποήιν 33. And let it out to husbandmen, and went away.] So Mk.
(M) 34. And when the season of the fruits arrived, he sent his servant to the husbandmen to receive its fruits.] Mk. has: “And sent to the husbandmen at the season a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen the fruits of the vineyard.”
(M) 35. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.] Mk. has: “And they took him, and beat him, and sent him away empty. And again he sent to them another servant; and him they—(?), and shamefully treated. And another he sent, and him they killed.”
(M) 36. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did to them likewise.] Mk. has: “And many others; beating some, and killing some.” In Mk. there is before the final sending of the son a triple sending of a single messenger, vv. 2, 4, 5, followed by a general statement, v. 5 “and many others.” Mt. simplifies this into a double sending of several messengers, vv. 34, 36, but seems to show a trace of Mk.’s first three messengers in his ὃ μν ὃ δ, ὃ δ, v. 35. He avoids Mk.’s rare and uncertain (probably corrupt) word ἐεαίσν Further, in Mk. the treatment of the first three messengers is climactic: the first they beat and sent away, the second they put to shame, the third they killed. After this “the many others” comes in very weakly. Mt., with his double sending of several messengers, avoids this anticlimax. Lk. has a triple sending of a single messenger. The first was beaten and sent back empty-handed, the second beaten and dishonoured and sent away, the third wounded and cast out. Thus the crime of murder is not reached till the son is sent.
(M) 37. And at last he sent to them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.] Mk. has: “Still one he had, a son beloved. He sent him last to them, saying that they will reverence my son.” See Gould on Mar_12:6-11.
(M) 38. But the husbandmen, having seen the son, said amongst themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us have his inheritance.] Mk. has: “But those husbandmen said to one another that this is the heir; come, let us kill him, and ours shall be the inheritance.—ἐ ἑυος Mk. has πὸ ἑυος Mt. avoids πό in this sense; cf. v. 25, and 16:7 = Mar_8:16.
(M) 39. And they took him, and cast him outside the vineyard, and killed him.] Mk. has: “And they took him, and killed him, and cast him outside the vineyard.” Mt., with the history of the Passion in his mind, reverses Mk.’s second and third clauses. Christ was crucified outside the city. See on Luk_20:15.
(M) 40, 41. When, therefore, the lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do to those husbandmen? They say to him, He will evilly destroy the evil ones, and will give the vineyard to other husbandmen, who will render to him the fruits at their seasons.] Mk. has: “What will the lord of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others.” In Mk. Christ Himself answers the rhetorical question. Mt. places the answer in the mouth of the rulers, that they themselves, as in v. 31, may pronounce their own condemnation. This change involves others. Mk.’s abrupt τ πισιὁκρο τῦἀπλνςmust now, as an independent sentence, be rounded off by the anticipation of ὅα ονἔθ and by the addition of ἐενι, which had been omitted from Mar_7. In v. 41 κκὺ κκςtakes the place of ἐεστι which has been transferred to v. 40; ἐδστι cf. ἐέεο v. 33, takes the place of δσι and a clause is added to round off the sentence. For the phraseology, cf. Psa_1:3.
(M) 42. Jesus saith to them, Did you never read in the Scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, this became the head of the corner: from the Lord was this, and it is marvellous in our eyes?] So Mk., without “Jesus saith to them,” and with “Did you not read this Scripture,” for Mt.’s “Did you never read in the Scriptures.” The quotation is from the LXX. of Ps 117:22. ατ corresponds to the Heb. neutral pronoun זת “This” means this fact, that the rejected stone became the head of the corner.
(E) 43. Therefore I say to you, That the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation which produceth its fruits.] The words do not occur in Mk. They are an expository comment of the editor. The parable carries forward the thought of the preceding section. The Jewish rulers had adopted towards the Baptist a policy of non-recognition, which involved them in doubts as to the authority of Christ as the Messiah, vv. 23-32. Their action was typical and prophetic. They had at all times disobeyed the messengers of God, and were on the point of putting to death the Messiah, the Son of God, and His final Messenger to them. Consequently the divine favour, the kingdom = the vineyard, would be withdrawn from them and given to others. Vv. 41-42 express the same thought under another metaphor. The stone which the builders of Israel, that is, the Jewish authorities, rejected would become the chief stone in another building. The edifice of Israel’s national life was to give place to another building; cf. 16:18 οκδμσ μυτνἐκηίν—ἡβσλί τῦθο] Since the parable as a whole is clearly taken from Mk., there is every reason to suppose that this verse, which is not in Mk., is an editorial comment on the meaning of the parable. The vineyard was to be taken from the Jewish nation; but what term could the editor substitute for the vineyard? What he wished to express was, no doubt, the privileged position of the Jews as the recipients of a divine revelation. But this was just what the Rabbinical writers express by “the sovereignty of the heavens.” When a heathen became a proselyte, and was incorporated into the privileged Jewish people, he was said to take upon himself the sovereignty of the heavens; see Dalman, Words, p. 97. We might therefore have expected the editor to use the phrase βσλί τνορνν But since he has throughout the Gospel employed this term for the eschatological kingdom which Christ announced, and which was to be inaugurated when the Son of Man came upon the clouds of heaven, it would have been unsuitable here. For that kingdom had never been the possession of the Jewish rulers, and could not be taken from them. The phrase βσλί τῦθο, in the sense current among the Jews of the 1st century a.d., of sovereignty of God, seemed more suitable here; and the editor, by using it, once more betrays his Jewish origin, and emphasises his sense of the difference between this phrase in his Gospel and the more frequent βσλί τνορνν See on 12:28 and 21:31, and Introduction, p. lxvii.—ἔνι the conception of the Christian society as an ἔνςoccurs only here in the Gospel. It has twice been called an ἐκηί, 16:17, 18:17. The word is probably here suggested by the idea of the Jewish nation, implied in the ὑῶ.
(E?) 44. And every one who falleth upon this stone shall be dashed in pieces: but upon whomsoever it shall fall, it shall scatter him as dust.] The words do not occur in Mk. The stone of v. 42 seems to have suggested the stone of Isa_8:14, Isa_8:15 and the stone of Dan_2:34, Dan_2:44-45. The verse apparently means that the rejection of the Messiah, “the son” of v. 37 and “the stone” of v. 42, would involve the complete break up of the Jewish polity.—λκήε] is borrowed from Dan_2:44 (Th.), and is used in the same sense as in that passage, namely, to break into small pieces, or to scatter as dust; see Deissm. Bib. Stud. p. 225. See also Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, p. 208.
The verse is omitted by D 33 a b e ff1 2 S1. It may perhaps be an interpolation from Luk_20:18, where the saying occurs in the form πςὁπσνἐʼἐενντνλθν κτλ But the verse as it stands in Mt. looks very much like an early gloss, suggested by v. 43. That verse seems to be an editorial interpretation of the meaning of the parable. The vineyard was to be given to others, v. 41. That is to say, the privileges of the Jewish nation, entrusted to it by God, were to be taken from it and given to others. The editor describes these privileges as “the kingdom of God,” by which he probably means the whole of the special revelation vouchsafed to the Jewish nation. He could hardly have used the term “the kingdom of the heavens,” because he everywhere employs this term to signify the kingdom announced by Christ as coming in the near future. Here the parable necessitates the use of a term to describe some privilege, corresponding to the vineyard, already in the possession of the Jewish nation. It is not very probable that after thus interpreting the parable and closing the narrative the editor would have added v. 44, which carries the thought back again to v. 42. But a later copyist of the Gospel has been reminded by the word ἔνι(v. 43) of a passage in Dan_2:44 where it is said that the kingdom shall not be left to another people, ἡβσλί ατῦλῷἑέῳοχὑοεφήεα, Th.; ατ ἡβσλί ἄλ ἔνςο μ ἐσ, LXX. Whilst considering this contrast, his eye was caught by the next clause in Dn., λπυε κὶλκήε πσςτςβσλίς This afforded him the nucleus of an explanatory gloss, v. 44, which he has built up out of Dan_2:45 (Th..), Isa_8:14, Isa_8:15. How, then, are we to explain Luk_20:18? It is natural to say that, if not genuine in Mt., the history of the saying begins with Luk_20:18, whence it has been transferred to Mt. But, if I am not mistaken, the history of the clause begins rather with Mat_21:43. It was the ἔνιof that verse which directed attention to the “other nation” of Dan_2:44, and so to the λκήε of that passage. It is improbable that the original editor of Mt. inserted v. 44, but it may have been interpolated at a very early date, and may have been read as part of the first Gospel by the author of the third. Or it may have passed from the first Gospel into the third at so early a date that no hint of its spuriousness there is given by the extant witnesses to the text of that Gospel. There is, of course, no reason why the same glossator should not have inserted the words in both Gospels.
(M) 45. And the chief priest and the Pharisees heard His parables, and perceived that He speaks about them.]
(M) 46. And seeking to arrest Him, they feared the multitudes, since they held Him for a prophet.] Mk. has: “They were seeking to arrest Him, and feared the multitude: for they perceived that He spoke the parable with reference to them. And leaving Him, they went away.” Mt., who has another parable to insert, omits the last clause. Mt.’s slight changes of Mk. are intentional. ἔνσνγρin Mk. explains not the immediately preceding clause, but ἐήονατνκαῆα. Mt. places the clauses in logical order: (a) the motive, “they perceived that He spoke about them”; (b) the consequent action, “seeking to arrest Him”; (c) the hindrance, “they feared the people.” Then to maintain the external form of Mk.’s sentence, he adds another clause stating the ground of ἐοήηα.—ὄλυ] as often, for Mk.’s singular. εςποήη, according to Wellhausen, is Aramaic. We should expect ὡ, as in v. 26.
33-46. Mt. and Lk. agree against Mk. in the following particulars. Both have the order ἄθωο ἐύεσνἀπλν, Mt 33, Luk_20:9. Both insert ο γωγί Mt 35, Luk_10. Both insert ἰότς Mt 38, Luk_14. Both insert ον Mt 40, Luk_15. Both insert ο ἀχεες Mt 45, Luk_19. More important is the fact that Lk. also inserts words almost identical with Mt 44. If Mt 44 be genuine, this agreement might seem to suggest a second source. But since in other respects the texts of Mt. and Lk. read like the result of independent redaction of Mk., it is better to suppose that Lk. had read Mt., and that the agreements just mentioned are due to reminiscence by Lk. of Mt.’s version of the parable.
The editor here adds a parable from the Logia.
M the Second Gospel.
Dalm. Dalman.
O quotations from the Old Testament borrowed from a collection of Messianic prophecies. See pp.61 f.
LXX. The Septuagint Version.
Deissm. Deissmann.
al i.e. with other uncial MSS.
S Syriac version: Curetonian.
S Syriac version: Sinaitic MS.
1 τῦθο] So C D al latt S2; אB L omit. The phrase τ ἱρντῦθο does not occur elsewhere, and is probably genuine here.
1 ἐοήαε So C D al, as in Lk. אB L have πιῖε
E editorial passages.
L the Matthæ Logia.
Apoll. R. Apollonius Rhodius.
Diod. Diodorus.
Hdt. Herodotus.
Xen. Xenophon.
1 But the antithesis “the Father—the Son” occurs also only once in Mk., viz. 13:32, yet is certainly genuine. In the same way Mar_11:25 may be a genuine survival in Mk. of a Palestinian form of expression which finds fuller expression in Mt.
Th. Theodotion.