Commentari biblici

CHAPTER 22

Matthew 22:4. ἡτοίμασα] Following B C* D L א, 1, 22, 23, we should, with Lachm. and Tisch., read ἡτοίμακα because of the preponderance of manuscript authority.

Matthew 22:5. ὁ μὲν … ὁ δέ] B L, min. Or.: ὃς μὲν … ὃς δέ. So Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. To be preferred on the strength of this external authority, particularly as C* א, which have ὁ μὲν … ὃς δέ, cannot be regarded as counter-evidence.

For εἰς τήν, Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. read ἐπὶ τήν, following B C D א, min. Or. Correctly; εἰς is a mechanical repetition of the one preceding.

Matthew 22:7. The Received text has ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ βας. Of the numerous readings, the simple ὁ δὲ βασιλεὑς is the one favoured by B L א, min. Copt. Sahid., while most of the other witnesses have καὶ ἀκ. ὁ βας. (so Fritzsche, Scholz, Tisch. 7). Lachm. reads ὁ δὲ βας. ἀκούσας, but only following min. It. Vulg. Arm. Ir. Chrys. Eus. In presence of such a multiplicity of readings, we ought to regard the simple ὁ δὲ βας. as the original one (so also Tisch. 8), to which, in conformity with Matthew’s style (comp. on the reading of the Received text, especially Matthew 2:3), ἀκούσας was added, being inserted sometimes in one place and sometimes in another. Many important witnesses insert ἐκεῖνος after βασιλ. (D and codd. of It. Lucif. place it before), a reading which is also adopted by Scholz and Tisch. 7 (therefore: κ. ἀκούσας ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐκεῖνος). It is not found in B L א, min. Copt. Sahid. codd. of It. Vulg. Ir. It, too, has been inserted mechanically as being in accordance with Matthew’s usual manner; it would scarcely have been omitted as being somewhat in the way because of the ἐκεῖνος which follows.

Matthew 22:10 ὁ γάμος] Tisch. 8 : ὁ νυμφών, following B* L א. A mistaken gloss, for νυμφών means the bride-chamber.

Matthew 22:13. ἄρατε αὐτὸν καὶ ἐκβάλετε] Lachm. Tisch. 8 : ἐκβάλετε αὐτόν, following B L א, min. vss. and Fathers. The word ἄρατε, not being needed to complete the picture, was struck out. The reading of the Received text ought to be maintained. The genuineness of the ἄρατε is likewise confirmed by the gloss ἄρατε αὐτὸν ποδῶν κ. κειρῶν, which came to be substituted for δήσαντες αὐτοῦ πόδ. κ. χεῖρας (so D, Cant. Verc. 22 :Colb. Corb. 2, Clar. Ir. Lucif.).

Matthew 22:16. λέγοντες] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. 8 : λέγοντας, following B L א, 27, vss. (?). An improper emendation.

Matthew 22:23. οἱ λέγοντες] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have deleted the article, following B D M S Z א, min. Or., no doubt; but incorrectly, for it is indispensable, and would be readily enough overlooked in consequence of the OI which immediately precedes it.

Matthew 22:25. For γαμήσας, with Lachm. and Tisch., following B L א, min. Or. read γήμας, a form which the copyists would be very apt to exchange for one of more frequent occurrence in the New Testament.

For καὶ ἡ γυνή, Matthew 22:27, read, with Tisch. 8, simply ἡ γυνή, in accordance with the preponderance of evidence.

Matthew 22:28. Instead of ἐν τῇ οὖν ἀναστ., we should, with Lachm. and Tisch., read ἐν τ. ἀναοτ. οὖν, following B D L א, min. The reading of the Received text was intended to be an emendation as regards the position of the οὖν.

Matthew 22:30. ἐκγαμίζονται] Lachm. Tisch. 8 : γαμίζονται, following B D L א, min. Clem. Or. (twice) Ath. Isid. The compound form, besides being obviously suggested by Luke, is intended to be more precise, so as to bring out the reference to women. Neither of the words belongs to the older Greek, hence the variations are not of a grammatical nature.

τοῦ θεοῦ] wanting in B D, 1, 209, vss. and Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. Left out, in accordance with Mark 12:25.

Matthew 22:32. οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ θεὸς θεός] The second θεός is deleted by Lachm., following B L Δ, min. Copt. Sahid. Or. (?). It is likewise wanting in D א, min. Eus. Chrys., which authorities drop the article before the first θεός. Tisch. 8 follows them, simply reading οὐκ ἔστιν θεός. The sufficiently attested reading of the Received text is to be adhered to; it was simplified in accordance with Mark and Luke.

Matthew 22:35. καὶ λέγων] not found in B L א, 33, vss. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. The omission, though opposed to Matthew’s usual style (Matthew 12:10, Matthew 17:10, Matthew 22:23; Matthew 22:41, Matthew 27:11), is in accordance with Mark 12:28.

Matthew 22:37. Ἰησοῦς] is to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch., following B L א, 33, Copt. Sahid. Inserted from Mark 12:29.

ἔφη] having decisive evidence in its favour, is to be preferred to εἶπεν of the Received text.

Matthew 22:38. For πρώτη κ. μεγάλη, read, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.: ἡ μεγάλη κ. πρώτη, following B D (which latter, however, omits ἡ) L (which, however, inserts the article also before πρώτη) Z א, min: vss; Hilar.; πρώτη would be placed first as being the chief predicate. Comp. δευτέρα below.

Matthew 22:40. καὶ οἱ προφῆται κρέμανται] B D L Z א, 33, Syr. Vulg. It. Tert. Hil.: κρέμαται καὶ οἱ προφ. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. The reading of the Received text is an exegetical correction.

Matthew 22:44. ὑποπόδιον] B D G L Z Γ Δ א, min. vss: Aug.: ὑποκάτω. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The reading of the Received text is taken from the Sept. and Luke.

Matthew 22:1. Καὶ ἀποκρ. ὁ Ἰης. πάλιν εἶπεν, κ.τ.λ.] In the full consciousness of His mission and His own superiority, Jesus replied (ἀποκρ., see note on Matthew 11:25) to their hostile ζητεῖν, which only fear of the people kept in check, by adding another parabolic address (ἐν παραβ. plural of the category). Olshausen and Keim are not justified in doubting this connection on the ground that Matthew 21:45 f. is, as they suppose, the formal conclusion. The parable as given in Luke 14:16 ff. is not a Pauline modification of the one before us (Baur, Hilgenfeld), but is rather to be regarded as representing an imperfect version of it which had found its way into the document consulted by Luke. Others are of opinion that the parable in Luke 14:16 ff. is the more original of the two, and that here it is interwoven with another (Matthew 22:8 ff.), the introduction to which, however, has disappeared, and that, in the process, still a third feature (Matthew 22:6-7) has been added from the parable which precedes (Ewald, Schneckenburger, de Wette, Strauss, Weizsäcker, Keim, Scholten). But coming as it does after the remark of Matthew 21:45 f., a somewhat copious parable such as that before us, so far from being a mere heaping of passage upon passage, is intended to serve as a forcible concluding address directed against His obdurate enemies,—an address, too, which does not interrupt the connection, since it was delivered before those for whom it was intended had had time to withdraw (Matthew 22:15). As, in presence of such obduracy, thoughts of the divine love and of the divine wrath could not but crowd into the mind of Jesus; so, on the other hand, there could not fail to be something corresponding to this in their parabolic utterance.

Matthew 22:2 f. On γάμους ποιεῖν, to prepare a marriage feast, comp. Wetstein and Xen. de rep. Lac. i. 6; Tob 8:19. Michaelis, Fischer, Kuinoel, Paulus are mistaken in supposing that what is meant is a feast on the occasion of his son’s accession to the throne.

The Messiah is the bridegroom (Matthew 25:1; Revelation 21:2; Revelation 21:9), whose marriage represents the setting up of His kingdom. Comp. Matthew 9:15, John 3:29, and note on Ephesians 5:27.

καλέσαι] i.e. to tell those who had been previously invited that it was now time to come to the marriage. Comp. Matthew 22:4; Luke 14:17. For instances of such repeated invitations, see Wetstein.

ἀνθρ. βασιλ.] as in Matthew 18:23; ὁμοιώθη, as in Matthew 13:24.

Matthew 22:4. Τὸ ἄριστον] not equivalent to δεῖπνον (see Luke 14:12; Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyr. ii. 3. 21), nor a meal generally, but in the sense of breakfast, prandium (towards mid-day, Joseph. Antt. v. 4. 2), with which the series of meals connected with marriage was to begin.

ἡτοίμακα (see critical remarks): paratum habeo.

καὶ πάντα] and everything generally.

Matthew 22:5 ff. Ἀμελήσαντες] having paid no attention, said with reference merely to those who went away; for the others, Matthew 22:6, conducted themselves in a manner directly hostile. This in answer to Fritzsche, who holds that Matthew would have expressed himself more precisely: οἱ δὲ ἀμελ., οἱ μὲν ἀπῆλθον … οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ, κ.τ.λ. Instead of so expressing himself, however, he leaves it to appear from the context that the first οἱ represents the majority of those invited, while the οἱ δὲ λοιποί constitute the remainder, so that the general form of expression (οἱ δὲ ἀμελ., κ.τ.λ.) finds its limitation in οἱ δὲ λοιποί. This limitation might also have been expressed by οἱ δέ alone, in the sense of some, however (see Kühner, II. 2, p. 808).

εἰς τὸν ἴδιον ἀγρόν] to his own farm (Mark 5:14; Mark 6:36), so that he preferred his own selfish interests to being present at the marriage of the royal prince, as was also the case with him who went to his merchandise. For ἴδιος, comp. note on Ephesians 5:22.

Matthew 22:8. Οὐκ ἦσαν ἄξιοι] Comp. Acts 13:46. “Praeteritum indignos eo magis praetermittit,” Bengel. To represent the expedition against the rebels, and the destruction of their city as actually taking place while the supper is being prepared,—a thing hardly conceivable in real life,—is to introduce an episode quite in accordance with the illustrative character of the parable, which after all is only a fictitious narrative. Comp., for example, the mustard seed which grows to a tree; the olive on which the wild branch is engrafted, Romans 11, etc.; see also note on Matthew 25:1 f.

Matthew 22:9. Ἐπὶ τὰς διεξόδους τῶν ὁδῶν] to the crossings of the roads, where people were in the habit of congregating most. It is evident from Matthew 22:7, according to which the city is destroyed, that what is meant is not, as Kypke and Kuinoel suppose, the squares in the city from which streets branch off, but the places where the country roads cross each other. Comp. Babyl. Berac. xliii. 1. Gloss.: “Divitibus in more fuit, viatores pauperes ad convivia invitare.”

Matthew 22:10. Ἐξελθόντες] from the palace of the king out into the highways.

συνήγαγον] through their invitation, which was accepted.

πονηρ. τε καὶ ἀγαθ.] not “locutio quasi proverbialis,” Bengel, but they proceeded on the principle of not inquiring whether the parties in question were at the time morally bad or good, provided they only accepted the invitation. The separation between the bad and the good was not to be made by them, but subsequently by the king himself, and that according to a higher standard. Accordingly, the separation takes place in Matthew 22:11 ff., where the man who has no wedding garment represents the πονηροί.

ὁ γάμος] not equivalent to νυμφών, but the wedding (i.e. the marriage feast, as in Matthew 22:8; comp. Hom. Od. iv. 3, Il. xviii. 491), was full of guests. The emphasis, however, is on ἐπλήσθη.