Matthew 22
BolesMatthew 22:1-14
THE PARABLE OF THE WEDDING FEAST
1 Jesus answered—He answered, not a question or an argument from them, but their violent purpose declared by Matthew in the preceding verse (Matthew 21:46). The parable points out, as did the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, the fate which their violence was preparing for them.
This parable was to show the attitude of the Jews toward the kingdom of heaven as it contrasted with that of the Gentiles. The Lord chose a very familiar subject for the illustration, that of a marriage and the feast that was given to the guests. Call them that were bidden. Invitations were sent out some time before the date of the wedding, and as that time approached the invited guests were notified that the date of the wedding had arrived and for them to be present. The Jews were told in the Old Testament that the kingdom of heaven was going to be set up but no definite date was stated to them. They would not come. The Jews were not very responsive to the invitation offered to them to partake of the good things provided by Jesus.
3-4 to call them that were bidden—The guests had been invited before, but no exact time had been fixed for them to come. now they are notified that it is time to come; that “all things are ready.”
5-7 the king was wroth.—It was an insult to the king to treat his invitation with contempt by going, one to his farm and another to his merchandise; but to seize the servants who had brought the kind invitation, and to mistreat and slay them, was an act of the most malignant hostility, justifying, according to the usages of kings, the most fearful retribution.
8-10 into the highways—The first invitations had been extended only to those of suitable rank to be guests of the king; but now all persons found on the highways, “both bad and good” are invited, and they, appreciating the honor conferred on them, accept the invitation, and the king triumphs in reference to the number, if not in reference to the rank of his guests. The conduct of those first invited brought ruin on themselves without defeating the purpose of the king.
The chief point is that many are called to it, but only they who work out holiness can see the Lord in peace. The Jews boasted of their birthright as making them peculiar favorites of heaven; they are now told that in the act of rejecting Christ that birthright will cease, and individual character alone will determine their final condition. The king made a marriage feast for his son; he sent his servants out to call them that were bidden to the feast, but those bidden refused to come. Again he sent other servants informing them that were bidden that all things were ready. The feast had been prepared; the oxen and fatlings were killed; the meat had been cooked; in fact, everything was prepared and they were ready to sit down to the feast. Those who were bidden “made light of it” and went about their own affairs; some went to their farms, some to their merchandise and some even laid hold of the servants and “treated them shamefully, and killed them.” These servants had gone out and invited those who had previously been invited to attend the feast; the servants did not go out and invite all the neighbors, but only those whom the king had already invited; a refusal to accept the king’s invitation meant treason. (Esther 1:12.) As the servants only summoned those who had been invited, they announced that all things were ready hence to treat with contempt these servants was to rebel against the king.
Those who were bidden went about their business of buying and selling for gain, and ignored the invitation of the king. Some who were bidden even shamefully treated the messengers and slew them.
When the king learned of this, he was angry and “he sent his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.” This seems to refer to the time when Jesus was speaking, and it was a warning to his hearers not to proceed in their sinful plots against the Lord of heaven and earth. Those first bidden, but who treated the invitation with contempt, were destroyed, and others were invited. The wedding was ready, “but they that were bidden were not worthy,” so the king instructed his servants to go “unto the partings of the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage feast.” They were to go into the public streets or at the squares where many streets met, and where a crowd of people might be expected to be found; if we understand it to be in the country, then they were to go to the sections of the highways or at the crossroads, and there bid all to come to the wedding feast. The servants obeyed, “and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was filled with guests.” It seems that the first invitation had been extended only to those who were special friends of the king, but now no discrimination was made in extending the second invitation. “Both bad and good” were invited and appreciated the honor, and accepted the invitation. The gospel invitation is to all; no discrimination is made between the rich and poor, moral and vicious, the high and the low, who will repent and reform.
11 But when the king came in to behold the guests, he saw there a man who had not on a wedding-garment.—The king did not sit at the feast with the guests; those who made great feasts entered the banqueting room to look at those who were invited, after they were arranged at the table; the dignity of the king forbade his entering before and sitting with the guests. Some think that the parabolic history here overleaps vast spaces of time, and at one spring brings us to the judgment day; that this is figured under the image of the king coming in to see the marriage guests. So this marriage lasts from the time of the first advent of Jesus to the time of his second coming. However, it may not have such significance. Some think that it was a custom of the king to furnish proper garments for their guests at such feasts. It matters not whether that be true or not; one guest did not have on the wedding garment and had no excuse for not being properly clothed. In viewing the guests as they were arranged at the feast, and on seeing that one was not properly clothed for the feast, the king asked, “Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding-garment?” The man made no excuse, hence “he was speechless”; this shows that he was responsible for his unprepared condition.
There is much difference of opinion among the commentators as to whether kings and men of wealth were in the habit of furnishing the proper garment for thier guests on such occasions; but whatever may be the truth on this point, this guest when called on to say why he had not on the wedding garment, was “speechless,” which shows that he had no excuse.
13 Then the king said to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and cast him out into the outer darkness.—He is cast out from the full blaze and splendor of the feast into the darkness of the street. The word “servants” as used here seems to designate a different class from those who had invited these guests; they were officers. It was customary to bind a criminal for his doom; so this man was bound and thrown from the splendor of the banquet into the horrors of the midnight street. “There shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.” This adds vividness to the description of “the outer darkness,” and widens the contrast between the splendor of the marriage banquet and the darkness of the street; it may signify the contrast between the glories of heaven and the anguish of hell. Jesus draws from the parable this conclusion. “For many are called, but few chosen.” The high and the low, the good and the bad, were called to the marriage feast; all were invited, hence “many are called.” Many of the Jews were called, but few accepted the call; many who accepted John’s teaching at first failed to accept the Christ when he came. Those Who were first called, who slighted the invitation and insulted the king, were the Jews. These were destroyed and may refer to the destruction of Jerusalem.
Those who were called from the highways may represent the Gentiles and some of them prove unworthy of the final blessings of the gospel. There may be other lessons drawn from the parable.
Matthew 22:15-22
PAYING TAXES TO CAESAR
15-22 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel.—Parallel records of this may be found in Mark 12:12-17 and Luke 20:20-26. “Then went the Pharisees”; this is the beginning of a series of councils of the Sanhedrin which resulted in the violent scenes which follow; thy were frightened by the miracle of the raising of Lazarus (John 11:48-53), and enraged by the parables which Jesus had just pronounced against them. They had listened to three searching parables which put them to a very great disadvantage; they now resort to allies for aid. The first they bring up are the Herodians, who retire from the encounter silenced. The purpose of the Pharisees is to “ensnare him in his talk”; that is, they want to confuse him or entangle him in contradiction. “Ensnare” is a figure drawn from taking wild birds in a snare or net. This first attempt with the Herodians is to involved him in difficulty with the Roman government; they seek to expose, as they thought, his ignorance upon some point of law or religion. The Herodians were a political party rather than a religious sect, as it is not known exactly what their opinions were on religious subjects.
It is plain from their name that they were attached to Herod, or rather to his political views; they took their title from Herod the Great. Some think that they taught that it was the safest, most politic wisdom to follow the customs of the Roman law rather than seek to insist upon obedience to the law of God, and especially when those precepts of the law caused any difficulty or danger.
Representatives of the Pharisees and the Herodians came to Jesus and said, “Teacher, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, and carest not for any one for thou regardest not the person of men.” If they had been sincere, they were paying a high tribute to Jesus. In attempting to ensnare him, they begin with flattery and deceit; they seek to inflate him with pride. They make four statements in their attempted flattery. First, “we know that thou art true,” that is, that he is genuinely sincere second, that thou “teachest the way of God in truth,” that is, that he taught the truth of God (if they so thought why did they not accept his teaching?) third, that thou “carest not for any one,” that is, that he was courageous enough to speak his convictions regardless of whom it might oppose and fourth, that “thou regardest not the person of men,” that is, he was not biased or prejudiced because of any one. What they said of Jesus was true, but they did not believe it as the truth about him. They put on the air of expecting complete independence from him under the hope that he would commit himself to some rebellious statement with respect to Roman law.
Having prepared him now, as they thought, for their question, they propounded it, “What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?” They mean, is it permitted by the law of Moses to pay tribute to Cesar? The Jews did not like paying tribute to a foreign government. By this question they thought they would put Jesus in a dilemma. If he said that it was not lawful to pay tribute to Caesar, then he would be in bad with the Roman authorities; but if he said that it was lawful, then he would lose some of his popularity with the people and would be in bad with them. These Pharisees did not care how he answered the question; they thought that his answer would hang him on one horn of the dilemma. The Jews based their opposition to paying tribute to a foreign government on Deuteronomy 17:14-15.
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness.—Jesus knew their hearts, he knew their intentions and he asked them, “Why make ye trial of me, ye hypocrites?” Jesus was quick to “discern the thoughts and intents of the heart,” and knew all that was in man. (John 2:24-25.) They were seeking to condemn Jesus by his words, but he reveals to them the thoughts of their hearts. They were asking as though seeking information, but had an evil motive in their question; hence, Jesus called them “hypocrites.” This was a severe condemnation. He called for a coin and was given a “denarius”; this coin was worth about seventeen cents in our money. He asked them, “Whose is this image and superscription?” The denarius had on it the image of the Roman emperor and a motto for an inscription. Some claim that it had this inscription: “Caesar Augustus, Judea being subdued.” They answered, “Caesar’s.” They did not give the superscription, only the image, while Jesus had asked for both. The inscription was odious to them and they did not wish to repeat it.
Jesus then answered, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” Give to Caesar or human government the things which belong to it; no one could object to this. Neither could any one object to giving to God the things that belong to God; he did not want that which belonged to Caesar, neither did he want his things given to Caesar; human laws have no right to infringe upon the laws of God. Christians must as far as possible comply with both, but when human law conflicts with the divine, Christians must obey God and take the consequences. These Pharisees “marvelled” at his wisdom “and left him, and went away.” They went away wondering, but not believing; they departed to plot other wickedness, and to accomplish by violence what they could not effect by their skill.
[Tertullian over 1,500 years ago commented on this incident as follows: “The image of Caesar, which is on the coin, we give to Caesar. The image of God, which is in man, is to be given to God. Therefore, thou must give the money, indeed, to Caesar, but thyself to God, for what will remain to God, if both man and money be given to Caesar?”]
Matthew 22:23-46
- AND THE ;
OF
23-33 On that day there came to him Sadducees.—Parallel records of this are found in Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-38. Jesus has been tested already by the Pharisees and the Herodians, and now is subjected to the shrewdness of the Sadducees. The Sadducees were hostile to the Pharisees, and came to Jesus, supposing that he would side with them, as he had just exposed to contempt the treachery of their adversaries. They proceeded on the common fallacy that since Jesus was opposed to their adversaries, he was with them; they did not think that he was able to stand alone, without seeking the favor of some religious party. The Sadducees were opposed to the belief of the separate existence of spirits, and hence opposed to the resurrection. (Acts 23:7-8.) They asked Jesus a question which, they thought, was an argument against the resurrection. They referred him to Deuteronomy 25:5, where Moses said, “If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.” This law ceased with the close of the Jewish dispensation. The Jews were legally obligated to perpetuate the family, and since the older brother received the birthright and inheritance, together with the family name, if he died without children, this would end that family; hence a brother was required to take the widow of a dead brother and raise children by her in the name of his dead brother.
These Sadducees related this imaginary case to Jesus: “The first married and deceased, and having no seed left his wife unto his brother; in like manner the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.” Then after she had had the seven brothers in succession as her husbands, “the woman died.” They then asked Jesus, “In the resurrection therefore whose wife shall she be of the seven?” All seven of the brothers had her as a legal wife, now in the resurrection whose wife shall she be? Jesus answered this question by saying, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” Three things united in their error and the same three things cause people to err in matters of faith today. First, they did not understand the scriptures (Daniel 12:2; Isaiah 26:19);second, they did not understand that the power of God can do all things; and third, they erred in supposing that the future world would be in all things like the present world. After rebuking for their ignorance Jesus said, “In the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven.” The objection of the Sadducees is without force, since it was based upon a misunderstanding of conditions. Marriage bears a necessary relation to death, since it was designed by God to perpetuate the human family; but after the resurrection, there is eternal life, and no need for the institution of marriage as there will be no death to destroy the being. Their question was based on the supposition that “in the resurrection” all human relationships on earth would be perpetuated in heaven. There are no males and females in the spirit world, and those who inherit eternal life are as “angels in heaven”; that is, they have all of those qualities of spirit that belong to angels, and have dropped all those human relations and propensities; they are without the passions of the flesh and are pure celestial and immortal beings.
Again Jesus rebuked them for their ignorance concerning the resurrection and asked if they had not read “that which was spoken unto you by God” where he said to Moses, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” (Exodus 3:6.) He then added that “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” Jesus answered the Sadducees according to their peculiar theories; they had only the book of Moses from which they had cited the scripture about the brother taking his dead brother’s wife. Jesus did not explain the resurrection to them, as they would not have understood it; the resurrection was fully explained after Jesus was raised from the dead. If there had been no resurrection, Jehovah would have said to Moses, “I was the God of Abraham,” etc., but “I am the God of Abraham,” etc., is what he said to Moses. Jehovah is not “the God of the dead, but of the living,” and since he is “the God of Abraham,” etc., these patriarchs are living, and if living, there is a life after death; hence a resurrection. Luke records this as follows: “Now he is not the God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.” (Luke 20:38.) Again when the people heard how he had answered the Sadducees, “they were astonished at his teaching.” Indeed he taught them, not as their scribes, but as one who could speak with authority. Jesus brought new truths from the Old Testament which the Jews had not seen nor understood.
34-40 But the Pharisees, when they heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence.—The Pharisees take another turn in opposing Jews. We are in the midst of the last week of his earthly ministry; Jesus is teaching in the temple. The Pharisees sought first to ensnare him, but he answered and rebuked them; then the Herodians joined the Pharisees in attempting to ensnare him; next the Sadducees attacked him; and now the Pharisees seek again to entangle. Parallel records of this are found in Mark 12:28-34 and Luke 20:39-40. The Pharisees were standing near by and heard that Jesus had put to silence the Sadducees. To put “to silence” here comes from the Greek word which strictly means “to muzzle,” as one would put a muzzle on a beast.
Perhaps the Pharisees enjoyed seeing Jesus thus “muzzle” or put to silence their adversaries, the Sadducees. They are emboldened to make another attack, and this time select one of their number whom they thought would be successful in this attempt to entrap him.
They selected “a lawyer,” that is, a teacher or doctor of the law; he was not “a lawyer” in our modern use of that term. This question was put to try Jesus. It may be that the lawyer himself asked for information, but he was the tool of the Pharisees. Mark calls this man a “scribe” who asked the question and says that “thou art not far from the kingdom of God.” (Mark 12:34.) This leads us to think that probably the man himself was sincere in asking the question, but being the tool of the Pharisees he was trying to ensnare Jesus. His question was, “Which is the great commandment in the law?” He meant by this which one law must be kept above all others? The teachers among the Pharisees had decided that no man could observe perfectly all the commandments of the law delivered by Moses they were sticklers for perfect obedience; but they saw in their own lives that no one kept perfectly all the commandments of the law; therefore they had decided that if one man kept perfectly one commandment his obedience to this one would be accepted as obedience to all of the laws.
However, the question arose among themselves as to which one was the most important, or which one should be selected to be kept. Some of them exalted one law above the other; some thought the law regulating the Sabbath was the more important, others thought that the law regulating conduct with respect to human life the most important.
This lawyer was skilled in the niceties and peculiar phases of the theory of the Pharisees, and perhaps they thought that he was able to argue his point with great ability. Jesus answered him, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.” That is, one must love God with his best, highest faculties, with the heart; that is, one must love God with all of his affections and have his desires fixed on him. “With all thy soul” includes all of one’s spiritual nature; “with all thy mind” means that all of the intellectual powers must be brought into subjection to the truth of God. It may be that Jesus meant to make no distinction between “heart,” “soul,” and “mind”; that he meant that one must surrender his entire being to the will of God and use the combined powers and faculties of his being to promote the honor and glory of God. This statement of the law includes the four commandments which were inscribed on the first table of stone, which regulated man’s conduct toward God. Man’s duties to God come first; they are supreme and must have the right of way in every life that would enjoy God. Jesus did not stop with that commandment, but added that “a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” This is a summary of the six commandments on the second table of stone of the Decalogue, which describe and regulate man’s conduct toward his fellow man.
In these two summaries Jesus covers the entire law, and said, “On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets.” All things in the Old Testament dispensation proceed from these two laws all things that Moses and the prophets wrote were intended to bring men to the supreme principle of love to God anti to man. In one sweep Jesus includes the entire will of God as revealed to man, and shows that no one section or clause of it can be disregarded or exalted above another. They recognized that Jesus had answered “discreetly” and no one of them asked him any more questions. (Luke 20 40.)
[Love is the fulfilling of the law. The soul that hungers and thirsts to do the will of God loves God. It is deception and folly to talk of loving God while we fail to obey him or do his commandments. This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. When people do not with the soul desire above all things to do the will of God, they do not love him. To love thy neighbor as thyself is not to feel a magnetic attraction toward him, but it is to have the purpose of heart, soul, and mind to do him good, to work for his happiness and well-being as we labor for our own wellbeing and happiness.
He is a true child of God who is willing to sacrifice every fleshly feeling and impluse and bear all things to do the will of God. He loves his neighbor as himself who can choke back the angry feeling and forget wrongs suffered in order to benefit and help him. We can wisely love self only by loving the neighbor, the enemy.]
41-46 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together.— Parallel records of this are found in Mark 12:35-37 and Luke 20:41-44. Before the Pharisees had separated, and while they were still in the temple that day, Jesus asked them a question. He had answered all their questions one by one as they had produced them, and now he proceeds on another line of opposition to them. They have been defeated and stand condemned before the people and in their own sight; so Jesus propounds to them this question, “What think ye of the Christ? whose son is he?” He does not ask them if they think that he is the Messiah, but he calls for their opinion as to whom the Messiah is; that is, “whose son is he” or through whose lineage should he come? They knew the scriptures on this point and answered promptly, “The son of David.” They knew that the scriptures taught that he was to be a descendant of David. (Psalms 132:11.) When they answered this question, Jesus propounded another, “How then doth David in the Spirit call him Lord?” That is, how could David call one of his descendants Lord? David in speaking was guided by the Holy Spirit.
Upon what principle could David call him Lord? Mark states that David did this by the Holy Spirit, and Luke adds that it was “in the book of Psalms” that David called him Lord. (Psalms 110:1.) Jesus then quotes from Psalms 110:1 and applies the language to David and says that he spoke by the Holy Spirit and called the Messiah Lord.
It seems in order to further confuse these Pharisees that Jesus added another question, “If David then calleth him Lord, how is he his son?” Here was the point for them to explain. They cannot admit it without acknowledging that while he is human as descended from David, so he is divine as the right Messiah sent of God; it shows that his royalty is not on earth, but in heaven. It also shows that the Messiah on earth was to have a twofold nature—fleshly and divine. They were unable to answer him; it is not recorded that they even attempted to answer. They did not ask him any more questions; this closed his debate with them. He had answered and confounded the various sects of the Jews by answering and asking questions. They had failed to catch him in his words; they now resort to violence; next he is brought before their judgment seat; and last they are to be brought before his judgment bar.