Matthew 22

Chap. XXI. Ver. 1—11. Chap. XXI. Ver. 1. To Bethphage.—A small village at the foot of the mount of Olives.—And aay ‘—The latter is the village “‘ opposite,” to which the disciples were sent, and both were very near Jerusalem. ag &. Daughter of Sion—That is, all the inhabitants of Jerusalem. er. 8. Spread their garments, &c.—This account agrees with the customs of the Jews at the feast of Tabernacles, and on other times of rejoicing. (See 1 Mac. xiii. 51. 2 Mac. x. 7.) The like ceremonies were used by the heathen toward kings and conquerors, on great occasions. See Orient. Lit. No. 1214. Ver. 9. Hosanna!—Save now, I beseech. Psalm exviii. 25.— Blessed be he that cometh, &c.—Campbell, ‘Blessed BE,”

&c. Bp. Chandler remarks, that the prophecy of Zechariah, here referred to, is twice explained in the Talmud, of Messiah. The same learned prelate quotes from a Rabbinical book the following tradition: That at the Paschal feast, a man, who personated the Messiah, bursting open a door, used to ride into the room upon an ass, another following with a horn, to proclaim and anoint him. Zechariah’s prophecy was by the Jews understood of Messiah, and could not justly be applied to any Ver. 12. Into the temple.—Campbell observes, that the word here used for the temple is hzeron, not naos; the latter being confined to the sanctuary, the former comprehending all the courts of the temple, in the outermost of which (entering from the eastern gate) Jesus found the money-changers and the pigeon-dealers, who were no better than ‘‘a den of thieves.”

Orient. Cust. Nos. 405, 1198. This appears not to have been the first time of Jesus’ clearing the temple.—The tables.—Hammond and Doddridge, ‘Seats;” Gr. Kathedra. They were probably seats with desks, or counters, attached to them. Ver. 13. The house.—Doddridge and others, “A house.” from the lips of babes. ((Psalms 8:2).) The simpler our praises, the more acceptable are they in the sight of God. “But the chief priests and scribes were sore displeased.” Jesus taught the people, and healed them, at which every humane and benevolent person would have rejoiced. Jesus purified the temple from thieves and robbers, which the priests themselves ought to have done. The multitude, and especially the children, glorified God our Saviour for these displays of his grace and mercy; but with all this, these hypocritical priests and scribes were ‘‘sore displeased.”

One circumstance in this narrative has given great offence to infidels; namely, the animal on which Jesus rode—an ass. The riding upon his creature was characteristic, since patriarchs, judges, and kings of Israel, thus rode; and it was even forbidden to the Jews to cultivate the breed of horses. (See (Deuteronomy 17:16). (Joshua 15:18). (Judges 5:10). (2 Samuel 16:2).) This precept had been, however, so much neglected, that in the time of our Lord it was certainly a mark of meekness and humility, to ride on this much-injured and despised beast; as, indeed, is intimated in the prediction quoted from Zechariah. Next morning occurred another circumstance, which has been very freely censured by those who have evidently not understood it.

Jesus coming to town, from Bethany, in the morning, and being hungry, noticed a fig-tree, which, as it grew on the highway, was public property, and therefore went to it, to look for fruit, but found leaves only, and in consequence pronounced against it a sentence of perpetual barrenness, and it was immediately blighted, and withered away! This has been misrepresented, as done in a fit of spleen, or passion; but it was, in fact, a symbolic action, such as we frequently meet with in the ancient prophets. This tree was a type or emblem of the Jewish nation, and particularly of the Scribes and Pharisees, who, with the greatest professions of religion, (like the green foliage of this fig-tree,) were utterly barren of good fruit.

The malediction pronounced against it, represented the curse of God against the Jews, who, after the preaching both of John and of Christ, were still impious and impenitent; and growing worse and worse, were, in a few years afterwards, cut down by the Roman axe, and thrown into the fire. The speedy withering of this fig-tree having attracted the admiration of the apostles, Jesus (verse 22) re-inculcates his former doctrine, on the importance of prayer as well as faith in working miracles. (See (Matthew 16:20); xviii. 19.) “All things, whatsoever ye ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.” A maxim, however, of such importance as to require some consideration before we proceed, and the more so, as commentators in general seem to pass it over very slightly.

So far as the passage relates to the faith of working miracles, we have already considered it; but the expression is here so general, that we cannot confine our interpretation to this extraordinary gift: we feel it necessary, however, to guard the passage from abuse. 1. It does not warrant our presumption on things trifling and ridiculous; nor does it warrant us to attempt what we know is impossible to us. The pious author of “The Pilgrim’s Progress,” when young and inexperienced, was tempted to work a miracle to prove his faith. He states in his own life, that one day, walking between Elstow and Bedford, it was strongly suggested to him to say to some puddles in the horse road, “Be dry;”

and to say to the dry places, “‘Be puddles.” But just as he was about to speak, the thought came into his mind to go under the hedge to pray that God would enable him. On the other hand it occurred to him, that if he tried and could not effect it, it would discourage and sink him into deep despair: for this reason he prudently declined it, concluding that he was not warranted to put his faith to such a test. 2. We are warranted to ask nothing in prayer, but with a deference to the will of God. Our Lord himself has taught us this, who, with unlimited miraculous powers, and having more than twelve legions of angels at a command, thus prayed, ((Matthew 26:39),) ‘‘Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.”

Indeed, as respects ourselves, there are but two things we are taught to ask unconditionally; the pardon of our sins, and the aid of God’s Holy Spirit: and these we know it is the good pleasure of God to give to them that ask him. But temporal blessings should always be asked with the deepest submission to the divine will. Ver. 23—46. Jesus attacked by the priests and elders, answers them by another question, and warns them in parables.—While Jesus was teaching and working miracles in the temple, the priests and elders demanded by what authority he did these things. An absurd demand, because miracles carry with them their own authority: Jesus, however, instead of a direct reply, answers them by another question, which much embarrassed them; because, had they admitted John the Baptist to be a prophet, they must have admitted Jesus to be the Messiah, for he ‘bare witness of him:”

and they dared not say any thing against the former, for ‘all men held John to be a prophet.” They were therefore silent, and Jesus avoided their ensnaring questions. But he answered them by parables: ‘““A certain man had two sons.” These sons, we think, do not so properly represent the Jews and Gentiles, as they do the two great classes among the Jews. Those who had made little or no profession of religion, as the publicans and harlots, who yet repented at the preaching of John and of Jesus; and those who made high professions of religion, as did the Scribes or Pharisees but were in fact hypocrites in heart, and did The parable of the vineyard plainly refers to the Jewish church, which had been designated by Isaiah and other prophets under the same image.

(See (Psalms 80:15). (Isaiah 5:1); xxvii. 2, &c.) The husbandmen to whom this vineyard was let out, were the Jewish rulers, who, instead of listening to the messages of the prophets, evil entreated, and killed them. ((Matthew 5:12); xxiii. 34—37.) At length, ‘‘God sent forth his Son,” as if he thought they would pay more regard to him, instead of which, they treated him more despitefully than the rest; at which he is represented as justly exasperated, so as to destroy them, and place his vineyard in other hands, the hands of Gentiles. To bring this home closer to their consciences, our Lord cites a passage from the 118th Psalm, part of which they had heard chaunted by the multitude, but a few hours before, and then warns them, that the consequence of their refusing the corner stone, on which God had determined to build his church, would be their utter destruction; they should be crushed to atoms; which was fully accomplished by the Romans.

Upon this, “‘the chief priests and Pharisees perceived that Jesus spake of them;” they wanted therefore to lay hands on him, but ‘‘they feared the multitude.” Chap. XXII. Ver. 1—114. The parable of the marriage booty and the wedding garment.—The gospel dispensation is here compared to a feast, which a certain king made on occasion of the marriage of his son. It is necessary to keep in mind the royalty of the occasion, to account for “oxen and fatlings being killed,” which implies great preparation for a numerous company. The persons first invited were the Jews, who were “bidden” by the early prophets. ‘In this mountain shall the Lord of hosts make unto all people a feast,” &c. ((Isaiah 25:6).) He then sent forth his servants, the later prophets, to invite again them that were bidden; but “they would not come.”

Next he sent forth John the Baptist and the apostles, who announced that “‘all things (were) ready.” One part of the company, the laity, made light of this, and went ‘‘one to his farm, and another to his merchandise;” but the remnant, namely, the priests, and the Scribes, and the Pharisees, ‘‘entreated” the servants of this great king “despitefully, and slew them.” When the king, however, heard this, he was justly provoked with such conduct, and sent forth his armies—for all the armies in earth and heaven are his—and slew them. Seeing, however, that the feast was ready, the king was determined to have guests; and seeing those who had been hitherto invited were utterly unworthy of the feast, the king sends forth into the public roads, that is, among the Gentiles, and gathers together all that could be found, ‘good or bad, till the wedding was furnished with guests:”

and now came the hour of discrimination. The king, who had given the invitation, came in, as was customary, to view his guests. (See (Luke 14:10).) On this occasion, it seems, his eye immediately marked one of the company, who “had not on a wedding garment,” and immediately demanded, “Friend, how camest thou hither, not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless,” and was immediately expelled. This circumstance makes it important for us to note what is intended by this “wedding garment,” and how it might be procured? For might this stranger have replied, he could not procure one, a just and good prince would not have excluded him on that account. It is most certain that persons were expected, on such occasions, to put on their best apparel, as, indeed, is the universal practice; but Doddridge mentions several instances, among the Greeks, of great men, on such occasions, providing proper habits for their visiters; and such appears to be the custom, even now, in Asia.

An Eastern “king sent to invite the Ambassadors to dine with him once more. The Mehemander told them it was the custom that they should wear, over their own clothes, the best of those garments which the king had sent them.” Some scrupled this, till they were told that it was a general custom, ‘“and that no doubt the king would take it very ill at their hands, if they presented themselves before him without these marks of his liberality.” On this, they all agreed to comply. (Orient. Cust. No. 1202.) sleeves, the white ground of which is of goat’s hair, mixed with some silver; but the flowers woven in, are of a gold-coloured silk.” (Orient. Lit. No. 1217.) This wedding garment was “a garment of honour,”

and provided by the king. ‘This last circumstance (as Calvin remarks) is admirably suited to the method of God’s dealing with us; who, indeed, requires Holiness in order to our receiving the benefits of the gospel, but is graciously pleased to work it in us (on our repentance) by his Holy Spirit; and therefore may justly resent and punish our neglect of so great a favour.” (See Doddridge in loc. note f.) It is added, that when the king saw this man without a wedding garment, he was so incensed, that he ordered him to be cast “into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen.” —‘It is evident (says an ingenious writer) that by this parable our Lord chiefly intends to show the levity with which the Jews treated the gospel; and consequently the justice, as well as the goodness of God, in sending it to the Gentiles.

The first would not come; the last furnished the table with guests, both bad and good: but that we may well understand the purity of Christianity, he informs us, that bad Gentiles, as well as wicked Jews, would be inexcusable, if they turned the grace of God into lasciviousness; if they put not on the wedding garment.” (Robinson’s Vill. Disc. xv.) Ver. 15—46. The Pharisees, the Herodians, and the Sadducees, successively endeavour to entangle our Lord in his conversation.—This chapter furnishes several instances of the art with which these several parties attempted to ensnare our Lord, and of the wisdom and address with which he answered them. First, the Herodians endeavoured to embroil him with the Roman government, on the subject of paying tribute.

The substance of his argument from the Roman penny is, “You own this to be Cesar’s coin, which, being current in your land, proves you to be under his government; while, therefore, you enjoy that protection, it is your duty to acknowledge it: at the same time, forget not that you are under higher obligations to the God of Israel, and owe him a more absolute obedience.” ther:” that blessed state knows nothing of the matrimonial connexion: men then shall be as pure as angels. ‘‘But (adds our Lord) as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken to you by God (himself,) saying, I am the God of Abraham—of Isaac—and of Jacob? ((Exodus 3:6, 16).) God is not the God of the dead, but of the living;” that is, they must continue to exist, or he cannot be said to bear any relation to them.

Dr. Doddridge here remarks, that * As it is expressly said, ((Acts 23:8),) they denied (the existence of) any spirit, (human or angelic,) and consequently the existence of the soul in a separate state; so our Lord’s answer here, and much of St. Paul’s reasoning in (1 Corinthians 15)goes on the supposition of such denial on their part.’ God can bear no relation to what has no existence: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, must, therefore, still exist, or he would not acknowledge himself as their God. It is observable, that the passage here referred to is quoted from the Pentateuch, or the writings of Moses. Passages far more express, if not more decisive, might be found in the Psalms and Prophets; but the Sadducees, it is said, paid little or no regard to them.

By the quotation from Moses, however, they were completely silenced. At this the multitude were astonished; and we might have expected the Pharisees would have been gratified, as our Lord’s argument was in their favour: but so inveterate was their malice, that they were only thereby excited to attack him themselves. One of them, who was a lawyer, that is, a professor of the Jewish law, now came tempting him with this question, “Master, which is the great commandment of the law?” On this occasion, our Lord divides the whole moral law into two tables; the love of God, and of our neighbour. This question, “Which is the first and great commandment?” had, it seems, been often argued by the Jewish doctors; “some contending for the law of circumcision, others for that of sacrifices, and others for that of the phylacteries:” and Dr.

Lightfoot remarks, that our Lord answered this scribe from one of the XXII. 5. signs usually written on their phylacteries. (See Chap. It is worthy of remark, that in all these instances, after our Lord had resolved each of the questions proposed to him, he, in return, proposes one to them. So, in this case, after explaining to them the law, he thus introduces the gospel:— ‘What think ye of Christ?’ or of the Messiah? ‘‘Whose Son is he?’ They reply, ‘The Son of David.” ‘‘How then (rejoins our Saviour) doth David in spirit call him Lord;” referring to (Psalms 110:1). ‘The Lord said unto my Lord,” &c. “If David called Messiah Lord, how is he then his son?’ This the Jews could not answer, nor can it be answered, but on the principle that, as John the Baptist said of Jesus, “He who came after him was before him,”

both in point of time and dignity. The Son of God, as to his divine nature, was David’s Lord; though as to his human nature, he was David’s son. (See Expos. (Psalms 110:1), &c.) But we cannot better close this section, than by proposing to our own meditation, and that of our readers, this very serious question—‘What think ye of Christ?’ “What think ye of Christ? is the test To try both your state and your scheme; Ye cannot be right in the rest, Unless you think rightly of him.”"—Newton.

Notes on the verses

Chap. XXII. Ver. 2. Made a marriage—Or marriage feast. ‘The word here properly signifies a nuptial banquet.” Doddridge. Ver. 3. They would not come.—The reason why men do not embrace the gospel, ((Luke 13:34);) they choose another thing more loved. Ver. 5. Made light.—Treated it as though it were of small value. Ver. 7. Burned up their city.—There can be no doubt but this refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. Ver. 9. As many as ye shall find, bid.—Many have disputed this general call of the gospel; but Mr. Robinson, of Cambridge, remarks, ‘It would become ministers to do all God’s commands without murmuring, and without disputing: and to leave to God the harmonizing of his words, as well as of his works of nature and moral government.”

Ver. 10. Highways.—Doddridge, ‘Public ways,” or ways most frequented. Ver. 12. Speechless.—Doddridge, “Struck speechless;” Greek, literally, *Muzzled,” as (1 Corinthians 9:6). Ver. 14. Many are called.—See note, (Matthew 20:16). Ver. 16. The Herodians.—‘The profound malice of the Pharisees appears here in their choice of companions, their affected praise, and the artful and difficult question they proposed.’—Bagster. Ver. 17. Is it lawful?—This question seems to be founded on (Deuteronomy 17:15), which required the Jews to set over them a king of their own nation; on which Dr. A. Clarke remarks, “‘Had Christ said, Yes; then they would have condemned him by this law: had he said, No; then they would have accused him to Cesar.”

Ver. 20. Whose is this image and superscription?—Doddridge, “Inscrip- Ver. 21. Which are Cesar’s—(This conclusion is drawn from their own maxims and premises. They held that ‘wherever the money of any king is current, there the inhabitants acknowledge that king for their lord.”’—Maimonides. Now, by admitting that this was Cesar’s coin, and by consenting to receive it as the current coin of their country, they in fact acknowledged their subjection to his government, and of course their obligation to pay the tribute demanded of them. This answer was full of consummate wisdom; and it completely defeated the insidious designs of his enemies. He avoided rendering himself odious to the Jewish people by opposing their notions of liberty, or appearing to pay court to the emperor, without exposing himself to the charge of sedition and disaffection to the Roman government.