Matthew 22

2 a marriage. Rather, “marriage festivities”; or, more generally, “a festival.” The parable greatly resembles that in Luke xiv. 16-24, which was delivered on a different occasion.

3 sent forth his servants. Guests who had been previously invited were summoned by the servants when the feast was ready, and were expected then to be prepared to go. So God had sent His invitations to the Jews by the prophets, who predicted the Messiah’s coming; and they ought therefore to have been prepared, when John the Baptist, the Twelve, and the Seventy announced that “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

4 sent forth other servants. The urgent repetition of the invitation represents God’s repeated messages of mercy to the Jews, though they had refused His call. The apostles are no doubt here referred to.

6 the remnant. The greater part were indifferent (3-5); “the remainder,” the open enemies of Christ, persecuted His messengers.

9 the highways. The great thoroughfares of the city, the crossroads; “the partings of the highways” (R.V.), the places of chief resort.

12 not having a wedding garment. To appear at a festival without an appropriate dress was a mark of disrespect to the host; particularly when, as was the case in royal feasts, he had provided one for every corner. But the point of the illustration probably lies, not so much in the source whence fitness for the blessings of the gospel is derived, as in the meetness itself, the “putting on the Lord Jesus Christ,” as at once the justification and sanctification of the believer: cp. Rom. xiii. 14; Gal. iii. 27; Eph. iv. 24.

13 outer darkness. Or, “the darkness without.” See note on viii. 12. As the wedding feast took place at night, the comparison is between the brilliantly lighted banquet hall and the darkness without.

14 many are called, but few are chosen. This moral refers to both parts of the parable. Many hear the call of the gospel, but heed it not; and even of those who feel disposed to welcome its gifts but few are prepared to comply with its requirements. This verse shows that the man without the wedding garment (12) is a type of a numerous class.

15 entangle. Or, “ensnare” (R.V.). The Jewish rulers, greatly enraged by our Lord’s rebukes and threatenings, had determined upon His death, but were afraid of the people. They therefore endeavoured to extract from Him something which might afford a plausible accusation against Him, or at least might alienate men from Him. In this plot the different parties united. But His prudence and wisdom baffle and astonish, first, the Pharisees and Herodians, who try to involve Him in a political difficulty (15-22); then the Sadducees, who hope to entangle Him in a theological one

(23-33); and again the Pharisees, who watch His reply to an inquiring lawyer (34-40). At last He confounds and silences them all by a question respecting the parentage of the Messiah, which they are quite unable to answer (41-46).

16 the Herodians. The Herodians were political partisans of the Herodian family, and consequently of the Roman supremacy. They were, therefore, usually opposed to the Pharisees, who espoused the popular Jewish sentiment, which regarded the payment of tribute to a foreign power as a badge of servitude, and even as a breach of the law of Moses. The question which these two parties now proposed was one that might naturally have arisen between them, and might well appear to result from the conscientious scruples of “just men” (Luke xx. 20). They hoped that they should place Jesus in a dilemma from which He could not escape. An affirmative answer would have destroyed His credit with the common people; and then the Pharisees could have apprehended Him without fear. A negative reply would have enabled the Herodians to denounce Him to the Roman governor as a preacher of sedition.

17. Cæsar. “Cæsar” was the common appellation of the Roman emperors. The emperor at this time was Tiberius.

19 tribute money. The “census money.” A poll-tax of a denarius, levied by the Romans in the provinces, was extended to Judæa by Pompey (Joseph. Antiq. xiv. 4, § 4). A similar tax had been previously levied by the kings of Syria (Joseph. Antiq. xiii. 2, § 3).

21. Render therefore unto Cæsar, etc. Our Lord’s reply manifests consummate prudence. So far as it is an answer to the question, it accords with a correct maxim of the Jewish teachers, that “where a king’s coin is current, his sovereignty is acknowledged.” But His words contain further lessons of deeper wisdom, teaching us that the benefits derived from an orderly government render the payment of its dues imperative; and that, so long as its requirements do not interfere with the paramount claims of God, they are sanctioned by His authority. On the other hand, He excepts from human control the higher things that belong to God, whose “image” man bears, and to whom he owes himself and all that he has.

23 which say (saying) that there is no resurrection. The Sadducees denied the whole doctrine of a future life, as well as that of spiritual existences: see Acts xxiii. 8; xxvi. 8.

24 his brother shall marry his wife. This case refers to an ancient Eastern custom, which was followed by the Hebrews, and was regulated by the Mosaic law (see Gen. xxxviii. 8, 26; Deut. xxv. 5; Ruth i. 11; iii. 1-13, and notes). It is probable that this objection was a favourite and successful weapon of the Sadducees in their contests with the Pharisees, who appear to have supposed that the relationships of the present life would continue in the future state. The case that the Sadducees put was impossible.

29 the power of God. “The resurrection of the dead rests upon the power of God; the belief of the resurrection rests upon the Scriptures” (Joseph). God’s power can make men become “as angels” (30): His word, even the portion given by Moses (which alone the Sadducees received as of Divine authority), says that God is still the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exod. iii. 6).

32. I am the God of Abraham, etc. This phrase and others like it are often used as a brief abstract, including all or any of the blessings of that covenant-relation to God which they imply: cp. Deut. xxvi. 16-19; Isa. xli. 10; Zech. xiii. 9; Heb. xi. 16. “I am their God” implies that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living, as God declares to Moses that, long after their death, He is still their God. They must, therefore, still be capable of enjoying the benefits arising from their relation to Him, and, though dead to this world, they must still “live to Him” (Luke xx. 38); for the fulfilment of His promises can be enjoyed only by the living, not by the dead.

33 doctrine. Rather, “teaching” (R.V.), as in vii. 28.

34 when the Pharisees had heard, etc. Many of the Pharisees would gladly have seen Jesus defeated or entrapped by the Sadducees; but some could not but admire His wisdom; and one of them wished to try it further. His motive might not be bad; but, in asking the question in the presence of vigilant enemies, the inquirer was, in effect, “tempting Him,” or testing Him (35): see notes on Mark xii. 28-34. The similar question and reply recorded (Luke x. 25-28) were on a different occasion. The problem was a very common one in the Jewish schools.

42 of Christ. Rather, “of the Christ” (R.V.), or “the Messiah”; particularly as to His parentage.

43 in spirit. “In the Spirit” (R.V.), that is, speaking by the Holy Spirit: see Psa. ex., and preliminary note. Our Lord not only recognises the current belief as to the authorship of this Psalm, but endorses this belief by His own authority, the whole point of His argument resting on the fact that the language is David’s own.

45 how is He his son? This difficulty can be satisfactorily solved only by acknowledging that the Messiah is both God and man. But the worldly views of the Jewish teachers respecting His person and kingdom had blinded them to the higher revelations of their own Scriptures.