Bible Commentaries

Matthew 22:1-14). The leaders responded as various

factions tried to trip Jesus with questions. Pharisees and Herodians

asked Jesus about paying taxes to Caesar (Matthew 22:15-22), Sadducees presented an

argument against the resurrection of the dead (Matthew 22:23-33), and a lawyer

asked what was the greatest commandment of the Law (Matthew 22:34-40). Jesus

answered easily, and then silenced them with a question of His own

regarding the Christ as David's son (Matthew 22:41-46).

POINTS TO PONDER

* Many are called, but few are chosen

* Paying taxes, the resurrection, and the greatest commandment

* How Christ is both David's son and David's Lord

REVIEW QUESTIONS

1) What are the main points of this chapter?

- The parable of the wedding feast - Matthew 22:1-14

- Pharisees with Herodians: Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar?

- Matthew 22:15-22

- Sadducees: What about the resurrection of the dead? - Matthew 22:23-33

- Lawyer: What is the great commandment in the Law? - Matthew 22:34-40

- Jesus: How can Christ be both David's son and David's Lord? - Mt

22:41-46

2) What two groups are depicted in the parable of the wedding feast?

(Matthew 22:3; Matthew 22:11)

- Those who refuse the invitation; those who accept, but improperly

adorned

3) How did Pharisees and Herodians try to entangle Jesus in His talk?

(Matthew 22:15-17)

- By asking whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar

4) What did Jesus reply that prompted them to marvel? (Matthew 22:21-22)

- "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to

God the things that are God's."

5) How did Sadducees try to trip Jesus? (Matthew 22:23-28)

- With a hypothetical situation intended to show the resurrection is

an impossibility

6) What two-fold answer did Jesus give the Sadducees? (Matthew 22:29-32)

- Marital relations don't exist after death; Exodus 3:6 proves the dead

still exist

7) What were the two greatest commandments in the Law? (Matthew 22:37-38)

- Love God with all your heart, soul, mind; love your neighbor as

yourself

8) How can Christ be both David's son and David's Lord? (Matthew 22:45)

- His son by virtue of physical ancestry, his Lord by virtue of His

deity

Matthew 22:1-46

Matthew 22:1-46

THE PARABLE OF THE MARRIAGE OF THE KING's SON THE TRIBUTE TO CAESAR IN HEAVEN WHOSE WIFE SHALL SHE BE? THE GREAT COMMANDMENT HOW THEN DOES DAVID IN THE SPIRIT CALL HIM LORD? THE PARABLE OF THE KING's SON

And Jesus answered and spake again in parables unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a certain king, who made a marriage feast for his son (Matthew 22:1-2)

This is the third of a series of three parables Jesus directly addressed to the Pharisees. There is a definite connection in all three, revealing a progressive intensity in the sins of the Pharisees, and setting forth stronger and stronger punishments to be incurred by them. For a comparison and analysis of all three parables, see under Matthew 22:14, below. This parable has the following analogies:

The king represents God.

The king's son is Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

The marriage supper stands for the privileges of the true faith.

The messengers are the evangelists of all ages who preach the truth.

The mistreatment of the messengers refers to the hostility of the Pharisees against the apostles, first, and to other preachers later.

The rejection of the invitation is the rejection of Christ's message by the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders.

The destruction of their city is the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and Vespasian in70 A.D.

The sending of the messengers into the byways prefigures the call of the Gentiles.

The man without a wedding garment represents all who despise the privilege of true faith, and, while professing it, prove themselves unworthy of it.

The coming in of the king to see the guests is the arraignment of all men at the final judgment.

The binding of the offender and casting him out show the punishment of the wicked in hell.

The speechlessness of the offender shows that evil men at last shall concur in their own punishment, being able to make no defense of their own conduct.

Verse3
And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the marriage feast: and they would not come.

Israel had long known of that approaching appointment to receive and honor the King's Son when he should appear in their midst. Their whole nation had been protected and nurtured through long history for the specific purpose of equipping them to recognize and hail their Messiah when he came. The first of those servants sent to announce that the great feast was at hand was John the Baptist. They rejected him. They also rejected the apostles, mistreating them and bluntly rejecting the invitation, offering no excuse, but simply refusing to come to the marriage feast.

Verse4
Again he sent forth other servants saying, Tell them that are bidden, Behold I have made ready my dinner; my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come to the marriage feast.

These other servants and their invitation represent the evangelistic program of the church following the resurrection of Christ. Trench said:

This second summons I take to represent the invitation to the Jewish people, as it was renewed to them at the second epoch of the kingdom, that is, after the resurrection and ascension. Acts 3:17). (2) Also, the Jews continued to have a priority in hearing the gospel for a long while after Pentecost, as indicated by Paul's motto, "To the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Romans 1:16). The marvelous solicitation and tenderness of the apostolic preaching, even after the resurrection, shows the forbearance and mercy of God as he yet pleaded with those evil men to acknowledge and receive their true King. That the messengers in this second invitation were the same as the first, in many cases, is no problem. In the most genuine sense, they were "born again" and thus were "other servants." Besides, there were many more of them in the second appeal, including many who were not in the first group.

ENDNOTE:

Matthew 21:16), even though the Pharisees would not honor him. Children took up the song they should have sung, and the temple rang with his praises anyway. The king did not cancel the royal wedding because certain invited guests insulted his gracious invitation. The Jewish nation rejected Christ (although not all of them), but the city responsible for it was utterly destroyed, because it was no longer the King's city but, in the words of the parable, "their city." When people reject God's will, even the sacred institutions they had formerly received from God become no longer his, but THEIRS. The true privileges will always go to those willing to receive them. The Gentiles would be called to the feast which the Jews, for the greater part, rejected.

Verse10
And those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was filled with guests.

The wedding was a success. So also will the true religion of God prevail at last. His will will be done. No man or group of men, no nation or group of nations, can prevent the accomplishment of the eternal design of God. The fact that the ultimate guests were "both bad and good" emphasizes the probationary nature of the church in this dispensation. Christ was always at pains to make that clear. The kingdom, under the figure of a drag net, also was represented as having "both bad and good," or "fishes of every kind" (Matthew 13:47-48).

Invariably, in all Christ's teaching, it is also clear that mankind in the broadest sense is not worthy of salvation; that is, they cannot merit it. In the three parables in this series here delivered to the Pharisees, it is clear that in the case of the two sons, neither of them was what a son should have been; and in the case of the one before us, the total population, in the truest and highest sense, were not ENTITLED to be invited, the first because they were unworthy of it, and the others because they were not of sufficient excellence. In the light of this, how can any man feel that God, in any sense, "owes" him eternal life? Then there is the case of the laborers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16). The owner of the vineyard could not have been impressed with either class, either those who worked all day and murmured at the end of it, or those who idled all day and put in only an hour's work. Surely it must be glaringly plain that GRACE is what enables any to stand justified in the sight of God. So also in the parable of the prodigal, both sons were unworthy.

Verse11
But when the king came in to behold the guests, he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment.

This stands for the final inspection of all men in the judgment. To be sure, the King is constantly beholding the men of his kingdom, and continually observing the conduct of all his servants; but this coming in of the king on a formal and stated occasion to view the guests indicates a far more auspicious examination. It is the judgment of the great day when the King shall suddenly appear and review the credentials of those who have accepted his invitation. Judgment shall indeed begin at the house of God (1 Peter 4:17).

Verse12
And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.

That man's apparel was an insult to the occasion, indicating that immoral and shameful conduct on the part of Christians is an insult to God that will at last be punished. We may not excuse him on grounds that he was poor, unable to obtain a wedding garment, or that he had no chance to supply one. Note that the man himself was speechless. It was totally his fault, and he could not think of any word to utter in defense of what he had done. We do not appeal to traditions handed down, nor to customs of monarch's who always provided royal garments for their guests, nor to anything else except the speechlessness of that intruder who thus marred the happy festivities by entering without a wedding garment. He could not defend himself or offer any excuse; rash is the person who will trump up one for him. What kind of person could fabricate a defense for that rude person's insult of the king? In cases where men have sought to defend him, it appears that their cavil should be avoided and stored up for the time when those persons who make it will need it in their own defense; and yet it is certain that such persons will be as speechless as was he. This simply means that, at last, every condemned sinner will have to agree in his very heart that he deserves condemnation, and that it is no one's fault but his own!

Verse13
Then the king said to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and cast him out into the outer darkness; there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.

This does not bestow inquisitorial rights on God's ministers in this dispensation. The exposure and punishment of that offender occurred at the arraignment before the king, not before. The servants in this verse therefore cannot be the apostles or ministers of the word, but the angels of God (13:47 ff). The punishment refers to hell (Matthew 25:46).

Verse14
For many are called, but few chosen.

Sitting down at the marriage feast was not alone sufficient to insure the favor of the king. Membership in the church, and acceptance of its privileges, are not enough to assure eternal life. Every diligence to appear before God, not naked, but clad in the garments of righteousness, should be exerted by all who hope to enter eternal fellowship with God (Revelation 3:18).

AN ANALYTICAL STUDY OF THE THREE PARABLES

(a) The Parable of Two Sons; (b) of the Wicked Husbandmen; and (c) the Marriage of the King's Son

There is a remarkable progression in this series of three parables.

I. There is progression in the obligations violated. In (a), it is the respect and honor due a father; and in (b), it is the legal and binding requirements of a commercial contract; and in (c), it is the honor, loyalty, and submission due to a great and noble king on the part of his servants.

II. There is a progressive aggravation of the guilt incurred. In (a), it is the rejection of a loving father's request. In (b), it is murder to escape a legal debt. In (c), it is a hateful and insulting degradation of the king himself, in the person of his messengers, not to escape an obligation but to deliver an insult, against all reason, against the highest government of the land, and upon an occasion when the king, far from exacting a tax or requiring a benefit, was in the gracious attitude of bestowing honor and privilege upon them. Moreover, their guilt reached such a climax of wickedness that it appeared on the occasion of the royal wedding and in such a way as to dishonor the most important and sacred event possible, the marriage of the king's son!

III. There is a progression in the penalties exacted. In (a), the father disapproves. In (b), the wicked husbandmen are destroyed, their contract canceled, and the vineyard let out to others. In (c), the offenders are not only destroyed but their city is razed and burned, and great armies of the king move upon them for swift and total vengeance.

IV. There is a progression in the duration of the offenses. In (a), the conduct of the sons, while serious enough, is a matter of only one day's disobedience. In (b), the wicked husbandmen rejected their duty over an extended period of time. In (c), the hatred of the king had become a permanent part of the lives of the offenders. This is seen in the fact that they could not have rejected such an invitation except from reasons of prior hatred in their hearts. Their mistreatment of the king's messengers, shameful as it was, was only the symptom of a far more terrible offense within themselves, namely, their hatred and animosity against the king. As Drummond said concerning such a thing, "It was the occasional bubble rising to the surface, that betrayed the rotting carcass at the bottom of the lake." Matthew 21:38). The same fatal admission is here. Their disregard of what the people might think (who were necessarily privy to this admission) was quite astonishing. It is as though they said, "We do not care who knows he is the Christ, we intend to destroy him anyway!" Such words spoken by his enemies were truth of very truth; but in their mouths even the truth underwent a metamorphosis, becoming vile, deceitful, hateful, and repulsive to Christ. How completely they misjudged him is seen in their thinking to deceive and ensnare him with such flattery.

Verse17
Tell us, therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

The design of the question is plain from the Herodians having been made a part of the group asking this question. The Herodians ardently advocated Caesar's cause and favored a complete submission of Israel to Caesar's government. If the Christ made it unlawful to give tribute to Caesar, they would, of course, have haled him into court on a charge of sedition, punishable by death. On the other hand, if Jesus had made it right to pay the tribute, they would have advertised it in order to diminish his popularity with the people who groaned under Caesar's yoke and longed to throw it off. They thought they had him impaled upon the horns of a dilemma.

Verse18
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why make ye trial of me, ye hypocrites? Show me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a denarius. And He saith unto them, Whose is the image and superscription?

In view of their true character, the Lord's designation of those men as "hypocrites" is mild enough. They were far more. They were cowardly, crooked murderers, intent on committing the crime of the ages. Christ fully understood their most secret thoughts; and, although the Pharisees were not actually present, his words were more addressed to them than to those visible emissaries who were carrying out their orders. Only God can know men's thoughts; therefore, this passage is another which carries the necessary inference that Christ is God in the flesh.

Specimens of the coin that came into view here may still be seen in the Museum of Money on West50th Street, New York City. It had a value of about17 cents and bore an engraving of Caesar with a superscription making him the ruler of the land. The very prevalence of those coins in Israel identified the land as Caesar"s. It showed his title and authority to be recognized there. At that point in the interview, the inquirers must have felt that they had Jesus going their way. They reacted accordingly and promptly answered his question regarding the coin.

Verse21
They, say unto him, Caesar"s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar"s; and unto God the things that are God's.

Nearly two thousand years have not diminished the wisdom and truth of that sensational answer. It fell like a blow on the questioners. It gave the truth about the tribute question, namely, that it should be paid, and that it could not be wrong to do so since it was paid with Caesar's own money, a plain fact attested by his picture and title on the coins! Christ then went far beyond their question and commanded the tax be paid, but in such a manner that no breach in the popular esteem of Jesus would result. Then, vaulting over all earthly and secular considerations, Christ, as always, directed their attention to the higher ground of God's authority rather than to Caesar"s, pointing out that man also is, in a sense, a coin, bearing the image and superscription of his maker, God, and commanding that men should not merely pay taxes to those entitled to receive them but also render to God his just dues also. Thus, while answering the evil question about the tribute, Christ continued to press the claims of the Father upon people for their true allegiance and obedience.

Verse22
And when they heard it, they marveled, and left him, and went their way.

The trap they had devised for Jesus was sprung upon them. Viewing the whole incident without its underlying connotations, the occasion had produced a remarkably bold admission by the Pharisees that they knew Jesus taught the way of God in truth, yet without producing the slightest thing that they could use against him. No wonder they marveled and withdrew from the scene.

Verse23
On that day there came to him Sadducees, they that say that there is no resurrection: and they asked him ...

The Sadducees were the sophisticated materialists of their day, relatively few in number, but holding most of the important offices of the Jewish system. They despised spiritual things, especially anything bordering on the supernatural, and were thoroughly detested and hated by the Pharisees who made common cause with them only in opposition to Christ. They too had a question for Jesus.

Verse24
Saying, Teacher, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed to his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and 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. And after them all, the woman died. In the resurrection therefore whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

First, note the question on its merits, or DEMERITS! As Matthew Henry said, "The seventh who ventured last to marry the widow (many a one would say) was a bold man!" Daniel 12:2; Job 19:25-27; etc., plainly indicate the resurrection; and the Sadducees" disbelief of it was due to their ignorance of the Scriptures. As for their objection that a resurrection would be impossible because of the absurdities it would create, Christ disposed of that by attributing it to their ignorance of the power of God. They were practical atheists and made light of such things as the resurrection. Christ went further and disposed of their vulgar ideas of what a resurrection must be in the enlightening teaching he gave a moment later.

Verse30
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven.

The Sadducees" ideas were founded on ignorance and a common and vulgar view of all spiritual things, including the resurrection. Christ, in refutation of their false views, unveiled some of the glories of the future state. Men shall not marry. They will have no such need or desire. All earthly ties and relationships shall have been outgrown, their purpose ended, and no longer needed or desirable. Like the holy angels, men shall have an existence in God, apart from all limitations and necessities of the flesh. They shall hunger no more, nor thirst. Weeping and crying shall not exist. How strange that such thoughts had not occurred to the Sadducees!

Mention of angels was a further comment on the ignorance of the Sadducees, for they did not believe in angels either. Thus, as usual, Christ answered far more than his questioners intended.

Verse31
But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the multitudes heard it, they were astonished at his teaching.

Note the contrast. The Sadducees had spoken of what "Moses said," but Christ quoted from the same source and declared the message to have been spoken "by God"! The endorsement of the Bible as God's word is plainly intended. Nor may it be supposed that the "by God" imputation is limited to the conversation of Moses. By the words here and elsewhere, Christ boldly declared the Old Testament to be the word of God, and it should be so received by Christ's disciples forever.

Christ went much further in his effort to correct the ignorance of the Sadducees, and dealt with their fundamental trouble, namely, a failure to believe the Old Testament as God's word. Christ, then, in the presence of the multitude, made an argument for immortality of the soul, basing it absolutely upon what "God said" in Exodus 3:6. The argument is bold, plain, and easily understood. Since God used the present tense in that Old Testament passage, saying, "I AM" instead of "I WAS," etc., it means that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are still living. This is a most important case. Christ made an argument on such an important subject as the resurrection to turn upon a single word in the Old Testament, a single verb, and the very tense of the verb at that! What bold confidence in the Scriptures! How strongly Jesus relied upon the Scriptures which the Sadducees despised through their ignorance of them. If the Son of God could afford to put such trust in a single word in the Holy Scriptures, his disciples need not hesitate to trust every word of it without doubt or reservation.

No wonder the multitudes were "astonished" at his teaching. Christ demonstrated that he was no prudent scribe with his proof-texts, no fawning sycophant deferring to the opinions of superiors in the Jewish hierarchy, no mealy-mouth uttering platitudes; but he stood forth plainly in that interview as the Son of God, the Christ of glory, answering with certainty and authority the deepest questions of the human spirit, and doing so with a perfection and grace that confounded the opposition. The Sadducees, like the Pharisees before them, withdrew from the scene, vanquished and shamed in the presence of all.

Verse34
But the Pharisees, when they heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, gathered themselves together.

Of course the Pharisees had already been routed too, but since they had maneuvered the Herodians into fronting for them, they decided to have a try at it in their own name. It is amazing that they should not have regarded Jesus" triumph over the Sadducees (their perpetual enemies) with jubilation. Their old enemies had been put to silence by Christ, in the presence of a multitude, and that in reference to the very points of difference between them and on which they opposed the Sadducees, namely, the resurrection, and the existence of angels. How happy they should have been that their old enemies had had the intellectual rug pulled out from under them, and that at the hands of Jesus, whom they denominated as ignorant! The joy of such a victory over their foes by Jesus, however, was lost in their hatred of the Lord. The news of the Sadducees" failure only spurred them to greater efforts. Better, in their view, that the truth should fail than that it should be championed and upheld by one whom they despised.

Apparently all of the questions in this chapter followed each other in rather close sequence, as Satan doubled and redoubled his efforts of opposition and hatred.

Verse35
And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, trying him: Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?

One of them means one of the Pharisees. The "first team" would now take up the challenge, and the Pharisees themselves would confront him with a question in a field wherein they imagined they had a vast superiority. Their strategy was to ensnare Christ in some technical fault regarding countless questions of the law. One of their best legal minds was put forward with a question regarding the "great commandment." Of course it is obvious that they hoped Christ would name a commandment, ANY commandment. They would then accuse him of belittling the others! That they were themselves guilty of what they hoped to accuse in him was no problem. Their motives and intentions were totally devoid of any honesty or fairness.

Like the Sadducees, the Pharisees were also ignorant of the Scriptures, in the sense that they lacked any true perception of them. Their pre-assumption in asking such a question was founded on the false opinion that there are relative ranks among God's commandments, some being more and others less in importance. God said, "ALL thy commandments are righteousness" (Psalm 119:151). Yet, in a sense not intended by them, Christ singled out the "great commandment."

Verse37
And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments, the whole law hangeth, and the prophets.

Jesus" answer is far more than a clever summary of all the commandments. It is the fundamental commandment underlying the whole economy of redemption. Above everything else, God desires and commands his human children to love him totally and completely. That is why Christ came. That is the purpose God had in saving man, that the Father might be loved for his own blessed sake. Such a plea for love was lost upon people like the Pharisees. A bleeding child might have pleaded for the affection of a mad dog with the same results!

In a technical sense, all the law and prophets do hang on the twin injunctions Christ named before the Pharisees. The first five words of the decalogue deal with man's relation to God, and the second five have to do with man's relationship to men. The fifth commandment might go in either group. A profoundly significant deduction required by Christ's words on that occasion is that man's heavenward duties are more important, ranking higher, than his man-ward duties. The first commandment is to love the Lord; the second is to love thy neighbor. This, of course, is utterly different from the prevailing concept that lays great stress on human obligations such as "Thou shalt not kill," etc., but makes the other class of religious obligations secondary.

Verse41
Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I put thine enemies under thy feet? If David then calleth him Lord, how is he his son?

Christ in that question pinpointed the precise truth the Pharisees had missed concerning him, that he was (and is) God in man. "What think ye of Christ?" is the most important question ever asked. All depends on the answer. No man can be saved who fails this test. To recognize and hail Christ as God come in the flesh, this is the beginning of eternal life. Without that perception, man must forever remain guilt-ridden, soul-blinded, and condemned forever. By propounding that question, it would seem that Christ, even at that late hour, was trying to relieve the sad condition of those evil men. He would even then have removed the scales from their eyes and directed their attention to the precise problem where their error lay, and which gave rise to the most important reason for their failure to recognize him.

The reason the Pharisees did not recognize Christ (though some did) was that not all the Messianic prophecies were received by them. In the very nature of God's revelation to humanity of the coming of that Holy One who is both God and man at once, there were necessarily SEEMING contradictions. Thus, Isaiah hailed the Coming One as "Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace," etc., while at the same time portraying him as a man or sorrows, acquainted with grief, with no form nor comes, a root out of dry ground, bruised, chastised, and suffering death. That was too much for the unspiritual Pharisee to understand. They did the natural, human thing: they believed the more agreeable prophecies and rejected the others. One outstanding example of such duality in the prophecies was singled out by Christ and made the subject of the question here.

The Old Testament passage Christ stressed in this confrontation of the Pharisees is Psalm 110:1. Of course, they had access to that information and could have known that Christ was both David's son and David's Lord; but they could not explain it, thus being liable, as were the Sadducees, to a charge of ignorance. Their ignorance, however, was not so much their sin as was their pride and egotism that prevented their learning from him who alone is "the Truth"!

Verse46
And no one was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

Thus in that profound question of Jesus, the Pharisees no longer had a case of knowing the answer, and through self-interest avoiding a reply. They WERE ignorant of the riddle Jesus propounded, but they would not accept the truth from him. But their day of grace was almost over. The plot was laid. Before the week expired they would kill him. Never again would they ask him any questions. They confessed themselves unable to stand before his searching words. Intellectually, morally, and spiritually, they were vanquished by the Lord; and, like a wounded serpent that sinks its fangs again and again into its own flesh, those unfortunate men would kill their own head and Redeemer, involving themselves and their whole nation in irreparable ruin. What a commentary on religious bigotry is that!

Some commentators attribute his characterization of the Pharisees to a kind of prejudice on Matthew's part, but that is not true. As a former tax collector, he had indeed enjoyed a peculiarly advantageous position from which to learn the true character of the Pharisees, but it must not be thought that Matthew colored or perverted that picture in any way. On the contrary, his emphasis on their conduct was NECESSARY and, as God always chooses his instruments, Matthew was ideally suited to the task of presenting those enemies of Jesus in their true light.

Reasons for the need to expose those men rise from the fact that, as the official representatives of Judaism, their failure to recognize and accept their Messiah would ever afterwards be used by Satan as an argument against the validity of Christ's claim upon all mankind as the true Messiah. If there had been, therefore, the least vestige of anything honorable or upright in the Pharisees et al., there could have continued through history some suspicion that since "good men," as they were supposed to be, rejected the Messiah, there must have been some reason for their doing it. Matthew successfully broke that crutch of infidelity. His analytical, yet fair and generous, treatment of those bigots in their hatred of Christ forever removes any suspicion or even the outside possibility of any doubt that their actions were otherwise motivated than through blind, fanatical, and selfish hatred of the truth. Their every argument, invented through despair, maliciously urged, and distorted to appear plausible; their every connivance with even their worst enemies to find some pretext against him; their reliance at last upon suborned and lying witnesses, perversion of Sacred Scriptures, malevolent torture of truth itself, and, withal, their prejudice against him, not desiring to accommodate with him but only striving for a means of his murder - all these things are so faithfully detailed in Matthew's gospel that, two thousand years after the facts, any fair-minded person can easily understand WHY SUCH MEN rejected the Christ.

Mark reports the parable of the wicked husbandmen which we have just studied in the preceding chapter. He also tells us (chapter12:12) that after the parable the chief priests and Pharisees left the hearing of Jesus, hence the present parable was spoken to the multitudes in general.

:2-3

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.

22:4. Perhaps the invited guests did not take these servants seriously, or they thought there was no need to hurry as the time was not so near. So the king sent out more servants who told the guests that even the animals intended for the wedding feast were killed and prepared for the occasion and that they should come on. Many of these details have no direct bearing on the application but needed to be told to make the story complete. The point is that the Jews were pleaded with to accept the kingdom of Christ but they did not show the interest they should.

Some were more interested in their worldly possessions than in the things that pertained to their spiritual welfare.

Others were more active in their opposition to the work of the King and persecuted the servants. They went so far as to put to death the most prominent ones which included John the Baptist, the apostles and even the son (Jesus).

This verse was literally fulfilled by the wars between the Jews and the Romans. That conflict ended with the destruction of Jerusalem in70 A. D. I shall quote from Myers Ancient History, page499 , which shows the fulfillment of this prediction: "The accession of Flavius Ves-pasian marks the beginning of a period, embracing three reigns, known as the Flavian Age (A. D69-96). yes-pasian's reign was signalized both by important military achievements and by stupendous public works undertaken at Rome. After one of the most harassing sieges recorded in history, Jerusalem was taken by Titus, son of Vespasian. The temple was destroyed, and more than a million Jews that were crowded in the city are believed to have perished. The miserable remnants of the nation were scattered everywhere over• the world. Josephus the historian accompanied the conqueror to Rome. In imitation of Nebuchadnezzar, Titus robbed the temple of its sacred utensils and bore them away as trophies. Upon the triumphal arch at Rome that bears his name may be seen at the present day the sculptured representation of the seven-branched golden candlestick, which was one memorial of the war."

They which were bidden means the Jews who were first called to the honors of the kingdom of heaven. Were not worthy or deserving on account of the way they treated the notice that it was time to come to the wedding feast.

When the Jews had been given the first opportunity of accepting the Gospel and they rejected it, the servants of Christ turned to the Gentiles. This is clearly taught in Acts 3:26; Acts 13:46; Acts 28:27-28.

Highways means the world in general whereas the first invitation was restricted to the Jews. (chapter10:5 , 6.) Bad and good. Even in the world there is a difference between men both socially and morally. But no man is so bad but the Gospel can purify and redeem him, and no one is so good that he does not need its saving qualities in order to be worthy of attending the wedding feast.

The date setting of the parable has been changed and the time is at the end of the world when Jesus will come to claim his bride. (See Revelation 19:7.) In the Bible an espousal or engagement for marriage is spoken of in the same sense as the actual marriage in many respects (Genesis 19:14; Matthew 1:20). The reason is that when two persons have pledged themselves to become husband and wife they are as bound morally as if they had entered into the relationship. In other words, an "engagement ring" would be as much of a bond morally as the "wedding ring," so that if while the first only has been offered and accepted, either party should be intimate or even familiar with a third, it would be considered as an act of unfaithfulness. That is why Paul wrote what he did about the "espousal" of the Corinthians to Christ, in the second epistle, chapter11:1 , 2. Hence the portions of the parable we have considered thus far pertain to the courtship and engagement only, but this verse transfers the story to the time of the actual marriage. Had not on a wedding garment. For the sake of unity in appearance all the guests were expected to have on a uniform especially appropriate for the occasion.

And he was speechless. It was customary for a man arranging a wedding to provide garments for the occasion so that all would be in orderly appearance. It would therefore not be on account of poverty or lack of opportunity to procure the garment that this man was not wearing one, hence he was speechless because he had no excuse. The garment to be worn by the guests at the marriage of the Lamb is "the righteousness of saints" (Revelation 19:8). This robe has been provided by the Lord and offered to the espoused bride without money and without price (Isaiah 55:1; Romans 13:14), hence there will be no excuse for any professed Christian to appear at the day of judgment not properly adorned.

The figurative or illustrative part of the parable is now dropped and the direct application is made. Those who are found wanting at the day of judgment will be cast into the place of punishment spoken of in Matthew 25:46.

2:14. See the comments at Matthew 20:16 for the explanation of this.

Took counsel means the Pharisees consulted together to decide upon some plan to entangle Jesus in his talk. The word is from PAGIDEUO which occurs in no other place in the New Testament. Thayer defines it, "to ensnare, entrap," and he explains the definition to mean, "of the attempt to elicit [draw out] from one some remark which can be turned into an accusation against him."

Herodians is from the Greek word HERODIANOI. Thayer and Robinson define it the same, but the latter gives more information in his historical comments and I shall quote his definition and the comments as follows: "Herodians, partisans [those who take sides] of Herod Antipas, and therefore supporters of the Roman dominions in Palestine; which the Pharisees were not. It was consequently a political rather than a religious party; though it would seem to have embraced many Sadducees." This information explains why the Pharisees sent the Herodians to Jesus. They had no particular love for those people, but as they (the Herodians) were in sympathy with the political interests of the Romans of whom Caesar was king, they would try harder to get Jesus to say something that would get him into trouble with the government. They made their approach with a series of compliments that were pure flattery as verse18 shows.

In their ignorance of the nature of the kingdom of heaven they thought that Jesus would be opposed to all other governments. Were that the case he naturally would oppose giving them financial support. Had he answered them to that effect it would have been ground for accusing him of disloyalty to the "powers that be."

Jesus called these men hypocrites because they pretended they wanted information, when they knew that was not the case as verse15 plainly indicates.

Jesus met the situation in a manner that was doubtless unexpected. Instead of answering their question with a direct yes or no, he asked for a piece of the very kind of money that was being used in paying for the government's finances.

Image and superscription means the human likeness on a coin, and the words that are stamped on it in connection with the image. The coins of all nations are made with the likeness either of their rulers or other important persons in the government. The key to the difficulty which confronted these hypocrites is in the words of Christ after they handed him the coin, whose ...is this?

In their answer they committed themselves beyond recall, for they directly said the whole thing belonged to Caesar, the very article that he was asking people to give to him as tribute. No one would say it is not "lawful" to give to a man what belongs to him. They had said this money belonged to Caesar, hence it would be lawful to give it back to him. And by the same token it would be right to give to God what belongs to him, namely, their religious devotion.

Robinson defines the original for marveled, "to wonder, to be astonished, to be amazed." Hence we are not to get the Idea these hypocrites had any great respect for Jesus, but they were so defeated in their attempt to entrap him that they were capable only of silent astonishment. That is why they left him and went their way with nothing more to say.

See at Matthew 16:12 for more complete details on the doctrine of the Sadducees. The same day was the day the Herodians failed in their attempt to entrap Jesus, and the Sad-ducees thought they would try it. It is a proper argument to confront a man with an actual inconsistency that comes from his teaching, for whenever a man is inconsistent he is bound to be wrong, but the Sadducees either- misunderstood or wilfully misrepresented the Lord's position concerning the resurrection. He did not teach that men would resume their earth life after they came from the grave. Neither did he teach that the resurrected righteous (and they are the only ones being considered here) could engage in such a manner of life even if they desired.

They correctly repeated the law of Moses on this subject which is recorded in Deuteronomy 25:5, which also was a ruling of Judah in Genesis 38:8-9 in the Patriarchal Dispensation.

The Sadducees described a case (whether supposed or actual does not matter) in which they thought the position of Jesus would find great difficulty. It is evident that if a woman should meet seven men alive, each of whom had legally been her husband, she would be embarrassed to say the least as also would the men. But their supposed problem was based on the theory that human beings were to recognize each other after the resurrection in the same way they did when they lived on the earth. There are some Sadducees now with reference to this matter of future recognition. Such a theory is fathered by the wish which is based on a fleshly desire, and which has to deny the teaching of 1 Corinthians 15:42-54; Philippians 3:21; 1 John 3:2.

V

2:29.

Err, not knowing the scriptures. At the time Jesus was speaking the New Testament had not been written, hence he had reference to the Old Testament. That book does not say much about the future state, yet had the Sadducees been as familiar with it as they pretended to be they would have understood that in the next world the marriage relation will not be continued because it will not be needed. The beginning paragraphs of Genesis reveal the command given to the first man and woman to multiply and replenish the earth. After the earth ceases to be there will be no need for the marriage relation. Nor the power of God. The Sadducees supposed they could disprove the truth of a resurrection by describing a situation that would make it impossible without causing great domestic trouble. They should have understood that nothing is "too hard for the Lord" (Genesis 18:14).

Note It does not say the saved of earth will become angels, but they will be as angels, and that only as regards the marriage relation for they are without sex. It is true that whenever the Bible makes any reference to the gender of angels it is always the masculine. That is due to a rule of language that when reference is made to intelligent creatures by a pronoun, if the gender is not specifically known the masculine is always used.

2:31. Jesus was going to make a reference to the Scriptures (which he said they did not know) to prove that another life is taught in them. The Sadducees professed to believe that writing, so they should be impressed with what will be shown to them.

The passage referred to is in Exodus 3:6. The argument Jesus made was based on two great truths. God is not the God of the dead as the Sadducees would admit; yet Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had been in their graves for centuries. The conclusion is, then, that although the bodies of these patriarchs were dead, something else about their beings was still living. And if their spirits can live outside of their fleshly bodies, there should be no difficulty in believing that they could be reunited with those bodies and thus be resurrected.

No wonder the multitudes were astonished at the doctrine (teaching) of Jesus, for it put the Sadducees to silence.

The Pharisees were gathered together for the purpose of consultation as in verse15. Their object was to plot some way of entrapping Jesus in his talk.

Thayer defines the original for lawyer as follows: "One learned in the law, .in the New Testament an interpreter and teacher of the Mosaic law." Because of his profession this man could pretend to be interested in the law, and hence his approach to Jesus would have an outward appearance of being an honest one. However, the inspired writer says his purpose in asking the question was to tempt Jesus.

The question would seem to be prompted by a good motive since it pertained to the law. But it was unfair because the Lord never put any more of His authority behind one commandment than another. (See James 2:10-11.) Had Jesus specified one command as being greater than another, the lawyer would have accused him of showing discrimination between things that were equal as to their divine origin.

Jesus stated to him the commandment that requires wholehearted love for God, against which even this lawyer could not have any objection.

The Lord did not say that even this was the greatest, only that it was great. And it was great because it was the first one, which was proper since it pertained to God, and everyone would agree that God comes before all other beings.

If the lawyer thought he had caught something by the word great on which to make an ado, he was soon deprived of that motive because Jesus said the next one was like it. He then stated the commandment to love one's neighbor as one's self.

The first four commandments pertain especially to man's attitude toward God, and the other six have to do with man to man. (See Exodus 20:1-17.) If a man loves God with all his heart he will observe the four commandments that pertain to Him; and if he loves his neighbor as himself, he will observe all of the six that pertain to that neighbor. That is why Jesus said that the whole law and prophets hang on these two. That word is from KREMANNUO which Thayer defines, "To be suspended, to hang," and he explains it as follows: "The meaning is, all the law and the Prophets (i. e.. the teaching of the Old Testament on morality) is summed up in these two precepts."

The Pharisees had been trying to entrap Jesus with questions they thought could not be truly answered. That is, could not without contradicting something in his teaching, but they failed as we have seen. Now the Lord turned and put a question to them that was fair, and yet which would be impossible to explain without exposing some of their opposition to him.

The Pharisees did not profess to dislike Jesus (they dared not because of public opinion, chapter21:46), but pretended to regard him only as a good man and not divine. When they answered the question of Jesus by saying he was the son of David they only recognized his blood relation to the great ancestor, not that he was anyone higher than a human being.

If Christ was no more to David than an earthly descendant why did he call him Lord. This question was based on a statement in Psalm 110:1 which the Pharisees would have to accept unless they denied the Scriptures which they would not do.

The first Lord is God and the second is Christ. The pronoun my in the first instance refers to David and the second to God. Using names instead of pronouns, the verse means that God invited Christ to sit on His right hand until He had made Christ's enemies his (Christ"s) footstool. The point at issue is that in this statement David acknowledged Christ to be his Lord.

The argument of Jesus was, how could David recognize Christ as his Lord if he was only his son as the Pharisees claimed.

The verse says that no man could answer the question. The reason is that they either did not know or were unwilling to acknowledge the divine-human character of Christ's being. This put an end to the tempting questions of the multitude, for they were completely defeated in their hypocritical attacks on the great Teacher.