6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated" them spitefully, and slew them. 7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed' those murderers, and burned up their city. 8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy." 9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. to So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all, as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests. II And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: 12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. 13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 1 Thess. 2: 15....v Dan. 9: 26; Luke 19: 27....w ch. 10: 11, 13; Acts 13: 46; Rev. 3:4; 22: 14....x ch. 13: 47....y Zeph. 1: 12.... z Ps. 45: 14; Isa. 61: 10; 2 Cor. 5: 3; Eph. 4: 24; Rev. 16: 15; 19: 8....a Jer. 2: 26....b Isa. 52: 1; Rev. 21: 27....e ch. 8: 12. and re-repeating the Gospel message, as I should see in the end of the parable a justification for refusing to cast pearls before the swine that trample them under-foot and turn again to rend the giver. All things are ready. See note on Luke 14: 17. 5, 6. In the parable in Luke the excuses of those that decline are given more fully. See notes there. Observe the two classes here. First are the indifferent, They made light of it, literally, But they caring not; the same word is rendered neglect in Hebrew 2:3, which illustrates the character of these hearers. The second are the open enemies of the King (verse 6). These two classes, the indifferent and the openly opposed, indicate nearly the whole Jewish nation. The first class again are divided into two classes: They went their ways, one to his farm, the other to his commerce. Merchandise is admissible here as a translation only in the sense of "The act or business of trading.' The original (uлogía from ɛuлogos, traveler) signifies literally, a journey for traffic. Thus it here indicates, the labor, not the results, of acquisition. One was absorbed by his possession, the other by his getting. "The first would enjoy what he already possesses; the second would acquire what is as yet only in anticipation. The first represents the rich; the second those that would be rich (1 Tim. 6: 9, with 17).”—(Trench.) Entreated them spitefully and slew them. Neglect of the invitation we can understand, but why this murdering of the king's heralds? A royal feast often possesses a political significance. Thus it has been supposed that the feast recorded in Esther, ch. 1, is identical with the great gathering called when Xerxes (Ahasuerus) was planning his Greek expedition. A refusal to attend such a feast would be significant of rebellion, which some might carry further than others. For the historical fulfillment of this as a prophecy of the Jewish maltreatment of the apostles, see Acts 4:3; 5: 18, 40; 7:58; 8:3; 12:3; 14: 5, 19; 16:23; 17:5; 21: 30; 23:2; 1 Thess. 2:2, 14-16. Arnot gives well the practical application: "In our own day, it does not require extraordinary sagacity to perceive the same spirit in the relish and readiness with which certain classes catch up a cry against any one who, not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, has discharged his commission in full." 7. The armies of the earth are God's armies, by whom he executes punishment on ungodly nations (Deut. 28: 49, &c.; Isaiah 10: 5, 6; Jer. 51: 20-23). The direct reference here is, of course, to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman legions. Observe that only the murderers are destroyed; those who simply rejected the invitation are only rejected from the supper. Compare Luke 14:24 with 19:27. I would not press this, except so far as it indicates a gradation in the divine punishments. 8. Not worthy. Compare Acts 13: 46. Those that refuse God's grace, whatever the excellence of their character, are the unworthy; those that show themselves ready to receive it are the worthy, whatever the natural poverty of their character. Luke 18: 10-14. 9, 10. The highways. More literally the confluences of the ways, i. e., the open squares and market-places where the people would naturally assemble. Observe, the invitation is to be extended without discrimination, and all both bad and good are to be brought to the feast. There is no condition of coming to Christ, but just to come. The bad are invited that they may be made good (1 Cor. 6: 9-11; Eph. 2:1-5). "The beautiful words of Augustine on Christ's love to his church may find here their application, 'He loved her foul that he might make her fair.'"(Trench.) Compare Jer. 3: 1-14. Of the 'good," Nathaniel and Cornelius are illustrations (John 1: 47; Acts 10: 1, 2, 4, 22; compare Luke 8: 15); of the "bad," Matthew and Zaccheus and Saul of Tarsus (Matt. 9:9; Luke 19:2, 8; Acts 9: 1, 2; 1 Tim. 1:13-16). 11-13. It is a custom at the present day in the East for the host to present his guests with robes of honor. A story is told in Trench, of a vizier slain for failing to wear such a robe, his failure being accounted a mark of disrespect. It is certain that robes were an important part of Oriental wealth (Josh. 7:21; Judges 14: 12; James 5: 2), and were often given as marks of peculiar favor (Gen. 41:42; 45: 22; 1 Sam. 18:4; 2 Kings 5:5; Dan. 5:7; Esther 6:8), and, probably, were frequently given out on State 14 Ford many are called, but few are chosen. 15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. 16 And they sent out unto him their disciples, with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man; for thou regardest not the person of men. 17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar, or not? d ch. 7:14; 20: 16; Luke 13: 23, 24....e Mark 12: 13, etc.; Luke 20: 20, etc. occasions to all guests. The symbolic meaning of the wedding garment has been a subject of discussion, some Protestant writers having insisted that it represents faith, the Romish writers that it represents charity. Christ gives no interpretation. Here he simply teaches that though all, both bad and good, are invited, no one will be allowed in the heavenly kingdom who is not prepared for the company and the occasion. In what that preparation consists, and how procured, he does not here teach. But other passages in Scripture answer these questions. Our own righteousness is as filthy rags (Isaiah 64 : 6); these God takes from us that he may clothe us with garments of salvation (Luke 15: 22; Isaiah 61: 10), which are washed white in the blood of the Lamb (Rev. 7:14). These we put on when we put on the Lord Jesus Christ by faith, in baptism (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3: 26, 27), which we do, not merely by a belief in Christ, but by such a personal reception of him, that we lay off the old man and put on a new man in Christ Jesus (Eph. 4: 24; Col. 3: 10-14). Without these garments of holiness, the free gift of God (Rev. 3: 18), none can enter heaven (Rev. 16: 15). The wedding garment, then, is neither charity nor faith, but the righteousness of the saints (Rev. 19:8), i. e., that radical change in character and life wrought by the spirit of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, without which no man can see the Lord (Heb. 12: 14). To be without a wedding garment, implied that the man thought his usual attire good enough for the king's wedding; he thus represents those who profess to follow Christ, but who think themselves good enough as they are, and do not seek from him that new birth without which no man can see the kingdom of heaven. The lesson, then, of this incident of the wedding garment is that no one can enter heaven except through humility and a change of nature, that we must not only accept Jesus Christ openly, but put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and that there is discrimination in God's king dom, but to be exercised by the king, not by his servants (Matt. 13: 29, 30), and at the door of the feast, not in the invitation. Friend. The word so rendered here (zaigos), appears only here and in Matt. 11:19; 20: 13; and 26:50. See note on Matthew 20: 13.Speechless, literally gagged. That he had no answer to make shows clearly that it was not beyond his power to be properly attired. The spiritual significance Arnot puts well. "The judgment will be so conducted that the condemned will be compelled to own the justice of their sentence."-Servants. The Greek word translated servants, in verse 13, is not the same as that rendered servants in verse 3. The one are the messengers of the Gospel, the other are the angels. Compare Matt. 13: 39, 49.-Outer darkness. See note on Matt. 8 : 12. 14. This verse is the text of the parable. The many called include, first, the entire Jewish nation, who are not chosen, because they refuse the Gospel invitation; second, the Gentiles, of whom they alone are chosen who see and seek in the kingdom of God that in which it consists, "righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." Rom. 14: 17. Ch. 22: 15-22. CONCERNING TRIBUTE TO CÆSAR.THE GROUND AND THE LIMITATION OF THE DUTY OF OBEDIENCE TO CIVIL GOVERNMENT. This incident is also given by Mark (12: 18-17), and Luke (20: 20-26). It occurred in the Temple, during the last day of Christ's public teaching. 15. Took counsel. That is, held a consultation; no official meeting, as of the Sanhedrim, is indicated. Their previous attempt (Matt. 21: 23) appears to have been without concert or preparation. Luke describes more fully their object: "They sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor," i. e., the Roman governor Pilate. 16. Their disciples. Concealing themselves, and sending persons who should be unknown to Jesus.-With the Herodians. These are mentioned only here and in Mark 12: 13, etc., and Mark 3:6. The reference to the leaven of Herod in Mark 8: 15 contains perhaps an indirect allusion to them. They are not described by Josephus or any contemporary writers. Their character can only be conjectured from their name. They were probably a political rather than an ecclesiastical party, the adherents of the Herodian family, who were the creatures of Cæsar. The Herodians, therefore, would have been ready to prefer an accusation against any one who counselled refusal to pay the Roman tax.-Master, we know, etc. They purported to be true inquirers, to desire counsel, and by flattery sought to draw him on to a repudiation of the Roman tax. To them is applicable the proverb which Alford quotes: 18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? 19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. 20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21 They say unto him, Cæsar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Cæsar's, and unto God the things that are God's 22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way. f ch. 17:25, 27; Rom. 13: 7....g Mal. 1:6-8; 3:8-10. The devil never lies so foully as when he tells the truth. Compare with their language here their characterization of Christ on other occasions, e. g. John 7: 12; 8: 48; 9: 16. 17. Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar, or not? Mark adds the still more direct question: Shall we give, or shall we not give? Cæsar was the official name of the Roman emperor. The reigning Cæsar was Tiberius. The tribute, literally census money, i. e. poll tax, was paid by every Jew. It was inquisitorial, followed a careful taking of the census, in which every man was obliged to report his family, his property and his income (see note on Luke 2:1), and was extremely odious to the Jews, who counted it a badge of their national degradation (compare note on Matt. 9:9). Its payment was resisted by some, especially among the Galileans, not only on political but also on religious grounds. Deut. 17: 15 might have been regarded as a quasi justification for their resistance. The revolt referred to in Acts 5:37 (see note there) appears to have been caused by this tax. ness. 18. But Jesus perceived their wickedLuke characterizes it more clearly as craftiness, Mark as hypocrisy.-Why tempt ye me, hypocrites? "Jesus shows them that he is true, as they had said."-(Bengel.) DENARIUS-A PENNY. 21. Render unto Cæsar. Rather here, give back to Cæsar. Compare for similar use of the same verb (nodidou), Luke 4:20; 9:42. They ask, is it lawful to give, he replies, give back. Since they accepted in the coinage of Cæsar the benefits of his government, they were bound to give back a recompense in tribute.The things that are God's. Not the temple tribute merely, but all things. As the acceptance of Cæsar's government involves the duty of tax-paying to him, so the acceptance of every good and perfect gift from above involves the duty of supreme allegiance to God. 23: LESSONS OF THIS INCIDENT. The problem. The enquirers appeared to be honest disciples (Luke 20: 20), approached Christ with the language of respect (verse 16) and with a question on which the nation was divided. If Christ replied, Pay tribute, he would render himself obnoxious to the people, who, without exception, expected to be delivered from the Roman yoke and Roman taxation by the Messiah. If he answered, Pay not, he would involve himself with the Roman government, and afford a real ground for the false accusation afterwards preferred against him (Luke 3:2). The latter answer the Pharisees hoped to elicit from Christ.-Christ's solution. He compels the questioners to expose their own inconsistency. They accept in the coin of Rome the Roman government. So long as they do this they are bound to give back support to it. For 80long as the citizen accepts the benefit of a governmen the owes it allegiance and obedience. At the same time Christ affords both the ground and the limitation of this obedience. The powers. that be are ordained of God. Because we are to render to God the things that are God's we are to render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, for Cæsar is of God; but when Cæsar requires what God forbids we are to disobey. For illustration of the duty of obedience to human law, see Rom. 13: 1-7; 1 Cor. 7:21-24; Ephes. 6: 19, 20. Show me the tribute money. Literally, the coin of the census, i. e. the coin in which the tribute is paid.-They brought unto him a penny. Literally, a denarius, a Roman coin equal to about seventeen cents of our money. The annexed cut shows the image and super-5-8; Col. 3: 22-25; 1 Pet. 2: 13-17.-For illusscription referred to. By requiring them to bring him the coin he compels them to answer, tacitly, their own question; for the Jewish rabbis taught that, "wheresoever the money of any king is current, there the inhabitants acknowledge that king for their lord."-(Lightfoot.) By accepting the Roman coinage they accepted the Roman government and all the consequent responsibilities and obligations. tration of the duty of disobedience, under the higher law of allegiance to God, see Dan. 3: 18; 6: 10; Acts 4:19; 5:29. Certain of the commentators see in Christ's answer here a solution of the much-vexed question of Church and State. But I am unable to see how it has anything more than a remote bearing on that problem.-Spiritual lesson. This Dean Alford suggests. It can hardly have been recognized by |