The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king which made a marriage for his son. Matthew 22:1-10 Making light of gospel invitations J. M. Sherwood, D. D. I. WHEN OR HOW MEN SLIGHT THE INVITATIONS OF THE GOSPEL. 1. When they neglect the Word of God, which is full of them, and which authoritatively announces them to the world. 2. When they absent themselves from the sanctuary, when they are proclaimed by God's own ambassadors. 3. When they fail to give heed to the Divine message, when it is personally and solemnly addressed to them. 4. When Sabbath after Sabbath they refuse to accept the invitation to come to the feast of love spread for them. No greater slight can be conceived when we consider — (1) who gives the invitation; (2) the character and condition of those to whom it is made; (3) the honour and infinite good involved in the invitation. II. THE DANGER OF SLIGHTING THESE INVITATIONS. 1. It cannot fail to provoke the anger of God. "The king was wrath." 2. It inevitably forfeits all the blessings of Christ's meditation and sacrifice. 3. It shuts the door of mercy against the sinner. ( J. M. Sherwood, D. D. )

Benson Commentary Matthew 22:1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said, Matthew 22:1 . Jesus spake unto them again by parables — That is, spake with reference to what had just passed: for this parable is closely connected with that of the vineyard, delivered at the close of the preceding chapter. And as our Lord had in that foretold the approaching ruin of the Jewish place and nation, he goes on in this to vindicate God’s mercy and justice in the rejection of that people and the calling of the Gentiles; admonishing the latter, at the same time, of the necessity of holiness, and showing that if they remained destitute of it, they would meet with the same severity of judgment which had befallen the disobedient Jews. Matthew 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, Matthew 22:2-3 . The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king — That is, the dispensation of the gospel may be well illustrated by that which happened in the case of a king; who made a marriage for his son — Our Lord is frequently represented in Scripture under the character of a bridegroom. The marriage-feast here spoken of is intended to signify the blessings of the gospel, which are set forth under the emblem of a feast in divers passages of Scripture, especially Isaiah 25:6 ; and Isaiah 55:1-2 ; Luke 14:16 ; where see the notes. And sent forth his servants — John the Baptist and the twelve, and the seventy sent forth during our Lord’s lifetime; to call them that were bidden — ???? ??????????? , that had been before invited — Namely, the Jews, who had been invited from the times of Moses, by the law and the prophets, to this long-expected marriage of the Desire of all nations; and to whom the first offers of grace and salvation through Christ were made, to the wedding, or nuptial banquet, as ?????? here properly signifies. And they would not come — They were so rude and foolish as to refuse complying with the invitation. By this their refusal, and by the reasons assigned for it, stated here and Luke 14:18-19 , is shown the rejection of the gospel by the Jews, and the carnal causes, not only of their, but of all men’s refusing to come unto the gospel-feast. Matthew 22:3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. Matthew 22:4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage. Matthew 22:4-5 . Again, he sent forth other servants — The apostles and others, on whom the Holy Ghost descended on the day of pentecost, and who thereby received a fresh commission to call the Jews to repentance; saying, Tell them which were bidden, I have prepared my dinner, &c. — After Christ’s resurrection and ascension, the apostles were sent forth to inform the Jews that the divine mission of Christ was confirmed by his resurrection; that sin was expiated by his death, and justification, peace with God, the influences of his Spirit, and all the other blessings of the gospel, procured for all who would accept them in the way of repentance, faith, and new obedience. But they made light of it — Namely, of the invitation to the marriage-feast, and of the feast itself to which they were invited; that is, the privileges and blessings of the gospel of Christ. They viewed them as unimportant, and treated them with indifference and neglect. And yet they who did so were members of God’s visible church, and professors of the true religion: they had been intrusted for ages with his oracles, which foretold the coming of the Messiah, described his character and office, his marriage with his church, and the marriage-feast. And they professed to believe in these oracles, and to expect and desire his coming. Observe, reader, making light of Christ, and of the salvation wrought out by him, is the chief cause of the ruin of many professors of religion. Multitudes perish eternally through mere carelessness, who have not any direct aversion to, or enmity against spiritual things, but a prevailing indifference and unconcern about them. And went their ways, one to his farm, &c. — Here we have the reason why they made light of the marriage-feast: they had other things to mind, in which they took more delight, and which they thought it more concerned them to mind. Thus it is still; the business and profit of worldly employments prove with many a great hinderance to their embracing the blessings of the gospel. One must mind what he has; another gain what he wants. The country people have their farms to look after, and the town’s people must attend to their shops and trade, and must buy and sell and get gain. And it must be granted that both farmers and tradesfolk must be diligent in business; but not so as to be thereby prevented from making religion their main business. Licitis perimus omnes, said the ancients. We all perish by lawful things, namely, when unlawfully used; when we are so careful and troubled about many things, as to neglect the one thing needful. Matthew 22:5 But they made light of it , and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: Matthew 22:6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them . Matthew 22:6 . And the remnant — Or the rest of them, who did not go to farms or merchandise, who were neither husbandmen nor tradesmen, but ecclesiastics; namely, the scribes and Pharisees, and chief priests; took [Gr. ??????????? , laying hold on ] his servants, entreated them spitefully [or rather, shamefully, ] and slew them — If it be objected that these circumstances of the parable are improbable, as it was never known in the world that subjects refused the invitation of their sovereign to the marriage of his son; and much less that any persons were ever so rude and barbarous as to treat with ignominy and slay the servants of a king, or of any superior, who came to invite them to a feast, it must be observed that, allowing this to be so, it only places the crime of the Jews in a more aggravated point of view, with respect to whom all this was literally true. They whose feet should have been beautiful, because they brought glad tidings of peace and salvation, were treated as the offscouring of all things, 1 Corinthians 4:13 . The prophets, and John the Baptist, had been thus abused already, and the apostles and other ministers of Christ were to lay their account with being treated in the same manner. The Jews were, either directly or indirectly, agents in most of the persecutions of the first preachers of the gospel: witness the history of the Acts, and the Epistles of the apostles. Matthew 22:7 But when the king heard thereof , he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Matthew 22:7 . And when the king heard thereof, he was wroth — Inasmuch as “the invitation to the marriage-feast of his son, sent by this king to his supposed friends, was the highest expression of his regard for them, and the greatest honour that could be done to them; therefore, when they refused it for such trifling reasons, and were so savagely ungrateful as to beat, and wound, and kill the servants who had come with it, it was justly viewed as a most outrageous affront, an injury that deserved the severest punishment.” Accordingly the king resented it exceedingly, and sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, &c. — This branch of the parable plainly predicted the destruction of the Jews by the Roman armies, called God’s armies, because they were appointed by him to execute vengeance upon that once favourite, but now rebellions people. It is justly observed here by Dr. Doddridge, that “this clause must be supposed to come in by way of prolepsis, or anticipation; for it is plain there could not be time before the feast already prepared was served up, to attempt an execution of this kind.” Matthew 22:8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. Matthew 22:8-10 . Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready — That is, the marriage-feast is prepared; but they which were bidden were not worthy — Were not disposed to receive the gospel, not willing to repent and believe, and behave kindly to the preachers of it: which is the description Christ gives to his apostles of those whom they were to account ????? , worthy, Matthew 10:11-14 . These here spoken of were ??????????? , ( Matthew 22:5 ,) slighters, despisers of the spiritual banquet, out of love to their secular interests; they loved other things more than Christ and the blessings of his kingdom; which he that doth, says Christ, is not worthy of me, because he will not take up his cross and follow me, Matthew 10:37-38 . Go ye therefore, &c. — As if he had said, Yet let not the provisions I have made be lost; but go into the highways, Gr. ????????? ??? ???? , the byways, or turnings of the road: or, as others interpret the expression, the ways most frequented, or the places where several streets and roads meet. As this is intended of the calling of the Gentiles, it intimates, that the Gentiles had as little reason to expect the call of the gospel, as common passengers and travellers to expect all invitation to a royal banquet. The offer of Christ and salvation to them, was, 1st, unlooked for; for they had had no previous notice of any such thing being intended: whereas the Jews had had notice of the gospel long before, and expected the Messiah and his kingdom. See Isaiah 65:1 ; Isaiah 2:2 d, It was universal, and undistinguishing; go and bid as many as you find, high and low, rich and poor, bond and free, young and old, Jew and Gentile; tell them all they shall be welcome to gospel privileges upon gospel terms; whoever will, let him come, without exception. So those servants went out — As their Lord had commanded them, and gathered as many as they found, good and bad — Giving a free invitation to all, whatever their character had formerly been. Thus, when the gospel was rejected by the Jews, the apostles, in obedience to Christ’s command, went into all parts of the world, and preached it to every creature that was willing to hear it; preached repentance and remission of sins in Christ’s name among all nations, Mark 16:16 ; Luke 24:47 . And the wedding was furnished with guests — Great multitudes were gathered into the gospel church. Matthew 22:9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. Matthew 22:10 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. Matthew 22:11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: Matthew 22:11 . And when the king came in to see the guests — The members of the visible church; he saw there a man which had not on a wedding- garment — To explain this, it must be observed, it was usual in the eastern countries to present the guests at marriages, and other solemnities, with garments wherein they were to appear, and the number of them was esteemed an evidence of the wealth and magnificence of the giver. This king, therefore, having invited so many from the lanes, and hedges, and highways, who could never have provided themselves with proper raiment in which to make their appearance at this marriage-feast, according to the custom of the country, must be supposed to have ordered each, on his applying to the ruler of the feast, to be presented with a proper garment, that they might all be clothed in a manner becoming the magnificence of the solemnity. But this man either neglected to apply, or refused to accept and put on, the garment offered him, which was the circumstance that rendered his conduct inexcusable. “That persons making an entertainment sometimes furnished the habits in which the guests should appear, is evident from what Homer ( Odyss., lib. 8. ver. 402) says of Ulysses, being thus furnished by the Phæacians.” See also Odyss., lib. 4. ver. 47-51, where Homer tells us, that Telemachus and Pisistratus, happening to arrive at Menelaus’s house in Lacedæmon, while he was solemnizing the nuptials of his son and daughter, the maids of the house washed the strangers, anointed them, dressed them, and set them down by their master at table. “It is manifest also, from the account which Diodorus gives of the great hospitality of Gellias the Sicilian, who readily received all strangers, and at once supplied five hundred horsemen with clothes, who, by a violent storm, were driven to take shelter with him; (Diod. Sic., lib. 13., p. 375, edit. Steph.) — Now it was usual, more especially at marriage-feasts, for persons to appear in a sumptuous dress, adorned, as some writers tell us, with florid embroidery, (see Dr. Hammond,) though many times white garments seem to have been used on such occasions: (compare Revelation 19:8-9 .) We must therefore conclude, not only from the magnificence of the preparations, to which we must suppose the wardrobe of the prince corresponded, but likewise from the following circumstance of resentment against this guest, that a robe was offered but refused by him. And this is a circumstance, which, as Calvin observes, 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 by his Holy Spirit; and therefore may justly resent and punish our neglect of so great a favour.” — Doddridge. Matthew 22:12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Matthew 22:12-13 . Friend, how camest thou in hither — How camest thou to presume to enter into my church, by taking upon thee a profession of my religion, and to sit down among the guests, or associate thyself with my disciples; not having on a wedding-garment? — Not having put off the old man and put on the new, not being made a new creature, not having put on the Lord Jesus Christ in holy graces and moral virtues. “It is needless to dispute,” says Calvin, “about the wedding-garment, whether it be faith, or a pious, holy life. For neither can faith be separated from good works, nor can good works proceed except from faith. Christ’s meaning is only that we are called in order that we may be renewed in our minds after his image. And therefore, that we may remain always in his house, the old man, with his filthiness, must be put off, and a new life designed, that our attire may be such as is suitable to so honourable an invitation.” And he was speechless — Gr. ??????? , he was struck speechless. “This is the true import of the original word, which is rendered very improperly in our translation, he was speechless; as from hence the English reader is led to conceive that the man was dumb, and so could not speak; whereas he was made dumb only by self-condemnation and conviction, even as Christ made dumb — ??????? , — or put to silence, the Sadducees, Matthew 22:34 ; and as Peter would have us to make speechless, or put to silence, ( ?????? ,) the ignorance of foolish men.” See Gerhard’s Continuation. Then said the king to his servants, Bind him hand and foot, &c. — Thus, 1st, Christ commands the ministers of his gospel, to whom the exercise of discipline in his church is committed, to exclude from the society of the faithful all who, by walking disorderly, bring a reproach upon the gospel, and to leave them to outer darkness, or the darkness without the pale of the church; that is, heathenish darkness. In other words, as is expressed Matthew 18:17 , to let such be unto them as heathen and as publicans. But, 2d, This clause of the sentence is to be chiefly referred to the last judgment, when Christ will command his angels to gather out of his kingdom not only all things that offend, but them which do iniquity, and to cast them into the darkness which is without the heavenly city, namely, into the darkness of hell, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. The mention of outer darkness in the parable, in the connection in which it stands, “would incline one to think, either that the word ??????? , rendered dinner, Matthew 22:4 , may signify supper as well as dinner; or that the king is represented as visiting the guests in the evening. But not to insist on this, which is of little moment, it is well known that banquets of this kind were generally celebrated in rooms richly adorned: and considering how splendid and magnificent the entertainments of the eastern princes were, it cannot be thought an unnatural circumstance, that such an affront as this, offered to the king, his son, his bride, and the rest of the company, should be punished with such bonds and thrown into a dungeon.” Matthew 22:13 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. Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen. Matthew 22:14 . For many are called — Nor imagine, (as if our Lord had said,) that this will be the case of one alone; for though it be a dreadful truth, yet I must say, that even the greatest part of those to whom the gospel is offered, will either openly reject or secretly disobey it; and while indeed many are called to the gospel-feast, it will be manifest by their disregarding it, there are but few chosen in such a sense as finally to partake of its blessings. In short, many hear, few believe: many are members of the visible, but few of the invisible church. Matthew 22:15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. Matthew 22:15-17 . Then went the Pharisees — Greatly incensed by the two last parables delivered by our Lord; and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk — Gr. ???????????? ?? ???? , might entrap him in his discourse, so as to find something on which they might ground an accusation against him, and effect his destruction. And they sent out their disciples — Persons who had imbibed their spirit of hostility against him, and entered fully into their designs; with the Herodians — “Probably,” says Dr. Campbell, “partisans of Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee, who were for the continuance of the royal power in the descendants of Herod the Great, an object which, it appears, the greater part of the nation, especially the Pharisees, did not favour. They considered that family not indeed as idolaters, but as great conformists to the idolatrous customs of both Greeks and Romans, whose favour they spared no means to secure. The notion adopted by some, that the Herodians were those who believed Herod to be the Messiah, hardly deserves to be mentioned, as there is no evidence that such an opinion was maintained by any body.” On account of their zeal for Herod’s family, they were of course also zealous for the authority of the Romans, by whose means Herod was made and continued king. Their views and designs being therefore diametrically opposite to those of the Pharisees, there had long existed the most bitter enmity between the two sects. So that the conjunction of their counsels against Christ is a very memorable proof of the keenness of that malice which could thus cause them to forget so deep a quarrel with each other. In order to insnare Christ, they came to him, feigning themselves just men, ( Luke 20:20 ,) men who had a great veneration for the divine law, and a dread of doing any thing inconsistent with it; and, under that mask, accosted Christ with an air of great respect, and flattering expressions of the highest esteem, saying, Master, we know that thou art true — A person of the greatest uprightness and integrity; and teachest the way of God in truth — Declarest his will with perfect impartiality and fidelity; neither carest thou for the censure or applause of any man; for thou regardest not the person of men — Thou favourest no man for his riches or greatness, nor art influenced by complaisance or fear, or any private view whatever, to deviate from the strictest integrity and veracity. Tell us, therefore, Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cesar? — In asking this question they imagined that it was not in Christ’s power to decide the point, without making himself obnoxious to one or other of the parties which had divided upon it. If he should say, it was lawful; they believed the people, in whose hearing the question was proposed, would be incensed against him, not only as a base pretender, who, on being attacked, publicly renounced the character of the Messiah, which he had assumed among his friends; (it being as they supposed, a principal office of the Messiah to deliver them from a foreign yoke;) but as a flatterer of princes also, and a betrayer of the liberties of his country. But if he should affirm that it was unlawful to pay, the Herodians resolved to inform the governor of it, who they hoped would punish him as a fomenter of sedition. Highly elated therefore with their project, they came and proposed their question. Matthew 22:16 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. Matthew 22:17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? Matthew 22:18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Matthew 22:18-22 . But Jesus perceived their wickedness, ( and craftiness, Luke,) in this their address, however pious and respectful it appeared; and said, Why tempt ye me? — That is, Why do ye try me by such an insnaring question, and seek to draw me into danger by it? Ye hypocrites — Making conscience and a pure regard to the divine will your pretence for asking the question, while your design is to bring about my destruction. Show me the tribute-money — Which is demanded of you. It seems the Romans chose to receive this tribute in their own coin. And they brought unto him a penny — A denarius, stamped with the head of Cesar. He saith, Whose is this image — Which is struck upon the coin? They say unto him, Cesar’s — Plainly acknowledging, by their having received his coin, that they were under his government. And indeed this is a standing rule. The current coin of every nation shows who is the supreme governor of it. Render therefore, ye Pharisees, to Cesar, the things which ye yourselves acknowledge to be Cesar’s: and, ye Herodians, while ye are zealous for Cesar, see that ye render to God the things that are God’s. When they had heard, &c., they marvelled and left him — “So unexpected an answer, in which Jesus clearly confuted them on their own principles, and showed that the rights of God and the magistrate do not interfere in the least, (because magistrates are God’s deputies, and rule by his authority,) quite disconcerted and silenced those crafty enemies. They were astonished at his having perceived their design, as well as at the wisdom by which he avoided the snare, and went off inwardly vexed and not a little ashamed.” — Macknight. Matthew 22:19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. Matthew 22:20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? Matthew 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. Matthew 22:22 When they had heard these words , they marvelled, and left him, and went their way. Matthew 22:23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Matthew 22:23 . The same day came to him the Sadducees — Concerning whose doctrines and conduct see note on Matthew 3:7 ; which say, there is no resurrection — Nor indeed any future life at all, as the word ????????? , here rendered resurrection, is considered by many learned men as signifying; their doctrine being, that when the body dies the soul dies with it, and that there is no state of rewards or punishments after death, and no judgment to come. “The word ????????? ,” says Dr. Campbell, “is indeed the common term by which the resurrection, properly so called, is denominated in the New Testament; yet this is neither the only nor the primitive import of it. When applied to the dead, the word denotes properly no more than a renewal of life to them, in whatever manner this happens. The Pharisees themselves did not universally mean by this term the reunion of soul and body, as is evident from the account which the Jewish historian gives of their doctrine, as well as from some passages in the gospels. To say, therefore, in English, that they deny the resurrection, is to give a very defective account of their sentiments on this topic, for they denied the existence of angels and all separate spirits; in which they went much further than [many of] the pagans, who, though they denied what Christians call the resurrection of the body, yet acknowledged a state after death wherein the souls of the deceased exist, and receive the reward or punishment of their actions.” The doctor therefore renders the clause, Who say there is no future life, which version, he observes, not only gives a juster representation of the Sadducean hypothesis, but is the only version which makes our Lord’s argument appear pertinent, and levelled against the doctrine which he wanted to refute. In the common version they are said to deny the resurrection: that is, that the soul and the body of man shall hereafter be reunited; and our Lord brings an argument from the Pentateuch to prove — What? Not that they shall be reunited, (to this it has not even the most distant relation,) but that the soul subsists after the body is dissolved. This many would have admitted, who denied the resurrection; yet so evidently did his argument strike at the root of the scheme of the Sadducees, that they were silenced by it, and, to the conviction of the hearers, confuted. Now this could not have happened, if the fundamental error of the Sadducees had been barely the denial of the resurrection of the body, and not the denial of the immortality of the soul, or of its actual subsistence after death. If possible, the words, Luke 20:38 , ?????? ???? ????? , all live to him: (namely, the patriarchs and all the faithful dead,) make it still more evident that our Lord considered this, namely, the proving that the soul still continued to live after a person’s natural death, was all that was incumbent on one who would confute the Sadducees. Now if this was the subversion of Sadducism, Sadducism must have consisted in denying that the soul continues to live after the body dies. Certainly our Lord’s answer here, and much of St. Paul’s reasoning, 1 Corinthians 15., proceeds on the supposition of such a denial. Thus, 2Ma 12:42-44 , the author proves that Judas believed a resurrection, from his offering sacrifices for the souls of the slain, which shows that by a resurrection he meant a future state. Matthew 22:24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Matthew 22:24-28 . Master, Moses said, If a man die, &c. — “The argument by which the Sadducees endeavoured to confute the notion of a future state was taken from the Jewish law of marriage, which, to give their objection the better colour, they observed was God’s law, delivered by Moses. As they believed the soul to be nothing but a more refined kind of matter, they thought if there was any future state, it must resemble the present; and, that men being in that state material and mortal, the human race could not be continued, nor the individuals made happy, without the pleasures and conveniences of marriage. Hence they affirmed it to be a necessary consequence of the doctrine of the resurrection, or future state, that every man’s wife should be restored to him.” — Macknight. Matthew 22:25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Matthew 22:26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. Matthew 22:27 And last of all the woman died also. Matthew 22:28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. Matthew 22:29-30 . Jesus answered, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures — Which plainly assert a future state; nor the power of God — Who created spirit as well as matter, and can preserve it in existence when the body is dissolved, and can also raise the body from the dust and render it immortal; and who can make the whole man completely happy in the knowledge, love, and enjoyment of himself, without any of the pleasures or objects of this visible and temporal world. For in the resurrection they neither marry, &c. — Our Lord proceeds to observe further, that they entirely mistook the nature of the life to be enjoyed in a future state: that those who attained it being as the angels of God, incorruptible and immortal, marriage and the procreation of an offspring were no longer necessary to continue the species, or maintain the population of the spiritual world. Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. Matthew 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, Matthew 22:31-32 . But as touching the resurrection of the dead — Or the future state, (see on Matthew 22:23 ,) have ye not read that which was spoken by God — Namely, in the books of Moses, for which the Sadducees had a peculiar value; but which Christ here shows they did not understand; but were as ignorant of them as they were of the power of God. They had drawn their objection to a future state from the writings of Moses; and from those writings Christ demonstrates the certainty of a future state! I am the God of Abraham, &c. — The argument runs thus: God is not the God of the dead, but of the living: (for that expression, Thy God, implies both benefit from God to man: and duty from man to God:) but he is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: therefore Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are not dead, but living. Therefore the soul does not die with the body. So indeed the Sadducees supposed, and it was on this ground that they denied the resurrection and a future state. It cannot be objected to this interpretation, that it lays too much stress on the words, I am, which are not in the Hebrew. For our Lord’s application of the citation in the present tense, ( ??? ????? ? ???? ???? ?????? , God is not the God of the dead, ) plainly implies that no other tense of the verb can be supplied. Accordingly the words are so rendered by the LXX., ??? ???? ? ???? ??? ?????? ??? , ???? ?????? , &c., I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, &c. Exodus 3:6 . In a similar way Dr. Campbell states the argument: “When God appeared to Moses in the bush, (which was long after the death of the patriarchs,) he said unto him, I am the God of Abraham, &c. now God is not the God of the dead, of those who, being destitute of life, and consequently of sensibility, can neither know nor honour him: he is the God of those only who love and adore him, and are by consequence alive. These patriarchs, therefore, though dead in respect to us, who enjoy their presence here no longer, are alive in respect of God, whom they still serve and worship.” Others, however, choose to explain the argument thus: To be the God of any person is to be his exceeding great reward, Genesis 15:1 . Wherefore, as the patriarchs died without having obtained the promises, Hebrews 11:39 , they must exist in another state to enjoy them, that the veracity of God may remain sure. Besides, the apostle tells us that God is not ashamed to be called their God, because he has prepared for them a city, Hebrews 11:16 , which implies, that he would have reckoned it infinitely beneath him to own his relation, as God, to any one for whom he had not provided a state of permanent happiness. The argument, taken either way, is conclusive; for which cause we may suppose that both the senses of it were intended, to render it full of demonstration. With what satisfaction should we read this vindication of so important an article of our faith and

Expositor's Bible Commentary Matthew 22:1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said, 6; Matthew 22:1-46 ; Matthew 23:1-39 Chapter 17 Conflict in the Temple - Matthew 21:18-46 - Matthew 22:1-46 - Matthew 23:1-39 IT had been written that the Lord should suddenly come to His Temple; { Malachi 3:1 } but He would not too hastily assert His rights. The first day He simply "looked round about upon all things," { Mark 11:11 } and then withdrew to Bethany. The second day-without, however, even yet assailing the authority of those in power-He assumed His prerogative as Lord of the Temple by casting out the traffickers, healing the blind and the lame, and accepting the hosannas of the children. The scribes and Pharisees showed some displeasure at all this, and raised objections; but the answer they received silenced, if it did not satisfy them. Thus two days passed without any serious attempt to dispute His authority; but on the third day the conflict began. It was a dark and terrible day, and of its fateful history we have a full account in this Gospel. The day opens with the sight on the-way to the city of the withered fig tree, a sad symbol of the impending fate of Israel, to be decided ere the day closed by their final rejection of their Saviour-King. This was our Lord’s single miracle of judgment; many a stern word of warning did He speak, but there is no severity in His deeds: they are all mercy and love. The single exception, if exception it may be called, makes this great fact stand out only the more impressively. It was necessary for love’s sake to show that in that arm, which was always strong to save, there was also strength to smite if the sad necessity should come; but so tender-hearted is He that He cannot bear to strike where the stroke can be felt, so He lets it fall on an unconscious tree. Thus to the end He justifies His name of Jesus, Saviour, and illustrates the blessed truth of which His whole life is the expression, that "God is love." "The Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them." Judgment is His strange work; from the very thought of it He shrinks, as seems suggested to us here by the fact that, in the use He makes of the circumstance in His conversation with the disciples, He refrains from speaking of its dark significance, but rather takes the opportunity of teaching from it an incidental lesson full of hope and comfort regarding the power of faith and the value of prayer ( Matthew 21:21-22 ). As soon as on the third day He enters the Temple the conflict begins. It would seem that the interval our Lord had in mercy allowed for calm reflection had been used for no other purpose than to organise a conspiracy for the purpose of entangling Him in His words and so discrediting His authority. We gather this from the carefully framed questions with which He is plied by one party after another. Four successive attacks are recorded in the passage before us: the first by the chief priests and elders of the people demanding His authority; the next by the Pharisees, assisted by the Herodians, who endeavoured by means of the difficulty of the tribute money to embroil Him with the Roman power; this was again immediately followed by a third, in which the prime movers were the Sadducees, armed with what they considered an unanswerable question regarding the life to come; and when that also broke down there was a renewed attack of the Pharisees, who thought to disconcert Him by a perplexing question about the law, We may not discuss the long sad history of these successive attacks with any fulness, but only glance first at the challenge of our Lord’s authority and how He meets it, and next at the ordeal of questions with which it was followed. I-THE CHALLENGE. { Matthew 21:23-46 - Matthew 22:1-14 } "By what authority doest Thou these things? And who gave Thee this authority?" The question was fair enough; and if it had been asked in an earnest spirit Jesus would have given them, as always to the honest inquirer, a kind and satisfying answer. It is not, however, as inquirers, but as cavillers, they approach Him. Again and again, at times and in ways innumerable, by fulfilment of prophecy, by His mighty deeds and by His wondrous words, He had given proof of His Divine authority and established His claim to be the true Messiah. It was not therefore because they lacked evidence of His authority, but because they hated it, because they would not have this man to reign over them, that now they question Him. It was obvious that their only object was to entangle Him; accordingly our Lord showed how in the net they were spreading for Him their own feet were caught. He meets their question with a counter-question, "The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?" The more we examine this question, the more must we admire the consummate wisdom it displays. We see at once how it turns the tables on His critics; but it is far more important to notice how admirably adapted it was to lead them to the answer of their own question, if only they would follow it out. They dared not repudiate the baptism of John; and had not John baptised Jesus, and solemnly borne repeated testimony to His Messiahship? Had he not most emphatically borne that very testimony to a formal deputation sent by themselves? { John 1:19-27 } Finally, were not the ministry and testimony of John closely associated in prophecy with that very coming of the Lord to His Temple which gave them so deep offence: "Behold, I will send My messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His temple: behold, He shall come, saith the Lord of hosts." Our Lord’s counter-question, then, was framed with such exquisite skill as to disappoint their malice, while at the same time it was suited to-guide the earnest inquirer to the truth. The propounders of the question were not true men, but hypocrites. A negative answer they could not give. An affirmative they would not give. So when they refused to answer, our Lord replied, "Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things." The Lord of the Temple now assumes the offensive, and directs against His opponents a series of parables which He holds up to them as a triple mirror in which from different points of view they may see themselves in their true character, and as a set of danger signals to warn them of their impending doom. He presents them with such marvellous skill that He makes the Pharisees their own judges, and constrains them to pass sentence on themselves. In the first parable He constrains them to declare their own guilt; in the second, He makes them decree their own punishment; in the third, He warns them of the impending fate of the people they were leading to destruction. We have said that in these parables Christ assumes the offensive; but this is true only in a very superficial sense. In the deepest sense He spoke them not against the Pharisees, but for them. His object was to carry home to their hearts the conviction of sin, and to impress them with a sense of their danger before it was too late. This was what above all they needed. It was their only hope of salvation. And how admirably suited for His purpose were these three parables! Their application to themselves was plain enough after it was stated, but not beforehand; the effect of which was that they were put in a position to give an impartial verdict on their own conduct. It was the same method so effectively employed by Nathan in bringing conviction to the conscience of David. Had Christ charged the sin of the Pharisees directly home upon them they would have been at once thrown on the defensive, and it would have been impossible to reach their conscience through the entanglements of prejudice and personal interest. Christ wishes to disentangle them from all that was darkening their moral vision, and He uses the parable as the most effective means. It is a great mistake, then, to suppose that Jesus contented Himself with turning the tables on them, and carrying the war, so to speak, into the enemy’s country. It was with them a war of words, but not with Him. He was seeking to save these poor lost ones. He wished to give them His best for their worst. They had come to entangle Him in His talk. He does His best to disentangle them from the meshes of self-deception. The tone of all three parables is exceptionally severe; but the spirit of them is love. THE TWO SONS. { Matthew 21:28-32 } The parable of the two sons is exceedingly simple; and the question founded upon it, "Whether of them twain did the will of his father?" admitted of but one answer-an answer which seemed, as it was spoken, to involve only the simplest of all moral judgments; yet how keen the edge of it when once it was disclosed! Observe the emphatic word did, suggesting without saying it, that it made comparatively little difference what they said. {see Matthew 23:3 } So far as profession went, the Pharisees were all that could be desired. They were the representatives of religion in the land; their whole attitude corresponded to the answer of the second son: "I go, sir." Yet when John-whom they themselves admitted to be a prophet of the Lord-came to them in the way of righteousness, they set his word aside and refused to obey him. On the other hand, many of those whose lives seemed to say "I will not," when they heard the word of John, repented and began to work the works of God. Thus it came to pass that many of these had entered the kingdom, while the self-complacent Pharisee still remained without. The words with which the parable is pressed home are severe and trenchant; but they are nevertheless full of gospel grace. They set in the strongest light the welcome fact that the salvation of God is for the chief of sinners, for those who have been rudest and most rebellious in their first answers to the divine appeal; and then, while they condemn so very strongly the self-deceiver, it is not for the purpose of covering him with confusion, but in order to open his eyes and save him from the net in which he has set his feet. Even in that terrible sentence which puts him lower down than open and disgraceful sinners, there is a door left still unlatched for him to enter. "The publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of God before you"; but you may enter after them. If only you, like them, would "afterward" repent-if you would repent of your hypocrisy and insincerity, as they have repented of their rudeness and rebellion-you would be as gladly welcomed as they into the kingdom of God. THE HUSBANDMEN. { Matthew 21:33-46 } The second parable follows hard on the first, and presses the chief priests and Pharisees so closely that they cannot fail to see in the end that it is themselves they have been constrained to judge and condemn ( Matthew 21:45 ). It is indeed difficult to suppose that they had not even from the beginning some glimpse of the intended application of this parable. The vineyard was a familiar symbol with a definite and well-understood meaning, from which our Lord in His use of it does not depart. The vineyard being the nation, the owner is evidently God; the fruit expected, righteousness; the particulars mentioned (the fence, the press, the tower) implying the completeness of the arrangements made by the owner for securing the expected fruit. The husbandmen are the leaders of the people, those who are responsible for their direction and control. The going to a far country represents the removal of God from their sight; so that they are, as it were, put upon their honour, left to act in the matter of the vineyard according to the prompting of their own hearts. All this is contained in the few lines which make up verse 33 { Matthew 21:33 }, and forms the groundwork of this great parable. Thus are set forth in a very striking manner the high privileges and grave responsibilities of the leaders of the Jewish people, represented at the time by the chief priests and Pharisees He was then addressing. How are they meeting this responsibility? Let the parable tell. It is a terrible indictment, showing in the strongest light the guilt of their fathers, and pointing out to them that they are on the verge of a crime far greater still. Again and again have prophets of righteousness come in the name of the Lord, and demanded the fruits of righteousness which were due. How have they been received? "The husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another." So have their fathers acted time after time and still the patience of the owner is not exhausted, nor does He even yet give up all hope of fruit from His favoured vineyard; so, as a last resort, He sends His son, saying, "They will reverence my son." We can imagine the tone in which the Son of God would speak these words. What a sublime consciousness is implied in His use of them! and how touchingly does He in this incidental way give the best of all answers to the question with which His enemies began! Surely the son, the only and well-beloved son, had the best of all authority to act for the father! In the former parable He had appealed to the recognised authority of John; now He indicates that the highest authority of all is in Himself. If only their hearts had not been wholly shut against the light, how it would have flashed upon them now! They would have taken up the cry of the children, and said, "Hosanna! blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord": and the parable would have served its purpose before it had reached its close. But they are deaf and blind to the things of God; so the awful indictment must proceed to the bitter end. If there was in the heart of Christ an exalted consciousness of His filial relation to God as He spoke of the sending of the Son, what a pang must have shot through it as He proceeded to depict in such vivid colours the crime they are now all ready to commit, referring successively as He does to the arrest, the handing over to Pilate, and the crucifixion without the gate: "They caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him." How appalling it must have been to Him to speak these words! how appalling it ought to have been to them to hear them! That they did feel the force of the parable is evident from the answer they gave to the question, "What will he do to those husbandmen?" and, as we have said, they must surely have had some glimpses of its application to themselves; but it did not disturb their self-complacency, until our Lord spoke the plain words with which He followed up the parable, referring to that very Psalm from which the children’s cry of "Hosanna" was taken. From it He selects the symbol of the stone rejected by the builders, but by God made the head of the corner, applying it to Himself (the rejected stone) and them (the builders). The reference was most appropriate in itself; and it had the further advantage of being followed by the very word which it would be their salvation now to speak. "Hosanna" is the word which immediately follows the quotation He makes, and it introduces a prayer which, if only they will make their own, all will yet be well with them. The prayer is, "Save now, I beseech Thee, O Lord"; followed by the words, "Blessed be He that cometh in the name of the Lord." May we not assume that our Lord paused after making His quotation to give them the opportunity of adopting it as their own prayer? His whole heart was longing to hear these very words from them. Have we not the proof of it further on, in the sad words with which He at last abandoned the hope: "I say unto you, ye shall not see Me henceforth till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord"? { Matthew 23:39 } Seeing they will not take the warning of the parable, and that they refuse the opportunity given them while yet under its awe-inspiring influence, to repent and return, He must give sentence against them: "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." This sentence He follows up by setting before them the dark side of the other symbol: "Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." They were stumbling on the stone now, and about to he broken upon it; but the danger that lay before them if they persisted in their present unbelief and sin, would be far greater still, when He Whom they now despised and rejected should be at the head of all authority and power. But all is vain. Steeling their hearts against His faithful words, they are only the more maddened against Him, and fear alone restrains them from beginning now the very crime against which they have just had so terrible a warning: "When they sought to lay hands on Him, they feared the multitudes, because they took Him for a prophet." THE MARRIAGE FEAST. { Matthew 22:1-14 } The manner in which this third parable is introduced leaves room for doubt whether it was spoken in immediate connection with the two preceding. The use of the word "answered" ( Matthew 22:1 ) would rather suggest the idea that some conversation not reported had intervened. But though it does not form part of a continuous discourse with the others, it is so closely connected with them in scope and bearing that it may appropriately be dealt with, as concluding the warning called forth by the first attack of the chief priests and elders. The relation between the three parables will be best seen by observing that the first has to do with their treatment of John; the second and third with their treatment of Himself and His apostles. The second and third differ from each other in this: that while the King’s Son, Who is prominent in both, is regarded in the former as the last and greatest of a long series of heavenly messengers sent to demand of the chosen people the fruits of righteousness, in the latter He is presented, not as demanding righteousness, but as bringing joy. Duty is the leading thought of the second parable, privilege of the third; in the one sin is brought home to Israel’s leaders by setting before them their treatment of the messengers of righteousness, in the other the sin lies in their rejection of the message of grace. Out of this distinction rises another-viz., that while the second parable runs back into the past, upwards along the line of the Old Testament prophets, the third runs down into the future, into the history of the apostolic times. The two together make up a terrible indictment, which might well have roused these slumbering consciences, and led even scribes and Pharisees to shrink from filling up the measure of their iniquities. A word may be necessary as to the relation of this parable to the similar one recorded in the fourteenth chapter of St. Luke, known as "The parable of the Great Supper." The two have many features in common, but the differences are so great that it is plainly wrong to suppose them to be different versions of the same. It: is astonishing to see what needless difficulties some people make for themselves by the utterly groundless assumption that our Lord would never use the same illustration a second time. Why should He not have spoken of. the gospel as a feast, not twice merely, but fifty times? There would, no doubt, be many variations in His manner of unfolding the thought, according to the circumstances, the audience, the particular object in view at the time; but to suppose that because He had used that illustration in Galilee He must be forbidden from reverting to it in Judea is a specimen of what we may call the insanity of those who are ever on the watch for their favourite "discrepancies." In this case there is not only much variation in detail, but the scope of the two parables is quite different, the former having more the character of a pressing invitation, with only a suggestion of warning at the close; whereas the one before us, while preserving all the grace of the gospel as suggested by the figure of a feast to which men are freely invited, and even heightening its attractiveness inasmuch as it is a wedding feast-the most joyful of all festivities-and a royal one too, yet has throughout the same sad tone of judgment which has been characteristic of all these three parables, and is at once seen to be specially appropriate to the fateful occasion on which they were spoken. As essentially a New Testament parable, it begins with the familiar formula "The kingdom of heaven is like." The two previous parables had led up to the new dispensation; but: this one begins with it, and is wholly concerned with it. The King’s Son appears now, not as a messenger, but as a bridegroom. It was not the first time that Jesus had spoken of Himself as a bridegroom, or rather as the Bridegroom. The thought was a familiar one in the prophets of the Old Testament, the Bridegroom, be it remembered, being none other than Jehovah Himself. Consider, then, what it meant that Jesus should without hesitation or explanation. speak of Himself as the Bridegroom. And let. us not imagine that He simply took the figure, and applied it to Himself as fulfilling prophecy; let us not fail to realise that He entered fully into its tender meaning. When we think of the circumstances in which this parable was spoken we have here a most pathetic glimpse into the sanctuary of our Saviour’s loving heart. Let us. try with reverent sympathy to enter into the feeling of the King’s Son, come from heaven to seek humanity for His bride, to woo and to win her from the cruel bondage of sin and death, to take her into union with Himself, so that she may share with Him the liberty and wealth, the purity and joy, the glory and the hope of the heavenly kingdom! The King "made a marriage for His Son"-where is the bride? what response is she making to the Bridegroom’s suit? A marriage for His Son! On Calvary? It must have been very hard for Him to go on; but He will keep down the rising tide of emotion, that He may set before this people and before all people another attractive picture of the kingdom of heaven. He will give even these despisers of the heavenly grace another opportunity to reconsider their position. So He tells of the invitations sent out first to "them that were bidden"-i.e., to the chosen people who had been especially invited from the earliest times, and to whom, when the fulness of the time had come, the call was first addressed. "And they would not come." There is no reference to the aggravations which had found place in the former parable. { Matthew 21:39 } These were connected not so much with the offer of grace, which is the main purport of this parable, as with the demand for fruit, which was the leading thought of the one before. It was enough, then, in describing how they dealt with the invitation, to say, "They would not come"; and, indeed, this refusal hurt Him far more than their buffets and their blows. When He is buffeted He is silent, sheds no tears, utters no wail; His tears and lamentation are reserved for them: "How often would I, have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" " They would not come ." But the love of the King and of His Son is not yet exhausted. A second invitation is sent, with greater urgency than before, and with fuller representations of the great preparations which had been made for the entertainment of the guests: "Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage." As the first invitation was that which had been already given and which they were now rejecting, the second refers to that fuller proclamation of the gospel which was yet to be made after the work of the Bride-groom-Redeemer should be finished when it could be said, as not before: "All things are ready." In the account which follows, therefore, there is a foreshadowing of the treatment the apostles would afterwards receive. Many, indeed, were converted by their word, and took their places at the feast; but the people as a whole "made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: and the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them." What was the consequence? Jerusalem, rejecting the gospel of the kingdom, even when it was "preached with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven," must be destroyed; and new guests must be sought among the nations that up till now had no especial invitation to the feast. This prophetic warning was conveyed in terms of the parable; yet there is a touch in it which shows how strongly the Saviour’s mind was running on the sad future of which the parable was but a picture: "When the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city." Why "city"? There had been no mention of a city in the parable. True; but Jerusalem was in the Saviour’s heart, and all the pathos of His lament over it is in that little word. "Their city" too, observe, -reminding us of "your house" at the close of this sad day. { Matthew 23:38 } In the same way the calling of the Gentiles is most skilfully brought within the scope of the parable, by the use of the peculiar word translated in the Revised Version-"the partings of the highways," which seems to suggest the thought of the servants leaving the city precincts and going out in all directions along the main trunk roads to "the partings of the highways," to carry the gospel to all without distinction, wherever could be found an ear of man to listen, or a human heart to welcome the King’s grace and the Bridegroom’s love. Thus, after all, the wedding was to be furnished with guests. The parable, as we have seen, is one of grace; but righteousness too must find a place in it. The demand for fruits of righteousness is no less rigid in the new dispensation than it had been in the old. To make this clear and strong the parable of the Feast is followed by the pendant of the Wedding Garment. There are two ways in which the heavenly marriage feast may be despised: first, by those who will not come at all; next, and no less, by those who try to snatch the wedding joy without the bridal purity. The same leading thought or motive is recognisable here as in the parable of the two sons. The man without the wedding garment corresponds to the son who said "I go, sir," and went not, while those who refuse altogether correspond to the son who answered "I will not." By bearing this in mind we can understand, what to many has been a serious difficulty-how it is that the punishment meted out to the offender in this second parable is so terribly severe. If we simply think of the parable itself, it does seem an extraordinary thing that so slight an offence as coming to a wedding feast without the regulation dress should meet with such an awful doom; but when we consider whom this man represents we can see the very best of reasons for it. Hypocrisy was his crime, than which there is nothing more utterly hateful in the sight of Him Who desireth truth in the inward parts. It is true that the representation does not at first seem to set the sin in so very strong a light; but when we think of it, we see that there was no other way in which it could be brought within the scope of this parable. It is worthy of notice, moreover, that the distinction between the intruder and the others is not observed till the king himself enters, which indicates that the difference between him and the others was no outward distinction, that the garment referred to is the invisible garment of-righteousness. To the common eye he looked like all the rest; but when the all-searching Eye is on the company he is at once detected and exposed. He is really worse than those who would not come at all. They were honest sinners; he was a hypocrite-at the feast with mouth and hand and eye, but not of it, for his spirit is not robed in white: he is the black sheep in the fold; a despiser within, he is worse than the despisers without. Even to him, indeed, the king has a kindly feeling. He calls him "Friend," and gives him yet the opportunity to repent and cry for mercy. But he is speechless. False to the core, he has no rallying point within to fall back upon. All is confusion and despair. He cannot even pray. Nothing remains but to pronounce his final doom ( Matthew 22:13 ). The words with which the parable closes ( Matthew 22:14 ) are sad and solemn. They have occasioned difficulty to some, who have supposed they were meant to teach that the number of the saved will be small. Their difficulty, like so many others, has been due to forgetfulness of the circumstances under which the words were spoken, and the strong emotion of which they were the expression. Jesus is looking back over the time since He began to spread the gospel feast, and thinking how many have been invited, and how few have come! And even among those who have seemed to come there are hypocrites! One He specially would have in mind as He spoke of the man without the wedding garment; for though we take him to be the type of a class, we can scarcely think that our Lord could fail to let His sad thoughts rest on Judas as He described that man. Taking all this into consideration we can well understand how at that time He should conclude His parable with the lamentation: "Many are called, but few chosen." It did not follow that it was a truth for all time and for eternity. It was true for the time included in the scope of the parable. It was most sadly true of the Jewish nation then, and in the times which followed on immediately; but the day was coming, before all was done, when the heavenly Bridegroom, according to the sure word of prophecy, should "see of the travail of His soul, and be satisfied." No creed article, therefore, have we here, but a cry from the sore heart of the heavenly Bridegroom, in the day of His sorrows, in the pain of unrequited love. II-THE ORDEAL OF QUESTIONS. { Matthew 22:15-46 } The open challenge has failed; but more subtle weapons may succeed. The Pharisees have found it of no avail to confront their enemy; but they may still be able to entangle Him. They will at all events try. They will spring upon Him some hard questions, of such a kind that, answering on the spur of the moment, He will be sure to compromise Himself. 1. The first shall be one of those semi-political semi-religious questions on which feeling is running high-the lawfulness or unlawfulness of paying tribute to Caesar. The old Pharisees who had challenged His authority keep in the background, that the sinister purpose of the question may not appear; but they are represented by some of their disciples who, coming fresh upon the scene and addressing Jesus m terms of respect and appreciation, may readily pass for guileless inquirers. They were accompanied by some Herodians, whose divergence of view on the point made it all the more natural that they should join with Pharisees in asking the question; for it might fairly be considered that they had been disputing with one another in regard to it, and had concluded to submit the question to His decision as to one who would be sure to know the truth and fearless to tell it. So together they come with the request: "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. Tell us therefore, What thinkest Thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?" But they cannot impose upon Him: "Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye Me, ye hypocrites?" Having thus unmasked them, without a moment’s hesitation He answers them. They had expected a "yes" or a "no"-a "yes" which would have set the people against Him, or better still a "no" which would have put Him at the mercy of the government. But, avoiding Scylla on the one hand, and Charybdis on the other, He makes straight for His goal by asking for a piece of coin and calling attention to Caesar’s stamp upon it. Those who use Caesar’s coin should not refuse to pay Caesar’s tribute; but, while the relation which with their own acquiescence they sustain to the Roman emperor implied corresponding obligations in the sphere it covered, this did not at all interfere with what is due to the King of kings and Lord of lords, in Whose image we all are made, and Whose superscription every one of us bears: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things th