Comentarios bíblicos

CHAPTER 22.

PARABLE OF THE WEDDING FEAST AND ENCOUNTERS WITH OPPONENTS.

Matthew 22:1-14. The royal wedding.—This parable is peculiar to Mt., and while in some respects very suitable to the situation, may not unreasonably be suspected to owe its place here to the evangelist’s habit of grouping kindred matter. The second part of the parable referring to the man without a wedding robe has no connection with the present situation, or with the Pharisees who are supposed to be addressed. Another question has been much discussed, viz., whether this parable was spoken by Jesus at all on any occasion, the idea of many critics being that it is a parable of Christ’s reconstructed by the evangelist or some other person, so as to make it cover the sin and fate of the Jews, the calling of the Gentiles, and the Divine demand tor righteousness in all recipients of His grace. The resemblance between this parable and that of the Supper, in Luke 14:16-24, is obvious. Assuming that Jesus uttered a parable of this type, the question arises: which of the two forms given by Mt. and Lk. comes nearer to the original? The general verdict is in favour of Luke’s. As to the question of the authenticity of Mt.’s parable, the mere fact that the two parables have a common theme and many features similar is no proof that both could not proceed from Jesus. Why should not the later parable be the same theme handled by the same Artist with variations so as to make it serve a different while connected purpose, the earlier being a parable of Grace, the later a parable of Judgment upon grace despised or abused? If the didactic aim of the two parables was as just indicated, the method of variation was preferable to the use of two parables totally unconnected. “What is common gives emphasis to what is peculiar, and bids us mark what it is that is judged” (The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, p. 463). The main objections to the authenticity of the parable are its allegorical character, and its too distinct anticipation of history. The former objection rests on the assumption that Jesus uttered no parables of the allegorical type. On this, vide remarks on the parable of the Sower, chap. 13.

Matthew 22:1. ἐν παραβολαῖς, the plural does not imply more than one parable, but merely indicates the style of address = parabolically.

Matthew 22:2. γάμους, a wedding feast; plural, because the festivities asted for days, seven in Jdg 14:17. The suggestion that the feast is connected with the handing over of the kingdom to the son (“quem pater successorem declarare volebat,” Kuinoel) is not to be despised. The marriage and recognition of the son as heir to the throne might be combined, which would give to the occasion a political significance, and make appearance at the marriage a test of loyalty. Eastern monarchs had often many sons by different wives, and heirship to the throne did not go by primogeniture, but by the pleasure of the sovereign, determined in many cases by affection for a favourite wife, as in the case of Solomon (Koetsveld, de Gelijk.)

Matthew 22:3. καλέσαι τοὺς κεκλημένους, to invite the already invited. This second invitation seems to accord with Eastern custom (Esther 6:14). The first invitation was given to the people of Israel by the prophets in the Messianic pictures of a good time coming. This aspect of the prophetic ministry was welcomed. Israel never responded to the prophetic demand for righteousness, as shown in the parable of the vine-dressers, but they were pleased to hear of God’s gracious visitation in the latter days, to be invited to a feast in the indefinite future time. How they would act when the feast was due remained to be seen.—τοὺς δούλους, the servants, are John the Baptist and Jesus Himself, whose joint message to their generation was: the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, feast time at length arrived.—οὐκ ἤθελον ἐλθεῖν. Israel in all her generations had been willing in a general way, quite intending to come; and the generation of John and Jesus were also willing in a general way, if it had only been the right son who was going to be married. How could they be expected to accept the obscure Nazarene for Bridegroom and Heir?

Matthew 22:4. ἄλλους δούλους refers to the apostles whose ministry gave to the same generation a second chance.—εἴπατε: the second set of messengers are instructed what to say; they are expected not merely to invite to but to commend the feast, to provoke desire.—ἰδού, to arrest attention.—ἄριστόν μου, the midday meal, as distinct from δεῖπνον, which came later in the day (vide Luke 14:12, where both are named = early dinner and supper). With the ἄριστον the festivities begin.—ἡτοίμακα, perfect, I have in readiness.—ταῦροι, σιτιστὰ, bulls, or oxen, and fed beasts: speak to a feast on a vast scale.—τεθυμένα, slain, and therefore must be eaten without delay. The word is often used in connection with the slaying of sacrificial victims, and the idea of sacrifice may be in view here (Koetsveld).—πάντα, etc.: all things ready, come to the feast. This message put into the mouths of the second set of servants happily describes the ministry of the apostles compared with that of our Lord, as more urgent or aggressive, and proclaiming a more developed gospel. “They talked as it were of oxen and fed beasts and the other accompaniments of a feast, with an eloquence less dignified, but more fitted to impress the million with a sense of the riches of Divine grace” (The Parabolic Teaching of Christ).

Matthew 22:5-7. οἱ δὲ ἀμελήσαντες ἀπῆλθον. The Vulgate resolves the participle and translates: “neglexerunt et abierunt,” so also the A.V[122] and R.V[123]; justly, for the participle points out the state of mind which gave rise to the conduct specified. They treated the pressing invitations and glowing descriptions of the servants with indifference.—ὃς μὲν, ὃς δὲ: this one to his own (ἴδιον for αὐτοῦ = proprius for suus) field, that one to his trading (ἐμπορίαν here only in N. T. Cf. Lk. at this point).

[122] Authorised Version.

[123] Revised Version.

Matthew 22:6. λοιποὶ, the rest, as if οἱ ἀμελήσαντες were only a part, the greater part, of the invited, while the expression by itself naturally covers the whole. Weiss finds in λοιποὶ a trace of patching: the parable originally referred to the people of Israel as a whole, but Mt. introduced a reference to the Sanhedrists and here has them specially in view as the λοιποὶ. Koetsveld remarks on the improbability of the story at this point: men at a distance—rulers of provinces—could not be invited in the morning with the expectation of their being present at the palace by mid-day. So far this makes for the hypothesis of remodelling by a second hand. But even in Christ’s acknowledged parables improbabilities are sometimes introduced to meet the requirements of the case; e.g., in Lk.’s version of the parable all refuse.—κρατήσαντες … ὕβ. καὶ ἀπέκτειναν: acts of open rebellion inevitably leading to war. This feature, according to Weiss, lies outside the picture. Not so, if the marriage feast was to be the occasion for recognising the son as heir. Then refusal to come meant withholding homage, rebellion in the bud, and acts of violence were but the next step.

Matthew 22:7. τὰ στρατεύματα: the plural appears surprising, but the meaning seems to be, not separate armies sent one after another, but forces.—ἀπώλεσε, ἐνέπρησεν: the allegory here evidently refers to the destruction of Jerusalem; no argument against authenticity, if Matthew 24:2 be a word of Jesus. Note that the destruction of Jerusalem is represented as taking place before the calling of those without = the Gentiles. This is not according to the historic fact. This makes for authenticity, as a later allegorist would have been likely to observe the historical order (vide Schanz).