Coke's Commentary on the Holy Bible · Matthew Capítulo 22

Matthew 22:3. And sent forth his servants— It was sometimes customary to send two messages, as in the case here supposed, which represented the condescension the greater, and suited the repeated invitations given to the Jews by Christ himself during his life, and by the Apostles after his death. The invitation which preceded the call at the hour of supper, may signify the vocation of the Jews, by which they became in a peculiarsense the visible church; and, in consequence whereof, they had the call given them at that hour; that is, when the fulness of time approached, they had the Gospel, the call to the great feast of heaven, preached to them, first by John the Baptist, and next by Jesus himself: But they would not come. Though pressed and invited to enter into the kingdom of heaven, they would not obey, but rejected the Gospel.

return to '

Matthew 22:4. Again he sent forth other servants— After Christ's resurrection and ascension, the Apostles were sent to inform the Jews, that the Gospel covenant was established, mansions in heaven were prepared, and nothing was wanting, but that they should cheerfully accept of the honour designed them. It was as agreeable to the simplicity of the antient ages to mention oxen and fatlings as the chief parts of a royal entertainment. Thus, in Homer and other ancient writers, we see princes of the first rank and dignity feasting each other with nothing but the flesh of oxen, sheep, and swine. Compare Isaiah 25:6.

return to '

Matthew 22:7. When the king heard thereof, he was wroth— The invitation to the marriage-supper of his son, sent by this king to his supposed friends, was the highest expression of his regard for them, and the greatest honour which could be shown them; therefore, when they refused it for such trifling reasons, and were so savagely ungrateful as to beat, wound, and kill the servants who came with it, it was a most outrageous affront; an injurydeserving of the severest punishment. Accordingly the king, in great wrath, sent forth his armies, to destroy those murderers, and burn their city. 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 favoured, but now rebellious people. The present clause must be supposed to come in by way ofprolepsis, or anticipation; for it is plain that there could not be time before the feast already prepared was served up, to attempt an execution of this kind. It is needless to object, "that the circumstances of this parable are improbable, as it was never heard of in the world that subjects refused the invitation of the sovereign tothe marriage of his son;" for, allowing this to be so, it only aggravates the crime of the Jews the more, with respect to whom it was literally true—the honour which God offered them in the Gospel, and which they rejected, being far greater than the honour which is conferred on a subject by the invitation of his prince. Moreover, the joys of heaven to which they were called, and which they refused, do infinitely transcend the pleasures of any royal banquet. And,—to carry our reflections from them to ourselves,—how much will this consideration condemn those, who, calling themselves by the name of Christ, refuse all the gracious offers and invitations of the King of glory to the heavenly feast; while, quick to the call of earthly honour, they are forward and zealous to accept distinguished invitations to temporary fears and pleasures!

return to '

Matthew 22:11. He saw there a man, &c.— It may seem strange, that, in such a number of men gathered to this feast, there was only one found who had not on a wedding-garment,andthatheshould be punished with such severity for wanting what he could not be expected to have, while he was performing a journey perhaps, or sitting begging under the hedges, as appears from Luke 14:23. Nevertheless the heinousness of the offence, and the equity of the sentence which was passed upon him, will fully appear, if we call to mind a circumstance, which, because it was common atthat time, is not mentioned in the parable. The Easterns, among whom the fashion of clothes was not changeable as with us, reckoned it a principal part of their magnificence to have their wardrobes stored with rich habits. Thus Job, speaking of the wicked, (Job 27:16.) says, Though they heap up silver as the dust, and prepare raiment as the clay. Accordingly, in Scripture, when the uncertainty of earthly treasures is spoken of, they are represented as subject not only to rust, but to moths, Matthew 6:19. James 5:2. The matter is evident likewise from Horace, who tells us, that when Lucullus, the Roman general, who had enriched himself with the spoils of the East, was asked, if he could furnish a hundred habits for the theatre? He replied, he had five thousand in his house, of which they were welcome to take part, or all. See Epist. 6: lib. 1 Matthew 22:40. We may therefore naturally suppose, that this king, having invited his guests to his feast from the highways and hedges, would order his servants to make each of them a present of splendid apparel, as a farther mark of his respect, and that they might be all clothed in a manner becoming the magnificence of the solemnity. For it cannot otherwise be understood how, among such a number collected in such a manner, only one should have been found wanting a wedding-garment, especially as we are told that they gathered together all, as many as they found, both good and bad. Besides, that the great men in the East were accustomed to make ostentation of their grandeur, and to express their respect for their peculiar friends by gifts of this kind, is evident from the presents which Joseph bestowed on his brethren in Egypt, Gen 45:22 and from the agreement which Samson entered into with the guests at his marriage-feast, Judges 14:12-13. To conclude, in the 4th Odyssey, ver. 47-51. Homer tells us, that Telemachus and Pisistratus happening to arrive at Menelaus's house in Lacedaemon, 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. Without all doubt, therefore, the man who was sentenced to be bound and cast out of doors, had been offered a wedding-garment, or sumptuous apparel, along with the rest, but would not receive it; and so haughtily came in, dirty and ragged as he was. The king, looking on this as a great insult, inflicted upon theperson who was guilty of it a punishment suitable to the demerit of his offence. What Dr. Calvin says concerning the wedding-garment in the parable deserves a place here. "It is useless to dispute 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 out 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 life may be such as is suitable to so honourable an invitation." Dr. Doddridge observes, that this circumstance of the parable is admirably adapted to the method of God's dealing with us. For he requires repentance indeed and holiness, in order to our partaking of the happiness of heaven; but at the same time he graciously offers to work it in us by his Holy Spirit, and therefore may justly punish our neglect of so great a favour.

return to '

Matthew 22:12. And he was speechless— And he was struck speechless. This is the true import of the original word εφιμωθη, which is more expressive than the phrase in our translation, he was speechless; as an English reader might be led by our translation 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— εφιμωσε,— put to silence the Sadducees, Mat 22:34 and as Peter would have us make speechless,—put to silence, the ignorance of foolish men. See Gerhard's Continuation of Chemnitz's Harmony, on the place. This latter part of the parable represents the last judgment; teaching us, that, though the Gentiles obeyed the call of the Gospel with more alacrity than the Jews, they would not all be saved by it: Without holiness no man shall see the Lord.

return to '

Matthew 22:14. For many are called, &c.— These words are proverbial, and must be referred first to the Jews, who, though they were called in great numbers by the preaching of the Gospel, few were chosen; for they did not believe. See on ch. Matthew 20:16. They must be referred also to the Gentiles, too many of whom, though they embraced the Gospel in speculation, rejected the wedding-garment when it was offered to them, and refused the gracious inspiration of God's good Spirit to perfect holiness in the fear of the Lord. The parable is concluded in this manner, to shew us, that the profession of the Christian religion will avail a man nothing, unless he lives in a manner worthy of that religion; that not they who say Lord, Lord! but they who do the will of that Lord, shall enter into the joys of his kingdom. See the Inferenc

return to '

Matthew 22:15. Entangle him— Ensnare him.

return to '

Matthew 22:16. With the Herodians— These, in the Syriac version, are termed the domestics, or courtiers of Herod. "Origen and St. Jerome have, in my opinion," says Beausobre, "rightly supposed that they were men (probably of the sect of the Sadducees) who sided with Herod Antipas, who, to ingratiate himself with the emperor, was very busy and earnest in raising the taxes." They seem to have been men who distinguished themselves by their zeal for the family of Herod; and, on that account, they would be naturally zealous for the authority of the Romans, by whose means Herod was made and continued king; and it is probable, as Dr. Prideaux conjectures, that they might incline to conform to themin some particulars, which the law would not allow of; and especially in the admission of images, though not in the religious, or rather idolatrous use of them. Herod's attempt to set up a golden eagle over the eastern gate of the temple is well-known: these complaisant courtiers would, no doubt, defend it; and the same temper might discover itself in many other instances. On all these accounts, they were most diametrically opposite to the Pharisees; 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. Thus united, they resolved to send certain of their disciples to ensnare Jesus in his words; whom they directed to feign themselves just men, Luk 20:20 men who had a great veneration for the divine law, and a dread of doing any thing inconsistent therewith; and, under that mask, to request him, for the ease of their consciences, to give his opinion whether they might pay taxes to the Romans, consistently with their regard for their religion. It seems this question was much debated in our Lord's time, one Judas of Galilee having taught the unlawfulness of paying the taxes, and gathered a numerous faction, especially among the common people. The priests, therefore, imagined that it was not in our Lord's power to decide the point, without making himself obnoxious to some of the parties, who divided upon it. If he should say it was lawful to pay the taxes, they believed that the people, in whose hearing the question was proposed, (see Luke 20:26.) 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, but as a flatterer of princes also, and a betrayer of the liberties and privileges of his country. For the notion which the generality of the Jews formed of the Messiah was, that he would deliver them from foreign servitude: If therefore he, who called himself the Messiah, recommended the paying of taxes to the Romans, they could not but think this inconsistent with his pretensions, nay, an entire renunciation of them. 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 fomentor of sedition. Highly elated, therefore, with their project, they came and proposed their question, after having first passed an encomium on the truth of his mission, and upon his courage, integrity, and impartiality, with a design, no doubt, to make him believe that they were his friends, and that he ought boldly to declare what the will of God was in this matter. See Beausobre, Prideaux, Macknight, and Calmet.

return to '

Matthew 22:22. They marvelled, and left him— The unexpected and most wise answer of our Lord, in which he clearly confuted them on their own principles, and shewed 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 his 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 greatly ashamed. 'Εθαυμασαν, they marvelled, might be rendered, they were struck with admiration and surprise.

return to '

Matthew 22:23. The same day came to him the Sadducees— It is generally known that Sadoc, the master of this sect, and from whom the Sadducees took their name, thought that God was not to be served from mercenary principles; that is to say, as he crudely explained it, from the hope of reward, or fear of punishment. His followers interpreted this as an implicit denial of a future state, and so imbibed that pernicious notion of the utter destruction of the soul at death;—equally uncomfortable and absurd. The story which they mention here seems to have been a kind of common-place objection, as we meet with it in the old Jewish writers. Some are of opinion, that by the resurrection which the Sadducees denied, is to be understood the resurrection of the body; others contend, that it signifies simply the existence of men in a future state: properly speaking, however, the two notions coincide, for as the Sadducees denied the immateriality of the soul, a future state, according to their conceptions of it, could mean no thing else but the resurrection of the body; and their denying the resurrection of the body, was the same thing with their denying a future state. Farther, as they had no idea of spirit, they were obliged to make use of terms relative to the body, when they spoke of a future life. Hence came the familiar use of the word resurrection in their disputes, to denote a future state simply; and this sense is notmore unusual than the meaning which they affixed to the worddead, when they made it to signify persons annihilated, or who have no existence at all. See Luke 20:38. Our Lord's reasoning in behalf of a future state, placed in this view, is clear and conclusive. See Drusius, and Lightfoot on the place.

return to '

Matthew 22:35. Then—a lawyer asked, &c.— A scribe, or public teacher. See Luke 11:44. Tempting or trying him, here, does not mean that he did this with an insidious design; and indeed St. Mark's account, Mar 12:28 forbids such an interpretation; but he proposed the question with a view to make a farther trial of our Lord's skill in the sacred volume. Some of the doctors declared, that the law of sacrifices was the great commandment, because sacrifices, say they, are both the expiations of sin, and thanksgivings for mercies. Others bestowed this honour on the law of circumcision, because it was the sign of the covenant established between God and the nation. A third part yielded to the law of the sabbath, because by that appointment both the knowledge and the practice of the institutions of Moses were preserved; and, to name no more, there were some who affirmed the law of meats and washings to be of the greatest importance, because thereby the people of God were effectually separated from the company and conversation of the heathens. But Jesus, with infinitely better reason,decidedinfavourof the beauties of piety and holiness; mentioning particularly that comprehensive summary of both found in Deu 6:4-5 which was one of the sentences written on their phylacteries, and Leviticus 19:18. See Lightfoot's Hor. Heb. on Mark 12:28.

return to '

Matthew 22:37. Thou shalt love—with all thy heart, &c.— These words heart, soul, &c. though used promiscuously, yet, when thus put together, seem intended to express, after a more distinct manner, the requisite circumstances of that obedience which is the proper evidence of our love towards God. The words with all thy heart imply, that our love and obedience should be sincere, consisting not in the external act only, but likewise in the inward affections of the mind. The words with all thy soul shew, that our obedience must be universal; for he does not love God in the Scripture sense, who obeys him in some instances only, and not in all. Lastly, the words with all thy mind teach, that our obedience to God ought to be willing and cheerful.

return to '

Matthew 22:40. On these two commandment, &c.— The meaning is, that the whole reason of religion (which, in the Jewish dispensation, was included in the law and the prophets) lies in these two general commandments; that in these all particular precepts and duties are comprized: that nothing can be of any obligation in religion, but as it relates either to the love we owe to God, or the love we owe to our neighbour. The relation between God and man being once known, the first conclusion is, that we ought to love the Lord our God with all, &c. that is, with all our power; and, till this general principle be established, the particular duties owing to God cannot fall under consideration. Thereis no room to inquire after the proper instances of expressing our love to God, till the general obligation of loving God be known and admitted. The same reason holds likewise as to the other general head of religion,—the love of our neighbour. But these general principles being once established, the particular duties flow from them of course. The love of God, and the love of our neighbour, if carefully attended to, will easily grow into a complete system of experimental and practical religion. The duties of religion are all relative, regarding either God or man; and there is no relative duty which love does not readily transform itself into, upon the mere view of the different circumstances of the person concerned. Love, with regard to a superior, becomes honour and respect. With respect to equals, it is friendship and benevolence; towards inferiors, it is courtesy and condescension: if it regards the happy and prosperous, it is joy and pleasure; if it looks towards the miserable, it is pity and compassion; it is a tenderness which will discover itself in all the acts of mercy and humanity. In negative duties, this principle is no less effectual than in positive. Love will not permit us to injure, oppress, or offend our brother; it will not give us leave to neglect our superiors, or despise our inferiors; it will restrain every inordinate passion, and will not suffer us to gratify our envy at the expence of our neighbour's credit or reputation. The same may be said of our love to God; for the duties which we owe to God are founded in the relation between God and us. Were there no such relation, the perfections of God might be matter of admiration, but could not be the ground of duty and obedience. I have observed that love naturally transforms itself into all relative duties which arise from the circumstances of the persons related. Thus, in the present case, if we love God, and consider him as the Lord and governor of the world, ourlove will soon become obedience; if we consider him as wise, good, and gracious, our love will become honour and admiration; if we add to these our own weakness and infirmity, love will teach us dependence, and prompt us in all our wants to fly for refuge to our great Protector; and thus in all other instances may the particular duties be drawn from this general principle. Prayer and praise, and other parts of divine worship which are the acts of these duties, are so clearlyconnected to them, that there is no need of shewing distinctly concerning them, how they flow from this general commandment.

return to '