ST MATTHEW
CHAPTER 22
Jesus gives the parable of the marriage of the king’s son—Pay tribute to Caesar and to God—Worldly marriages endure in this life only—First commandment: Love the Lord—What think ye of Christ?
1 AND Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, [ "Simply defined, the Savior’s parables are stories used to compare spiritual truths with material things and mortal experiences." Elder David A. Bednar Oct Conference 2022 Why does the Lord teach with parables? Those that will listen, those that will take the time to learn can each be taught in a little different way the same message, such that those who do not listen or study will not understand it other than just a story. ] and said,
2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto [ So this parable is designed to give an idea about the KINGDOM of heaven. Suggesting to me relationship here with those who belonged to the kingdom. ] a certain king, [ Or our Father in Heaven - the King of all Kings. ] which made [ He put together, he prepared it all. If it where traditional wedding preparation it would require a groom and a bride and the agreement that they are to become one. In Jewish tradition, once the selection was made, the parents prepared the “ketubah”, which was a written contract which specified the terms and conditions of the marriage arrangement, including the price to be paid by the groom, and the various responsibilities of both parties as well as the dowry that would be offered by the bride. Not really romantic, but these covenants so to speak provided the foundation for the marriage between a man and a woman in Jewish society. ] a marriage [ We might do well here to ask, Hwere is the bride? Why no mention of a bride? What other kinds of events were considered wedding celebrations in ancient times? Was this a marriage between the son and his bride, or was it the marriage or coronation of the son and his kingdom. A wedding ceremony or coronation that would putt the kingdom in the hands of the son such that all of the people in the kindgom were married as such to the son of the King. The son would take care of them, be responsible for them. ] for his son,
[ Jesus Christ. "This glorious event, still future, has reference to the ushering in of the Messiah's millennial reign, the day when he shall reign in triumph and glory over all of the earth." Bruce R McConkie Doc NT Commentary page 597 The word "gamouv" means. a feast of inauguration, a time when his son was to be put in possession of the government, and thus he and his new subjects became married together. ]
3 And sent forth [ They were sent under his direction, with his blessing and under his command. ] his [ The King or in this case Heavenly Father. ] servants [ "Legal administrators sent forth with power from on high to preach the gospel and administer the saving ordinances." Bruce R McConkie Doc NT Commentary page 597. ] to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
4 Again, he sent forth other servants, [ Most likely servants for hire. Those who where asked to do a specific job for a specific period of time but where not under regular employment from the King. ] saying, Tell them which are bidden, [ Those that have been invited. ] Behold, [ Listen up, take note. The time is now, all is ready to go. ] I have prepared [ Made ready. The work of the Father has brought things to the point where the wedding feast is ready.The time is now. I told you earlier that this day was coming up, now this is the reminder for you. ] my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, [ The things are set into motion, there is no turning back. If we don't eat the meet now it will spoil and go to waste, there is not way to postone or push things back, they are going forward at this point. ] and all things are ready: [ Heavenly Father knows everything that needs to be done and he is certifying that the time of the feast is now. This period of preparation is known as "Erusin" or a time of preparation.
It was during this period that the groom was to secure a place for his bride and him to live. The bride had responsibilities during this period as well. She was in charge of her wedding garments. This required that she would often require hours and hours of sewing her wedding garments because there were not readily available in those days for instant purchase from a bridal gown shop as they are today.
In addition, the bride was instructed to prepare her lamps for the celebration. She was also supposed to observe her purity. This custom required a period of at least 9 months to pass before the actual marriage, which was designed to show as a sign that she was a virgin.
While the bride took the erusin period seriously, knowing that in about a year the groom would return and her marriage would take place. She however knew no more than the approximate time when the marriage would happen. Toward the end of the year long erusin period she would begin to wait each night with great expectancy for her groom to come forth. Often she would wait late into the evening with her lamps burning in case today was the day. This is the background of the parable of the Ten Virgins found in (Mat. 25:1-13).
As a matter of fact, the groom did not know the actual date of the wedding either. No, the one who would decide when the day of the marriage would be was the father of the groom. It was up to the father to oversee that the son had prepared himself for his new responsibility.
When the father felt that the groom was prepared and that the time was at hand the grooms father would issue the command for the ceremony to begin. He would then tell the groom that he could now go and collect his bride.
At this point the groom and his wedding party would leave the grooms home and walk toward the brides home. As the procession made its way through the streets toward the brides home the friends of the bridegroom would sound the shofar ( or ram’s horn) and shout “Behold the bridegroom comes, the bridegroom comes.” As in the Parable of the Ten Virgins (Matthew 25:1–13) ] come unto [ Be a part of, enjoy the celebration of. ] the marriage.
5 But they [ Those who were previously invited. ] made light of it, [ Ignored the invitation. Making light of it suggests that they might have even mocked it - as to of what value is this. What does it mean to or for me? "An invitation from a king to his subjects to a wedding such as this was essentially considered a command. So they are deliberately disobeying a command from the King." Elder David A. Bednar Oct Conference 2022 ] and went their ways, [ Notice who's way their went. Their own way, they did what they wanted to do. "The refusal to attend the king’s feast was a deliberate [act of] rebellion against … royal authority and a personal indignity against both the reigning sovereign and his son." James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, 537. ] one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
[ Neither of these way are really any different as they both suggest that they sought for the temporal things above the spiritual things. "The turning away by one man to his farm and by another to his business interests reflects their misguided priorities and total disregard of the king’s will." James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, 537. Could we imply that in a way they sold their token or signs for money? ]
6 And the remnant [ The rest. Who is left then? Not very many. They were those who did not return to their farms or businesses. ] took his servants, [ Seized his servants. ] and entreated them spitefully, [ Mistreated them. ] and slew them.
[ Even killing them. What would have lead the people to have such hatred for the servants of the King as to kill them? They might be those who would suggest thongs like how dare the King request that I attend the wedding feast? What gives him the right to ask me to do something I don't want to do? He is not my King so I will go as I please. ]
7 But when the king [ Who is the King? The Father here. ] heard thereof, he was wroth: [ He was disappointed, and unhappy to say the least. ] and he [ The King, Our Father in heaven. ] sent forth his armies, [ Who ultimately wins in a war against God? ] and destroyed those murderers, [ That sounds pretty cruel doesn't it? How or why would a loving God destroy his children? First God views death different from how we view it, in God's eyes he just changed their classroom of instruction. ] and burned up their city.
8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, [ It is time, And according to jewish tradition it is the Father that makes that determination of when it is time. It is based on when he feels that the Groom has prepared all that is needed to take care of the bride. ] but they which were bidden [ Invited. Those of whom I thought that I had a relationship with. ] were not worthy. [ They had not prepared even though they knew the day was coming. Or they just did not care enough to bother to show up. Why were they not worthy? Or who's decision was that? Their's, because of what they did. They chose the temporal things as opposed to the spiritual things. They went on their own way as if they were somehow smarter (prideful maybe). Because they made light of it, and would not come; preferring earthly things to heavenly blessings. ]
9 Go ye [ A new command to his servants. ] therefore into the highways, [ "diexodouv twn adwn"", cross or by-paths; the places where two or more roads met in one, leading into the city, where people were coming together from various quarters of the country. Go out to the street corners, to the main roads, to where the roads exit the city. Interesting that he makes the offer first to a select group, then he proceeds to make the offer to everyone that his servants can find. They have had no time to prepare. ] and as many as ye shall find, [ Everyone! anyone that you come across. See Matt 13:47-53 "the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net...so shall it be at the end of the world:". ] , bid [ Invite. ] to the marriage.
[ The sealing of the Groom to his Bride. The binding of all to the kingdom being bestowed on the son. ]
10 so those servants went out [ They did as they were asked to do. ] into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
[ There were some who where at the wedding. What is the makeup of this group? Well most of them appear to not be appart of the first group, those who would have, or at least the King thought would have been close to him. The group is primarily made up of those who just happened to be on the street at the time and were asked to join in. They others did not want to be bothered. ]
11 ¶ And when the king [ The one who was throwing the wedding celebration. ] came in to see the guests, he saw there a man [ It would have been very obvious to the King when he entered. ] which had not on [ So this could be better translated as "he saw there a man which had been [endowed] and had not on". The word endowed appears only once in the New Testament as the word endued in Luk 24:49. However, the greek word used is "endyō" which is translated as; put on, or had not on (18x), clothed with (2x), clothed in (2x), have on (2x), clothe with (1x), be endued (1x), arrayed in (1x), be clothed (1x), and is used with the nuance of 'being enveloped by' which is very much like "being encircled by" in the context of robes of righteousness. If you retranslate the word "endyo" to "endowed" gain some interesting perspectives as to how we might better understand our own temple experience where we put on, are clothed with, and endowed, or encircled by the robes of righteousness. ] a wedding garment: [ Coronation clothing is described as two separate garments. The clothing attributed to the Aaronic priests consisted of white linen undergarments and outer royal robes. The scriptures often speak of of their clothing in terms of their meaning rather than of physical appearance. Thus the outer one is called "majesty" representing the the powers of kingship and the other "glory" or "honor" representing the authority of the Priesthood. Job 40:10 "Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency and array thyself with glory and beauty." There is always the combination of two and they represent royal and priestly authority and are worn together. "The custom in those days was for the host of a wedding feast—in this parable, the king—to provide garments for the wedding guests. Such wedding garments were simple, nondescript robes that all attendees wore. In this way, rank and station were eliminated, and everyone at the feast could mingle as equals." John O. Reid, “Many Are Called, Few Are Chosen,” Forerunner, Mar.–Apr. 2016, 8, cgg.org. "People invited from the highways to attend the wedding would not have had the time or means to procure appropriate attire in preparation for the event. Consequently, the king likely gave guests the garments from his own wardrobe. Everyone was given the opportunity to clothe themselves in garments of royalty." Joseph Fielding McConkie, Gospel Symbolism (1985), 132. What might that suggest to us today? First receiving and then wearing our garments. Physical garments and spiritual preparation to attend the wedding feast. ]
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, [ "etaire" or companion. A term of endearment. So he does not pass judgement at first he just asks him "My friend" how did you get in without doing as is the tradition? Or what made you think that you could enter the feast dressed differently than everyone else? was it pride on your part? The King knows the answer, he knows that everyone was given the same new clothing to attend, everyone was instructed to wear the clothing, the clothing was then a protection to everyone that attended the feast that they were considered equals. Maybe the Kings friends, the Kings anointed? ] how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? [ How did you get in without the proper authorized garment? Or you entered the palace incorrectly. How did this happen? The king’s summons had been freely extended to all whom his servants had found; but each of them had to enter the royal palace by the door; and before reaching the banquet room, in which the king would appear in person, each would be properly attired; but the deficient one, by some means had entered by another way; and not having passed the attendant sentinels at the portal, he was an intruder.” Why profess to be called by my name while living without a preparation for my kingdom? ] And he [ The one who had entered without wearing the proper garments. ] was speechless.
[ He was speechless because he had no defense for himself. He was provided with the proper garments, but he of his own free and will choose not to wear them. In other words it was his outward expression of his inward committments. Elder James E. Talmage provides this instructive commentary about the significance of the man’s actions: “That the unrobed guest was guilty of neglect, intentional disrespect, or some more grievous offense, is plain from the context. The king at first was graciously considerate, inquiring only as to how the man had entered without a wedding garment. Had the guest been able to explain his exceptional appearance, or had he any reasonable excuse to offer, he surely would have spoken; but we are told that he remained speechless. the man’s refusal to wear the wedding garment exemplified blatant “disrespect for both the king and his son.” He did not simply lack a wedding garment; rather, he chose not to wear one. He rebelliously refused to dress appropriately for the occasion. “He came because he was invited, but he came only in appearance. The banquet was intended to honor the King’s son, but this man meant nothing of the kind; he was willing to eat the good things set before him, but in his heart there was no love either for the King or his well-beloved son.” (Spurgeon) ]
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, [ The king’s judgment of the man is not based primarily upon the lack of a wedding garment—but that “he was, in fact, determined not to wear one. The man … desired the honor of attending the wedding feast, but … did not want to follow the custom of the king. He wanted to do things his own way. His lack of proper dress revealed his inner rebellion against the king and his instructions.” Joseph Fielding McConkie, Gospel Symbolism (1985), 132. ] and cast him into outer darkness; [ The Jewish marriages were performed in the night season, and the hall where the feast was made was superbly illuminated; the outer darkness means, therefore, the darkness on the outside of this festal hall; rendered still more gloomy to the person who was suddenly thrust out into it from such a profusion of light. ] there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
14 For many are called, [ Called - Invited - Anointed. Everyone that they could find was invited to the feast. They asked the good and the bad, anyone on the street corners or the highway were invited to come. (see vs 10). ] but few are chosen.
[ Chosen - Coronated - Sanctified. IV: “For many are called, but few are chosen; wherefore all do not have on the wedding garment.” We might append this to but few will choose to be obedient to the Kings commands, they think they can set their own rules and attend. They attempt to do things their way and then cry foul when it is not accepted. That is not how the King operates, that is not how God does business either. "To be or to become chosen is not an exclusive status conferred upon us. Rather, you and I ultimately can choose to be chosen through the righteous exercise of our moral agency." Elder David A. Bednar Oct Conference 2022 see D&C 121:34-35 ]
15 ¶ Then went the Pharisees, [ Members of an ancient Jewish sect who believed in the strict observance of oral traditions and the written Law of Moses. They didn’t believe that Christ was the Messiah, despite His many miracles during His earthly ministry. Although Herodians and Pharisees were at opposite ends of the political spectrum, their common hatred of Christ was enough for them to join forces to try to destroy Him.
] , and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, [ A non-religious Jewish party who supported the dynasty of Herod and the general policy of the Roman government. They perceived that Christ’s pure and spiritual teaching and influence were antagonistic to their interests. ] , saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
[ It was a trick question, and they knew it. If Jesus answered, “No,” the Herodians would charge Him with treason against Rome. If He said, “Yes,” the Pharisees would accuse Him of disloyalty to the Jewish nation, and He would lose the support of the crowds. To pay taxes or not to pay taxes? The question was designed as a Catch-22. ]
19 Shew me the tribute money. [ ‘Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin for the tax.’ And they brought him a denarius” (Matthew 22:18–19, ESV). Now a couple of things are in play here. First the denarius, it was a coin with Ceasar's image on it. So they ask the question. If he answers don't pay the taxes the Romans will have his head, and if he answers pay the taxes then the zealots will be hostile toward the Savior. ] And they brought unto him a penny.
[ What does the priest bring forth? A denarius. A graven image of sorts, and yet here the priest brings forth a denarius, a coin with the image of Ceasar on it, and his desire to be worshipped as God. Which was a direct conflict with the law that everyone knew from Exodus 20 "No graven umage". ]
21 They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; [ The coin nears Ceasar's image so give to Ceasar what is his. ] and unto God the things that are God’s.
[ You and all humans bear God's image so give to God what is God's. ]
23 ¶ The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
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.
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:
30 For in the resurrection they
neither marry, nor are given
in marriage, but are as the angels of
God in heaven. [ “Jesus stopped not, however, to question the elements
of the problem as presented to Him; whether the case was assumed or real
mattered not, since the question ‘Whose wife shall she be?’ was based on an
utterly erroneous conception. ‘Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err,
not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they
neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.’
The Lord’s meaning was clear, that in the resurrected state there can
be no question among the seven brothers as to whose wife for eternity the woman
shall be, since all except the first had married her for the duration of mortal
life only, and primarily for the purpose of perpetuating in mortality the name
and family of the brother who first died. Luke records the Lord’s words as
follows in part: ‘But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world,
and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are
the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.’ In the resurrection
there will be no marrying nor giving in marriage; for all questions of marital
status must be settled before that time, under the authority of the Holy Priesthood,
which holds the power to seal in marriage for both time and eternity.”
(Talmage, Jesus the Christ, p. 548.) So the marriage needs to take place before you are resurrected because the ordinance has a direct impact on the level or type of resurrection you qualify for. No eternal union is claimed and none is granted. Verses D&C 132:16-17 indicates those who choose this type of marriage, presumably when eternal marriage is available to them, become ministering angels, cp. Matt. 22:30. Note in Matt. 22:29 Jesus states “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” The “power of God” is referring to the authority or Priesthood, which is obviously an issue in the subject at hand as it is extensively addressed in this section. Remember that these verses were based on the Jewish leaders throwing a what if scenerio in Jesus face. Which is the law of Levirate marriage which means that the brother of a deceased man is obliged to marry his brother's widow. This is continued until there are no brother left or until one of the brother's produces a child in order to have the first husbands lineage reproduced. It was so important to have children that the practice of Levirate marriage extended to the point that if there were no brother's in law left that the widow would have to marry the father-in-law if he was still around in order to have offspring if the first husband died. So that your name could continue in Israel. Levirate comes from the latin brother-in-law. The first child from this relation goes to the first husband so that his name is perpetuated in Israel. In a way this is an example of the importance of the posterity portion of the Abrahamic covenant. Such that it justifies a very strange arrangement like this in order to accomplish it. The focal point for them was on posterity - see verse 17. So in Matt 22: 30 Jesus responded that they are not given in marriage after they are dead which would support what he is saying here; that is that if you are not married by his laws see verse 7 then the marriage is not valid after this life is over - again God is consistent. Which by the way In Matthew who was Jesus addressing at the time? They were sadducees; which do not believe in resurrection anyway so why would they ask a question about who the wife is Married to after the resurrection when they do not believe in it anyway. And just for fun. Why would they have even bothered to ask the question about whose wife she will be after the resurrection if the Savior had not already taught the principle of marriage after the resurrection? ]
31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
34 ¶ But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
[ The law of Moses is given in the first five books of the Old Testament. So the Law of course is the first five books, or as they would have understood it as the Torah. Those first five books that are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy and that's what he's talking about. And that's where you get the description of the Mosaic Covenant or the Mosaic Law, the Law of Moses. And then the Nevi'im or the Prophets, so he's actually talking about a division in the Bible. The Law and the Prophets. These are two different segments of the Hebrew Bible. Interestingly enough, we divided a little bit differently as Christians, the King James Version at least does where you've got the Pentateuch and then you've got historical writings. 1 Kings, II Kings, 1 Samuel, II Samuel. Those are included in the Prophetic books in the Hebrew Bible. And then you get the Writings. That's Psalms and we call those the Wisdom books. Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs. Yeah, exactly. Just a little bit of a different way of thinking about the way those books are organized and what they mean. So with that in context. Jesus was asked what is the most important part of the law, that does not include what Isaiah might have said or any other prophets, just what is in the Law. ]
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
[ Christ explains that all commandments have only two purposes: to develop the character that will (1) ‘love God’ and (2) ‘love’ mankind. These two commandments—loving God and loving mankind—are so fundamental that Christ declares that upon these two “hang all the law and the prophets.” That means that all the commandments that could be broken (therefore all sin also) hang upon these two laws. This, then, is the purpose of commandments, prophets, religion, and life: to develop the character that loves God and our fellow man. Christ expands upon this as he gives His last commandment before His death: see (John 13:34-35). These Pharisees believed that the Law of Moses contained 613 commandments, and they wanted to know which of all the 613 commandments was the greatest. The High Priests wore robes with pomegranates dangling from the bottoms of their robes, symbolic of that, as each pomegranate was purported to contain 613 seeds. Christ answered by saying that on these two commandments hang all of the law and the prophets: 1) Love God; and 2) Love your neighbor as yourself.
If upon those two commandments hang all of the law, and all of the Law of Moses is a schoolmaster to teach us to love God and to love our fellowman, it follows that if we are obedient to those two commandments, we will be obedient to all the rest of them.
When it says that upon these two commandments hang all of the law and the prophets, that means all of the Law of Moses and everything else the prophets have taught. Can you think of any of the commandments that do not fall within those two categories of loving God or loving your fellow man? If all of the Law and all that the prophets have taught us hang on those two commandments, then on those same two commandments will hang all of the judgment! Upon those two commandments hang all righteousness. That’s why Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses when He came. During Jesus’ first sermon to the masses (the Sermon on the Mount), he teaches his audience about the change from one of performances and ordinances to that of the performances of character. He was telling them that they were not saved by the ordinances of the Law of Moses. And we can likewise say that neither are we saved by the ordinances of the Mormon Church. What Christ is trying to teach the Jews, and what Paul is trying to teach the Christians at that particular time is that we are not saved by the works and ordinances of the Law of Moses. For example, Christ tells them that in the old Law, it was an “eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth” (Matt 5: 21-22). “But I say unto you,” He says, “that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.” Later He taught: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt 5:27-28).
The New Law is very character driven—thoughts, deeds, and actions. Every single thing Christ taught in the Sermon on the Mount draws the distinction between outward obedience to law and the development of inward character traits. Look at the Beatitudes: (3 Ne 12:3-9). ]