Page images
PDF
EPUB

the resurrection of the dead" (Matthew), "concerning the dead that they are raised" (Mark), "that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush" (Luke). For as the Lord is not the God of the dead, but of the living, so when he called himself the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, he declared by this form of speech that they were then risen from the dead, "for all (Luke xx. 38) live unto him." It is worthy of remark, that when Martha said (John xi. 24), "I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day," Jesus immediately corrected this view of a distant resurrection by announcing the true doctrine of a spiritual, uninterrupted, eternal life. "I am the resurrection and the life." "And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die."

34-40. THE TWO GREAT COMMANDMENTS.

34-40. The lawyer who put the question, Which is the great commandment in the law? may have supposed that Jesus would propose some precept of his own as more important than any commandment in the law, and thus lay himself open to the condemnation of the Jews. But in reply to their captious questioning, he brings out from the law itself (Deut. vi. 5; Levit. xix. 18) two precepts, which contain within themselves the substance of all our duties to God and man,— of all that has been taught by the law and the prophets.

Thus the enemies of Jesus could not question him in their craftiness and malice, without being astonished and overwhelmed by some principle of Divine truth. He did not answer them according to their folly, but took advantage of the occasions which they made to expound our relation to human governments and to God, to unfold the true doctrine of the eternal life, and to set vividly before us the sum and substance of our duties to God and man.

41-45. CHRIST THE SON OF DAVID.

41-45. There are those who believe that Jesus here intended nothing more than to silence and confound his enemies. "Alike from the terms of the conversation and from its context," says Dr. Palfrey in his Relation between Judaism and Christianity, p. 108, "I infer that the object of Jesus was not to prove or disprove anything, but simply to perplex the Pharisees, and show to the bystanders what incompetent teachers they were, and what shallow and unskilful interpreters of the Old Testament Scriptures." Hase says, "He (Jesus) proved to them his dialectical embarrassment by proposing a sophistical question on the Messianic signification of Psalm cx." But as Jesus, in reply to the captious questions which his enemies have put to him, has taken occasion to unfold or announce to them great and important principles of political duty and of moral and religious life, and to silence them, not by sophistical reasonings after their own fashion, but by the profound and majestic truths which he uttered, is it probable that now, when they are all silenced, he of his own accord would propose a question respecting a passage in their sacred writings with no higher purpose than to perplex them and show off their incompetency as religious teachers? Unless the language pretty decisively indicates this design on his part, we should be slow to believe it. It is not countenanced by his conduct on any other occasion.

What then is the true interpretation of this passage? Jesus has already been announced publicly as the Messiah, and the last day of his public ministry has now come. But all the Jews, his friends hardly less than his enemies, view the Messiah as an earthly king, exercising a wider and holier sway than any king who had gone before, but still an earthly dominion. Jesus would prepare the way for the overthrow of these erroneous ideas. But they will not receive plain instructions, or a direct contradiction

of prejudices so deeply rooted in their minds. He can reach them only through their Jewish habits of thought. He therefore asks them, "What think ye of the Christ," i. e. the Messiah or the Anointed One?" "Whose son is he?" They say unto him, "The son of David." "How then," he asks, "doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying (Ps. cx. 1), Jehovah said unto my Lord?" &c. "If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?" These questions are put by Jesus in regard to the interpretation of a psalm which all around him regarded as a prediction of the Messiah, and they are put in such a way as to show that the construction which they put upon these words is wholly inconsistent with the fact certainly established by their prophetic writings that the Messiah was to be of the seed of David. As no one among the learned Pharisees and lawyers could explain the contradiction, would not his friends at least, and might not some even of his enemies, be led to reconsider the whole matter, and to admit different and higher views of the Messiah and his kingdom, when the spiritual claims and authority of Jesus should be more distinctly presented? "There is certainly," they would say to themselves, and perhaps among themselves, “a difficulty here. These two views of ours cannot be harmonized with one another. If the Messiah is really, and on this point there can be no question, the son of David, and David nevertheless looks up to him with reverence and calls him Lord, may it not be that he and his kingdom are of a more exalted and divine character than we have supposed? And these wonderful works which are attributed to Jesus, his resurrection from the dead, his ascension into heaven, and the everlasting kingdom which he professed to establish, the kingdom of God or the kingdom of Heaven, may it not be that these after all are the true fulfilment of the ancient prophecies?" Those who were disposed to follow Jesus, and some of the more thoughtful even among his enemies might be led into

reflections of this kind. A doubt lodged in the mind by a pertinent and suggestive question will often do more in the end to remove a deeply rooted prejudice and to revolutionize all one's habits of thought than any specific instructions or reasonings on the subject. A doubt thus introduced into the mind is like the water which is sometimes poured into the clefts of a granite ledge, and which freezing there rends the whole mass asunder, when direct and violent efforts to split it would be wholly unavailing.

These views of the passage agree substantially with those of Campbell, Kuinoel, and Norton.

NOTES.

AND Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said, The kingdom of Heaven is like unto a certain king, 2 which made a marriage for his son, and sent forth his servants 3 to call them that were bidden to the wedding; and they would not come. Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell 4 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. But they made light of it, and went 5 their ways; one to his farm, another to his merchandise. And 6 the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them. But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth; 7

[blocks in formation]

a rebuke in the expression itself to
those who would shroud his relig-
ion in gloom!
3. to call
them that were bidden ] It
seems to have been customary in
the East (Esther v. 8; vi. 14) to send
a second time to call those who had
already been invited to a feast. In
this case, as there might have been
some mistake in the matter, the
king sends, 4, the third time a still
more pressing call.
7. But
when the king heard thereof,
he was wroth] Among the

[ocr errors]

and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, 8 and burned up their city. Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. 9 Go ye therefore into the highways; and as many as ye shall 10 find, bid to the marriage. 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. 11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a 12 man which had not on a wedding garment; and he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having a wedding 13 garment? And he was speechless.

9.

Mohammedans, refusal to come to a marriage feast, when invited, is considered a breach of the law of God. Hedaya, Vol. IV. p. 91. It was probably considered in this light among all the Oriental nations." Ad. Clarke. and as many as ye shall find] Pococke says, 66 that an Arab prince will often dine before his door, and call to all that pass, even to beggars, in the name of God, and they come and sit down to table, and when they have done retire with the usual form of returning thanks. It is always customary among the Orientals to provide more meats and drinks than are necessary for the feast, and then the poor who pass by, or whom the rumor of the feast brings to the neighborhood, are called in to consume what remains. This they often do in an outer room to which the dishes are removed from the apartment in which the invited guests have feasted; or, otherwise, every invited guest, when he has done, withdraws from table, when his place is taken by another person of inferior rank, and so on, till the poorest come and consume the whole." J. Cobbin. 10. bad and good] are alike invited and brought in (xiii. 47), with the expectation, however, that all will become fitted for the companionship of those who are there. 11. a wedding garment] It is disputed among the critics whether the master of the feast usually had such garments

Then said the king to

"We

distributed among the guests, to be worn as a badge or token of their right to a place at the festival. There is no sufficient evidence in the Old Testament of such a custom. The passages quoted by Stier (Gen. xlv. 22; Jud. xiv. 12; 2 Kings v. 22) are not to the point. It seems, however, to be implied in the passage before us, and the custom, we believe, still exists in the East. may and ought, when he calls, to come just as we are; but we may not, if we would see his face and enjoy his last feast, remain as we are." "As the king clothes his guests, the bridegroom his bride, so does God himself clothe us with the robe of righteousness and garment of salvation," if we only will receive it with humble and faithful hearts. The wedding garment is spoken of in Rev. xix. 7, 8: "For the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white; for the fine linen is the righteousness of the saints."

12. Friend] 'Eraîрe,

comrade. A word of ambiguous meaning, which may be addressed to an intimate friend, and also to those with whom we are not on terms of intimacy. And he was speechless] He had no word of explanation or excuse to give for having put himself among the wedding guests without the wedding garment, for having come without the fitting preparation.

« PreviousContinue »