30

CHAPTER 30.

JESUS RETURNS TO THE TEMPLE DAILY.


AN INSTRUCTIVE INCIDENT ON THE WAY.[1080]

On the morrow, which, as we reckon, was Monday, the second day of
Passion week, Jesus and the Twelve returned to Jerusalem and spent the
greater part of the day at the temple. The start from Bethany was an
early one, and Jesus hungered by the way. Looking ahead He saw a fig
tree that differed from the rest of the many fig trees of the region in
that it was in full leaf though the season of fruit had not yet
come.[1081] It is well known that the fruit-buds of a fig-tree appear
earlier than do the leaves, and that by the time the tree is in full
foliage the figs are well advanced toward maturity. Moreover, certain
species of figs are edible while yet green; indeed the unripe fruit is
relished in the Orient at the present time. It would be reasonable,
therefore, for one to expect to find edible figs even in early April on
a tree that was already covered with leaves. When Jesus and His party
reached this particular tree, which had rightly been regarded as rich in
promise of fruit, they found on it nothing but leaves; it was a showy,
fruitless, barren tree. It was destitute even of old figs, those of the
preceding season, some of which are often found in spring on fruitful
trees. Jesus pronounced upon that tree the sentence of perpetual
barrenness. "No man eat fruit of thee hereafter forever" He said
according to Mark's account; or, as Matthew records the judgment, "Let
no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever." The latter writer tells us
in immediate sequence that "presently the fig tree withered away"; but
the former makes it appear that the effect of the curse was not observed
until the following morning, when, as Jesus and the apostles were once
again on the way between Bethany and Jerusalem, they saw that the fig
tree had withered and dried from the roots up. Peter called attention to
the blasted tree, and, addressing Jesus, exclaimed: "Master, behold, the
fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away."

Applying the lesson of the occasion, Jesus said, "Have faith in God";
and then He repeated some of His former assurances as to the power of
faith, by which even mountains may be removed, should there be need of
such miraculous accomplishment, and through which, indeed, any necessary
thing may be done. The blighting of a tree was shown to be small in
comparison with the greater possibilities of achievement through faith
and prayer. But to so achieve one must work and pray without reservation
or doubt, as the Lord thus made plain: "Therefore I say unto you, What
things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and
ye shall have them." Prayer must be acceptable unto God to be effective;
and it follows that he who desires to accomplish any work through prayer
and faith must be fit to present himself before the Lord in
supplication; therefore Jesus again instructed the apostles saying: "And
when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your
Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. But if
ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive
your trespasses."[1082]

The blighting of the barren fig tree is regarded by many as unique among
the recorded miracles of Christ, from the fact that while all the others
were wrought for relief, blessing, and beneficent purposes generally,
this one appears as an act of judgment and destructive execution,
Nevertheless in this miracle the Lord's purpose is not hidden; and the
result, while fatal to a tree, is of lasting blessing to all who would
learn and profit, by the works of God. If no more has been accomplished
by the miracle than the presenting of so impressive an object lesson for
the instructions that followed, that smitten tree has proved of greater
service to humanity than have all the fig orchards of Bethphage.[1083]
To the apostles the act was another and an indisputable proof of the
Lord's power over nature, His control of natural forces and all material
things, His jurisdiction over life and death. He had healed multitudes;
the wind and the waves had obeyed His words; on three occasions He had
restored the dead to life; it was fitting that He should demonstrate His
power to smite and to destroy. In manifesting His command over death, He
had mercifully raised a maiden from the couch on which she had died, a
young man from the bier on which he was being carried to the grave,
another from the sepulchre in which he had been laid away a corpse; but
in proof of His power to destroy by a word He chose a barren and
worthless tree for His subject. Could any of the Twelve doubt, when, a
few days later they saw Him in the hands of vindictive priests and
heartless pagans, that did He so will He could smite His enemies by a
word, even unto death? Yet not until after His glorious resurrection did
even the apostles realize how truly voluntary His sacrifice had been.

But the fate that befell the barren fig tree is instructive from another
point of view. The incident is as much parable as miracle. That leafy
tree was distinguished among fig trees; the others offered no
invitation, gave no promise; "the time of figs was not yet"; they, in
due season would bring forth fruit and leaves; but this precocious and
leafy pretender waved its umbrageous limbs as in boastful assertion of
superiority. For those who responded to its ostentatious invitation, for
the hungering Christ who came seeking fruit, it had naught but leaves.
Even for the purposes of the lesson involved, we cannot conceive of the
tree being blighted primarily because it was fruitless, for at that
season the other fig trees were bare of fruit also; it was made the
object of the curse and the subject of the Lord's instructive discourse,
because, having leaves, it was deceptively barren. Were it reasonable to
regard the tree as possessed of moral agency, we would have to pronounce
it a hypocrite; its utter barrenness coupled with its abundance of
foliage made of it a type of human hypocrisy.

The leafy, fruitless tree was a symbol of Judaism, which loudly
proclaimed itself as the only true religion of the age, and
condescendingly invited all the world to come and partake of its rich
ripe fruit; when in truth it was but an unnatural growth of leaves, with
no fruit of the season, nor even an edible bulb held over from earlier
years, for such as it had of former fruitage was dried to worthlessness
and made repulsive in its worm-eaten decay. The religion of Israel had
degenerated into an artificial religionism, which in pretentious show
and empty profession outclassed the abominations of heathendom. As
already pointed out in these pages, the fig tree was a favorite type in
rabbinical representation of the Jewish race, and the Lord had before
adopted the symbolism in the Parable of the Barren Fig Tree, that
worthless growth which did but cumber the ground.[1084]


SECOND CLEARING OF THE TEMPLE.[1085]

Within the temple grounds Jesus was filled with indignation at the scene
of tumult and desecration which the place presented. Three years before,
at Passover time, He had been wrought up to a high state of righteous
anger by a similar exhibition of sordid chaffering within the sacred
precincts, and had driven out the sheep and oxen and forcibly expelled
the traders and the money-changers and all who were using His Father's
house as a house of merchandize.[1086] That was near the beginning of
His public labor, and the vigorous action was among the first of His
works to attract general attention; now, within four days of the cross,
He cleared the courts again by casting out all "them that sold and
bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and
the seats of them that sold doves"; nor would He suffer any to carry
their buckets and baskets through the enclosure, as many were in the
habit of doing, and so making the way a common thoroughfare. "Is it not
written," He demanded of them in wrath, "My house shall be called of all
nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves." On
the former occasion, before He had declared or even confessed His
Messiahship, He had designated the temple as "My Father's house"; now
that He had openly avowed Himself to be the Christ, He called it "My
house." The expressions are in a sense synonymous; He and the Father
were and are one in possession and dominion. The means by which the
later expulsion was accomplished are not stated; but it is plain that
none could withstand His authoritative command; He acted in the strength
of righteousness, before which the forces of evil had to give way.

His wrath of indignation was followed by the calmness of gentle
ministry; there in the cleared courts of His house, blind and lame folk
came limping and groping about Him, and He healed them. The anger of the
chief priests and scribes was raging against Him; but it was impotent.
They had decreed His death, and had made repeated efforts to take Him,
and there He sat within the very area over which they claimed supreme
jurisdiction, and they were afraid to touch Him because of the common
people, whom they professed to despize yet heartily feared--"for all the
people were very attentive to hear him."

The rage of the officials was further aggravated by a touching incident,
which seems to have accompanied or to have immediately followed His
merciful healing of the afflicted folk at the temple. Children saw what
He did; with their innocent minds yet unsullied by the prejudice of
tradition and their sight yet undarkened by sin, they perceived in Him
the Christ, and burst forth into praise and worship in a hymn that was
heard by the angels: "Hosanna to the son of David." With ill-concealed
anger the temple officials demanded of Him: "Hearest thou what these
say?" They probably expected Him to disclaim the title, or possibly
hoped that He would reassert His claim in a manner that would afford
excuse for legal action against Him, for to most of them the Son of
David was the Messiah, the promised King. Would He clear Himself of the
blasphemy that attached to the unjustified acknowledgment of so awful a
dignity? Jesus answered, with an implied rebuke for their ignorance of
the scriptures: "Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and
sucklings thou hast perfected praise?"[1087]

It was now Monday evening; Jesus left the city and retired again to
Bethany, where He lodged. This course was a prudent one, in view of the
determination of the rulers to get Him into their power provided they
could do so without arousing the people. This they could not accomplish
by day, for wherever He appeared He was the center of a multitude; but
had He remained in Jerusalem over night the vigilant emissaries of the
hierarchy might have succeeded in taking Him, unless He withstood them
by some miraculous action. Near as was His hour, it had not yet struck;
and He would be made captive only as He permitted Himself, a voluntary
victim, to be taken into the hands of His enemies.


CHRIST'S AUTHORITY CHALLENGED BY THE RULERS.[1088]

On the following day, that is on Tuesday, He returned to the temple with
the Twelve, passing the withered fig tree on the way and impressing the
moral of the combined miracle and parable as we have already seen. As He
taught in the sacred place, preaching the gospel to all who would hear,
the chief priests with a number of scribes and elders came upon Him in a
body. They had been debating about Him over night, and had resolved on
at least one step; they would challenge His authority for what He had
done the day before. They were the guardians of the temple, both the
material structure and the theocratic system for which the holy edifice
stood; and this Galilean, who permitted Himself to be called the Christ
and defended those who so acclaimed Him, had for the second time ignored
their authority within the temple walls and in the presence of the
common people over whom they lorded so arrogantly. So this official
deputation, with plans matured, came to Him saying: "By what authority
doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?" This action
was doubtless a preliminary step in a preconcerted attempt to suppress
the activities of Jesus, both of word and deed, within the temple
precincts. It will be remembered that after the first cleansing of the
temple, the Jews had angrily demanded of Jesus a sign by which they
might judge the question of His divine commission;[1089] and it is
significant that on this latter occasion no sign was asked, but instead
thereof, a specific avowal as to the authority He possessed and by whom
it had been given Him. A three years' course of miracle and teaching was
known to them; on the yesterday blind and lame had been healed inside
the temple walls; and Lazarus, the living testimony of the Lord's power
over death and the grave was before them. To ask a further sign would
have been to flagrantly expose themselves to the ridicule of the people.

They knew what authority the Lord claimed; their question was of
sinister purpose. Jesus did not condescend to voice an answer in which
they could possibly find further excuse for antagonizing Him; but He
availed Himself of a method very common among themselves--that of
countering one question with another. "And Jesus answered and said unto
them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise
will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John,
whence was it? from heaven, or of men?" They consulted among themselves
as to what answer would best serve to extricate them from an
embarrassing position; no mention is made of any attempt to ascertain
the truth and reply accordingly; they were thoroughly nonplussed. Should
they answer that John's baptism was of God, Jesus would probably demand
of them why then they had not believed in the Baptist, and why they did
not accept John's testimony concerning Himself. On the other hand,
should they aver that John had no divine authority to preach and
baptize, the people would turn against them, for the martyred Baptist
was revered by the masses as a prophet. In spite of their boasted
learning, they answered as puzzled school-boys might do when they
perceive hidden difficulties in what at first seemed but a simple
problem. "We cannot tell" said they. Then Jesus replied "Neither tell I
you by what authority I do these things."

Chief priests, scribes, and elders of the people were outwitted and
humiliated. The tables were completely turned upon them; Jesus, whom
they had come to question, became the examiner; they a class of cowed
and unwilling listeners. He the ready instructor, and the multitude
interested observers. With little likelihood of immediate interruption
the Master proceeded in calm deliberation to relate to them a series of
three splendid stories, each of which they felt applied to themselves
with incisive certainty. The first of the narrations we call the
_Parable of the Two Sons_.

"But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the
first, and said, Son, go work today in my vineyard. He answered and
said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. And he came to
the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and
went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say
unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That
the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For
John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not;
but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen
it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him."[1090]

The opening sentence, "But what think ye?" was a call to close
attention. It implied a question soon to follow; and that proved to be:
Which of the two sons was the obedient one? There was but one consistent
answer, and they had to give it, however loath. The application of the
parable followed with convicting promptness. They, the chief priests,
scribes, Pharisees and elders of the people, were typified by the second
son, who, when told to labor in the vineyard answered so assuringly, but
went not, though the vines were running to wild growth for want of
pruning, and such poor fruit as might mature would be left to fall and
rot upon the ground. The publicans and sinners upon whom they vented
their contempt, whose touch was defilement, were like unto the first
son, who in rude though frank refusal ignored the father's call, but
afterward relented and set to work, repentantly hoping to make amends
for the time he had lost and for the unfilial spirit he had shown.[1091]
Publicans and sinners, touched in their hearts by the clarion call to
repentance, had flocked to the Baptist in the wilderness with the
earnest inquiry: "Master, what shall we do?"[1092] John's call had been
to no particular class; but while self-confessed sinners had repented
and sought baptism at his hands, those very Pharisees and elders of the
people had rejected his testimony and had hypocritically sought to
ensnare him.[1093] Through the parable Jesus answered His own question
as to whether the baptism of John was of God or of man. The Lord's
affirmation, "Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots
go into the kingdom of God before you," was condemnatory of the corrupt
though sanctimonious polity of the hierarchy throughout. It was not
wholly without intimation of possible reformation, however. He did not
say that the repentant sinners should enter, and the priestly hypocrites
stand forever excluded; for the latter there was hope if they would but
repent, though they would have to follow, not lead, in the glorious
procession of the redeemed. In a continuation of the same discourse the
Lord presented the _Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen_, as follows:

"Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a
vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and
built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far
country: And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants
to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the
husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and
stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and
they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his son,
saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son,
they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and
let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out
of the vineyard, and slew him. When the lord therefore of the vineyard
cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto him, He
will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard
unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their
seasons."[1094]

Again the Jews were compelled to make answer to the great question with
which the parable dealt, and again by their answer they pronounced
judgment upon themselves. The vineyard, broadly speaking, was the human
family, but more specifically the covenant people, Israel; the soil was
good and capable of yielding in rich abundance; the vines were choice
and had been set out with care; and the whole vineyard was amply
protected with a hedge, and suitably furnished with winepress and
tower.[1095] The husbandmen could be none other than the priests and
teachers of Israel, including the ecclesiastical leaders who were then
and there present in an official capacity. The Lord of the vineyard had
sent among the people prophets authorized to speak in His name; and
these the wicked tenants had rejected, maltreated, and, in many
instances, cruelly slain.[1096] In the more detailed reports of the
parable we read that when the first servant came, the cruel husbandmen
"beat him and sent him away empty"; the next they wounded "in the head,
and sent him away shamefully handled"; another they murdered and all who
came later were brutally mistreated, and some of them were killed. Those
wicked men had used the vineyard of their Lord for personal gain, and
had rendered no part of the vintage to the lawful Owner. When the Lord
sent other messengers, "more than the first," or in other words, greater
than the earlier ones, the most recent example being John the Baptist,
the husbandmen rejected them with evil determination more pronounced
than ever. At last the Son had come in person; His authority they feared
as that of the lawful heir, and with malignity almost beyond belief,
they determined to kill Him that they might perpetuate their unworthy
possession of the vineyard and thenceforward hold it as their own.

Jesus carried the story without break from the criminal past to the yet
more tragic and awful future, then but three days distant; and calmly
related in prophetic imagery, as though already fulfilled, how those
evil men cast the well beloved Son out of the vineyard and slew Him.
Unable to evade the searching question as to what the Lord of the
vineyard would naturally and righteously do to the wicked husbandmen,
the Jewish rulers gave the only pertinent answer possible--that He would
surely destroy those wretched sinners, and let out His vineyard to
tenants who were more honest and worthy.

Suddenly changing the figure, "Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read
in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is
become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is
marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God
shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits
thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken; but on
whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder."[1097] There
could be no misapprehension as to the Lord's meaning; the rejected Stone
which was eventually to have chief place, "the head of the corner," in
the edifice of salvation, was Himself, the Messiah. To some that Stone
would be a cause of stumbling; wo unto them, for thereby would they be
broken, and only through repentance and works of righteousness could
they even in part recover; but upon others, those who would persist in
their opposition, the Stone would fall in judgment; and wo, wo to them,
for beneath it they would be destroyed as though ground to powder.[1098]
From them, the leaders, and from the people who followed their unholy
precepts and foul example, the kingdom of God was about to be taken, and
would in time be given to the Gentiles, who, the Lord affirmed, would
prove more worthy than Israel had been. We gather from Luke's account
that in contemplation of this awful penalty, "they," whether priestly
rulers or common people we are not told, exclaimed in despair, "God
forbid!"

As the chief priests and Pharisees realized the completeness of their
discomfiture and the extent of the humiliation to which they had been
subjected in the eyes of the people, they were incensed beyond measure,
and even attempted to lay hold on Jesus there in the temple; but the
sympathies of the multitude were so unmistakably in His favor that the
angry ecclesiasts desisted. The people in general, while not prepared to
openly proclaim Him as the Christ, knew that He was a prophet of God,
and their dread of official displeasure and possible penalty did not
deter them from friendly demonstrations.

Jesus resumed His teaching by relating the _Parable of the Royal
Marriage Feast_.

"And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said, The
kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for
his son, And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to
the wedding: and they would not come. 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. But they 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. But when the
king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and
destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Then saith he to
his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not
worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall 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."[1099]

The invitation of a king to his subjects is equivalent to a command. The
marriage feast was no surprize event, for the selected guests had been
bidden long aforetime; and, in accordance with oriental custom were
notified again on the opening day of the festivities,[1100] which,
according to Hebrew customs, would be understood as extending over a
period of seven or fourteen days; in this case of a marriage in the
royal family the greater duration would be assumed. Many of the bidden
guests refused to come when formally summoned; and of the tolerant
king's later and more pressing message they made light and went their
ways, while the most wicked turned upon the servants who brought the
royal summons, mistreated them cruelly, and some of them they killed. It
is plainly evident that the refusal to attend the king's feast was a
deliberate rebellion against the royal authority and a personal
indignity against both the reigning sovereign and his son. It was as
much a duty as an honor for loyal subjects to attend the marriage
festival of the prince, whom we cannot err in regarding as the lawful
heir to the throne, and therefore the one who might some day reign over
them. The turning away by one man to his farm and by another to his
merchandize is in part an evidence of their engrossment in material
pursuits to the utter disregard of their sovereign's will; but it
signifies further an effort to deaden their troubled consciences by some
absorbing occupation; and possibly also a premeditated demonstration of
the fact that they placed their personal affairs above the call of their
king. The monarch executed a terrible retribution upon his rebellious
subjects. If the parable was intended to be an allegorical presentation
of actual events, it passes at this point from the story of the past to
that of the future, for the destruction of Jerusalem postdates by
several decades the death of Christ. Finding the guests who had some
claim on the royal invitation to be utterly unworthy, the king sent out
his servants again, and these gathered in from the highways and
cross-roads, from the byways and the lanes, all they could find,
irrespective of rank or station, whether rich or poor, good or bad; "and
the wedding was furnished with guests."

The great feast by which the Messianic reign was to be ushered in was a
favorite theme of jubilant exposition in both synagog and school; and
exultation ran high in the rabbinical dictum that none but the children
of Abraham would be among the blessed partakers. The king in the parable
is God; the son whose marriage was the occasion of the feast is Jesus,
the Son of God; the guests who were bidden early, yet who refused to
come when the feast was ready, are the covenant people who rejected
their Lord, the Christ; the later guests, who were brought in from the
streets and the roads, are the Gentile nations, to whom the gospel has
been carried since its rejection by the Jews; the marriage feast is
symbolical of the glorious consummation of the Messiah's mission.[1101]

All students of the subject must have noted the points of resemblance by
which this parable is related to that of the great supper;[1102] fewer
perhaps have considered the differences between the two. The earlier
story was told in the house of one of the chief Pharisees, probably in
some town in Perea; the later one was related within the temple, after
Pharisaic opposition to Christ had reached its height. The first is of
simpler plot and of gentler climax. The neglect of the invited guests in
the first story was accompanied by excuses in which some approach to
polite apology appears; the refusal of those bidden in the second
parable was markedly offensive, and was coupled with outrageous abuse
and murder. The host in one instance was a wealthy though private
citizen, in the other the giver of the feast was a king. In the first,
the occasion was one of ordinary though abundant entertainment; in the
second, the determining time was that of the appointed marriage of the
royal heir. Retribution in the first instance was limited to exclusion
from the banquet; in the latter the individual punishment was death,
which was followed by the punitive example of the city's destruction.

Our account of the royal marriage feast is not yet complete; the story
already considered is supplemented by the following:

"And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man
which had not on a wedding garment: And he saith unto him,
Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment?
And he was speechless. 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. For many
are called, but few are chosen."

The lessons embodied in this section of the parable may be
advantageously considered apart from those of the first division. As was
befitting his dignity, the king came into the banquet hall after the
guests had taken their places in orderly array. His immediate detection
of one who was without the prescribed garment implies a personal
scrutiny of the guests. One may be led to inquire, how, under the
circumstances of hurried summoning, the several guests could have
suitably attired themselves for the feast. The unity of the narrative
requires that some provision had been made whereby each one who properly
applied was given the garment prescribed by the king's command, and in
keeping with the established custom at court. 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 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, of a kind with the man to whom the Lord
had before referred as a thief and a robber because, not entering by the
door, he had climbed up some other way.[1103] The king gave a command,
and his ministers[1104] bound the offender and cast him forth from the
palace into outer darkness, where the anguish of remorse caused weeping
and gnashing of teeth.

As summary and epilogue of the three great parables constituting this
series, the Lord spake these words of solemn import: "For many are
called, but few are chosen."[1105] Each of the parables has its own
wealth of wisdom; and the three are as one in declaring the great truth
that even the children of the covenant will be rejected except they make
good their title by godly works; while to the heathen and the sinners
the portals of heaven shall open, if by repentance and compliance with
the laws and ordinances of the gospel they shall merit salvation.

The story of the royal marriage feast was the last of our Lord's
parables delivered publicly to a mixed audience. Two others were spoken
to the apostles, as they sat in solemn converse with the Lord on the
Mount of Olives after the public ministry of Christ had been brought to
a close.


NOTES TO CHAPTER 30.

1. Fig Tree.--"The fig tree is very common in Palestine (Deut. 8:8). Its
fruit is a well known and highly esteemed article of food. In the East
this is of three kinds; (1) the early fig, ripening about the end of
June; (2) the summer fig, ripening in August; (3) the winter fig, larger
and darker than No. 2, hanging and ripening late on the tree, even after
the leaves were shed, and sometimes gathered in the spring. The blossoms
of the fig tree are within the receptacle or so-called fruit, and not
visible outwardly; and this fruit begins to develop before the leaves.
Hence the fig tree which had leaves before the usual time might
naturally have been expected to have also some figs on it (Mark 11:13);
but it was not true to its pretensions." (Smith's _Comp. Bible Dict_.)

2. The Two Sons in the Parable.--Although this excellent parable was
addressed to the chief priests, scribes, and elders, who had come in
hostile spirit to demand of Christ the credentials of His authority, its
lesson is of universal application. The two sons are yet alive in every
human community--the one openly boastful of his sin, the other a
hypocritical pretender. Jesus did not commend the rough refusal of the
first son of whom the father made a righteous demand for service; it was
his subsequent repentance attended by works that made him superior to
his brother who had made fair promise but had kept it not. There are
many today who boast that they make no profession of religion, nor
pretense of godly life. Their frankness will not mitigate their sins; it
simply shows that a certain species of hypocrisy is not prominent among
their numerous offenses; but that a man is innocent of one vice, say
that of drunkenness, in no wise diminishes his measure of guilt if he be
a liar, a thief, an adulterer, or a murderer. Both the sons in the
parable were grievous sinners; but the one turned from his evil ways,
which theretofore he had followed with flagrant openness, while the
other continued in dark deeds of sin, which he sought to cover by a
cloak of hypocrisy. Let no man think that because he becomes intoxicated
at the public bar he is any the less a drunkard than is he who swallows
the "beverage of hell" in comparative privacy, though the latter be both
drunkard and hypocrite. For these sins, as for all others, genuine
repentance is the only saving antidote.

3. Israel Symbolized by Vineyard and Vines.--The aptness of our Lord's
representation of Israel as a vineyard could not have escaped the
perception of the Jews, to whom Old Testament similes of analogous form
were familiar figures. Notable among others is the striking picture
presented by Isaiah (5:1-7), in which the well provided vineyard is
shown as producing wild grapes only, for which grievous disappointment
of his expectations the owner determined to break down the wall, remove
the hedge, and leave the vineyard to its fate of abandonment. The
explication of the parable voiced by Isaiah is thus given: "For the
vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of
Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but behold
oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry." The worthlessness of a
vine save only for its fruit was set forth by the Lord through His
prophet Ezekiel (15:2-5); and truly it is so, that the wood of the grape
plant is fit for nothing but burning; the whole vine as wood is inferior
to a branch from a forest tree (verse 3). And Israel is represented as
such a vine, precious if but fruitful, otherwise nothing but fuel and
that of poor quality. The psalmist sang of the vine that Jehovah had
brought out of Egypt and which, planted with care and hedged about, had
flourished even with goodly boughs; but the favor of the Lord had been
turned from the vine, and it had been left desolate (Psalm 80:8-16). For
further allusions see Isa. 27:2-6; Jer. 2:21; Ezek. 19:10-14; Hosea
10:1.

4. The Call to the Marriage Feast.--The calling of the guests who had
been bidden aforetime is thus commented upon by Trench (_Parables_, pp.
175-6): "This summoning of those already bidden, was, and, as modern
travellers attest, is still, quite in accordance with Eastern manners.
Thus Esther invites Haman to a banquet on the morrow (Esth. 5:8), and
when the time has actually arrived, the chamberlain comes to usher him
to the banquet (6:14). There is, therefore, no slightest reason why we
should make '_them that were bidden_' to mean them that were now _to be
bidden_; such an interpretation not merely violating all laws of
grammar, but the higher purpose with which the parable was spoken; for
our Lord, assuming that the guests had been invited long ago, does thus
remind His hearers that what He brought, if in one sense new, was in
another a fulfilment of the old; that He claimed to be heard, not as one
suddenly starting up, unconnected with aught which had gone before but
as Himself 'the end of the law,' to which it had been ever tending, the
birth with which the whole Jewish dispensation had been pregnant, and
which alone should give a meaning to it all. In His words, '_them that
were bidden_,' is involved the fact that there was nothing abrupt in the
coming of His kingdom, that its rudiments had a long while before been
laid, that all to which His adversaries clung as precious in their past
history was prophetic of blessings now actually present to them in Him.
The original invitation, which had now come to maturity, reached back to
the foundation of the Jewish commonwealth, was taken up and repeated by
each succeeding prophet, as he prophesied of the crowning grace that
should one day be brought to Israel (Luke 10:24; 1 Pet. 1:12), and
summoned the people to hold themselves in a spiritual readiness to
welcome their Lord and their King."

5. Servants and Ministers.--According to good philological authority,
"ministers" or "ministering attendants" is a more literal rendering of
the original than "servants" in Matt. 22:13. In the earlier verses 3, 4,
6, 8, 10, of the same chapter, "servants" or "servitors" best expresses
the meaning of the original. The distinction is significant, as it
implies an important difference of station between the servants who were
sent out to bid the people to the feast, and the ministers in immediate
attendance upon the king. The first are typical of God's servants who
proclaim His word in the world; the latter symbolize the angels who
shall execute His judgments on the wicked by gathering out from His
kingdom all things that offend. Compare Matt. 13:30, 39, 41; Doc. and
Cov. 86:5.

6. The Called and the Chosen.--Edersheim's reflections upon this subject
follow in part (vol. ii, pp. 429, 430): "The King entered to see His
guests, and among them he descried one who had not on a wedding
garment.... As the guests had been travelers, and as the feast was in
the King's palace, we cannot be mistaken in supposing that such garments
were supplied in the palace to all who sought them. And with this agrees
the circumstance, that the man so addressed 'was speechless.' His
conduct argued utter insensibility as regarded that to which he had been
called--ignorance of what was due the King, and what became such a
feast. For, although no previous state of preparedness was required of
the invited guests, all being bidden, whether good or bad, yet the fact
remained that, if they were to take part in the feast they must put on a
garment suited to the occasion. All are invited to the gospel feast; but
they who will partake of it must put on the King's wedding garment of
evangelical holiness. And whereas it is said in the parable that only
one was descried without this garment, this is intended to teach, that
the King will not only generally view His guests, but that each will be
separately examined, and that no one--no, not a single individual--will
be able to escape discovery amidst the mass of guests, if he has not the
wedding garment. In short, in that day of trial, it is not a scrutiny of
churches, but of individuals in the Church.... The call comes to all;
but it may be outwardly accepted, and a man may sit down to the feast,
and yet he may not be chosen to partake of the feast, because he has not
the wedding garment of converting, sanctifying grace. And so, one may be
thrust even from the marriage board into the darkness without, with its
sorrow and anguish. Thus, side by side, yet wide apart, are these
two--God's call and God's choice. The connecting link between them is
the wedding garment, freely given in the Palace. Yet, we must seek it,
ask it, put it on. And as here also, we have, side by side, God's gift
and man's activity. And still, to all time, and to all men, alike in its
warning, teaching, and blessing, is it true: 'Many are called, but few
chosen!' Many words of related meaning, both Hebrew and Greek, are
translated 'garment' in our English Bible. The Greek original in the
mention of the wedding garment is _enduma_; this does not occur in other
Bible passages as the original of 'garment.' The noun is related to the
Greek verb _enduein_, 'to put on, as a garment.' Compare Luke 24:49,
'until ye be endued with power from on high.'"