And Jesus answered and spoke unto them again by parables, and said,
Read Chapter 22
Cornelius a Lapide
AD 1637
s31 , 32. But concerning the resurrection of the dead, &c. Christ, not satisfied with having refuted the Sadducean objection to the Resurrection, proceeds to prove it to them by the words of God to Moses, I am the God of Abraham, &c. Although Christ might have cited clearer proofs of the Resurrection from Job ,, Isaiah , &c, He preferred this from the Pentateuch, because it only did the Sadducces receive. They rejected the Prophets. So Origen, Bede, and others. Josephus says of the Sadducees, "They are of opinion that nothing besides the Law is to be observed." Although in that passage Josephus may be more properly taken as speaking of the Law as opposed, not to the Prophets, but to traditions (Ant182), and to include the Prophets under the Law. For otherwise they would have been manifest heretics, and would have been disavowed as such by all the rest of the Jews. Wherefore a better reason for this quotation would seem to be, that the authority of Moses was of greater weight with the J...
And Jesus answered, &c, refuting the incredulity of the Scribes. The meaning is: it is the same in the kingdom of Heaven, i.e, in the Church militant here on earth, as if a king made a marriage for his Song of Solomon , &c. For in other respects the kingdom of Heaven is not directly and precisely like a king, but a kingdom. S. Gregory treats this parable at length (Hom38 , in Evang.).
The parable is similar to that which Luke records ( Luke 14:16). Maldonatus thinks it is the same with that, and that Matthew has not here observed the historical order. With more reason S. Augustine (l2 , de consens. Evang. c71), S. Thomas, Jansen, and others think that this is a different parable from that in Luke; or if the same, that they were uttered upon two occasions, and in different words. It is clear on comparison that they have numerous differences. For, not to speak of other things, Luke says that the parable was spoken in the house of a Pharisee. Matthew here asserts that it was spoken publi...
Jesus answered, and spoke to them again in parables, and concludes his discourse with again describing, 1st. the reprobation of the Jews; 2d. the calling of the Gentiles to the true faith; and 3d. the final judgment of both the one and the other. In this parable of the marriage feast, says St. Chrysostom, our Saviour again declares to the Jews their reprobation, and the vocation of the Gentiles, their great ingratitude, and his tender solicitude for them. For he did not send them a single invitation only; he repeatedly invited them. Say, says he, to the invited; and afterwards, call the invited; thus evincing the greatness of their obstinacy, in resisting all the calls and pressing invitations of the Almighty. (Hom. lxx.)
This parable is certainly not the same as that mentioned in St. Luke xiv. 16, as every one that will be at the pains to examine and compare all the circumstances of each, will easily discover, though they are very much alike. (Menochius)
First we must ask whether this lesson in Matthew is what Luke describes as a dinner, since some details appear inconsistent. Here it is a midday meal, there a dinner; here the one who came to the marriage feast improperly dressed was cast out, and there none of those said to have entered is shown to have been cast out. From Matthew we can infer that in this passage the marriage feast represents the church of the present time, and the dinner in Luke represents the final and eternal banquet. Some who enter the one will leave it, but no one who has once entered the other will later go out. But if anyone argues that it is the same lesson, I think it better to save the faith and yield to another’s interpretation than to give in to strife. Perhaps we can reasonably take it that Luke kept silent about the man Matthew said came without a marriage garment and was thrown out. That one called it a dinner and the other a midday meal does not stand in the way of my interpretation, because when the ...
Do you see both in the former parable and in this the difference between the Son and the servants? Do you see at once the great affinity between both parables, and the great difference also? For this also indicates God's long-suffering, and His great providential care, and the Jews' ingratitude.
But this parable has something also more than the other. For it proclaims beforehand both the casting out of the Jews, and the calling of the Gentiles; and it indicates together with this also the strictness of the life required, and how great the punishment appointed for the careless.
And well is this placed after the other. For since He had said, It shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof, He declares next to what kind of nation; and not this only, but He also again sets forth His providential care towards the Jews as past utterance. For there He appears before His crucifixion bidding them; but here even after He is slain, He still urges them, striving to win them o...
This parable, too, like that of the vineyard, alludes to the disobedience of the Jews. But as that one indicates Christ's death, so this one indicates the nuptial joy, that is, the resurrection. But this parable also shows them to be worse transgressors than the men in the preceding parable. For the husbandmen of the vineyard slew those who demanded fruits of them. But these men vented their murderous rage upon those who had invited them to a wedding. God is likened to a human king, for He does not appear as He is, but as it is fitting for Him to appear to us. When we die as humans, subject to human failings, God appears to us in human form; but when we walk about as gods, then God stands in the congregation of gods (Ps. 81:1). And when we live as wild beasts, then He, too, becomes for us a panther, and a bear, and a lion. He makes a wedding feast for His Son, joining Him to every soul that is beautiful. For the bridegroom is Christ and the bride is the Church and the soul. The servant...
