Page images
PDF
EPUB

his wife hath made herself ready.....blessed are they which are. called unto the marriage supper." Here are three parties specified, and nothing can exceed the impropriety of confounding the last two together, as meaning one and the same. The Lamb, is Christ the wife is the body of his saints, they of the first resurrection (Rev. xx.): and who they are who are blessed in being invited to the supper, I trust to shew when I come to consider the parable of the Supper (Luke xiv.); of which all I here remark is, that it is by no means but a different version of the discourse now before us. A like distinction of parties with the above, is, I suppose, given in Cant. i. 4: "The King hath brought me (the bride) into his chambers: we (the responding guests) will be glad and rejoice in thee: we will remember thy love more than wine"-i. e. we will rejoice in thine espousals more than in the banquet given on the occasion of them. And in our parable we have, "A certain King made a marriage (e. g. had appointed a bride) for his Son, and sent to call the guests to the feast which he would give on the occasion." Now, to determine what this feast should have been, let us first see who was to have been the bride. First, She was not the Jewish nation as such, for these were the guests; and we find, that, after their casting away, the wedding (e. g. the bride) is still ready, at ver. 8. [The word translated "marriage" and "wedding," at vers. 2, 3, 4, 9, is the plural, yaμovs, properly "wedding feast," as in Luke xiv. 8: at ver. 8 it is the singular, yapos "marriage," as in Heb. xiii. 4.] Secondly, She is not our human nature, which the Son of God might be said to espouse by his incarnation: for at ver. 8, where a time is signified long after the incarnation, the wedding, though ready, has still to be delayed for lack of guests; and (which is more conclusive) the Bridegroom himself is Christ, both God and man, and not the Son of God in his Divine nature only. Furthermore, It is not apparent, from any thing in the parable, that the marriage of the King's Son has yet been solemnized; but it is certain, from Rev. xix. before alluded to, that there remaineth a marriage of Christ to be solemnized: whence I conclude it reasonable to suppose that the bride which shall be, however new her adorning or altered her form may prove, is the bride which should have been (in this parable)—to wit, the church in the separate state, brought forth from her secret chambers. [I believe that the term bride, wherever implied or expressed in allegorical language similar to that of our parable, always contemplates the church of the separate state, exclusively of any in the flesh. John the Baptist, who to the Jews witnessed of Christ, saying, "There standeth one among you whom ye know not,' not only testified of Christ that he, though in such humble guise, was the glorious "Bridegroom," and "had the bride," but

[ocr errors]

spoke of himself as but the friend of the bridegroom (John iii. 29). And our Lord forewarns his hearers concerning his glorious coming thus: "Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning, and ye yourselves (even ye) like unto men that wait for their Lord when he shall return from the wedding " (Luke xii. 35, 36). All believers in the flesh would seem to be contemplated in this aspect-namely, as expectants of their Lord returning from the wedding the bride being a third party. There is indeed a "mystery," as Paul calls it: they who are judged worthy shall be taken out of this category by translation into the body of the bride: of which I have something to say in a fitter place. But the word to all of us, while found in the flesh, is, "Behold, the Lord cometh, with all his saints." Thus much for the distinctiveness of this kind of allegorical language.]

I have said that the marriage feast-or what the Jews might have partaken of, but would not come to eat; and what the Gentiles, good and bad, are gathered in their stead to eat; and what the man without the wedding garment shall be prevented eating-cannot mean "the grace of the Gospel dispensation," inasmuch as the narrative falls short of the actual partaking of the feast in question. I add next, that, as the wickedness of the Jewish people really bore as its fruit the crucifixion of Christ it were very contradictory to make the feast, to which they were invited, to consist beforehand of the fruits of their refusal to come to it—that is, of the benefits of Christ's passion-in any wise however it might please God afterwards to enhance it thereby. And, lastly, it were almost as inconsistent that the feast should mean any thing in another life, seeing that death, the punishment of those murderers (ver. 7), must, at least, be supposed incompatible with a possibility of their partaking of it. Now, if this intended feast meant not the grace of the Gospel dispensation, nor the benefits of Christ's passion in any wise, nor any beatitude of a future life, what did it mean? Something as far as possible opposed to the destroying of the Jews and burning up of Jerusalem. The purpose with which the parable sets out is a purpose of glory. There is no higher figure of glory than that which it propounds to us in the marriage feast of a king's son. Nothing in the parties, nothing in their dresses, nothing in the occasion, or in the actions likely to find birth in such an occasion, could at all savour of sorrow, strife, or humbling; but all would be grandeur, power, and unmingled rejoicing. There has been no picture in fact answering to this; but there is such an one in God's purpose-to wit, the redemption joy of Israel in the flesh, at the day of the glorious manifestation of Messiah, and the resurrection of all his sleeping saints to enjoy consort, glory, and dominion with Him. This has been ever, and is yet, the hope

of the eyes of each generation of Israel to witness. The Prophets are full of it. And to say that such predicted glory should have been realized had the generation which heard this parable been found "a willing people," what is it but to say that the time and season, and, it may be, the means and manner, of its fulfilment, were provided, in the wonderful forecast of God, to be pendent on the alternative of man's wickedness?

Thus, then, Christ was the Bridegroom; the separate church of his faithful ones, the bride; and the generation of the Jewish people then in the flesh, were the intended guests; and the wedding feast, that excellent repast of good things which the Prophets had of old promised to Israel in the day of Messiah's glory. So that whatever excellent glory might have been expected to attend Messiah's advent, unlike to the humble accidents which did attend the coming of Jesus, I find the parable represent to have been verily purposed by the King's sincere invitation to the wedding feast, but thwarted by the guests' refusal to come. It may seem strange, that, since Christ, the speaker of the parable, was indeed the Bridegroom intended in it, no allusion should be made to the treatment which himself should receive from the unwilling guests, but only to their treatment of his Father's messengers, twice sent to them. But to suppose this to be really the case, is an oversight incident only to our common misappreciation of the parable: for the thing which is represented to us is the frustration, by the people's wickedness, of the coming to them of a King's Son in the glory of his espousals; and such a one, through such wickedness, did now stand before them the "Man of Sorrows and acquainted with grief," to whom they were listening. What more, then, could be needed, to exhibit most touchingly the bitter cup which the Lord was drinking at their hands, than for himself to stand before them in humiliation, to tell of their frustration of this marriage feast of the King's Son? In a sense which every heart may apprehend, it may be said that Christ truly was not born to suffer. The wise men hailed him born King of the Jews (Matt. ii. 2); and He himself, when Pilate asked him, "Art thou a king ?" replied, "Verily; for this end was I born." It was not in the Father's purpose willingly to afflict him, but only through the intermediate contingency of men's wickedness all which he suffered, as one suffers ill-treatment "in the house of his friends." Surely his life, from beginning to end, was, humanly speaking, the cruelest disappointment;-disappointment which he bore for the glory of his Father, and in unspeakable compassion to his enemies; sustained by the assurance that the former could not disappoint the Son of his love, and by the consolation that the latter might be retrieved from the self-ruin in which he beheld them. John testified that the lowly

Jesus was the glorious Bridegroom; and the Father set his seal thereto, first in the transfiguration, and afterwards in the resurrection and ascension: on which occasions, Jesus, doffing the mean vestments of his sorrow, appeared in habiliments suited to his birth and dignity. But, besides this, John bore witness that Christ" had the bride" (John iv. 29); and, accordingly, the Father testified that the bride also was ready to have been forthcoming, by the appearance of Moses and Elias at the transfiguration, and afterwards by the arising of "many of the saints," and their "appearing unto many" after the resurrection of Christ (Matt. xxvii. 53). For these things, which are indeed types to assure us concerning the reality and glory of the kingdom which we expect, must without doubt have been a present testimony to the like effect in that day, assuring the few faithful that the King had had indeed a purpose of glory, nor had sent the guests a mocking invitation to the magnificence of his Son's table.

Ver. 3: "The king sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding, and they would not come."-The glory of which we have been speaking above, had from the beginning been held out to the hopes of the Jewish people; and these, on their part, had ever professed to expect and desire its fulfilment. They had received and accepted an invitation of long standing to a feast which the king should give in his appointed time; and now were his servants sent forth to summon them. The summons in this verse answers, I believe, to what took place in our Lord's life-time. To say, The wedding feast is at hand, according to the view which we have taken, would be precisely equivalent to saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand; for the manifestation of the latter clearly consists of the elements which we have attributed to the former. And, indeed, this feast is evidently of the nature of a feast of inauguration, on the king's son being put into possession of the government of his father's subjects. (A specimen of such a feast may be seen by consulting 1 Kings i. 5-9, 19, 25.) Again: to say, "Come ye to the wedding," would naturally imply, Clothe yourselves fitly for the occasion; put off your own vestments, which become it not; leave your own interests and occupations, and be engrossed with one matter, of interest to you all, &c. Whatever, therefore, the parable can possibly imply by "calling them that were bidden," which was to say, "The wedding is ready; come ye to it," was fulfilled to the uttermost in our Lord's day, by messengers who preached to the Jews," Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." [The Jewish people were called upon to repent, and believe that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. If, therefore, by the kingdom of heaven at hand, was meant salvation by the death of Christ, it is obvious that the repentance to which Israel was

[blocks in formation]

called would have frustrated such a kingdom, and so the first part of the message been nugatory of the second; for, had they repented, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.] These "servants" of the verse before us probably answer to the seventy disciples [I had thought otherwise; but it would seem improper that the summons," Come ye to the wedding," should be dated to commence earlier than the birth of Christ, the Bridegroom], who were sent, like John, before the face of Christ, to proclaim in every town whither he would come, "Behold, the kingdom of heaven is at hand;" and to summon all to repent and prepare to receive him. But the people would not repent, nor could be made to see, by any means, the least symptoms of the approach of a glory answering to their notions of the coming of "the kingdom of heaven." The servants said, "Comet ye to the wedding-feast:" but they said, Where is the feast?" Let the King's Son shew himself.' But in vain, during our Lord's life, were the Jewish people called to "repent," on the strength of the kingdom of heaven being at hand; or to "come," on the strength of the feast being in readiness had they come. They would not repent; they did not come: and the final issue of their unrepentance and not coming was, as we may all know, the rejection and crucifixion of Christ, the Bridegroom, as an impostor. But He was no impostor: nor could they mar the Father's glorious purpose towards him, nor as yet exhaust the love which designed them to partake of it.

[ocr errors]

Ver. 4:"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."-He who was the Bridegroom had suffered as an ignoble one, who could not be at charges for any feast worth coming to, in the eyes of the recusant guests; but God, overruling this, did demonstrate that this was no ignoble one, but the King's Son, and that a banquet was indeed in the power of his gift. There is, therefore, the most forcible propriety in applying this verse to the preaching of the Gospel to the Jews which ensued on our Lord's ascension. The Apostles and first preachers of the Gospel are the "servants" in this verse. These reiterated the original summons to the guests to "come to the wedding," declaring that the substance of the repast was actually procured for the occasion: "Behold, I have prepared (or made preparation for) my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings (or fatted rams) [compare 2 Sam. vi. 13 with 1 Chron. xv. 26] are killed, and all things are ready: come ye to the wedding." The animals here mentioned were wont to be slain, under the Levitical dispensation, for peace-offerings, either when peace and safety were to be sought of God, or when he was to be praised for having granted them. Of which latter occasion 1 Chron. xv. 26 furnishes an

« PreviousContinue »