Quotes & Notes on:     Matthew 22:12   

• John Wesley's Notes:
  A wedding garment-The righteousness of Christ, first imputed, then implanted. It may easily be observed, this has no relation to the Lord's Supper, but to God's proceeding at the last day.
   

• The Fourfold Gospel:

   We are of the opinion that the king furnished upper garments to his guests. But the antiquity of this custom is disputed. See Meyer, Lange and Trench, etc. in loco. However, the fact is immaterial, for the man was speechless--without excuse--which shows that he could have had a garment from some source had he chosen to wear it.
   

• Treasury of Scripture Knowledge:

  * Friend. Mt 20:13; 26:50
  * how. Mt 5:20; Ac 5:2-11; 8:20-23; 1Co 4:5
  * And he was. 1Sa 2:9; Job 5:16; Ps 107:42; Jer 2:23,26; Ro 3:19; Tit 3:11
   

• Robertson's Word Pictures:
  Not having a wedding-garment (mê echôn enduma gamou). Mê is in the Koiné the usual negative with participles unless special emphasis on the negative is desired as in ouk endedumenon. There is a subtle distinction between mê and ou like our subjective and objective notions. Some hold that the wedding-garment here is a portion of a lost parable separate from that of the Wedding Feast, but there is no evidence for that idea. Wunsche does report a parable by a rabbi of a king who set no time for his feast and the guests arrived, some properly dressed waiting at the door; others in their working clothes did not wait, but went off to work and, when the summons suddenly came, they had no time to dress properly and were made to stand and watch while the others partook of the feast.
   

• William Burkitt's Notes:

   (No comment on this verse).
   

• Family Bible Notes:

   Speechless; knowing that he was inexcusable.
   

• 1599 Geneva Bible Notes:
   Literally, "haltered", that is to say, he held his peace, as though he had a bridle or a halter around his neck.
   

• People's New Testament Commentary:

  How camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? The fact that he had not was proof that he had no right to be there. All invited might be very different before, good and bad, but they must be clothed alike when the guests of the Lord.
   

• Albert Barnes' Commentary:

   Friend. Rather, companion. The word does not imply friendship.
  
  He was speechless. He had no excuse. So it will be with all hypocrites.
  
  {t} "was speechless" Jer 2:26
  
   

• Jamieson-Faussett Brown:

  Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless--being self-condemned.
   

• Spurgeon Commentary on Matthew:

  The King addressed him kindly enough: He saith unto him, "Friend."  Perhaps, after all, he did not intend to insult the King; therefore he called him "friend." He pretended to be a friend, therefore the King addressed him as such. Still, it was a grave outrage that he had committed, and he must account for it: "How camest thou hither not having a wedding garment?" "Was it by accident or design? Did not the keeper of the wardrobe tell thee about the garments provided for all my guests? Didst thou not feel like a speckled bird as thou didst see all thy companions in wedding array, while thine own garb ill became this festal hall? If thou art an enemy, how camest thou in hither? Was there no other place in which to defy me than in my own palace? Was there no other time for this insult than my Son's wedding day? What hast thou to say as an explanation or excuse for thy strange conduct? "Notice, how personal the question is. The King addresses him as though he had been the only one present.  And he was speechless. He had a fair opportunity of excusing himself if he could; but he was awed by the King's majesty, and convicted by his own conscience. No evidence needed to be given against him; he stood before the whole company, self-condemned, guilty of open and undeniable disloyalty. The original says, "he was muzzled." He may have talked glibly enough before the King came in; he had not a word to say afterwards. Eloquent silence that! Why did he not even then fall on his knees, and seek forgiveness for his daring crime? Alas! pride made him incapable of repentance; he would not yield even at the last moment. There is no defense for a man who is in the Church of Christ, but whose
  heart is not right towards God. The King still comes in to see the guests who have accepted his royal invitation to his Son's wedding. Woe be to any whom he finds without the wedding garment!
   

• Spurgeon Devotional Commentary:

   His conduct was as gross an insult as that of those who refused to come. A dress was provided for each guest, but he would not put it on, he despised the royal livery, and defied the regal law in the palace itself. Thus do those act who unite themselves with the church, and yet are not holy, nor obedient to Jesus. They insult the Redeemer to his face and defy him in his own house. Are any of us guilty of this? Do we profess to be Christians, and go to the communion table, though we do not wear the garments of sanctification! If so, let us tremble at the doom which awaits us.
   

• Adam Clarke's Commentary:

    He saith unto him, Friend] Rather, companion: so should be translated. As this man represents the state of a person in the visible Church, who neglects to come unto the master of the feast for a marriage garment, for the salvation which Christ has procured, he cannot be with any propriety called a friend, but may well be termed a companion, as being a member of the visible Church, and present at all those ordinances where Christ's presence and blessing are found, by all those who sincerely wait upon him for salvation.
  
  How camest thou in hither] Why profess to be called by my name while living without a preparation for my kingdom?
  
  He was speechless.] , he was muzzled, or gagged. He had nothing to say in vindication of his neglect. There was a garment provided, but he neither put it on, nor applied for it. His conduct, therefore, was in the highest degree insulting and indecorous. As this man is the emblem, by general consent, of those who shall perish in the last day, may we not ask, without offence, Where does the doctrine of absolute reprobation or preterition appear in his case? If Christ had never died for him, or if he had applied for the garment, and was refused, might he not well have alleged this in behalf of his soul?-and would not the just God have listened to it? But there is not the smallest excuse for him: Christ died, the sacrifice was offered, for him; the ministers of the Gospel invited him; the Holy Spirit strove with him; he might have been saved, but he was not: and the fault lies so absolutely at his own door that the just God is vindicated in his conduct, while he sends him to hell, not for the lack of what he could not get, but for the lack of what he might have had, but either neglected or refused it.
  
  Then said the king to the servants] To the ministering angels, executors of the Divine will.
  
  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. See all this largely treated of on Mt 8:12.

   

• Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary:

   (No comment on this verse).