First we must ask whether this lesson in Matthew is what Luke describes as a dinner, since some details appear inconsistent.^[1] 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 ancients took their daily midday meal at the ninth hour it was also called a dinner. . . .

A clearer and safer thing to say is that the Father made a marriage feast for his Son by joining the church to him through the mystery of his incarnation. The womb of the Virgin who bore him was the bridal chamber of this bridegroom, and so the psalmist says, He has set his tent in the sun, and he is like a bridegroom coming forth from his bridal chamber.^[2] He truly came forth like a bridegroom from his bridal chamber who, as God incarnate, left the inviolate womb of the Virgin to unite the church to himself.

And so he sent his servants to invite his friends to the marriage feast. He sent once, and he sent again, because first he made the prophets and later the apostles preachers of the Lord’s incarnation. He sent his servants twice with the invitation, because he said through the prophets that his only Son’s incarnation would come about, and he proclaimed through the apostles that it had.

Because those who were first invited to the marriage banquet refused to come, he said in his second invitation, See, I have prepared my meal; my oxen and fattened animals have been slain, and everything is ready. What do we take the oxen and fattened animals to be but the fathers of the Old and New Testaments?

All the faithful know the story of the marriage of the king’s son, and his feast. They know that the Lord’s table is open to all who are willing correctly to receive it. But it is important that each one examines how he approaches, even when he is not forbidden to approach.

The holy Scriptures teach us that there are two feasts of the Lord: one to which the good and evil come,^[1] the other to which the evil do not come.^[2] So then the feast of which we have just now heard when the gospel was being read has both good and evil guests. All who excused themselves from this feast are evil, but not all those who entered in are good. I now address you, therefore, who are the good guests at this feast. You are taking careful note of the words For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.^[3] It is to you I speak. I plead with you not to look vainly for the good apart from the church but to bear with the evil within it.

But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business. To go to your farm is to involve yourself excessively in earthly toil. To go to your business is to long for the gain brought by our worldly activity. One person is concerned with earthly toil, another devoted to the business of this world. Neither takes notice of the mystery of the Lord’s incarnation. They are unwilling to live in accordance with it. As if they are proceeding to their farm or business, they refuse to come to the marriage feast of the king. Frequently, and this is a more serious matter, some not only decline the gift of the one calling them but even persecute those who accept it. And so he adds, The rest seized his servants, and, having insulted them, killed them. But the king, learning of this, sent his armies, destroyed those murderers and set fire to their city. He destroys the murderers because he has slain the persecutors; he sets fire to their city because not only their souls but even their bodies are tormented by the eternal flames of hell. . . .

But the one who sees himself despised when he issues the invitations will not have the marriage feast of his son the king empty. He sends for others, because although God’s word is in danger from some, it will find a place to come to rest. Then he said to his servants, The marriage feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore into the byroads, and call to the marriage feast everyone you find. If we take the roads in holy Scripture to mean our actions, we interpret the byroads as our failed actions. Often it is those who meet no prosperity in their earthly actions who come readily to God.

And his servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, bad and good, and the marriage feast was filled with guests. The character of those at the banquet reveals clearly that the king’s marriage feast represents the church of this time, in which the bad are present along with the good. The church is a thorough mix of various offspring. It brings them all to the faith but does not lead them all to the liberty of spiritual grace successfully by changes in their lives, since their sins prevent it. As long as we are living in this world we have to proceed along the road of the present age thoroughly mixed together. We shall be separated when we reach our goal. Only the good are in heaven, and only the bad are in hell. This life is situated between heaven and hell. It goes on in the middle, so to speak, and takes in the citizens of both parts. The church admits them now without distinguishing them but separates them later when they leave this life.

But someone will object, This is strange. What great matter is it that one man among this large crowd does not have a wedding garment? Why rivet attention on this one man? So what if he creeps in unperceived by the servants of the householder? How could it be said that because of just that one, they invited in both good and bad together? Attend therefore, beloved, and understand. This man represents a whole class of persons of whom there are many.

This wedding pictures the marriage of the church to the Word. The donation of the gifts of the wealthy provides for the wedding’s preparation and is compared with bulls and fattened calves prepared for lavish feasting. For Paul says that in every way we have been enriched in Christ, in our speaking and knowledge.^[1] The first and second are called servants. The first are those who run ahead in light of the coming of the Lord, fellow laborers and successors^[2] of the apostles. But a failure to watch carefully prevents those who are invited from attending. For they who live their lives according to the flesh^[3] do not follow the divine call which is according to Christ. In the case of the rest, with the calling of the nations there is no longer a separation of a people nor a special honor accorded to Israel. But grace is even [given] to the rejected and outcasts, to the wise and to the foolish,^[4] as Paul says, to the evil and to the good, as the parable teaches . . . if it is that they really obey the calling to do good, having clothed themselves with the new humanity.^[5] If this proves not to be true, though they were called, they were not chosen. Rather, their calling is even overturned.

But since you have already come into the house of the marriage feast, our holy church, as a result of God’s generosity, be careful, my friends, lest when the King enters he find fault with some aspect of your heart’s clothing. We must consider what comes next with great fear in our hearts. But the king came in to look at the guests and saw there a person not clothed in a wedding garment.

What do we think is meant by the wedding garment, dearly beloved? For if we say it is baptism or faith, is there anyone who has entered this marriage feast without them? A person is outside because he has not yet come to believe. What then must we understand by the wedding garment but love? That person enters the marriage feast, but without wearing a wedding garment, who is present in the holy church. He may have faith, but he does not have love. We are correct when we say that love is the wedding garment because this is what our Creator himself possessed when he came to the marriage feast to join the church to himself. Only God’s love brought it about that his only begotten Son united the hearts of his chosen to himself. John says that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son for us.^[1]

Note that the master of the house came in to look at the guests.^[1] See, my beloved, the servants’ business was only to invite and bring in the good and bad. It is not said that the servants took notice of the guests, found among them a man who had no wedding garment and spoke to him. This is not written. The master of the house came in, the master saw him, the master of the house inspected, the master of the house hauled him off and threw him out. It is not fitting to pass over this quickly.^[2] But I have undertaken to establish another point, how that one man stands for many. But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment; and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. For the one who questioned him was one to whom he could give no deceptive reply.

The binding of their feet and hands puts a check on all their activity. . . . The outer darkness speaks of those things far removed from divine virtue and glory.

The garment that is required is in the heart, not on the body, for if it had been put on externally, it could not have been concealed even from the servants. But what is the wedding garment that must be put on? We learn it from these words, May your priests be clothed with righteousness.^[1] It is of that garment of righteousness that the apostle speaks when he says, Because when we are clothed, we are not found naked.^[2] In this way the unprepared man was discovered by the Lord of the feast, interrogated, bound and thrown out, one from among the many.

What is that wedding garment, then? This is the wedding garment: The goal of this command is charity, says the apostle, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.^[1] This is the wedding garment. Not charity of any kind whatever—for very often they who are partakers together of an evil conscience seem to love one another. Those who commit robberies together, who love the destructive arts of witchcraft, and who go to the coliseum together and join together in the shout of the chariot race or the wild beast fight—these too in some sense very often may be said to love one another.

But in these is no charity from a pure heart, a good conscience and a faith unfeigned. The wedding garment is charity such as this: Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels and have not charity, I have become like a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal.^[2] Suppose someone who speaks in tongues comes in and is asked, How did you get in here without a wedding garment?

Suppose he answers, But I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains. But if he has no charity, he has nothing. Such may be the clothing of those who in fact lack the wedding garment. Though, he says, I have all these and have not Christ,^[3] I am nothing. Is then the gift of prophecy nothing? Is then the knowledge of mysteries nothing? It is not that these are nothing. But I, if I have them, and have not charity, am nothing.^[4]

The truth frequently confounds every evil intention but without the intention being thereby reformed. This is especially true of those who intentionally sin by malice rather than out of ignorance. For example, the priests of the old covenant were unable to intimidate the Lord when they asked him, By what authority do you do these things?^[1] And after the force of his parables further frustrated them, they passed judgment on themselves by saying, He will utterly destroy those wretches.^[2] Since no one bore witness against them, it had to have been their conscience alone which caused them to say this. Yet certainly the fear of sin didn’t prick their conscience. Nor did the thought of freedom from sin restrain them. What was it, then? They went out and planned how to catch him in his words. If anyone attempts to shut off a stream of running water by erecting some sort of blockade, the water will burst through and create a new path in another direction. Similarly the priests’ frustrated evil intentions discovered other avenues for themselves.

These same Pharisees, hoping to eliminate Christ, accordingly brought him not before the servants of God or truly religious men but before the secularized Herodians, the Gentiles.^[1] Such was their plan, and such were the planners. But who had the power to take counsel against Christ, except the devil, the adversary of Christ?

The priests viewed themselves as patterns of the messianic hope. Yet if they went out alone, questioning Christ, no one would believe them. Everyone would know that the Pharisees were Christ’s enemy. He had already spoken to the question of whether it was lawful to give tribute to Caesar.

So they joined to their party the Herodians. The witness of enemies is always judged carefully, especially if it is true, since what is suspicious is judged doubly. The Pharisees did not wish to question Christ through the Herodians. But they had a common enemy, Christ. Both parties held Christ in great suspicion. Yet each, being suspect themselves, were afraid that they might not be able to indict Christ. An enemy in the open is far better than one hidden from view. For while the first may be feared, he is easily dealt with. The second, since he is unknown, may prevail. Therefore they sent him disciples, as if still less known and less suspect, so that they might deceive him easily and stealthily, or, if caught, they would at least embarrass themselves less.

They called him teacher, and truly he was. Yet they were only pretending that he was a teacher, one honored and praised. They pretended that he would simply open to them the ministry of his heart, as if they wanted to be his disciples. This is the first power of hypocrites, to simulate praise. They praise those whom they want to destroy. Their art is to incline human hearts toward simplicity of a kind confession through the delight of praise. They take small steps, a little at a time.

Jesus’ opponents expect that one of two outcomes must result for them from Jesus’ response. They think they can show clearly that Jesus was acting wrongly against the law of Moses or against the power of the Romans. Indeed, if he responds that it is necessary for us to pay the tribute, the Pharisees will necessarily slander him alongside those who obey the Romans, saying, He is guiding us outside the law of Moses away from the service of God. He is leading us to a foreign power and a foreign race. That is indeed why Luke says, They could not catch him at fault in his teaching before the people.^[1] For it is publicly, that is to say, in the midst of the people, that they are questioning him, in order to set the people against him. And if he does not permit the tax to be paid, the Herodians will immediately lay their hands on him as on one who does not submit to the Roman authorities.

Observe what is the passion of hypocrisy, how it has hidden all the hostility and the homicidal thought of the Jews beneath flattery’s vile veil, and how those who hate involuntarily honor as they attempt to cause a death. Indeed, those who were saying, We are the disciples of Moses, but we don’t know where that one is from^[2] call him Master. Those who were calling him a deceiver and seducer say, We know that you are truthful. Those who were doing their best to resist with jealousy and with ignorance, saying, This man does not come from God, because he does not observe the Sabbath and he has a demon^[3] witness that he teaches the way of God in all truth.

What then does the Wisdom and the Word of God do? Jesus allows all their passion to appear for all to see, without them taking back the words they were speaking to no purpose. And like a skillful physician, he then lances their passion with a deep incision, when he cut with the first word. Why are you testing me, hypocrites? And after having shown by a reproach that the skin of deceitful hypocrisy was dead, it is gently, and to speak this way, insensibly and tranquilly that he nipped like the web of a spider their inescapable question. Indeed, he said, Show me a denarius for the tax. And they presented a coin. And he said to them, This image and this inscription concern whom? They said to him, Caesar. Then he said to them, Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s. If the coin is Caesar’s, Jesus says, because that is what you have said—it is necessary to give it to Caesar himself.

What then! You permit us to serve a man, and not god? And how is this not a violation of the law? It will amount to nothing. Indeed, the act of giving tax to Caesar does not prevent the service of God, although you would like to think so. This is why it is necessary for you to give to God equally what is God’s, in such a manner that if what is Caesar’s is kept for the service of God, it is necessary that God be preferred to him. If you remain a tributary of Caesar, you should attribute this to your sins, not to God. In the same way, Paul similarly applies himself to the same distinction. In sending a letter to the Romans he wrote, Pay to the world, therefore, what is due to the world; to those you owe taxes, taxes; to those you owe tribute, tribute.^[1]

The image of God is not depicted on gold but is imaged in humanity. The coin of Caesar is gold; that of God, humanity. Caesar is seen in his currency; God, however, is known through human beings. And so give your wealth to Caesar but reserve for God the sole innocence of your conscience, where God is beheld. For the hand of Caesar has crafted an image by likenesses and lives each year by renewable decree. However, the divine hand of God has shown his image in ten points.

What ten points? From five carnal ones and five spiritual ones^[1] through which we see and understand what things are useful under God’s image. So let us always reflect the image of God in these ways:

I do not swell up with the arrogance of pride;

nor do I droop with the blush of anger;

nor do I succumb to the passion of avarice;

nor do I surrender myself to the ravishes of gluttony;

nor do I infect myself with the duplicity of hypocrisy;

nor do I contaminate myself with the filth of rioting;

nor do I grow flippant with the pretension of conceit;

nor do I grow enamored of the burden of heavy drinking;

nor do I alienate by the dissension of mutual admiration;

nor do I infect others with the biting of detraction;

nor do I grow conceited with the vanity of gossip.

Rather, instead, I will reflect the image of

God in that I feed on love;

grow certain on faith and hope;

strengthen myself on the virtue of patience;

grow tranquil by humility;

grow beautiful by chastity;

am sober by abstention;

am made happy by tranquility;

and am ready for death by practicing hospitality.

It is with such inscriptions that God imprints his coins with an impression made neither by hammer nor by chisel but has formed them with his primary divine intention. For Caesar required his image on every coin, but God has chosen man, whom he has created, to reflect his glory.

On what day? On the day when the Pharisees returned, the Sadducees acquiesced. The Sadducees then returned, and in turn the Pharisees withdrew. So it was one opponent and then another through many days of struggle. They accosted him frequently so that one or the other might be able to best him, or if they were not able to put him down squarely, they might instead subvert others’ judgment of him. So they frequented his company. Among the more numerous enemy is found the stronger warrior. While they were not able to put him down simply by words, they all surrounded him. They could not overcome him by strength; they sought to turn everyone against him, with the multitude following.

There were two heresies among the Jews: one of the Pharisees and the other of the Sadducees. The Pharisees preferred tradition and the observance of the law, which two things they referred to as divine service. They preferred them over justice. The Sadducees, however, were thought to be just and punished themselves because they were not. Hence the two parties were thought by the people to be quite different. The Sadducees denied everything about the resurrection. As we find in the Acts of the Apostles, they were opposed to the believers and confessors of the resurrection of the body and soul.^[1] These are the two houses about which Isaiah clearly teaches^[2] that because they had climbed high they would surely be knocked down on the ground.

He introduced the heresy of the Sadducees, who said that there was no resurrection of the dead. Of all the propositions to be justly made, he demolished this one. For in everything and in every act, whether corporal or spiritual, the power of action is the hope of future reward. For he who plows does so in order to reap. He who fights does so in order to win. For when it becomes so difficult in this world to serve the sanctity of justice, who would be content to put out such effort against themselves every single day, unless he aspired to the hope of the resurrection? Take away the hope of the resurrection and the entire practice of religion is undermined. For didn’t the Sadducees believe that there was marriage after death? There is not. For how could they believe that there was marriage after death when they denied the resurrection? But in defense of their own error they thought that they themselves had found an even more acute reason, speaking this way among themselves: For so it is not possible that she who was the wife of seven men could be the wife of only one or the common wife of all. Thus they thought it not possible that there is a resurrection of the dead.

Watch him answering these like a deft teacher. For though they deceitfully came to him, yet their question was one of ignorance. Therefore he does not say to them, You hypocrites.

To avoid censure for the fact that the seven brothers had one wife, they refer to Moses’ authority. However, I believe that their whole story was just a fiction. For the third would not have taken her when he saw the two bridegrooms dead, or if the third, yet not the fourth or the fifth; and if even these, much more the sixth or the seventh would not have come to the woman but have shrunk from her. For such is the custom of the Jews. If they now still have this resistance, how much more did they have it then? They often avoided marrying under these circumstances, even when the law was constraining them.

What does Christ say? He replies to both, as taking his stand not against their words but their purpose. On every occasion he revealed the secrets of their hearts, at one time exposing them, at another time leaving the refutation of them that question him to their conscience. See, at any rate here, how he proves both points, as well that there will be a resurrection. And it will not be such a resurrection as they suspect.

For what does he say? You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For since they put forward Moses and the law as if they knew them, he shows that this question is that of men ignorant of the Scriptures. They tempted him because they did not know the Scriptures as they should and because they were also ignorant of the power of God.

For what marvel then is it, he says, if you tempt me? I am as yet unknown to you. You do not even know the power of God, although you appear to have had much experience. Yet neither from common sense or from the Scriptures have you become acquainted with it. Even common sense causes us to know this: that to God all things are possible.

On account of these things, they erred since they did not know the Scriptures. Because they were ignorant of the Scriptures, they denied the power of God, that is, Christ, who is the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Our Savior does not explain the meaning of the passage from Moses’ law, rejecting them as unworthy of the knowledge of such a great mystery. He only represents matters in the simplest way as he speaks and teaches from the divine Scriptures concerning the resurrection of the dead. He teaches that there is no marriage in heaven but that those who are risen from the dead are like the angels in heaven. And, just as the angels in heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage, so he says it is with those who are risen from the dead. But I think he means that only those who are considered worthy of the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage as the angels in heaven. Furthermore, their humble bodies are changed to become like the bodies of the angels, ethereal and brilliant.

Idiots! They thought that this world was like the next. In this world because we die, so there too we die since we are born. Hence we take wives, since in dying this life is made less, but in being born it is increased. Therefore remove the necessity of death and the usefulness of being born will be found superfluous. Remove the utility of being born and the reason for marriage is explained. For this world is of the flesh; that one, of spirits. As the soul in this world is a pilgrim, so the flesh in that world is extraneous. In this world, the soul is subject to the flesh, that is, to human passions, where in the other world, the flesh is subject to the spirit. A particular thing is always stronger in its own country and it overcomes. So if the soul, powerful as it is, can be closed up in this infirm world and so be subdued by the grip of the body, so that nothing by its own efforts is able to grow or increase spiritually in its own nature, then how much more so in that world will our weak and vile flesh become worthy of our spiritual dignity and nothing be able to grow physically or to increase according to its own nature?

He has spoken about fasting, almsgiving and certain other spiritual works. Yet we have heard nothing so far about the likeness of the angels. But in speaking of intercourse between men and women, he says, For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like angels in heaven. Why? The work of reproduction is characteristically a fleshly act that we share in common with animals. Just as all carnal powers have affinity with the animals, so also do all spiritual powers have affinity with the angels. This is preeminently so for chastity, an especially angelic practice. For through this characteristic alone, the chaste are distinctively like the angels, and their nature is overcome with virtues. For the same reason he says, Neither do they marry nor are they given in marriage but are like the angels of God in heaven. For when we marry, because animals have this in common with us, we profess ourselves to be animals. So when we live chastely, because it is outside of our nature, we escape the nature of the flesh and we become coequals with the angels.

It is again by Moses that he stops their mouths. It is they who had brought forward Moses. Jesus says, And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead but of the living. He is not the God of those who are not, who are utterly blotted out and rise no more. He did not say I was but I am. I am the God of those that are, those who live. Adam lived on the day he ate of the tree, then died in the sentence. Even though the progeny of Adam died, they live in the promise of the resurrection. How then does he say elsewhere, That he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living?^[1] But this is not contrary to that. For here he speaks of the dead, who are also themselves to live. Furthermore, I am the God of Abraham is another thing from That he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. He knew of another death too, concerning which he says, Let the dead bury their dead.^[2]

And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at his teaching. Yet not even here did he persuade the Sadducees. They go away defeated, while the crowd, with less vested interests, reaps the benefit.

Further, he quotes Moses to explain the eternity of souls: I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, and immediately he adds, For he is not the God of the dead but of the living. Thereby he shows that souls live after death. To say that God is the God of the dead is to consign the life of God to those who have no life. The nature of the resurrection and how it is the resurrection of both the good and the evil is pursued by the apostle Paul more fully in the last part of his first epistle to the Corinthians.^[1]

For if Abraham and Isaac and Jacob might forever perish through death,^[1] then God never could be spoken of as their God, the God of those who were no more. As we have seen in previous debates, Jesus takes a proposition from an empty extended hand of a deceiver and then searches out its reasons, and then he presents plausible arguments and answers to it, however absurd it may be. We do well to follow Christ in his ways of presenting arguments clearly and in good order.

In this case Jesus, in discoursing with the Sadducees and because of their ignorance in knowing even themselves, proposed first a rational argument by analogy, saying, For in the resurrection, they do not marry, nor do they take wives, but they will be like the angels of God in heaven. Then he argues according to the authority of Scripture, saying I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.

So today we may use both arguments from reason and the authority of Scripture in our conversations with those who would twist the truth. However, from whatever source a proposition is put to partners in dialogue, first we outline our argument and then give our authority for it. We are seeking to persuade our hearers by our arguments and then confirm it with legitimate authority. However, our purpose is not merely to convince deceivers but to teach true seekers. Among those prone to deception, even if they understand an argument, they are less likely to consent to it. Yet for people seeking the truth honestly, it suffices only to explain our reasons, so they can understand a proposition, learn it and not deny it. On account of this, the true seekers may come to faith because of the arguments they have heard.