This verse is part of the Parable of the Wedding Feast. Obviously, the king in this parable is God, the son (groom) is Jesus, the Jews are people who were originally called to the feast, the sent ones are the prophets, apostles and saints, those called a second time are pagans, the troops are Romans, and the city is associated with Jerusalem. To summarize very briefly and superficially what this parable is about without going into depth, it is a prediction and concerns the unbelief of the Jews and, consequently, the call to the faith of the Gentiles, and Matthew 22:7 clearly indicates the destruction of Jerusalem, which is recognized by many interpreters and that generally obvious. However, there is a small problem with this story. In the parable itself, the slaves sent to look for others (i.e. pagans) were sent by the king after the destruction of the city (i.e. after the destruction of Jerusalem), however, as we know, preaching among the pagans began long before the destruction of Jerusalem. Considering the historical accuracy of other fragments about the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem, and also, on the one hand, the insignificance of this verse in the context of the entire parable (after all, its message is in another, and if you remove the fragment about the destruction of the city, then its meaning will not change at all) and the significance of this verse in the context of early Christian history, I thought it might be an addition. It really seems to me that she somehow stands out, but these are just my feelings. However, there is another thing that surprised me. The commentary on Matthew by N. T. Wright, an influential theologian, indicates that this passage may be an addition. That is, such ideas in the circle of scientists still wander. What are your thoughts on this?
(Sorry for my English if it's bad, I use a translator).
(Sorry for my English if it's bad, I use a translator).
Last edited:
