<p>22:6&nbsp;<em>While the rest seized his servants</em>- &quot;Took /seized&quot; means to lay hands on by force, and has just been used about the Jews' desire to arrest the Lord (21:46 &quot;They sought to&nbsp;<em>lay hands on</em>&nbsp;Him&quot;). And it's used in that connection when they did finally 'take' Him to death (26:4,48,50,55,57).&nbsp;</p><p><em>Treated them shamefully</em>- Again, the very word used about the Lord's final sufferings: &quot;He shall be&nbsp;<em>treated shamefully</em>&quot; (Lk. 18:32). The point is, that the Lord's final crucifixion sufferings were to be shared by His people as they took His appeal to the Jews. Paul seems to have grasped this, for he uses this same word in precisely this context: &quot;We were&nbsp;<em>shamefully treated</em>&quot; by the Jews when preaching the Gospel to them (1 Thess. 2:2; Acts 14:5). Paul saw himself in the parables- just as we should. Paul describes himself as having been &ldquo;shamefully entreated&rdquo; when he brought the Gospel to Philippi (1 Thess. 2:2)- using the Greek word used in Mt. 22:6 concerning how the messengers sent to the vineyard were &ldquo;entreated spitefully&rdquo;. And maybe Paul was consciously aware that the Lord Himself had spoken of how He would be &ldquo;spitefully entreated&rdquo; (Lk. 18:32) during His final sufferings. Hence Paul could speak of filling up the measure of Christ&rsquo;s sufferings through what he suffered whilst preaching Christ&rsquo;s Gospel (Col. 1:24).</p><p><em>And killed them</em>- To put to death, the same word used about the Lord's crucifixion (16:21; 17:23; 21:38). The killing or slaying s.w. of the Son sent to the vineyard in 21:39 was to be repeated in the slaying of the first century preachers of the Gospel. Even today, our sufferings for preaching the Gospel are a share in the Lord's crucifixion sufferings.</p><p>The question arises: Why the extreme treatment of the servants by those invited, and why does the King react so devastatingly in destroying their entire city? Marriages of King's sons were political statements. Often the King's son would be pronounced as heir to the throne when he got married. The guests were invited in order to test their political loyalty to the King and his son. To refuse an invitation to a King's banquet was therefore highly significant- it was tantamount to a declaration of disloyalty. Even worse was to accept it, to proclaim loyalty to him and his son, and yet in practice not follow through with that declaration of loyalty. Israel's widespread acceptance of John, whose message was largely about Jesus (Acts 19:4), had been a declaration of loyalty to God and His Son. To not take it seriously in practice and to in fact turn against His Son was therefore the ultimate betrayal. This explains the King's anger, the wrath of God against Israel as a whole.</p><p>The persecution of the prophets connects with the same thing happening in Rev. 11, where the two witnesses make a similar last-minute appeal amidst great opposition.&nbsp; We have commented elsewhere how the true prophets within Jerusalem at the time of the Babylonian invasion represented the Elijah ministry - and they too were persecuted.&nbsp;&nbsp; The servants were &quot;entreated spitefully&quot; (Mt. 22:6), as was our Lord on the cross (Luke 18:32).&nbsp;The righteous fellowship Christ's sufferings during the tribulation.&nbsp;The idea of persecuted servants occurs again in Rev. 11:18;&nbsp;19:2, both of which passages have an application to latter-day persecution.</p>