Movatterモバイル変換

Meyer's NT Commentary

CHAPTER 22

Matthew 22:4.ἡτοίμασα] Following B C* D Lא, 1, 22, 23, we should, with Lachm. and Tisch., readἡτοίμακα because of the preponderance of manuscript authority.

Matthew 22:5.ὁ μὲν …ὁ δέ] B L, min. Or.:ὃς μὲν …ὃς δέ. So Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. To be preferred on the strength of this external authority, particularly as C*א, which haveὁ μὲν …ὃς δέ, cannot be regarded as counter-evidence.

Forεἰς τήν, Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. readἐπὶ τήν, following B C Dא, min. Or. Correctly;εἰς is a mechanical repetition of the one preceding.

Matthew 22:7. The Received text hasἀκούσας δὲ ὁ βας. Of the numerous readings, the simpleὁ δὲ βασιλεὑς is the one favoured by B Lא, min. Copt. Sahid., while most of the other witnesses haveκαὶ ἀκ.ὁ βας. (so Fritzsche, Scholz, Tisch. 7). Lachm. readsὁ δὲ βας.ἀκούσας, but only following min. It. Vulg. Arm. Ir. Chrys. Eus. In presence of such a multiplicity of readings, we ought to regard the simpleὁ δὲ βας. as the original one (so also Tisch. 8), to which, in conformity with Matthew’s style (comp. on the reading of the Received text, especiallyMatthew 2:3),ἀκούσας was added, being inserted sometimes in one place and sometimes in another. Many important witnesses insertἐκεῖνος afterβασιλ. (D and codd. of It. Lucif. place it before), a reading which is also adopted by Scholz and Tisch. 7 (therefore:κ.ἀκούσας ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐκεῖνος). It is not found in B Lא, min. Copt. Sahid. codd. of It. Vulg. Ir. It, too, has been inserted mechanically as being in accordance with Matthew’s usual manner; it would scarcely have been omitted as being somewhat in the way because of theἐκεῖνος which follows.

Matthew 22:10ὁ γάμος] Tisch. 8 :ὁ νυμφών, following B* Lא. A mistaken gloss, forνυμφών means the bride-chamber.

Matthew 22:13.ἄρατε αὐτὸν καὶ ἐκβάλετε] Lachm. Tisch. 8 :ἐκβάλετε αὐτόν, following B Lא, min. vss. and Fathers. The wordἄρατε, not being needed to complete the picture, was struck out. The reading of the Received text ought to be maintained. The genuineness of theἄρατε is likewise confirmed by the glossἄρατε αὐτὸν ποδῶν κ.κειρῶν, which came to be substituted forδήσαντες αὐτοῦ πόδ.κ.χεῖρας (so D, Cant. Verc. 22 :Colb. Corb. 2, Clar. Ir. Lucif.).

Matthew 22:16.λέγοντες] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. 8 :λέγοντας, following B Lא, 27, vss. (?). An improper emendation.

Matthew 22:23.οἱ λέγοντες] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have deleted the article, following B D M S Zא, min. Or., no doubt; but incorrectly, for it is indispensable, and would be readily enough overlooked in consequence of the OI which immediately precedes it.

Matthew 22:25. Forγαμήσας, with Lachm. and Tisch., following B Lא, min. Or. readγήμας, a form which the copyists would be very apt to exchange for one of more frequent occurrence in the New Testament.

Forκαὶ ἡ γυνή,Matthew 22:27, read, with Tisch. 8, simplyἡ γυνή, in accordance with the preponderance of evidence.

Matthew 22:28. Instead ofἐν τῇ οὖν ἀναστ., we should, with Lachm. and Tisch., readἐν τ.ἀναοτ.οὖν, following B D Lא, min. The reading of the Received text was intended to be an emendation as regards the position of theοὖν.

Matthew 22:30.ἐκγαμίζονται] Lachm. Tisch. 8 :γαμίζονται, following B D Lא, min. Clem. Or. (twice) Ath. Isid. The compound form, besides being obviously suggested by Luke, is intended to be more precise, so as to bring out the reference to women. Neither of the words belongs to the older Greek, hence the variations are not of a grammatical nature.

τοῦ θεοῦ] wanting in B D, 1, 209, vss. and Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. Left out, in accordance withMark 12:25.

Matthew 22:32.οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ θεὸς θεός] The secondθεός is deleted by Lachm., following B LΔ, min. Copt. Sahid. Or. (?). It is likewise wanting in Dא, min. Eus. Chrys., which authorities drop the article before the firstθεός. Tisch. 8 follows them, simply readingοὐκ ἔστιν θεός. The sufficiently attested reading of the Received text is to be adhered to; it was simplified in accordance with Mark and Luke.

Matthew 22:35.καὶ λέγων] not found in B Lא, 33, vss. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. The omission, though opposed to Matthew’s usual style (Matthew 12:10,Matthew 17:10,Matthew 22:23;Matthew 22:41,Matthew 27:11), is in accordance withMark 12:28.

Matthew 22:37.Ἰησοῦς] is to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch., following B Lא, 33, Copt. Sahid. Inserted fromMark 12:29.

ἔφη] having decisive evidence in its favour, is to be preferred toεἶπεν of the Received text.

Matthew 22:38. Forπρώτη κ.μεγάλη, read, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.:ἡ μεγάλη κ.πρώτη, following B D (which latter, however, omitsἡ) L (which, however, inserts the article also beforeπρώτη) Zא, min: vss; Hilar.;πρώτη would be placed first as being the chief predicate. Comp.δευτέρα below.

Matthew 22:40.καὶ οἱ προφῆται κρέμανται] B D L Zא, 33, Syr. Vulg. It. Tert. Hil.:κρέμαται καὶ οἱ προφ. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. The reading of the Received text is an exegetical correction.

Matthew 22:44.ὑποπόδιον] B D G L ZΓ Δ א, min. vss: Aug.:ὑποκάτω. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The reading of the Received text is taken from the Sept. and Luke.

Matthew 22:1.Καὶ ἀποκρ.ὁ Ἰης.πάλιν εἶπεν,κ.τ.λ.] In the full consciousness of His mission and His own superiority, Jesus replied (ἀποκρ., see note onMatthew 11:25) to their hostileζητεῖν, which only fear of the people kept in check, by adding another parabolic address (ἐν παραβ. plural of the category). Olshausen and Keim are not justified in doubting this connection on the ground thatMatthew 21:45 f. is, as they suppose, the formalconclusion. The parable as given inLuke 14:16 ff. is not a Pauline modification of the one before us (Baur, Hilgenfeld), but is rather to be regarded as representing an imperfect version of it which had found its way into the document consulted by Luke.Others are of opinion that the parable inLuke 14:16 ff. is the more original of the two, and that here it is interwoven with another (Matthew 22:8 ff.), the introduction to which, however, has disappeared, and that, in the process, still a third feature (Matthew 22:6-7) has been added from the parable which precedes (Ewald, Schneckenburger, de Wette, Strauss, Weizsäcker, Keim, Scholten). But coming as it does after the remark ofMatthew 21:45 f., asomewhat copious parable such as that before us, so far from being a mere heaping of passage upon passage, is intended to serve as aforcible concluding address directed against His obdurate enemies,—an address, too, which does not interrupt the connection, since it was delivered before those for whom it was intended had had time to withdraw (Matthew 22:15). As, in presence of such obduracy,thoughts of the divine love and of the divine wrath could not but crowd into the mind of Jesus; so, on the other hand, there could not fail to be something corresponding to this in their parabolicutterance.

Matthew 22:2 f. Onγάμους ποιεῖν,to prepare a marriage feast, comp. Wetstein and Xen.de rep. Lac. i. 6;Tob 8:19. Michaelis, Fischer, Kuinoel, Paulus are mistaken in supposing that what is meant is afeast on the occasion of his son’s accession to the throne.

The Messiah is thebridegroom (Matthew 25:1;Revelation 21:2;Revelation 21:9), whosemarriage represents the setting up of His kingdom. Comp.Matthew 9:15,John 3:29, and note onEphesians 5:27.

καλέσαι]i.e. to tell those who had been previously invited that it was now time to come to the marriage. Comp.Matthew 22:4;Luke 14:17. For instances of such repeated invitations, see Wetstein.

ἀνθρ.βασιλ.] as inMatthew 18:23;ὁμοιώθη, as inMatthew 13:24.

Matthew 22:4.Τὸ ἄριστον] not equivalent toδεῖπνον (seeLuke 14:12; Bornemann,ad Xen. Cyr. ii. 3. 21), nor ameal generally, but in the sense ofbreakfast, prandium (towardsmid-day, Joseph.Antt. v. 4. 2), with which the series of meals connected with marriage was tobegin.

ἡτοίμακα (see critical remarks):paratum habeo.

καὶ πάντα]and everything generally.

Matthew 22:5 ff.Ἀμελήσαντες]having paid no attention, said with reference merely to those who went away; for the others,Matthew 22:6, conducted themselves in a mannerdirectly hostile. This in answer to Fritzsche, who holds that Matthew would have expressed himself more precisely:οἱ δὲ ἀμελ.,οἱ μὲν ἀπῆλθον …οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ,κ.τ.λ. Instead of so expressing himself, however, he leaves it to appear from the context that the firstοἱ represents themajority of those invited, while theοἱ δὲ λοιποί constitute the remainder, so that the general form of expression (οἱ δὲ ἀμελ.,κ.τ.λ.) finds its limitation inοἱ δὲ λοιποί. This limitation might also have been expressed byοἱ δέ alone, in the sense ofsome, however (see Kühner, II. 2, p. 808).

εἰς τὸν ἴδιον ἀγρόν]to his own farm (Mark 5:14;Mark 6:36), so that he preferred his own selfish interests to being present at the marriage of the royal prince, as was also the case with him who went to his merchandise. Forἴδιος, comp. note onEphesians 5:22.

Matthew 22:8.Οὐκ ἦσαν ἄξιοι] Comp.Acts 13:46. “Praeteritum indignos eo magispraetermittit,” Bengel. To represent the expedition against the rebels, and the destruction of their city as actually taking place while the supper is being prepared,—a thing hardly conceivable in real life,—is to introduce an episodequite in accordance with the illustrative character of the parable, which after all is only afictitious narrative. Comp., for example, the mustard seed which grows to atree; the olive on which thewild branch is engrafted, Romans 11, etc.; see also note onMatthew 25:1 f.

Matthew 22:9.Ἐπὶ τὰς διεξόδους τῶν ὁδῶν]to the crossings of the roads, where people were in the habit of congregating most. It is evident fromMatthew 22:7, according to which the city isdestroyed, that what is meant is not, as Kypke and Kuinoel suppose, the squaresin the city from which streets branch off, but the places wherethe country roads cross each other. Comp.Babyl. Berac. xliii. 1. Gloss.: “Divitibus in more fuit, viatores pauperes ad convivia invitare.”

Matthew 22:10.Ἐξελθόντες] from the palace of the king out into the highways.

συνήγαγον] through their invitation, which was accepted.

πονηρ.τε καὶ ἀγαθ.] not “locutio quasi proverbialis,” Bengel, but they proceeded on the principle of not inquiring whether the parties in question were at the time morally bad or good, provided they only accepted the invitation. The separation between the bad and the good was not to be made by them, but subsequently by the king himself, and that according to a higher standard. Accordingly, the separation takes place inMatthew 22:11 ff., where the man who has no wedding garment represents theπονηροί.

ὁ γάμος] not equivalent toνυμφών, butthe wedding (i.e. the marriage feast, as inMatthew 22:8; comp. Hom.Od. iv. 3,Il. xviii. 491), was full of guests. The emphasis, however, is onἐπλήσθη.

Matthew 22:11 f.Ἔνδυμα γάμου]a dress suited for a marriage. Comp.χλανὶς γαμική, Aristoph.Av. 1693. It is true that, in interpreting this passage, expositors (Michaelis, Olshausen) lay stress on the Oriental custom of presenting handsome caftans to those who are admitted to the presence of royalty (Harmer,Beobacht. II. p. 117; Rosenmüller,Morgenl. V. p. 75 ff.); and they are all the more disposed to do so, that such a custom is calculated to make it appear with greater prominence that righteousness is afree gift, and that, consequently, man’s sin is so much the more heinous: but neither can it be proved (not fromGenesis 45:22;Jdg 14:12;2 Kings 5:22;2 Kings 10:22;Esther 6:8;Esther 8:15) that any such custom existed in ancient times, nor does the text make any allusion to it whatever, although it would have contributed not a little to bring out the idea of the parable. That those invited, however,should appear in festive attire was a matter of course, and demanded by the rules of ordinary etiquette (see Dougt.Anal. II. p. 23). The only thingintended to be represented here is themoralδικαιοσύνη, which, by faith in Christ, men are required to assume after being called to the Messianic kingdom throughμετάνοια. Comp.Matthew 6:33,Matthew 5:20. So far, our Lord’s adversaries themselves could understand the figure of the wedding garment. But, of course, the true inward basis of themoralδικαιοσύνη was to be sought in that righteousness which, as a free gift, and in virtue of the death of Jesus, would be bestowed on those whobelieved (comp. the Fathers in Calovius). The knowledge of this truth, however, had to be reserved for a later stage in the development of Christian doctrine.

ἑταῖρε] Comp. onMatthew 20:13.

πῶς εἰσῆλθες,κ.τ.λ.] a question expressive of astonishment: how has it been possible for thee to come in hither (how couldst thou venture to do so), without, etc.?

μὴ ἔχων]although thou hadst not. DifferentlyMatthew 22:11 :οὐκ ἐνδεδυμ. Comp. Buttmann,Neut. Gr. p. 301 [E. T. 351].

Matthew 22:13.Δήσαντες,κ.τ.λ.] that is, to make it impossible for him to get loose in course of theἐκβάλλεσθαι, as well as to secure against his escape subsequently from theσκότος ἐξώτερον.

αὐτοῦ πόδ.]his feet; comp. onMatthew 8:3.

For theδιάκονοι of this passage (notδοῦλοι this time, for the servants waiting at thetable are intended), seeMatthew 13:41.

ἐκεῖ ἔσται,κ.τ.λ.] not the words of the king, but, as the futureἔσται indicates, a remark on the part ofJesus, having reference to the conditionhinted at in the wordsτὸ σκότ.τ.ἐξώτ. See, further, onMatthew 8:12.

Matthew 22:14.Γάρ] introduces the reason of theἐκεῖ ἔσται,κ.τ.λ.For, so far from the mere calling availing to secure against eternal condemnation,many, on the contrary, arecalled to the Messiah’s kingdom, but comparativelyfew arechosen by God actually to participate in it. This saying has a somewhat different purport inMatthew 20:16; still in both passages theἐκλογή is not, in the first instance, the judicial sentence, but the eternal decree of God; a decree, however, which has not selected the future subjects of the kingdom in any arbitrary fashion, but has destined for this honour those who, by appropriating and faithfully maintaining the requisiteδικαιοσύνη (see onMatthew 22:11 f.), will be found to possess the corresponding disposition and character. Comp.Matthew 25:34. Similarly, too, inMatthew 24:22;Luke 18:7. It was, however, only a legitimate consequence of the contemplation of history from a religious point of view, if the Christian consciousness felt warranted in attributing even this amount of human freedom to the agency of God (Ephesians 1:4;Php 2:13), and had to be satisfied, while maintaining the human element no less than the divine, with leaving the problem of their unity unsolved (see onRomans 9:33, Remark).

Teaching of the parable: When the Messianic kingdom is about to be established, instead of those who have been invited to enter it,i.e. instead of the people of Israel, who will despise the (according to the plural) repeated invitations, nay, who will show their contempt to some extent by a violent behaviour (for which God will chastise them, and that before the setting up of the kingdom,Matthew 22:7), God will order the Gentiles to be called to His kingdom. When, however, it is being established, He will single out from among the Gentiles who have responded to the call such of them as turn out to be morally disqualified for admission, and condemn them to be punished in Gehenna.

Thefirst invitation, and which is referred to in theτοὺς κεκλημένους ofMatthew 22:3, is conveyed through Christ; thesuccessive invitations which followed were given through theapostles, who,Matthew 22:9, likewise invite the Gentiles. Comp.Matthew 28:19;Acts 1:8;Acts 13:46.

Observe in connection withτότε,Matthew 22:8, that it is not intended thereby toexclude the calling of the Gentilesbefore the destruction of Jerusalem; butsimultaneously with this event the work of conversion was to be directed inquite a special manner toward the Gentiles. The destruction of Jerusalem was to form the signal for the gathering in of thefulness of the Gentiles (Romans 11:25). Thus theτότε marks a grandepoch in the historical development of events, an epoch already visible to the far-seeing glance of Jesus, though at the same time we are bound to admit the discrepancy that exists between this passage and the very definite statement regarding the date of the second advent contained inMatthew 24:29. As is clear from the whole connection, we must not suppose (Weisse) thatthe man without the wedding garment is intended to representJudas; but see onMatthew 22:12. What is meant is a Christian with the old man still clinging to him. Comp. onRomans 13:14;Galatians 3:27;Ephesians 4:24;Colossians 3:12.

REMARK.

The part of the parable extending fromMatthew 22:11 onwards was certainly not spoken, so far as itsimmediate reference is concerned, with a view to the Pharisees, but was essential to the completeness of the truths that were being set forth, inasmuch as, without that part, there would be no reference to the way in which the holiness of God would assert itself at the setting up of the Messianic kingdom. And the more this latter point is brought out, the moreapplicable did it become to the case of thePharisees also, who would be able to infer from it whattheir fate was to be on that day when, even from among those who will be found to have accepted the invitation, God will single out such as appear without the garment ofδικαιοσύνη, and consign them to the punishment of hell

Matthew 22:15 ff. Comp.Mark 12:13 ff.;Luke 20:20 ff.

Οἱ Φαρισαῖοι]. now no longer in their official capacity, as deputed by the Sanhedrim (Matthew 21:23;Matthew 21:45), but on their own responsibility, and as representing aparty adopting a still bolder policy, and proceeding upon a new tack.

ὅπως] Theytook counsel (comp.λαβὼν αἵρεσιν, Dem. 947, 20),expressly with a view to. Not equivalent toπῶς, the reading in D, and originating in a mistaken gloss. Comp.Matthew 12:14. Forσυμβούλιον,consultation, comp.Matthew 27:1;Matthew 27:7,Matthew 28:12;Mark 3:6; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 43; classical writers commonly useσυμβουλή,συμβουλία.Others (Keim included), without grammatical warrant, render according to the Latin idiom:consilium ceperunt. Euthymius Zigabenus correctly renders by:συσκέπτονται.

ἐν λόγῳ]in an utterance, i.e. in a statement which he might happen to make. This statement is conceived of asa trap orsnare (παγίς, see Jacobsad Anthol. VII. p. 409, XI. p. 93), into which if He once fell they would hold Him fast, with a view to further proceedings against Him.Others explain:διʼ ἐρωτήσεως (Euthymius Zigabenus). But Jesus could not becomeinvolved in the snare unless He gave such ananswer to their queries as they hoped to elicit.παγιδεύειν,illagueare, is not met with in classical writers, though it frequently occurs in the Septuagint.

Matthew 22:16. TheHerodians are not Herod’s courtiers (Fritzsche, following Luther), but the political party among the Jews that sought to uphold the dynasty of the Herods, popular royalists, in opposition to the principle of a pure theocracy, though willing also to take part with the powerful Pharisees against the unpopular Roman sway, should circumstances render such a movement expedient. For other interpretations, some of them rather singular, see Wolf and Köcherin loc. The passage in Joseph.Antt. xiv. 15. 10, refers to different circumstances from the present. Comp. Ewald,Gesch. Chr. p. 97 ff.; Keim, III. p. 130 ff. To regard (as is done by Origen, Maldonatus, de Wette, Winer, Neander, Volkmar) those here referred to as supporters of theRoman sway generally (and not merely of theHerodian dynasty in particular), is certainly not in accordance with thename they bear. We may further observe that no little cunning was shown by the orthodox hierarchy in selecting some of the younger members of their order (who as such would be less liable to be suspected) to co-operate with a party no less hostile than themselves to the Messianic pretender, with a view to betray Jesus into an answer savouring ofopposition to the payment of the tribute.This was the drift of the flattering preface to their question, and upon His answer they hoped to found an accusation before theRoman authorities. Comp.Luke 20:20. But though the plot miscarried, owing to the answer being in theaffirmative, the Pharisees had at least succeeded in now getting theHerodians to assume a hostile attitude toward Jesus, while at the same time they would be able to turn the reply to good account in the way of rendering Him unpopular with the masses.

λέγοντες] that is, through their representatives. Comp.Matthew 11:2,Matthew 27:19.

διδάσκαλε,οἴδαμεν,κ.τ.λ.] Comp. with thiscunning, though in itself so true an instance ofcaptatio benevolentiae, thesincere one inJohn 3:2.

ἀληθὴς εἶ]true, avoiding every sort ofψεῦδος in your dealings, eithersimulando ordissimulando. In what follows, and which is still connected withὅτι, this is made more precise, being put both positively and negatively.

τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ θεοῦ]the way prescribed by God, i.e. the behaviour of men to each other which God requires. Comp.τὴν δικαιοσύνην τ.θεοῦ,Matthew 6:33;τὰ ἔργα τ.θεοῦ,John 6:28; and soPsalm 27:11;Wis 5:7;Bar 3:13.

ἐν ἀληθείᾳ]truthfully, as beseems the character of this way; see onJohn 17:19.

οὐ μέλει σοι περὶ οὐδενός]Thou carest for no man, in Thy teaching Thou actest without regard to the persons of men.

οὐ γὰρ βλέπεις,κ.τ.λ.] giving the reason for the statement contained inοἴδαμεν,κ.τ.λ.:for Thou lookest not to mere external appearances in men; to Thee it is always a matter of indifference in regard to a man’s person whether he be powerful, rich, learned, etc., or the reverse; therefore we are convinced,ὅτι ἀληθὴς εἶ καὶ τὴν ὁδὸν,κ.τ.λ.Πρόσωπον ἀνθρ. denotes theoutward manifestation in which men present themselves (comp. onMatthew 16:3). Comp.θαυμάζειν πρόσωπον,Judges 1:16. The emphasis, however, is onβλέπεις. We have not here a “natural paraphrase” of the Hebrew idiomλαμβάνειν πρόσωπον (Luke 20:21), which expresses another, though similar idea (in answer to de Wette; see onGalatians 2:6). In classical Greek,β.εἰς πρ.τινος is used in the sense of being barefaced. See Bremiad Aeschin. p. 370.

Matthew 22:17.Ἔξεστι] problem founded on theocratic one-sidedness, as though the Jews were still the independent people of God, according to theirdivine title to recognise no king but God Himself. Comp. Michaelis,Mos. R. III. p. 154. It was also on this ground that Judas the Gaulonite appears to have refused to pay the tribute. See Joseph.Antt. xviii. 1. 1. As toκῆνσος, not merely poll-tax, but land-tax as well, see onMatthew 17:25.

Καίσαρι] without the article, being used as a proper name.

ἢ οὒ] “flagitant responsum rotundum,” Bengel.

Matthew 22:18.Τὴν πονηρίαν] for they concealedmalicious designs (the reverse ofἁπλότης) behind their seemingly candid, nay, flatteringly put question, in which their object was to try (πειράζετε) whether He might not be betrayed into returning such an answer as might be used in further proceedings against Him. Apropos ofὑποκριταί, Bengel appropriately observes: “verum se eis ostendit, ut dixerant,Matthew 22:16;” but in the interrogativeτί,why, is involved the idea of: what is your design in putting such a question?

Matthew 22:19.Τὸ νόμισμα τ.κ.] “nummum aliquem ejus monetae, in qua tributum exigi solet,” Grotius. The tribute was paid in Roman, not in Jewish money. “Ubicunque numisma regis alicujus obtinet, illic incolae regem istum pro domino agnoscunt,” Maimonides inGezelah v. 18.

προσήνεγκ.αὐτῷ δηνάρ.] they had such current coin upon them.

Matthew 22:21 f. “There He catches them in their own trap,” Luther. The pointing to the image and inscription furnishes the questioners with ocular demonstration of the actual existence and practical recognition of Caesar’s sway, and from these Jesus infers not merely the lawfulness, but theduty of paying to Caesar what belongs to Caesar (namely, the money, which shows, by the stamp it bears, the legitimacy of the existing rule); but He also recognises at the same time the necessity of attending to theirtheocratic duties, which are not to be regarded as in any way compromised by their political circumstances:and to God what is God’s (what you derive from Him in virtue ofHis dominion over you). By this is not meant simply thetemple tribute, nor therepentance which God may have desired to awaken through punishing them with a foreign rule (Ebrard), nor merely the life of the soul (Tertullian, Erasmus, Neander); but everything, in short, of a material, religious, and ethical nature, which God, as sovereign of the theocratic people, is entitled to exact from them as His due. By theτὰ Καίσαρος, on the other hand, we are not to understand merely thecivil tax, but everything to which Caesar was entitled in virtue of his legitimate rule over the theocratic nation. So with this reply Jesus disposes of the ensnaring question, answering it immediately with decision and clearness, and with that admirable tact which is only met with where there is a moral insight into the whole domain of duty; in a quick and overpowering manner He disarmed His adversaries, and laid the foundation for the Christian doctrine which was more fully developed afterwards (Romans 13:1 ff.;1 Timothy 2:1 f.;1 Peter 2:13 f., 17), that it is the duty of the Christian not to rebel against the existing rulers, but toconjoin obedience to their authority with obedience to God. At the same time, there cannot be a doubt that, although, in accordance with the question, Jesus chooses to direct His reply to the first and not to the second of those two departments of duty (in answer to Klostermann’s note on Mark), the second is to be regarded as the unconditional and absolute standard, not only for the first of the duties here mentioned (comp.Acts 5:29), but for every other. Chrysostom observes that: what is rendered to Caesar must not beτὴν εὐσέβειαν παραβλάπτοντα, otherwise it isοὐκέτι Καίσαρος,ἀλλὰ τοῦ διαβόλου φόρος καὶ τέλος. Thus the second part of the precept serves to dispose of any collision among our duties which accidental circumstances might bring about (Romans 13:5). According to de Wette, Jesus, in the first part of His reply, does not refer the matter inquired about to the domain of conscience at all, but treats it as belonging only to the sphere of politics (Luke 12:14), and then adds in the second part: “You can and ought to serve God, in the first place, with your moral and religious dispositions, and should not mix up with His service what belongs to the domain of civil authority.” But such a severance of the two is not in accordance with the context; for theanswer would in that case be an answer to analternative question based on the general thought: is it lawful to be subject to Caesar, or to God only? Whereas the reply of Jesus is: you ought to doboth things, you ought to be subject to Godand to Caesar as well; the one duty isinseparable from the other! Thus our Lordrises above thealternative, which was based on theocratic notions of a one-sided and degenerate character, to the higherunity of the true theocracy, which demands no revolutions of any kind, and also looks upon the right moral conception of the existing civil rule as necessarily part and parcel of itself (John 19:11), and consequently a simple yes or no in reply to the question under consideration is quite impossible.

ἀπόδοτε] the ordinary expression forpaying what it is one’s duty to pay, as inMatthew 20:8,Matthew 21:41;Romans 13:7.

Matthew 22:22.ἐθαύμασαν] “conspicuo modo ob responsum tutum et verum,” Bengel.Οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν δέ, Euthymius Zigabenus.

Matthew 22:23. Comp.Mark 12:18 ff.;Luke 20:27 ff.; Matthew condenses.

Οὶ λέγοντες μὴ εἶναι ἀνάστ.]who assert, etc., serving to account for the question which follows. On the necessity of the article, inasmuch as the Sadducees do not say toJesus that there is no resurrection, but because theirregular confiteor is here quoted, comp. Kühnerad Xen. ii. 7. 13;Mark 12:18 :οἵτινες λέγουσι.

Matthew 22:24 ff. A free citation of the law respectinglevirate marriage,Deuteronomy 25:5, and that without following the Septuagint, which inthis instance doesnot renderיִבֵּם by the characteristicἐπυγαμβρ. If a married man died without male issue, his brother was required to marry the widow, and to register the first-born son of the marriage as the son of the deceased husband. See Saalschütz, M. R. p. 754 ff.; Ewald, Alterth. p. 276 ff.; Benary, de Hebraeor. leviratu, Berl. 1835. As to other Oriental nations, see Rosenmüller, Morgenl. V. p. 81; Bodenstedt, d. Völker des Kaukasus, p. 82; Benary, p. 31 ff.

ἐπιγαμβρεύειν, to marry as brother-in-law (levir.יבם). Comp.Genesis 38:8; Test. XII. patr. p. 599. Differentlyἐπιγαμβρ.τινι in1Ma 10:54;1 Samuel 18:22.

ἕως τῶν ἑπτά] until the seven, i.e. and in the same manner they continued to die until the whole seven were dead. Comp.Matthew 18:22;1Ma 2:38.

ὕστερον πάντων] later than all the husbands.

Matthew 22:28. Founding upon this alleged incident (which was undoubtedly a silly invention got up for the occasion, Chrysostom), as being one strictly in accordance with the law, the Sadducees now endeavour to make it appear that the doctrine of the resurrection—a doctrine which, for the purpose of being able to deny it, they choose to apprehend in a gross material sense—isirreconcilable with the law; while, by their fancied acuteness, they try to involve Jesus Himself in the dilemma of having to give an answer either disadvantageous to the law or favourable to their doctrine.

γυνή] Predicate.

Matthew 22:29. Jesus answers that, in founding uponDeuteronomy 25:5 the denial of the resurrection, which their question implies, they aremistaken, and that in a twofold respect: (1) they do not understand theScriptures, i.e. they fail to see how that doctrine actually underlies many a scriptural utterance; and (2) they do not sufficiently realize the extent ofthe power of God, inasmuch as their conceptions of the resurrection are purely material, and because they cannot grasp the thought of a higher corporeality to be evolved from the material body by the divine power. And then comes an illustration of the latter point inMatthew 22:30, and of the former inMatthew 22:31.

Matthew 22:30.Ἐν γὰρ τῇ ἀναστάσει] not:in the resurrection life, but, as inMatthew 22:28 :at the resurrection (in answer to Fritzsche), which will be signalized not by marrying or giving in marriage, but by ushering in a state of things in which men will be like the angels, therefore a higher form of existence, from which the earthly conditions of life are eliminated, in which human beings will be not indeed disembodied, but endowed with a glorified corporeality,1 Corinthians 15:44. The cessation of human propagation, not the abolition of the distinction of sex (Tertullian, Origen, Hilary, Athanasius, Basil, Grotius, Volkmar), is essentially implied in theἀφθαρσία of the spiritual body. Comp.Luke 20:36.

γαμοῦσιν] applies to thebridegroom;γαμίζονται (Apoll.de Synt. p. 277, 13), on the other hand, todaughters whoare given in marriage by their parents.

ἀλλʼ ὡς ἄγγελοι,κ.τ.λ.]but they are as the angels of God in heaven.ἐν οὐρανῷ belongs not toεἰσί, but toἄγγελοι τ.θεοῦ, because the partakers in the resurrection (and the Messianic kingdom) are not understood to be in heaven (Matthew 25:31 ff.;1 Corinthians 15:52;2 Peter 3:13; not inconsistent with1 Thessalonians 4:17). It is obvious from our passage—in which the likeness to the angels has reference to the nature of the futurebody—that the angels are to be conceived of not as mere spirits, but as possessing a supramundane corporeality. This is necessarily presupposed in the language before us. Comp.1 Corinthians 15:40;Php 2:10; Hahn,Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 267; Weiss,Bibl. Theol. p. 68; Kahnis,Dogm. I. p. 556. Theδόξα of the angels is essentially connected with their corporeality (in opposition to Delitzsch,Psychol. p. 66).

While a similar idea of the future body and the future mode of existence is met with in Rabbinical writers (see Wetstein), it is also conjoined, however, with the gross materialistic view: “Mulier illa, quae duobus nupsit in hoc mundo, priori restituitur in mundo futuro,”Sohar Gen. f. xxiv. 96.

Matthew 22:31 f.But with reference to the resurrection, set over against the foregoingἐν γὰρ τῇ ἀναστ.; the sequence of the address is indicated by the prepositions.περὶ τῆς ἀναστ. should be taken along withοὐκ ἀνέγνωτε.

ὑμῖν] imparts the vivacity of individuality to the words of Jesus. The quotation is fromExodus 3:6. His opponents had cited a passage from the law; with a passage from the law Jesus confutes them, and thus combats them with their own weapons. It is wrong to refer to this in support of the view that the Sadducees acceptedonly the Pentateuch as authoritative scripture (Tertullian, Origen, Jerome, Luther, Paulus, Olshausen, Süskind in theStud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 665). Yet these aristocrats regarded the law, and the mere letter of the law too, as possessing supreme authority.

οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ θεὸς,κ.τ.λ.] This is themajor proposition of a syllogism, in terms of which we are warranted in recognising in the passage here quoted a scriptural testimony in favour of the resurrection. The Sadducees had failed to draw the inference thus shown to be deducible from the words; henceMatthew 22:29 :μὴ εἰδότες τὰς γραφάς, a fact which Jesus has now confirmed by the illustration before us.The point of the argument does not turn upon the presentεἰμί (Chrysostom, and those who follow him), but is to this effect: seeing that God calls Himself the God of the patriarchs, and as He cannot sustainsuch a relation toward the dead,i.e. those who are absolutely dead, who have ceased to exist (οὐκ ὄντων καὶ καθάπαξ ἀφανισθέντων, Chrysostom), but only toward the living, it follows that the deceased patriarchs must be living,—living, that is, in Sheol, and living asἀναστῆναι μέλλοντες (Euthymius Zigabenus). Comp.Hebrews 11:16. The similar inference in Menasse f. Isr.de Resurr. i. 10. 6, appears to have been deduced from the passage before us. Comp. Schoettgen, p. 180.

Matthew 22:33.Οἱ ὄχλοι]ἀπόνηροι καὶ ἀδέκαστοι, Euthymius Zigabenus. Comp.Matthew 7:28.

Matthew 22:34. The following conversation respecting the great commandment is given inMark 12:28 ff. with such characteristic detail, that Matthew’s account cannot fail to have the appearance of beingincomplete, and, considering the bias of the incident (see note onMatthew 22:35), to look as if it represented acorrupt tradition. InLuke 10:25 ff. there is a similar conversation, which, however, is not given as another version of that now before us, but as connected with a different incident that took place some time before.

οἱ δὲ Φαρις.] Comp.Matthew 22:15. They had already been baffled, and had withdrawn into the background (Matthew 22:22); but the victory of Jesus over the Sadducees provoked them to make one more attempt, not to avenge the defeat of those Sadducees (Strauss), nor to display their own superiority over them (Ebrard, Lange),—neither view being hinted at in the text, or favoured by anything analogous elsewhere,—but, as was the object in every such challenge, to tempt Jesus, if that were at all possible, to give such an answer as might be used against Him, seeMatthew 22:35.

ἀκούσαντες] whether while present (among the multitude), or when absent, through the medium, perhaps, of their spies, cannot be determined.

συνήχθησαν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό] for the purpose of concerting measures for a new attack. Consequently theνομικός ofMatthew 22:35 had to be put forward, and, while the conversation between Jesus and him is going on, the parties who had deputed him gather round the speakers,Matthew 22:41. There is, accordingly, no reason to apprehend any discrepancy (Köstlin) between the present verse andMatthew 22:41.

ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό]locally, not said with reference to theirsentiments. See onActs 1:15;Psalm 2:2.

Matthew 22:35.Νομικός] the only instance in Matt.; it is met with in none of the other Gospels except that of Luke. It occurs, besides, inTitus 3:13. The word is used to signify one who isconversant with the law,ἐπιστήμων τῶν νόμων (Photius), Plut.Sull. 36; Strabo, xii. p. 539; Diog. L. vi. 54; Epictet. i. 13; Anthol. xi. 382. 19. It is impossible to show that there is any essential difference of meaning between this word andγραμματεύς (see note onMatthew 2:4); comp. on the contrary,Luke 11:52-53.

The termνομικός is more specific (jurisconsultus), and more strictly Greek;γραμματεύς, on the other hand, is more general (literatus), and more Hebrew in its character (סֹפֵר). The latter is also of more frequent occurrence in the Apocr.; while the former is met with only in 4Ma 5:3. In their character of teachers they are designatedνομοδιδάσκαλοι,Luke 5:17;Acts 5:37;1 Timothy 1:7.

πειράζων αὐτόν] different fromMark 12:28 ff., and indicating that the question was dictated by a malicious intention (Augustine, Grotius). The ensnaring character of the question was to be found in the circumstance that, if Jesus had specified any particularποιότης of a great commandment (see onMatthew 22:36), His reply would have been made use of, in accordance with the casuistical hair-splitting of the schools, for the purpose of assailing or defaming Him on theological grounds. He specifies, however, those two commandments themselves, in which all the others are essentially included, thereby giving His answer indirectly, as though He had said: supreme love to God, and sincerest love of our neighbour, constitute theποιότης about which thou inquirest. This love must form the principle, spirit, life of all that we do.

Matthew 22:36 f.What kind of a commandment (qualitative, comp.Matthew 19:18)is great in the law; what must be the nature of a commandment in order to constitute itgreat? The commandment, then, which Jesus singles out as the great oneκατʼ ἐξοχήν, and which, as corresponding to the subsequentδευτέρα, He places at the head of the whole series (ἡ μεγάλη κ.πρώτη, see the critical notes) in that ofDeuteronomy 6:5, quoted somewhat freely after the Sept.

κύριον τὸν θεόν σου]אֵת יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, in which regular designationτὸν θεόν σου is in apposition, consequently not to be rendered: “utpote Dominum tuum,” Fritzsche.

Love to God must fill the whole heart, the entire inner sphere in which all the workings of the personal consciousness originate (Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 248 ff.; Krumm, de notionib. psych. Paul. § 12), the whole soul, the whole faculty of feeling and desire, and the whole understanding, all the powers of thought and will, and must determine their operation. We have thus an enumeration of the different elements that go to make up toτὸ δεῖν ἀγαπᾶν τὸν θεὸν ὁλοψύχως τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ διὰ πάντων τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς μερῶν καὶ δυνάμεων αὐτῷ προσέχειν (Theophylact), the complete harmonious self-dedication of the entire inner man to God, as to its highest good. Comp. Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 81, ed. 2.

Matthew 22:39.But a seeond is like unto it, of the same nature and character, possessing to an equal extent theποιότης (ὅτι αὕτη ἐκείνην προοδοποιεῖ,καὶ παρʼ αὐτῆς συγκροτεῖται πάλιν, Chrysostom), which is the necessary condition of greatness, and therefore no less radical and fundamental. Comp.1 John 4:16;1 John 4:20-21;Matthew 25:40;Matthew 25:45. Euthymius Zigabenus:ἀλληλοχοῦνται κ.φεράλληλοί εἰσιν αἱ δύο. We should not adopt the readingὁμοία αὕτη, recommended by Griesbach, following many Uncials and min. (but in opposition to the vss.); nor again that of Fritzsche,ὁμοία αὐτῇ,αὕτη (conjecture). The former was presumed (comp.Mark 12:31) to be a necessary emendation, because from the commandment being immediately added, the demonstrative seemed requisite by way of introducing it. Moreover, according to the context, there would be no need for the dative in the case ofὅμοιος. The commandment is quoted fromLeviticus 19:18, after the Sept.

ἀγαπήσεις] This, the inward, moral esteem, and the corresponding behaviour, may form the subject of a command, though the same cannot be said ofφιλεῖν, which is love as a matter offeeling. Comp. onMatthew 5:44, and see in general Tittmann,Syn. p. 50 ff. Theφιλία τοῦ κόσμου (Jam 4:4), on the other hand, may beforbidden; comp.Romans 8:7; theφιλεῖν of one’s ownψυχή (John 12:25), and theμὴ φιλεῖν τὸν κύριον (1 Corinthians 16:22), may becondemned, comp. alsoMatthew 10:37.

ὡς σεαυτ.] as thou shouldst lovethyself, so as to cherish toward himno less than toward thyself that love which God would have thee to feel, and to act toward him (by promoting his welfare, etc., comp.Matthew 7:12) in such a manner that your conduct may be in accordance with this loving spirit. Love must do away with the distinction between I and Thou. Bengel: “Qui Deum amat, se ipsum amabitordinate, citra philautiam,”Ephesians 5:28.

Matthew 22:40.Those two commandments contain the fundamental principle of the whole of the commandments in the Old Testament.

ταύταις] with emphasis:these are the two commandments on which, etc.

κρέμαται]depends thereon, so that those commandments constitute the basis and essential condition of the moral character of all the others,Romans 13:8 f.;Galatians 5:14. Comp. Plat.Legg. viii. p. 831 C:ἐξ ὧν κρεμαμένη πᾶσα ψυχὴ πολίτου. Pind.Ol. vi. 125; Xen.Symp. viii. 19;Genesis 44:30;Jdt 8:24.

καὶ οἱ προφῆται] so far as thepreceptive element in them is concerned. Comp. onMatthew 5:17. Thus Jesus includes more in His reply than was contemplated by the question (Matthew 22:36) of theνομικός.

Matthew 22:41. Comp.Mark 12:35 ff.;Luke 20:41 ff. Jesus, in His turn, now proceeds to put a question to the Pharisees (who in the meantime have gathered round Him, see onMatthew 22:34), for the purpose, according to Matthew’s view of the matter (Matthew 22:46), of convincing them of their own theological helplessness, and that in regard to the problem respecting the title “Son of David,” to which David himself bears testimony, and with the view of thereby escaping any further molestation on their part. According to de Wette, the object was: to awaken a higher idea of His (non-political) mission (Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, Schenkel, Keim). This view, however, is not favoured by the context, which represents Jesus as victor over His impudent and crafty foes, who are silenced and then subjected to the castigation described in ch. 23.

Matthew 22:43 f.Πῶς ]how is it possible, that, etc.

In His question Jesus starts with what was a universalassumption in His day, viz. that David was the author of Psalms 110, which, however, isimpossible, the fact being that it was only composed in the time of this monarch, andaddressed to him (see Ewald on this psalm). The fact that Jesus shared the opinion referred to, and entertained no doubt as to the accuracy of the title of the psalm, is not to be questioned, though it should not be made use of, with Delitzsch and many others, for the purpose of proving the Davidic authorship of the composition; for a historico-critical question of this sort could only belong to the sphere of Christ’sordinary national development, which, as a rule, would necessarily bear the impress of His time. Withἐν πνεύμ. before us, the idea ofaccommodation or of aplay upon logic is not to be thought of, although Delitzsch himself maintains that something of the kind is possible. Among the unwarrantable and evasive interpretations of certain expositors is that of Paulus, who thinks that the object of the question of Jesus from beginning to end was thehistorico-critical one of persuading His opponents that the psalm wasnot composed by David, and that it contains no reference to the Messiah.[8]

ἐν πνεύματι] meaning, perhaps, that He did not do so on His own authority, butimpulsu Spiritus Sancti (2 Peter 1:21);Luke 2:27;1 Corinthians 12:3;Romans 8:15;Romans 9:2. David was regarded as a prophet,Acts 2:30;Acts 1:16.

αὐτόν]the Messiah; for the personage in the psalm is a prophetictype of theMessiah; as also the Rabbinical teachers recognised in him one of the foremost of the Messianic predictions (Wetstein, Schoettgen), and only at a later period would they hear of any other reference (Delitzsch onHebrews 1:13, and on Psalms 110.).

ἕως ἂν θῶ,κ.τ.λ.] see on1 Corinthians 15:25.

[8] For the correct view of this matter, see Diestel in theJahrb. f. D. Theol. 1863, p. 541 f.; see also the pointed elucidation, as well as refutation of the other interpretations, in Keim, III. p. 154 ff.; comp. Gess, I. p. 128 f. Then there is the explanation, frequently offered since Strauss suggested it, and which is to the effect that Jesus wished to cast discredit upon the currently received view regarding Messiah’s descent from David, and that He Himself was not descended from David,—a circumstance which is supposed to have undoubtedly stood in the way of His being recognised as the Messiah (Schenkel, Weisse, Colani, Holtzmann); all which is decidedly at variance with the whole of the New Testament, where the idea of a non-Davidic Messiah would be acontradictio in adjecto.

Matthew 22:45 f.Εἰ οὖν Δαυεὶδ,κ.τ.λ.] The emphasis rests on the correlative termsκύριον andυἱός: If, then, as appears from this language of the psalm, David, whoseson He is, according to your express confession, still calls HimLord, how is this to be reconciled with the fact that He is at the same time the psalmist’sson? Surely that styling of Him asLord must seem incompatible with the fact of suchsonship! The difficulty might have been solved in this way: according to His human descent He is David’sson; but, according to His divine origin as the Son of God, from whom He is sprung, and by whom He is sent (Matthew 9:27,Matthew 17:26;John 1:14;John 1:18;John 6:46;John 7:28 f.;Romans 1:3 f.),—in virtue of which relation He is superior to David and all that is merely human, and, by His elevation to the heavenlyδόξα (Acts 2:34), destined to share in the divine administration of things in a manner in keeping with this superiority,

He is by David, speaking under the influence of the Holy Spirit, called hisLord. The Pharisees understood nothing of this twofold relation, and consequently could not discern the true majesty and destiny of the Messiah, so as to see in Him both David’sSon andLord. Hence not one of them was found capable of answering the question as to theπῶς …ἐστι. Observe that the question does notimply a negative, as though Jesus had asked,μὴ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἐστι;

οὐκέτι] “Nova dehinc quasi scena se pandit,” Bengel.