Matthewchapter 22
46 verses · Matthew, by tradition · AD 50 to 65 · The Gospels
Jesus declared, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
Introduction
Matthew, by tradition, The Gospels, Matthew Overview.
Matthew wrote for Jewish believers who knew every party in Jerusalem by name and had argued with them all. This chapter is set on a single day of public questioning in the temple courts. Each group that comes forward brings a question built to trap the teacher in front of the people. The questions touch the three things a devout Jew cared about most, which were the rule of Rome, the life to come and the heart of the Law. Listen for how each answer turns the question back on the one who asked it. Notice too who asks the last question and why nobody replies.
Context
- Who
- Jewish readers who knew every one of the parties taking a turn
- What
- A wedding story about invited guests who refuse, followed by four questions about taxes, the resurrection, the greatest command and the Son of David.
- Where
- The courts of the temple in Jerusalem, where teachers held public debate before the crowds.
- When
- The last week before the crucifixion, at Passover, in AD 30 or AD 33.
- Why
- To show that Jesus answered every party of Jerusalem from their own Scriptures and that none of them could answer Him.
Historical context
Wedding invitations came twice. A first notice went out well in advance, and a second summons announced that the feast was ready, which is why refusing at the second call was a calculated insult, not a scheduling problem. A great man's wedding feast for his son was a public event no subject declined lightly.
Show the rest of the historical context, 4 more paragraphs
The tax question was a trap with two jaws. The poll tax was paid directly to Rome by every adult in Judea, and it was the grievance that had sparked armed revolt in AD 6 under Judas the Galilean. Say yes and lose the crowd; say no and the Herodians, a party loyal to Herod's house and to Rome, have their charge.
The coin itself carried the trap. The denarius bore the head of Tiberius and an inscription naming him son of the deified Augustus, an image and a claim that many devout Jews found offensive to carry into the temple at all. Asking whose likeness is on it made the point before he answered it.
The Sadducees' riddle used the levirate law from Deuteronomy, under which a man was to marry his childless brother's widow and raise up an heir in his name. The Sadducees denied any resurrection, so they built the most ridiculous case they could from the Law they most respected.
The final question is answered with the Shema, the confession every Jewish household recited morning and evening, the LORD is one, and you shall love him with everything, joined to the command from Leviticus about loving a neighbour.
Significance
The wedding parable told Matthew's readers where they stood: the invited guests refused, so the servants were sent to the roads to bring in anyone they found. That is how a mixed congregation came to exist.
Show the rest of the significance, 1 more paragraph
But the man thrown out for lacking a wedding garment kept it from being cheap. Getting in off the street did not mean the feast had no standards. Grace brought them in; it did not leave them as they were.
The heads below are this chapter's scenes. The numbered points under each are its verses.
The Wedding Feast and the Man Without a Garment
Matthew 22:1-3
spoke to them in parables: The kingdom is likened to "a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son," joining Hosea's imagery to the bridegroom thread begun at 9:15. The servants "call those he had invited," a second summons to guests already asked, the normal two-stage custom of that world, and they refuse.
Matthew 22:1
“And Jesus answered and spake unto them again in parables - See the notes at Mat 13:3. That is, he answered or made reply to the Pharisees, who had been enraged at him for what he had already spoken to them, Mat 21:45-46. He made a still further statement, to show how the gospel would be received and treated by them. The real answer here, as is frequently the case in the New Testament, refers to what was passing in the mind, or to the conduct of those who were addressed, not to what they said.”
1 more voice on this verseWhat preachers and commentators have said about this verse, in their own words.
Matthew 22:1
“The King is God, a great King, King of kings. Here is a marriage made for his son, Christ is the Bridegroom, the church is the bride; the gospel-day is the day of his espousals, Cant. iii. Behold by faith the church of the first-born, that are written in heaven, and were given to Christ by him whose they were; and in them you see the bride, the Lamb's wife, Rev. xxi.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
a king who prepared: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown read the vineyard parable before this one as God asking fruit of his tenants. They read this wedding as a parable of grace, where God gives. Adam Clarke notes a similar story of a king's feast in the rabbinic Bereshith Rabba.
Matthew 22:2
“The kingdom of heaven, in respect of Him who reigns there, is like a king; in respect of Him who shares the kingdom, it is like a king's son; in respect of those things which are in the kingdom, it is like servants and guests, and among them the king's armies. It is specified, A man that is a king, that what is spoken may be as by a man to men, and that a man may regulate men unwilling to be regulated by God.”
Origen of Alexandria · written before 253 · Catena Aurea by Aquinaspatristic
2 more voices on this verse
Matthew 22:2
“The kingdom of heaven - In Bereshith Rabba, sect. 62. fol. 60, there is a parable very similar to this, and another still more so in Sohar. Levit. fol. 40. But these rabbinical parables are vastly ennobled by passing through the hands of our Lord. It appears from Luke, Luk 14:15; etc., that it was at an entertainment that this parable was originally spoken. It was a constant practice of our Lord to take the subjects of his discourses from the persons present, or from the circumstances of times, persons, and places.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Matthew 22:2
“The last was a parable of the Old Testament history; and Christ is rather the last and greatest of the line of its prophets and teachers than the founder of a new kingdom. In that, God appears demanding something from men; in this, a parable of grace, God appears more as giving something to them.”
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown · Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871)reformed
He sent his servants: Jerome knew copies that read a single servant, and he took that servant as Moses, through whom the Law first called Israel. With the plural servants of most copies, he read the prophets, whom the invited guests ignored. The refusal comes first, before any violence.
Matthew 22:4-6
My oxen and fattened cattle: The king's word "everything is ready" describes a feast already spread. Yet the invited "paid no attention and went away, one to his field, another to his business". The rest go further than neglect, seizing, mistreating and killing the servants, as the tenants treated the servants one chapter earlier.
Matthew 22:4
“By the servants who were sent the second time, we may better understand the Prophets than the Apostles; that is to say, if servant is read in the first place; but if 'servants,' then by the second servants are to be understood the Apostles; The dinner that is prepared, the oxen and the fatlings that are killed, is either a description of regal magnificence by the way of metaphor, that by carnal things spiritual may be understood; or the greatness of the doctrines, and the manifold teaching of God in His law, may be understood.”
Jerome · written before 420 · Catena Aurea by Aquinaspatristic
3 more voices on this verse
Matthew 22:4
“When the prophets of the Old Testament prevailed not, nor John the Baptist, nor Christ himself, who told them the entertainment was almost ready ( the kingdom of God was at hand ), the apostles and ministers of the gospel were sent after Christ's resurrection, to tell them it was come, it was quite ready; and to persuade them to accept the offer.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
Matthew 22:4
“Other servants - Who might press it on their attention. So God repeats his message to sinners when they reject it. My dinner - This word literally denotes the meal taken about noon. It is also taken for a meal in general. As marriages were, among Eastern nations, in the evening, it refers here to a meal taken at that time. Fatlings - This word does not refer to any particular species of animals. It denotes any fat animals. As oxen are also mentioned, however, it refers here, probably, to lambs or calves, 2Sa 6:13; 1Ch 15:26.”
Matthew 22:4
“Again he sent forth other servants,.... The seventy disciples, and other ministers of the Gospel, as Barnabas and Saul, and others that were joined to, and were helpers of the apostles, who were sent, and preached to the Jews, any time before the destruction of Jerusalem: saying, tell them which are bidden; for these preachers of the word were first sent to the Jews, and preached unto them, until they by their carriage and conduct, showed themselves to be unworthy of the blessing.”
they paid no attention: Gregory the Dialogist reads the field as earthly labor pursued without measure, and the business as the hunger for worldly profit. Both errands are lawful in themselves. In Gregory's reading they become the reason a guest declines the king's wedding and the mystery of the incarnation it celebrates.
Matthew 22:5
“There follows: "But they neglected it and went away, one to his farm, another to his business." To go to a farm is to devote oneself immoderately to earthly labor; to go to business is to yearn for the profits of worldly activities. For when one person is intent on earthly labor and another is given over to the activities of this world, each refuses to consider the mystery of the Lord's incarnation and to live according to it—as if going off to a farm or to business, he declines to come to the king's wedding.”
Gregory the Dialogist · written before 604 · Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 38patristic
The rest seized his servants: Albert Barnes marks two kinds of refusal in the parable. Some guests treat the call with cool neglect, and the rest turn to open malice, abusing and killing the messengers. Barnes traces the violence to hatred of the king who sent them.
Matthew 22:6
“And the remnant ... - That is, a part made light of it; treated it with silent contempt, and coolly went about their business. The others were not satisfied with that, but showed positive malignity. Some sinners seem to be well satisfied by merely neglecting religion; others proceed against it with open violence and bitter malice. Entreated them spitefully - Used harsh and opprobrious words. Reviled and abused them. This was done because they hated and despised the king.”
sent his troops to destroy: "The king was enraged," and his troops destroy the murderers and burn their city, a judgment that falls on the killing of his servants. The burned city matches the fate of Jerusalem, burned by Rome's armies within that generation. The story goes on, and the invitation goes out again.
Matthew 22:7
“But when the king heard ... - This doubtless refers to the Jews and to Jerusalem. They were murderers, having slain the prophets; and God was about to send forth the armies of the Romans under his providential direction, and to burn up their city. See the notes at Matt. 24. Wroth - Angry; displeased.”
1 more voice on this verse
Matthew 22:7
“Jerusalem, once "the city of the Great King" (Ps 48:2), and even up almost to this time (Mt 5:35); but now it is "their city"--just as our Lord, a day or two after this, said of the temple, where God had so long dwelt, "Behold your house is left unto you desolate" (Mt 23:38)!”
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown · Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871)reformed
Matthew 22:8-10
those I invited were not worthy: The first guests "were not worthy," so the king sends his servants to the crossroads to invite "as many as you can find". The servants gather "both evil and good," and the hall fills with guests called in from the streets by the king's invitation alone.
Matthew 22:8
“He saith to His servants, that is, to the Apostles; or to the Angels, who were set over the calling of the Gentiles, The wedding is ready. Or otherwise; I suppose this first bidding to the wedding to have been a bidding of some of the more noble minds.”
Origen of Alexandria · written before 253 · Catena Aurea by Aquinaspatristic
1 more voice on this verse
Matthew 22:8
“Were not worthy - Because they made light of it, and would not come; preferring earthly things to heavenly blessings. Among the Mohammedans, refusal to come to a marriage feast, when invited, is considered a breach of the law of God. Hedayah, vol. iv. p. 91. Any one that shall be invited to a dinner, and does not accept the invitation, disobeys God, and his messenger: and any one who comes uninvited, you may say is a thief, and returns a plunderer. - Mischat ul Mesabih. It was probably considered in this light among all the oriental nations.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Go therefore to the crossroads: The word behind crossroads means the outlets of the roads, the square where many streets meet. Albert Barnes notes that the king's servants would find people of every kind gathered there. Jerome set the Gentiles at these exits, beyond the streets.
Matthew 22:9
“The highways - Literally, the “exit” or “going out” of the “paths or roads.” It means the square or principal street, into which a number of smaller streets enter; a place, therefore, of confluence, where many persons would be seen, and persons of all descriptions. By this is represented the offering of the gospel to the Gentiles. They were commonly regarded among the Jews as living in highways and hedges cast out and despised.”
both evil and good: Adam Clarke reads the filled hall as the visible church, where the preaching of the Gospel gathers the true and the false together. Matthew gives the same mixture in the net of 13:47 and the wheat and weeds of 13:24 to 30. The sorting waits for the king.
Matthew 22:10
“So these servants went out into the highways,.... Turned from the Jews, and went among the Gentiles, preaching the Gospel to them; particularly the Apostle Paul, with Barnabas, and others: and gathered together all, as many as they found, both good and bad: the Persic version reads it, "known or unknown".”
2 more voices on this verse
Matthew 22:10
“So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good--that is, without making any distinction between open sinners and the morally correct. The Gospel call fetched in Jews, Samaritans, and outlying heathen alike. Thus far the parable answers to that of "the Great Supper" (Lu 14:16, &c.).”
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown · Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871)reformed
Matthew 22:10
“The case of hypocrites, who are in the church, but not of it, who have a name to live, but are not alive indeed, is represented by the guest that had not on a wedding garment; one of the bad that were gathered in. Those come short of salvation by Christ, not only who refuse to take upon them the profession of religion, but who are not sound at heart in that profession.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
Matthew 22:11-13
not dressed in wedding clothes: One man is "not dressed in wedding clothes," and by ancient custom the host supplied such garments. So the man "was speechless" with no plea of poverty to make. The outer darkness, "where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth," sounds this refrain for the fourth time in Matthew.
Matthew 22:11
“A man which had not on a wedding garment - In ancient times, kings and princes were accustomed to make presents of changes of raiment to their friends and favourites, to refuse to receive which was an expression of highest contempt, Gen 45:22; 2Ki 10:22; Est 6:8; Est 8:15. It was, of course, expected that such garments would be worn when they came into the presence of the benefactor.”
1 more voice on this verse
Matthew 22:11
“This man was not naked, or in rags; some raiment he had, but not a wedding garment. Those, and those only, who put on the Lord Jesus, that have a Christian temper of mind, and are adorned with Christian graces, who live by faith in Christ, and to whom he is all in all, have the wedding garment.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
The Greek word for friend is hetaire, which Adam Clarke renders companion, a fellow guest at the king's banquet. Matthew gives the same word to the grumbling laborer of 20:13 and to Judas at 26:50. John Wesley sets the scene at the last day.
Matthew 22:12
“And he saith unto him, friend,.... Either in an ironical way, or because he professed to be a friend of God and Christ: how camest thou in hither, not having a wedding garment? Which way didst thou come in hither? since he did not come in by faith, in the righteousness of Christ; intimating, that he climbed up some other way, and was a thief and robber; or with what face, or how couldest thou have the assurance to come in hither in such a dress, having nothing but the filthy rags of thine own righteousness?”
3 more voices on this verse
Matthew 22:12
“He saith unto him, Friend - Rather, companion: so εταιρε 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.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Matthew 22:12
“And forasmuch as he who is in sin, and puts not on the Lord Jesus Christ, has no excuse, it follows, But he was speechless.”
Origen of Alexandria · written before 253 · Catena Aurea by Aquinaspatristic
Matthew 22:12
“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.”
John Wesley · Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament (1755)evangelical
Matthew Henry reads the binding as an irreversible sentence. The man can neither resist his punishment nor run from it. Jerome took the bound limbs, the weeping eyes and the grinding teeth as signs of a real bodily resurrection to judgment.
Matthew 22:13
“Cast him into outer darkness - See the notes at Mat 8:12. This, without doubt, refers to the future punishment of the hypocrite, Mat 23:23-33; Mat 24:51.”
1 more voice on this verse
Matthew 22:13
“Damned sinners are bound hand and foot by an irreversible sentence; this signifies the same with the fixing of the great gulf; they can neither resist nor outrun their punishment. (2.) He is ordered to be carried off from the wedding feast; When the wickedness of hypocrites appears, they are to be taken away from the communion of the faithful, to be cut of as withered branches.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
"For many are called, but few are chosen" closes the parable by holding together the wide invitation and the smaller company that wears the clothes. The saying follows the scene of a guest already inside the hall, so its warning falls on those who have come in.
Matthew 22:14
“Many are called, etc. - This verse is wanting in one of Colbert’s MSS., marked 33 in Griesbach. See the note on Mat 20:16. Many are called by the preaching of the Gospel into the outward communion of the Church of Christ; but few, comparatively, are chosen to dwell with God in glory, because they do not come to the master of the feast for a marriage garment - for that holiness without which none can see the Lord.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Render to Caesar What Is Caesar's
Matthew 22:15-17
conspired to trap Jesus: The Pharisees "conspired to trap Jesus in His words," sending their own disciples along with the Herodians, a party they otherwise opposed. The question of paying "taxes to Caesar" has no safe answer, since yes would turn the crowds away and no would supply grounds for treason.
Matthew 22:15
“The Pharisees and Herodians endeavor to entangle Jesus - This narrative is also found in Mar 12:12-17; Luk 20:20-26. Mat 22:15 Then went the Pharisees - See the notes at Mat 3:7. How they might entangle him - To entangle means to “ensnare,” as birds are taken by a net. This is done secretly, by leading them within the compass of the net and then suddenly springing it over them. So to entangle is artfully to lay a plan for enticing; to beguile by proposing a question, and by leading, if possible, to an incautious answer.”
along with the Herodians: John Wesley describes the Herodians as men attached to Herod and so zealous for Caesar, whose rule upheld Herod's family. Matthew Henry notes that the praise was true whatever the speakers meant, for Jesus is the Truth itself. Jerome reads the last phrase as showing favor to no one.
Matthew 22:16
“The Herodians - For an account of this sect, see the note on Mat 16:1. The preceding parable had covered the Pharisees with confusion: when it was ended they went out, not to humble themselves before God, and deprecate the judgments with which they were threatened; but to plot afresh the destruction of their teacher. The depth of their malice appears, 1. In their mode of attack. They had often questioned our Lord on matters concerning religion; and his answers only served to increase his reputation, and their confusion.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
1 more voice on this verse
Matthew 22:16
“Note, It is common for those that oppose one another, to continue in an opposition to Christ and his kingdom. Samson's foxes looked several ways, but met in one firebrand. If they are unanimous in opposing, should not we be so in maintaining, the interests of the gospel?”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
pay taxes to Caesar: The tax in question was the Roman poll tax, a charge on each head paid in Roman coin. Adam Clarke sets it apart from the half shekel of Exodus 30:13, which went to the temple. The question sets Caesar's claim against God's.
Matthew 22:17
“This smooth and treacherous enquiry was a kind of challenge to the answerer to fear God rather than Cæsar, and immediately they say, Tell us therefore, what thinkest Thou? Is it lawful to give tribute to Cæsar or not? Should He say tribute should not be paid, the Herodians would immediately accuse Him as a person disaffected to the Emperor.”
Jerome · written before 420 · Catena Aurea by Aquinaspatristic
1 more voice on this verse
Matthew 22:17
“First, That the Christian religion is no enemy to civil government, but a friend to it. Christ's kingdom doth not clash or interfere with the kingdoms of the earth, in any thing that pertains to their jurisdiction. Secondly, It is the duty of subjects to render to magistrates that which, according to the laws of their country, is their due.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
Matthew 22:18-19
why are you testing Me?: Jesus names their motive at once, "You hypocrites, why are you testing Me?" The hypocrite thread of the Sermon's warnings against showy piety is now spoken to men setting a trap. His request for "the coin used for the tax" brings out a denarius, the answer already in their pockets.
Matthew 22:18
“What then saith He? "Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?" Seest thou how He talks with them with more than usual severity? For since their wickedness was now complete and manifest, He cuts the deeper, first confounding and silencing them, by publishing their secret thoughts, and making it manifest to all with what kind of intent they are coming unto Him. And these things He did, repulsing their wickedness, so that they might not suffer hurt in attempting the same things again.”
John Chrysostom · written before 407 · Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 70patristic
3 more voices on this verse
Matthew 22:18
“Those that presume to tempt Christ will certainly find him too hard for them, and that he is of more piercing eyes than not to see, and more pure eyes than not to hate, the disguised wickedness of hypocrites, that dig deep to hide their counsel from him.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
Matthew 22:18
“He makes an answer not corresponding to the smooth tone of their address, but harsh, suitable to their cruel thoughts; for God answers men's hearts, and not their words. He therefore calls them hypocrites, that seeing Him to be a discerner of human hearts, they might not be hardy enough to carry through their design. Observe thus how the Pharisees spoke fair that they might destroy Him, but Jesus put them to shame that He might save them; for God's wrath is more profitable to man, than man's favour.”
Pseudo-Chrysostom · written before 500 · Catena Aurea by Aquinaspatristic
Matthew 22:18
“This is the first excellence of the answerer, that He discerns the thoughts of His examiners, and calls them not disciples but tempters. A hypocrite is he who is one thing, and feigns himself another.”
Jerome · written before 420 · Catena Aurea by Aquinaspatristic
Show Me the coin: Jesus asks for the coin the tax required, and John Gill notes that this meant Roman money in particular. Jerome observes that the denarius carried Caesar's image and was worth ten sesterces. A denarius was a day's wage, as 20:2 shows.
Matthew 22:19
“Wisdom does ever wisely, and so the tempters are best confuted out of their own words; therefore it follows, show me the tribute money; and they brought unto Him a denarius. This was a coin reckoned equivalent to ten sesterces, and bore the image of Cæsar.”
Jerome · written before 420 · Catena Aurea by Aquinaspatristic
2 more voices on this verse
Matthew 22:19
“They brought unto him a penny - A denarius: probably the ordinary capitation tax, though the poll tax in the law, Exo 30:13, Exo 30:14, was half a shekel, about twice as much as the denarius. The Roman denarius had the emperor’s image with a proper legend stamped on one side of it. It was not therefore the sacred shekel which was to be paid for the repairs of the temple which was now demanded, but the regular tribute required by the Roman government.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Matthew 22:19
“Shew me the tribute money,.... Not any money, or any sort of coin that was current among them; but that in which the tribute was usually paid, which was Roman money: and they brought unto him a penny; not as, being what was the usual sum that was paid for tribute at one time, but as a sample of what sort of money it was paid in, in Roman pence; one of which was seven pence halfpenny of our money.”
Matthew 22:20-22
Jesus turns their coin into the answer, since a denarius stamped with Caesar's image concedes his civil claim. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s" grants it. Its larger half is "and to God what is God’s," for a coin bears Caesar's image while a person bears God's.
Matthew 22:20
“Whose is this image and superscription? - He knew well enough whose they were; but he showed the excellency of his wisdom, 3dly, in making them answer to their own confusion. They came to ensnare our Lord in his discourse, and now they are ensnared in their own. He who digs a pit for his neighbor ordinarily falls into it himself.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
1 more voice on this verse
Matthew 22:20
“The Herodians were a set of men peculiarly attached to Herod, and consequently zealous for the interest of the Roman government, which was the main support of the dignity and royalty of his family.”
John Wesley · Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament (1755)evangelical
The Caesar was Tiberius, as Jerome and Adam Clarke note, and every emperor after Julius Caesar bore the name. John Wesley reads the answer as aimed at both parties. The Pharisees owed Caesar the coin they already used, and the Herodians, zealous for Caesar, owed God what is his.
Matthew 22:21
“And indeed this is a standing rule. The current coin of every nation shows who is the supreme governor of it. Render therefore, ye Pharisees, to Caesar the things which ye yourselves acknowledge to be Ciaesar's: and, ye Herodians, while ye are zealous for Caesar, see that ye render to God the things that are God's.”
John Wesley · Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament (1755)evangelical
2 more voices on this verse
Matthew 22:21
“They say unto Him, Cæsar's; not Augustus, but Tiberius, under whom also the Lord suffered. All the Roman Emperors were called Cæsar, from Caius Cæsar who first seized the chief power. Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's; i. e. the coin, tribute, or money. That is, tithes, first-fruits, oblation, and victims; as the Lord Himself rendered to Cæsar tribute, both for Himself and for Peter; and also rendered unto God the things that are God's in doing the will of His Father.”
Jerome · written before 420 · Catena Aurea by Aquinaspatristic
Matthew 22:21
“They say unto him, Caesars - The image was the head of the emperor; the superscription, his titles. Julius Caesar was the first who caused his image to be struck on the Roman coin. Tiberius was emperor at this time. Render therefore unto Caesar - The conclusion is drawn from their own premises. You acknowledge this to be Caesar’s coin; this coin is current, in your land; the currency of this coin shows the country to be under the Roman government; and your acknowledgment that it is Caesar’s proves you have submitted.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
they were amazed: Adam Clarke finds three parties served by the answer. Caesar receives his due, God keeps his honor, and the people have a hard question of conscience settled. The questioners went away, and the Sadducees came the same day with a trap of their own.
Matthew 22:22
“When they had heard these words, they marvelled - And well they might - never man spake like this man. By this decision, Caesar is satisfied - he gets his own to the uttermost farthing. God is glorified - his honor is in every respect secured. And the People are edified - one of the most difficult questions that could possibly come before them is answered in such a way as to relieve their consciences, and direct their conduct. See L’Evangile Medite, and see my discourse entitled, The Rights of God and Caesar.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
The Sadducees and the Resurrection
Matthew 22:23-25
say there is no resurrection: The Sadducees, "who say there is no resurrection," held the five books of Moses as their final authority. Their case rests on the law of Deuteronomy 25:5. There a brother marries his dead brother's childless widow to "raise up offspring for him," stretched to seven brothers married to one woman.
Matthew 22:23
“I say nothing of the Jewish heretics who before the coming of Christ destroyed the law delivered to them: of Dositheus, the leader of the Samaritans who rejected the prophets: of the Sadducees who sprang from his root and denied even the resurrection of the flesh: of the Pharisees who separated themselves from the Jews on account of certain superfluous observances, and took their name from the fact of their dissent: of the Herodians who accepted Herod as the Christ.”
Jerome · written before 420 · The Dialogue Against the Luciferians, Section 23patristic
raise up offspring for him: The custom is older than Moses, and John Gill points to Judah's sons Er and Onan in Genesis 38. Adam Clarke explains that the children of such a marriage were counted in the dead brother's line and inherited his estate. The law kept a family's name and land together.
Matthew 22:24
“Raise up seed unto his brother - This law is mentioned Deu 25:5. The meaning of the expression is, that the children produced by this marriage should be reckoned in the genealogy of the deceased brother, and enjoy his estates. The word seed should be always translated children or posterity. There is a law precisely similar to this among the Hindoos.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Cross references
Matthew 22:24
there were seven brothers: Adam Clarke judges that the Sadducees raised the number of brothers to seven to make the case harder. John Gill adds that this was a stock puzzle they had long used against the Pharisees, who taught the resurrection. The story mocks the resurrection.
Matthew 22:25
“Seven brethren - It is very likely that the Sadducees increased the number, merely to make the question the more difficult.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Matthew 22:26-28
third brothers, down to the seventh: "And last of all, the woman died" completes the case, and the question "whose wife will she be of the seven?" follows as its point. The question holds force only if the resurrection is this present life resumed unchanged, the very assumption Jesus denies at verse 30.
Matthew 22:26
“Likewise the second also,.... The eldest of the surviving brethren, having married his brother's wife, after sometime died also without children, and left her to his next brother to marry her; and the third brother accordingly did marry her, and in process of time died likewise, leaving no issue behind him; and thus they went on in course, unto the seventh: the fourth, fifth, and sixth, married her in turn, and so did the seventh; and all died in the same circumstances, having no children by her.”
the woman died: last, after all seven brothers; Adam Clarke cites a rabbinic saying from the Sohar. A woman with two husbands in this life will have the first restored to her in the world to come. Jesus answers the Sadducees at verse 30.
Matthew 22:27
“And last of all the woman died also. A widow and childless, having never married another person but these seven brethren; and the case with them being alike, no one having any child by her, upon which any peculiar claim to her could be formed, the following question is put.”
whose wife will she be: John Gill notes that the Sadducees speak of the resurrection as a supposition they deny. The Ethiopic version renders the opening as if the dead are raised. Adam Clarke calls it a libertine's question: people living without God, he adds, know no pleasure beyond the senses.
Matthew 22:28
“Therefore in the resurrection,.... As asserted by the Pharisees and by Christ, supposing that there will be such a thing, though not granting it; for these men denied it, wherefore the Ethiopic version reads it hypothetically, "if therefore the dead will be raised"; upon such a supposition, whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her, or were married to her.”
1 more voice on this verse
Matthew 22:28
“Whose wife shall she be of the seven? - The rabbins have said, That if a woman have two husbands in this world, she shall have the first only restored to her in the world to come. Sohar. Genes. fol. 24. The question put by these bad men is well suited to the mouth of a libertine. Those who live without God in the world have no other god than the world; and those who have not that happiness which comes from the enjoyment of God have no other pleasure than that which comes from the gratification of sensual appetites.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Matthew 22:29-30
do not know the Scriptures: Jesus answers a party that claimed Moses as its authority with a double charge, they "do not know the Scriptures or the power of God". The raised body remains, while marriage, which served procreation and companionship in a mortal age, has no further office once death is undone.
Matthew 22:29
“Ye do err - Or, Ye are deceived - by your impure passions: not knowing the scriptures, which assert the resurrection: - nor the miraculous power of God (την δυναμιν του Θεου) by which it is to be effected. In Avoda Sara, fol. 18, Sanhedrin, fol.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
like the angels in heaven: Jerome explains the two verbs: to marry is said of men, and to be given in marriage is said of women. The comparison with angels carries a second edge. Albert Barnes and John Gill record that the Sadducees denied the existence of angels and spirits, as Acts 23:8 also states.
Matthew 22:30
“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.”
Origen of Alexandria · written before 253 · Commentary on Matthew 17.30patristic
4 more voices on this verse
Matthew 22:30
“WE must, all of us, develop one way or the other. Manhood, as we see it here, is but the green blade, or, at the best, the corn in the ear—the full corn in the ear will only be seen in the world to come. We must either descend or ascend— none of us can remain in the position which he occupies today. Some are sliding every hour downward, descending by the force of evil habits. More and more do they become the serfs and slaves of Satan, and by consequence, more and more developed into his image.”
Matthew 22:30
“If swiftness, or strength, or freedom of body, which nothing can resist: they shall be like the Angels of God, because it is sown a natural body, and shall rise a spiritual body, by power, assuredly, not by nature.”
Bonaventure · written before 1257 · Breviloquium, Part 7patristic
Matthew 22:30
"For in the resurrection," saith He, "they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels of God in Heaven." But Luke saith, "As Sons of God." If then they marry not, the question is vain. But not because they do not marry, therefore are they angels, but because they are as angels, therefore they do not marry. By this He removed many other difficulties also, all which things Paul intimated by one word, saying, "For the fashion of this world passeth away."
John Chrysostom · written before 407 · Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 70patristic
Matthew 22:30
"But if 'in that age they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be equal to angels,' is not the fact that there will be no restitution of the conjugal relation a reason why we shall not be bound to our departed consorts? "Nay, but the more shall we be bound (to them), because we are destined to a better estate-destined (as we are) to rise to a spiritual consortship, to recognise as well our own selves as them who are ours.
Tertullian · written before 220 · On Monogamypatristic
Matthew 22:31-33
the resurrection of the dead: Jesus answers from Moses at the burning bush, the one authority the Sadducees accepted, and presses the tense of "I am the God of Abraham". The patriarchs had lain buried when God spoke. The words hold only if they still live to him, and God is God "of the living".
Matthew 22:31
Have ye not read - This quotation is taken from Exo 3:6, Exo 3:16; and as the five books of Moses were the only part of Scripture which the Sadducees acknowledged as Divine, our Lord, by confuting them from those books, proved the second part of his assertion, “Ye are ignorant of those very scriptures which ye profess to hold sacred.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Cross references
Matthew 22:31
- QuotingExodus 3:6“Then He said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” At this, Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.”
ouk anegnote to rhethen hymin hypo tou theou ('have ye not read that which was spoken unto you BY GOD'), rhethen frame naming God, not a prophet, as speaker (Nicole's God-as-author class)
the God of Abraham: John Wesley draws the force from the phrase itself. To be someone's God means a bond of benefit given and duty returned, and a bond like that needs a living partner. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob still stand in that bond with God.
Matthew 22:32
“I am the God of Abraham - Let it be observed, that Abraham was dead upwards of 300 years before these words were spoken to Moses: yet still God calls himself the God of Abraham, etc.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
1 more voice on this verse
Matthew 22:32
“I am the God of Abraham - The argument runs thus: God is not the God of the dead, but of the living: (for that expression, Thy God, implies both benefit from God to man, and duty from man to God) but he is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: therefore, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not dead, but living.”
John Wesley · Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament (1755)evangelical
Cross references
Matthew 22:32
- QuotingExodus 3:6“Then He said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” At this, Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.”
'I am the God of Abraham', resurrection argument ('have ye not read that which was spoken')
astonished at His teaching: Pseudo-Chrysostom traces the attacks of this day growing weaker. The challenge over authority came with threats, the tax question with guile, and the Sadducees with the presumption of men who thought they knew. Jerome notes that plainer texts such as Isaiah 26:19 stood ready, and Jesus answered from Moses.
Matthew 22:33
“And see how the assault of the Jews against Christ becomes more faint. Their first challenge was in a threatening tone, By what authority doest thou these things, to oppose which firmness of spirit was needed. Their second was with guile, to meet which was needed wisdom. This last was with ignorant presumption which is easier to cope with than the others. For he that thinks he knows somewhat, when he knows nothing, is an easy conquest for one who has understanding.”
Pseudo-Chrysostom · written before 500 · Catena Aurea by Aquinaspatristic
The Greatest Commandment of All
Matthew 22:34-36
Jesus had silenced the Sadducees: When the Pharisees hear that Jesus "had silenced the Sadducees," they gather. An expert in the law "tested Him" with a question the rabbinic schools argued at length. They sorted the six hundred and thirteen commandments into weightier and lighter, with no full agreement on which was greatest.
Matthew 22:34
“The Pharisees having been themselves already confuted (in the matter of the denarius), and now seeing their adversaries also overthrown, should have taken warning to attempt no further deceit against Him; but hate and jealousy are the parents of impudence. The Pharisees and Sadducees, thus foes to one another, unite in one common purpose to tempt Jesus.”
Jerome · written before 420 · Catena Aurea by Aquinaspatristic
1 more voice on this verse
Matthew 22:34
“They were gathered together - Επι το αυτο - they came together with one accord, or, for the same purpose; i.e. of ensnaring him in his discourse, as the Sadducees had done, Mat 22:23. The Codex Bezae and several of the Itala have επ’ αυτον, against him. Camen togidre into oon. - Old MS. Eng, Bib.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
an expert in the law: The Greek title is nomikos, a teacher of the law. Adam Clarke counts these men among the scribes, and Dr Wotton, as Clarke reports, likened them to the Karaites. Origen counts anyone who puts a question to a teacher to test him, and never to learn, as this Pharisee's brother.
Matthew 22:35
“All who thus ask questions of any teacher to try him, and not to learn of him, we must regard as brethren of this Pharisee, according to what is said below, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of mine, ye have done it unto me. (Matt. 25:40.)”
Origen of Alexandria · written before 253 · Catena Aurea by Aquinaspatristic
1 more voice on this verse
Matthew 22:35
“A lawyer - Νομικος, a teacher of the law. What is called lawyer, in the common translation, conveys a wrong idea to most readers: my old MS. renders the word in the same way I have done. These teachers of the law were the same as the scribes, or what Dr. Wotton calls letter-men, whom he supposes to be the same as the Karaites, a sect of the Jews who rejected all the traditions of the elders, and admitted nothing but the written word. See Wotton’s Mishna, vol. i. p.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
which commandment is the greatest: Origen fixes on the title Teacher. The address belongs to a disciple, and Origen reads it on this man's lips as a test dressed as respect. Clarke sorts the day's questioners by their ground: the Herodians argued from the rights of the ruler and the Sadducees from articles of faith.
Matthew 22:36
“He said Master tempting Him, for none but a disciple would thus address Christ. Whoever then does not learn of the Word, nor yields himself wholly up to it, yet calls it Master, he is brother to this Pharisee thus tempting Christ. Perhaps while they read the Law before the Saviour's coming, it was a question among them which was the great commandment in it; nor would the Pharisee have asked this, if it had not been long time enquired among themselves, but never found till Jesus came and declared it.”
Origen of Alexandria · written before 253 · Catena Aurea by Aquinaspatristic
1 more voice on this verse
Matthew 22:36
“Which is the great commandment - We see here three kinds of enemies and false accusers of Christ and his disciples; and three sorts of accusations brought against them. 1. The Herodians, or politicians and courtiers, who form their questions and accusations on the rights of the prince, and matters of state, Mat 22:16. 2. The Sadducees, or libertines, who found theirs upon matters of religion, and articles of faith, which they did not credit, Mat 22:23.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Matthew 22:37-40
Jesus answers with Deuteronomy 6:5, from the Shema, and calls it "the first and greatest commandment". He joins Leviticus 19:18 to it, "the second is like it," as its partner. "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" makes every other command an application of these two.
Matthew 22:37
“Therefore the first commandment teaches every kind of godliness. For to love God with the whole heart is the cause of every good. The second commandment includes the righteous acts we do toward other people. The first commandment prepares the way for the second and in turn is established by the second. For the person who is grounded in the love of God clearly also loves his neighbor in all things himself. The kind of person who fulfills these two commandments experiences all the commandments.”
Cyril of Alexandria · written before 444 · FRAGMENT 251patristic
Cross references
Matthew 22:37
- QuotingDeuteronomy 6:5“And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.”
'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart', the great commandment
the first and greatest commandment: Origen draws from this line that the commandments have ranks, from the greatest down to the least. He reads first as first in worth. The command itself stands at Deuteronomy 6:5, well into the Law, and Jesus spoke of the least of the commandments at 5:19.
Matthew 22:38
“If the Lord had given no answer to the Pharisee who thus tempted Him, we should have judged that there was no commandment greater than the rest. But when the Lord adds, This is the first and great commandment, we learn how we ought to think of the commandments, that there is a great one, and that there are less down to the least. And the Lord says not only that it is a great, but that it is the first commandment, not in order of Scripture, but in supremacy of value.”
Origen of Alexandria · written before 253 · Catena Aurea by Aquinaspatristic
the second is like it: Cyril of Alexandria binds the two commandments together. Love for God prepares the way for love of neighbor, and love of neighbor in turn establishes the first commandment. Origen reads Psalm 11:5 to mean that a lover of wickedness hates himself, and so fails to love his neighbor as himself.
Matthew 22:39
“Nor did He only teach the first and great commandment, but added that there was a second like unto the first, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself. But if Whoso loveth iniquity hath hated his own soul, (Ps. 11:5.) it is manifest that he does not love his neighbour as himself, when he does not love himself.”
Origen of Alexandria · written before 253 · Catena Aurea by Aquinaspatristic
Cross references
Matthew 22:39
- QuotingLeviticus 19:18“Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against any of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.”
'the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself'
Clarke pictures the two commandments as the first and last links of a chain, with every link of the Law and the Prophets between them. Origen pressed the hard case. He asked how the laws on leprosy and on bodily discharges hang on love for God and neighbor.
Matthew 22:40
“On these two - hang all the law and the prophets - They are like the first and last links of a chain, all the intermediate ones depend on them. True religion begins and ends in love to God and man. These are the two grand links that unite God to man, man to his fellows, and men again to God.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
1 more voice on this verse
Matthew 22:40
“After this you ask how it is that "all the law and the prophets depend upon these two commands." For it seems that the texts show us that whatever was written in Exodus or Leviticus or Numbers or Deuteronomy depend "upon these two commands." But how is the law which regards lepers or the continual flow of blood or the menstruation of women dependent "upon these two commands"?”
Origen of Alexandria · written before 253 · Commentary on Matthew 4patristic
Whose Son Is the Christ?
Matthew 22:41-42
Pharisees were assembled, Jesus questioned them: Their answer, "David’s," is correct as far as it goes, the title the crowds cried at his entry. That thread, begun when Joseph was first addressed by the title, reaches its last beat before the cross. It is confirmed by the Pharisees just before the next verse unsettles them.
Matthew 22:41
“Jesus proposes a question concerning the Messiah - See also Mar 12:35-37; Luk 20:41-44. Mat 22:41 While the Pharisees ... - Jesus, having confounded the great sects of the Jews, proceeds, in his turn, to propose to them a question for their solution. This was done, not for the purpose of vain parade and triumph, but: 1. To show them how ignorant they were of their prophecies. 2. To humble them in view of their ignorance.”
Adam Clarke presses the article: Jesus asks about the Christ, the promised Messiah, and whose son means from what family he will spring. The answer was common ground, as John 7:42 also shows. Pseudo-Chrysostom notes that his questioners had tested him all day as a mere man.
Matthew 22:42
“What think ye of Christ? - Or, What are your thoughts concerning The Christ - the Messiah; for to this title the emphatic article should always be added. Whose son is he? - From what family is he to spring? They say unto him, The son of David - This was a thing well known among the Jews, and universally acknowledged, see Joh 7:42; and is a most powerful proof against them that the Messiah is come.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
1 more voice on this verse
Matthew 22:42
“The Jews tempted Christ, supposing Him to be mere man; had they believed Him to be the Son of God, they would not have tempted Him.”
Pseudo-Chrysostom · written before 500 · Catena Aurea by Aquinaspatristic
Matthew 22:43-46
David in the Spirit call Him: Jesus quotes Psalm 110:1, where David "in the Spirit" calls the Messiah "Lord," a psalm the rabbis read as messianic. The question "how can He be David’s son" is answered by the Messiah who is David's son by descent and Lord by a greater nature.
Matthew 22:43
“This passage is out of the 109th Psalm. Christ is therefore called David's Lord, not in respect of His descent from him, but in respect of His eternal generation from the Father, wherein He was before His fleshly Father. And he calls Him Lord, not by a mere chance, nor of his own thought, but by the Holy Spirit.”
Jerome · written before 420 · Catena Aurea by Aquinaspatristic
In Psalm 110:1 the first Lord is YHWH, and Adam Clarke glosses the second Lord as master and support. Clarke reads the right hand as the seat of highest authority, and the enemies under the feet as Jews and Gentiles brought under the Christ. Jerome counts it the 109th Psalm.
Matthew 22:44
“This question is still available for us against the Jews; for these who believe that Christ is yet to come, assert that He is a mere man, though a holy one, of the race of David. Let us then thus taught by the Lord ask them, If He be mere man, and only the Son of David, how does David call Him his Lord? To evade the truth of this question, the Jews invent many frivolous answers.”
Jerome · written before 420 · Catena Aurea by Aquinaspatristic
Cross references
Matthew 22:44
- QuotingPsalms 110:1The LORD said to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”
'The Lord said unto my Lord', the Davidic-sonship question (most-cited OT verse in NT)
ConnectionsPsalms 110:1
how can He be: Jerome answers from the eternal generation, the Son's birth from the Father before any earthly father, so he is David's Lord before David's son. Jerome adds that the question still stands against any who hold the Messiah to be a mere man. Adam Clarke notes the Pharisees raised no objection.
Matthew 22:45
“How is he his son? - As the Jews did not attempt to deny the conclusion of our Lord’s question, which was, the Messiah is not only the son of David according to the flesh, but he is the Lord of David according to his Divine nature, then it is evident they could not.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
no one dared to question Him: John Gill sees the dilemma behind the silence. To answer, the Pharisees had to confess the Messiah's deity or admit ignorance of their own Scriptures, and they chose neither. Jerome remarks that envy can be beaten in argument and still find no rest.
Matthew 22:46
“And no man was able to answer him a word,.... They saw the dilemma they were reduced to, either to acknowledge the deity of the Messiah, or confess their ignorance; and neither of them they cared to do, and therefore judged it to be the wisest part to be silent.”
1 more voice on this verse
Matthew 22:46
“Neither durst any - ask him any more questions - “Thus,” says Dr. Wotton, “our Lord put the four great sects of the Jews to silence, in one day, successively. The Herodians and Pharisees wanted to know whether they might lawfully pay tribute to Caesar or not. The Sadducees were inquisitive to know whose wife the woman should be of the seven brethren, in the resurrection, who had her to wife. Then comes the scribe, (or karaite), who owned no authority beyond or besides the written law, and asked which was the great commandment in the law.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Keep studying
Studies28
Words12
Subjects1
Sources for this chapter
The summary
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory; John Calvin, Commentaries; John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament and Matthew Henry, Complete Commentary.
The context
Albert Barnes, Notes on the Book of Psalms and Charles Spurgeon, The Treasury of David on Psalm 110.
The exposition
Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Bible; Albert Barnes; Cyril of Alexandria, FRAGMENT 251; Gregory the Dialogist, Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 38; Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible; Jerome; John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists; John Gill; John Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae on Matthew; John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament; Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible; Origen of Alexandria and Pseudo-Chrysostom, Catena Aurea by Aquinas.