Then the Pharisees went and took counsel how they might entrap him in his talk. They sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are honest, and teach the way of God in truth, no matter whom you teach, for you aren’t partial to anyone. Tell us therefore, what do you think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?”
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, “Why do you test me, you hypocrites? Show me the tax money.” They brought to him a denarius.
He asked them, “Whose is this image and inscription?”
They said to him, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Give therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
When they heard it, they marveled, and left him, and went away.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv15, 16, 17, 19 Snare him in his words or talk. The Greek…
Snare him in his words or talk. The Greek word is derived of snares which hunters lay.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv15–22 15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how…
15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
Ver. 15. Then went the Pharisees] They were, as one saith, Puncti et repuncti, minime tamen ad resipiscentiam compuncti. They were stung with the former parables, and grew more enraged. It is a vain persuasion for any godly man to think by any discretion wholly to still and escape the clamours and hates of wicked persons; Christ himself could not do it.
Read full note →
How they might entangle him in his talk] As beasts are in the hunter’s toil, or birds in the fowler’s net. {a} Every man hunteth his brother with a net, was an old complaint, Mic 7:2. And, "They make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate," &c., Isa 29:21. Doctor Story’s rule to know a heretic was, They will say, The Lord, and, We praise God, and, The living God. So, The Lord, and not to say, Our Lord, is called by Stephen Gardiner, Symbolum haereticorum, the heretic’s badge. But God will take these wizards in their own craft, 1Co 3:19, he will catch them in their own cunning, he will over shoot them in their own bow, he will take his handful of them, so that they shall not make escape, as the word there signifies, οο δρασσομενος, comprehendens et quasi manum complens. Aret.
{a} παγιδευσωσι, Metaph. a venatione ferarum. Piscator. Metaph. a feris quibus tenduntur laquei et retia. Par.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv15, 16, 18 Mark saith, Mar 12:13, They send unto him certain…
Mark saith, Mar 12:13, They send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words. Luke saith, Luk 20:20, They watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor. His life was what they sought for. This they had no power allowed by the Romans to take away without the sentence of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor. That they might have something to accuse him of before him, which he might condemn him for, they first take counsel. They saw he did nothing worthy of death; they therefore issue their counsels in a resolution to send some persons to discourse with him, under the pretence of conscientious, good men, to propound some questions to him, his answer to which might give them some opportunity to accuse him of blasphemy or sedition. The men they pitch upon were some of them Pharisees, some Herodians.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On v15 Here we have another new design to entangle our…
Here we have another new design to entangle our blessed Saviour in his discourse.
Where observe, 1. The persons employed to put the ensnaring question to our Saviour, namely, the Pharisees and the Herodians. The Pharisees were against paying tribute to Cesar; looking upon themselves as a free people, and the emperor as an usurper. But the Herodians were for it. Herod being made by the Roman emperor king of the Jews, was zealous for having the Jews pay tribute to Cesar; and such of the Jews as sided with him, and particularly his courtiers and favourites, were called Herodians.
Read full note →
Observe, 2. The policy and wicked craft here used, in employing these two contrary sects to put the question to our Saviour concerning tribute; thereby laying him under a necessity (as they hoped) to offend one side, let him answer how he would. If to please the Pharisees he denied paying tribute to Cesar, then he is accused of sedition; if to gratify the Herodians he voted for paying tribute, then he is looked upon as an enemy to the liberty of his country, and exposed to a popular odium: it has been the old policy of Satan and his instruments, to draw the ministers of God into dislike, either with the magistrates or with the people, that they may either fall under the censure of the one, or the displeasure of the other.
Observe, 3. With what wisdom and caution our Lord answers them; he first calls for the tribute-money, which was the Roman penny, answering to seven pence halfpenny of our money, two of which they paid by way of tribute, or poll-money, for every head to the emperor.
Christ asks them whose image or superscription their coin bore? They answer, Cesar’s: Render then, says Christ, to Cesar the things that are Cesar’s. As if he had said, "The admitting of the Roman coin amongst you, is a testimony that you are under the subjection to the Roman emperor, because the coining and imposing of money is an act of sovereign authority. Now you have owned Cesar’s authority over you, by accepting of his coin as current amongst you, give unto him his just dues, and render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar’s."
Learn hence, That there was no truer paymaster of the king’s dues, than he that was King of kings; he preached it, and he practised it, Mat 17:27 And as Christ is no enemy to the civil rights of princes, and his religion exempts none from paying their civil duties; so princes should be as careful not to rob him of his divine honour, as he is not to wrong them of their civil rights. As Christ requires all his followers to render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar’s, so should princes oblige all their subjects to render unto God the things that are God’s.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22 And they sent out unto him their disciples,.... Who…
And they sent out unto him their disciples,.... Who were trained up in the same way of thinking with themselves, had imbibed the same tenets, and were strenuous defenders of them; and no doubt they selected the most crafty and artful among them; and who were the best versed in their principles and sophistic method of arguing: these they the rather sent, imagining they would not be known, as they themselves were: and from their age and air of simplicity, might be taken for innocent persons, who in great sincerity, came to be instructed by him,
with the Herodians: learned men are very much divided in their sentiments about these men; some think they were Gentiles under the government of Herod; but it is not likely that the Pharisees would join themselves with such, whose company they carefully shunned; others, that they were Gentile proselytes, as Herod was; but that on either of these accounts, they should be called by his name, there seems to be no reason: others say, they were Greeks, whom Herod brought out of a desert into his own country, and formed a sect, which from him were called Herodians: this way went Drusius, in which he was followed by several learned men, until the mistake was detected; who took it from a passage in the Hebrew Lexicon, called "Baal Aruch", mistaking the word for "Greeks", which signifies "doves": the Jewish writer referring to a passage in the Misna (m), which speaks of , "Herodian doves"; that is, tame ones, such as were brought up in houses: for that these are meant, is clear from the Misnic and Talmudic writers, and their commentators (n); and were so called, because that Herod was the first that tamed wild doves, and brought up tame ones in his own palace; and so Josephus (o) says, that he had many towers stored with tame doves, which was a new thing in Judea. Others, that they were Sadducees, which carries some appearance of truth in it; since what is styled the leaven of the Sadducees, in Mat 16:6 is called the leaven of Herod, in Mar 8:15 And very probable it is, that Herod was a Sadducee, and that his courtiers, at least many of them, were of the same sect; but yet it is certain, that the Sadducees are spoken of, as distinct from these Herodians, in Mat 22:23 of this chapter. Others, that they were a set of men, that formed a new scheme of religion, consisting partly of Judaism, and partly of Gentilism, approved and espoused by Herod, and therefore called by his name; and others, that they were such as held, that Herod was the Messiah; but it is certain, that Herod did not think so himself, nor the people of the Jews in common; and whatever flatterers he might have in his life time, it can hardly be thought, that this notion should survive his death, who was odious to the Jewish nation: others think, that they were such, who were not for paying tribute to Caesar, but to Herod, and were encouraged and defended by him and his courtiers, as much as they could; since he and his family looked upon themselves to be injured by the Romans, and secretly grudged that tribute should be paid unto them: others, on the contrary, say, that these were such, who pleaded that tribute ought to be paid to Caesar, by whose means Herod enjoyed his government, and was supported in it; and were just the reverse of the Pharisees, with whom they are here joined, in their attempts on Christ. The Syriac version renders the word by , "those of the house", or "family of Herod", his courtiers and domestics: in Munster s Hebrew Gospel, they are called , "the servants of Herod"; and certain it is, that Herod was at Jerusalem at this time, Luk 23:7 We read (p) of Menahem, who was one while an associate of Hillell, who with eighty more clad in gold, went "into the service of the king", that is, Herod, and hence might be called Herodians. Wherefore these seem rather to be the persons designed, whom the Pharisees chose to send with their disciples, though they were of Herod's party, and were on the other side of the question from them; being for giving tribute to Caesar, by whom their master held his government; that should Christ be ensnared by them, as they hoped he would, into any seditious or treasonable expressions against Caesar, these might either accuse him to Herod, or immediately seize him, and have him before the Roman governor. Luke observes, that these men, the disciples of the Pharisees and the Herodians, were sent forth as "spies, which should feign themselves just men"; men of religion and holiness, and who were upright and sincere in their question, and who had strong inclinations to become his disciples: the Jews themselves own, that they sent such persons to Jesus, whom they mention by name, in such a disguised manner to deceive him: their words are these (q);
Read full note →
"They (the Sanhedrim) sent unto him Ananiah and Ahaziah, honourable men of the lesser sanhedrim, and when they came before him they bowed down to him--and he thought that they believed in him, and he received them very courteously.''
Saying, master: as if they were his disciples, or at least were very willing to be so: however, they allow him to be a doctor or teacher, and a very considerable one:
we know that thou art true; a true and faithful minister, that teachest truth, and speakest uprightly; one of great integrity, and to be depended upon:
and teachest the way of God in truth; rightly opens the word of God, gives the true and genuine sense the law of God, faithfully instructs men in the worship of God; and with great sincerity, directs men to the way of coming to God, and enjoying eternal happiness with him; having no sinister ends, or worldly interest in view:
neither carest thou for any man; be he ever so great and honourable, in ever so high a station, be he Caesar himself; signifying, that he was a man of such openness and integrity, that he always freely spoke the real sentiments of his mind, whether men were pleased or displeased; being in no fear of man, nor in the least to be intimidated by frowns and menaces, or any danger from men: for thou regardest not the person of men; as he had not the persons of the high priests and elders, the grand sanhedrim of the nation, who had lately been examining him in the temple: and seeing therefore he made no difference among men, whether learned or unlearned, rich or poor, high or low; whether they were in exalted stations and high offices, or not he feared no man's face, and accepted no man's person, but gave his sense of things, without fear or flattery; they hoped he would give a direct answer to the following question, though Caesar himself was concerned in it.
(m) Cholin, c. 12. sect 1. (n) T. Bab. Cholin, fol. 139. 1. & Betza, fol. 24. 1. & 25. 1. Misn. Sabbat. c. 24. 8. & Cholin, c. 12. sect. 1. & Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. (o) De Bello Jud. 1. 6. c. 13. (p) Juchasin, fol. 19. 1. (q) Toldos Jesu, p. 8.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 Mark xii, 13; Luke xx, 20.
Mark xii, 13; Luke xx, 20.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22 Verse 15. In his talk.] εν λογω, by discourse:…
Verse 15. In his talk.] εν λογω, by discourse: intending to ask him subtle and ensnaring questions; his answers to which might involve him either with the Roman government, or with the great Sanhedrin.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv15, 18 Mat 22:15-17. Then went the Pharisees — Greatly incensed…
Mat 22:15-17. Then went the Pharisees — Greatly incensed by the two last parables delivered by our Lord; and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk — Gr. παγιδευσωσιν εν λογω, might entrap him in his discourse, so as to find something on which they might ground an accusation against him, and effect his destruction. And they sent out their disciples — Persons who had imbibed their spirit of hostility against him, and entered fully into their designs; with the Herodians — “Probably,” says Dr. Campbell, “partisans of Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee, who were for the continuance of the royal power in the descendants of Herod the Great, an object which, it appears, the greater part of the nation, especially the Pharisees, did not favour. They considered that family not indeed as idolaters, but as great conformists to the idolatrous customs of both Greeks and Romans, whose favour they spared no means to secure. The notion adopted by some, that the Herodians were those who believed Herod to be the Messiah, hardly deserves to be mentioned, as there is no evidence that such an opinion was maintained by any body.” On account of their zeal for Herod’s family, they were of course also zealous for the authority of the Romans, by whose means Herod was made and continued king. Their views and designs being therefore diametrically opposite to those of the Pharisees, there had long existed the most bitter enmity between the two sects. So that the conjunction of their counsels against Christ is a very memorable proof of the keenness of that malice which could thus cause them to forget so deep a quarrel with each other. In order to insnare Christ, they came to him, feigning themselves just men, (Luk 20:20,) men who had a great veneration for the divine law, and a dread of doing any thing inconsistent with it; and, under that mask, accosted Christ with an air of great respect, and flattering expressions of the highest esteem, saying, Master, we know that thou art true — A person of the greatest uprightness and integrity; and teachest the way of God in truth — Declarest his will with perfect impartiality and fidelity; neither carest thou for the censure or applause of any man; for thou regardest not the person of men — Thou favourest no man for his riches or greatness, nor art influenced by complaisance or fear, or any private view whatever, to deviate from the strictest integrity and veracity. Tell us, therefore, Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cesar? — In asking this question they imagined that it was not in Christ’s power to decide the point, without making himself obnoxious to one or other of the parties which had divided upon it. If he should say, it was lawful; they believed the people, in whose hearing the question was proposed, would be incensed against him, not only as a base pretender, who, on being attacked, publicly renounced the character of the Messiah, which he had assumed among his friends; (it being as they supposed, a principal office of the Messiah to deliver them from a foreign yoke;) but as a flatterer of princes also, and a betrayer of the liberties of his country. But if he should affirm that it was unlawful to pay, the Herodians resolved to inform the governor of it, who they hoped would punish him as a fomenter of sedition. Highly elated therefore with their project, they came and proposed their question.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On v15 The Pharisees and Herodians endeavor to entangle Jesus -…
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
Read full note →
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. This was what the Pharisees and Herodians endeavored to do in regard to Jesus.
In his talk - The word “his” is supplied by the translators, perhaps improperly. It means “in conversations,” or by “talking” with him; not alluding to anything that he had before said.
Mat 22:16
The Herodians - It is not certainly known who these were.
It is probable that they took their name from Herod the Great. Perhaps they were first a political party, and were then distinguished for holding some of the special opinions of Herod. Dr. Prideaux thinks that those opinions referred to two things. The first respected subjection to a foreign power. The law of Moses was, that a “stranger should not be set over the Jews as a king,” Deu 17:15. Herod, who had received the kingdom of Judea by appointment of the Romans, maintained that the law of Moses referred only to a voluntary choice of a king, and did not refer to a necessary submission where they had been overpowered by force. His followers supposed, therefore, that it was lawful in such cases to pay tribute to a foreign prince. This opinion was, however, extensively unpopular among the Jews, and particularly the Pharisees, who looked upon it as a violation of their law, and regarded all the acts growing out of it as oppressive. Hence, the difficulty of the question proposed by them. Whatever way he decided, they supposed he would be involved in difficulty. If he should say it was not lawful, the Herodians were ready to accuse him as being an enemy of Caesar; if he said it was lawful, the Pharisees were ready to accuse him to the people of holding an opinion extremely unpopular among them, and as being an enemy of their rights. The other opinion of Herod, which they seem to have followed, was, that when a people were subjugated by a foreign force, it was right to adopt the rites and customs of their religion. This was what was meant by the “leaven of Herod,” Mar 8:15. The Herodians and Sadducees seem on most questions to have been united. Compare Mat 16:6; Mar 8:15.
We know that thou art true - A hypocritical compliment, not believed by them, but artfully said, as compliments often are, to conceal their true design. “Neither carest thou for any man.” That is, thou art an independent teacher, delivering your sentiments without regard to the fear or favor of man. This was true, and probably they believed this. Whatever else they might believe about him, they had no reason to doubt that he delivered his sentiments openly and freely.
For thou regardest not the person of men - Thou art not partial. Thou wilt decide according to truth, and not from any bias toward either party. To regard the person, or to respect the person, is in the Bible uniformly used to denote partiality, or being influenced in a decision, not by truth, but by previous attachment to a “person,” or to one of the parties by friendship, or bias, or prejudice, Lev 19:15; Jud 1:16; Deu 16:19; 2Sa 14:14; Act 10:34; Jam 2:1, Jam 2:3,Jam 2:9; 1Pe 1:17.
Mat 22:17
Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar? - Tribute was the tax paid to the Roman government.
Caesar - The Roman emperor.
The name Caesar, after the time of Julius Caesar, became common to all the emperors, as Pharaoh was the common name of all the kings of Egypt. The “Caesar” who reigned at this time was Tiberius - a man distinguished for the grossest vices and most disgusting and debasing sensuality.
Mat 22:18
Jesus perceived their wickedness - This must have been done by his power of searching the heart, and proves that he was omniscient.
No more man has the power of discerning the motives of others.
Tempt ye me - Try me, or endeavor to lead me into difficulty by an insidious question.
Hypocrites - Dissemblers. Professing to be candid inquirers, when their only object was to lead into difficulty. See the notes at Mat 6:2.
Mat 22:19
The tribute-money - The money in which the tribute was paid.
This was a Roman coin. The tribute for the temple service was paid in the Jewish shekel; that for the Roman government in foreign coin. Their having that coin about them, and using it, was proof that they themselves held it lawful to pay the tribute; and their pretensions, therefore, were mere hypocrisy.
A penny - A Roman denarius, worth about 14 cents =7d (circa 1880’s).
Mat 22:20
This image - The likeness of the reigning prance was usually struck on the coins.
Superscription - The name and titles of the emperor.
Mat 22:21
Render, therefore, to Caesar ... - Caesar’s image and name on the coin proved that it was his.
It was proper, therefore, to give it back to him when he called for it. But while this was done, Jesus took occasion to charge them, also, to give to God what he claimed. This may mean either,
The annual tribute due to the temple service, implying that paying tribute to Caesar did not free them from the obligation to do that; or, That they should give their hearts, lives, property, and influence all to God, as his due.
Mat 22:22
They marveled - They had been foiled in their attempt.
Though he had apparently decided in favor of the Herodians, yet his answer confounded both parties, and wholly prevented the use which they intended to make of it. It was so wise; it so clearly detected their wickedness and foiled their aim, that they were confounded, and retired covered with shame.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv15, 16, 17, 18, 21 This is the third conference which Jesus Christ had…
This is the third conference which Jesus Christ had with the Jews. It relates to the civil conduct of mankind, as directed and influenced by religion.
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v15 B. The Attach of the Herodians or the Politicians,…
B. The Attach of the Herodians or the Politicians, and the Victory of the Lord. Mat_22:15-22
(Mar_12:13-17; Luk_20:20-26. The Gospel for the 23d Sunday after Trinity.)
Read full note →
15Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle [ensnare, en trap] him in his talk [with a word, ἐν λόγῳ].12 16And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians,13 saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teaches the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man [one, οὐ—οὐδενός]: for thou regardest not the person of men. 17Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cesar, or not? 18But Jesus perceived [knowing, γνούς] their wick- edness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? 19Shew me the tribute money [to νόμισμα τοῦ κήνσου], And they brought unto him a penny denary].14 20And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription [the inscription, ἡ ἐπιγραφή]? 21They say unto him, Cesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render15 therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar’s [the things of Cæsar to Caesar, τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι]; and unto God the things that are God’s [the things of God to God, τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ]. 22When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Mat_22:15. Then went the Pharisees.—The Pharisees formed the main element in the deputation of the Sanhedrin, which aimed to annihilate the Lord by a stroke of authority. But their blow He had made to recoil upon themselves. They stood as persons who were stripped of their spiritual authority; while He, by the same words which stripped them, demonstrated His own Messianic power, and remained in the temple as its actual Lord. His authority with the people, which it was sought to impair, was thus strengthened anew. His enemies enter into the fact of their position; yet not with repentance and obedience, but with a hypocritical acknowledgment, that they might again ensnare Him by cunning. This they could compass only by bringing Him into suspicion of the crime, of which they were themselves conscious, of exciting machinations against the Roman government. They wanted a political Messiah: that He would not become. They now sought to involve Him in the appearance of being a political Messiah, in order that they might band Him over to the Roman authorities as an insurrectionary. They would suggest to Him, or impose upon Him, the sedition of their own hearts, that thus they might ruin Him. Thus they went further and further into the most Abandoned course of lying, urged by the exasperation which His last great warning parables had provoked to the uttermost. How great this exasperation was, appears from the fact that it was the Pharisees of the Sanhedrin, the bitterest enemies of Rome, who made this attack, and connected themselves, for the accomplishment of their purpose, with the Herodian political party. And the greatness of their obduracy and blindness appears in this, that after all they actually brought Him to the cross under the charge of being a political Messiah, although He rebuked and repelled every solicitation to utter a seditious word. They hoped to succeed in their temptation, because they were blinded by the spirit of absolutism which regards every departure from its laws and demands as rebellion and revolution.
And took counsel.—It is a counsel of cunning. Their purpose is now to confront Him as private persons, who have much respect for His person; and for this purpose they have a perilous question ready. Hence the new assault upon our Lord assumes the form of a series of distinct party attacks. The Pharisees take the lead with theirs; and theirs was, indeed, the most cunningly devised. The Sadducees then follow, in an attack more direct and outspoken, though equally disguised as to its ultimate purpose. And then come, lastly, the scribes of the Pharisees’ party, and try their strength on His.
Mat_22:16. Their disciples with the Herodians.—It was part of the cunning of this new attack, that the Pharisees—the most dignified members of the Sanhedrin—who had just officially encountered Jesus, did not now appear before Him in the new character of hypocritical submission. He should by no means know their design. Hence they sent their disciples, young and unknown persons, who were students of the science of expounding Scripture. But for these they had been able to provide an accompaniment of political partisans, Herodians, probably also of the younger sort. They were the high-born academical youth of Jerusalem: an appropriate organ to use in a temptation to theocratical revolution around the temple of Zion. Meyer :“The Herodians were that party of the Jews who were devoted to the royal house of Herod—a party political, not hierarchical, yet not purely Roman; popular royalists, in opposition to the pure principle of the theocracy, but also to the unpopular Roman dominion (against Cæsar), Biding with the powerful Pharisees from policy and according to circumstances. For other and in part very singular interpretations, see Wolf and Köcher in loc.16 The passage in Joseph. Antiq. xiv. 15, 10, refers to other circumstances, comp. Ewald, p. 196. To regard them as adherents of the Roman government generally (and not specifically a faction devoted to the Herodian family), is forbidden by the special name which they bore. It was deep cunning in the hierarchy to unite themselves with this royalist faction; for thus they hoped to embolden Jesus to utter a word which might be interpreted against the census-tribute. Their flattering introduction had this design; and their further plan was to urge a political complaint against Him before the Roman authorities. Comp. Luk_20:20. But, should an affirmative answer upset this scheme, they would at least succeed in placing the Herodians in antagonism to Him.” Rather, they would in this case make Him hateful to the people, in consequence of His unconditional testimony in favor of subjection to the Roman dominion. The Herodians were, after all, anti-theocratic in their sentiments, and could only wear the mask of a patriotic royalism, which might serve as a temptation to the Lord. A third contingency, that Jesus might decline giving any answer, His opponents seem scarcely to have at all contemplated. It may have occurred to their minds, however, that they might possibly use Him yet as a tool in a gigantic rebellion.
Master, we know.—A cunning hint,17 that they were ready to pay Him honor as the Messiah. In a sincere spirit Nicodemus said the same thing, Joh_3:2.
That Thou art true: truthful.—With all their deceit, they actually thought this. The most abandoned falsehood is constrained to acknowledge His pure sincerity.
Thou teachest the way of God in truth.—Hypocritical recognition, (1) of His doctrine, and (2) of His manner of teaching or His orthodoxy. The way of God, in the Jewish scholastic sense; emphatically, the practical instruction which came from God Himself and represents His will; the revelation of God as the standard for human conduct. See Bretschneider, sub ὁδός.
Neither carest Thou for any one.—A cunning temptation to lift Himself, in His proud consciousness, above all respect or care for the Roman authorities. They had indeed found that their power had no effect to intimidate Him in the way of truth. But they might have known that His independence was always connected with the purest submission to the powers that are. Their involuntary acknowledgment shines through their false speech.
Regardest not the person of man.—ΙΙ ρόσωπον is the outward appearance: the representative of an authority. Ο βλέπιες πρόσωπονis essentially the same as Luke’s οὐ λαυβάνεις πρόσωπον, Mat_22:21, but stronger.
Mat_22:17. Is it lawful ?—To the Jew. De Wette “According to theocratical principles, which regard ed Jehovah as the only King in Israel.” The theocratical prerogative, however, had not interfered with the representation of Jehovah by human kings in Israel; and the Israelites had paid tribute always to them. In fact, they had in past times paid tribute even to foreign potentates—the Babylonians, Persians, etc. How then, in the face of such precedents, could the question be urged as it was urged on the present occasion ? The explanation is to be found in the fact, that the Jewish fanaticism had increased from generation to generation, and that it was now rapidly approaching the point of culmination which it reached at last in the Jewish war. And the hope of the Messiah was also increasing in strength. Thus, while the payment of tribute to a human king might generally be lawful, it was otherwise with a heathen king, especially Caesar, who threatened to take the place of the Messiah as His dark rival in the rule of the world: this might appear apostasy from the theocracy and the hope of Messiah’s kingdom. In this spirit Judas the Gaulonite (Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 1; Act_5:37) had refused the census of the Romans; regarding it as the decisive sign of servitude. And certainly the Jews might have been justified in refusing all political homage to the Caesar, if the history of the theocracy had not established a distinction between the religious and the political element, and introduced and accustomed them to such a difference between the Church and the State. But fanaticism ignored this distinction as a temporary abuse, and supposed that with the advent of the Messiah it would disappear; meanwhile it was a disorder that must be cunningly submitted to as a necessity. Christ opposes to their temptation the perfect and clear distinction as it was appointed by God. The question: “Is it lawful?” of itself obscures the supposition of duty; and the question: “Must we, as servants of the theocracy, refuse the tribute ?” meant, in other words: Must we resist the dominion of the Romans, and rise up in rebellion ?
Or not ?—The not lawful they would fain have put in His mouth.
Mat_22:18. Hypocrites.—Bengel: “Jesus verum se eis ostendit ut dixerant, Mat_22:16.”
Mat_22:19. The tribute money.—The coin in which the tribute is paid. Ubicunque numisma regis alicujus obtinet, illic incolæ regem istum pro domino agnoscunt. Maimon. in Gezelah, v. 18.
Mat_22:20-21. Whose is this image?—The Lord’s answer gains infinitely in emphasis when we connect it with the action in which He clothes it Bearing this coin in their hands, they were obliged to appear before Him as the subjects of Cæsar, and themselves read the decision of their own question in the. word “Cæsar.” But the truth of the answer consists in this, that every one has subjected himself to the actual obligations of a State who has entered into its rights, as symbolized by its currency. Or, he who acknowledges the ruler’s right of coining, acknowledges also his right to tribute; he who takes the coin from Cæsar, must give it back to him again. Thus Jesus makes the payment of tribute a duty of virtual obligation. The coin is already Cæsar’s. But the word is τὰΚαίσαρος, the things of Cæsar, and it includes therefore all the obligations to the State. But this obedience must ever be conditioned by obedience to God, to whom all must pay the trib.ute of τὰτοῦ Θεοῦ, the things of God. And here we must not think merely of any particular tribute—the temple tribute (the usual interpretation), or repentance (Ebrard)—but of all religious obligations. Erasmus: Give to God that which has the image and inscription of God, the soul (quod Dei habet inscriptionem et imaginem, i.e,, animum).
Mat_22:21. And unto God the things that are God’s.—The word was not only a precept, but also a correction; since they denied to the father Himself, in the person of Jesus, the honor due to Him. And so also the word: “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s,” might have spared them the Jewish war, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the downfall of their nation.
[The answer of our Saviour in Mat_22:21 is perhaps the wisest answer ever given to any question, certainly the wisest which could possibly be made in this case, and we need not wonder that the enemies who elicited it, “marvelled and left Him.” It establishes the rights, regulates the duties, and distinguishes the jurisdiction of the spiritual and temporal powers and their subjects. It contains the fundamental principle and guide for the settlement of the vexed question of Church and State, which has created so much trouble and persecution in the history of Christianity. If men would always strictly adhere to this rule, there never would be a hostile collision between the two powers, which are both of divine origin and authority, the one for the temporal, the other for the eternal welfare of man, and which ought to be kept distinct and independent in their respective spheres without mixture and confusion, and yet without antagonism, but in friendly relation in View of their common origin in God, and their common end and completion in the βασιλεία τῆς δόξης,, where God shall be all in all.—P. S.]
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. The temptation of Christ to revolution, through the students and aristocracy of Jerusalem, as the instruments of His enemies.
2. The Messiah Himself divides here the theocracy, which was both Church and State, into Church and State as two distinct parts: He consigns the kingdom of this world to Caesar, while He limits and conditions it by the kingdom of God.
3. Render unto Cæsar that which is Cæsar’s.—Here the duty of obedience is deduced from the fact of the existing dominion. Cæsar had the coin, therefore it should be given to him; Cæsar had the power, therefore he should be obeyed. De Wette distinguishes in a futile way between the principles of conscience, of right, and of power and prudence. Prudence is also matter of conscience. To revolt against authority, is contrary to conscience. Political obligations have entered in, as matter of fact, wherever people have settled themselves in the enjoyment of political rights. Hence the passages, Rom_13:1; 1Ti_2:1; 1Pe_2:13; 1Pe_2:17, belong here. On the distinction between legitimate and unrighteous dominion, this text says nothing. But it does say that he who has accepted the protection of an actual government, has entered into its political constitution, and acknowledged thereby its rights. The legitimist feeling of devotion to an oppressed power must maintain its propriety by banishment and suffering with it. It can co-exist with the new bond of subjection only as a wish, a sentiment, a longing for deliverance. Enjoying the protection of the exist power, it must submit to the obligations which thence arise. But the antithesis, “Unto God that which is God’s,” is self characterized as the higher or absolute principle, which is the condition of the former. Comp Act_4:19 [which contains the right of disobedience to the temporal power, where it clearly contradicts the laws of God.—P. S.].
4. Money represents the palpable earthly side of government and civil relations. He who, in the impress of the coin, is acknowledged as the ruler over the money of the land, is thereby marked out as the ruler of the land. In a certain sense, therefore, the money circulation is a permanent symbol of political subjection and mark of allegiance.18 But, over against the external and visible dominion of Cæsar over tho civil life, there is the immediate dominion of God over the internal and unseen life. These two dominions are not indeed coordinate; the latter is supreme over the former; but it has a pre-eminence which admits of a certain appearance of division between the power of Cæsar and the power of God. But the impress of God is upon the spirit; therefore the life of the soul must be given to God. By the requirement: “Give unto God the things that are God’s,” Christ certainly, as Gerlach remarks, pointed out to them the way in which they might become really free again; yet not in any such sense as would encourage them to hope for a return of the old theocracy. Obedience to God will make Christendom free from the violence of secular power, and ready for admission into the perfect kingdom of God.
5. The right distinction between that which is God’s and that which is Cæsar’s, must lead to the true unity of life; while the confusion of these two must lead to division, lie, and hypocrisy. The Jewish hierarchy, in their superstition, made some scruple whether they should pay Cæsar his tribute; and then they threw their own Messiah to him, whose golden fidelity displayed most gloriously the image of God.
6. Langii opus Bibl.: We may easily imagine how ashamed these conceited young men must have felt when they departed: wicked as they were they could not but feel that they and their teachers must have nothing but confusion to expect from their encounters with Christ.
7. The peculiar case where the magistrate confounds political and spiritual subjugation, and exerts tyranny over conscience, as Antiochus Epiphanes did and many others, is here not taken into account, inasmuch as the Roman government at the time of Christ tolerated and respected the rights of conscience, and for some time even protected the Christians (though not Christ Himself) against the fanaticism of the Jews.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The temptation of our Lord to pronounce a watchword of rebellion: 1. The cunning attempt of the enemies; 2. the instruments; 3. the issue.—The political temptations of Christians: 1. To refuse tribute (insurrection and rebellion); 2. to sacrifice the conscience (servility).19—Christ supreme victor over all the cunning and all the violence of His enemies.—The counsel of the ungodly, Psalms 2.; their snares, Pro_29:5.—Canning, the ancient fellow of violence, especially in the government of the hierarchy.—Christ’s victory over cunning is the victory of God’s kingdom over cunning.—The contest of the Lord with the cunning of His foes tended to the glorification of His Wisdom 1. They take counsel: He is thoroughly prepared. 2. They would entangle Him: He seeks to deliver them out of their own snare. 3. They praise Him in order to His destruction: He rebukes them, in order to arouse and save them. 4. They would fain involve Him in their own wicked designs: He punishes them in His righteousness. 5. They wish to judge Him as guilty: He dismisses them as Judge.—The covenant of the hierarchs and Herodians in order to overwhelm Christ.—The various decisions of Christ touching money.—The salutary distinction of Christ between Church and State.—The decision of Christ upon the rights of Cæsar: 1. They are rights which are derived from God; 2. they are co-ordinate to the spiritual rights of the church; 3. they are subordinate to the rights of God.—The weight of the clause, “And to God that which is God’s.”—Only he who rightly distinguishes between religious and civil duties will know how to connect them aright.—The hypocritical blending of religion and policy: 1. By withholding the dues to the civil government, under pretext of saving the rights of God; 2. by sacrificing the most sacred rights of God and His church to the secular power.—The enemies of the Lord gather strength from every new humiliation to harden themselves afresh.—The three kinds of assault which His enemies make upon the cause of Christ: 1. With violence; 2. with cunning; 3. with cunning and violence combined.
Starke:—Canstein: Wicked hearts are only more wicked and malicious by faithful warning.—The two kinds of serpents, the crooked and Um straight (Isa_27:1; first cunning, then might).—Zeisius: When Christ is to be opposed, Herod and Pilate soon become one.—Hypocrites and Bars have honey on their lips, and gall in their hearts, Psa_55:21.—Quesnel: The praise of ungodly men is full of snares.—Zeisius: No attack and no cunning of any avail against the Lord.—He who has God’s word and truth on his side is sure to carry off the victory.—Osiander: He who would put to shame God’s servants will himself be put to shame.—The cunning which would entrap wisdom is itself caught.
Lisco:—Christ shows here that it is not His purpose to effect any change in earthly political relations (that is, in a political and earthly way).
Heubner:—The Truth, Christ, stands hero in the presence of falsehood.—It is the vocation of the pious to have to move among those who continually pervert their words.—The Christian’s bearing toward the various political parties in the world.—What they did in cunning and malice, we should do in earnest sincerity: ask Christ’s advice in all cases of doubt and conflict of duties.—The Christian living under a wicked government must submit in all things that do not molest his conscience.—The voice of the gospel on the duties of subjects.—The Christian should recommend his religion by his civil and political honesty.—Christ’s dignity in the answer to these questions concerning the duties of subjects and rulers.
Reinhard:—The right of subjects to judge the rule and commands of their governors.—T. W. Wolf:—How little the Lord is served by false praise.—Rambach:—The most pious Christian is the best citizen.
Footnotes:
[12] Mat_22:15—[̔́Ο πως αὐτὸν παγιδεύσωσιν (from παγίς, a snare, a trap) ἐνλόγῳ, Lange: um ihn (mit List) zu fangen in einem Aunspruch; Ewald: durch sin Wort. The word here refers to the artful question in Mat_22:17, to which, they thought, He must either answer yes or no, and In either ease fatally compromise Himself. Meyer: ἐνλόγῳ, in ciner Rede, d. h., in cinem Auespruche, welchen er ihun wûrde. Dieser ist als Fatte oder Schlings (παγις) gedacht” In Cod. Sinait. the words: ἐν λόγῳ, are omitted.—P. S.]
[13] Mat_22:16.—[Dr. Lange inserts after Herodians In small type: “Politicians, adherents of the Roman party of the Herodian house,”—P. S.]
[14] Mat_22:19.—[Δηνάριον. See the Critical Notes on Mat_18:28 and Mat_20:2.—P. S.]
[15] Mat_22:21.—[̓Α πόδοτε, reddite, render as a due, not: δότε, date, as a gift. Comp. Rom_8:7 : ἀπόδοτε οῦ̔ν πᾶσι τὰς ὀφειλάς, Render unto all their dues. Tertullian (De idol. 15): "Reddite imaginem Cœsari quae in nummo est, el imaginem Dei Deo quœ in homine est.”—P. S.]
[16][The Edinb trsl. reads here: “For some remarkable hint, see Woif,”—mistaking probably the sehr sonderbare deutungen of the original or wunderbare Andeutungen. Mistakes of this kind, whether of carelessness or ignorance of the German language, and ail sorts of arbitrary omissions and changes, occur on every page, yes almost in very sentence of this and several preceding chapters, and make the revision a more tedious and disagreeable task than a new translation.—P. S.]
[17][A cunning and malignant captatio benevolentiœ, as Meyer calls it.—P. S.]
[18][Comp. Quesnel. in loc.: “The image of princes stamped on their coin denotes that temporal things belong all to their grovernance; and the image of God imprinted on the null of man teaches that whatever use he makes either of himself or of the creatures, ought to be referred to God. . . . Princes [Rulers] being more the images of God than other men, ought aim to render to God whatever they receive from men, by directing it all to His glory.”—P. S.]
[19][The preceding sentences in the Homiletical and the concluding paragraphs of the Doctrinal sections, nearly half a column, are omitted entire in the Edinb. trsl., and the Homiletical Hints which follow are either omitted or arbitrarily abridged.—P. S.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22 JESUS QUESTIONS THE PHARISEES, Mat_22:15-46.
§ 115. — PHARISEES, HERODIANS, SADDUCEES, AND A SCRIBE QUESTION JESUS.
JESUS QUESTIONS THE PHARISEES, Mat_22:15-46.
Read full note →
The Pharisees had now, in answer to their question as to his authority, (Mat_21:23,) listened to some three home-coming and searching parables. They now resort to allies for aid. First, they bring up the HERODIANS, who retire from the encounter silenced, Mat_22:16-22. Then come up the SADDUCEES, who retire in similar defeat, Mat_22:23-33. Then from a group of the Pharisees a LAWYER tries him with a question, and is forced to acknowledge the wisdom of his answer; and finally the Lord, taking the aggressive with a query, completes their confusion and overthrow, 34-46. Jesus in the next chapter turns to the people and to his disciples.
15. Entangle him in his talk — Ensnare him, (a metaphor drawn from taking wild birds,) by involving him with the government; or by exposing his ignorance upon some point of law or religion.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22 15–22. The Temptation of the Herodians. The Tribute Money
15–22. The Temptation of the Herodians. The Tribute Money
Mar_12:13-17; Luk_20:20-25.
Read full note →
15. how they might entangle him] Literally, ensnare, as a fowler ensnares birds. The Greek word is used here only in N.T.
All the previous attempts had been to discredit Jesus as a religious teacher; the present is an attempt to expose Him to the hostility of the Roman government. Will He follow Judas the Gaulonite, in disowning all human authority? or will He acquiesce in the Roman rule? In the one case He would incur the condemnation of Pilate, in the other the scorn of His Galilæan followers.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv15–22 (15) How they might entangle him.—Literally, ensnare. The phrase…
(15) How they might entangle him.—Literally, ensnare. The phrase is identical in meaning with our colloquial “set a trap.” The plot implies that they did not dare to take measures openly against Him as long as popular feeling was at the same level.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv15–22 Vers. 15-22. Second attack: The question concerning the tribute…
Vers. 15-22. Second attack: The question concerning the tribute to Caesar. (Mar_12:13-17 Luk_20:20-26)
Then went the Pharisees. After they had heard the parables, and were for the time silenced, they departed from the public courts of the temple, and betook themselves to the hall of the Sanhedrin, that they might plot some stratagem against Jesus. How they might entangle (pagideuswsin) him in his talk. The verb (not elsewhere found in the New Testament) means "to lay a snare for" an object. The Pharisees did not dare to use open violence, but they now endeavoured by insidious questions to make him compromise himself either with the Romans, their political masters, or with the national and patriotic party.
Read full note →
Vers. 15-22. The question of tribute.
I THE TEMPTATION.
1. The coalition. The Pharisees were greatly offended. They as well as the chief priests (Mat_21:45) perceived that these parables were spoken of them. Their conscience smote them; they felt in their hearts the truthfulness of the Saviour"s words; they knew that his censure was just. But, instead of acknowledging their guilt, they blazed into wrath; instead of confessing their sin, they sought to destroy the great Teacher who had exposed it. They shrank from nothing; they would make friends even with the Herodians to compass their designs, as they had done once before. (Mar_3:6) The two parties were wholly opposed to one another; the one, fiercely zealous for the Law; the other, merely political, utterly indifferent to religion; now they acted together for a time, united by their common hatred to our Lord. They could sink their differences, fundamental as they were, to bring about his death, to murder him whose teaching, very high and pure and holy as they knew it to be, exposed the hollow formalism of the Pharisees, the time serving indifference of the Herodians. Surely the heart of man is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.
2. The snare. They determined to lay a trap for him. The Pharisees sent with the Herodians their own disciples, young men whom, it may be, they thought the Lord would not recognize; the elders of the party had often stood opposed to him. They were to submit to the Lord, as if for his decision, a question which might well have arisen in controversy with the Herodians. The approached him with flattery; they called him "Master," "Teacher;" they praised his impartiality, his justice, his truth. Then came the insidious question, "Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?" They thought the dilemma one from which there was no escape. Answer as he might, there lay on either side a terrible danger: he might take his choice of provoking the fanaticism of the Jews or the hostility of the Romans. The only other source, it seemed to them, would be that ignominious confession of ignorance which that same day the Lord had forced from the chief priests and scribes.
II THE LORD"S VICTORY.
1. The exposure. "Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?" He was high above the reach of flattery; he heeded not the praise of men. He knew their hearts. He called them hypocrites; they were acting a part; smooth words were on their lips; the malice of hell was in their hearts. But they were foiled. "Show me the tribute money," the Lord said. The coin produced bore the image and superscription of Caesar.
2. The answer. It was full of wisdom. The Lord did not evade the question, yet he did not expose himself to their malicious accusations. He laid down a great principle a principle far-reaching in its applications, and fitted to regulate the conduct of men in all ages. "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar"s, and unto God the things that are God"s." Caesar had his rights; the fact that his coin was current in Palestine showed that the Jews were under his government, under the protection of his laws. The Lord does not enter into any political discussions; be simply refers his questioners to the logic of facts. As a fact, Caesar was paramount; in the providence of God, Palestine had come under his dominion; the Jews used money coined in his mint; that denarius which they had just put into the Lord"s hand was stamped with his name and image. Therefore it was lawful, it was more than lawful, it was a duty, to pay tribute unto Caesar, for that tribute was Caesar"s due. "Render therefore to all their dues," St. Paul wrote afterwards; "tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour." Christianity does not interfere with the obedience due to the laws under which we live. But if the denarius was due to Caesar, the half-shekel was due to God; the Herodians must not forget this. "Render unto God the things that are God"s." The principle is of wide application. "Ye are not your own," the apostle tells us. God made man after his own image. He wrote his law in the heart. That image was marred, not wholly lost, by the Fall. (see Gen_9:6 Jam_3:9) It may be recovered; God"s chosen must bear the image of the heavenly; they must be conformed to the image of his Son, changed into the same image from glory to glory, renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created them. Then if we render unto God the things that are God"s, we shall give him ourselves, our souls and bodies, which are his his by right of creation, his again by right of redemption, for we arebought with a price. The second clause of our Saviour"s rule both qualifies and includes the first. We may not give unto Caesar the things that are God"s; if, unhappily, there should be a collision between our duty to God and our obedience to the civil power, we mast obey God rather than man. Under all other circumstances, in rendering unto Caesar the things which are Caesar"s, we so far render unto God the things which are God"s; for "the powers that be are ordained of God: whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God." The great principle of obedience to God covers the whole of the Christian life. Our duty to God contains and implies our duty to our neighbour. The best Christian will be the best subject, the best son, the best servant.
LESSONS.
1. Hate flattery. Do not flatter others; speak the truth.
2. Render unto all their dues. The Christian must be just in his dealings, obedient to the law.
3. Give God his dues your whole heart.
Vers. 15-22. Tribute to Caesar.
It is easy to see the trap that the Pharisees induced the Herodians to set for our Lord. If he refused to sanction the paying of tribute to Caesar, he could be accused of sedition against the Roman government; if he consented to sanction it, he could be held up to the Jews as unpatriotic, and therefore not fit to be thought of as the Messiah. His skilful answer set the question in its true light, and also lifted it into a higher region, and added what his tormentors could not refute, although they were far from being prepared to carry out all that the words of Christ involved.
I THE DUTY TO CAESAR IS NOT TO BE DENIED. The words and actions of Christ implied an affirmative answer to the question of the Herodians. But they went further, justifying his reply by deducing it from their conduct. The coinage of Caesar was accepted by the Jews. The image of the gloomy Tiberius was on the denarii that circulated in their metropolitan markets. This fact shows that the Jews were submitting to the Roman yoke. Then they must act accordingly.
1. We owe duties to the civil government. Religion, which makes us citizens of heaven, does not allow us to renounce our citizenship on earth. It is a duty for Christian men to take part in politics. To refuse to do so is to hand over public affairs to those who are not guided by Christian principles, i.e. to degrade the state. Those good people who are too holy to touch politics are not above profiting by the good laws and just government that other men have laboured to bring about. Under a tyranny the authorities claim tribute; in a free country the people claim self-sacrificing service.
2. Jesus Christ did not come to produce apolitical revolution. The fanatics expected this of the Messiah; the zealots tried to effect it; but Jesus always behaved as a law-abiding citizen. We cannot say that he would never sanction revolution, or the attempt of brave people to throw off the yoke of a cruel tyranny. There was no opportunity to do this in the days of Christ. Nor did our Lord come as a political agitator. He came to regenerate the state as well as the individual, but he wrought at this task from within and spiritually, by inspiring the principles on which good government must be carried on.
II THE DUTY TO GOD IS NOT TO BE NEGLECTED. This was ignored by the Herodians in their "wickedness" (ver. 18).
1. God has claims upon us. If Caesar has his due, so nay, much more has God. His claim, like Caesar"s, is one of rule and authority. He expects obedience. While Caesar also expects tribute, God too c]aims tribute tribute he seeks from men; and this is nothing less than their hearts. What is due to God is the surrender of ourselves and all we have.
2. There is no collision between the secular and the religious. We can render Caesar"s due while we are also rendering God"s, and God"s while we are rendering Caesar"s. Politics do not exclude religion, any more than religion can dispense with politics. Each subject has its own function. Yet they are not coordinate, and if there were a conflict, the duty to God must prevail, as in the case of the Christian martyrs. But then Caesar required of the martyrs what was not his due.
3. Politics must not be substituted for religion. The best service rendered to Caesar will not free a man from his duty to serve God. There is a fascination in public life that threatens to absorb a man"s total energy. This is a temptation that must be resisted. The great name of Caesar dominated the old world; other exacting influences go far to rule our own age. we need to be on our guard lest they crowd out the thought of God. W.F.A.
Vers. 15-33. Question of the Sadducees: "Whose shall she be?
The attempt of the Pharisees to ensnare our Lord in his talk was the result of a meeting called for the purpose of considering how they might silence a critic who was making himself too formidable. They do not see how he can answer their question without laying himself open to the accusation and hostility of one party or other in the state. But our Lord is neither blinded by their, false flattery nor staggered by their ensnaring question. Having no denarius of his own, he asks them to produce one. There in their own hands is the image of Caesar, testifying that they themselves are Caesar"s subjects. But he is not contented with making them feel that they have answered their own question. He adds a single clause which takes them far out of the region of their own quibbling question, "and unto God the things that are God"s." This implies that there is nothing inconsistent in the claims of these two different sovereigns. The Sadducees, if they bore less malice against our Lord, were even more frivolous. The difficulty they raised had no reality in it, because a woman who was merely handed over, under the Levitical law, to her deceased husband"s brother was not in the same sense his wife as she had been the wife of her first husband. It is not a bad instance of the way in which men unconsciously become frivolous and ridiculous by harping on one objection, and that an objection which by no means penetrates to the heart of the subject. The fact that such a question could be put shows that a belief in the resurrection was so common among the Jews that disbelief in it had become the badge or watchword of a party a state of matters which implies that in the Old Testament the material for settling the question of a future state was not so copious and so decisive as to make disbelief impossible. And the circumstance that our Lord could find in the whole Bible no text more directly bearing on the subject than the one he cites is proof that the idea of immortality was not a common one in Old Testament times. The unquestioned dimness of Old Testament revelation on this point has been explained in many ways. But the proper explanation is certainly to be found in the peculiar character of the Divine revelation which the Bible records. If the revelation were a series of oracles, of abstract utterances, it would be hard to understand why the plain discovery of a future life should have been withheld; but the entire revelation is personal and historical. The foundation of all religion, the existence of God, e.g., is never given in the Old Testament Scriptures as an abstract proposition. It is taken for granted. It is no otherwise with the light which revelation sheds on man"s future life. It has come, not in abstract propositions, not in direct oracular utterances from God, but through the longings of his people for continued life in him, and through the slow-growing conviction that God"s love is love forevermore. The commonest and probably the most reliable of all natural arguments for immortality is that which is based on the injustice and suffering of various kinds which men experience in this present world. In view of this, men have been compelled to think of a future state in which things shall be righted and justice done and compensation made. But this is precisely the view of matters which elicited the clearest utterances regarding immortality which are to be found in the Old Testament (see Psalm 73, and Job 19). But the argument used by our Lord is of a finer and subtler kind. From the fact of God"s calling himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he argues that these men still lived. It would seem a dishonour to God to remember that he had connected himself with Abraham, if he could not keep Abraham alive. The argument involves the idea that to be the God of any one implies a living relationship. One"s God is he who gives him life and blessing, and to speak of being the God of a mummy or of a handful of dust is out of the question. We know that God is love. He loves very specially those to whom he specially reveals himself those whom he calls his children; but as these persons are without ceasing passing out of this life, it follows that, if they pass out of existence altogether, God must be subjected to a continual sorrow. Such perishing friendships are unworthy of God"s eternal nature. The answer of our Lord has no very positive teaching regarding our relation to one another hereafter. It certainly implies no cessation of love between those who have here found much of their happiness in one another. No rational idea of the future can be constructed at, all without including the satisfaction of our best affections and the exercise of our highest powers. No satisfactory idea of salvation can be cherished which does not include the prospect of a time when we can frame a life for ourselves according to our late acquired wisdom and our fruitless repentance here. But this emphatic assertion of immortality by our Lord is made in connection with the resurrection of the body. We are conscious that our body is one thing and we ourselves another. Still, the soul has received a great part of its character from the body it has worn, so that, even after separation from the body, the soul will retain the character the body has impressed upon it, and this again must determine the character of the new body which the soul is to receive. It is, however, of very little moment to ascertain what kind of life is in reserve beyond the grave, if we are not ourselves sure we shall attain it. Christ; puts this in our power. His Spirit, received by us now as a Spirit of holiness, will quicken our mortal bodies, and will raise us to be with him in the life to come. D.
Vers. 15-22. The ethics of the tribute.
The Pharisees had hitherto questioned our Lord on points of ecclesiastical ethics, and were invariably worsted. Now they face round and assail him with the weapon of political ethics. "Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?" Behold in the scene before us
I THE WISDOM OF THE SERPENT IN ITS VENOM.
1. It is seen in the question proposed.
(1) The issue is not whether it was lawful for an individual Jew to pay the Roman tax. That question was already practically settled. It was a maxim common among all people, and acknowledged among the Jews, that the prince who causes his image and titles to be stamped on the current coin is by those who use it acknowledged as the ruler.
(2) The issue was whether by a joint effort of the nation it was not their duty to God to throw off the Roman yoke. It involved many considerations, such as:
(a) The origin of the Roman power.
(b) The manner in which that power had been used.
(c) The degree of injustice which must be sustained before a nation can legally throw off an allegiance to which it has submitted.
(d) The definition of the theocracy in the modified form in which it then existed.
(e) Besides these, many minor considerations.
(3) In proposing a question so complicated and intricate they hoped to entangle him in his talk.
2. In the confederation proposing it.
(1) Behold the Pharisees in league with the Herodians. These persons were political enemies. The Pharisees were seditious demagogues. The Herodians, if not Sadducees, as Herod was, were partisans of Herod, who owed his elevation to the Romans. But they find a common cause against Jesus; nor was this the first time. (see Mar_3:6) "Samson"s foxes looked several ways, but met in one firebrand" (Henry).
(2) See them in consultation. So were the Scriptures verified. (cf. Psa_2:2 Psa_83:3-8 Jer_18:18 Jer_20:10) Contrivance and deliberation intensify the malignity of sin. (see Mic_2:1) Wicked wit makes wicked will.
(3) Observe how the Pharisees put forth "their disciples." Note: The wicked have disciples. Disciples would look more like learners, less like tempters.
(4) The masters would be present to watch the issue and to seize the opportunity to enclose the Victim in the serpent"s folds.
3. In the flattery in which it is conveyed.
(1) In the praise they give to Christ they speak the truth. He was indeed a Teacher true, and a true Teacher of the way of God. He was himself the Truth and the Way. He also was above all influence of injustice. He had no improper fear of Herod or of Pilate. He evermore reproved with equity. (see Isa_11:4)
(2) But they use the truth to serve a bloody purpose. The matter may be true and the intention treacherous. They sought to "ensnare him," viz. to his destruction, as a bird in a net. (cf. Mar_12:12, 13 Luk_20:20) There are those who never do good but with the purpose of promoting evil.
(3) Suspect the man that praises you to your face. "He who caresses thee more than he is wont has either deceived thee or is about to deceive thee" (Italian proverb). Praise upon the lip, malice in the heart. Joab kissed when he killed Amasa. (2Sa_20:9) Judas betrayed when he kissed Jesus. (Mat_26:49)
4. In the presence in which it is urged.
(1) It had to be answered in presence of the people. They vainly boasted that they were Abraham"s seed, and never were in bondage. (see Joh_8:33) They as vainly professed to have no king but God. If Jesus replied that it was lawful to pay tribute to Caesar, the people might be easily roused against him.
(2) It had to be answered in presence of the Pharisees. They only wanted the pretext to stir up the people against him as the Enemy to the liberties of his country.
(3) It had to be answered in presence of the Herodians. If Jesus took the side of the people, and said it was not lawful to pay tribute to Caesar, then the Herodians were ready to inflame Herod against him in the interests of the Romans. This very indictment was, two or three days later, laid against him. (see Luk_23:2) Behold
II THE WISDOM OF THE SERPENT IN THE DOVE.
1. It is seen in his exposure of his assailantshypocrisy.
(1) They could not hide their duplicity from his all-searching vision. By the exposure of their wickedness he proved them right when they called him true.
(2) This exposure was as politic as it was severe, for it discredited them before the people.
(3) Nothing could have mortified them more; for they sought the praise of men rather than the praise of God. He never gains who contends with Jesus.
2. It is seen in his avoidance of their trap.
(1) He took the wise in their craftiness (see Luk_20:23) when he made them recognize the image and superscription on the coin. With what consistency did the chief priests afterwards cry out, "We have no king but Caesar"! (Joh_19:15)
(2) "Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar"s, and unto God the things that are God"s. God is the Author of spiritual order, and, through this, of civil order also. Human sagacity sees one side of duty; Divine wisdom sees all sides at once.
(3) Here was nothing that the enemy could take hold of. The answer glorified God, and Caesar could not object to it. The Herodians and Pharisees were rebuked, but so obliquely that neither could take advantage of him. And the people were edified.
3. It is seen in the assignment to Caesar of his own.
(1) It is generally that which has upon it Caesar"s image and superscription. By Christ kings reign. His religion is no enemy to civil government. (see Rom_13:1) Caesar is to claim nothing but what is "Caesar"s." He is neither to claim, nor are we to render to him, what is "God"s.
(2) Caesar may claim honour, viz. in return for the government protection afforded to life, property, and liberty.
(3) Caesar may claim obedience, viz. to the laws instituted for the restraint of evildoers, and the maintenance of order and freedom.
(4) Caesar may also claim tribute, viz. to meet the expenses of the government in the exercise of its proper functions.
4. It is seen in the assertion of the claims of God.
(1) Generally God also claims whatever has his image and superscription. The image of God stamped on the spirit of man denotes that all his faculties and powers belong to God, and should be used for his glory.
(2) Eminently to God belongs our religion our love, worship, and obedience. Caesar has no right to meddle with this. Caesar is only to be resisted when not to do so would be to resist God.
(3) If Caesar intrude into this domain, then the Christian must suffer rather than sin.
(4) In questions of conflict between the claims of God and Caesar, the Christian man has to be guided by a conscience enlightened by great principles. Hence Christ left the question open which was put to him, but enunciated the great principles by which every man may determine for himself.
III THE VENOM OF THE SERPENT IN HIS FOLLY.
1. And when they heard it they marvelled.
(1) They marvelled at his knowledge of their hearts.
(2) They marvelled at the adroitness with which he avoided their arts.
(3) They marvelled at the wisdom of his doctrine.
(4) They marvelled at the incisiveness of his rebukes.
2. But they left him, and went their way.
(1) Their admiration should have drawn them to him with repentance.
(2) They showed no signs of repentance. Christ is marvellous to many to whom he is not precious. The lessons of wisdom are lost upon them.
(3) "They went their way," not his. His way was heavenward. Their way was to perdition. J.A.M.
Purposed entanglements.
As foolish a thing as was ever attempted was trying to entangle Jesus in talk. A difficult business enough if Jesus had been only a wise prophet teacher. A hopeless business, seeing that Jesus was the Son of God, and read thoughts and hearts, and "knew what was in man." We are to understand that different parties agreed to set several traps for Jesus, hoping to catch him in one or other of them. Popular feeling was too strongly in his favour for his enemies to venture upon anything like an open arrest. "All the previous attempts had been to discredit Jesus as a religious Teacher; the present is an attempt to expose him to the hostility of the Roman government. " It would suit the purpose of the Sanhedrin if they could make him say something disloyal, so that the Romans would deal with him.
I ENTANGLEMENTS REVEALING THOSE WHO ATTEMPTED THEM. This opens an interesting character study. It brings before us the shifts to which men resort who will not yield themselves to arguments and persuasions they are determined not to admit. These men were resolved not to accept Christ as Messiah. They were resolved to discredit his claims somehow, and destroy him, if only they could get a chance. They were untrue to their better selves, and so they had to be ruled by their baser selves; and thus they were put upon all sorts of mean and miserable shifts and schemes. Yet they did not see how they were degrading themselves. Honourable men were self-deluded into acting dishonourably. These men are shown up. They were not really jealous for the honour of God: it was fear for their own place and influence that made them so mean and base. The upright man wants no shifts, and takes no advantage of his brother.
II ENTANGLEMENTS REVEALING HIM WHO WAS TO BE ENTANGLED. Our Lord felt no sort of alarm when, with imposing authority, the deputation from the Sanhedrin made its demands. Our Lord showed no fear or anxiety when the schemers presented their subtle and malicious question. And he made no mistake; he gave the entanglers no sort of opportunity. He was proof against their wiles. His simplicity tested their guilefulness. His wisdom saw through their schemes. R.T.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
John A. Broadus 1886 · Public Domain On v15 Mat 22:15-46.
Mat 22:15-46.
Question And Answer In The Temple
Read full note →
This is found also in Mar 12:13-37 Luk 20:20-44.
It was customary for any one who desired it to ask questions of a Rabbi in public, even interrupting him at pleasure. The Talmud gives many examples, and sometimes the Rabbi replied with further interrogation. So with the Athenian philosophers, especially Socrates, who reduced questioning to a science. The leading priests and Scribes felt themselves pointedly assailed by Jesus in the three parables just given, especially in Mat 21:28-32, Mat 21:43-45. It was determined upon consultation to attack the Nazarene with hard questions before the multitude, hoping to extract from him some answer that would offend popular prejudice or provoke the Roman authorities, and at any rate hoping to show that he was not greatly superior to other Rabbis. Accordingly, three questions were successively proposed by representative persons, the first by Pharisees and Herodiana united, the second by Sadducees, the third by a Lawyer. To all these Jesus made prompt and wonderfully wise replies, and then finished by asking them a question of the deepest importance, which they were unable to answer. These four instances of question and answer hang closely together in the narrative, being all given in the same order by Matthew and Mark, and all except the third given also by Luke. They occurred in the temple court, probably on Tuesday, three days before the crucifixion.
I. Mat 22:15-22. The Pharisees And Herodians Ask About Tribute To Cesar
Mar 12:13-17; Luk 20:20-26. Then does not necessarily (see on "Mat 3:13"), but does naturally indicate that this was on the same occasion as the foregoing (compare on Mat 14:1); Hark and Luke have simply ’and.’ Went, from where Jesus was teaching, to some other part of the temple courts. The Pharisees, see on "Mat 3:7". Entangle. This literally means, to catch in a snare or trap. Their disciples, see on "Mat 5:1"; the leading Rabbis send some of their astute pupils, while they themselves stand aloof to watch the result, and so are not committed to any subsequent co-operation with the Herod party. With the Herodians. When Archelaus (see on "Mat 2:20") was in AD. 6 deposed from the ethnarchate of Judea and Samaria, and those districts were placed under a Roman governor (see at end of Matthew 2), the Jews were much divided in sentiment. Secularists preferred the new arrangement, as giving security to business and property; and with these the Sadducees generally sympathized. Many Pharisees bitterly opposed it on the ground that Jehovah’s people ought not to be subject to heathen rulers. Some persons insisted that another prince of the house of Herod ought to be appointed over Judea and Samaria, even as Herod Antipas was still permitted to rule over Galilee and Perea; and it was doubtless hoped that some prince of the family would one day regain all the dominions of Herod the Great, as was at length done for a few years by Herod Agrippa. (Act 12:1) These persons gradually came to be known as Herodians, i. e., partisans of Herod, compare Pompeians, Cesarians, Christians, (Act 11:26) the Latin termination—anus being used to denote a follower of a political leader. This political party probably had the sympathy of the less rigorous Pharisees, as offering the only available alternative to direct heathen rule; while the great body of the Pharisees hated them, since the Herod princes were, after all, only appointees and underlings of the Romans. (Compare Smith’s "Dict.") As Roman governors continued to rule over Judea and Samaria, the Herod party would gradually diminish, and accordingly it is mentioned only here, (with Mar 12:13) and in Mar 3:6; not at all in Josephus, the Talmud, or elsewhere—whence it follows that the above or any other theory of their origin must be partly conjectural. When Herod Agrippa became king of all Palestine in AD. 41, the lingering supporters of his family in Judea must have greatly rejoiced, but all men by that time saw that no political position was longer possible except submission or hostility to the Romans, and so it is natural that we should hear no more of a Herod party. When the Pharisees united Herodians with themselves in the effort to ensnare Jesus, it was obviously through the cohesive power of a common jealousy towards one popularly regarded as the Messiah; for if recognized as such, they were sure he would overthrow the Herod family everywhere, and depose the present Jewish officials. On the earlier occasion in Galilee, nearly two years before this, according to most harmonists, (Mar 3:6) the Herodians could be relied on to excite Herod Antipas against Jesus; here, they represent Roman sympathies, since on the Romans all Herodian hopes now really depended. Luke (Luk 20:20, R.V.) does not mention Pharisees or Herodians, but says that the Scribes and the chief priests sent ’spies,’ or in modern phrase detectives, ’which should feign themselves to be just’—which agrees with their attempt at flattery in Matt.—and wished to find an excuse for delivering him to ’the governor,’ i. e., Pilate—a design here represented by the Herodians. Master, or Teacher (didaskalos), see on "Mat 8:19". We know, without emphasis on ’we.’ They said it in a far different spirit from Nicodemus; (Joh 3:2) what they said was really true, but they meant it only as flattery. By this flattery they would embolden the teacher to speak out against the Roman rule, for they well knew in advance that only through the Romans could they compass his death. The way of God, the way in which God would have men walk; this would include the question whether the people of God ought to do so and so. Thou regardest not the person of men. This is one of several Greek phrases representing a peculiar Hebrew idiom, which probably signified originally (Morison) to lift up the face of a prostrate suppliant, and so to show him favour, and hence came to signify regard for a person in the good sense, or in the bad sense regarding the person rather than the justice of the cause; in Hebrew and Greek the term ’face’ was derivatively used for person. The flatterers meant that Jesus would follow principle and truth without fear or favour. (Compare Gal 2:6 Rom 2:11)
Mat 22:17. Is it lawful, or permissible, allowable (see on "Mat 14:3"); there is no direct reference to law, whether Jewish or Roman. Or not; they wish him to say yes or no, as when lawyers try to corner a witness. Tribute. The Latin word census is borrowed in the Greek of Matt. and Mark, while Luke has the general term ’tribute.’ Census In Latin signifies a registration of persons and property (as we borrow it in English), and hence a tax on either. But here it signifies simply a poll-tax (compare on Mat 17:25), Peshitta Syriac ’head-money.’ Of course the principle was the same, whether the question concerned poll-tax or tribute in general; the former touched the poorest, and was, as it is among us, a matter of greater popular interest and complaint. Cesar is the general term for the Roman imperator or emperor, applied to Augustus in Luk 2:1, Tiberius in Luk 3:1; Claudius in Act 17:7; Nero in Act 25:8 ff.; Php 4:22. The family name of the great Julius thus became a title, and in modern times (Kaiser, Czar) is more honourable than even king. Paying the head-tax to Roman authorities was the most immediate and humiliating recognition of subjection to the heathen. Judas of Galilee (Joshua "Ant.," 18, 1, 1 and 6) headed a fierce insurrection against the first Roman governor (AD. 6) for making a census with a view to taxation, saying that God was "their only Ruler and Lord," and that the census "was leading them right straight into slavery." He perished, and Gamaliel tells us that his followers "were scattered abroad." (Act 5:37 Rev. Ver.) But the sentiment represented by that movement still burned in many bosoms. Josephus says that Judas the Galilean was "the founder of a fourth philosophy," whose followers agreed in all other things with the Pharisees, but were fanatics for liberty, and that this led to the insurrection (in AD. 66) which ended in the destruction of Jerusalem. At that later period they were called Zealots, and it is supposed that Simon the Zealot (Mat 10:4) had belonged to the party, and also perhaps Barabbas. (Mat 27:17) We may therefore be sure that among the easily excited crowds who filled the temple courts when Jesus was asked this question, there were many who regarded paying the poll-tax as the very badge of slavery to the heathen, and as treason against Jehovah, the theocratic king of Israel.
Mat 22:18-22. Jesus perceived their wickedness, or as we should say, their villainy. With smooth, flattering words they came, asking a question which they thought would prove a hopeless dilemma. He was desired to say either yes or no. If he said yes, the Pharisees would loudly proclaim, through all the temple courts and every day, that the Nazarene said it was proper to pay tribute to Caesar, which showed that all notion of his being the King Messiah must be ridiculous and that in fact he was neither patriotic nor pious. If he said no, the Herodians would go straight to Pilate. The Romans cared nothing for questions pertaining to the religion of a subject nation (compare Act 25:18-20), and interfered very little with local affairs, provided always the people kept the peace and paid the taxes. So confident were the Jewish rulers that this plea would be effectual before Pilate that three days later with flagrant falsehood they told him, "We found this man forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king ". (Luk 23:2 Rev. Ver.) Why tempt ye me, testing him with hard questions, in hope of drawing him to say something injurious to himself. (Compare on Mat 16:1 and Mat 19:3) Ye hypocrites (see on "Mat 6:2" and see on "Mat 15:7"); they were pretending great admiration for him as a teacher, and pretending faithful allegiance to Cesar, (Joh 19:15) and pretending a lofty patriotism and piety. Jesus showed them by this term (Bengel) that he was indeed ’true,’ and ready to speak out. Shew me the tribute money, the coin used in paying the poll-tax. It was natural that the Roman coin should be commonly used in Paying it, as there was no exact equivalent in other coins. Hebrew shekels, etc., from the days of the Maccabaean kings, and various Greek coins, (Mat 17:24, Mat 17:27 Rev. Ver. Margin) were also in use. The Herod family and the procurators were allowed to coin only copper money (Lutter.); any new silver coins were of necessity Roman. The emperors, down to Vespasian, as a concession to Jewish feeling, had coins made for that province without the head of the emperor (Keim), which would have been offensive as a "graven image."But Roman coins from other provinces would of course come into Judea, especially at the festivals, and one of, these happened (as we say) to be handed to Jesus. A penny, properly ’a denarius,’ a Roman coin, equal to about seventeen cents of our money. (Compare on Mat 18:28.) This was the price of a day’s labour in the parable, (Mat 20:2) and the daily wages of a Roman soldier (out of which he paid for his food), and seems also to have been the poll-tax at this time. Image and superscription, or ’inscription.’ The former translation might suggest something written above the image, whereas the Greek word means only something Written (or graven) on the coin. (Morison.) Many such coins are still extant, bearing the head of some emperor, with words giving his name and the value of the coin. Lightfoot quotes from the Talmud that "if a king’s coin is current in a country, the men of the country do thereby evidence that they acknowledge him for their Lord"; and there are various other testimonies to the same effect. Wunsche tries to show the existence of an expectation that the Messiah would declare the Roman coins uncurrent, which expectation would be an interesting illustration of this passage if its existence were better established.
Our Lord’s reply is one of those great sayings of his which cut into the heart of things, (compare Mat 15:11 Mar 2:27) clearing up difficulties that had long perplexed many honest and devout Jews, and occasioned vain wrangling without end. Under the theocracy, religious duties and civil duties were both duties to the same Divine Ruler, and men had little occasion to distinguish between them. There was, indeed, as Geikie reminds us, a somewhat similar confusion of religion and civil government among heathen peoples, as for example the Roman emperor was always chief priest. Now, however, that the Jewish civil government was administered by heathen rulers, the distinction between civil and religious duties was of great importance, but the people in general did not perceive that distinction. Jesus holds up the coin, which belongs to Cesar, which they use as furnished by him, and thus vividly shows that there are duties to the civil ruler which are distinct from duties to God, and do not necessarily conflict with them. In another sense, every duty to other men or to ourselves is at the same time a duty to God, but that is not here the point. Paul afterwards expressed the Saviour’s teaching on the subject in definite precept, when writing to Christians at the capital of the empire; (Rom 13:1, Rom 13:5) compare 1Pe 2:13-17. This was another ease of our Lord’s giving an object-lesson, like the child, (Mat 18:2) the fig-tree, (Mat 21:19) the feet-washing. Render as in Mat 16:27, Mat 21:41, literally give back, translated ’pay’ in Mat 5:26, Mat 18:25, Mat 18:28, Mat 20:8. The idea here seems to be, "You got this from Cesar, pay it back to him." Chrys.: "For this is not to give (Mat 22:17,), but to give back. "The things which are Cesar’s, not merely the tax, but all that citizens owe the civil government, one matter here suggesting all. The things that are God’s, not simply the temple revenues, but all ceremonial and moral duties. The notion that, like the coin, our souls are stamped with the image of God, and must therefore be yielded to his service (Tert., Origen, and many), is a mere fancy. They marvelled. With all their hostility they could not help seeing that he had not only escaped from the dilemma, (compare Luk 20:26) but had wonderfully cleared up an important question. Yet when there was time to reflect, they could not fail to perceive that Jesus had distinctly declined the role of a political and revolutionary Messiah, and this would gradually alienate from him the popular heart. (Compare Weiss, "Life.")
II. Mat 22:23-33. The Sadducees Ask As To The Resurrection
Mar 12:18-27 Luk 20:27-40. This is a second hard question from a new source. Luk 20:25-28. The same day seems clearly to show the close connection with what precedes; Mark and Luke again have simply ’and.’ The Sadducees (see on "Mat 3:7"). Omit ’the.’ It was not ’the Sadducees’ as a class, But some persons belonging to that party. Which say. The participle without the article here probably means indefinitely (Jelf, 451, Obs. 2) ’persons who say’ (as Mark, and as Origen paraphrases Matt.), while with the article it would be ’those persons who say,’[1] as Luke. That there is no resurrection, not only doubting but denying. This particular negative tenet of theirs (Act 23:8) is named to explain what follows. It must have been well known that Jesus taught the resurrection of the dead. (Joh 5:29 Luk 13:28) Master, teacher, as in Mat 22:16. These priestly aristocrats probably felt contemptuous; but they were gentlemen, and must be civil; one seems to detect a tone of polished scoffing in their attack. Moses said, in Deu 25:5 f. The quotation is condensed But without important alteration. Mark and Luke have ’his brother shall take his wife,’ etc., as in Septuagint. Matt., writing especially for Jewish readers, takes pains to translate more exactly the Hebrew, as Sept. does in Gen 38:8. The Hebrew has a peculiar verb representing this peculiar law, yebamah, yibbemah, ’her husband’s brother shall husband’s brother her,’ shall act the part or perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. (See margin of Rev. Ver. in Matt.) From the late Latin levir, ’brother-in-law,’ this precept of Deuteronomy is commonly called the levirate law. A like usage exists now in Arabia, the Caucasus, and elsewhere (Smith’s "Dict." Art. "Marriage "). It was an old custom, (Gen 38:8) which Moses did not abolish, but regulated and restricted, as he did with divorce (see on "Mat 5:32") and blood revenge. No actual case is recorded in Old Testament, but the custom is alluded to in Rth 1:11-13, and a related practice in Rth 4:1 ff. In our Lord’s time the law was but little observed, as there was then less concern about, maintaining families and family estates. The right of the husband’s brother to decline (Deu 25:7 ff.) is declared in the Mishna (Edersheim) to take precedence of the obligation to perform, and there was a growing disposition to limit the practice. The case described here by the Sadducees need not be supposed to have actually occurred. As in a parable, they tell the story for illustration. Seven is natural in such a story as a round number. One imagines they had often nonplussed the Pharisees with the question, in the resurrection whose wife shall she be? The Pharisees generally held that the resurrection life would be a mere reproduction of this life, with all its relations and conditions restored and made permanent. The Cabalistic book Sohar, written late, but with much early material, says, "The woman who has married two in this world is in the world to come restored to the former." Maimonides (twelfth century) taught that children would be produced in the world to come. Some Rabbis in the Talmud declare (Wet., Wun.) that in the world to come there would be no eating and drinking, no trading, no marriage and production of children. But it is evident that the other opinion generally prevailed.
[1] The article is omitted by à B D M S Z, about fifty cursives, Æth., and some Fathers. The participle without it would at first sight seem to mean ’came to him, saying,’ which would be an incongruous and improbable sense, though it is so understood by Old Syriac and Peshitta, The difficulty would be easily removed by copyists through the mere insertion of the article. The indefinite use of the participle after an indefinite noun, ’Sadducees, (persons) who say,’ though infrequent is unquestionable. So with the reading of Westcott Hort in Mat 23:24.
Mat 22:29 f. Ye do err. He speaks with kindness and decision. Not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. Bengel: "The resurrection of the dead rests on the power of God; and our faith in a resurrection rests on the Scriptures." These Sadducees were accustomed to deny that the Scriptures so taught, and doubtless also maintained, as skeptics in all subsequent times have done, that a resurrection of the body is impossible. But ’the power of God’ can accomplish it, and that not by merely restoring the conditions of this life, but by exalting to a different and higher type of existence. For introduces the explanation of the difficulty. In the resurrection, in the state of things represented thereby, in the risen life. They neither marry, etc., viz., in the sense of earthly marriage, which under its physical aspects, is necessarily an exclusive relation, so that a woman cannot here be the wife of several men at the same time. There is nothing in this statement to forbid the persuasion, elsewhere countenanced in Scripture, that the relations of earthly life will be remembered in the future state, the persons recognized, and special affections cherished with delight; and we can imagine that exalted and spiritualized conjugal affections may then and there exist towards more persons than one. The idea is hard to accept now, only because we do not realize how great changes of feeling will accompany existence in the glorified body (1Co 15:44 Php 3:21) In heaven, the love of two that were successive husbands may be as little mutually exclusive as the love of two children or two sisters, and yet be intense, peculiar, and delightful. This is another of those sayings by which our Lord at one stroke cut into the heart of some difficulty, and laid it open. Compare on Mat 22:21. But are as the angels in heaven,[1] viz., in being exalted above merely physical conditions and relations. Luke’s expression, ’are equal unto the angels,’ amounts to the same thing. There is nothing at all here to imply that the saints become angels (compare on Mat 18:10). Our Lord at the same time teaches that the Sadducees are wrong in denying the existence of angels.
[1] The addition ’of God,’ margin (Rev. Ver.) is wanting in B D, two cursives, most copies of the Old Latin, Old Syriac. Theb., Arm., and repeatedly in Origen. We might regard this as a "Western" omission, followed by B. and Origen (as does sometimes happen), but for the fact that one sees nothing to cause the omission. On the other hand, ’angels of God’ would be a natural marginal note to explain ’angels in heaven,’ and might then easily creep into the text. Several of the documents which add the words here add them in Mark also.
Mat 22:31-33, Having explained how they err through not knowing ’the power of God,’ he now shows their ignorance of the Scriptures on this subject. (Mat 22:2,.) Have ye not read, compare on Mat 21:42, Mat 12:3. Spoken unto you by God. God spoke thus to Moses, (Exo 3:6) and presently (Mat 3:15) bade him speak likewise to the children of Israel. Matthew and Mark quote from Mat 12:6, Luke from Mat 12:15. Luke says, ’even Moses signified.’ It was inferred from this by Tert., Origen, Chrys., Jerome, and has been often repeated, that the Sadducees recognized none of the sacred books as authoritative except the Pentateuch But there is no proof of more than that they valued the Pent. more highly than the other books, which was true in some degree of all the Jews. Luke’s expression is sufficiently accounted for by the fact that apparent proofs of the resurrection were familiar in the prophets. Jesus means to say, not only have the prophets shown it, but even Moses. The God, Mat 12:32, is in italics in Rev. Ver..; it is naturally understood to complete the sense. The Sadducees denied a resurrection of the body and any existence of spirits, (Act 23:8) which position would exclude a separate immortality of the soul, and so there is no occasion to doubt the statement of Josephus ("War," 2, 8, 14) that "they do away with the continued existence of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades." Indeed the idea of separate immortality of the soul was little present to the mind of the Palestinian Jews, and the question lay simply between a resurrection of the body, and no future existence; so also in 1 Corinthians 15. If the passage of Exodus be taken in the superficial sense, an objector might fairly deny that it proves a resurrection of the dead. It might mean simply, "I am he who was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob during their life, and this is a pledge that I will be the God of their descendants." We cannot insist on the present tense ’am,’ as many have followed Chrys. in doing; for the verb is not expressed at all in Mark nor in the Hebrew, and therefore certainly cannot be emphatic. But our Lord is the authority (Mat 7:29) for understanding the passage in a profounder sense, even as he claimed to reveal God. (Mat 11:27) God here speaks of his covenant with the patriarchs; and the Eternal One would not make and avow such a covenant save with those whose existence is permanent. Our Lord then does not so much argue from the passage in its obvious meaning, as authoritatively expound it in a deeper sense. To explain in this way the difficulty which the passage represents is not entirely satisfactory, but it is certainly more natural and reasonable, on the very lowest ground, than to suppose that Jesus failed to see the fallacy which would otherwise lurk in the argument. The Talmud (Wun.) tells of Rabbi Gamaliei (not Paul’s teacher, but a later Rabbi) as convincing some Sadducee by arguing from ’them’ in Deu 11:9, "in the land which the Lord sware unto your fathers to give them"; and of another Rabbi as proving the resurrection from Exo 6:4, "to give them the land of Canaan," viz., (Mat 22:3) to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. These do not involve the profound thought of the passage used by our Lord, and even these (Edersheim) may have been only poor imitations of his teaching. The multitudes... were astonished as in Matthew 22, Mat 7:28, Mat 13:54, at his doctrine, lit. teaching, see on "Mat 7:28". Luke says that some of the Scribes (not of the Sadducees) answered, "Teacher, thou hast well said."
The story of the woman taken in adultery, (Joh 7:53 to Joh 8:11) which certainly does not belong where the common text gives it in John, is placed after Luk 21:38 by the lost uncial represented by the four cursives, 18, 69, 124, 846. This would put it on the day of these several attacks upon Jesus, which it strikingly resembles both in aim and in result. As the story is in all probability historically true (see Horsy on John), it may perhaps be supposed that the interview really occurred on this. day. Lange ("Life") and Ellicott would place it at the point we have now reached, Hitzig before the question of the Sadducees, Weiss before the question about tribute to Cesar; which latter view suits the phrase "early in the morning." (Joh 8:1 ff.)
III. Mat 22:34-40. A Lawyer Asks Which Is The Great Commandment
Mar 12:28-34, Luke does not give this, probably because he had given a similar teaching in connection with the parable of the Good Samaritan, some months earlier. (Luk 10:25 ff.)
Mat 22:34-36. The rivalry between the Pharisees and the Sadducees (see on "Mat 8:7") here appears. The former, who had withdrawn (Mat 22:22,), were doubtless pleased to find the Sadducees beaten in argument, their perhaps celebrated and to the Pharisees very perplexing question solved, and the doctrine of the resurrection more firmly established in the popular mind; but all the more was it important that they themselves should make a further attack upon the Nazarene, lest his followers should think him victorious over all. When the Pharisees had heard. This may refer to the leading Pharisees who had put forward the juniors. (Mat 22:16) Put the Sadducees to silence. The passive of the same verb is rendered ’was speechless’ in Mat 22:12. It signifies literally to muzzle, (1Co 9:9) then to silence. (1Pe 2:15) They were gathered together, either for consultation as to their next move (compare Mat 22:15), or to give the weight of a large attendance to the new enquiry. One of them... a lawyer. Mark, ’one of the Scribes.’ The Scribes, from being authorized copyists of law, and thus minutely acquainted with the text, had come to be recognized as authoritative expounders of its meaning, (see on "Mat 2:4"). In this capacity they were called ’lawyers,’ a term found also six times in Luke, and in Tit 3:13, and which may have been applied only to such Scribes as were particularly noted for their interpretations of the law. Some of them acted as formal ’teachers of the law’ (law professors), Luk 5:17 Act 5:34, 1Ti 1:7. As the law of Moses united civil and religious precepts, these lawyers must be described to the modern mind as half lawyer, half theologian, corresponding to the original and proper use of the title LL.D., a Doctor of Laws, i. e., of both civil law and canon law. They were looked up to as great authorities. But their citations and interpretations of Scripture-law were often belittled by petty quibbling, and were loaded with references to former decisions (compare on Mat 7:29), both of these being vices not confined to the lawyers or theologians of any one age. Tempting him. (Compare on Mat 22:18, Mat 16:1). Putting him to the test, with the hope that he would say something unpopular, or perhaps that he might be drawn into a bitter and wrangling discussion. This the lawyer does as representative, and apparently by request, of the many Pharisees assembled. Mark shows, (Mar 12:28) that the lawyer himself had been favourably impressed by our Lord’s answer to the Sadducees, and was a man inclined to true devoutness. The apparent conflict between this and Matthew’s statement is removed by the supposition just made. To understand ’tempting’ here in the good sense (Plump., Morison), is contrary to the nearly uniform and very frequent use of the word in the New Testament, and does not harmonize with the tone of Matthew’s narrative. Which is the great commandment in the law? More literally this would be: What sort of commandment is great in the law? And such is the exact sense in Mat 19:18, Mat 21:23. The Jews were fond of classifying the commandments as great and small, or weighty and light. (Mat 23:23) Wünsche thinks that the object of so doing was to decide rightly in case of conflict between several precepts and prohibitions, since the rabbis taught that there was the same reward for observing the light as the weighty. Some held (Talmud Jer.) that "the words of the Scribes surpass the words of the law; for the words of the law are weighty and light, but the words of the Scribes are all weighty." The special hope in asking this question may have been (Keim) that he would take position for or against the "oral law." Our Lord’s reply (Mat 22:38) shows that he recognized a difference in the importance of the commandments.
Mat 22:37 f. Jesus said. ’Jesus’ is wanting in some of the best documents, and was readily inserted by copyists (compare on Mat 14:14). With all thy heart, etc., literally, ’in all,’ the love dwelling in the heart. (Compare on Mat 3:11). The Hebrew (Deu 6:4 f.) has heart, soul, might. We have repeatedly observed that in Hebrew usage the heart is regarded as the seat of thought and volition, as well as emotion. (See on "Mat 6:19"). A kindred Greek use is found only in Homer and the tragic poets (Lid. and Scott); for late Greek prose some other expression might seem to be needed. Accordingly, in Sept. heart is here rendered by a word equivalent to ’mind’; though in 2Ki 23:25 it translates literally ’heart, soul, might,’ and ’heart, soul’ in Deu 10:12, Deu 30:6. Matthew retains ’heart and substitutes ’mind’ for the general term ’might,’ which of course here denotes mental and not physical power; Mark and Luke give both ’mind’ and ’might,’ and presently Mark (Mar 12:33) has the Scribe stating it as heart, understanding, might. All these amount to the same thing, piling up different terms to show that all our faculties and affections must be occupied with love to Jehovah. The first and great commandment,[1] greatest in importance, and first in proper order of statement.
[1] This was changed by many documents from ’great and first’ to ’first and great,’ as smoother. We can see, upon reflection, that the phrase properly begins with ’great,’ because that was the point of the inquiry; but copyists, like modern compositors, seldom had time to reflect.
Mat 22:39 f. After answering the immediate question, Jesus further states what is the second, This is quoted from Lev 19:18, same in Hebrew and Sept. Like unto it, viz., like in nature, as being a commandment to love, and perhaps like as being also very important. On these two commandments hang, etc. Literally, as in Rev. Ver., hangeth the whole law, the verb being singular in the correct Greek text. Like the peg on which garments hang, these great precepts upheld all the other precepts of the law, yes, and of the prophets. (Compare on Mat 7:12) Every thing commanded in the Old Testament may be included under one or the other of these; (compare Rom 13:8 f.) and all the instructions and promises serve to help in fulfilling these great precepts. A Rabbi once said (Wun.),"Name a little saying on which all essential teachings hang. ’In all thy ways acknowledge him.’" (Pro 3:6) Plutarch says (Wet.): " ’Know thyself,’ and ’Nothing in excess’; for on these hang all the others." We see from Luk 10:27 that at least some of the ’lawyers’ were wont themselves to combine these two great commandments, as together telling what must be done in order to "inherit eternal life"; yet we may be sure they took a far less broad and spiritual view of them than Jesus took. The two are quoted from different books, but our Lord declares them similar, and places them in close relation. Some religionists incline to dwell on the first and neglect the other, some unbelievers eulogize the second and care nothing for the first. But there is no earnest and intelligent love to God without love to our neighbour; and the love of our neighbour derives its fundamental and necessary sanction from love to God. The second precept cannot stand alone, even in theory. Why should I subdue egoism and lift altruism to a level with it? Certain skeptical philosophers say that natural sympathy by frequent exercise hardens into altruism. But suppose this has not happened with me; why should I feel it my duty to sacrifice my interest or inclination for the benefit of others? The true and only sufficient answer is, that supreme duty to God includes and authenticates duty to man.—Mark tells us (Mar 12:32, Mar 12:34) that the Scribe fully recognized the propriety of the answer, and the superiority of these great ethical duties to all religious ceremony; and seeing that he answered sensibly, Jesus said, "Thou art not far from the kingdom of God."
IV. Mat 22:41-46. Jesus Questions The Pharisees As To David’s Son And Lord,
Mar 12:35-37; Luk 20:41-44. Having answered all the questions so as to command the admiration even of his enemies, our Lord finishes the conversation by turning on the Pharisees with a question which they cannot answer (Mat 22:46; compare Mat 21:27), and which ought to set them to thinking how defective are their conceptions of the Messiah. He knew that he would be condemned by the Sanhedrin for saying that he was "the Christ, the Son of God" (Mat 26:63-66; compare Joh 5:18); and he defends himself in advance (Godet) by pointing out that the Messiah cannot be a mere man. He takes occasion for this while the Pharisees were gathered together. (Compare Mat 22:34.) What think ye of (the) Christ? What is your opinion concerning the Messiah? Pulpit interpretation of the Com. Ver. has often treated ’What think ye of Christ?’ entirely according to our present use of the term ’Christ’; but with the article it evidently means ’the Messiah.’ (Compare on Mat 2:4) This general question is then especially applied, if not restricted, to the added inquiry, Whose son is he? To this there could be but one answer, according to universal Jewish opinion and recognized Scripture teaching; (compare Mat 9:27, Mat 12:23, Mat 15:22, Mat 20:30, Mat 21:9, Mat 21:15 Joh 7:41 f.) in Mark and Luke our Lord refers to the fact that the Scribes so taught.
Mat 22:43-45. Jesus here quotes the first verse of Psalms 110 as said by David in (the) spirit, and said concerning the Messiah. Certain critics maintain that Psalms 110 was not written by David, and does not relate to the Messiah. Now, if this be really so, let us all recognize the fact, and modify accordingly our conceptions as to the teachings of Jesus, and as to inspired teaching in general; for here would be the Saviour asserting two things which are both untrue, and making them the basis of his argument. This psalm is oftener quoted in the New Testament as Messianic than is any other portion of the Old Testament Besides the quotation here, which is recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it is quoted by Peter in Act 2:33-35, by Paul in 1Co 15:25, in Heb 1:13, Heb 10:12 f.; and is distinctly alluded to as Messianic in Eph 1:20 Heb 1:3, 1Pe 3:22; while 1Pe 3:4 is made the basis of a Messianic argument in Heb 5:6 to Heb 7:25. The psalm is expressly ascribed to David by Jesus himself in all three Gospels, and by Peter at the Pentecost, basing his argument on that fact; and ’David’ certainly cannot be here understood, as some wish to understand it in several other passages, to mean merely the book of Psalms; for the argument both of the Saviour and of Peter refers to the man himself. The inscription, "A Psalm of David," at least shows that such was an early Jewish opinion. It was regarded as Messianic by Jewish expositors (compare Edersh., App. IX.) up to the tenth century (Toy); the medieval Jewish writers doubtless began to deny it in order to escape the Christian argument.
On what grounds then do some assert that the psalm was not written by David, and does not refer to the Messiah? The matter is of such interest as to justify a detailed statement.
(1) It is urged that the Psalm cannot have been written by David, because the writer speaks of David as ’my Lord.’ Therefore some think it was written by a contemporary and addressed to David; so Ewald, Meyer. A divine oracle from Jehovah was given David, as in Heb 7:1, and the poet started from this. But David may in high prophetic vision be speaking immediately of the Messiah. There is no certain example of this elsewhere in the Old Testament, unless Moses’ prediction of a prophet like himself (Deu 18:15) be thought an exception. It is always primarily David, or Solomon, or Cyrus, or Israel, etc., and then secondarily the Messiah. But our Lord says that Abraham saw his day and rejoiced; (Joh 8:56) and this being true, it is certainly possible that David may have done likewise. Jesus distinctly says that this is the case; that David does here address the Messiah as Lord. If prophecy involves supernatural knowledge of the future, this might be the meaning; if Jesus possessed supernatural insight into Scripture, this is the meaning. If the critic assumes, as many destructive critics really do, that neither prophet nor Saviour possessed any truly supernatural knowledge, then the argument may as well be dropped, or must be transferred to another department of inquiry. (2) Toy: "The psalm is an address to a king, whose capital was Jerusalem, announcing his coming victories over enemies, and his establishment in the dignity of priest. There is nothing on its face to indicate that it referred to any other person than the one addressed; or that this person was other than a contemporary of the poet; there is no such pointing to a corning man as in Isaiah 11, Micah 5, and other prophetic passages; it is a present monarch to whom the psalmist speaks." But if there is any real Messianic prophecy in the Old Testament, then it is natural that such a prophecy should draw imagery from a king at Jerusalem. There may be nothing on the face of the psalm which without assistance would have shown us that it is Messianic; but there is nothing to show that it is not, and the Founder of Christianity informs us that it is Messianic. As to the use of present tenses, many prophecies describe future events as present or even as past. In this second case also, the whole argument really turns upon the question whether there was a supernatural element in the teaching of Jesus. (3) It is objected that most of the psalm describes a conqueror and a temporal sovereign, and so it cannot be an immediate prediction of the New Testament Messiah. But the Messiah is necessarily described through images, and is in various other prophecies conceived of as a king and conqueror. We need not suppose that David or Abraham foresaw the Messiah’s offices and experiences in all respects. (4) It is urged that the idea of a Messiah-priest is foreign to the Old Testament, which knows only a Messiah-king, (Reuss). But this is a Messiah-king, who is declared to be also priest; and Jehovah recognizes that there is no parallel in Israel by seeking one in Melchizedek. (5) Some say that to find in the actual history a priest-king, we must come down to Jonathan the Maccabee. Yes, farther still, to Alexander Jannaeus (B. C. 105 to 78); and even Alexander’s is not a parallel case, for he was a priest becoming king, while the psalm has a king made also priest. Even without the supernatural, certainly ideas might arise in literature before the facts occur in life. Besides, David and Solomon sometimes offered sacrifice, assuming temporarily the functions of priest; and the psalm speaks of its king as a priest forever. So, the idea is not impossible or unintelligible for the men of David’s time. And though supernatural prophecy usually drew its imagery from the actual, it certainly might make new and easy combinations of existing objects or ideas. (6) The language has been held to show a far later time than that of David. Some critics have laid stress on this argument and afterwards silently abandoned it. Hitzig insists that two words in the psalm clearly prove it to have been written after the captivity.[1] But Ewald says: "As also the language of the song does not oppose, it is to be regarded as certain that the king is David; for king and kingdom appear here at the highest point of nobleness and glory." Hitzig’s proofs from language cannot be very strong, when Ewald brushes them so unceremoniously aside. In fact, they amount to practically nothing.
[1] The word yalduth, ’youth,’ is found elsewhere only in Ecclesiastes, which it is taken for granted was written after the exile. The word mischar, ’morning,’ is held to be a late formation by addition, instead of the simple shahar, like mesar, migrash, Eze 36:5, instead of sar, geresh. But the very word misgrash is used as a noun in Num. and Josh. And mishar, though found only here, is a regular Hebrew formation, not characteristically Aramaic. So mischak, laughter, is found only in Hab 1:10; and, Mishtar dominion, only In Job 38:33.
These are all the objections that are known, to have been adduced. Only the first and second have any considerable force, and certainly they are very far from being conclusive. Yet these are the grounds upon which some even of reverent critics take the position that Jesus has here based an important argument upon two downright errors. It is true that the knowledge of our Lord’s human mind was limited (compare on Mat 21:19); but that is a very different thing from saying that it was erroneous, and that he used error as a means of instructing and convincing others.
In (the) spirit. The Greek expression, if it stood alone, would be ambiguous, for it might mean, as all the early English versions here render, ’in spirit,’ viz., in his own spirit (as in Joh 4:23). But the term Spirit soon became among the Christians equivalent to a proper name, and so might be understood as definite without an article, meaning the Holy Spirit (as in Joh 3:5). Now in the parallel passage of Mark, (Mar 12:36 R.V.) it is ’in the Holy Spirit.’ We cannot always determine the exact meaning of language from a parallel passage. But here the connection is precisely the same, and so Mark’s expression may be taken as defining that of Matt. Compare exactly the same Greek phrase in Rev 1:10, Rev 4:2, and nearly the same in Rom 9:1, 1Co 12:3. As to the idea here conveyed, compare Act 4:25 Heb 3:7 (quoting a psalm), end Heb 10:15, Heb 9:8, where the Spirit teaches through a type, and 2Pe 1:21. These passages strongly assert that the Holy Spirit speaks through David in Psalms 2 and Psalms 110; also that he speaks in Psalms 95 and Jer 31:33; and that he speaks through the prophets in general. There is here no theory of inspiration; nothing taught as to the precise nature or modus operandi of that influence of the Spirit under which David spoke. But it evidently means a supernatural influence.
The Septuagint here exactly translates the Hebrew, and is closely followed in Luke, Acts, Hebrews. But instead of ’as the footstool of thy feet,’ Matt. and Mark in the correct Greek text have simply ’underneath thy feet,’ which was readily changed by copyists to agree with the Sept.[2] The Lord said unto my Lord, In the Hebrew, ’Jehovah (Yahweh) said unto my Lord.’ The later Jews had a superstitious dread of pronouncing the proper name of the God of Israel, and when they came to it in reading would substitute, as the Jews do to this day, Adonai, the Lord. Accordingly the Sept. translators, who were Jews, rendered the proper name by Kurios, ’Lord.’ When the Massoretic scholars, some centuries after Christ, undertook to write vowels under the consonants of the Hebrew words, they gave to the proper name, J h v h the vowels of the word Adonai which they were accustomed to substitute, with a slight modification of the first vowel which Hebrew usage warranted. This has led to the modern pronunciation Jehovah. But there can be no doubt that the word was originally pronounced with other vowels; and its sound was probably Jahveh, or to represent it more exactly in English letters, Yahweh. Our English versions of the Old Testament have always in like manner represented this proper name by ’the Lord,’ and it has become common to print ’the Lord’ in capitals in those cases to distinguish it from Adonai. There would be great advantage in substituting Jehovah, as preferred by American Revisers, see Appendix, as showing that a proper name is really meant; and the mere matter of correctly representing the Hebrew vowels would be of little practical importance. The New Testament writers, being accustomed to read and often to quote the Sept., have followed its practice; and it is sometimes not easy to determine whether means Jehovah, or simply Lord in the more general sense. Sit thou on my right hand. This was naturally the post of highest honour at the court, where one could be conveniently consulted by the monarch in judging his people, compare Mat 19:28 Psa 45:9. Make thine enemies, etc., better as Rev. Ver., put thine enemies underneath thy feet. This is an image founded on the practice described in Jos 10:24; compare Psa 47:3. The Messiah will share the divine reign and conquering power till all his enemies are completely subdued, and will then give back his delegated Messianic dominion (Mat 28:18) to the Father. (1Co 15:28)
[2] ’Underneath,’ hupokato, is here read by à B, D, L, several other uncials, and some cursives, the Egyptian and other versions. It was easily changed by copyists into hupopodion, ’footstool.’ Nothing is more common in the manuscripts of the New Testament than to find a quotation altered in conformity with the Sept. In Mark is given by B, D, the Egyptian versions, etc. is read with slight variation in Luke, and without any variation in Acts and Hebrews. So it is clear that ’underneath’ is the true reading in Matthew, and pretty clear in Mark (Rev. Ver. margin). This ’underneath’ is probably a mere simplification, but may have come (Toy) from the Septuagint of Psa 8:7. The newspaper critics who have ridiculed Rev. Ver., in Luke Acts, etc., for using such a phrase as ’footstool of thy feet,’ did not know that they were ridiculing the originals.
The question repeated and pressed in Mat 22:45 was no catch-question, such as the Phar. and Sadd. had addressed to him. (Mat 22:17, Mat 22:28.) It tended to show that the Messiah could not be a mere temporal sovereign, nor in fact a mere man.
Mat 22:46. No man was able to answer him a word. (Compare Luk 14:6) According to their conception of the Messiah the question was unanswerable. It was afterwards answered by one who was at that time a young Pharisee, though we know not whether then studying in Jerusalem or absent at Tarsus. This Pharisee lived to gain such revelation of Jesus the Messiah, and such understanding of the Messianic Scriptures, as to perceive that he was "made (born) of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead." (Rom 1:3 f., compare Rom 9:5) The fact that no one durst from that day forth ask him any more questions is also stated by Mark and Luke as the result of this same series of questions and answers. Mark (Mar 12:34) makes the remark at the close of the lawyer’s question to Jesus, the last question of his enemies; and Luke (Luk 20:40) at the close of the question by the Sadducees, the last that he records. All the select wisdom and ingenuity of the learned and ruling classes, in both the great parties, had brought their most puzzling questions to the young teacher from Nazareth, who had never studied in any of the schools, (Joh 7:15 ff.) and he not only gave in every case an answer of astonishing depth and clearness, which sent the wisest men away in wondering reflection, but at length retorted by a question which no one could answer, and which seemed plainly to indicate that their views of the Messiah were radically defective. Our Lord went right on discoursing, attacking the ruling classes with the most outspoken and unsparing severity (ch. 23), but they dared not any more interrupt or inquire. They were helpless in argument, and as usual with foiled and angry disputants who will not be convinced, they had no hope but in violence. At this point Mark says, (Mar 12:37) ’And the common people heard him gladly.’ The people who thronged the temple court had no position to lose, and no pride of learning; they were more hospitable to new truth, and were not sorry to see arrogant rabbis and priestly aristocrats put to shame.
Homiletical And Practical
Mat 22:15. Chrys.: "’Then.’ When? When most of all they ought to have been moved to compunction, when they should have been amazed at his love to man, when they should have feared the things to come."—Mat 22:16. Jesus praised by his enemies. (1) Acute flatterers may show what reputation a person really desires. (2) What these flattering foes said of Jesus we know from other sources to have been thoroughly correct; (a) he was true, (b) he taught the way of God in truth, (c) and without fear or favour. (3) There are other recorded instances of unwilling testimony to Jesus. (4) The day is coming when every tongue shall confess that he is Lord (Php 2:11)—Alexander: "Such adulation (as was here offered to Jesus) has blinded the eyes and warped the judgment of its thousands and its tens of thousands among human sages, and especially of those who glory in their insusceptibility of flattery."
Mat 22:17. It is much to be desired that people shall often ask their religious teacher concerning questions of truth and duty. Even when questions are asked with evil motives, as a test or a snare, it is well to escape the snare by prudent answers (Mat 22:46), and to silence the evil-disposed, (Tit 1:11) and better still to give answers that will clear up real difficulties (Mat 22:21), and enlighten the well-disposed. (Mat 22:22; Mar 12:7.) Human tempters may often be not merely overcome, but won to wiser judgments and kinder feelings.
Mat 22:18. ’Jesus perceived their wickedness.’ He knows to-day all that is in the hearts of those who are openly trying to injure his cause and dishonour his name, and of those who hypocritically pretend to be his friends. ’Hypocrites.’ JEROME: "It is the highest excellence in one who replies to know the mind of the questioner."
Mat 22:21. Civil and religious duties. (1) It is a religious duty to perform all real civil duties. (2) It is not a civil duty to perform religious duties. Laws as to Sabbath observance, etc., can be based only on public health and moral welfare, and the right of worshippers to be undisturbed. (3) Careful observance of the distinction between civil and religious duties is necessary to freedom of conscience, and greatly promotive of genuine piety. Here, as everywhere, liberty has its embarrassments and perils, but on the whole it is far best.—Civil duties may still be binding when the ruler is personally immoral and tyrannical; Cesar here was Tiberius, and when Paul and Peter urged obedience it was to Nero. Chrys.: "But thou when thou hearest, ’render unto Cesar the things which are Cesar’s,’ know that he is speaking only of those things which are no detriment to godliness; since if it be any such thing as this, such a thing is no longer Cesar’s tribute, but the devil’s."
Mat 22:28 f. Sceptics often have favourite catch questions; but superficial and ridiculing inquiries are much better than silent neglect, and they should usually be met with a kind and thoughtful answer, and may sometimes be made the occasion of establishing positive truth. All scepticism as to Christian truth results in part from ignorance of the Bible, and of the divine attributes.
Mat 22:29 ff. The resurrection of the dead. (1) It is taught in the Bible, (a) even in the Pentateuch, (b) in the Prophets, (c) in the New Testament (2Ti 1:10) (2) It puts great honour upon the human body. (Psa 139:14 Php 3:21) (3) It gives vividness to our conceptions of eternal existence and felicity. (4) It will exalt above much of the narrowness and exclusiveness of earthly relations and affections. Chrys.: "Since then the resurrection is like this, come let us do all things that we may obtain the first honours there."
Mat 22:36. All commandments of God are in one sense equally binding, and the spirit of obedience is tested by all; but some relate to matters intrinsically more important. Those commandments are greatest which are most spiritual, most opposed to selfishness, most comprehensive. Duty to God is in itself the highest duty, and comprehends all other duties.
Mat 22:37. Love is the attraction of gravitation in the moral universe, binding moral creatures to each other, and all alike to God. Loving God and knowing God are mutually dependent. Pascal remarks that in other things we must know in order to love; in religion we must love in order to know. Sources from which we may gain knowledge of God—from nature—from human nature-from ’the image of the invisible God’ ("God was made flesh, that flesh might see that God is love ").—from revelation in general—from observation of his providence, and communion with his Spirit. Reasons for loving God. (1) Because he is God. (2) Because he is our God. Means of increasing our love to God-think of him much—speak of him with reverence-cultivate delight in his worship—see him in history, and in our own life—obey his commandments—strive to bring others to love him too.
Mat 22:39. ’Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.’ (1) Why should I love my neighbour as myself? (2) Who is the neighbour I must love as myself? (3) What is involved in loving my neighbour as myself?
Mat 22:42-45. The Messiah. (1) To account the Messiah merely a man, is hopelessly inconsistent with Scripture. (2) The Jewish Messiah is also the world’s Messiah. (3) The Messiah reigns now on the right hand of God. (4) Shall we live as the Messiah’s enemies, to be trampled under foot, or as his loving subjects, to inherit the kingdom? (Mat 25:34)
Mat 22:46. Henry: "Many are silenced that are not saved, many convinced that are not converted."
John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (American Baptist Publication Society, 1886) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On v15 Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or…
Mat_22:15-22
Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
Read full note →
The duty of an entire surrender to God
I. What those things are which we should render unto God.
1. Our time. Especially youth; and particularly the Sabbath.
2. Our substance.
3. Our children.
4. Our hearts.
5. Our whole selves.
6. The blessed fruits, and all the glory of His own grace, should: by the Christian, be rendered back to God.
II. How this is to be performed. That it may be an acceptable service we must do it-
1. If hitherto neglected, without delay.
2. Freely, and without reluctance.
3. Thankfully, and without murmuring.
4. Humbly, and without ostentation.
5. Wholly, and without reserve.
6. For perpetuity, and without drawback.
7. In the whole of this, we should have an eye to Christ. He is the medium of all communication from God, and conveyance to Him. (B. Beddome, M. A.)
Twenty-third Sunday after Trinity
This narrative-
I. In reference to what is in man.
1. Here was a profession of great piety and holiness, conjoined with very inexcusable hatred. The Pharisees were the most pretentious religionists of the day; this no proof of genuine piety. They could not refute Christ, but hated Him.
2. We observe here also a very base design. They took counsel how they might entangle Him in His talk.
3. We observe here a very iniquitous co-partnership. The Pharisees and Herodians were radical enemies.
4. We observe here also a glib, obsequious, but treacherous and lying flattery: Master, we know that Thou art true. Their design was to throw Him off His guard.
5. Observe the devilish cunning of the plot. Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, etc. They professed honest doubt in order to fasten Him on the horns of a dilemma.
II. With reference to what was in Christ.
1. We are here shown that Christ was a very dignified man. He was poor; but imposing majesty went along with His humble simplicity.
2. We are here shown that our Saviour had the reputation of a truthful man.
3. He was also a man of acknowledged intelligence.
4. He was, moreover, a man of honest faithfulness. But the subsequent parts of the narrative attest still higher qualities in our blessed Lord.
(1) With all the dissimulation of these men Jesus saw through the mask, and all their secret thoughts were open to Him. He perceived their nakedness.
(2) He found an easy way out of the net from which human trickery believed it impossible for Him to escape. (J. A. Seiss, D. D.)
God and Caesar
I. The gospel ought to penetrate everything. Human life in its most widely sundered spheres must submit to its action. That being said, I affirm-
II. That religious and civil society are profoundly distinct. This will appear if we consider-
1. The nature of the dominion they exercise. The dominion of the State is that of the present life, and of purely temporal interests. It must guarantee to each citizen the free enjoyment of his rights and liberties. Its supreme ideal is justice. On this side it meets morals. There is a social morality which should not be considered as doing violence to the individual conscience, but which may claim submission from all, and sacrifice, if necessary. They are mistaken, therefore, who make of civil society a mere community of interests. It knows, and can form, the citizen; it ought not to have possession of the man. It must stop at the threshold of religious conscience.
2. Nor is it only by the sphere in which their authority is to be felt that the Church and the State differ; it is still more by the nature of the means which they employ. The arm of the State is force; the arm of the Church is the Word (2Co_10:4).
3. Differing thus, the Church and civil society should in their inevitable relations conserve, each for itself, their independence with zealous care. This independence may be compromised in two ways: by the theocracy which submits the State to the Church, and by the opposite systems, which submit the Church to the State. In the eyes of many representatives of modern democracy, a religious society should be considered as any other society would be. It is to be governed by the rule of the majority of its members. But Christianity is a revealed fact, and does not depend on the chances of majorities. The Church should not be associated with any political party; it suffers in such alliance. An analogy will illustrate my thought: Every modern nation has two fundamental institutions-the army and the school. Now, that is no wise head which does not understand that neither the one nor the other of these should be open to discussion concerning politics. An army in which the generals became judges would surrender the nation to all sorts of dangers and assaults; schools, in which masters introduced the burning questions which divide us, would become a thorough raid on the liberty of families. In demanding that our soldiers and professors shall not intermingle political debates with their duties, no one understands that they are required to abdicate their independence, their patriotism, and their dignity as citizens. Need I say that the Church is a sphere infinitely superior to the school and the army, and that it is folly to allow party passions and hatreds to penetrate it? The Church places us face to face with eternity; she does not look at questions from the standpoint of the day or the hour, but rules over time and our passing differences. The mere earthly life becomes enslaving-and when has it been more so than to-day?-the more necessary it is that, from above it, we should affirm the grand invisible realities which do not pass away. The absolute, which is only another aspect of the eternal-that is the thing which the Church should proclaim. She must see questions in their relation to God. The domain of politics, on the contrary, is relative, and often even less than that. Politics takes men as they are, and circumstances as they are. I do not ask that religion should remain silent before the immoralities of politics; quite the contrary. I wish that, in order to denounce them with the greater force, she should not descend into the political arena; for, if she is suspected of speaking, not in the name of conscience, but in the name of party, she becomes nothing more than one voice more amid the discordant clamours of the day. Let us take a celebrated example, to which it behoves us always to recur. There is not one of us who has not admired the conduct of John the Baptist at Herods court, and the firm courage with which he said to the blameworthy king, It is not lawful for thee to have her. But let John the Baptist, in place of being the prophet of conscience, become a popular judge, and all his authority crumbles: for, behind his denunciation, you discern a political end and the triumph of a party.. Well, then, I cannot cease saying to those whose honour and privilege it is to represent the Church, Never compromise it in struggles to which it should remain a stranger. Its grandeur and its force are in being the voice of eternal right, and of justice toward all. (E. Bersier, D. D.)
Money morally stamped
The destination of money. How might a man moralize over a large heap of gold pieces, before they go forth from the mint to have their purity soiled by the rough usage of human hands. How many of you, he might say, are going to be the currency of selfishness, to be coined over by the chill spirit of avarice, and to have the symbol which the mint has left upon you effaced by the figure of Mammon, and the miserly mottoes that will be graved upon you when you become the instruments and objects of selfish greed? Some of them, the prophetic eye might see, were going to be spent for intemperate indulgence, to be offered on the altar of Bacchus, and so morally to be recoined with his reeling figure bloated upon it, and that awful text from his gospel, Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die. Others, it might be seen, were on their way to the hot prizes of the gaming-table, the innermost sanctuary of the pit, where feverish eyes should be fastened upon them, and desperate hearts stake their last treasure for them, and where they seem almost visibly to gleam with the fiery portrait of Satan, his chosen medallions, that burn every hand unlucky enough to win. Others go to purchase learning and culture, and the recorded thoughts of genius, and upon them the image and superscription of Apollo and Minerva are outlined. Some, again, will wear the forms of the Graces or the Muses, inlaid into their substance by the human tastes that make them serve as ministers. If the eye could foresee what ones would go on missions of mercy, would strengthen the interests of truth, would put wings on good ideas, would endow beneficent institutions with new power, would carry sympathy and help to the bed of some poor sufferer, kindle a fire upon the desolate hearth, spread a meal upon the table of destitution, clothe a pallid and shivering child, or give it some training of mind or heart-those, a man might say, are the Christian coins. It should seem that they ought to gleam more brightly among the heaps where they lie. The form of Christ is really stamped upon that silver and gold, and His superscription, It is more blessed to give than to receive, enwreathes His image with immortal truth. Those are the dollars that look precious in the sight of heaven. The touch of benevolence transmutes them into eternal possessions. Who would not wish to own them? Who, when the hour of death comes, would not prefer to have spent such coin? What pleasure or profit would then look so bright, or give such comfort as the retrospect of these golden benefactors of the world! (T. Start King.)
The conscience exempt from civil rule
When certain persons attempted to persuade Stephen, King of Poland, to constrain some of his subjects, who were of a different religion, to embrace his, he said to them, I am king of men, and not of consciences. The dominion of conscience belongs exclusively to God.
The citizens twofold stewardship
Christ is not here defining two duties which stand in contrast or antithesis to each other. He is defining one duty, in its just relation to another and a higher duty out of which it grows. Recall the occasion of His words. Some one has brought to Him a penny, and asks Him whether it is lawful for a Jew to pay tribute to a Roman ruler. Says Christ in effect, My brother, the penny itself has settled that question. It has, stamped upon it, an image or medallion which is Caesars likeness. It is current here because this is Caesars country; and you use it, whether you choose to own the fact or no, because you are Caesars subject. Give Caesar, therefore, his due. Pay your taxes, obey the laws, honour the civil authorities; but that you may do so, begin by paying your taxes to God. The penny bears an image; so do you. The penny is from the mint of the emperor; you are from the mint of God. The use of the penny is determined by its likeness. So, too, your use is determined by your likeness. Every faculty in you, every gift, every grace and charm and power which is most characteristic and distinctive, is the stamp of the Divine. You are Gods child. You bear His image. Render to Him your supreme and unceasing tribute; and in doing that, all other and minor questions will settle themselves. Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, do I say? Yes. But render them because, and in the inspiration, of that higher duty which bids you render unto God the things that are Gods! (Bishop H. C. Potter.)
The coinage of love and service for God and man
With many of us the stewardship of money is not our chiefest stewardship: of such a coinage we have little or nothing to put in circulation. Still, though we may not be able to circulate the currency that buys and sells, it is ours to circulate the far mightier currency that cheers and inspires and consoles. The world to-day is waiting for something besides money. It is waiting for love and thought and personal interest and painstaking. Whether, therefore, you are a capitalist or a clerk, a student or a teacher, a professional man or a woman living in the retirement of your kindred and home, take your slumbering sympathy (I will not believe that God has not implanted it within you!) and coin that into love and service for your kind. On your brow rests the stamp of Him whose coinage and currency you are. There are lost pieces of silver, aye and of gold, which also bear His image. They have long ago been missing from the Fathers treasury, and are trampled under foot of man and beast alike. But, if you can find them in the mire, if you will wash them with your tears, and burnish them back to brightness and beauty by your patient and loving touch, you will find on them the image of Him who made them, and the superscription of His immortal kingdom. Light the candle of your love, then, and sweep diligently till you find them. Think of some one, to-day, whose life is lonely, whose youth is gone, whose lot is hard and cheerless and unlovely, and try to lift them up, at least for the hour, into the atmosphere of a warmer and more beneficent brotherhood. (Bishop H. C. Potter.)
The claims of God and man
I. Notice the claims of Caesar, or civil governments. The just claims of civil governments are limited to civil exactions, in opposition to religious or sacred claims. Civil governments rightly demand-
1. Homage and subjection (Rom_13:1, etc.; 1Pe_2:13, etc.).
2. Obedience, and tribute, or taxes. Christ did this (Mat_17:27; Tit_3:1).
3. Thanksgiving and prayer to God on their behalf (1Ti_2:17, etc.). There are the claims of Caesar and civil governments. But civil governments may demand more than their rights; if they do so, they will be either in matters civil or ecclesiastical; if they levy unjust civil exactions, then, as citizens, they may be peacefully, yet firmly, resisted. This has been repeatedly done. By the three Hebrews, Daniel, Peter, and the apostles (Act_4:18).
II. The claims of God. We are to render to God-
1. Religious belief and homage.
2. Religious awe and fear. Fear before Him all the earth (Psa_96:4; Psa_96:9).
3. Praise and thanksgiving.
4. Our highest love and delight.
5. Universal obedience.
Learn-
1. That the Christian religion is favourable to order and obedience, but it limits the authority of the State to civil concerns.
2. It distinctly exhibits true liberty of conscience. Should not this be dear and sacred to every good man, especially when sanctioned by the spirit of our text? (J. Burns, LL. D.)
Our duties as subjects
I. That they should honourably and fully pay all taxes which are imposed upon them. The advantages of civil government are cosily, and means must be provided by the individuals of the nation. We must not defraud the government, or a neighbour, who will have to make good our default.
II. That Christians should acquiesce in that form of government under which they live, whatever be its character and origin. A nation has the right to secure its independence of a foreign nation; a nation has the right to amend its institutions; but the duty alleged is that of individuals. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. This is Gods will. But if human government has its rights, God has His rights. As human governments depend on the authority of God, they must be subordinate to it. His rights are supreme, and the rights of the human government terminate where the rights of God begin. The contrast in the things which are Caesars.
1. It is the right of God to demand our worship.
2. General obedience to His laws.
3. That we should maintain that truth which He has revealed, by which He is glorified, and the world is to be blessed. How small a portion all this is of what we owe to God. Admire this feature of the law of Christ, which secures the order of states. Let us he good subjects. (B. W. Noel, M. A.)
Caesars dues
I. We owe them honour inward, by a reverent conceit.
II. And outward, by an honourable testimony of the virtues in them, and the good we receive by them. And sure I am this we owe, Not to speak evil of them that are in authority, and if there were some infirmity, not to blaze, but to conceal and cover it, for that the Apostle maketh a part of honour (1Co_12:28).
III. We owe them our prayers, and daily devout remembrances; for all, saith St. Paul, but, by special prerogative, for princes.
IV. We owe them the service of our bodies, which if we refuse to come in person to do, the angel of the Lord will curse us, as he did Meroz (Jdg_5:23). (Bishop Andrewes.)
Rights of Caesar and rights of God
I. Some particular rights and privileges belong to Caesars, or sovereign princes:
1. Honour to their persons.
2. Obedience to their laws.
3. Tribute.
II. Some peculiar rights and prerogatives belong to God only.
1. All religious worship.
2. Due reverence and regard to all sacred things, such as
(a) ministers;
(b) Gods house;
(c)the Lords Day;
(d) Tenth part of our substance.
III. The duty of all Christians with reference to both, and that is, to render the respective rights and dues to each. (Matthew Hole.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain On vv15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21 15. Then went the Pharisees. They were the chief…
15. Then went the Pharisees. They were the chief element in the Sanhedrim delegation which assailed him. See last chapter. Compare Mark 12:13–17; Luke 20:19–26.
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v15 Mat_22:15. Entangle.—Ensnare (R.V.), as a fowler ensnares a bird.…
CRITICAL NOTES
Mat_22:15. Entangle.—Ensnare (R.V.), as a fowler ensnares a bird. The Pharisees “set a trap” for Jesus.
Read full note →
Mat_22:16. Their disciples.—The old Pharisees who had challenged His authority keep in the background, that the sinister purpose of the question may not appear; but they are represented by some of their disciples, who, coming fresh upon the scene, and addressing Jesus in terms of respect and appreciation, may readily pass for guileless inquirers (Gibson). With the Herodians.—Whose divergence of view on the point made it all the more natural that they should join with Pharisees in asking the question; for it might fairly be considered that they had been disputing with one another in regard to it, and had concluded to submit the question to His decision, as to one who would be sure to know the truth and fearless to tell it (ibid.). The party thus described are known to us only through the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark; and their precise relation to the other sects or schools among the Jews are consequently matters of conjecture. The Herodians were known, first to the Romans, and then to the people, as adherents of the house of the Herods. In what sense they were adherents, and why they now joined with the Pharisees is less clear; and two distinct theories have been maintained:
1. That, as it was the general policy of all the princes of the Herodian family to court the favour of Rome, their partisans were those who held that it was lawful to “give tribute to Cæsar.” On this supposition the narrative brings before us the coalition of two parties usually opposed to each other, but united against a common foe.
2. That they were partisans of the Herods, in the sense of looking to them to restore the independence of the nation, and were therefore of one mind with the Pharisees on the tribute question, though they differed from them on most other points (Plumptre). We know that Thou art true.—Nothing could exceed the insidious hypocrisy of this attack on Jesus. His enemies approach Him as a teacher whom they trust (Carr).
Mat_22:17. Tribute.—The word rendered “tribute” (κῆνσος) is properly the Roman word “census.” It denoted, as used by the Jews, the annual poll-tax which was levied on the people, for the treasury of the Roman emperor. The publicans collected it, and were obliged to transmit to the Roman treasury as much as accorded with the official census of the population. Hence the designation of the tax (Morison).
Mat_22:19. A penny.—A denarius bearing probably the image of Tiberius. The Jewish coins were not impressed with the effigy of their kings. Herod Philip, alone of his family, out of flattery to the emperor, had caused his coins to be stamped with the likeness of Cæsar (Carr).
Mat_22:20. Superscription.—Or inscription. Sir John Cheke renders the word “onwriting.”
Mat_22:21. Render, therefore, unto Cæsar, etc.—One of the wisest, deepest, and yet simplest maxims ever uttered in human language (Morison). The Jewish doctors laid down the principle that “He is king whose coin passes current” (Carr).
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Mat_22:15-22
A political snare.—The direct attacks of the Jewish rulers on the authority of Jesus having only succeeded in shaking their own (Mat_21:46), they next betake themselves to indirect modes of assault. The Pharisees are the first to try their hands in this line. They have seen how ready He is in instructing, how prompt in replying, how faithful in rebuking. They will turn these qualities to His ruin. They will “entangle Him in His talk” (Mat_22:15). Most subtle and promising was the scheme of attack. Most simple and triumphant the plan of defence.
I. The scheme of attack.—The general idea of this was that of putting the Saviour into a position from which, with His known antecedents and recent utterances, it would be impossible for Him to escape. Two opposite powers were then in existence—“Cæsar” on the one side and the “multitude” on the other—both feared by them much. Here was one claiming to be a third power still. They would embroil Him with one of these two. The special question by which they hoped to do this was well adapted (seemingly) for this purpose. It was so, first, in its purport. “What thinkest Thou? Is it lawful to give tribute to Cæsar or not?” (Mat_22:17). Only two answers seem possible to this question. If He says Yes, He will outrage the multitude. If He says No, He will have the Romans upon Him. This seems the more sure, also, because of the persons chosen to propound this question. The Pharisees on this occasion are not by themselves. They have some of the Herodians also with them. This would greatly emphasise, of course, the difficulty of the question. Whichever side He took there were some present who would denounce Him at once. Finally, being such as He was—such as He was known to be by all who knew Him at all—He could not take the third course of avoiding this question without absolute ruin. “Master, we know that Thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, and carest not for any one; for Thou regardest not the person of men.” How was He to be silent when challenged to speak on grounds such as these? That would be worse even than embroiling Him with one side or the other; for it would utterly degrade Him with both. Altogether, therefore, the question seemed to involve a snare from which there was no way of escape.
II. The plan of defence.—The first step was to expose the flattery involved in this question; to show that its treachery was seen through. “Why tempt ye Me, ye hypocrites?” From one point of view this question itself was a sufficient answer to theirs. You are not asking for information. You are asking only to “tempt.” To “asking” of that kind I am not bound to give a reply. No answer at all is sufficient answer to so dishonest an inquiry. Why should I part with anything whatever in exchange for such counterfeit coin? The next step was to expose the fallacy of the question propounded. Asking from His questioners (what they could not refuse) a specimen of the tribute money, they hand Him a Roman penny or denarius. Asking again—what again they could not refuse to say—whose “image and superscription” it bears, they say unto Him, “Cæsar’s.” In that one fact lay the two-fold answer to the question they asked. For what was that fact but a token and evidence that God had allowed them to be under Cæsar’s yoke, and that they themselves also were practically acquiescing in it for the time? Obvious was the inference, therefore, on the one hand, that they ought to give to Cæsar what God had thus given to Cæsar for the time. And equally obvious the inference, on the other, that they ought to give to God whatever God had still reserved to Himself. Instead, in short, of there being any contradiction, as assumed by them, between these two things, both God’s appointment and their own behaviour proved that they ought to do both.
Here we learn, therefore, for ourselves:—
1. A lesson in politics.—Notwithstanding all the difficulties and differences and contentions which beset this subject, here is a rule about it in which all Christian folk may safely agree. To render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s is to render unto God the things that are God’s (cf. Rom_13:1; Rom_13:6-7). Remember also that the Saviour spake as He does here “imperante Tiberio.” St. Paul, also, not improbably, “imperante Nerone.”
2. A lesson in science.—How forcibly the contrasted examples and experience of Christ and the Pharisees in this case illustrate His own words in Mat_6:22-23. Truth of all kinds only comes to the true. No sinister motives can help us to know. No amount of ingenuity, no depth of subtlety can help the lover of darkness to discover the light.
3. A lesson in trust.—How truly the Lord Jesus was all that these men said of Him here! (Mat_22:16). How much more He proved Himself to be by His answer to them! How fitted, therefore, in every way to be a Leader and Guide! Who can be trusted more to know what is truth? Who can be trusted more to impart it in turn?
HOMILIES ON THE VERSES.
Mat_22:15-21. Christ’s victory over cunning.—
I. They take counsel.—He is thoroughly armed.
II. They would entangle Him.—He seeks to deliver them out of their own snare.
III. They praise Him in order to His destruction.—He rebukes them for their awakening and salvation.—J. P. Lange, D.D.
Mat_22:16. Christ true.—This is the testimony, not of friends, but of enemies; they are the words of the Pharisees and the Herodians. But even the enemies of Christ are bound to give this testimony. Whatever the theoretical beliefs or moral characters of men may be they are bound to say, “We know Thou art true.”
I. Philosophically.—
1. In all Thou sayest about God. Thou hast revealed Him as a Person, a Spirit, a Father, and the sole Author of the universe; and our reason binds us to accept all this.
2. In all Thou sayest about the universe. Thou hast taught us that it had a beginning, that it originated with one Being who is eternal, etc.
3. In all Thou hast said concerning man.
II. Ethically.—
1. In all that Thou hast said concerning our duty to God.
2. Concerning our duty to others.
III. Personally.—We look at Thy life and it illustrates and confirms the doctrine Thy lips declare. Thou art the true, the beautiful, and the good.—Homilist.
Mat_22:21. Public opinion and God.—
1. The only Cæsar which we have to fear nowadays is called public opinion—the huge, anonymous idol which we ourselves help to make, and then tremble before the creation of our own cowardice; whereas, if we will but face him, in the fear of God and the faith of Christ, determined to say the thing which is true, and do the thing which is right, we shall find the modern Cæsar but a phantom of our own imagination—a tyrant, indeed, as long as he is feared, but a coward as soon as he is defied. To that Cæsar let us never bow the knee. Render to him all that he deserves—the homage of common courtesy, common respectability, common charity—not in reverence for his wisdom and strength, but in pity for his ignorance and weakness. But render always to God the things which are God’s.
II. There are three sacrifices which every man, woman, and child can offer, and should offer, however lowly, however uneducated in what the world calls education nowadays.
1. The sacrifice of repentance.—Of which it is written: “The sacrifice of God is a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise.”
2. The sacrifice of thankfulness.—Of which it is written: “I will offer to Thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the Lord.”
3. The sacrifice of righteousness.—Of which it is written: “Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.”—C. Kingsley, M.A.
Politics for Christians.—
I. The duties which we owe, as citizens, to God.—It is due to God:
1. That the claims of His everlasting kingdom should stand first in all our plans and efforts.
2. That a sense of our accountability to Him should control us in regard to our civil duties.
3. That we should practically acknowledge the supremacy of His Word as the rule of right.
II. The duties which, as citizens, we owe to the state.—Every citizen is bound:
1. To perform his part in the support and direction of the government under which he lives.
2. To cultivate friendly feelings towards all his fellow-citizens.
3. To render a peaceful submission to the exercise of lawful authority.—H. J. Van Dyke, D.D.
Duties to our earthly and our heavenly King.—
I. The wisdom of this answer, as a reply to the question proposed.
II. The importance of it, as a precept for general observance.
1. The extent of God’s requirements.
2. The harmony of them. Recommend to all:
(1) Integrity in the discharge of your duty to man.
(2) Spirituality in the discharge of your duty to God.—C. Simeon, M.A.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
William B. Godbey 1900 · Public Domain On v15 Mat 22:15-22, Mar 12:13-17; Luk 20:20-26. “And lying in…
TRIBUTE TO CAESAR
Mat 22:15-22, Mar 12:13-17; Luk 20:20-26. “And lying in wait for Him, they sent sharpers, hypocritically claiming to be righteous, that they may catch His word, in order to deliver Him up to the tribunal and authority of the governor. And they asked Him, saying, Teacher, we know that Thou dost speak and teach correctly, and that Thou dost not receive the face, but teachest the Word of God in truth: is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar or not? And He, knowing their rascality, said to them, Why do you tempt Me? Show Me the denarion. Whose image and superscription hath it? And they responding, said, That of Caesar. And He said to them, Therefore render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things which are God’s. And they were not able to capture His word before the people. And being astonished at His answer, they kept silent.” We have given you Luke’s narrative, who simply states that sharpers — i.e., critical tricksters — waited on Him in this adroit interview, hoping to perplex Him, and get some clew at Him, deduced from His phraseology of and Mark state that these critics were Pharisees and Herodiana — the former the most loyal and enthusiastic Jewish party, and the latter consisting of a political faction favorable to Roman rule. Though diametrically opposed either to other, in this instance, as ever and anon hitherto, they united their forces against Jesus. How common it’s for the belligerent sects to make peace among themselves and unite their forces against holiness! They felt sure of success in this united hypocritical assault on Jesus, as the Pharisees represented the Jewish interest and the Herodians the Roman. In case that He had decided in favor of paying tribute to Caesar, the Pharisees aimed to prefer treasonable charges against Him, and arraign Hint before the Sanhedrin for disloyalty to the Theoeratic Government. On the contrary, if He answered the question in the negative, the Herodians were ready to have Him arrested and brought before Pilate to answer charges of treason against the Roman Empire. Now, you see how easily and conveniently He foils them both by simply asking them to show Him the denarion, a Roman coin, worth fifteen cents, and used to pay regular poll-tax, as well as the revenue to the Roman Government. Now, asking “Whose image and superscription is on this coin?” they respond, “Caesar’s.” Then He simply says, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things which are God’s.” As the Jews claimed to be under the Divine government, while they were also subject to Roman rule, this answer covered all the ground in both cases, at the same time showing up absolute equity in behalf of each, so that no exception could be taken. Consequently the sharpers were all dumfounded.
Read full note →
Mat 22:22. “And hearing, they were astonished, and leaving Him they went away.” We see most indubitable manifestations of His Divinity thus cropping out on all occasions. Here, He is besieged by the most intellectual and cultured men of Church and State, criticizing every utterance, and doing their best to lasso Him, and all are signally foiled, defeated, and dumfounded. No other man ever trod the globe whose ordinary utterances, day by day, were utterly invulnerable.
William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
F. W. Grant 1903 · Public Domain On v15 Subdivision 4. (Mat 22:15-46.)
Subdivision 4. (Mat 22:15-46.)
Testing and tested.
Read full note →
Thus the Lord has made, and made good for Himself, the highest claim. He has searched out the hearts of His accusers, and summoned their consciences before Him, not in vain; though they have not yielded to their convictions. On the contrary we are now to find their whole strength massed against Him to try and remedy their desperate condition, and give Him, if possible, even yet an overthrow. For this Pharisees and Herodians combine together, and Sadducees seek to retrieve the lost battle of the Pharisees. But all is vain; and the leaders and factions among the people appear before Him only to receive severally specific judgment from Him, until He turns upon them at last with one decisive question which completely silences them all, and that with regard to the very claim which He is making. From that time they have but the one answer, in deeds, not words.
1. The Pharisees, who are all through the leaders, lead now in the attack. But they confess their fear in the subtlety with which they make it, sending their disciples instead of openly appearing themselves, and with them their adversaries the Herodians, with whom it would not be expected they could have collusion. Between them they would catch Him as between the opposite blades of shears; not with an argument either, but only a matter for His decision, as to which they can depend upon His entire and unfearing truthfulness, teaching the way of God in truth, and regarding not the person of men. "Tell us, therefore, what thinkest thou? is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?"
A dangerous question, however it were decided: whether to refuse it, under the iron heel of Rome as they were, or to yield it in the face of a people constantly fretting against the sign of their humiliation. Was He too, if indeed their King, to bring them no deliverance? Would it not be the collapse of all His claims to leave a question of this sort even for a moment doubtful?
In reply, He assures them that their object was fully known to Him. They were hypocrites, only tempting Him; and yet for all that, they should have their answer; indeed should help to find it for themselves: let them show Him the tribute money. So they brought Him the Roman coin; and there was the image of Caesar upon its face. "Whose is this?" He asks; and they say, "Caesar’s." "Render, then," He replies, "what is Caesar’s to Caesar; and to God the things that are God’s."
It is a mistake to consider this as simply settling the rights and distinguishing the jurisdictions of the civil and spiritual powers. It was the dominion of the Gentile over the people of God that was felt by the Pharisees, - a yoke under which they never would have come, had they rendered, as the Lord bids them, to God His own. It was the refusal of this which had put them into Caesar’s hands, and now to seek escape was only to refuse the chastisement of their sins, and dills was rebellion against God Himself.
The Gentile yoke had come as their father Jacob had long since prophesied. Issachar had become "like a strong ass, couching between the hurdles; and he saw rest that it was good, and the land that it was pleasant, and bowed his shoulder to bear and become servant to tribute" (Gen 49:14-15 Notes). Israel had accepted fellowship with the Gentile, and Caesar’s coin was only the sign of this. Gentile in heart and way, God had reckoned her where she belonged; but then she could not maintain an independence, which for her could only be another name for dependence on God. Let them give Caesar his own; but let them give God His own also. When they really do this, there will be no question at all to settle as to Caesar. Not by self-assertion, but by repentance only can deliverance come for them.
While the principle, of course, remains the same for the Christian, the case of the Christian is far different. He is not a citizen of earth, but a pilgrim and a stranger. He is to "render to all their due; tribute to whom tribute is due" (Rom 13:1-7). For him, "the powers that be are ordained of God," and to "resist the power" would be to "resist the ordinance of God": while this, of course, defines the limit also. If there be collision between the higher and the lower power, the apostles, rule, "We must obey God rather than men" (Act 5:29) is the only real fulfilment of duty both to God and man. To render to man what belongs to God is evil every way.
Thus the first attack upon the Lord turns only to the confusion of His adversaries: "when they heard it, they marvelled and left Him, and went their way."
2. There follows now an attack on the part of the Sadducees, the unbelievers in resurrection, who had their question (more honest, as it would seem, than that of the Pharisees), though displaying, as the Lord tells them, ignorance both of the Scriptures and the power of God. But the Pharisees on their part had done much to give occasion to such difficulties with regard to the future life as their opponents here suggest; perhaps, in spite even of the Lord’s words here, we are not at the present time altogether beyond them.
Their question is as to the relationship in the resurrection of a woman who, according to the law in Deuteronomy (Deu 25:5-6), had married seven brethren. "In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife shall she be of the seven: for they all had her?"
The Lord answers their question first, and then rebukes the unbelief which had inspired it. The question He answers with a simple affirmation, in which He contradicts another article of their unbelieving creed, - that there were no angels (Act 23:8). It was sufficient to meet a mere argument from their ignorance with His own perfect knowledge. Angels there were, and in the resurrection the saints would be like these, neither marrying nor giving in marriage. They knew not the power of God, and could conceive of nothing else than a mere reproduction of earthly conditions. Their perplexity was but the fruit of their own carnal imaginations.
But as for the truth of resurrection; it underlay the very simplest assurance of God’s covenant-relationship with men. The "dead" were for the Sadducees extinct, and the denial of any enduring personality was the natural root of the denial of resurrection. It is here, therefore, that the Lord meets them; for, if death be not extinction, but the spirit survives it, not only is all argument for extinction taken away, but this survival by itself implies that death is but a temporary interference with what creation shows to be God’s thought of man, and may be perfected but cannot be abandoned. If man still continue to exist in death, then it is natural and reasonable that, whether for judgment or reward, the body should rise again.
Sadduceeism was thorough in its denial; and for the Sadducee "I am the God of Abraham," said to Moses at the bush, could be but mockery. Abraham was a shadow that had passed without even hope of recall. The God of a nonentity - what of comfort or blessing was in that? Could there be even such?
It was by that title, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob," and as that "I am," who had looked upon and had respect unto His people, that God had sent forth Moses from "the bush" to be their deliverer. Sadduceeism never could have been the gospel of that deliverance, nor the inspiration of it. A living God in covenant with men meant life, not death; and if death were, then a life supreme above it. Thus resurrection was the necessary filling out of such a declaration: the hand that God held out to man was not to clasp the listless fingers of a corpse.
3. So the Pharisees hear that He has put the Sadducees to silence, and they are gathered together; not, alas, to own His divine wisdom, but to "tempt" Him yet again. Still there has been an effect produced, as Mark tells us, upon the questioner, and some better thing is hidden under the test question he proposes. Matthew takes no note of this because he is occupied with the position of the nation as a whole with regard to the Lord, and the state of the individual does not indicate this.
The question is, "which is the great commandment of the law?" The answer shows what is the heart of it, the life-pulse beating through it all. Alas, that this should be a question. The apostle answers it afterward in a similar manner to the Lord here, - "love is the fulfilling" - or, the fullness - "of the law" (Rom 13:10). God claims heart and soul and mind; but then; on that very account, man as the image of God must come in under it. Thus the second commandment is like unto the first: that commandment which they were so manifestly breaking. Nay, here was the Image of God indeed; and in Him they had seen and hated both Himself and His Father (Joh 15:24).
But He adds no word of reproach; only enlarges upon the central place which these two commandments had, not in the law only, but also in the prophets: wherever, therefore, the mind of God was expressed. All, in fact, depended upon them there: they were the moral unity manifested in all.
4. And now the Lord appeals to them as they are gathered there before Him as to that which was now for them the question of questions: what do they think of Christ? "whose son is He?" To that they readily reply, "The son of David." This was the truth, and they knew He would not deny it: it was in fact a question which any child among them could have answered.
He did not deny it: it was truth, but was it the whole truth? "How then," He asks, "does David in Spirit call Him ’Lord,’ saying, ’The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand until I put thine enemies beneath thy feet’? If David, then; call Him Lord, how is He his Son?"
The argument was complete and crushing, and so they felt it.* "No one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day did any one dare to ask Him further."
{*It "proceeded, of course," says Edersheim, "on the two-fold supposition that the psalm (110 Neither of these statements would have been questioned by the Synagogue. But we could not rest satisfied with the explanation that this sufficed for the purpose of Christ’s argument, if the foundation on which it rested could be seriously called in question. Such, however, is not the case. To apply Psa 110:1-7, verse by verse and consistently, to any one of the Maccabees, were to undertake a critical task which only a series of unnatural explanations of the language could render possible. Strange, also, that such an interpretation of what at the time of Christ would have been a comparatively young composition, should have been wholly unknown alike to Sadducee and Pharisee. For our own part, we are content to rest the Messianic interpretation on the obvious and natural meaning of the words taken in connection with the general teaching of the Old Testament about the Messiah, on the undoubted interpretation of the ancient Jewish synagogue, on the authority of Christ, and on the testimony of history." (Life and Times of Jesus, vol. 2, 405.)}
F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain On v15 J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [CIX. A. Asking…
J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [CIX. A. Asking About Tribute].
CIX. JEWISH RULERS SEEK TO ENSNARE JESUS. (Court of the Temple. Tuesday, April 4, A. D. 30.) Subdivision A. PHARISEES AND HERODIANS ASK ABOUT TRIBUTE. aMATT. XXII. 15-22; bMARK XII. 13-17; cLUKE XX. 20-26.
Read full note →
a15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might ensnare him in his talk. c20 And they watched him, and sent forth bsend unto him atheir disciples, bcertain of the Pharisees and of awith bthe Herodians, that they might catch him in talk. [Perceiving that Jesus, when on his guard, was too wise for them, the Pharisees thought it best to speak their cunning through the mouths of their young disciples, whose youth and apparent desire to know the truth would, according to their calculation, take Jesus off his guard. Having no ancient statement giving us the tenets or principles of the Herodians, we are left to judge them solely by their name, which shows that they were partisans of Herod Antipas. Whether they were out-and-out supporters of the Roman government, or whether they clung to Herod as one whose intervening sovereignty saved them from the worse fate of being directly under a Roman procurator (as Judæa and Samaria then were), would not, as some suppose, affect their views as to the payment of tribute. If they accepted Herod merely for policy's sake, policy would also compel them to favor the tribute, for Antipas, being appointed [597] by Rome, would have to favor the tribute, and could count none as his adherents who opposed it.] cspies, who feigned themselves to righteous [sincere seekers after truth], that they might take hold of his speech, so as to deliver him up to the rule and to the authority of the governor. [Pontius Pilate was the governor. We are not surprised at the destruction of Jerusalem when we see the religious teachers of the nation employing their young disciples in such a work as this. To play detective and entrap a rogue in his speech and thus become a man-hunter is debasing enough; but to seek thus to entrap a righteous man is simply diabolical.] b14 And when they were come, they say unto him, csaying, Teacher, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, bwe know that thou art true, and carest not for any one; for thou regardest not the person of men, cand acceptest not the person of any, but of a truth teachest the way of God: ain truth [The meaning of their preface is this: "We see that neither fear nor respect for the Pharisees or the rulers prevents you from speaking the plain, disagreeable truth; and we are persuaded that your courage and love of truth will lead you to speak the same way in political matters, and that you will not be deterred therefrom by any fear or reverence for Cæsar." Fearless loyalty to truth is indeed one of the noblest attributes of man. But instead of honoring this most admirable quality in Jesus, these hardened reprobates were endeavoring to employ it as an instrument for his destruction], 17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? c22 Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Cæsar, or not? b15 Shall we give, or shall we not give? [The Jews were required to pay annually a large sum of money to the Roman government as an acknowledgment of their subjection. About twenty years before this Judas of Galilee had stirred up the people to resist this tribute, and the mass of the Jews was bitterly opposed to it. To decide in favor of this tribute was therefore to alienate the affection and confidence of the throng in the temple who stood listening to him--an end most desirable to the Pharisees. If, [598] on the other hand, Jesus said that the tribute should not be paid, the Herodians were present to hear it, and would be witnesses sanctioned by Herod, and therefore such as Pilate would be compelled to respect. What but divine wisdom could escape from so cunningly devised a dilemma!] a18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, ccraftiness, bknowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, aand said Why make ye trial of me, ye hypocrites? [Thus, before answering, Jesus exposes the meanness and hypocrisy in their question, thereby emphasizing the important fact that he did not dodge, but answered it.] 19 Show me the tribute money. c24 Show me a denarius. bbring me a denarius, that I may see it. [Religious dues and tributes had been paid in shekels or old Jewish coin, but the tribute to Rome was paid in Roman coin of which the denarius was a sample.] aAnd they brought unto him a denarius. [See Rom_13:1, Rom_13:7.] c26 And they were not able to take hold of the saying before the people: a22 And when they heard it, they marvelled, bgreatly at him. cat his answer, and held their peace. aand left him, and went away. [They were amazed to find how far his wisdom transcended that of the teachers in whom they had such supreme confidence.]
[FFG 597-600]
J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On v15 Then went
Then went
In the different classes, vs. Mat 23:15-39. Jesus meets representatives of all Israel, Pharisees, Sadducees.
Read full note →
Herodians. (See Scofield "Mat 3:7").
For them, silenced but unrepentant, no message is left but "woe." Mat 23:1-39.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv15, 17 The Question Concerning Tribute.
The Question Concerning Tribute.
Insincere flattery:
Read full note →
v. 15. Then went the Pharisees and took counsel how they might entangle Him in His talk.
v. 16. And they sent out unto Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that Thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest Thou for any man; for Thou regardest not the person of men.
The Pharisees had again felt the sting of the application in the last parable, and it did not improve their temper. Force was out of the question on account of the people, so they contemplated ways and means to find a catch-question, the answer to which could be construed so as to invite either the hatred of the common people or the investigation of the Roman government. They deliberately plan and study out some question which would serve this purpose. Having found one which, in their opinion, was suitable, they first tried to divert the attention of Jesus by placing the sand of flattery in His eyes,—a bungling attempt at best when one remembers the omniscience of Christ. They sent some of their own disciples with the Herodians. The latter belonged to a sect or clique related to the Sadducees in belief, but more strongly political in organization. According to the most trustworthy accounts, they came into existence at the time of Herod the Great, and encouraged the idea of a national kingdom under the rule of the Herodian dynasty. With learning, wealth, and influence at their command, they were not to be despised as allies by the Pharisees and Sadducees, with their political hopes. They seem to have been drafted for this delegation in order not to make the design too apparent. The strangest part was that their words were absolutely true. Jesus, being the Truth Himself, did indeed teach the way of God and to God in truth; He was entirely independent of all people and had not the slightest hesitation, if need be, to speak His opinion before any man. But in the mouth of these enemies these facts became hollow mockery and malice, a false flattery calculated to deceive and dupe. It was most insincere, devilish hypocrisy.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv15, 18, 20 Connecting Statement:
Connecting Statement:
This begins an account of the religious leaders trying to trap Jesus with several difficult questions. Here the Pharisees ask him about paying taxes to Caesar.
Read full note →
how they might entrap Jesus in his own talk
"how they could cause Jesus to say something wrong so they could arrest him"
their disciples ... Herodians
The disciples of the Pharisees supported paying taxes only to Jewish authorities. The Herodians supported paying taxes to the Roman authorities. It is implied that the Pharisees believed that no matter what Jesus said, he would offend one of these groups. (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
Herodians
These were officials and followers of the Jewish king Herod. He was friends with Roman authorities. (See: How to Translate Names)
you do not show partiality between people
"you do not show special honor to anyone" or "you do not consider anyone more important than anyone else"
to pay taxes to Caesar
People did not pay taxes directly to Caesar but to one of his tax collectors. AT: "to pay the taxes that Caesar requires" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
translationWords
Pharisee
disciple
teacher
true
partial
lawful
tax
Caesar
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 22:15-22 Roman taxation was a controversial issue in first-century…
22:15-22 Roman taxation was a controversial issue in first-century Palestine (see also 17:24-27).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.