Matthew · Chapter 22

V. 1. Jesus answering, spake-That is, spake with reference to what had just past.

Verse 1. Jesus spake unto them again by parables — That is, spake with reference to what had just passed: for this parable is closely connected with that of the vineyard, delivered at the close of the preceding chapter. And as our Lord had in that foretold the approaching ruin of the Jewish place and nation, he goes on in this to vindicate God’s mercy and justice in the rejection of that people and the calling of the Gentiles; admonishing the latter, at the same time, of the necessity of holiness, and showing that if they remained destitute of it, they would meet with the same severity of judgment which had befallen the disobedient Jews.

1 The parable of the marriage of the king’s son. 9 The vocation of the Gentiles. 12 The punishment of him that wanted the wedding garment. 15 Tribute ought to be paid to Cesar. 23 Christ confuteth the Sadducees for the resurrection: 34 answereth the lawyer, which is the first and great commandment: 41 and poseth the Pharisees about the Messiah.

CHAPTER 22. Verse 1. And Jesus answered, &c. — It has been before remarked that this formula does not always signify a reply to what precedes, nor indeed the continuance of the same subject; but sometimes the commencement of a new discourse. Here our Lord addresses the people in the temple, the scribes and Pharisees, who had not only understood, but keenly felt the force of the parables he had just uttered, having, as St. Mark informs us, departed.

V. 2. A king, who made a marriage feast for his son-So did God, when he brought his first-begotten into the world.

Verse 2. The kingdom of heaven] In Bereshith Rabba, sect. 62. fol. 60, there is a parable very similar to this, and another still more so in Sohar. Levit. fol. 40. But these rabbinical parables are vastly ennobled by passing through the hands of our Lord. It appears from Luke, Luke 14:15; &c., that it was at an entertainment that this parable was originally spoken. It was a constant practice of our Lord to take the subjects of his discourses from the persons present, or from the circumstances of times, persons, and places. See Matthew 16:6; John 4:7-10; John 6:26, 27; 7:37. A preacher that can do so can never be at a loss for text or sermon. A marriage for his son] A marriage feast, so the word gamouv properly means. Or a feast of inauguration, when his son was put in possession of the government, and thus he and his new subjects became married together. See 1 Kings 1:5-9, 19, 25, &c., where such a feast is mentioned.

From this parable it appears plain, 1. That the KING means the great God.

2. His SON, the Lord Jesus. 3. The MARRIAGE, his incarnation, or espousing human nature, by taking it into union with himself. 4. The MARRIAGE FEAST, the economy of the Gospel, during which men are invited to partake of the blessings purchased by, and consequent on, the incarnation and death of our blessed Lord. 5. By those who HAD BEEN bidden, or invited, Matthew 22:3, are meant the Jews in general, who had this union of Christ with human nature, and his sacrifice for sin, pointed out by various rites, ceremonies, and sacrifices under the law; and who, by all the prophets, had been constantly invited to believe in and receive the promised Messiah. 6. By the SERVANTS, we are to understand the first preachers of the Gospel, proclaiming salvation to the Jews. JOHN the Baptist and the seventy disciples (Luke 10:1,) may be here particularly intended. 7. By the OTHER SERVANTS, Matthew 22:4, the apostles seem to be meant, who, though they were to preach the Gospel to the whole world, yet were to begin at JERUSALEM (Luke 24:47) with the first offers of mercy. 8. By their making light of it, &c., Matthew 22:5, is pointed out their neglect of this salvation, and their preferring secular enjoyments, &c., to the kingdom of Christ. 9. By injuriously using some, and slaying others, of his servants, Matthew 22:6, is pointed out the persecution raised against the apostles by the Jews, in which some of them were martyred. 10. By sending forth his troops, Matthew 22:7, is meant the commission given to the Romans against Judea; and, burning up their city, the total destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, the son of Vespasian, which happened about forty-one years after.

On this parable it is necessary to remark, 1.That man was made at first in union with God. 2. That sin entered in, and separated between God and man. 3. That as there can be no holiness but in union with God, and no heaven without holiness, therefore he provided a way to reconcile and reunite man to himself. 4. This was effected by Christ’s uniting himself to human nature, and giving his Spirit to those who believe. 5. That as the marriage union is the closest, the most intimate, solemn, and excellent, of all the connections formed among mortals, and that they who are thus united in the Lord are one flesh; so that mystical union which is formed between God and the soul through Jesus Christ, by the Eternal Spirit, is the closest, most intimate, solemn, and excellent, that can be conceived; for he who is thus joined unto the Lord is one spirit. 6. This contract is made freely: no man can be forced to it, for it is a union of will to will, heart to heart; and it is by willing and consenting that we come unto God through his Son. 7. That if this marriage do not take place here, an eternal separation from God, and from the glory of his power, shall be the fearful consequence. 8. That there are three states in which men run the risk of living without God and losing their souls. 1st. That of a soft, idle, voluptuous life, wherein a man thinks of nothing but quietly to enjoy life, conveniences, riches, private pleasures, and public diversions. They made light of it. 2dly. That of a man wholly taken up with agricultural or commercial employments, in which the love of riches, and application to the means of acquiring them, generally stifle all thoughts of salvation. One went to his own field, and another to his traffic. 3dly. That of a man who is openly unjust, violent, and outrageously wicked, who is a sinner by profession, and not only neglects his salvation, but injuriously treats all those who bring him the Gospel of reconciliation. Seizing his servants, they treated them injuriously, &c.

Verses 2, 3. The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king — That is, the dispensation of the gospel may be well illustrated by that which happened in the case of a king; who made a marriage for his son — Our Lord is frequently represented in Scripture under the character of a bridegroom. The marriage-feast here spoken of is intended to signify the blessings of the gospel, which are set forth under the emblem of a feast in divers passages of Scripture, especially Isaiah 25:6; and 55:1, 2; Luke 14:16; where see the notes. And sent forth his servants — John the Baptist and the twelve, and the seventy sent forth during our Lord’s lifetime; to call them that were bidden — Touv keklhmenouv, that had been before invited — Namely, the Jews, who had been invited from the times of Moses, by the law and the prophets, to this long-expected marriage of the Desire of all nations; and to whom the first offers of grace and salvation through Christ were made, to the wedding, or nuptial banquet, as gamouv here properly signifies. And they would not come — They were so rude and foolish as to refuse complying with the invitation. By this their refusal, and by the reasons assigned for it, stated here and Luke 14:18, 19, is shown the rejection of the gospel by the Jews, and the carnal causes, not only of their, but of all men’s refusing to come unto the gospel-feast.

Verse 2. The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king which made a marriage for his son. The marriage of the heir apparent, giving stability to the throne, protection to the subject, and glory to the empire, is a most auspicious event, and claims the most lively interest of the nation. How much more then, when sinners are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb. What happier emblems could wisdom devise to attract mankind to devotion and joy, than the figures employed in this parable?

2. Like unto a certain king — This parable is an expansion of the one in Luke 14:16. This is delivered later in our Lord’s history, after the guilt of his enemies had become more glaring, and their punishment more sure. Our Lord therefore changes the rich man to a king; paints the guilt of the rejecters in more aggravated colours; assigns them a more terrible destruction, prosecutes the history of their being supplanted by the Gentiles; and traces it even until their condemnation at the judgment day. The king is God the Father Almighty; the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ; the marriage is his espousing the Church on earth; the marriage supper is the participation of the Gospel by men.

Verse 2. A marriage feast. — The procedure of God under the Gospel dispensation, and the conduct of men, are compared to that of a sovereign who made a marriage feast, and invited many guests. Gamov, and gamoi, are used simply for a feast, sometimes for a marriage feast, the plural intimating the number of days occupied by the festivity, and which rendered it rather a succession of feasts, than one only. Some modern critics, as Michaelis, Rosenmuller, Koinoel, and Schleusner, understand it as a feast of inauguration, in which, according to the eastern mode of speaking, sovereigns were solemnly united to their country as by the conjugal bond. Thus Rosenmuller, Nam ex moribus orientalium reges die inaugurationis considerantur ut sponsi et mariti, rite et solemniter jungendi civitati et subditis, qui sponsæ et conjugi comparantur. Whatever the occasion was, the point turns upon its being a great and munificent royal feast, to which all who were invited were bound to come, not only for their own honour and advantage, but in respect of their loyalty, and to show this by acknowledging the Son, for whose dignity, and in recognition of whose right, it was instituted. St. Luke has a similar parable; but it was uttered on another occasion.

V. 3. Them that were invited-Namely, the Jews.

Verses 2, 3. The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king — That is, the dispensation of the gospel may be well illustrated by that which happened in the case of a king; who made a marriage for his son — Our Lord is frequently represented in Scripture under the character of a bridegroom. The marriage-feast here spoken of is intended to signify the blessings of the gospel, which are set forth under the emblem of a feast in divers passages of Scripture, especially Isaiah 25:6; and 55:1, 2; Luke 14:16; where see the notes. And sent forth his servants — John the Baptist and the twelve, and the seventy sent forth during our Lord’s lifetime; to call them that were bidden — Touv keklhmenouv, that had been before invited — Namely, the Jews, who had been invited from the times of Moses, by the law and the prophets, to this long-expected marriage of the Desire of all nations; and to whom the first offers of grace and salvation through Christ were made, to the wedding, or nuptial banquet, as gamouv here properly signifies. And they would not come — They were so rude and foolish as to refuse complying with the invitation. By this their refusal, and by the reasons assigned for it, stated here and Luke 14:18, 19, is shown the rejection of the gospel by the Jews, and the carnal causes, not only of their, but of all men’s refusing to come unto the gospel-feast.

Ver. 3. He sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden. The jews and proselytes only, to whom were committed the oracles of God. These are called the “children of the kingdom.” Matthew 8:12. But they would not come, but treated the invitation with contempt.

3. Sent forth his servants — This verse describes the preaching of the Gospel before the death of Christ, namely, by the apostles and seventy. Call them that were bidden — In Eastern countries a double call is given to guests at an entertainment: the first to allow them chance to prepare, and the second to inform them that the time has arrived, and all is ready. So these guests now to be called had all been bidden. The very plan of the Gospel bids every man to come; and then the ministry go forth to call those whom the Gospel has bidden.

Verse 3. Sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden. — Servants were on some occasions first sent around to invite the guests; these were called vocatures by the Romans, and klhtorev by the Greeks; and thus notice was given of the time of the entertainment. But, on the evening of the day appointed, messengers were sent to call or summon them that were bidden; that is, those who were previously invited. Hence St. Luke says, “And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come, for all things are now ready.”

V. 4. Fatlings-Fatted beasts and fowls.

Verse 4. Fatlings] ta sitista Properly, fatted rams, or wethers. 2 Samuel 6:13; 1 Chronicles 15:26.

Verses 4, 5. Again, he sent forth other servants — The apostles and others, on whom the Holy Ghost descended on the day of pentecost, and who thereby received a fresh commission to call the Jews to repentance; saying, Tell them which were bidden, I have prepared my dinner, &c. — After Christ’s resurrection and ascension, the apostles were sent forth to inform the Jews that the divine mission of Christ was confirmed by his resurrection; that sin was expiated by his death, and justification, peace with God, the influences of his Spirit, and all the other blessings of the gospel, procured for all who would accept them in the way of repentance, faith, and new obedience. But they made light of it — Namely, of the invitation to the marriage-feast, and of the feast itself to which they were invited; that is, the privileges and blessings of the gospel of Christ. They viewed them as unimportant, and treated them with indifference and neglect. And yet they who did so were members of God’s visible church, and professors of the true religion: they had been intrusted for ages with his oracles, which foretold the coming of the Messiah, described his character and office, his marriage with his church, and the marriage-feast. And they professed to believe in these oracles, and to expect and desire his coming. Observe, reader, making light of Christ, and of the salvation wrought out by him, is the chief cause of the ruin of many professors of religion. Multitudes perish eternally through mere carelessness, who have not any direct aversion to, or enmity against spiritual things, but a prevailing indifference and unconcern about them. And went their ways, one to his farm, &c. — Here we have the reason why they made light of the marriage-feast: they had other things to mind, in which they took more delight, and which they thought it more concerned them to mind. Thus it is still; the business and profit of worldly employments prove with many a great hinderance to their embracing the blessings of the gospel. One must mind what he has; another gain what he wants. The country people have their farms to look after, and the town’s people must attend to their shops and trade, and must buy and sell and get gain. And it must be granted that both farmers and tradesfolk must be diligent in business; but not so as to be thereby prevented from making religion their main business. Licitis perimus omnes, said the ancients. We all perish by lawful things, namely, when unlawfully used; when we are so careful and troubled about many things, as to neglect the one thing needful.

Ver. 4. He sent forth other servants. After his ascension he gave them a fresh commission, with new powers of expostulation and entreaty, to reason with them concerning the grandeur of the preparations, the richness of the feast, and the consequences of insulting their king. “God spared not his own Son.” But they made light of it, and pursued their habits of husbandry and merchandize. To them, earth was more than heaven.

4. Sent forth other servants — After the great sacrifice of the Lamb of God had made all things ready, other servants went forth. We have therefore in verses 4-7 the Gospel history to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. It is true that many of the servants sent forth after the crucifixion were the same persons as went forth before the crucifixion. But they were other in their commission, and were accompanied by other ministers of the word. All things are ready — The great entertainment has been made, the table of salvation has been spread, and all things are ready for acceptance. Fatlings — This word includes all animals that are fattened for food.

Verse 4. He sent forth other servants, &c. — Thus he urged even those to come who had insolently and disloyally refused his servants, setting forth the abundance and sumptuousness of the banquet, in order to give effect to their invitation: My oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready; come to the feast. The dinner, to ariston, was the early meal of the day; and what we call such, as being the principal meal, was deferred till the business and heat of the day was over, that is, till the evening, and was called to deipnon, which we render supper. Both terms are, however, often used generally for a feast.

V. 5. One to his farm, another to his merchandise-One must mind what he has; another, gain what he wants. How many perish by misusing lawful things!

Verses 4, 5. Again, he sent forth other servants — The apostles and others, on whom the Holy Ghost descended on the day of pentecost, and who thereby received a fresh commission to call the Jews to repentance; saying, Tell them which were bidden, I have prepared my dinner, &c. — After Christ’s resurrection and ascension, the apostles were sent forth to inform the Jews that the divine mission of Christ was confirmed by his resurrection; that sin was expiated by his death, and justification, peace with God, the influences of his Spirit, and all the other blessings of the gospel, procured for all who would accept them in the way of repentance, faith, and new obedience. But they made light of it — Namely, of the invitation to the marriage-feast, and of the feast itself to which they were invited; that is, the privileges and blessings of the gospel of Christ. They viewed them as unimportant, and treated them with indifference and neglect. And yet they who did so were members of God’s visible church, and professors of the true religion: they had been intrusted for ages with his oracles, which foretold the coming of the Messiah, described his character and office, his marriage with his church, and the marriage-feast. And they professed to believe in these oracles, and to expect and desire his coming. Observe, reader, making light of Christ, and of the salvation wrought out by him, is the chief cause of the ruin of many professors of religion. Multitudes perish eternally through mere carelessness, who have not any direct aversion to, or enmity against spiritual things, but a prevailing indifference and unconcern about them. And went their ways, one to his farm, &c. — Here we have the reason why they made light of the marriage-feast: they had other things to mind, in which they took more delight, and which they thought it more concerned them to mind. Thus it is still; the business and profit of worldly employments prove with many a great hinderance to their embracing the blessings of the gospel. One must mind what he has; another gain what he wants. The country people have their farms to look after, and the town’s people must attend to their shops and trade, and must buy and sell and get gain. And it must be granted that both farmers and tradesfolk must be diligent in business; but not so as to be thereby prevented from making religion their main business. Licitis perimus omnes, said the ancients. We all perish by lawful things, namely, when unlawfully used; when we are so careful and troubled about many things, as to neglect the one thing needful.

5. Made light of it — We have in these two verses two classes of rejecters of the Gospel described; namely, those who slight its offers, and they who persecute its offerers. Of the former we have in this verse described also two classes, namely, those who go to enjoy the estate they have, and those who go to get gain they have not by traffic.

Verses 5, 6. But they made light of it, &c. — Two classes are here particularly marked:

1. The CARELESS, who neglected the invitation, and went to their occupations.

2. The PERSECUTING, the remnant, oi loipoi; all who were not simply careless, who resisted the servants, treated them ignominiously, and put them to death.

So far the parable applies to the Jews exclusively. Under the figure of a royal feast is doubtless represented that fulness of spiritual blessings to which they were invited by the first preachers of the Gospel immediately upon our Lord’s exaltation. But whether this feast is to be considered as a marriage feast, is doubtful; and the mystical expositions which rest upon this supposition are therefore without sufficient basis. It is at least equally probable that the allusion is to the inauguration of the son of a king, into a joint government with his royal father; but this also is not sufficiently clear to warrant any inference being drawn from it. It is safer therefore to consider it simply as a feast given by a king in honour of his son, whatever might be the occasion. The Syriac version renders gamouv simply a feast. The Jews are said to be twice invited; first, bidden, and then summoned when the feast was ready. The servants, the klhtorev, who performed this service, were the prophets down to John the Baptist; all of whom in succession announced this royal feast, or the blessings to be bestowed in the age of Messiah, and held them out to the hope of Israel. Thus the Jews were already the invited, or those bidden. The servants who were repeatedly sent after all things were ready cannot, as Whitby thinks, represent the seventy disciples sent forth by our Lord; for all things were not then ready; the feast was not fully prepared until after the sacrifice and exaltation of our Lord. We are, therefore, to understand by these servants the apostles, and other disciples in succession, who, after the day of pentecost, and before the destruction of Jerusalem, repeatedly urged upon their countrymen the acceptance of those gracious offers of pardon and reconciliation which they had been authorized to make; but who were treated either with careless neglect, or with contumely, persecution, or martyrdom. Then followed the destruction and burning of their city by the Romans; a standing monument to the world, in all future ages, of the aggravated offence of slighting the overtures of mercy, and of despising the Gospel. This calamity is, however, spoken of by anticipation, as Gentiles were invited long before the Jews were finally rejected; but it is introduced to complete that branch of the parable which relates to the Jews as a people. What follows has respect both to Jews and Gentiles; to all, in fact, who, to the end of time, may profess to embrace the great evangelical invitation, and come into the Church under profession of a desire to partake of the blessings promised to her true members, both in this and a future life.

Verse 6. And the remnant — Or the rest of them, who did not go to farms or merchandise, who were neither husbandmen nor tradesmen, but ecclesiastics; namely, the scribes and Pharisees, and chief priests; took [Gr. krathsantev, laying hold on] his servants, entreated them spitefully [or rather, shamefully,] and slew them — If it be objected that these circumstances of the parable are improbable, as it was never known in the world that subjects refused the invitation of their sovereign to the marriage of his son; and much less that any persons were ever so rude and barbarous as to treat with ignominy and slay the servants of a king, or of any superior, who came to invite them to a feast, it must be observed that, allowing this to be so, it only places the crime of the Jews in a more aggravated point of view, with respect to whom all this was literally true. They whose feet should have been beautiful, because they brought glad tidings of peace and salvation, were treated as the offscouring of all things, 1 Corinthians 4:13. The prophets, and John the Baptist, had been thus abused already, and the apostles and other ministers of Christ were to lay their account with being treated in the same manner. The Jews were, either directly or indirectly, agents in most of the persecutions of the first preachers of the gospel: witness the history of the Acts, and the Epistles of the apostles.

6. Remnant — The persecutors are the comparative few and more violent. Strauss objects that it is unnatural to represent men as murdering those who merely come to invite them to a marriage. But he forgets that this is a king’s invitation; and the persons are in a state of rebellious hostility to their sovereign, and simply avail themselves of this chance of showing their hostility to him. They are therefore guilty of treason. Similar was the offence of Vashti in refusing to obey the invitation of the king. Esther 1:12. And this is a significant picture of the madness of man’s rebellion against the mercy of God.

Verses 5, 6. But they made light of it, &c. — Two classes are here particularly marked:

1. The CARELESS, who neglected the invitation, and went to their occupations.

2. The PERSECUTING, the remnant, oi loipoi; all who were not simply careless, who resisted the servants, treated them ignominiously, and put them to death.

So far the parable applies to the Jews exclusively. Under the figure of a royal feast is doubtless represented that fulness of spiritual blessings to which they were invited by the first preachers of the Gospel immediately upon our Lord’s exaltation. But whether this feast is to be considered as a marriage feast, is doubtful; and the mystical expositions which rest upon this supposition are therefore without sufficient basis. It is at least equally probable that the allusion is to the inauguration of the son of a king, into a joint government with his royal father; but this also is not sufficiently clear to warrant any inference being drawn from it. It is safer therefore to consider it simply as a feast given by a king in honour of his son, whatever might be the occasion. The Syriac version renders gamouv simply a feast. The Jews are said to be twice invited; first, bidden, and then summoned when the feast was ready. The servants, the klhtorev, who performed this service, were the prophets down to John the Baptist; all of whom in succession announced this royal feast, or the blessings to be bestowed in the age of Messiah, and held them out to the hope of Israel. Thus the Jews were already the invited, or those bidden. The servants who were repeatedly sent after all things were ready cannot, as Whitby thinks, represent the seventy disciples sent forth by our Lord; for all things were not then ready; the feast was not fully prepared until after the sacrifice and exaltation of our Lord. We are, therefore, to understand by these servants the apostles, and other disciples in succession, who, after the day of pentecost, and before the destruction of Jerusalem, repeatedly urged upon their countrymen the acceptance of those gracious offers of pardon and reconciliation which they had been authorized to make; but who were treated either with careless neglect, or with contumely, persecution, or martyrdom. Then followed the destruction and burning of their city by the Romans; a standing monument to the world, in all future ages, of the aggravated offence of slighting the overtures of mercy, and of despising the Gospel. This calamity is, however, spoken of by anticipation, as Gentiles were invited long before the Jews were finally rejected; but it is introduced to complete that branch of the parable which relates to the Jews as a people. What follows has respect both to Jews and Gentiles; to all, in fact, who, to the end of time, may profess to embrace the great evangelical invitation, and come into the Church under profession of a desire to partake of the blessings promised to her true members, both in this and a future life.

V. 7. The king sending forth his troops-The Roman armies employed of God for that purpose.

Destroyed those murderers-Primarily the Jews.

Verse 7. But when the king] HIMSELF: or, this very king. I have added ekeinov on the authority of nine of the most ancient MSS. and nearly one hundred others; the later Syriac, six copies of the Itala, and some of the fathers. Several printed editions have it, and Griesbach has received it into the text.

Verse 7. And when the king heard thereof, he was wroth — Inasmuch as “the invitation to the marriage-feast of his son, sent by this king to his supposed friends, was the highest expression of his regard for them, and the greatest honour that could be done to them; therefore, when they refused it for such trifling reasons, and were so savagely ungrateful as to beat, and wound, and kill the servants who had come with it, it was justly viewed as a most outrageous affront, an injury that deserved the severest punishment.” Accordingly the king resented it exceedingly, and sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, &c. — This branch of the parable plainly predicted the destruction of the Jews by the Roman armies, called God’s armies, because they were appointed by him to execute vengeance upon that once favourite, but now rebellions people. It is justly observed here by Dr. Doddridge, that “this clause must be supposed to come in by way of prolepsis, or anticipation; for it is plain there could not be time before the feast already prepared was served up, to attempt an execution of this kind.”

Ver. 7. He sent forth his armies and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. This is what the prophet Malachi had foretold: chap. 4:1. While the jews had the power, they killed and wasted the church, and everywhere excited the gentiles to persecute them. At length the longsuffering of God burst in vengeance upon them. He sent the Roman armies in the year seventy, to destroy the rebels with famine, with pestilence, and the sword. Josephus states that in these wars eleven hundred thousand perished. — Wars of the jews, book 7.

7. Wroth — Wrathful. After the preachers of the Gospel had proclaimed the doctrines of their risen Saviour, amid the bitterest contempt and persecution, for near forty years after his death, the iniquities of the Jews became full, God in his providence sent the Romans, who destroyed their city, removed the apparatus of their Church, and annihilated their state. Of this series of judgments we have here a brief but vivid picture, which is more fully, but scarce more clearly, filled out in chap. xxiv, than it is here outlined. Sent forth his armies — Perhaps God sent out his angelic armies to accomplish the sentence of his justice upon the guilty city and race. (Revelation 19:14.) But the armies of Vespasian and Titus, as being instruments of God’s vengeance, may be called his armies. Of the movements of even wicked men, he may so avail himself as to accomplish his own righteous purposes without any merit on their part, or any approval or compulsion or inevitable causation or decree on his. So God says, Isaiah 10:5: “O Assyrian, rod of mine anger.” Jeremiah 25:9: “Nebuchadnezzar my servant.” Their city — It was once the king’s city; it is now the city of the murderers, and the armies that destroyed it are reckoned as his.

V. 8. Go into the highways-The word properly signifies, the by-ways, or turnings of the road.

Verse 8. Were not worthy.] Because they made light of it, and would not come; preferring earthly things to heavenly blessings. Among the Mohammedans, refusal to come to a marriage feast, when invited, is considered a breach of the law of God. HEDAYAH, vol. iv. p. 91. Any one that shall be invited to a dinner, and does not accept the invitation, disobeys God, and his messenger: and any one who comes uninvited, you may say is a thief, and returns a plunderer.-Mischat ul Mesabih. It was probably considered in this light among all the oriental nations. This observation is necessary, in order to point out more forcibly the iniquity of the refusal mentioned in the text. A man may be said to be worthy of, or fit for, this marriage feast, when, feeling his wretchedness and misery, he comes to God in the way appointed, to get an entrance into the holiest, by the blood of Jesus.

Verses 8-10. Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready — That is, the marriage-feast is prepared; but they which were bidden were not worthy — Were not disposed to receive the gospel, not willing to repent and believe, and behave kindly to the preachers of it: which is the description Christ gives to his apostles of those whom they were to account axioi, worthy, Matthew 10:11-14. These here spoken of were amelhsantev, (ver. 5,) slighters, despisers of the spiritual banquet, out of love to their secular interests; they loved other things more than Christ and the blessings of his kingdom; which he that doth, says Christ, is not worthy of me, because he will not take up his cross and follow me, Matthew 10:37, 38. Go ye therefore, &c. — As if he had said, Yet let not the provisions I have made be lost; but go into the highways, Gr. diexodouv twn odwn, the byways, or turnings of the road: or, as others interpret the expression, the ways most frequented, or the places where several streets and roads meet. As this is intended of the calling of the Gentiles, it intimates, that the Gentiles had as little reason to expect the call of the gospel, as common passengers and travellers to expect all invitation to a royal banquet. The offer of Christ and salvation to them, was, 1st, unlooked for; for they had had no previous notice of any such thing being intended: whereas the Jews had had notice of the gospel long before, and expected the Messiah and his kingdom. See Isaiah 65:1, 2. 2d, It was universal, and undistinguishing; go and bid as many as you find, high and low, rich and poor, bond and free, young and old, Jew and Gentile; tell them all they shall be welcome to gospel privileges upon gospel terms; whoever will, let him come, without exception. So those servants went out — As their Lord had commanded them, and gathered as many as they found, good and bad — Giving a free invitation to all, whatever their character had formerly been. Thus, when the gospel was rejected by the Jews, the apostles, in obedience to Christ’s command, went into all parts of the world, and preached it to every creature that was willing to hear it; preached repentance and remission of sins in Christ’s name among all nations, Mark 16:16; Luke 24:47. And the wedding was furnished with guests — Great multitudes were gathered into the gospel church.

Ver. 8. They which were bidden were not worthy. St. Paul brings the same charge against the jews. “Seeing ye judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the gentiles,” who are scattered in darkness and error, as wanderers in the high ways.

8. Then saith he — As the Jews are now cast off, God will call the Gentiles to partake of his Gospel. Not worthy — They had rendered themselves unworthy of farther offers by their rejection of those they had received.

Verse 8. The wedding is ready, &c. — Tamov etoimov estin, the feast is prepared, but they which were bidden were not worthy. Here axiov is not to be understood in the sense of meritoriousness, but WELL DISPOSED; as in chap. 10:11, where the apostles when sent forth are directed to inquire, when they entered a city, who in it was “worthy,” disposed to entertain such messengers, and receive religious instruction; or it may be taken in the sense of fitness, or congruity, as Christ declares that the man who will not take up his cross and follow him cannot be “worthy of him;” that is, there was no congruity between such a disciple and his master, no correspondence of the one to the other. So here there was no correspondence between the dispositions and tastes of the persons invited to the feast, and the honours and blessings prepared for their acceptance.

Verse 9. Go ye therefore into the highways] diexodouv twn adwn, cross or by-paths; the places where two or more roads met in one, leading into the city, where people were coming together from various quarters of the country. St. Luke adds hedges, to point out the people to whom the apostles were sent, as either miserable vagabonds, or the most indigent poor, who were wandering about the country, or sitting by the sides of the ways and hedges, imploring relief. This verse points out the final rejection of the Jews, and the calling of the Gentiles. It was a custom among the Jews, when a rich man made a feast, to go out and invite in all destitute travellers. See in Rab. Beracoth, fol. 43.

As many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage] God sends his salvation to every soul, that all may believe and be saved.

Verses 8-10. Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready — That is, the marriage-feast is prepared; but they which were bidden were not worthy — Were not disposed to receive the gospel, not willing to repent and believe, and behave kindly to the preachers of it: which is the description Christ gives to his apostles of those whom they were to account axioi, worthy, Matthew 10:11-14. These here spoken of were amelhsantev, (ver. 5,) slighters, despisers of the spiritual banquet, out of love to their secular interests; they loved other things more than Christ and the blessings of his kingdom; which he that doth, says Christ, is not worthy of me, because he will not take up his cross and follow me, Matthew 10:37, 38. Go ye therefore, &c. — As if he had said, Yet let not the provisions I have made be lost; but go into the highways, Gr. diexodouv twn odwn, the byways, or turnings of the road: or, as others interpret the expression, the ways most frequented, or the places where several streets and roads meet. As this is intended of the calling of the Gentiles, it intimates, that the Gentiles had as little reason to expect the call of the gospel, as common passengers and travellers to expect all invitation to a royal banquet. The offer of Christ and salvation to them, was, 1st, unlooked for; for they had had no previous notice of any such thing being intended: whereas the Jews had had notice of the gospel long before, and expected the Messiah and his kingdom. See Isaiah 65:1, 2. 2d, It was universal, and undistinguishing; go and bid as many as you find, high and low, rich and poor, bond and free, young and old, Jew and Gentile; tell them all they shall be welcome to gospel privileges upon gospel terms; whoever will, let him come, without exception. So those servants went out — As their Lord had commanded them, and gathered as many as they found, good and bad — Giving a free invitation to all, whatever their character had formerly been. Thus, when the gospel was rejected by the Jews, the apostles, in obedience to Christ’s command, went into all parts of the world, and preached it to every creature that was willing to hear it; preached repentance and remission of sins in Christ’s name among all nations, Mark 16:16; Luke 24:47. And the wedding was furnished with guests — Great multitudes were gathered into the gospel church.

9. Into the highways — Not into the country, as some might think; for the whole transaction belongs to the city. The word highways seems to signify the intersection of the city streets; which, were the natural places to find the largest number of men to invite. The king had at first invited the select classes; but they having refused to come, he now sends for the despised and poor.

Verse 9. Into the highways, &c. — The diexodoi were the ways leading out of a city, converged into one great road, and where, on that account, a number of travellers would be met with. Extracts have been brought from the rabbinical writings to show that it was customary with the rich to invite poor travellers to their feasts, in order to illustrate this part of the parable; but that this was not common, at least in our Lord’s day, appears from one of his parables, where he reproves the wealthy Jews for inviting the rich only to their tables. The persons here invited by the king were evidently those who are ordinarily overlooked and despised, and so their invitation represented the universal call of the Gospel to men of all classes and nations, poor as well as rich, publicans, sinners, strangers, and Gentiles; a striking emblem of which was the indiscriminate and promiscuous crowds of people, from every part, who would always be hastening to some populous trading city of Palestine, where might be found not only Jews from distant nations, but Gentiles also, Syrians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Chaldeans, Edomites, and many others. Yet all were bidden to the feast.

V. 10. They gathered all-By preaching every where.

Verse 10. Gathered together all-both bad and good] By the preaching of the Gospel, multitudes of souls are gathered into what is generally termed the visible Church of Christ. This Church is the FLOOR, where the wheat and the chaff are often mingled, Matthew 3:12. The FIELD, where the bastard wheat and the true grain grow together, Matthew 13:26, 27. The NET, which collects of all kinds, both good and bad, Matthew 13:48. The HOUSE in which the wise and foolish are found, Matthew 25:1, &c. And the FOLD, in which there are both sheep and goats, Matthew 25:33; &c.

Verses 8-10. Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready — That is, the marriage-feast is prepared; but they which were bidden were not worthy — Were not disposed to receive the gospel, not willing to repent and believe, and behave kindly to the preachers of it: which is the description Christ gives to his apostles of those whom they were to account axioi, worthy, Matthew 10:11-14. These here spoken of were amelhsantev, (ver. 5,) slighters, despisers of the spiritual banquet, out of love to their secular interests; they loved other things more than Christ and the blessings of his kingdom; which he that doth, says Christ, is not worthy of me, because he will not take up his cross and follow me, Matthew 10:37, 38. Go ye therefore, &c. — As if he had said, Yet let not the provisions I have made be lost; but go into the highways, Gr. diexodouv twn odwn, the byways, or turnings of the road: or, as others interpret the expression, the ways most frequented, or the places where several streets and roads meet. As this is intended of the calling of the Gentiles, it intimates, that the Gentiles had as little reason to expect the call of the gospel, as common passengers and travellers to expect all invitation to a royal banquet. The offer of Christ and salvation to them, was, 1st, unlooked for; for they had had no previous notice of any such thing being intended: whereas the Jews had had notice of the gospel long before, and expected the Messiah and his kingdom. See Isaiah 65:1, 2. 2d, It was universal, and undistinguishing; go and bid as many as you find, high and low, rich and poor, bond and free, young and old, Jew and Gentile; tell them all they shall be welcome to gospel privileges upon gospel terms; whoever will, let him come, without exception. So those servants went out — As their Lord had commanded them, and gathered as many as they found, good and bad — Giving a free invitation to all, whatever their character had formerly been. Thus, when the gospel was rejected by the Jews, the apostles, in obedience to Christ’s command, went into all parts of the world, and preached it to every creature that was willing to hear it; preached repentance and remission of sins in Christ’s name among all nations, Mark 16:16; Luke 24:47. And the wedding was furnished with guests — Great multitudes were gathered into the gospel church.

10. So these servants went out — Unto the Gentile world, going, that is, “into all the world, to preach the Gospel to every creature.” The minister is sent of God. The ministry is a divine institution, sanctioned by Christ, and will last to the judgment day. Both bad and good — That is, every sort of character, moral or vicious. Yet the good are not too good to need the Gospel, nor the bad so bad as to have no hope if they will accept it.

Verse 10. Both bad and good. — The doors of Christ’s Church are to be thrown open to all who profess to accept the invitation; but it follows not from this that no discipline is to be exercised in it before “the king comes in to see the guests.” But it was not the design of the parable to illustrate this subject; and it is therefore passed over, that deficiency being abundantly supplied by other parts of the New Testament. It is, however, intimated, as in some other parables, that the Church would, after all, remain in a mixed state, and not be thoroughly purged of formalists and pretenders till the day of judgment. Then indeed “the king will come in to see the guests;” every one of whom must pass the scrutiny of an omniscient eye, from which none can escape in the crowd. That piercing glance which “tries the reins and the heart” will search the whole as though they were but one individual, and each individual of the vast assemblage as though he were alone. And the wedding was furnished with guests. — Here gamov is used metonymically for the place where the guests were assembled. The Syriac and Ethiopic versions render it “the house of the feast.”

V. 11. The guest-The members of the visible Church.

Verse 11. When the king came] When God shall come to judge the world.

Wedding garment] Among the orientals, long white robes were worn at public festivals; and those who appeared on such occasions with any other garments were esteemed, not only highly culpable, but worthy of punishment. Our Lord seems here to allude to #Zep 1:7, 8, The Lord hath prepared a SACRIFICE, he hath BIDDEN his guests. And it shall come to pass, in the day of the Lord’s sacrifice, that I will PUNISH the princes, and the KING’S CHILDREN, and ALL SUCH as are clothed with STRANGE APPAREL. The person who invited the guests prepared such a garment for each, for the time being; and with which he was furnished on his application to the ruler of the feast. It was this which made the conduct of the person mentioned in the text inexcusable; he might have had a proper marriage garment, if he had applied for it.

To afford accidental guests clothing suitable to a marriage feast, was a custom among the ancient Greeks. Homer relates that Telemachus, and the son of Nestor, arriving at Lacedæmon when Menelaus was making a marriage feast for his son and daughter, were accommodated with garments suited to the occasion, after having been bathed and anointed. touv d~ epei oun drwmai lousan kai crisan elaiw,

amoi d~ ara clainav oulav balon hde citwnav,

ev ra qronouv ezonto par~ atreidhn menelaon

Odyss. l. iv. ver. 49-51.

They entered each a bath, and by the hands

Of maidens laved, and oiled, and clothed again

With shaggy mantles and resplendent vests,

Sat both enthroned at Menelaus’ side. — Cowper.

Among the Asiatics, garments called caftans, great numbers of which each nobleman has ordinarily ready in his wardrobe, are given to persons whom he wishes to honour: to refuse to accept or wear such a dress would be deemed the highest insult.

This marriage feast or dinner (the communication of the graces of the Gospel in this life) prepares for the marriage supper of the Lamb, Revelation 19:7-9, the enjoyment of eternal blessedness in the kingdom of glory. Now, as without holiness no man can see the Lord, we may at once perceive what our Lord means by the marriage garment-it is HOLINESS of heart and life: the text last quoted asserts that the fine, white, and clean linen (alluding to the marriage garment above mentioned) was an emblem of the RIGHTEOUSNESS of the SAINTS. Mark this expression: the righteousness, the whole external conduct; regulated according to the will and word of God. Of the SAINTS, the holy persons, whose souls were purified by the blood of the Lamb.

Verse 11. And when the king came in to see the guests — The members of the visible church; he saw there a man which had not on a wedding- garment — To explain this, it must be observed, it was usual in the eastern countries to present the guests at marriages, and other solemnities, with garments wherein they were to appear, and the number of them was esteemed an evidence of the wealth and magnificence of the giver. This king, therefore, having invited so many from the lanes, and hedges, and highways, who could never have provided themselves with proper raiment in which to make their appearance at this marriage-feast, according to the custom of the country, must be supposed to have ordered each, on his applying to the ruler of the feast, to be presented with a proper garment, that they might all be clothed in a manner becoming the magnificence of the solemnity. But this man either neglected to apply, or refused to accept and put on, the garment offered him, which was the circumstance that rendered his conduct inexcusable. “That persons making an entertainment sometimes furnished the habits in which the guests should appear, is evident from what Homer (Odyss., lib. 8. verse 402) says of Ulysses, being thus furnished by the Phæacians.” See also Odyss., lib. 4. verses 47-51, where Homer tells us, that Telemachus and Pisistratus, happening to arrive at Menelaus’s house in Lacedæmon, while he was solemnizing the nuptials of his son and daughter, the maids of the house washed the strangers, anointed them, dressed them, and set them down by their master at table. “It is manifest also, from the account which Diodorus gives of the great hospitality of Gellias the Sicilian, who readily received all strangers, and at once supplied five hundred horsemen with clothes, who, by a violent storm, were driven to take shelter with him; (Diod. Sic., lib. 13., p. 375, edit. Steph.) — Now it was usual, more especially at marriage-feasts, for persons to appear in a sumptuous dress, adorned, as some writers tell us, with florid embroidery, (see Dr. Hammond,) though many times white garments seem to have been used on such occasions: (compare Revelation 19:8, 9.) We must therefore conclude, not only from the magnificence of the preparations, to which we must suppose the wardrobe of the prince corresponded, but likewise from the following circumstance of resentment against this guest, that a robe was offered but refused by him. And this is a circumstance, which, as Calvin observes, is admirably suited to the method of God’s dealing with us; who indeed requires holiness in order to our receiving the benefits of the gospel; but is graciously pleased to work it in us by his Holy Spirit; and therefore may justly resent and punish our neglect of so great a favour.” — Doddridge.

11. When the king came in to see the guests — The parabolic history overleaps vast spaces of time, and at one spring brings us to the judgment day. This is figured under the image of the king coming in to see the marriage guests. So this marriage lasts from the time of the coming of the Son of man to the time of his second appearing. Grandees who gave entertainments in ancient times, used to enter the dining hall after the guests were seated. Suetonius describes the Emperor Augustus as coming in while his guests were at table, and leaving before they had risen. Had not on a wedding garment — In the East much more regard is paid to the proprieties of costume for particular occasions than among us. To appear at court without a court dress is indeed, in monarchical countries, viewed as an insult. But to appear at a royal marriage in one’s ordinary dress could have nothing less in it than the most gross contempt.

Verse 11. A man which had not on a wedding garment. — As there is nothing in the parable to oblige us to consider this feast as a wedding entertainment, so enduma gamou may be taken to signify generally a banqueting robe; for a certain style of dress, as far as respected the outer garment, was required at all feasts, and, in some cases, it was a mark of the magnificence of the entertainer to furnish his guests with them; to refuse which was, of course, a high indignity. — Whether we understand by it such robes as were worn at nuptial or other feasts, is, however, a matter of indifference. Changes of raiment furnished to the guests are mentioned in Homer, and the relics of the custom still remain in the east. The Romans wore a white robe at some of their public feasts; and the etiquette of a particular robe for certain occasions was much insisted upon. Thus Spartianus, in his Life of Severus, relates that this emperor had an omen of his future greatness in this circumstance, that, being invited to sup with the emperor, he went in his short cloak, pallium, instead of his gown, toga, when he was immediately furnished with a gown worn by the emperor himself. A similar occurrence is related of Maximinus, who, when a youth, being invited with his father to sup with the Emperor Alexander Severus, not having a supper gown, vestis cænatoria, he was supplied with one which belonged to the emperor. In the scene to which the parable conducts us, as the guests were collected out of the highways, and consisted of travellers and strangers, and it. was required of each to sit down in a particular robe, this part of their dress must have been prepared for them in the kings public wardrobe, which was no doubt duly pointed out by the servants who brought them in, and knew the rules of the festivity. It is equally clear that not having on the robe which the established etiquette required was entirely the fault of the guest singled out and challenged by the Lord of the feast; because he had no defence to offer, — and he was speechless, efimwqh, was silenced, struck dumb; and, farther, that a great offence had been committed by him, because of his expulsion from the company and the punishment inflicted upon him: Bind him hand and foot, arrest him as a prisoner of state, one who has slighted the favours and mocked the majesty of his sovereign; and take him away, separate him from a company into which he ought never to have intruded, exclude him from the joys of the festivity; and cast him into outer or the external darkness: there shall be weeping, &c. See note on Matthew 8:12. It would be wearisome to enumerate all the notions which have been entertained of the mystical signification of this wedding or festal garment. One contends for imputed righteousness, another for implanted, a third for both. Some have argued for baptism, others for faith, others for charity and good works. Nothing, however, can be more clear than that as this garment would have constituted the MEETNESS of a man to be received as a guest at the feast, so it must represent all those qualities COLLECTIVELY which constitute our meetness for heaven. — And as we are so expressly informed that “without holiness no man can see the Lord;” and as habits of dress are constantly used figuratively to express moral habits of the mind and life, the virtues wrought in man by God’s Spirit, and exhibited in a course of external obedience to his will; that one word HOLINESS, implying, as it does in the Christian sense, both the regeneration of those who have penitently received Christ as the propitiation for sin, and the maturing of all the graces of their new nature by the same influence of the Holy Ghost, will fully express all that is comprehended by having the wedding or festal robe. If we are thus “found of him without spot and blameless,” we shall be welcomed “into the joy of our Lord;” but if not, as we cannot escape detection, when the king comes in to see the guests, so are we in the parable most forcibly premonished of our doom, and of that consciousness of guilt which shall leave us without excuse. Etaire, friend, is not a word of recognition or affection, but one used to a stranger; and pwv eishlqev wde, How camest thou in hither? is a strong reproof: by what right? under what presumption?

V. 12. A wedding garment-The righteousness of Christ, first imputed, then implanted. It may easily be observed, this has no relation to the Lord's Supper, but to God's proceeding at the last day.

Verse 12. He saith unto him, Friend] Rather, companion: so etaire should be translated. As this man represents the state of a person in the visible Church, who neglects to come unto the master of the feast for a marriage garment, for the salvation which Christ has procured, he cannot be with any propriety called a friend, but may well be termed a companion, as being a member of the visible Church, and present at all those ordinances where Christ’s presence and blessing are found, by all those who sincerely wait upon him for salvation.

How camest thou in hither] Why profess to be called by my name while living without a preparation for my kingdom?

He was speechless.] efimwqh, he was muzzled, or gagged. He had nothing to say in vindication of his neglect. There was a garment provided, but he neither put it on, nor applied for it. His conduct, therefore, was in the highest degree insulting and indecorous. As this man is the emblem, by general consent, of those who shall perish in the last day, may we not ask, without offence, Where does the doctrine of absolute reprobation or preterition appear in his case? If Christ had never died for him, or if he had applied for the garment, and was refused, might he not well have alleged this in behalf of his soul?-and would not the just God have listened to it? But there is not the smallest excuse for him: Christ died, the sacrifice was offered, for him; the ministers of the Gospel invited him; the Holy Spirit strove with him; he might have been saved, but he was not: and the fault lies so absolutely at his own door that the just God is vindicated in his conduct, while he sends him to hell, not for the lack of what he could not get, but for the lack of what he might have had, but either neglected or refused it.

Then said the king to the servants] To the ministering angels, executors of the Divine will.

Cast him into outer darkness] The Jewish marriages were performed in the night season, and the hall where the feast was made was superbly illuminated; the outer darkness means, therefore, the darkness on the outside of this festal hall; rendered still more gloomy to the person who was suddenly thrust out into it from such a profusion of light. See all this largely treated of on Matthew 8:12.

Verses 12, 13. Friend, how camest thou in hither — How camest thou to presume to enter into my church, by taking upon thee a profession of my religion, and to sit down among the guests, or associate thyself with my disciples; not having on a wedding-garment? — Not having put off the old man and put on the new, not being made a new creature, not having put on the Lord Jesus Christ in holy graces and moral virtues. “It is needless to dispute,” says Calvin, “about the wedding-garment, whether it be faith, or a pious, holy life. For neither can faith be separated from good works, nor can good works proceed except from faith. Christ’s meaning is only that we are called in order that we may be renewed in our minds after his image. And therefore, that we may remain always in his house, the old man, with his filthiness, must be put off, and a new life designed, that our attire may be such as is suitable to so honourable an invitation.” And he was speechless — Gr. efimwqh, he was struck speechless. “This is the true import of the original word, which is rendered very improperly in our translation, he was speechless; as from hence the English reader is led to conceive that the man was dumb, and so could not speak; whereas he was made dumb only by self-condemnation and conviction, even as Christ made dumb — efimwse, — or put to silence, the Sadducees, verse 34; and as Peter would have us to make speechless, or put to silence, (fimoun,) the ignorance of foolish men.” See Gerhard’s Continuation. Then said the king to his servants, Bind him hand and foot, &c. — Thus, 1st, Christ commands the ministers of his gospel, to whom the exercise of discipline in his church is committed, to exclude from the society of the faithful all who, by walking disorderly, bring a reproach upon the gospel, and to leave them to outer darkness, or the darkness without the pale of the church; that is, heathenish darkness. In other words, as is expressed Matthew 18:17, to let such be unto them as heathen and as publicans. But, 2d, This clause of the sentence is to be chiefly referred to the last judgment, when Christ will command his angels to gather out of his kingdom not only all things that offend, but them which do iniquity, and to cast them into the darkness which is without the heavenly city, namely, into the darkness of hell, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. The mention of outer darkness in the parable, in the connection in which it stands, “would incline one to think, either that the word ariston, rendered dinner, verse 4, may signify supper as well as dinner; or that the king is represented as visiting the guests in the evening. But not to insist on this, which is of little moment, it is well known that banquets of this kind were generally celebrated in rooms richly adorned: and considering how splendid and magnificent the entertainments of the eastern princes were, it cannot be thought an unnatural circumstance, that such an affront as this, offered to the king, his son, his bride, and the rest of the company, should be punished with such bonds and thrown into a dungeon.”

Ver. 12. Not having on a wedding garment. A conscience purged from sin, divine charity hallowing the heart, and all the fruits of righteousness by faith; in a word, holiness of heart and life.

12. Friend — There is here the politeness of solemn rebuke. Speechless — The spirit of brave contempt has deserted him at the trying time. Men, who are now loquacious and brave in sin and ungodly error, will be terribly dumb in the hour when conscious guilt within responds to the terrible voice of God’s judgment without.

It is plainly presupposed that he was fully able to have been clothed with the proper garments. Poor though he was, it is not his poverty but his neglect, or his contempt, which has prevented his supplying himself with the proper garments. And this is illustrated by the fact that in Eastern countries, and in some degree among the Romans, the custom existed of supplying to the guests the proper vesture for the festal occasion. That this custom existed in ancient times is rendered probable by such passages as Genesis 46:22; 2 Kings 10:22; Esther 6:8; Revelation 3:5. So Charden narrates that the vizier of a Persian Shah lost his life for not appearing before his sovereign in a gift robe.

It will then be noted this man represents the Pharisee who rejects the offered righteousness of Christ, and appears in judgment in his own righteousness. It is not the case of the thousands who pay no attention to the invitation of the feast, or those who persecute the inviters. It is one of those men good enough, in their own esteem, to come and stand the gaze of the host in their own natural character, slighting the robe of “the righteousness of God.” What was this but the case of the very men with whom our Lord is now contending?

But why does our Lord suppose but one man of this character? Doubtless for two reasons. One is, that to suppose many would be to destroy the good order of the feast by supposing too great a breaking up. The second is, that any Pharisee in the company who might have conscience enough left, might feel it to be his own single case and tremble. And he who reads, as well as those who heard, has abundant reason to be earnest lest this one be a true picture of his own case. Unless clothed in “the fine linen which is the righteousness of the saints,” we shall be found guilty of a sad contempt when we appear before God, for which we shall be speechless when he puts the awful, How?

Verses 12, 13. Friend, how camest thou in hither — How camest thou to presume to enter into my church, by taking upon thee a profession of my religion, and to sit down among the guests, or associate thyself with my disciples; not having on a wedding-garment? — Not having put off the old man and put on the new, not being made a new creature, not having put on the Lord Jesus Christ in holy graces and moral virtues. “It is needless to dispute,” says Calvin, “about the wedding-garment, whether it be faith, or a pious, holy life. For neither can faith be separated from good works, nor can good works proceed except from faith. Christ’s meaning is only that we are called in order that we may be renewed in our minds after his image. And therefore, that we may remain always in his house, the old man, with his filthiness, must be put off, and a new life designed, that our attire may be such as is suitable to so honourable an invitation.” And he was speechless — Gr. efimwqh, he was struck speechless. “This is the true import of the original word, which is rendered very improperly in our translation, he was speechless; as from hence the English reader is led to conceive that the man was dumb, and so could not speak; whereas he was made dumb only by self-condemnation and conviction, even as Christ made dumb — efimwse, — or put to silence, the Sadducees, verse 34; and as Peter would have us to make speechless, or put to silence, (fimoun,) the ignorance of foolish men.” See Gerhard’s Continuation. Then said the king to his servants, Bind him hand and foot, &c. — Thus, 1st, Christ commands the ministers of his gospel, to whom the exercise of discipline in his church is committed, to exclude from the society of the faithful all who, by walking disorderly, bring a reproach upon the gospel, and to leave them to outer darkness, or the darkness without the pale of the church; that is, heathenish darkness. In other words, as is expressed Matthew 18:17, to let such be unto them as heathen and as publicans. But, 2d, This clause of the sentence is to be chiefly referred to the last judgment, when Christ will command his angels to gather out of his kingdom not only all things that offend, but them which do iniquity, and to cast them into the darkness which is without the heavenly city, namely, into the darkness of hell, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. The mention of outer darkness in the parable, in the connection in which it stands, “would incline one to think, either that the word ariston, rendered dinner, verse 4, may signify supper as well as dinner; or that the king is represented as visiting the guests in the evening. But not to insist on this, which is of little moment, it is well known that banquets of this kind were generally celebrated in rooms richly adorned: and considering how splendid and magnificent the entertainments of the eastern princes were, it cannot be thought an unnatural circumstance, that such an affront as this, offered to the king, his son, his bride, and the rest of the company, should be punished with such bonds and thrown into a dungeon.”

13. Servants — The officers. A different word and a different class of persons from the one who called to the wedding. Bind him — As lictors bind a criminal for his doom. Outer darkness — The outdoor darkness. The guilty guest in the parable is thrown from the splendour of the banquet into the horrors of the midnight street. See note on Matthew 8:12.

V. 14. Many are called; few chosen-Many hear; few believe. Yea, many are members of the visible, but few of the invisible Church. Matthew 20:16.

Verse 14. Many are called, &c.] This verse is wanting in one of Colbert’s MSS., marked 33 in Griesbach. See the note on Matthew 20:16. Many are called by the preaching of the Gospel into the outward communion of the Church of Christ; but few, comparatively, are chosen to dwell with God In glory, because they do not come to the master of the feast for a marriage garment-for that holiness without which none can see the Lord. This is an allusion to the Roman custom of raising their militia; all were mustered, but only those were chosen to serve, who were found proper. See the note on Matthew 20:16. Reader! examine thy soul, and make sure work for eternity!

Verse 14. For many are called — Nor imagine, (as if our Lord had said,) that this will be the case of one alone; for though it be a dreadful truth, yet I must say, that even the greatest part of those to whom the gospel is offered, will either openly reject or secretly disobey it; and while indeed many are called to the gospel-feast, it will be manifest by their disregarding it, there are but few chosen in such a sense as finally to partake of its blessings. In short, many hear, few believe: many are members of the visible, but few of the invisible church.

Ver. 14. Many are called, but few chosen. These words are a jewish adage, obviously taken from the eighth chapter of the second book of Esdras. “Many are created, but few shall be saved.” They import that the gate of life is strait, and that few find it. None, says Erasmus, are chosen but those who obey the call to the end, Now, these words ought not to be taken in an ill sense, because in the parable God in great mercy invites both jew and gentile. Also because he is angry with them for not coming; and because he says they are not worthy, and shall not taste of his supper. Here were both meat and means, and goodwill in the king: therefore God most justly lays the cause of destruction wholly on themselves.

14. For many are called — The high and the low, the good and the bad, were called to come to the marriage feast. Few are chosen — Or elected, as the word means. Myriads are not chosen because they do not come. And we know not how many who come fail of being chosen, because they have not accepted salvation by Christ. The dogma that they are not chosen because they are secretly predestinated by God’s decree not to be chosen, affirms simply what is not said or implied. That dogma would lay the blame on God, and not upon those who are not chosen, and charge insincerity upon the call. It is to be noted that the choosing is after the calling. § 115. — PHARISEES, HERODIANS, SADDUCEES, AND A SCRIBE QUESTION JESUS.

Verse 14. For many are called, &c. — Many are summoned or INVITED, few chosen or APPROVED; for such is the meaning of the word, which is not to be taken in the sense of arbitrary selection, but as expressing an act of choice founded upon sufficient reasons. See note on chap. 20:16, &c. — This moral is subjoined to the whole parable, and relates therefore both to the Jews and Gentiles, and is to all awfully admonitory.

V. 15. Mark 12:13; Luke 20:20.

Verse 15. In his talk.] en logw, 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.

Verses 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. pagideuswsin en logw, 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, (Luke 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.

JESUS QUESTIONS THE PHARISEES, 15-46.

The Pharisees had now, in answer to their question as to his authority, (Matthew 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, 16-22. Then come up the SADDUCEES, who retire in similar defeat, 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.

Verse 15. Then went the Pharisees, &c. — As they feared the people too much to apprehend Christ at once, though greatly enraged at the former parables he had spoken with direct reference to them, they determined to proceed by stratagem, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk, pagideuswsin, how they might ensnare him, a term taken from ensnaring or entrapping birds, in his conversation. This they attempted to do by endeavouring artfully to extract an opinion from him on the lawfulness of paying tribute to the Romans, on which some of them affected great tenderness of conscience. Thus they came to him under pretence of making a religious inquiry, hoping that his answer might enable them to charge him before the Roman governor as the seditious leader of a multitude collected to subvert the existing government. The persons sent were disciples of the Pharisees and the Herodians. As to the latter, great diversity of opinion exists among critics, some considering them as a political sect attached to the Herodian family from the time of Herod the Great, who was always highly unpopular with the Jews in general; others as a religious sect, and the same as the Sadducees, from whom, however, they are distinguished, verse 23. There are several other opinions; but the probability is, that this was both a political and a religious distinction; political, as being confined to the party of Herod; and religious, as this party was composed of Sadducees, whose opinions Herod adopted, and who like him had little scruple in conforming, in compliment to the Romans, to many pagan customs, which the Jews held in abhorrence. Herod Antipas was at this time at Jerusalem, which was the time of the passover; and the Herodians here mentioned were probably in attendance upon him. The union of these with the disciples of the Pharisees was artfully adapted to the designed plot laid to entrap our Lord. The Pharisees were averse, on religious grounds, to pay tribute to the Romans, that is, to submit to their government; and the feeling of the body of the people was with them. — Herod and his party leaned chiefly upon the Roman power, and therefore supported their claims, though more out of fear than affection. The question, therefore, Is it lawful to give tribute to Cesar or not? might seem naturally to have arisen between the parties in an accidental collision, and they come to Christ with abundance of complimentary expressions, and affect to appeal to his superior wisdom to decide it.

V. 16. The Herodians were a set of men peculiarly attached to Herod, and consequently zealous for the interest of the Roman government, which was the main support of the dignity and royalty of his family. Thou regardest not the person of men-Thou favourest no man for his riches or greatness.

Verse 16. The Herodians] For an account of this sect, see the note on Matthew 16:1. The preceding parable had covered the Pharisees with confusion: when it was ended they went out, not to humble themselves before God, and deprecate the judgments with which they were threatened; but to plot afresh the destruction of their teacher. The depth of their malice appears, 1. In their mode of attack. They had often questioned our Lord on matters concerning religion; and his answers only served to increase his reputation, and their confusion. They now shift their ground, and question him concerning state affairs, and the question is such as must be answered; and yet the answer, to all human appearance, can be none other than what may be construed into a crime against the people, or against the Roman government. 2. Their profound malice appears farther in the choice of their companions in this business, viz. the Herodians. Herod was at this very time at Jerusalem, whither he had come to hold the passover. Jesus, being of Nazareth, which was in Herod’s jurisdiction, was considered as his subject. Herod himself was extremely attached to the Roman emperor, and made a public profession of it: all these considerations engaged the Pharisees to unite the Herodians, who, as the Syriac intimates, were the domestics of Herod, in this infernal plot. 3. Their profound malice appears, farther, in the praises they gave our Lord. Teacher, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God. This was indeed the real character of our blessed Lord; and now they bear testimony to the truth, merely with the design to make it subserve their bloody purposes. Those whose hearts are influenced by the spirit of the wicked one never do good, but when they hope to accomplish evil by it. Men who praise you to your face are ever to be suspected. The Italians have a very expressive proverb on this subject:- Che ti fa carezze piu che non suole,

O t’ ha ingannato, o ingannar ti vuole.

He who caresses thee more than he was wont to do,

has either DECEIVED thee, or is ABOUT TO DO IT.

I have never known the sentiment in this proverb to fail; and it was notoriously exemplified in the present instance. Flatterers, though they speak the truth, ever carry about with them a base or malicious soul. 4. Their malice appears still farther in the question they propose. Is it lawful to give tribute to Cæsar, or not?-Matthew 22:17. The constitution of the Jewish republic, the expectations which they had of future glory and excellence, and the diversity of opinions which divided the Jews on this subject, rendered an answer to this question extremely difficult:-

1. In the presence of the people, who professed to have no other king but God, and looked on their independence as an essential point of their religion.

2. In the presence of the Pharisees, who were ready to stir up the people against him, if his decision could be at all construed to be contrary to their prejudices, or to their religious rights.

3. In the presence of the Herodians, who, if the answer should appear to be against Cæsar’s rights, were ready to inflame their master to avenge, by the death of our Lord, the affront offered to his master the emperor.

4. The answer was difficult, because of the different sentiments of the Jews on this subject; some maintaining that they could not lawfully pay tribute to a heathen governor: while others held that as they were now under this strange government, and had no power to free themselves from it, it was lawful for them to pay what they had not power to refuse.

5. The answer was difficult, when it is considered that multitudes of the people had begun now to receive Jesus as the promised Messiah, who was to be the deliverer of their nation from spiritual and temporal oppression, and therefore had lately sung to him the Hosanna Rabba: see Matthew 21:9. If then he should decide the question in Cæsar’s favour, what idea must the people have of him, either as zealous for the law, or as the expected Messiah? If against Cæsar, he is ruined. Who that loved Jesus, and was not convinced of his sovereign wisdom, could help trembling for him in these circumstances?

Jesus opposes the depth of his wisdom to the depth of their malice, and manifests it:- 1. By unmasking them, and showing that he knew the very secrets of their hearts. Ye HYPOCRITES! why tempt ye me? i.e. why do ye try me thus? This must cover them with confusion, when they saw their motives thus discovered; and tend much to lessen their influence in the sight of the people, when it was manifest that they acted not through a desire to receive information, by which to regulate their conduct, but merely to ensnare and ruin him.

2. Christ shows his profound wisdom in not attempting to discuss the question at large; but settled the business by seizing a maxim that was 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 of a country, is virtually acknowledged thereby as the governor. See Maimon. Gezel. c. v. in Wetstein. When Sultan MAHMOUD, king of Maveralnahar, Turquestan, and the Indies, wished to seize on the dominions of SEIDEH, queen of Persia, who governed in the place of her young son Megededde-vlet, about A. D. 909, he sent an ambassador to her with the following order: You must acknowledge me for your KING, cause the kootbah to be read, i.e. pray for me in all the mosques of the kingdom, and GET YOUR MONEY recoined, with the IMPRESSION THAT IS ON MINE: thus denoting that she must become absolutely subject to him. See Bibliot. Orient. de Galand. p. 453. Esau Afghan carried his conquest into Bhatty, into the viceroyalty of Bengal, and caused the kootbah to be read, and coin to be struck in the name of the Emperor Akbar. Ayeen Akbery, vol. ii p. 5. See also p. 38,92,94,130,139,187.

Verses 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. pagideuswsin en logw, 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, (Luke 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.

Ver. 16. With the Herodians. Of the Herodians we have various accounts. In Jerusalem great strife and emulation subsisted between the college of Shammai, and that of Hillel. When Herod ascended the throne he was violently opposed by the jews. But Manahem, a head of the sanhedrim or council, with eighty men in arms, entered the palace for Herod’s defence; and all the royal party were thence called Herodians. In their creed they differed little from the sadducees. Tertullian states, that this court faction went so far as to affirm, that Herod was the Christ. — The story of the seven brothers is taken out of the Talmud; probably one of those which St. Paul calls “old wives’ fables.” See Matthew 3:7.

16. Herodians — The Herodians were a political party rather than a religious sect. They were probably the partizan supporters of the Herod family, and so favourable to the Roman dominion. They were not therefore very strenuous for the peculiarities of the Jewish religion. It was about one hundred and twenty years previous to this time that the Roman general Pompey, acting as arbiter between two rival claimants to the Jewish government, had subjugated Judea to the Roman sway. By Roman power the Herod family was sustained in authority over different provinces of Palestine. The pure Jews were grieved to see cruel and avaricious rulers appointed over their native land; theatres and Grecian gaities introduced contrary to Jewish manners; the Roman eagles displayed upon the military standards; the Tower of Antonia so refitted as to command the temple under Roman arms, and the high priests so often and capriciously removed by the Roman rulers as to make that ancient and sacred dignity almost an annual appointment.

This state of things was doubtless sustained by the Herodians. And yet Herod Antipas was at this time plotting to attain for his own royalty an independence of Roman power. He was secretly aiming to acquire the dominion, not only of Galilee but of Judea, which was his natural inheritance from his father Herod the Great. For this purpose he had formed a secret alliance with Artabanus, king of Parthia, and kept concealed military equipments for 70,000 men. The plot was revealed to the emperor by Agrippa, (see note on chap. xiv,) and Herod Antipas was banished to Gaul, where he died. The Herodians were, therefore, probably parties who at heart favoured the Herod family, as heads of an independent sovereignty.

Extremely opposed to this party of Herodians was the faction of Judas the Gaulonite, who held that it was rebellion against God to submit to the Romans or to pay to them tribute. These were fanatical Jews, going indeed beyond the law; for there is nothing in the Old Testament forbidding to submit when conquered by a foreign power. The whole nation so submitted when conquered and carried to Babylon. Master, we know — They tell true, but with a most false intention. Neither carest thou for any man — Not even Herod himself. They put on the air of expecting complete independence from him, under the hope that he will commit himself to some rebellious sentiment.

V. 17. Is it lawful to give tribute to Cesar?-If he had said, Yes, the Pharisees would have accused him to the people, as a betrayer of the liberties of his country. If he had said, No, the Herodians would have accused him to the Roman governor.

Verses 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. pagideuswsin en logw, 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, (Luke 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.

17. Lawful to give tribute unto Cesar, or not — If he say no, then he will incur the hostility of government. If yes, he loses the favour of the people, by which of late he had been so completely protected. The tribute was a poll-tax, or levy of a denarius upon every person, imposed by the Roman government ever since Judea became a province. Cesar was a name common to all the emperors, derived originally from Julius Cesar, the proper founder of Roman imperialism in the place of the old republic. The present emperor was Tiberius.

Verse 17. Is it lawful to pay tribute? &c. — The word khnsov is the Latin census, in Greek letters, and is used both for an enumeration of the people, and, as here, also for the capitation tax levied upon them in those Roman provinces which did not, as Italy, enjoy the privilege of exemption. — This was entirely different from the temple tribute before mentioned, which was a didrachm or half shekel from every Jew throughout the world. The question being, whether it was lawful to pay the poll tax to Cesar, which was a mark of the subjection of Judea, as a province, to the Roman power, necessarily implied whether it was not a religious duty to unite and throw off this subjection by violence. If, therefore, our Lord had determined that it was not lawful to pay the tribute, he would have been charged with sanctioning rebellion; but if he had declared the contrary, this might have been employed to lessen his present influence with the multitude, by representing him as an abettor of the Roman tyranny, and as having uttered a decision utterly incompatible with his own pretensions. “For how,” they might have said to the multitudes that followed him, “can he be the Messiah, as you believe, who, instead of delivering you from a foreign yoke, enjoins even the lawfulness, and not merely the expediency, for a time, of submitting to this exercise of a foreign and idolatrous domination?” But how soon were “the wise taken in their own craftiness!” Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? St. Luke says, “perceiving their craftiness.”

V. 18. Ye hypocrites-Pretending a scruple of conscience.

Verses 18-22. But Jesus perceived their wickedness, (and craftiness, Luke,) in this their address, however pious and respectful it appeared; and said, Why tempt ye me? — That is, Why do ye try me by such an insnaring question, and seek to draw me into danger by it? Ye hypocrites — Making conscience and a pure regard to the divine will your pretence for asking the question, while your design is to bring about my destruction. Show me the tribute-money — Which is demanded of you. It seems the Romans chose to receive this tribute in their own coin. And they brought unto him a penny — A denarius, stamped with the head of Cesar. He saith, Whose is this image — Which is struck upon the coin? They say unto him, Cesar’s — Plainly acknowledging, by their having received his coin, that they were under his government. And indeed this is a standing rule. The current coin of every nation shows who is the supreme governor of it. Render therefore, ye Pharisees, to Cesar, the things which ye yourselves acknowledge to be Cesar’s: and, ye Herodians, while ye are zealous for Cesar, see that ye render to God the things that are God’s. When they had heard, &c., they marvelled and left him — “So unexpected an answer, in which Jesus clearly confuted them on their own principles, and showed that the rights of God and the magistrate do not interfere in the least, (because magistrates are God’s deputies, and rule by his authority,) quite disconcerted and silenced those crafty enemies. They were astonished at his having perceived their design, as well as at the wisdom by which he avoided the snare, and went off inwardly vexed and not a little ashamed.” — Macknight.

JESUS QUESTIONS THE PHARISEES, 15-46.

The Pharisees had now, in answer to their question as to his authority, (Matthew 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, 16-22. Then come up the SADDUCEES, who retire in similar defeat, 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.

Verse 19. They brought unto him a penny.] A denarius: probably the ordinary capitation tax, though the poll tax in the law, Exodus 30:13, 14, was half a shekel, about twice as much as the denarius. The Roman denarius had the emperor’s image with a proper legend stamped on one side of it. It was not therefore the sacred shekel which was to be paid for the repairs of the temple which was now demanded, but the regular tribute required by the Roman government.

Verses 18-22. But Jesus perceived their wickedness, (and craftiness, Luke,) in this their address, however pious and respectful it appeared; and said, Why tempt ye me? — That is, Why do ye try me by such an insnaring question, and seek to draw me into danger by it? Ye hypocrites — Making conscience and a pure regard to the divine will your pretence for asking the question, while your design is to bring about my destruction. Show me the tribute-money — Which is demanded of you. It seems the Romans chose to receive this tribute in their own coin. And they brought unto him a penny — A denarius, stamped with the head of Cesar. He saith, Whose is this image — Which is struck upon the coin? They say unto him, Cesar’s — Plainly acknowledging, by their having received his coin, that they were under his government. And indeed this is a standing rule. The current coin of every nation shows who is the supreme governor of it. Render therefore, ye Pharisees, to Cesar, the things which ye yourselves acknowledge to be Cesar’s: and, ye Herodians, while ye are zealous for Cesar, see that ye render to God the things that are God’s. When they had heard, &c., they marvelled and left him — “So unexpected an answer, in which Jesus clearly confuted them on their own principles, and showed that the rights of God and the magistrate do not interfere in the least, (because magistrates are God’s deputies, and rule by his authority,) quite disconcerted and silenced those crafty enemies. They were astonished at his having perceived their design, as well as at the wisdom by which he avoided the snare, and went off inwardly vexed and not a little ashamed.” — Macknight.

19. Show me the tribute money — The rule of dominion among the Jews themselves was, “He is sovereign who stamps the coin.” By the very fact then that they had at hand as current coin the Roman penny, they acknowledged that the emperor was the established and settled governor of the country.

Brought unto him a penny — The Roman denarius was first coined B. C. 269, four years after the close of the first Punic war. It became current coin in Judea after its subjection. It was the pay of a day’s labour in Palestine; a soldier’s pay was less. Like our word dime, it signifies ten, that is, ten ases, but it was nearer the value of our shilling, being about fifteen cents.

Verse 19. Show me the tribute money. — The coin in which the tax was paid; for the Romans required the payment in Roman money. And they brought unto him a penny. — That is, a denarius, value about 7 ½d. “The denarius,” says Adolphus Occo, “paid by the Jews as tribute money, had around the head of Cesar this inscription, Kaisar Augoust. Ioudaiav ealwkiav. Cesar Augustus; Judea being subdued.” “But it might,” says Hammond, “have been a denarius of Tiberius.” Whatever it was, it had both a head of Cesar, called his image, and an epigraph or superscription, which was the name of the emperor.

V. 20. The tribute money-A Roman coin, stamped with the head of Cesar, which was usually paid in tribute.

Verse 20. Whose is this image and superscription?] He knew well enough whose they were; but he showed the excellency of his wisdom, 3dly, in making them answer to their own confusion. They came to ensnare our Lord in his discourse, and now they are ensnared in their own. He who digs a pit for his neighbour ordinarily falls into it himself.

Verses 18-22. But Jesus perceived their wickedness, (and craftiness, Luke,) in this their address, however pious and respectful it appeared; and said, Why tempt ye me? — That is, Why do ye try me by such an insnaring question, and seek to draw me into danger by it? Ye hypocrites — Making conscience and a pure regard to the divine will your pretence for asking the question, while your design is to bring about my destruction. Show me the tribute-money — Which is demanded of you. It seems the Romans chose to receive this tribute in their own coin. And they brought unto him a penny — A denarius, stamped with the head of Cesar. He saith, Whose is this image — Which is struck upon the coin? They say unto him, Cesar’s — Plainly acknowledging, by their having received his coin, that they were under his government. And indeed this is a standing rule. The current coin of every nation shows who is the supreme governor of it. Render therefore, ye Pharisees, to Cesar, the things which ye yourselves acknowledge to be Cesar’s: and, ye Herodians, while ye are zealous for Cesar, see that ye render to God the things that are God’s. When they had heard, &c., they marvelled and left him — “So unexpected an answer, in which Jesus clearly confuted them on their own principles, and showed that the rights of God and the magistrate do not interfere in the least, (because magistrates are God’s deputies, and rule by his authority,) quite disconcerted and silenced those crafty enemies. They were astonished at his having perceived their design, as well as at the wisdom by which he avoided the snare, and went off inwardly vexed and not a little ashamed.” — Macknight.

20. Image and superscription — The image was probably the likeness of the Roman emperor Tiberius Cesar. The superscription was the motto upon the coin, which declared his sovereignty. In earlier ages the coin bore the symbols of the republic.

V. 21. They say to him, Cesar's-Plainly acknowledging, by their having received his coin, that they were under his government. And indeed this is a standing rule. The current coin of every nation shows who is the supreme governor of it.

Render therefore, ye Pharisees, to Cesar the things which ye yourselves acknowledge to be Cesar's: and, ye Herodians, while ye are zealous for Cesar, see that ye render to God the things that are God's.

Verse 21. They say unto him, Cæsars.] The image was the head of the emperor; the superscription, his titles. JULIUS CÆSAR was the first who caused his image to be struck on the Roman coin. Tiberius was emperor at this time.

Render therefore unto Cæsar] The conclusion is drawn from their own premises. You acknowledge this to be Cæsar’s coin; this coin is current, in your land; the currency of this coin shows the country to be under the Roman government; and your acknowledgment that it is Cæsar’s proves you have submitted. Don’t therefore be unjust; but render to Cæsar the things which you acknowledge to be his; at the same time, be not impious, but render unto God the thing’s which belong to God.

This answer is full of consummate wisdom. It establishes the limits, regulates the rights, and distinguishes the jurisdiction of the two empires of heaven and earth. The image of princes stamped on their coin denotes that temporal things belong all to their government. The image of God stamped on the soul denotes that all its faculties and powers belong to the Most High, and should be employed in his service.

But while the earth is agitated and distracted with the question of political rights and wrongs, the reader will naturally ask, What does a man owe to Cæsar?-to the civil government under which he lives? Our Lord has answered the question-That which IS Cæsar’s. But what is it that is Cæsar’s? 1. Honour. 2. Obedience. And 3. Tribute. 1. The civil government under which a man lives, and by which he is protected, demands his honour and reverence. 2. The laws which are made for the suppression of evil doers, and the maintenance of good order, which are calculated to promote the benefit of the whole, and the comfort of the individual should be religiously obeyed. 3. The government that charges itself with the support and defence of the whole, should have its unavoidable expenses, however great, repaid by the people, in whose behalf they are incurred; therefore we should pay tribute. But remember, if Cæsar should intrude into the things of God, coin a new creed, or broach a new Gospel, and affect to rule the conscience, while he rules the state, in these things Cæsar is not to be obeyed; he is taking the things of God, and he must not get them. Give not therefore God’s things to Cæsar, and give not Cæsar’s things to God. That which belongs to the commonwealth should, on no account whatever, be devoted to religious uses; and let no man think he has pleased God, by giving that to charitable or sacred uses which he has purloined from the state. The tribute of half a shekel, which the law, (Exodus 30:13,14,) required every person above twenty years of age to pay to the temple, was, after the destruction of the temple, in the time of Vespasian, paid into the emperor’s exchequer. This sum, Melanethon supposes, amounted annually to THREE TONS OF GOLD.

Verses 18-22. But Jesus perceived their wickedness, (and craftiness, Luke,) in this their address, however pious and respectful it appeared; and said, Why tempt ye me? — That is, Why do ye try me by such an insnaring question, and seek to draw me into danger by it? Ye hypocrites — Making conscience and a pure regard to the divine will your pretence for asking the question, while your design is to bring about my destruction. Show me the tribute-money — Which is demanded of you. It seems the Romans chose to receive this tribute in their own coin. And they brought unto him a penny — A denarius, stamped with the head of Cesar. He saith, Whose is this image — Which is struck upon the coin? They say unto him, Cesar’s — Plainly acknowledging, by their having received his coin, that they were under his government. And indeed this is a standing rule. The current coin of every nation shows who is the supreme governor of it. Render therefore, ye Pharisees, to Cesar, the things which ye yourselves acknowledge to be Cesar’s: and, ye Herodians, while ye are zealous for Cesar, see that ye render to God the things that are God’s. When they had heard, &c., they marvelled and left him — “So unexpected an answer, in which Jesus clearly confuted them on their own principles, and showed that the rights of God and the magistrate do not interfere in the least, (because magistrates are God’s deputies, and rule by his authority,) quite disconcerted and silenced those crafty enemies. They were astonished at his having perceived their design, as well as at the wisdom by which he avoided the snare, and went off inwardly vexed and not a little ashamed.” — Macknight.

21. They say unto him, Cesar’s — And thus they acknowledge that Cesar’s superiority is peacefully submitted to in the quiet of society and the commercial exchanges. The things which are Cesar’s — If you consent to receive the gift of peace and order from Cesar, you must consent to render the payment of the expenses of his government.

In this reply our Lord evades the peculiarity of every party, yet sustains the truth in question. The Herodians cannot complain, for Cesar’s government is not attacked. The Pharisees cannot complain, for his decision is but their own confession put in shape. The very Gaulonites cannot complain; for he does not decide that there are no just grounds for revolutionizing the government from the foundations, and asserting independence alike of Cesar’s coin and Cesar’s authority. All he decides is, that while Cesar’s government is the acknowledged government, it must receive its dues. Our Lord refused to act as a political patriot or as a political arbiter. He simply decides as a religious teacher that government is right, and that an acknowledged government must receive the dues of a government. Unto God the things that are God’s — But Cesar has no right to infringe the rights of God. Human laws are limited by the divine law. The Christian must as far as possible comply with both. Where the human law conflicts with the divine, he must obey the latter and suffer the consequences.

Verse 21. Render therefore unto Cesar, &c. — Those who think that our Lord in reality determined the artful question which was put to him on the side of the lawfulness of paying tribute to Cesar, do not disentangle him from the dilemma which was prepared for him; and hence we see in commentators many just things said of the consummate wisdom of this answer without any clear indication of that in which its wisdom consists. Thus the generality of interpreters have more ably exhibited the snare laid for Christ by the question proposed, than made it manifest how his reply evaded it. But that our Lord did not determine the question either way, is plain from the effect produced upon the inquirers. St. Matthew says, “They marvelled and left him;” St. Luke, “They could not take hold of his words before the people; and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace.” Now certainly, if he had decided that it was lawful to pay tribute to the Romans in the sense in which its lawfulness was understood in the question, this was one of the decisions they wished to obtain from him; and being in favour of the unpopular Roman power, they might have “taken hold of his words before the people.” But the question, “Is it lawful to pay tribute to Cesar, or not?” was equivalent to, “Is this submission to a foreign and idolatrous power forbidden by the law of God, or is it not?” And it was put with manifest reference to the duty of insurrection, or an attempt to throw off that yoke which the opinion of its being unlawful for the people of God, as they still thought themselves, in several instances led to, and which all were constantly meditating, the Herodians not excepted, whose support of the Roman claims was the result of an unwilling and constrained policy, only they wished the supreme power to be lodged in the family of Herod, to whom the Jews generally were averse. The point therefore they wished to be solved was, whether they were bound, in conscience, by the law of God, to acknowledge a foreign yoke as of Divine appointment, by paying tribute, or to throw it off, not by the refusal of individuals to pay tribute, (for that they did and were compelled to do,) but by the joint effort of the nation, as incompatible with their relation to God as his peculiar people. This was the case which our Lord did not determine; the case of right and wrong, as it lay between the Romans and the Jewish nation, which would have brought in endless questions as to the origin of the Roman power, the manner in which it had been used, the degree of injustice which must be sustained before a nation can legally throw off an allegiance to which it has submitted, and a definition of the theocracy in the modified form in which it then existed, and which was so soon to expire; with many other considerations of a political and minute kind which Christianity does not interfere with, contenting itself with declaring that government is of God, and prescribing the general duties of rulers and subjects, without determining modes of civil polity, or settling points which the nature of mutual compacts and the known principles of justice are sufficient of themselves to determine without a revelation. He leaves the whole question of the RIGHT or lawfulness of sovereignty between the Jews and the Romans untouched; but he lays it down that a settled government, de facto, whatever may be the ground on which its claims rest, whether clear or questionable, is entitled to receive tribute, as affording protection and fulfilling the general purposes of government for the public welfare, by the application of the talents and time of its officers and the expense of various agencies. He neither says how much tribute, nor how little; whether the sovereignty under which the tribute was exacted was legitimate or usurped; whether it might or might not be modified; or in some circumstances changed by public resistance; but simply, that a government, in the regular exercise of an acknowledged dominion, should be maintained by the tribute of the people. Now the exhibition of the Roman money, in which the tribute was paid, proved the fact of the Roman dominion; its circulation as a part of the current coin of Judea proved that the Roman government was in the regular exercise of its authority, defending property and life; therefore that it had its claims, and something belonged to Cesar, as of right, considered as their supreme governor, maintaining a magistracy under him for the public welfare, quite independent of the original title, or the question of the present legitimacy of the sovereignty itself; and in this our Lord agreed with their own writers, who say, “Whenever the money of any king is current, the inhabitants acknowledge that king for their lord. In this, then, lay the WISDOM of our Lord’s reply, which furnished his followers, in future times, with a most important principle to guide them in their civil conduct. He leaves the particular questions of government to be regulated by human prudence, on the same principle that he refused to be the arbitrator in a question respecting an inheritance; but enjoins that wherever a regular government exists, it shall receive tribute, and that none are to take its benefits without giving back its dues. And the PRUDENCE was as conspicuous as the wisdom; for, as he left the question of the lawfulness of their subjection as a nation to the Romans undecided, and grounded his exhortation to pay tribute to Cesar, not upon that, but upon their own principle, that “wherever the money of a king is current, the inhabitants acknowledge him for their lord;” as, in other words, they perceived that he placed the obligation of paying tribute upon that ordinary state of things in which a sovereign power bestows the benefits of civil government, and a people accepts them, “they marvelled and held their peace;” the answer had taken an unexpected turn, and “they could not take hold of his words before the people.” This obligation to pay tribute is, however, put by our Lord under two restrictions: Cesar is to claim nothing but what”is Cesar’s,” that only which of right belongs to him; and he is neither to claim, nor are we to render, what is “God’s,” what of right belongs to him, as declared in his own word. This latter is a grand principle engrafted on the former, and had, no doubt, as well as the other, a prospective reference. “Cesar,” as Le Clerc well expresses it, “is your prince, and may demand his tribute; your religion properly and solely belongs to God.” Here the civil ruler has no right to command, you have no power to submit. — Whatever God claims you must render; and if Cesar intrude here, you must suffer rather than sin. At all hazards, we are to “render unto God the things which are God’s,” — love, worship, obedience, according to an honest interpretation of his will as contained in the Scriptures inspired by him, which interpretation is a matter of pure conscience between us and God alone.

Verse 22. When they had heard these words, they marvelled] And well they might-never man spake like this man. By this decision, CÆSAR is satisfied-he gets his own to the uttermost farthing. GOD is glorified-his honour is in every respect secured. And the PEOPLE are edified-one of the most difficult questions that could possibly come before them is answered in such a way as to relieve their consciences, and direct their conduct. See L’Evangile Medite, and see my discourse entitled, The Rights of God and Cæsar.

Verses 18-22. But Jesus perceived their wickedness, (and craftiness, Luke,) in this their address, however pious and respectful it appeared; and said, Why tempt ye me? — That is, Why do ye try me by such an insnaring question, and seek to draw me into danger by it? Ye hypocrites — Making conscience and a pure regard to the divine will your pretence for asking the question, while your design is to bring about my destruction. Show me the tribute-money — Which is demanded of you. It seems the Romans chose to receive this tribute in their own coin. And they brought unto him a penny — A denarius, stamped with the head of Cesar. He saith, Whose is this image — Which is struck upon the coin? They say unto him, Cesar’s — Plainly acknowledging, by their having received his coin, that they were under his government. And indeed this is a standing rule. The current coin of every nation shows who is the supreme governor of it. Render therefore, ye Pharisees, to Cesar, the things which ye yourselves acknowledge to be Cesar’s: and, ye Herodians, while ye are zealous for Cesar, see that ye render to God the things that are God’s. When they had heard, &c., they marvelled and left him — “So unexpected an answer, in which Jesus clearly confuted them on their own principles, and showed that the rights of God and the magistrate do not interfere in the least, (because magistrates are God’s deputies, and rule by his authority,) quite disconcerted and silenced those crafty enemies. They were astonished at his having perceived their design, as well as at the wisdom by which he avoided the snare, and went off inwardly vexed and not a little ashamed.” — Macknight.

22. Marvelled — The Herodians had doubtless been induced by the Pharisees to suspect that Christ was setting up a royalty in opposition to Cesar; but they find that he lays down maxims that not even a Roman would deny.

ENCOUNTER WITH THE SADDUCEES, 23-33. (See note preceding verse 14.)

V. 23. Mark 12:18.

Verse 23. The same day] Malice is ever active; let it be defeated ever so often, it returns to the charge. Jesus and his Gospel give no quarter to vice; the vicious will give no quarter to him or it.

The Sadducees] For an account of these see on Matthew 16:1.

Verse 23. The same day came to him the Sadducees — Concerning whose doctrines and conduct see note on Matthew 3:7; which say, there is no resurrection — Nor indeed any future life at all, as the word anastasiv, here rendered resurrection, is considered by many learned men as signifying; their doctrine being, that when the body dies the soul dies with it, and that there is no state of rewards or punishments after death, and no judgment to come. “The word anastasiv,” says Dr. Campbell, “is indeed the common term by which the resurrection, properly so called, is denominated in the New Testament; yet this is neither the only nor the primitive import of it. When applied to the dead, the word denotes properly no more than a renewal of life to them, in whatever manner this happens. The Pharisees themselves did not universally mean by this term the reunion of soul and body, as is evident from the account which the Jewish historian gives of their doctrine, as well as from some passages in the gospels. To say, therefore, in English, that they deny the resurrection, is to give a very defective account of their sentiments on this topic, for they denied the existence of angels and all separate spirits; in which they went much further than [many of] the pagans, who, though they denied what Christians call the resurrection of the body, yet acknowledged a state after death wherein the souls of the deceased exist, and receive the reward or punishment of their actions.” The doctor therefore renders the clause, Who say there is no future life, which version, he observes, not only gives a juster representation of the Sadducean hypothesis, but is the only version which makes our Lord’s argument appear pertinent, and levelled against the doctrine which he wanted to refute. In the common version they are said to deny the resurrection: that is, that the soul and the body of man shall hereafter be reunited; and our Lord brings an argument from the Pentateuch to prove — What? Not that they shall be reunited, (to this it has not even the most distant relation,) but that the soul subsists after the body is dissolved. This many would have admitted, who denied the resurrection; yet so evidently did his argument strike at the root of the scheme of the Sadducees, that they were silenced by it, and, to the conviction of the hearers, confuted. Now this could not have happened, if the fundamental error of the Sadducees had been barely the denial of the resurrection of the body, and not the denial of the immortality of the soul, or of its actual subsistence after death. If possible, the words, Luke 20:38, pantev autw zwsin, all live to him: (namely, the patriarchs and all the faithful dead,) make it still more evident that our Lord considered this, namely, the proving that the soul still continued to live after a person’s natural death, was all that was incumbent on one who would confute the Sadducees. Now if this was the subversion of Sadducism, Sadducism must have consisted in denying that the soul continues to live after the body dies. Certainly our Lord’s answer here, and much of St. Paul’s reasoning, 1 Corinthians 15., proceeds on the supposition of such a denial. Thus, 2 Mac. 12:42-44, the author proves that Judas believed a resurrection, from his offering sacrifices for the souls of the slain, which shows that by a resurrection he meant a future state.

Ver. 23. The sadducees say there is no resurrection. The rabbins asserted a future state from the words of Moses in Numbers 15:31. Deuteronomy 30:16. That soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him. Our Saviour’s answer concerning Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is yet stronger.

23. Say that there is no resurrection — And their intention is to show from Moses, that the doctrine of the resurrection involves an inexplicable difficulty.

Verse 23. The Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection. — The object of the Pharisees and Herodians was to entangle him in a political difficulty; that of the Sadducees, in a theological one, and by putting an objection to the doctrine of a resurrection, which they thought he could not answer, to lower his reputation for wisdom before the multitude. To deny the resurrection of the body was but one of the tenets of the Sadducees: they denied the existence of “angels and spirits,” holding, says Josephus, that the soul, sunafanizei, vanishes with the body, and confining all rewards and punishments to the present life. It followed, therefore, from their denial of the immortality of the soul and its existence after death, that they should deny the resurrection of the body. To this doctrine they added philosophical objections, and persuaded themselves that it was impossible. Hence the appeal of St. Paul, Acts 26:8, “Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead?” Here, however, they bring not a philosophic, but a popular objection.

V. 24. Deuteronomy 25:5.

Verse 24. Raise up seed unto his brother.] This law is mentioned Deuteronomy 25:5. The meaning of the expression is, that the children produced by this marriage should be reckoned in the genealogy of the deceased brother, and enjoy his estates. The word seed should be always translated children or posterity. There is a law precisely similar to this among the Hindoos.

Verses 24-28. Master, Moses said, If a man die, &c. — “The argument by which the Sadducees endeavoured to confute the notion of a future state was taken from the Jewish law of marriage, which, to give their objection the better colour, they observed was God’s law, delivered by Moses. As they believed the soul to be nothing but a more refined kind of matter, they thought if there was any future state, it must resemble the present; and, that men being in that state material and mortal, the human race could not be continued, nor the individuals made happy, without the pleasures and conveniences of marriage. Hence they affirmed it to be a necessary consequence of the doctrine of the resurrection, or future state, that every man’s wife should be restored to him.” — Macknight.

24. Moses said, If a man die — Deuteronomy 25:5, 6. This law requiring a man to marry the widow of a deceased elder brother and raise up children as being his, was intended to prevent the loss of the memory of a son of Abraham. It was a part of the system by which the memory of the institutes of the old and true religion was to be preserved.

Verse 24. Moses said, If a man die, &c. — By an ancient custom of the Hebrews, which was afterward sanctioned by the Mosaic law, if a man died childless, leaving a widow, the brother of the deceased, or the nearest male relation, was bound to marry the widow; to give to the first-born son the name of the deceased; to insert his name in the genealogical register; and to deliver the estate of the deceased into his possession.

His brother shall marry his wife. — Epi gambreuw signifies to marry a wife by the law of affinity. See Genesis 38:8, and Deuteronomy 25:5.

V. 25. Now there were with us seven brethren-This story seems to have been a kind of common-place objection, which no doubt they brought upon all occasions.

Verse 25. Seven brethren] It is very likely that the Sadducees increased the number, merely to make the question the more difficult.

Verses 24-28. Master, Moses said, If a man die, &c. — “The argument by which the Sadducees endeavoured to confute the notion of a future state was taken from the Jewish law of marriage, which, to give their objection the better colour, they observed was God’s law, delivered by Moses. As they believed the soul to be nothing but a more refined kind of matter, they thought if there was any future state, it must resemble the present; and, that men being in that state material and mortal, the human race could not be continued, nor the individuals made happy, without the pleasures and conveniences of marriage. Hence they affirmed it to be a necessary consequence of the doctrine of the resurrection, or future state, that every man’s wife should be restored to him.” — Macknight.

25. Seven brethren — The foundation of this imaginary case is in the apocraphal book of Tobit 3:8. The Sadducees assume that the resurrection includes the revival of the relations existing in the present world. Consequently any second marriage produces this supposed contest in the world to come. How much more a sevenfold marriage. The Pharisees believed that the resurrection would take place at Messiah’s coming, and a renovated realm should be established, in which the risen dead would engage in all the affairs of a new but sublunary life. Marriage, procreation, building, government would all continue. The difficulty stated by the Sadducees would, in that case. truly arise. Which of several risen husbands should have the risen wife? Which of a line of princes should be king?

Verses 24-28. Master, Moses said, If a man die, &c. — “The argument by which the Sadducees endeavoured to confute the notion of a future state was taken from the Jewish law of marriage, which, to give their objection the better colour, they observed was God’s law, delivered by Moses. As they believed the soul to be nothing but a more refined kind of matter, they thought if there was any future state, it must resemble the present; and, that men being in that state material and mortal, the human race could not be continued, nor the individuals made happy, without the pleasures and conveniences of marriage. Hence they affirmed it to be a necessary consequence of the doctrine of the resurrection, or future state, that every man’s wife should be restored to him.” — Macknight.

JESUS QUESTIONS THE PHARISEES, 15-46.

The Pharisees had now, in answer to their question as to his authority, (Matthew 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, 16-22. Then come up the SADDUCEES, who retire in similar defeat, 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.

Verses 24-28. Master, Moses said, If a man die, &c. — “The argument by which the Sadducees endeavoured to confute the notion of a future state was taken from the Jewish law of marriage, which, to give their objection the better colour, they observed was God’s law, delivered by Moses. As they believed the soul to be nothing but a more refined kind of matter, they thought if there was any future state, it must resemble the present; and, that men being in that state material and mortal, the human race could not be continued, nor the individuals made happy, without the pleasures and conveniences of marriage. Hence they affirmed it to be a necessary consequence of the doctrine of the resurrection, or future state, that every man’s wife should be restored to him.” — Macknight.

JESUS QUESTIONS THE PHARISEES, 15-46.

The Pharisees had now, in answer to their question as to his authority, (Matthew 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, 16-22. Then come up the SADDUCEES, who retire in similar defeat, 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.

Verse 28. Whose wife shall she be of the seven?] The rabbins have said, That if a woman have two husbands in this world, she shall have the first only restored to her in the world to come. Sohar. Genes. fol. 24. The question put by these bad men is well suited to the mouth of a libertine. Those who live without God in the world have no other god than the world; and those who have not that happiness which comes from the enjoyment of God have no other pleasure than that which comes from the gratification of sensual appetites. The stream cannot rise higher than the spring: these men, and their younger brethren, atheists, deists, and libertines of all sorts, can form no idea of heaven as a place of blessedness, unless they can hope to find in it the gratification of their sensual desires. On this very ground Mohammed built his paradise.

Verses 24-28. Master, Moses said, If a man die, &c. — “The argument by which the Sadducees endeavoured to confute the notion of a future state was taken from the Jewish law of marriage, which, to give their objection the better colour, they observed was God’s law, delivered by Moses. As they believed the soul to be nothing but a more refined kind of matter, they thought if there was any future state, it must resemble the present; and, that men being in that state material and mortal, the human race could not be continued, nor the individuals made happy, without the pleasures and conveniences of marriage. Hence they affirmed it to be a necessary consequence of the doctrine of the resurrection, or future state, that every man’s wife should be restored to him.” — Macknight.

JESUS QUESTIONS THE PHARISEES, 15-46.

The Pharisees had now, in answer to their question as to his authority, (Matthew 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, 16-22. Then come up the SADDUCEES, who retire in similar defeat, 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.

Verse 28. Whose wife shall she be? &c. — It appears that though the Pharisees held the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, their gross corruption of all spiritual things, which so influenced their interpretation of the prophecies respecting the Messiah, and converted “the kingdom of heaven” into a worldly monarchy, had produced a like darkening effect upon their conceptions of a future state. They allowed of marriage in heaven; and, generally, Josephus compares their ideas of a future life to those of the Greek poets; and if Maimonides and other subsequent rabbins speak in more spiritual terms, and with more worthy conceptions of the world to come, this is another instance in which they derived superior knowledge from the Gospel without acknowledging it. Still this was a subject debated among the modern rabbins, some of them still clinging to the gross opinions of the Pharisees of our Lord’s day. In disputing with the Pharisees, the Sadducees had probably started this and similar difficulties as to the resurrection, with some success; and this rendered them the more confident.

V. 29. Ye err, not knowing the Scriptures-Which plainly assert a resurrection.

Nor the power of God-Which is well able to effect it. How many errors flow from the same source?

Verse 29. Ye do err] Or, Ye are deceived-by your impure passions: not knowing the scriptures, which assert the resurrection:-nor the miraculous power of God (thn dunamin tou qeou) by which it is to be effected. In Avoda Sara, fol. 18, Sanhedrin, fol. 90, it is said: “These are they which shall have no part in the world to come: Those who say, the Lord did not come from heaven; and those who say, the resurrection cannot be proved out of the law.”

Their deception appeared in their supposing, that if there were a resurrection, men and women were to marry and be given in marriage as in this life; which our Lord shows is not the case: for men and women there shall be like the angels of God, immortal, and free from all human passions, and from those propensities which were to continue with them only during this present state of existence. There shall be no death; and consequently no need of marriage to maintain the population of the spiritual world.

Verses 29, 30. Jesus answered, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures — Which plainly assert a future state; nor the power of God — Who created spirit as well as matter, and can preserve it in existence when the body is dissolved, and can also raise the body from the dust and render it immortal; and who can make the whole man completely happy in the knowledge, love, and enjoyment of himself, without any of the pleasures or objects of this visible and temporal world. For in the resurrection they neither marry, &c. — Our Lord proceeds to observe further, that they entirely mistook the nature of the life to be enjoyed in a future state: that those who attained it being as the angels of God, incorruptible and immortal, marriage and the procreation of an offspring were no longer necessary to continue the species, or maintain the population of the spiritual world.

29. Ye do err — To err means to wander. They do not merely make a mistake, but they wander in ignorance of the Scriptures. Not knowing the Scriptures — What they have to say, namely, with regard to man’s relations in eternity. Nor the power of God — By which he is able to carry our resurrection through, despite all the difficulties raised by theology or science. Even at the present day the main objections against the resurrection are at issue with its possibility, through not knowing the Scriptures and the power of God.

Verse 29. Not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. — They knew not the true doctrine of the inspired writings on this subject, which was not to be confounded with the gross and erring conceptions of men. If infidels and semi-infidels would fairly inquire into the true sense of Scripture, and not fix upon the weak opinions which many have corruptly or hastily deduced from it, they would be deprived of half their arguments. As they were ignorant of the Scriptures, so also of the power of God, taking limited and partial views of that infinite attribute; otherwise they would have seen that He who gives life must have power to restore life; that He who built the body of man out of the dust of the earth can rebuild it after it has crumbled into dust again; that, in point of fact, God is always changing lifeless inorganic matter into the living bodies of vegetables, animals, and men; and that, as to the difficulties which have in all ages been urged against the resurrection of the same body, from the scattering of its parts, and their supposed conversion into others, it is even manifest to reason that a Being of almighty power is able to prevent every combination and change in the world of matter which could frustrate his design, and involve a contradiction to it, and that this supposes only the same constant, though wonderful superintendence and government which the maintenance of the regular order of all things daily, and indeed every moment, demands, and which, we are sure, from the effect, is always exerted.

V. 30. They are as the angels-Incorruptible and immortal. So is the power of God shown in them! So little need had they of marriage!

Verses 29, 30. Jesus answered, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures — Which plainly assert a future state; nor the power of God — Who created spirit as well as matter, and can preserve it in existence when the body is dissolved, and can also raise the body from the dust and render it immortal; and who can make the whole man completely happy in the knowledge, love, and enjoyment of himself, without any of the pleasures or objects of this visible and temporal world. For in the resurrection they neither marry, &c. — Our Lord proceeds to observe further, that they entirely mistook the nature of the life to be enjoyed in a future state: that those who attained it being as the angels of God, incorruptible and immortal, marriage and the procreation of an offspring were no longer necessary to continue the species, or maintain the population of the spiritual world.

30. For — He first corrects their first error, namely, regarding human relationships in a future world. In the resurrection — In the resurrection state. Neither marry — Spoken of males. Given in marriage — Spoken of females. Our sexual relations cease with the present state. As the angels — Not that they are angels; as some imagine that angels are truly glorified saints. But they are as free from corporeal propensities as the angels. Birth and death, food and digestion: planting and harvesting, belong not to that state.

Verse 30. In the resurrection they neither marry, &c. — The resurrection from the dead is expressed by anastasiv, a figurative term, which signifies a rising up, and is opposed to ptwsis, a falling down. In the resurrection here means, in the state to which men are introduced by the resurrection. As our Lord here so formally lays down the doctrine that there is no marriage in heaven, it is plain that the opposite opinion had been generally entertained by the advocates of the resurrection; and, indeed, if not, it would have been a mere impertinence for the Sadducees to have urged an objection which clearly had no relation to the doctrine as held by their opponents. Our Lord, therefore, not merely to silence them, but to instruct his followers, draws the veil more fully from before that new and eternal state of being which shall succeed the general resurrection, discloses its exclusive SPIRITUAL character, and shuts out for ever those gross conceptions with which imagination has clothed its pagan, Pharisaic, and Mohammedan paradises. It does not, however, follow from this exalted view of a future life, that we shall not recognize each other; nor that those tender intellectual affections which bind pious friends and relations to each other on earth, shall not there exist. The contrary is indicated in many passages; only we are to recollect that every affection will be purged, not only from sin, but from infirmity.

As the angels of God. — That is, not only in immortality and purity, but in freedom from all bodily appetites.

V. 31. Have ye not read-The Sadducees had a peculiar value for the books of Moses. Out of these therefore our Lord argues with them.

Verse 31. Have ye not read] This quotation is taken from Exodus 3:6, 16; and as the five books of Moses were the only part of Scripture which the Sadducees acknowledged as Divine, our Lord, by confuting them from those books, proved the second part of his assertion, “Ye are ignorant of those very scriptures which ye profess to hold sacred.”

Verses 31, 32. But as touching the resurrection of the dead — Or the future state, (see on verse 23,) have ye not read that which was spoken by God — Namely, in the books of Moses, for which the Sadducees had a peculiar value; but which Christ here shows they did not understand; but were as ignorant of them as they were of the power of God. They had drawn their objection to a future state from the writings of Moses; and from those writings Christ demonstrates the certainty of a future state! I am the God of Abraham, &c. — The argument runs thus: God is not the God of the dead, but of the living: (for that expression, Thy God, implies both benefit from God to man: and duty from man to God:) but he is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: therefore Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are not dead, but living. Therefore the soul does not die with the body. So indeed the Sadducees supposed, and it was on this ground that they denied the resurrection and a future state. It cannot be objected to this interpretation, that it lays too much stress on the words, I am, which are not in the Hebrew. For our Lord’s application of the citation in the present tense, (ouk estin o qeov qeov nekrwn, God is not the God of the dead,) plainly implies that no other tense of the verb can be supplied. Accordingly the words are so rendered by the LXX., Egw eimi o Qeov tou patrov sou, Qeov Abraam, &c., I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, &c.; Exodus 3:6. In a similar way Dr. Campbell states the argument: “When God appeared to Moses in the bush, (which was long after the death of the patriarchs,) he said unto him, I am the God of Abraham, &c.; now God is not the God of the dead, of those who, being destitute of life, and consequently of sensibility, can neither know nor honour him: he is the God of those only who love and adore him, and are by consequence alive. These patriarchs, therefore, though dead in respect to us, who enjoy their presence here no longer, are alive in respect of God, whom they still serve and worship.” Others, however, choose to explain the argument thus: To be the God of any person is to be his exceeding great reward, Genesis 15:1. Wherefore, as the patriarchs died without having obtained the promises, Hebrews 11:39, they must exist in another state to enjoy them, that the veracity of God may remain sure. Besides, the apostle tells us that God is not ashamed to be called their God, because he has prepared for them a city, Hebrews 11:16, which implies, that he would have reckoned it infinitely beneath him to own his relation, as God, to any one for whom he had not provided a state of permanent happiness. The argument, taken either way, is conclusive; for which cause we may suppose that both the senses of it were intended, to render it full of demonstration.

With what satisfaction should we read this vindication of so important an article of our faith and hope! How easily did our Lord unravel and expose the boasted argument of the Sadducees, and cover with just confusion all the pride of those bold wits, who valued themselves so much on that imaginary penetration, which laid men almost on a level with brutes. Indeed, objections against the resurrection and a future state, much more plausible than this of theirs, may be answered in that one saying of our Lord’s: Ye know not the Scriptures nor the power of God. Were the Scripture doctrine on this subject considered on the one hand, and the omnipotence of the Creator on the other, it could not seem incredible to any that God should preserve the soul in immortality, or raise the dead. Acts 26:8.

JESUS QUESTIONS THE PHARISEES, 15-46.

The Pharisees had now, in answer to their question as to his authority, (Matthew 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, 16-22. Then come up the SADDUCEES, who retire in similar defeat, 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.

V. 32. I am the God of Abraham-The argument runs thus: God is not the God of the dead, but of the living: (for that expression, Thy God, implies both benefit from God to man, and duty from man to God) but he is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: therefore, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not dead, but living. Therefore, the soul does not die with the body. So indeed the Sadducees supposed, and it was on this ground that they denied the resurrection. Exodus 3:6.

Verse 32. I am the God of Abraham] Let it be observed, that Abraham was dead upwards of 300 years before these words were spoken to Moses: yet still God calls himself the God of Abraham, &c. Now Christ properly observes that God is not the God of the dead, (that word being equal, in the sense of the Sadducees, to an eternal annihilation,) but of the living; it therefore follows that, if he be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, these are not dead, but alive; alive with God, though they had ceased, for some hundreds of years, to exist among mortals. We may see, from this, that our Lord combats and confutes another opinion of the Sadducees, viz. that there is neither angel nor spirit; by showing that the soul is not only immortal, but lives with God, even while the body is detained in the dust of the earth, which body is afterwards to be raised to life, and united with its soul by the miraculous power of God, of which power they showed themselves to be ignorant when they denied the possibility of a resurrection.

Verses 31, 32. But as touching the resurrection of the dead — Or the future state, (see on verse 23,) have ye not read that which was spoken by God — Namely, in the books of Moses, for which the Sadducees had a peculiar value; but which Christ here shows they did not understand; but were as ignorant of them as they were of the power of God. They had drawn their objection to a future state from the writings of Moses; and from those writings Christ demonstrates the certainty of a future state! I am the God of Abraham, &c. — The argument runs thus: God is not the God of the dead, but of the living: (for that expression, Thy God, implies both benefit from God to man: and duty from man to God:) but he is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: therefore Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are not dead, but living. Therefore the soul does not die with the body. So indeed the Sadducees supposed, and it was on this ground that they denied the resurrection and a future state. It cannot be objected to this interpretation, that it lays too much stress on the words, I am, which are not in the Hebrew. For our Lord’s application of the citation in the present tense, (ouk estin o qeov qeov nekrwn, God is not the God of the dead,) plainly implies that no other tense of the verb can be supplied. Accordingly the words are so rendered by the LXX., Egw eimi o Qeov tou patrov sou, Qeov Abraam, &c., I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, &c.; Exodus 3:6. In a similar way Dr. Campbell states the argument: “When God appeared to Moses in the bush, (which was long after the death of the patriarchs,) he said unto him, I am the God of Abraham, &c.; now God is not the God of the dead, of those who, being destitute of life, and consequently of sensibility, can neither know nor honour him: he is the God of those only who love and adore him, and are by consequence alive. These patriarchs, therefore, though dead in respect to us, who enjoy their presence here no longer, are alive in respect of God, whom they still serve and worship.” Others, however, choose to explain the argument thus: To be the God of any person is to be his exceeding great reward, Genesis 15:1. Wherefore, as the patriarchs died without having obtained the promises, Hebrews 11:39, they must exist in another state to enjoy them, that the veracity of God may remain sure. Besides, the apostle tells us that God is not ashamed to be called their God, because he has prepared for them a city, Hebrews 11:16, which implies, that he would have reckoned it infinitely beneath him to own his relation, as God, to any one for whom he had not provided a state of permanent happiness. The argument, taken either way, is conclusive; for which cause we may suppose that both the senses of it were intended, to render it full of demonstration.

With what satisfaction should we read this vindication of so important an article of our faith and hope! How easily did our Lord unravel and expose the boasted argument of the Sadducees, and cover with just confusion all the pride of those bold wits, who valued themselves so much on that imaginary penetration, which laid men almost on a level with brutes. Indeed, objections against the resurrection and a future state, much more plausible than this of theirs, may be answered in that one saying of our Lord’s: Ye know not the Scriptures nor the power of God. Were the Scripture doctrine on this subject considered on the one hand, and the omnipotence of the Creator on the other, it could not seem incredible to any that God should preserve the soul in immortality, or raise the dead. Acts 26:8.

32. I am the God — That is, the eternal God. Not a temporal nor a mortal God, but an eternal and an immortal. Of Abraham — An eternal God, standing in the relation of God to Abraham. And if Abraham’s be an eternal God, Abraham must be henceforth eternal. For if one party to the relation be eternal, and the relation itself be eternal, the other party must be eternal.

This meaning would naturally if not necessarily arise from the mere words; but it was surely the true meaning to the inspired mind of Moses, as it is the true meaning of God himself in speaking these words to Moses. Hence our Lord, with divine emphasis, raised, for a few moments, even the gross minds of these Sadducees to the elevated standpoint of Moses himself. For Moses did not conceive that God was the God of Abraham, as he might be the God of a perishing animal, or a bubble. The being who is elevated enough to have a true immortal God to be his God, must himself be neither the creature of time nor annihilation. The God of the dead — Of those now dead, or whoever will be dead. Our Lord here uses the word dead in the sense of these Sadducees with whom he is conversing, to signify extinct. God is not the God of the extinct or even of the extinguishable or transitory, but of the living. And Luke adds, “For they all live unto him:” they live by their relation to him who is their God.

Verse 32. I am the God of Abraham, &c. — As the Sadducees received no other of the sacred books than those of the Pentateuch, our Lord draws his proof from one of them. The words quoted were spoken to Moses, Exodus 3:6, consequently long after the death of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and the stress of the argument lies in this, that Jehovah, who had been the God of these patriarchs during life, after their death still calls himself their God: “I AM the God of Abraham,” &c. Now to be “their God,” expressed a COVENANT relation. He was not only the chosen object of their worship and trust, but stood engaged by his covenant with them to be their patron, protector, and the source of all blessings to them in the present and in a future life; for, in dependence upon this covenant, they were content “to dwell in tents” while on earth, because “they looked for a city which had foundations, whose builder and maker is God.” It followed, therefore, from the obvious truth that “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living,” or that he could stand in no covenant relation to the dead, that these patriarchs were still alive as to their souls; which utterly subverted the material doctrine of the Sadducees, that they perished with the body. But how did it prove the doctrine of the resurrection of the body? From a supposed difficulty in connecting the argument with this doctrine, Dr. Samuel Clarke, Campbell, and others, depart from the plain meaning of the word resurrection, and consider our Lord as arguing generally in favour of a future life. But though our Lord’s reasoning proves this also, it does it incidentally; his main discourse being on the resurrection of the body, and the passage before us being quoted from the writings of Moses in confirmation of it. The force of the proof lies in this, that to be “their God? expressed the covenant made with these patriarchs; for it was the manner of the Jews to quote rather the heads of a passage in the Old Testament from which they argued, or to sum up its substance in a leading phrase; and this covenant, as the promise made to Abraham shows, comprehended the gift of Canaan to inherit it. But as Canaan was not put into the possession of Abraham and his immediate descendants, it followed either that the promise had failed, or, if not, that it related in its chief and highest sense to the inheritance of heaven, of which Canaan was an instituted type, and that they must be raised again to enjoy it. For if the Sadducees had acknowledged the immortality of the soul, and merely denied the resurrection of the body, still the disembodied spirits of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob solely were then in possession of heavenly felicity: but the covenant was made with their whole persons as men, and could only be fulfilled in their whole persons. In confirmation of this view of the argument, it may be remarked that St. Paul considers the promise, “I will be their God,” as involving the promise of the heavenly inheritance: “Wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for, gar, because he hath prepared for them a city.” This is what showed God to be their God, that he had prepared for them a city, which they could not possess without a resurrection. Farther, that the Jews thought the promise of Canaan to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was personal, appears from those commentators who contend from this promise that these patriarchs must be raised from the dead to enjoy the land of Israel. The argument of our Lord may therefore be thus stated: Since Jehovah became the covenant God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and even after their death declared that he continued to stand to them in that relation, they cannot be dead in your sense, that is, hopelessly and finally so. As to their souls, indeed, they are still alive; and with respect to their bodies, as the covenant was made with their entire persons, with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as perfect human beings composed of a body and reasonable soul; and whatever was implied in being “their God” related to their whole man; so whatever it promises the whole man must enjoy; and though a temporary death has intervened as to the body, it shall be raised up at the last day, that the covenant of God may stand firm in all its parts, and that he may be “their God” for ever. The additional clause which St. Luke introduces into this discourse shows that our Lord considered the patriarchs as dead only in a mitigated sense, such as was expressed, indeed, by believers in a resurrection, and especially under the Gospel, by the term sleep; “For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living, for, or because gar, all,” not only Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but all THE DEAD, “live unto him;” they live in his purpose and covenant, and are considered as alive by Him that calleth “things that are not as though they were.” It affords another proof that the learned Jews have not scrupled to avail themselves occasionally of the wisdom of Christ, that Manasseh Ben Israel, a rabbi of the eighteenth century, borrows this argument of our Lord to prove the immortality of the soul, and nearly in his own words a little paraphrased. Producing the same passage from Exodus, he adds, “For God is not the God of the dead, for the dead are not; but of the living, for the living exist; therefore also the patriarchs, in respect of the soul, may rightly be inferred from hence to live.”

V. 33. At his doctrine-At the clearness and solidity of his answers.

Verse 33. The multitude were astonished at his doctrine.] God uses the infidelity of some for the edification of others. Had no false doctrine been broached in the world, we had not seen the full evidence of the true teaching. The opposition of deists and infidels has only served to raise up men in behalf of the truth of God, who not only have refuted them, but shown, at the same time, that the sacred testimonies are infinitely amiable in themselves, and worthy of all acceptation. Truth always gains by being opposed.

Verse 33. And when the multitude — Which was present in the temple at the time; heard this — This unthought-of, and yet convincing argument, together with so complete an answer to a cavil in which the Sadducees were wont to triumph as invincible; they were astonished at his doctrine — At the clearness and solidity of his reasoning, and the manifest confutation of a sect whose principles they considered as fundamentally erroneous, and subversive of all piety and virtue.

33. They were astonished at his doctrine — Our Lord reanimated the dead-letter of the Old Testament in such a way as to astonish their minds and elevate their hearts. He poured the sense of immortality upon their spirit, from the pages that had by the lifeless teachings of their masters contained the sentence of death.

Verse 33. They were astonished at his doctrine. — Accustomed as they were to hear the Pharisees’ discourses on the importance of empty ceremonies, and trifling and perplexing traditions, affording no conviction to the understanding, or food to the soul, they were astonished at the clear and satisfactory manner in which the Teacher sent from God placed the greatest and most important subjects before them; the assured manner in which he spoke of eternal and invisible realities, as one possessing the most intimate knowledge of them; and the ease with which he detected the sophistry, and silenced the cavils, of their most noted doctors and disputants.

V. 34. Mark 12:28; Luke 10:25.

Verse 34. They were gathered together.] epi to auto-they came together with one accord, or, for the same purpose; i.e. of ensnaring him in his discourse, as the Sadducees had done, Matthew 22:23. The Codex Bezæ and several of the Itala have ep~ auton, against him. Camen togidre into oon.-Old MS. Eng, Bib.

Verses 34-36. When the Pharisees heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence — Gr. oti efimose, that he had stopped their mouths, or so confuted that he had confounded them, and rendered them unable to make any reply; they were gathered together — It is not said with what design: but it is probable from verses 15, 16, with a malicious one, namely, to try, though the Sadducees had been baffled in their attempt upon him, as they themselves had also been, when they united with the Herodians, if they could yet any way expose him to the people. Then one of them, a lawyer — Or teacher of the law, (namely, of Moses,) as the word nomikov always means in the New Testament, that is, a scribe, asked him a question, tempting, or trying him — Not, it seems, with any ill design, but barely to make further trial of that wisdom which he had shown in silencing the Sadducees. For, according to Mark, it was in consequence of his perceiving that our Lord had answered the Sadducees well, that this person asked the question here mentioned. Master, which is the great commandment in the law? — This was a famous question among the Jews. “Some of their doctors declared that the law of sacrifices was the great commandment, because sacrifices were both the expiations of sin and thanksgivings for mercies; others bestowed this honour on the law of circumcision, because it was the sign of the covenant established between God and the nation; a third sort yielded to the law of the sabbath, because, by that appointment, both the knowledge and practice of the institutions of Moses were preserved; and to name no more, there were some who affirmed the law of meats and washings to be of the greatest importance, because thereby the people of God were effectually separated from the company and conversations of the heathen.” But Jesus, with much better reason, decided in favour of a command inclusive of the whole of piety, and leading to every holy temper, word, and work.

QUESTION WITH THE LAWYER, 34-40.

34. Put the Sadducees to silence — He had first silenced the Pharisees, then the Herodians, and last of all the Sadducees. See note preceding verse

15. A candid lawyer from their own company now ventures to question him, with the purpose, indeed, to tempt, that is, to try him, but also with the purpose of yielding, where truth required. They were gathered together — They collect into a consulting group.

V. 35. A scribe asking him a question, trying him-Not, as it seems, with any ill design: but barely to make a farther trial of that wisdom, which he had shown in silencing the Sadducees.

Verse 35. A lawyer] nomikov, a teacher of the law. What is called lawyer, in the common translation, conveys a wrong idea to most readers: my old MS. renders the word in the same way I have done. These teachers of the law were the same as the scribes, or what Dr. Wotton calls letter-men, whom he supposes to be the same as the Karaites, a sect of the Jews who rejected all the traditions of the elders, and admitted nothing but the written word. See Wotton’s Mishna, vol. i. p. 78. These are allowed to have kept more closely to the spiritual meaning of the law and prophets than the Pharisees did; and hence the question proposed by the lawyer, (Mark, Mark 12:28, calls him one of the scribes,) or Karaite, was of a more spiritual or refined nature than any of the preceding.

Verses 34-36. When the Pharisees heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence — Gr. oti efimose, that he had stopped their mouths, or so confuted that he had confounded them, and rendered them unable to make any reply; they were gathered together — It is not said with what design: but it is probable from verses 15, 16, with a malicious one, namely, to try, though the Sadducees had been baffled in their attempt upon him, as they themselves had also been, when they united with the Herodians, if they could yet any way expose him to the people. Then one of them, a lawyer — Or teacher of the law, (namely, of Moses,) as the word nomikov always means in the New Testament, that is, a scribe, asked him a question, tempting, or trying him — Not, it seems, with any ill design, but barely to make further trial of that wisdom which he had shown in silencing the Sadducees. For, according to Mark, it was in consequence of his perceiving that our Lord had answered the Sadducees well, that this person asked the question here mentioned. Master, which is the great commandment in the law? — This was a famous question among the Jews. “Some of their doctors declared that the law of sacrifices was the great commandment, because sacrifices were both the expiations of sin and thanksgivings for mercies; others bestowed this honour on the law of circumcision, because it was the sign of the covenant established between God and the nation; a third sort yielded to the law of the sabbath, because, by that appointment, both the knowledge and practice of the institutions of Moses were preserved; and to name no more, there were some who affirmed the law of meats and washings to be of the greatest importance, because thereby the people of God were effectually separated from the company and conversations of the heathen.” But Jesus, with much better reason, decided in favour of a command inclusive of the whole of piety, and leading to every holy temper, word, and work.

Ver. 35. Then a lawyer asked him a question. See on Mark 12:28, where the case is more largely stated.

35. One of them — Who seems to have been of their party, and knew too their plots and plans. He will try Jesus with a profound question, and fairly see what is his depth. A lawyer — One who was professedly well read in the law of Moses.

Verse 35. A lawyer asked him a question, tempting him. — A lawyer, nomikov, one skilled in the interpretation of the law; the same as a scribe, which is the title given to him by St. Mark. Tempting him, that is, trying his skill; but whether with a bad or an innocent design does not appear. St. Mark, who relates the story more at large, mentions the commendation bestowed upon him by our Lord, which seems to exonerate him from the charge of captiousness. But he might be put forward by the rest, for the purpose of endeavouring to draw from our Lord some decision on the question, of which they might make a bad use.

Verse 36. Which is the great commandment] We see here three kinds of enemies and false accusers of Christ and his disciples; and three sorts of accusations brought against them.

1. The Herodians, or politicians and courtiers, who form their questions and accusations on the rights of the prince, and matters of state, Matthew 22:16.

2. The Sadducees, or libertines, who found theirs upon matters of religion, and articles of faith, which they did not credit, Matthew 22:23.

3. The Pharisees, lawyers, scribes, or Karaites, hypocritical pretenders to devotion, who found theirs on that vital and practical godliness (the love of God and man) of which they wished themselves to be thought the sole proprietors, Matthew 22:36.

Verses 34-36. When the Pharisees heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence — Gr. oti efimose, that he had stopped their mouths, or so confuted that he had confounded them, and rendered them unable to make any reply; they were gathered together — It is not said with what design: but it is probable from verses 15, 16, with a malicious one, namely, to try, though the Sadducees had been baffled in their attempt upon him, as they themselves had also been, when they united with the Herodians, if they could yet any way expose him to the people. Then one of them, a lawyer — Or teacher of the law, (namely, of Moses,) as the word nomikov always means in the New Testament, that is, a scribe, asked him a question, tempting, or trying him — Not, it seems, with any ill design, but barely to make further trial of that wisdom which he had shown in silencing the Sadducees. For, according to Mark, it was in consequence of his perceiving that our Lord had answered the Sadducees well, that this person asked the question here mentioned. Master, which is the great commandment in the law? — This was a famous question among the Jews. “Some of their doctors declared that the law of sacrifices was the great commandment, because sacrifices were both the expiations of sin and thanksgivings for mercies; others bestowed this honour on the law of circumcision, because it was the sign of the covenant established between God and the nation; a third sort yielded to the law of the sabbath, because, by that appointment, both the knowledge and practice of the institutions of Moses were preserved; and to name no more, there were some who affirmed the law of meats and washings to be of the greatest importance, because thereby the people of God were effectually separated from the company and conversations of the heathen.” But Jesus, with much better reason, decided in favour of a command inclusive of the whole of piety, and leading to every holy temper, word, and work.

36. Great commandment — The Jewish Talmud reckons the positive laws of Moses at 248, and the negative at 365, the sum being 613. To keep so many laws, said the Jews, is an angel’s work, and so they had much question which was the great commandment, so that they might keep that in lieu of keeping the whole.

Verse 36. Which is the great commandment in the law? — The positive is here used emphatically, and has therefore the force of the superlative. “Which is the greatest commandment in the law;” not the law of the two tables, but the whole law, comprehending all the precepts of Moses? On this subject the Jews differed, and warmly disputed, and continued to do so for a long time afterward, as appears from their writings. As they called some commands “light,” and others “weighty,” some “great,” others “little,” it followed that some ONE must be the greatest and weightiest of them all; but on this they were not agreed. Some contended for the law of the Sabbath, some for sacrifices, some for circumcision, some for the wearing of phylacteries, giving their reasons for each.

V. 37. Deuteronomy 6:5.

Verse 37. Thou shalt love the Lord] This is a subject of the greatest importance, and should be well understood, as our Lord shows that the whole of true religion is comprised in thus loving God and our neighbour. It may not be unnecessary to inquire into the literal meaning of the word love. agaph, from agapaw, I love, is supposed to be compounded either of agan and poiein, to act vehemently or intensely; or, from agein kata pan, because love is always active, and will act in every possible way; for he who loves is, with all his affection and desire, carried forward to the beloved object, in order to possess and enjoy it. Some derive it from agan and pauesqai, to be completely at rest, or, to be intensely satisfied; because he who loves is supremely contented with, and rests completely satisfied in, that which he loves. Others, from agan and paw, because a person eagerly embraces, and vigorously holds fast, that which is the object of his love. Lastly, others suppose it to be compounded of agaw, I admire, and pauomai, I rest, because that which a man loves intensely he rests in, with fixed admiration and contemplation. So that genuine love changes not, but always abides steadily attached to that which is loved. Whatever may be thought of these etymologies, as being either just or probable, one thing will be evident to all those who know what love means, that they throw much light upon the subject, and manifest it in a variety of striking points of view. The ancient author of a MS. Lexicon in the late French king’s library, under the word agaph, has the following definition: aspastov proqesiv epi th filia tou filoumenou - somyucia. “A pleasing surrender of friendship to a friend:-an identity or sameness of soul.” A sovereign preference given to one above all others, present or absent: a concentration of all the thoughts and desires in a single object, which a man prefers to all others. Apply this definition to the love which God requires of his creatures, and you will have the most correct view of the subject. Hence it appears that, by this love, the soul eagerly cleaves to, affectionately admires, and constantly rests in God, supremely pleased and satisfied with him as its portion: that it acts from him, as its author; for him, as its master; and to him, as its end. That, by it, all the powers and faculties of the mind are concentrated in tho Lord of the universe. That, by it, the whole man is willingly surrendered to the Most High: and that, through it, an identity, or sameness of spirit with the Lord is acquired-the man being made a partaker of the Divine nature, having the mind in him which was in Christ, and thus dwelling in God, and God in him.

But what is implied in loving God with all the heart, soul, mind, strength, &c., and when may a man be said to do this? 1. He loves God with all his heart, who loves nothing in comparison of him, and nothing but in reference to him:-who is ready to give up, do, or suffer any thing in order to please and glorify him:-who has in his heart neither love nor hatred, hope nor fear, inclination, nor aversion, desire, nor delight, but as they relate to God, and are regulated by him.

2. He loves God with all his soul, or rather, en olh th yuch, with all his life, who is ready to give up life for his sake-to endure all sorts of torments, and to be deprived of all kinds of comforts, rather than dishonour God:-who employs life with all its comforts, and conveniences, to glorify God in, by, and through all:-to whom life and death are nothing, but as they come from and lead to God, From this Divine principle sprang the blood of the martyrs, which became the seed of the Church. They overcame through the blood of the Lamb, and loved not their lives unto the death. See Revelation 12:11.

3. He loves God with all his strength (Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27) who exerts all the powers of his body and soul in the service of God:-who, for the glory of his Maker, spares neither labour nor cost-who sacrifices his time, body, health, ease, for the honour of God his Divine Master:-who employs in his service all his goods, his talents, his power, credit, authority, and influence.

4. He loves God with all his mind (intellect-dianoia) who applies himself only to know God, and his holy will:-who receives with submission, gratitude, and pleasure, the sacred truths which God has revealed to man:-who studies no art nor science but as far as it is necessary for the service of God, and uses it at all times to promote his glory-who forms no projects nor designs but in reference to God and the interests of mankind:-who banishes from his understanding and memory every useless, foolish, and dangerous thought, together with every idea which has any tendency to defile his soul, or turn it for a moment from the centre of eternal repose. In a word, he who sees God in all things-thinks of him at all times-having his mind continually fixed upon God, acknowledging him in all his ways-who begins, continues, and ends all his thoughts, words, and works, to the glory of his name:-this is the person who loves God with all his heart, life, strength, and intellect. He is crucified to the world, and the world to him: he lives, yet not he, but Christ lives in him. He beholds as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and is changed into the same image from glory to glory. Simply and constantly looking unto Jesus, the author and perfecter of his faith, he receives continual supplies of enlightening and sanctifying grace, and is thus fitted for every good word and work. O glorious state! far, far, beyond this description! which comprises an ineffable communion between the ever-blessed Trinity and the soul of man!

Verses 37-40. Jesus said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart — Concerning this first and great commandment, and the words wherewith Moses prefaced it, see note on Deuteronomy 6:5; and for the elucidation of this whole paragraph, see the notes on Mark 12:28- 34, where the conversation which our Lord had with this scribe is related more at large. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets — That is, they contain the substance or abridgment of all the religious and moral duties contained in the law and the prophets, which therefore may be all said to hang or depend on them. The expression, says Dr. Whitby, is a metaphor taken from a custom mentioned by Tertullian of hanging up their laws in a public place to be seen of all men; and it imports that in these precepts is compendiously contained all that the law and prophets require, in reference to our duty to God and man; for though there be some precepts of temperance which we owe to ourselves, yet are they such as we may be moved to perform from the true love of God and of our neighbour; whom if we truly love we cannot be wanting in them. For the love of God will make us humble and contented with our lot; it will preserve us from all intemperance, impatience, and unholy desires; it will make us watchful over ourselves, that we may keep a good conscience, and solicitous for our eternal welfare. And the love of our neighbour will free us from all angry passions, envy, malice, revenge, and other unkind tempers: so that both taken together will introduce into us the whole mind that was in Christ, and cause us to walk as he walked.

37. Jesus said — Jesus gave him not only that which is greatest, but that which, if properly kept, will indeed keep the whole. Heart… soul… mind — All the affections and powers of the man.

Verse 37. Jesus saith, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, &c. — Our Lord answers thus explicitly, not out of respect to the Pharisees, but in order to avail himself of the attention excited by the question, to teach the most important truths of religion to the people. The terms heart, soul, mind, to which St. Luke adds strength, are not intended so much to convey distinct ideas, as to give force to the precept by the accumulation of words of nearly the same import. All interpretations, therefore, built upon the supposed variety of meanings which these terms are held to convey, are too refined. The words evidently mean that God is to be loved with the entire affection of the soul, maintained in its most vigorous exercise, so that all its faculties and powers shall be consecrated wholly to his service. This vigorous and entire application of the soul to an object is expressed in like forcible and reiterated terms in 2 Kings 23:25: “And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses.” And how forcibly is this grand precept commended to our reason as the first and great commandment, summing up in itself all the precepts of the first table, as they relate to God! It is first, in respect of its object; love being directed to the greatest and best Being, our Creator, Preserver, and Redeemer; — first, in the absolute character of its obligation; being bound upon us by the supreme and infinite excellence of God, and by the innumerable benefits which we have received, and shall be for ever receiving at his hands; — first, in its sanctifying influence upon the heart; for as it is the intense love of a holy Being, it necessarily implies the intense love of holiness, and is indeed the vital purifying flame of holiness itself; — first, because it compels us by a sweet constraint to obedience to every other command; and so “love is the fulfilling of the law;” while the freedom of this obedience, as being that of entire choice and supreme delight, gives the noblest character to submission; — first, as it impels to the most arduous duties, and makes us willing to submit to the severest sufferings, for the glory of God; — first, because of that full and entire satisfaction of soul, which it produces by bringing us into communion with God himself, and feeding its own strength, and the strength of every other virtue, by its devotional intercourses with him; — and first, as being the root and principle of every other act of obedience; without which it can have no genuineness of character, and is considered as but a formal hypocrisy before God. “They,” says an old writer, “idly interpret this precept who state, that it obliges us only to love God as much as we can in our lapsed state. The fall of man lost God no right, nor abated any thing of the creature’s duty. The law doth undoubtedly require us to love God in the highest degree, to be showed by the acts of the whole man, in obedience to all his commandments, and that constantly. It is our only hope, that this law is in the hands of a Mediator!” He hath procured pardon, upon our repentance and faith, for its violations; and again by his Spirit renews our nature to love God with all our hearts, and to serve him with all our strength.

Verse 38. This is the first and great commandment.] It is so,

1. In its antiquity, being as old as the world, and engraven originally on our very nature.

2. In dignity; as directly and immediately proceeding front and referring to God.

3. In excellence; being the commandment of the new covenant, and the very spirit of the Divine adoption.

4. In justice; because it alone renders to God his due, prefers him before all things, and secures to him his proper rank in relation to them.

5. In sufficiency; being in itself capable of making men holy in this life, and happy in the other.

6. In fruitfulness; because it is the root of all commandments, and the fulfilling of the law.

7. In virtue and efficacy; because by this alone God reigns in the heart of man, and man is united to God.

8. In extent; leaving nothing to the creature, which it does not refer to the Creator.

9. In necessity; being absolutely indispensable.

10. In duration; being ever to be continued on earth, and never to be discontinued in heaven.

Verses 37-40. Jesus said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart — Concerning this first and great commandment, and the words wherewith Moses prefaced it, see note on Deuteronomy 6:5; and for the elucidation of this whole paragraph, see the notes on Mark 12:28- 34, where the conversation which our Lord had with this scribe is related more at large. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets — That is, they contain the substance or abridgment of all the religious and moral duties contained in the law and the prophets, which therefore may be all said to hang or depend on them. The expression, says Dr. Whitby, is a metaphor taken from a custom mentioned by Tertullian of hanging up their laws in a public place to be seen of all men; and it imports that in these precepts is compendiously contained all that the law and prophets require, in reference to our duty to God and man; for though there be some precepts of temperance which we owe to ourselves, yet are they such as we may be moved to perform from the true love of God and of our neighbour; whom if we truly love we cannot be wanting in them. For the love of God will make us humble and contented with our lot; it will preserve us from all intemperance, impatience, and unholy desires; it will make us watchful over ourselves, that we may keep a good conscience, and solicitous for our eternal welfare. And the love of our neighbour will free us from all angry passions, envy, malice, revenge, and other unkind tempers: so that both taken together will introduce into us the whole mind that was in Christ, and cause us to walk as he walked.

QUESTION WITH THE LAWYER, 34-40.

34. Put the Sadducees to silence — He had first silenced the Pharisees, then the Herodians, and last of all the Sadducees. See note preceding verse

15. A candid lawyer from their own company now ventures to question him, with the purpose, indeed, to tempt, that is, to try him, but also with the purpose of yielding, where truth required. They were gathered together — They collect into a consulting group.

V. 39. Leviticus 19:18.

Verse 39. Thou shalt love thy neighbour] The love of our neighbour springs from the love of God as its source; is found in the love of God as its principle, pattern, and end; and the love of God is found in the love of our neighbour, as its effect, representation, and infallible mark. This love of our neighbour is a love of equity, charity, succour, and benevolence. We owe to our neighbour what we have a right to expect from him-“Do unto all men as ye would they should do unto you,” is a positive command of our blessed Saviour. By this rule, therefore, we should speak, think, and write, concerning every soul of man:-put the best construction upon all the words and actions of our neighbour that they can possibly bear. By this rule we are taught to bear with, love, and forgive him; to rejoice in his felicity, mourn in his adversity, desire and delight in his prosperity, and promote it to the utmost of our power: instruct his ignorance, help him in his weakness, and risk even our life for his sake, and for the public good. In a word, we must do every thing in our power, through all the possible varieties of circumstances, for our neighbours, which we would wish them to do for us, were our situations reversed.

This is the religion of Jesus! How happy would Society be, were these two plain, rational precepts properly observed! Love ME, and love thy FELLOWS! Be unutterably happy in me, and be in perfect peace, unanimity, and love, among yourselves. Great fountain and dispenser of love! fill thy creation with this sacred principle, for his sake who died for the salvation of mankind!

On the nature of self-love, see Matthew 19:19.

Verses 37-40. Jesus said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart — Concerning this first and great commandment, and the words wherewith Moses prefaced it, see note on Deuteronomy 6:5; and for the elucidation of this whole paragraph, see the notes on Mark 12:28- 34, where the conversation which our Lord had with this scribe is related more at large. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets — That is, they contain the substance or abridgment of all the religious and moral duties contained in the law and the prophets, which therefore may be all said to hang or depend on them. The expression, says Dr. Whitby, is a metaphor taken from a custom mentioned by Tertullian of hanging up their laws in a public place to be seen of all men; and it imports that in these precepts is compendiously contained all that the law and prophets require, in reference to our duty to God and man; for though there be some precepts of temperance which we owe to ourselves, yet are they such as we may be moved to perform from the true love of God and of our neighbour; whom if we truly love we cannot be wanting in them. For the love of God will make us humble and contented with our lot; it will preserve us from all intemperance, impatience, and unholy desires; it will make us watchful over ourselves, that we may keep a good conscience, and solicitous for our eternal welfare. And the love of our neighbour will free us from all angry passions, envy, malice, revenge, and other unkind tempers: so that both taken together will introduce into us the whole mind that was in Christ, and cause us to walk as he walked.

39. Second is like unto it — Like in being founded in love; like in being in fact included in the first. For, if we love God completely, we shall perform all our duties to his creatures. As thyself — So that we may love ourselves. The Scriptures teach self-denial, but they do not teach self-annihilation. They forbid selfishness, but they do not forbid self-love. The love of our neighbor may not be of the same kind with the love of ourself. It may have more of a moral and less of an instinctive nature. Thus the love we have for our neighbour is different from the love we have for our nearest connections. The parental and conjugal relations require of us peculiar duties and peculiar feelings.

If I would love my neighbour as myself, I must not require him to do for me or my family the duties I do to myself or my family; since I do not desire to do such duties for him or his family. If I love my neighbour as myself, I shall be willing to do all my duties in my own proper place, and allow him to do the duties and reap the enjoyments of his proper place. This law is therefore the same as the golden rule, the former being stated as the law of the inner man, the latter his rule of external action. The observance of this law would put an end to all injustice, violence, oppression, and war.

Verse 39. And the second is like unto it. — Not equal, for it is the SECOND; but LIKE unto it, in having the superiority over all others, the first and great commandment alone excepted; and LIKE to it, as being a precept of LOVE, and an efflux from the same principle directed to our neighbour. Judging from these writings, the Jews appear to have been fond of numbering the precepts of the law; and some such practice may have obtained in our Lord’s time. The Talmud reckons them at 613; of which 365 are negative, and 248 affirmative. Our Lord’s enumeration is TWO, easily remembered, and embracing every species of obligation in its just and holy principle. There is nothing forbidden but what offends this law of love to God and man; nothing commanded but what is implied in it. Thou shalt love thy neighbour, &c. — However the Jews in their bigotry might restrain the term neighbour to those of their own nation, their “friends in the law,” as the phrase was; our Lord’s parable of the good Samaritan has taught us to extend it to every man, so that not even our enemies are excepted. As thyself, “as heartily and sincerely, and as a man would desire to be loved by his neighbour, and to do all the good offices to him he would choose to have done to himself by him. This law supposes that men should love themselves, so as to be careful of their bodies, families, and estates; and in a spiritual way, so as to be concerned for their souls, and their everlasting happiness: and in like manner should men love their neighbours; in things temporal doing them no injury, but all the good they can; and in things spiritual praying for them, instructing them, and advising them as they would their own souls.”

Verse 40. On these two-hang all the law and the prophets.] They are like the first and last links of a chain, all the intermediate ones depend on them. True religion begins and ends in love to God and man. These are the two grand links that unite God to man, man to his fellows, and men again to God.

Love is the fulfilling of the law, says St. Paul, Romans 13:10; for he who has the love of God in him delights to obey the Divine precepts, and to do all manner of kindness to men for God’s sake.

Verses 37-40. Jesus said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart — Concerning this first and great commandment, and the words wherewith Moses prefaced it, see note on Deuteronomy 6:5; and for the elucidation of this whole paragraph, see the notes on Mark 12:28- 34, where the conversation which our Lord had with this scribe is related more at large. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets — That is, they contain the substance or abridgment of all the religious and moral duties contained in the law and the prophets, which therefore may be all said to hang or depend on them. The expression, says Dr. Whitby, is a metaphor taken from a custom mentioned by Tertullian of hanging up their laws in a public place to be seen of all men; and it imports that in these precepts is compendiously contained all that the law and prophets require, in reference to our duty to God and man; for though there be some precepts of temperance which we owe to ourselves, yet are they such as we may be moved to perform from the true love of God and of our neighbour; whom if we truly love we cannot be wanting in them. For the love of God will make us humble and contented with our lot; it will preserve us from all intemperance, impatience, and unholy desires; it will make us watchful over ourselves, that we may keep a good conscience, and solicitous for our eternal welfare. And the love of our neighbour will free us from all angry passions, envy, malice, revenge, and other unkind tempers: so that both taken together will introduce into us the whole mind that was in Christ, and cause us to walk as he walked.

40. On these two… hang — They are the statement of that temper of heart from which we all acknowledge that the keeping of all the law and prophets would arise. Law and the prophets — The law given by God, with the prophets to enforce and predict the consequences of obedience or infringement.

Verse 40. Hang all the law and the prophets. — The law and the moral part of the prophetic writings, together with the discourses of our Lord and the writings of the apostles, contain a great number of particular precepts, all of which are bound upon us by the most solemn and indispensable obligation; and the knowledge of them is necessary for the guidance, so to speak, of the great affection of love to God and to our neighbour, into its particular and just operation. But all hang, depend, upon these two; so that they are the ROOT, and particular acts of obedience the BRANCHES. The supposed allusion, in these words, to the hanging up of tables of law in public places, adopted by some interpreters, is too farfetched.

Verse 41. While the Pharisees were gathered together] Jesus asks a question in his turn, utterly to confound them, and to show the people that the source of all the captious questions of his opponents was their ignorance of the prophecies relative to the Messiah.

Verses 41-46. While the Pharisees were gathered, &c. — That is, during this conference, expecting to have found an opportunity to insnare him, as he was still teaching the people in the temple; Jesus asked them — “The Pharisees, having in the course of our Lord’s ministry proposed many difficult questions to him, with a view to try his prophetical gifts, he, in his turn, now that a body of them was gathered together, thought fit to make trial of their skill in the sacred writings. For this purpose he publicly asked their opinion of a difficulty concerning the Messiah’s pedigree, arising from Psalm 110.: What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? — Whose son do you expect the Messiah to be, who was promised to the fathers? They say unto him, The son of David — This was the common title of the Messiah in that day, which the scribes taught them to give him, from Psalms 89:35Psalm 89:35, 36; and Isaiah 11:1.” He saith, How then doth David in spirit, rather, by the Spirit; that is, by inspiration; call him Lord — If he be merely the son, or descendant of David? if he be, as you suppose, the son of man, a mere man? “The doctors, it seems, did not look for any thing in their Messiah more excellent than the most exalted perfections of human nature; for, though they called him the Son of God, they had no notion that he was God, and so could offer no solution of the difficulty. Yet the latter question might have shown them their error. For if the Messiah was to be only a secular prince, as they supposed, ruling the men of his own time, he never could have been called Lord by persons who died before he was born; far less would so mighty a king as David, who also was his progenitor, have called him Lord. Wherefore, since he rules over, not the vulgar dead only of former ages, but even over the kings from whom he was himself descended, and his kingdom comprehends the men of all countries and times, past, present, and to come, the doctors, if they had thought accurately upon the subject, should have expected in their Messiah a king different from all other kings whatever. Besides, he is to sit at God’s right hand till his enemies are made the footstool of his feet; made thoroughly subject unto him. Numbers of Christ’s enemies are subjected to him in this life; and they who will not bow to him willingly, shall, like the rebellious subjects of other kingdoms, be reduced by punishment. Being constituted universal judge, all, whether friends or enemies, shall appear before his tribunal, where by the highest exercise of kingly power, he shall doom each to his unchangeable state.” And no man was able to answer him a word — None of them could offer the least shadow of a solution to the difficulty which he had proposed. Neither durst any man ask him any more questions — “The repeated proofs which he had given of the prodigious depth of his understanding, had impressed them with such an opinion of his wisdom, that they judged it impossible to insnare him in his discourse. For which reason they left off attempting it, and from that day forth troubled him no more with their insidious questions.” — Macknight.

Ver. 41, 42. While the pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, in the temple publicly, as Mark states it in chap. 12., What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he? They say, the son of David. As to the lineage of Christ from Abraham and David, to both of whom the Lord sware, Genesis 12:3. 22:16. 2 Samuel 7:1, 17, there is no variation of opinion. Isaiah 9:6, 7. 55:4. Ezekiel 34. But as to the prophecies of his ineffable and unutterable generation, as the Son, the Word, and Wisdom of the Father, Psalms 33:6Psalm 33:6. 110:1; JEHOVAH’S servant to accomplish all his pleasure, Isaiah 42:1. 53:13. Micah 5:2, Malachi 3:1. 4:2, and a cloud of other predictions, the rabbinical theology is full of darkness and confusion. The jews mostly expected him as a secular prince, who should never die. It was therefore essential for the jews to know, that the Messiah was also David’s Adonai, the Lord, who sits on his Father’s throne, and under whose feet all things are put in subjection. How confused, how foolish must all those learned doctors look, to be thus covered with silence and shame before the people. Learn a lesson, oh christian ministers, so to read and study the holy scriptures that your plain hearers may never put you to the blush, by asking a fair bible question which you cannot answer. Let the word of God dwell in you richly in all wisdom, and be your morning study to the end of life.

THE LORD’S QUESTION TOUCHING THE CHRIST, 41-46.

41. Jesus asked them — The Lord has answered all their questions one by one as the opposers brought them forth. He will now turn the tables upon them to try them with a most deep and all-important question.

V. 42. Luke 20:41.

Verse 42. What think ye of Christ?] Or, What are your thoughts concerning THE CHRIST-the Messiah; for to this title the emphatic article should always be added.

Whose son is he?] From what family is he to spring?

They say unto him, The son of David.] This was a thing well known among the Jews, and universally acknowledged, see John 7:42; and is a most powerful proof against them that the Messiah is come. Their families are now so perfectly confounded that they cannot trace back any of their genealogies with any degree of certainty: nor have they been capable of ascertaining the different families of their tribes for more than sixteen hundred years. Why, then, should the spirit of prophecy assert so often, and in such express terms, that Jesus was to come from the family of David; if he should only make his appearance when the public registers were all demolished, and it would be impossible to ascertain the family? Is it not evident that God designed that the Messiah should come at a time when the public genealogies might be inspected, to prove that it was he who was prophesied of, and that no other was to be expected? The evangelists, Matthew and Luke, were so fully convinced of the conclusiveness of this proof that they had recourse to the public registers; and thus proved to the Jews, from their own records, that Jesus was born of the family mentioned by the prophets. Nor do we find that a scribe, Pharisee, or any other, ever attempted to invalidate this proof, though it would have essentially subserved their cause, could they have done it. But as this has not been done, we may fairly conclude it was impossible to do it.

Verses 41-46. While the Pharisees were gathered, &c. — That is, during this conference, expecting to have found an opportunity to insnare him, as he was still teaching the people in the temple; Jesus asked them — “The Pharisees, having in the course of our Lord’s ministry proposed many difficult questions to him, with a view to try his prophetical gifts, he, in his turn, now that a body of them was gathered together, thought fit to make trial of their skill in the sacred writings. For this purpose he publicly asked their opinion of a difficulty concerning the Messiah’s pedigree, arising from Psalm 110.: What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? — Whose son do you expect the Messiah to be, who was promised to the fathers? They say unto him, The son of David — This was the common title of the Messiah in that day, which the scribes taught them to give him, from Psalms 89:35Psalm 89:35, 36; and Isaiah 11:1.” He saith, How then doth David in spirit, rather, by the Spirit; that is, by inspiration; call him Lord — If he be merely the son, or descendant of David? if he be, as you suppose, the son of man, a mere man? “The doctors, it seems, did not look for any thing in their Messiah more excellent than the most exalted perfections of human nature; for, though they called him the Son of God, they had no notion that he was God, and so could offer no solution of the difficulty. Yet the latter question might have shown them their error. For if the Messiah was to be only a secular prince, as they supposed, ruling the men of his own time, he never could have been called Lord by persons who died before he was born; far less would so mighty a king as David, who also was his progenitor, have called him Lord. Wherefore, since he rules over, not the vulgar dead only of former ages, but even over the kings from whom he was himself descended, and his kingdom comprehends the men of all countries and times, past, present, and to come, the doctors, if they had thought accurately upon the subject, should have expected in their Messiah a king different from all other kings whatever. Besides, he is to sit at God’s right hand till his enemies are made the footstool of his feet; made thoroughly subject unto him. Numbers of Christ’s enemies are subjected to him in this life; and they who will not bow to him willingly, shall, like the rebellious subjects of other kingdoms, be reduced by punishment. Being constituted universal judge, all, whether friends or enemies, shall appear before his tribunal, where by the highest exercise of kingly power, he shall doom each to his unchangeable state.” And no man was able to answer him a word — None of them could offer the least shadow of a solution to the difficulty which he had proposed. Neither durst any man ask him any more questions — “The repeated proofs which he had given of the prodigious depth of his understanding, had impressed them with such an opinion of his wisdom, that they judged it impossible to insnare him in his discourse. For which reason they left off attempting it, and from that day forth troubled him no more with their insidious questions.” — Macknight.

Ver. 41, 42. While the pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, in the temple publicly, as Mark states it in chap. 12., What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he? They say, the son of David. As to the lineage of Christ from Abraham and David, to both of whom the Lord sware, Genesis 12:3. 22:16. 2 Samuel 7:1, 17, there is no variation of opinion. Isaiah 9:6, 7. 55:4. Ezekiel 34. But as to the prophecies of his ineffable and unutterable generation, as the Son, the Word, and Wisdom of the Father, Psalms 33:6Psalm 33:6. 110:1; JEHOVAH’S servant to accomplish all his pleasure, Isaiah 42:1. 53:13. Micah 5:2, Malachi 3:1. 4:2, and a cloud of other predictions, the rabbinical theology is full of darkness and confusion. The jews mostly expected him as a secular prince, who should never die. It was therefore essential for the jews to know, that the Messiah was also David’s Adonai, the Lord, who sits on his Father’s throne, and under whose feet all things are put in subjection. How confused, how foolish must all those learned doctors look, to be thus covered with silence and shame before the people. Learn a lesson, oh christian ministers, so to read and study the holy scriptures that your plain hearers may never put you to the blush, by asking a fair bible question which you cannot answer. Let the word of God dwell in you richly in all wisdom, and be your morning study to the end of life.

42. What think ye of Christ? — They have had plenty of law questions; they will now have a Gospel question. So wisely and so skillfully did he select this last question, as at once to point their minds to the great source of salvation, and yet leave them in defeat and dismay, simply because they close their minds against the truth. Christ — As we have before said, (Matthew 1:1,) Christ is the Greek word for the Hebrew Messiah. The Lord therefore asks, What think ye of the Messiah as predicted in the Old Testament?

Verse 42. What think ye of Christ? &c. — The Pharisees had asked many questions of our Lord; and now, since they were collected about him in the temple, in the presence of the multitude, he proposes one to them; designing thereby to convict them of being in ignorance of the true character of Messiah, and to leave an impression of his superior nature upon the minds of his disciples, a truth as yet obscurely intimated, but which was soon to receive its strongest demonstration. What think ye of the Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David; for in this they were all agreed, that the Messiah must be a descendant of David, of “his house and lineage,” and the heir of his throne, which was promised to him by the mouth of the prophets.

V. 43. How doth David then by the Spirit-By inspiration, call him Lord? If he be merely the son (or descendant) of David? If he be, as you suppose, a mere man, the son of a man?

Verse 43. How then doth David in spirit (or by the Spirit-by the inspiration of the Spirit of God) call him Lord? saying,

Verses 41-46. While the Pharisees were gathered, &c. — That is, during this conference, expecting to have found an opportunity to insnare him, as he was still teaching the people in the temple; Jesus asked them — “The Pharisees, having in the course of our Lord’s ministry proposed many difficult questions to him, with a view to try his prophetical gifts, he, in his turn, now that a body of them was gathered together, thought fit to make trial of their skill in the sacred writings. For this purpose he publicly asked their opinion of a difficulty concerning the Messiah’s pedigree, arising from Psalm 110.: What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? — Whose son do you expect the Messiah to be, who was promised to the fathers? They say unto him, The son of David — This was the common title of the Messiah in that day, which the scribes taught them to give him, from Psalms 89:35Psalm 89:35, 36; and Isaiah 11:1.” He saith, How then doth David in spirit, rather, by the Spirit; that is, by inspiration; call him Lord — If he be merely the son, or descendant of David? if he be, as you suppose, the son of man, a mere man? “The doctors, it seems, did not look for any thing in their Messiah more excellent than the most exalted perfections of human nature; for, though they called him the Son of God, they had no notion that he was God, and so could offer no solution of the difficulty. Yet the latter question might have shown them their error. For if the Messiah was to be only a secular prince, as they supposed, ruling the men of his own time, he never could have been called Lord by persons who died before he was born; far less would so mighty a king as David, who also was his progenitor, have called him Lord. Wherefore, since he rules over, not the vulgar dead only of former ages, but even over the kings from whom he was himself descended, and his kingdom comprehends the men of all countries and times, past, present, and to come, the doctors, if they had thought accurately upon the subject, should have expected in their Messiah a king different from all other kings whatever. Besides, he is to sit at God’s right hand till his enemies are made the footstool of his feet; made thoroughly subject unto him. Numbers of Christ’s enemies are subjected to him in this life; and they who will not bow to him willingly, shall, like the rebellious subjects of other kingdoms, be reduced by punishment. Being constituted universal judge, all, whether friends or enemies, shall appear before his tribunal, where by the highest exercise of kingly power, he shall doom each to his unchangeable state.” And no man was able to answer him a word — None of them could offer the least shadow of a solution to the difficulty which he had proposed. Neither durst any man ask him any more questions — “The repeated proofs which he had given of the prodigious depth of his understanding, had impressed them with such an opinion of his wisdom, that they judged it impossible to insnare him in his discourse. For which reason they left off attempting it, and from that day forth troubled him no more with their insidious questions.” — Macknight.

43. In spirit — That this signifies under divine inspiration is clear from Mark, who expresses it, “For David himself by the Holy Ghost said.” Our Lord decides that David was the author of the Psalm, and that he wrote under divine inspiration.

Verse 43. How then doth David in spirit call him Lord? — The phrase, in spirit, signifies, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, as appears from St. Mark, who expresses it, “For David himself, by the Holy Ghost, said,” &c. This proves both that David wrote Psalm cx, under Divine inspiration, and that it relates to the Messiah. The word kuriov answers to the Hebrew אדונ, Adon, which signifies lord or master, the title of a superior. David was a monarch, and had no earthly superior in rank; and besides, the Messiah, according to the flesh, was to be his Son; how then, in what sense, does he call him Lord, saying, “Jehovah said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand?” How could he be his Lord, who was not to be born until many ages afterward, and was certainly to have no secular dominion over him? This question the Pharisees could not answer, for indeed it admits of no reply but one, which should acknowledge the Divinity as well as the humanity of the Christ; for in no other sense but as God over all could he be David’s Lord, his Lord then even before he was born into the world, and his Lord when he should be born, as ruling over the dead of all past ages, as well as over all living men. This ancient doctrine of the Jewish Church the Pharisees and Sadducees had, however, departed from; and as they had sunk into gross conceptions as to the kingdom of the Messiah, so they reduced their views of his character to a level with their worldly expectations. They now felt that their own Scriptures were against them, and it was this that silenced and confounded them; for it is added, No man was able to answer him a word. Their silence is, however, instructive to us. It shows that it was admitted among them that the words quoted related to the Messiah; so that the attempts of some of the more modern Jews to give them another application, are in denial of the opinion of their ancestors. It shows also, that the term LORD, as used by David, was not used, as the modern deniers of Christ’s Divinity would have it, to express merely the office of the Messiah, so that with reference to the dignity of that office, David might call him Lord, though his descendant, and a mere man like himself. For why then did not the Pharisees make this reply? Nothing could have been easier, had the word borne that import only among them, and they would easily have escaped out of the difficulty of the question. “But they answered him not a word;” and thus tacitly confessed that they had embraced opinions respecting the Messiah irreconcilable with the declarations of their own sacred books, and with these words especially, which have no true comment but that which is contained in the words of the glorified Saviour himself, “I am the ROOT and the OFFSPRING of David, the bright and morning star.”

V. 44. The Lord said to my Lord-This his dominion, to which David himself was subject, shows both the heavenly majesty of the king, and the nature of his kingdom.

Sit thou on my right hand-That is, remain in the highest authority and power. <19B001>Psalm 110:1.

Verse 44. The Lord (hwhy Yeve or Jehovah) said unto my Lord, (ynda Adni or Adonai, my prop, stay, master, support,) Sit thou on my right hand] Take the place of the greatest eminence and authority. Till I make thine enemies thy footstool-till I subdue both Jews and Gentiles under thee, and cause them to acknowledge thee as their sovereign and Lord. This quotation is taken from <19B001>Psalm 110:1; and, from it, these two points are clear: 1. That David wrote it by the inspiration of God; and 2. That it is a prophetic declaration of the Messiah.

Verses 41-46. While the Pharisees were gathered, &c. — That is, during this conference, expecting to have found an opportunity to insnare him, as he was still teaching the people in the temple; Jesus asked them — “The Pharisees, having in the course of our Lord’s ministry proposed many difficult questions to him, with a view to try his prophetical gifts, he, in his turn, now that a body of them was gathered together, thought fit to make trial of their skill in the sacred writings. For this purpose he publicly asked their opinion of a difficulty concerning the Messiah’s pedigree, arising from Psalm 110.: What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? — Whose son do you expect the Messiah to be, who was promised to the fathers? They say unto him, The son of David — This was the common title of the Messiah in that day, which the scribes taught them to give him, from Psalms 89:35Psalm 89:35, 36; and Isaiah 11:1.” He saith, How then doth David in spirit, rather, by the Spirit; that is, by inspiration; call him Lord — If he be merely the son, or descendant of David? if he be, as you suppose, the son of man, a mere man? “The doctors, it seems, did not look for any thing in their Messiah more excellent than the most exalted perfections of human nature; for, though they called him the Son of God, they had no notion that he was God, and so could offer no solution of the difficulty. Yet the latter question might have shown them their error. For if the Messiah was to be only a secular prince, as they supposed, ruling the men of his own time, he never could have been called Lord by persons who died before he was born; far less would so mighty a king as David, who also was his progenitor, have called him Lord. Wherefore, since he rules over, not the vulgar dead only of former ages, but even over the kings from whom he was himself descended, and his kingdom comprehends the men of all countries and times, past, present, and to come, the doctors, if they had thought accurately upon the subject, should have expected in their Messiah a king different from all other kings whatever. Besides, he is to sit at God’s right hand till his enemies are made the footstool of his feet; made thoroughly subject unto him. Numbers of Christ’s enemies are subjected to him in this life; and they who will not bow to him willingly, shall, like the rebellious subjects of other kingdoms, be reduced by punishment. Being constituted universal judge, all, whether friends or enemies, shall appear before his tribunal, where by the highest exercise of kingly power, he shall doom each to his unchangeable state.” And no man was able to answer him a word — None of them could offer the least shadow of a solution to the difficulty which he had proposed. Neither durst any man ask him any more questions — “The repeated proofs which he had given of the prodigious depth of his understanding, had impressed them with such an opinion of his wisdom, that they judged it impossible to insnare him in his discourse. For which reason they left off attempting it, and from that day forth troubled him no more with their insidious questions.” — Macknight.

44. The Lord said unto my Lord — Our Lord quotes from Psalm 110. In this Psalm, (which has been applied by both the Jewish and Christian Church to the Messiah) David describes the Messiah as his own Lord sitting at the right hand of God, who subdues all his enemies beneath his feet. On my right hand — The place of honour. The heir or highest dignitary customarily sat at the royal right hand nearest the king, the next in dignity on the king’s left. Till — Sit until then; but the words do not imply that his royal state shall then cease. Thy footstool — An allusion to the mode of ancient conquerors, who put their foot upon the heads of subjugated foes in token of their own supremacy.

Verse 45. How is he his son?] As the Jews did not attempt to deny the conclusion of our Lord’s question, which was, the Messiah is not only the son of David according to the flesh, but he is the Lord of David according to his Divine nature, then it is evident they could not. Indeed, there was no other way of invalidating the argument, but by denying that the prophecy in question related to Christ: but it seems the prophecy was so fully and so generally understood to belong to the Messiah that they did not attempt to do this; for it is immediately added, No man was able to answer him a word-they were completely nonplussed and confounded.

Verses 41-46. While the Pharisees were gathered, &c. — That is, during this conference, expecting to have found an opportunity to insnare him, as he was still teaching the people in the temple; Jesus asked them — “The Pharisees, having in the course of our Lord’s ministry proposed many difficult questions to him, with a view to try his prophetical gifts, he, in his turn, now that a body of them was gathered together, thought fit to make trial of their skill in the sacred writings. For this purpose he publicly asked their opinion of a difficulty concerning the Messiah’s pedigree, arising from Psalm 110.: What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? — Whose son do you expect the Messiah to be, who was promised to the fathers? They say unto him, The son of David — This was the common title of the Messiah in that day, which the scribes taught them to give him, from Psalms 89:35Psalm 89:35, 36; and Isaiah 11:1.” He saith, How then doth David in spirit, rather, by the Spirit; that is, by inspiration; call him Lord — If he be merely the son, or descendant of David? if he be, as you suppose, the son of man, a mere man? “The doctors, it seems, did not look for any thing in their Messiah more excellent than the most exalted perfections of human nature; for, though they called him the Son of God, they had no notion that he was God, and so could offer no solution of the difficulty. Yet the latter question might have shown them their error. For if the Messiah was to be only a secular prince, as they supposed, ruling the men of his own time, he never could have been called Lord by persons who died before he was born; far less would so mighty a king as David, who also was his progenitor, have called him Lord. Wherefore, since he rules over, not the vulgar dead only of former ages, but even over the kings from whom he was himself descended, and his kingdom comprehends the men of all countries and times, past, present, and to come, the doctors, if they had thought accurately upon the subject, should have expected in their Messiah a king different from all other kings whatever. Besides, he is to sit at God’s right hand till his enemies are made the footstool of his feet; made thoroughly subject unto him. Numbers of Christ’s enemies are subjected to him in this life; and they who will not bow to him willingly, shall, like the rebellious subjects of other kingdoms, be reduced by punishment. Being constituted universal judge, all, whether friends or enemies, shall appear before his tribunal, where by the highest exercise of kingly power, he shall doom each to his unchangeable state.” And no man was able to answer him a word — None of them could offer the least shadow of a solution to the difficulty which he had proposed. Neither durst any man ask him any more questions — “The repeated proofs which he had given of the prodigious depth of his understanding, had impressed them with such an opinion of his wisdom, that they judged it impossible to insnare him in his discourse. For which reason they left off attempting it, and from that day forth troubled him no more with their insidious questions.” — Macknight.

45. If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? — Here was a point for them to explain. Nor can they admit it without acknowledging that while he is human as descended from David, so he is divine as the right hand assessor of the Almighty. It shows that his royalty is not on earth but in heaven. He sits at the right hand of God as King, while his enemies on earth are being subdued before him. On the Jewish view, our Lord was to be a conquering descendant of David on the Jewish throne. The relation therefore between the lordship and sonship of Christ, they are unable to explain.

V. 46. Neither durst any question him any more-Not by way of ensnaring or tempting him.

Verse 46. Neither durst any-ask him any more questions.] “Thus,” says Dr. Wotton, “our Lord put the four great sects of the Jews to silence, in one day, successively. The Herodians and Pharisees wanted to know whether they might lawfully pay tribute to Cæsar or not. The Sadducees were inquisitive to know whose wife the woman should be of the seven brethren, in the resurrection, who had her to wife. Then comes the scribe, (or karaite,) who owned no authority beyond or besides the written law, and asked which was the great commandment in the law. This lawyer deserves to be mentioned here, because he not only acquiesced in, but commended, what our Lord had said in answer to his question.” Wotton’s Miscellaneous Discourses, vol. i. p. 78.

The Pharisees and Herodians were defeated, Matthew 22:15-22. The Sadducees were confounded, Matthew 22:29-33. The lawyers or karaites nonplussed, Matthew 22:37-40. And the Pharisees, &c., finally routed, Matthew 22:41-46. Thus did the wisdom of God triumph over the cunning of men.

From this time, we do not find that our Lord was any more troubled with their captious questions: their whole stock, it appears, was expended, and now they coolly deliberate on the most effectual way to get him murdered. He that resists the truth of God is capable of effecting the worst purpose of Satan.

The very important subjects of this chapter have been so amply discussed in the notes, and applied so particularly to their spiritual uses, that it does not appear necessary to add any thing by way of practical improvement. The explanation of the great command of the law is particularly recommended to the reader’s notice. See on Matthew 22:36-40. ST. MATTHEW

Verses 41-46. While the Pharisees were gathered, &c. — That is, during this conference, expecting to have found an opportunity to insnare him, as he was still teaching the people in the temple; Jesus asked them — “The Pharisees, having in the course of our Lord’s ministry proposed many difficult questions to him, with a view to try his prophetical gifts, he, in his turn, now that a body of them was gathered together, thought fit to make trial of their skill in the sacred writings. For this purpose he publicly asked their opinion of a difficulty concerning the Messiah’s pedigree, arising from Psalm 110.: What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? — Whose son do you expect the Messiah to be, who was promised to the fathers? They say unto him, The son of David — This was the common title of the Messiah in that day, which the scribes taught them to give him, from Psalms 89:35Psalm 89:35, 36; and Isaiah 11:1.” He saith, How then doth David in spirit, rather, by the Spirit; that is, by inspiration; call him Lord — If he be merely the son, or descendant of David? if he be, as you suppose, the son of man, a mere man? “The doctors, it seems, did not look for any thing in their Messiah more excellent than the most exalted perfections of human nature; for, though they called him the Son of God, they had no notion that he was God, and so could offer no solution of the difficulty. Yet the latter question might have shown them their error. For if the Messiah was to be only a secular prince, as they supposed, ruling the men of his own time, he never could have been called Lord by persons who died before he was born; far less would so mighty a king as David, who also was his progenitor, have called him Lord. Wherefore, since he rules over, not the vulgar dead only of former ages, but even over the kings from whom he was himself descended, and his kingdom comprehends the men of all countries and times, past, present, and to come, the doctors, if they had thought accurately upon the subject, should have expected in their Messiah a king different from all other kings whatever. Besides, he is to sit at God’s right hand till his enemies are made the footstool of his feet; made thoroughly subject unto him. Numbers of Christ’s enemies are subjected to him in this life; and they who will not bow to him willingly, shall, like the rebellious subjects of other kingdoms, be reduced by punishment. Being constituted universal judge, all, whether friends or enemies, shall appear before his tribunal, where by the highest exercise of kingly power, he shall doom each to his unchangeable state.” And no man was able to answer him a word — None of them could offer the least shadow of a solution to the difficulty which he had proposed. Neither durst any man ask him any more questions — “The repeated proofs which he had given of the prodigious depth of his understanding, had impressed them with such an opinion of his wisdom, that they judged it impossible to insnare him in his discourse. For which reason they left off attempting it, and from that day forth troubled him no more with their insidious questions.” — Macknight.

46. Ask him any more questions — This closes his debate with them, and closes all earthly debate with these his enemies forever. Next he is brought before their judgment seat; and last they are to be brought before his judgment bar. So men gainsay him here to meet their doom hereafter.

Verse 46. Neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions. — And thus our blessed Lord delivered himself from the intrusion of these captious and cavilling men, and was left to pursue his own great work without interruption to the time of his sufferings, which were now approaching; this being the third day before the passover on which “he was sacrificed for us.”