Bible Commentaries
Matthew 22

Introduction

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

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.

Verse 1

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

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.

Verse 2

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

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. Γαμος , and γαμοι , 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.

Verse 3

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

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 κλητορες 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.”

Verse 4

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

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, το αριστον , 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 το δειπνον , which we render supper. Both terms are, however, often used generally for a feast.

Verses 5-6

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

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, οι λοιποι ; 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 γαμους simply a feast. The Jews are said to be twice invited; first, bidden, and then summoned when the feast was ready. The servants, the κλητορες , 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 8

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

The wedding is ready, &c. — Ταμος ετοιμος εστιν , the feast is prepared, but they which were bidden were not worthy. Here αξιος 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

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

Into the highways, &c. — The διεξοδοι 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.

Verse 10

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

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 γαμος is used metonymically for the place where the guests were assembled. The Syriac and Ethiopic versions render it “the house of the feast.”

Verse 11

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

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 ενδυμα γαμου 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, εφιμωθη , 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. Εταιρε , friend, is not a word of recognition or affection, but one used to a stranger; and πως εισηλθες ωδε , How camest thou in hither? is a strong reproof: by what right? under what presumption?

Verse 14

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

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.

Verse 15

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

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, παγιδευσωσιν , 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.

Verse 17

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

Is it lawful to pay tribute? &c. — The word κηνσος 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.”

Verse 19

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

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 7½d. “The denarius,” says Adolphus Occo, “paid by the Jews as tribute money, had around the head of Cesar this inscription, Καισαρ Αυγουστ . Ιουδαιας εαλωκιας . 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.

Verse 21

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

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 23

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

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, συναφανιζει , 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.

Verse 24

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

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. — Επι γαμβρευω signifies to marry a wife by the law of affinity. See Genesis 38:8, and Deuteronomy 25:5.

Verse 28

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

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.

Verse 29

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

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.

Verse 30

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

In the resurrection they neither marry, &c. — The resurrection from the dead is expressed by αναστασις , a figurative term, which signifies a rising up, and is opposed to πτωσισ , 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.

Verse 32

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

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, γαρ , 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 γαρ , 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.”

Verse 33

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

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.

Verse 35

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

A lawyer asked him a question, tempting him. — A lawyer, νομικος , 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

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

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.

Verse 37

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

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 39

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

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 neigh bour, &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

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

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 42

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

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.

Verse 43

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark 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 κυριος answers to the Hebrew אדון , 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.”

Verse 46

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

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.”