Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 22:16
And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any [man]: for thou regardest not the person of men.
16. their disciples with the Herodians ] An unnatural coalition, for the Pharisees represented the patriotic resistance to all foreign power; whereas the Herodians, as their name implies, supported the Herodian dynasty, and, as the context shews, acquiesced in the Roman rule. The Herodians are not named except in the first two Gospels; nor does Josephus include them in his account of Jewish sects. They were probably numerically insignificant, and may indeed have consisted merely of a few renegade Jews, who belonged to Herod’s court. See ch. Mat 11:8.
we know that thou art true ] Nothing could exceed the insidious hypocrisy of this attack on Jesus. His enemies approach Him as a teacher whom they trust.
regardest not the person of men ] i. e. Thou art not moved by external appearance; neither wealth, power, nor prestige will influence thy decision.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 16. The Herodians] For an account of this sect, see the note on Mt 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 Caesar, or not? – Mt 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 Caesar’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 Mt 21:9. If then he should decide the question in Caesar’s favour, what idea must the people have of him, either as zealous for the law, or as the expected Messiah? If against Caesar, 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.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Mark hath the same, Mar 12:14. So hath Luke, Luk 20:21. There is a great variety of opinions, who these
Herodions were; we read of them in an early consultation against Christ with the Pharisees, Mar 3:6. Some think, they were foreigners of other nations, whom Herod, being tetrarch of Galilee, had brought in from contiguous pagan nations; but this is not probable, for then the Pharisees would have had nothing to do with them. Others think that they were some of Herods guard, or soldiers; but neither is this probable, considering the issue of their counsels, to send some who in Christ should not know, nor be frightened with. Others (which is more probable) think they were some of those Jews who favoured Herods side, and had forgotten the liberty of their country, joining with the conqueror, and taking his part. Others think they were Sadducees. Others say, that they were persons that were of a mongrel religion, made up of Judaism and Gentilism. Our Saviour bids them beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of Herod, Mar 8:15; which maketh it probable, that the Herodions were not only courtiers, and for the Roman interest, but that they had embraced some particular doctrines, much differing from the Pharisees; it is likely they were leavened with some of the doctrine of the Sadducees, denying angels and spirits, and the resurrection. It is plain that they were some of Herods faction; what their principles were as to religion is not so plain, nor of much concern to us to know. They begin their discourse to our Saviour with a great compliment,
Master, a name the Jews did usually give to those whom they owned for teachers.
We know that thou art true, one that will tell us the truth, and speak as thou thinkest to be true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men: thou wilt speak nothing out of fear, nor for any favour or affection; but plainly tell us what is truth, and what God would have us do in the cases we offer to thee. In these words they give us the true character of a good teacher; he must be a good man, true, one that will truly teach men the way of God, and, in the faithful discharge of their duty, not be afraid of the face of men. But herein they condemned themselves, for if our Saviour was so, why did they not believe in him, and obey what he taught them?
Tell its therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But how came this to be a case of conscience? What doubt could there be, whether men from their peace might not lawfully part from their own, especially such a little part of it? Some think that they spake with relation to that particular tribute which was demanded, which they think was that half shekel, Exo 30:12,15, paid by the Jews every year, which was to go for the service of the tabernacle: they say that the Romans had ordered this payment to go to the emperor, and this bred the question, Whether they might lawfully pay that which was appointed as a testimony of their homage to God, and for the service of the temple, to a profane use. I must confess I cannot so freely agree to this, wanting any good proof that the Romans exacted that payment to the emperor, and thinking it a very probable argument to the contrary, that the tables of the money changers, who changed the peoples money into half shekels fit for that payment, was now continued. And if that payment had been now altered, and turned to the use of the civil government, our Saviours overturning those tables, and driving the money changers out, had offered them a fair opportunity to have charged him with sedition, which they did not do upon that account. I rather therefore think the question propounded concerning the lawfulness of making any payments to the emperor, looking upon him as a usurper of authority over a free people. That the Jews were very tenacious of their liberty appears from Joh 8:33; and, without doubt, the most of them paid such taxes as the Roman emperor laid upon them with no very good will. Now those hypocrites turn it into a case of conscience, God having made the Jews a free people, Whether they should not sin against God in paying these civil taxes to a pagan conqueror. There was one Theudas, and Judas, mentioned Act 5:36,37, who made an insurrection upon it. This was a question captious enough. For if he had said it was lawful, he had probably incurred the odium of the people, which was what they desired, for they had apprehended him before this time but for fear of them. If he had said it was not lawful, they had what they sought for, a fair opportunity for accusing him, and delivering him up to Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor at this time amongst them.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And they sent out unto him their disciples,…. Who were trained up in the same way of thinking with themselves, had imbibed the same tenets, and were strenuous defenders of them; and no doubt they selected the most crafty and artful among them; and who were the best versed in their principles and sophistic method of arguing: these they the rather sent, imagining they would not be known, as they themselves were: and from their age and air of simplicity, might be taken for innocent persons, who in great sincerity, came to be instructed by him,
with the Herodians: learned men are very much divided in their sentiments about these men; some think they were Gentiles under the government of Herod; but it is not likely that the Pharisees would join themselves with such, whose company they carefully shunned; others, that they were Gentile proselytes, as Herod was; but that on either of these accounts, they should be called by his name, there seems to be no reason: others say, they were Greeks, whom Herod brought out of a desert into his own country, and formed a sect, which from him were called Herodians: this way went Drusius, in which he was followed by several learned men, until the mistake was detected; who took it from a passage in the Hebrew Lexicon, called “Baal Aruch”, mistaking the word , for “Greeks”, which signifies “doves”: the Jewish writer referring to a passage in the Misna m, which speaks of , “Herodian doves”; that is, tame ones, such as were brought up in houses: for that these are meant, is clear from the Misnic and Talmudic writers, and their commentators n; and were so called, because that Herod was the first that tamed wild doves, and brought up tame ones in his own palace; and so Josephus o says, that he had many towers stored with tame doves, which was a new thing in Judea. Others, that they were Sadducees, which carries some appearance of truth in it; since what is styled the leaven of the Sadducees, in Mt 16:6 is called the leaven of Herod, in Mr 8:15 And very probable it is, that Herod was a Sadducee, and that his courtiers, at least many of them, were of the same sect; but yet it is certain, that the Sadducees are spoken of, as distinct from these Herodians, in Mt 22:23 of this chapter. Others, that they were a set of men, that formed a new scheme of religion, consisting partly of Judaism, and partly of Gentilism, approved and espoused by Herod, and therefore called by his name; and others, that they were such as held, that Herod was the Messiah; but it is certain, that Herod did not think so himself, nor the people of the Jews in common; and whatever flatterers he might have in his life time, it can hardly be thought, that this notion should survive his death, who was odious to the Jewish nation: others think, that they were such, who were not for paying tribute to Caesar, but to Herod, and were encouraged and defended by him and his courtiers, as much as they could; since he and his family looked upon themselves to be injured by the Romans, and secretly grudged that tribute should be paid unto them: others, on the contrary, say, that these were such, who pleaded that tribute ought to be paid to Caesar, by whose means Herod enjoyed his government, and was supported in it; and were just the reverse of the Pharisees, with whom they are here joined, in their attempts on Christ. The Syriac version renders the word by , “those of the house”, or “family of Herod”, his courtiers and domestics: in Munster s Hebrew Gospel, they are called , “the servants of Herod”; and certain it is, that Herod was at Jerusalem at this time, Lu 23:7 We read p of Menahem, who was one while an associate of Hillell, who with eighty more clad in gold, went
, “into the service of the king”, that is, Herod, and hence might be called Herodians. Wherefore these seem rather to be the persons designed, whom the Pharisees chose to send with their disciples, though they were of Herod’s party, and were on the other side of the question from them; being for giving tribute to Caesar, by whom their master held his government; that should Christ be ensnared by them, as they hoped he would, into any seditious or treasonable expressions against Caesar, these might either accuse him to Herod, or immediately seize him, and have him before the Roman governor. Luke observes, that these men, the disciples of the Pharisees and the Herodians, were sent forth as “spies, which should feign themselves just men”; men of religion and holiness, and who were upright and sincere in their question, and who had strong inclinations to become his disciples: the Jews themselves own, that they sent such persons to Jesus, whom they mention by name, in such a disguised manner to deceive him: their words are these q;
“They (the Sanhedrim) sent unto him Ananiah and Ahaziah, honourable men of the lesser sanhedrim, and when they came before him they bowed down to him–and he thought that they believed in him, and he received them very courteously.”
Saying, master: as if they were his disciples, or at least were very willing to be so: however, they allow him to be a doctor or teacher, and a very considerable one:
we know that thou art true; a true and faithful minister, that teachest truth, and speakest uprightly; one of great integrity, and to be depended upon:
and teachest the way of God in truth; rightly opens the word of God, gives the true and genuine sense the law of God, faithfully instructs men in the worship of God; and with great sincerity, directs men to the way of coming to God, and enjoying eternal happiness with him; having no sinister ends, or worldly interest in view:
neither carest thou for any man; be he ever so great and honourable, in ever so high a station, be he Caesar himself; signifying, that he was a man of such openness and integrity, that he always freely spoke the real sentiments of his mind, whether men were pleased or displeased; being in no fear of man, nor in the least to be intimidated by frowns and menaces, or any danger from men: for thou regardest not the person of men; as he had not the persons of the high priests and elders, the grand sanhedrim of the nation, who had lately been examining him in the temple: and seeing therefore he made no difference among men, whether learned or unlearned, rich or poor, high or low; whether they were in exalted stations and high offices, or not he feared no man’s face, and accepted no man’s person, but gave his sense of things, without fear or flattery; they hoped he would give a direct answer to the following question, though Caesar himself was concerned in it.
m Cholin, c. 12. sect 1. n T. Bab. Cholin, fol. 139. 1. & Betza, fol. 24. 1. & 25. 1. Misn. Sabbat. c. 24. 8. & Cholin, c. 12. sect. 1. & Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. o De Bello Jud. 1. 6. c. 13. p Juchasin, fol. 19. 1. q Toldos Jesu, p. 8.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Their disciples ( ). Students, pupils, of the Pharisees as in Mr 2:18. There were two Pharisaic theological seminaries in Jerusalem (Hillel, Shammai).
The Herodians ( H). Not members of Herod’s family or Herod’s soldiers, but partisans or followers of Herod. The form in – is a Latin termination like that in (Ac 11:26). Mentioned also in Mr 3:6 combining with the Pharisees against Jesus.
The person of men ( ). Literally, face of men. Paying regard to appearance is the sin of partiality condemned by James (Jas 2:1; Jas 2:9) when , are used, in imitation of the Hebrew idiom. This suave flattery to Jesus implied “that Jesus was a reckless simpleton” (Bruce).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
16. Master, we know that thou art true. This is the righteousness which they counterfeit, when they offer humble subjection to Christ, as if they were desirous to learn, and as if they not only had some relish for piety, but also were fully convinced of his doctrine; for if what they said had been from the heart, this would have been true uprightness. And therefore from their words we may obtain a definition of a good and faithful teacher, such as they pretended to believe Christ to be. They say that he is true, and teaches the way of God; that is, he is a faithful interpreter of God, and that he teaches it in truth; that is, without any corruption. The way of God is contrasted with the inventions of men, and with all foreign doctrines; and truth is contrasted with ambition, covetousness, and other wicked dispositions, which usually corrupt the purity of instruction. So then he ought to be reckoned a true teacher, who does not introduce the contrivances of men, or depart from the pure word of God, but gives out, as it were, with his hands what he has learned from the mouth of God, and who, from a sincere desire of edification, accommodates his doctrine to the advantage and salvation of the people, and does not debase it by any disguise. As to this latter clause, when Paul asserts that he
does not make merchandise of the word of God, (2Co 2:17,)
he means that there are some persons who use dexterity, and do not openly overturn sound doctrine, or incur the disgrace of holding wicked opinions, but who disguise and corrupt the purity of doctrine, because they are ambitious, or covetous, or easily turned in various directions according to their earnest desire. He therefore compares them to jockeys, ( κυπηλλεύοντες,) because they deprave the pure use of the word of God.
For thou regardest not the person of men. It is also worthy of attention, that those hypocrites likewise add, that Christ teaches rightly, because he has no regard for the person of men. Nothing has a more powerful tendency to withdraw teachers from a faithful and upright dispensation of the word than to pay respect to men; for it is impossible that any one who
desires to please men (Gal 1:10)
should truly devote himself to God. Some attention, no doubt, is due to men, but not so as to obtain their favor by flattery. In short, in order to walk uprightly, we must necessarily put away respect of persons, which obscures the light and perverts right judgment, as God frequently inculcates in the Law, (Deu 1:16,) and as experience also points out. Thus Christ (Joh 7:24) contrasts acceptance of persons ( προσωποληψίαν) and sound judgment as things totally different.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(16) With the Herodians.The party thus described are known to us only through the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark; and their precise relation to the other sects or schools among the Jews are consequently matters of conjecture. The form of the name (like Mariani, Pompeiani, and, we may add, Christiani) is Latin, and may be noted as an example of the influence of that language in the public life of Palestine. The Herodians were known, first to the Romans and then to the people, as adherents of the house of the Herods. In what sense they were adherents, and why they now joined with the Pharisees, is less clear; and two distinct theories have been maintained: (1) That, as it was the general policy of all the princes of the Herodian family to court the favour of Rome, their partisans were those who held that it was lawful to give tribute to Csar. On this supposition the narrative brings before us the coalition of two parties usually opposed to each other, but united against a common foe. (2) That they were partisans of the Herods, in the sense of looking to them to restore the independence of the nation, and were therefore of one mind with the Pharisees on the tribute question, though they differed from them on most other points. A fact recorded by Jewish writers probably gives us the origin of the party. In the early days of Herod the Great, when Hillel, the great scribe, was at the height of his fame, he had as his colleague, Menahem, possibly the Essene of that name of whom Josephus tells us that he prophesied Herods future greatness (Ant. xv. 10, 5). The latter was tempted by the kings growing power, and, with eighty followers, entered into his service, forsook the ranks of the Pharisees, and appeared in forgeous apparel, glittering with gold (Jost, Gesch. judenthums, i. 259; see Note on Mat. 11:8). In Mar. 3:6 we find them at Capernaum conspiring with the Pharisees who had come from Jerusalem, and are thus led to see in their present action a renewal of the previous alliance. A comparison of Mat. 16:6 and Mar. 8:15 suggests a general affinity with the policy and tenets of the Sadducees. From St. Luke (Luk. 23:7) we learn the fact that the Tetrarch himself (and therefore probably his followers) was at this time at Jerusalem, so that the renewed combination was natural enough. On the whole, the drift of the facts seems towards the conclusion that they were advocates of national submission to the emperor rather than assertors of independence.
Master, we know that thou art true.Insidious as the praise was, intended, as it were, to goad Him who was thus addressed into showing, by some rash utterance, that He deserved it, it may be noted as an admission from the lips of adversaries of the supreme truthfulness and fearlessness of our Lords teaching. The record of our Lords Jerusalem ministry in St. Johns Gospel (e.g., John 3, 5, 7, 8, 9) presents us with many of the occasions to which the Pharisees tacitly referred.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
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.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And they send to him their disciples, with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true, and teach the way of God in truth, and care not for any one, for you do not regard the person of men.” ’
Their preparations were carefully laid. In order that Jesus might suspect nothing the Pharisees did not approach Him themselves, but sent along ‘their disciples’, that is the young men who were under their instruction, but were still not yet fully initiated Pharisees. Such men might well be seen by Jesus as ‘seekers after truth’ and their youthfulness would surely lull His suspicions. Along with them went the Herodians. They would be expected to be interested in a subject like this, and their hope might well have been that their presence would arouse Jesus to be intemperate. And Jesus would be caught between the two, the ‘innocent minded’ young fledgling Pharisees and the worldly Herodians. In this situation Jesus would surely feel that He had to make His position absolutely clear. And then on top of this they had prepared their introductory words carefully so as to encourage Him to speak boldly.
“Teacher, we know that you are true, and teach the way of God in truth, and care not for any one, for you do not regard the person of men.” Their opening words, given here, were subtle in the extreme. Firstly they flattered Him by calling His ‘Teacher’. And then they laid out how they expected Him to approach the question.
‘We know that you are true.’ That is that He teaches what is genuinely true and speaks it out honestly and without equivocation.
‘And teach the way of God in truth.’ That is that His message will be firmly and truly a proclamation of God’s way, and God’s way only, the ‘way of holiness’ of Isa 35:8, the ‘way of righteousness’ of John (Mat 21:32; compare Mat 7:13-14).
‘And care not for any one, for you do not regard the person of men.’ This proviso was added in order to encourage Him to be absolutely bold, and not to compromise. They wanted to make sure that He was indiscreet. ‘Care not for anyone’. That is, does not let what others think interfere with His speaking the truth. ‘Do not regard the person of men.’ That is, does not measure His words in terms of who are present or who will hear of them. This is, of course, a fair description of a true prophet, but they spelled it out with the intention of making sure that He spoke clearly and without inhibition. The whole purpose behind it was to compromise Jesus.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 22:16. With the Herodians These, in the Syriac version, are termed the domestics, or courtiers of Herod. “Origen and St. Jerome have, in my opinion,” says Beausobre, “rightly supposed that they were men (probably of the sect of the Sadducees) who sided with Herod Antipas, who, to ingratiate himself with the emperor, was very busy and earnest in raising the taxes.” They seem to have been men who distinguished themselves by their zeal for the family of Herod; and, on that account, they would be naturally zealous for the authority of the Romans, by whose means Herod was made and continued king; and it is probable, as Dr. Prideaux conjectures, that they might incline to conform to themin some particulars, which the law would not allow of; and especially in the admission of images, though not in the religious, or rather idolatrous use of them. Herod’s attempt to set up a golden eagle over the eastern gate of the temple is well-known: these complaisant courtiers would, no doubt, defend it; and the same temper might discover itself in many other instances. On all these accounts, they were most diametrically opposite to the Pharisees; 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. Thus united, they resolved to send certain of their disciples to ensnare Jesus in his words; whom they directed to feign themselves just men, Luk 20:20 men who had a great veneration for the divine law, and a dread of doing any thing inconsistent therewith; and, under that mask, to request him, for the ease of their consciences, to give his opinion whether they might pay taxes to the Romans, consistently with their regard for their religion. It seems this question was much debated in our Lord’s time, one Judas of Galilee having taught the unlawfulness of paying the taxes, and gathered a numerous faction, especially among the common people. The priests, therefore, imagined that it was not in our Lord’s power to decide the point, without making himself obnoxious to some of the parties, who divided upon it. If he should say it was lawful to pay the taxes, they believed that the people, in whose hearing the question was proposed, (see Luk 20:26.) 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, but as a flatterer of princes also, and a betrayer of the liberties and privileges of his country. For the notion which the generality of the Jews formed of the Messiah was, that he would deliver them from foreign servitude: If therefore he, who called himself the Messiah, recommended the paying of taxes to the Romans, they could not but think this inconsistent with his pretensions, nay, an entire renunciation of them. 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 fomentor of sedition. Highly elated, therefore, with their project, they came and proposed their question, after having first passed an encomium on the truth of his mission, and upon his courage, integrity, and impartiality, with a design, no doubt, to make him believe that they were his friends, and that he ought boldly to declare what the will of God was in this matter. See Beausobre, Prideaux, Macknight, and Calmet.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 22:16 . The Herodians are not Herod’s courtiers (Fritzsche, following Luther), but the political party among the Jews that sought to uphold the dynasty of the Herods, popular royalists, in opposition to the principle of a pure theocracy, though willing also to take part with the powerful Pharisees against the unpopular Roman sway, should circumstances render such a movement expedient. For other interpretations, some of them rather singular, see Wolf and Kcher in loc . The passage in Joseph. Antt. xiv. 15. 10, refers to different circumstances from the present. Comp. Ewald, Gesch. Chr . p. 97 ff.; Keim, III. p. 130 ff. To regard (as is done by Origen, Maldonatus, de Wette, Winer, Neander, Volkmar) those here referred to as supporters of the Roman sway generally (and not merely of the Herodian dynasty in particular), is certainly not in accordance with the name they bear. We may further observe that no little cunning was shown by the orthodox hierarchy in selecting some of the younger members of their order (who as such would be less liable to be suspected) to co-operate with a party no less hostile than themselves to the Messianic pretender, with a view to betray Jesus into an answer savouring of opposition to the payment of the tribute. This was the drift of the flattering preface to their question, and upon His answer they hoped to found an accusation before the Roman authorities . Comp. Luk 20:20 . But though the plot miscarried, owing to the answer being in the affirmative , the Pharisees had at least succeeded in now getting the Herodians to assume a hostile attitude toward Jesus, while at the same time they would be able to turn the reply to good account in the way of rendering Him unpopular with the masses.
] that is, through their representatives. Comp. Mat 11:2 , Mat 27:19 .
, , . . .] Comp. with this cunning , though in itself so true an instance of captatio benevolentiae , the sincere one in Joh 3:2 .
] true , avoiding every sort of in your dealings, either simulando or dissimulando . In what follows, and which is still connected with , this is made more precise, being put both positively and negatively.
] the way prescribed by God, i.e. the behaviour of men to each other which God requires. Comp. . , Mat 6:33 ; . , Joh 6:28 ; and so Psa 27:11 ; Wis 5:7 ; Bar 3:13 .
] truthfully , as beseems the character of this way; see on Joh 17:19 .
] Thou carest for no man , in Thy teaching Thou actest without regard to the persons of men.
, . . .] giving the reason for the statement contained in , . . .: for Thou lookest not to mere external appearances in men ; to Thee it is always a matter of indifference in regard to a man’s person whether he be powerful, rich, learned, etc., or the reverse; therefore we are convinced, , . . . . denotes the outward manifestation in which men present themselves (comp. on Mat 16:3 ). Comp. , Jud 1:16 . The emphasis, however, is on . We have not here a “natural paraphrase” of the Hebrew idiom (Luk 20:21 ), which expresses another, though similar idea (in answer to de Wette; see on Gal 2:6 ). In classical Greek, . . is used in the sense of being barefaced. See Bremi ad Aeschin. p. 370.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man : for thou regardest not the person of men.
Ver. 16. With the Herodians ] i.e. Such as were of Herod’s religion, as the Melchites, a kind of mongrel Christians in the East: so called of Melech, as one would say, of the king’s religion, because they followed the decrees and examples of the emperors. Some think these Herodians were the same with the publicans, or toll collecters (so Origen and Cyril), whom the Pharisees took with them to our Saviour, as if the one exacted tribute, the other refused to pay, and both came to our Saviour, as to an impartial judge, to end the quarrel, and decide the controversy.
Master, we know that thou art true, &c. ] Here is a fair glove, drawn upon a foul hand. “Burning lips and a wicked heart are like a potsherd covered with silver dross,” Pro 26:23 . There are those that will smile in your face, and at the same time cut your throat. Squier, sent from Spain to poison Queen Elizabeth, anointed the pummel of the queen’s saddle with poison covertly, and, as it were, doing something else, praying with a loud voice, God save the Queen.
That thou art true, and teachest the way of God ] These all are high commendations and necessary qualifications of a teacher and instructor of others. These cony catchers tell the truth of Christ (for he was all this that they say of him and more), and yet they tell a lie, because they thought him not so, but spoke against their consciences. They thought, belike, to have tickled and taken our Saviour with their flatteries (as every wind will blow up a bubble), and so to have had what they would of him; but Christ was not for their turn. He was inadulabilis, unflatterable, and might better say than Politian did, Assentatiunculis quorundam, aut etiam obtrectationibus, non magis attollor aut deprimor, quam umbra mei corporis. I am no more lifted up, nor cast down with men’s flatteries or slanders than with the shadow of mine own body. For I think not myself either longer or shorter at morning or at noon, because my shadow is so.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Mat 22:16 . , as in Mar 12:13 ; there intelligible, here one wonders why the sent of Mk. should be senders of others instead of acting themselves. The explanation may be that the leading plotters felt themselves to be discredited with Jesus by their notorious attitude, and, therefore, used others more likely to succeed. More than fault-finding is now intended even to draw Jesus into a compromising utterance. ., disciples, apparently meant to be emphasised; i.e. , scholars , not masters; young men, presumably not incapable of appreciating Jesus, in whose case a friendly feeling towards Him was not incredible, as in the case of older members of the party. . , with Herodians , named here only in Mat., associated with Sadducees in Mar 8:15 ; why so called is a matter of conjecture, and the guesses are many: soldiers of Herod (Jerome); courtiers of Herod (Fritzsche, following Syr. ver.); Jews belonging to the northern tetrarchies governed by members of the Herod family (Lutteroth); favourers of the Roman dominion (Orig., De W., etc.); sympathisers with the desire for a national kingdom so far gratified or stimulated by the rule of the Herod family. The last the most probable, and adopted by many: Wetstein, Meyer, Weiss, Keil, Schanz, etc. The best clue to the spirit of the party is their association with the Pharisees here. It presumably means sympathy with the Pharisees in the matter at issue; i.e. , nationalism versus willing submission to a foreign yoke; only not religious or theocratic, as in case of Pharisees, but secular , as suited men of Sadducaic proclivities. The object aimed at implies such sympathy. To succeed the snare must be hidden. Had the two parties been on opposite sides Jesus would have been put on His guard. The name of this party probably originated in a kind of hero worship for Herod the Great. Vide on Mat 16:1 . , etc., the snare set with much astuteness, and well baited with flattery, the bait coming first. , teacher, an appropriate address from scholars in search of knowledge, or desiring the solution of a knotty question. , we know, everybody knows. Even Pharisees understood so far the character of Jesus, as here appears; for their disciples say what they have been instructed to say. Therefore their infamous theory of a league with Beelzebub (Mat 12:24 ) was a sin against light; i.e. , against the Holy Ghost. Pharisaic scholars might even feel a sentimental, half-sincere admiration for the character described, nature not yet dead in them as in their teachers. The points in the character specified are (1) sincerity ; (2) fidelity, as a religious teacher . . . ; (3) fearlessness , etc.; (4) no respecter of persons , etc. = will speak the truth to all and about all impartially. The compliment, besides being treacherous, was insulting, implying that Jesus was a reckless simpleton who would give Himself away, and a vain man who could be flattered. But, in reality, they sinned in ignorance. Such men could not understand the character of Jesus thoroughly: e.g. , His humility, His wisdom, and His superiority to partisan points of view.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
their = their own.
Herodians. It is uncertain whether this refers to Herod’s servants, officers, household, or to a political party. Probably = courtiers.
Masters = Teacher. App-98. Mat 22:1.
we know. Greek. oida. See App-132.
God. App-98.
neither carest = there is no (Greek. ou. App-105.) care with Thee.
for = about. Greek. peri = concerning.
regardest not = lookest not on. Greek. eis.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Mat 22:16. , disciples) With whom they thought that our Lord would deal less cautiously, and whose overthrow they thought would be attended with less disgrace to themselves.-, of the Herodians) who were especially attached to the party of Herod, and consequently to that of Csar, which the Pharisees viewed with aversion; see Josephus Antiq. xvii. 3; and see Mar 3:6; Mar 12:13. There might be, moreover, a variety of opinion amongst the Herodians themselves concerning holy things, Herod, etc.– , true-in truth) Truth should be known and spoken. Truth is the agreement of things with the faculties of knowing, willing, speaking, and acting.- , the way of God) A part of which way is the doctrine concerning what ought to be given to God. There is a striking antithesis here between , of God-and , of men.- , for Thou regardest not the person) They wished Jesus to deny that tribute ought to be given to Csar.[960] Truth truly estimates both things and persons; but he who regards persons easily betrays truth.
[960] Which tribute, either a short while before (comp. ch. Mat 17:24) or at that very time, namely in the month Nisam, was being paid according to custom.-Harm., p. 465.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
they sent: The profound malice of the Pharisees appears here in their choice of companions, their affected praise, and the artful and difficult questions they proposed.
the Herodians: Mat 16:11, Mat 16:12, Mar 3:6, Mar 8:15
Master: Mat 22:24, Mat 22:26, Mat 26:18, Mat 26:49, Mar 10:17, Luk 7:40
we know: Psa 5:9, Psa 12:2, Psa 55:21, Pro 29:5, Isa 59:13-15, Jer 9:3-5, Eze 33:30, Eze 33:31
true: Mal 2:6, Joh 7:18, Joh 14:6, Joh 18:37, 2Co 2:17, 2Co 4:2, 1Jo 5:20
neither: Deu 33:9, 1Ki 22:14, Job 32:21, Job 32:22, Mic 3:9-12, Mal 2:9, Mar 12:14, Luk 20:21, 2Co 5:16, Gal 1:10, Gal 2:6, 1Th 2:4, Jam 3:17
Reciprocal: Gen 37:19 – Behold Deu 1:17 – ye shall not 1Sa 2:29 – and honourest 2Sa 14:14 – neither 1Ki 8:36 – the good way 1Ki 22:16 – that thou tell 2Ki 3:14 – I would not look 2Ch 19:7 – respect of persons Pro 18:5 – not Jer 12:6 – though Eze 20:1 – that certain Mal 2:10 – why Mat 19:3 – tempting Mar 12:13 – they send Luk 19:48 – could Joh 3:2 – we know Joh 7:3 – Depart Joh 7:26 – he speaketh Joh 8:5 – but Act 4:1 – the Sadducees Act 10:34 – Of a Act 16:17 – the way Rom 2:11 – General 2Co 6:8 – true Phi 4:8 – are true 1Th 2:5 – used Jam 2:1 – with 1Pe 1:17 – who 2Pe 2:2 – ways
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2:16
Herodians is from the Greek word HERODIANOI. Thayer and Robinson define it the same, but the latter gives more information in his historical comments and I shall quote his definition and the comments as follows: “Herodians, partisans [those who take sides] of Herod Antipas, and therefore supporters of the Roman dominions in Palestine; which the Pharisees were not. It was consequently a political rather than a religious party; though it would seem to have embraced many Sadducees.” This information explains why the Pharisees sent the Herodians to Jesus. They had no particular love for those people, but as they (the Herodians) were in sympathy with the political interests of the Romans of whom Caesar was king, they would try harder to get Jesus to say something that would get him into trouble with the government. They made their approach with a series of compliments that were pure flattery as verse 18 shows.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man; for thou regardest not the person of men.
[With the Herodians.] Many things are conjectured concerning the Herodians. I make a judgment of them from that history which is produced by the author Juchasin, speaking of Hillel and Shammai. “Heretofore (saith he) Hillel and Menahem were (heads of the council); but Menahem withdrew into the family of Herod, together with eighty men bravely clad.” These, and such as these, I suppose were called Herodians; who partly got into the court, and partly were of the faction both of the father and son. With how great opposition of the generality of the Jewish people Herod ascended and kept the throne, we have observed before. There were some that obstinately resisted him; others that as much defended him: to these was deservedly given the title of Herodians; as endeavouring with all their might to settle the kingdom in his family: and they, it seems, were of the Sadducean faith and doctrine; and it is likely had leavened Herod, who was now tetrarch, with the same principles. For (as we noted before) ‘the leaven of the Sadducees’ in Matthew, is in Mark ‘the leaven of Herod.’ And it was craftily contrived on both sides that they might be a mutual establishment to one another, they to his kingdom, and he to their doctrine. When I read of Manaem or Menahem, the foster-brother of Herod the tetrarch, it readily brings to my mind the name and story before mentioned of Menahem, who carried over with him so many eminent persons to the court of Herod.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 22:16. Their disciples with the Herodians. A political party supporting the Roman rule. These two classes were antagonistic, yet they united in opposition to Christ. Luke (Luk 20:20) as more detailed in his account, calling the deputation spies of the rulers. This part was probably assigned to their disciples, as young and unknown persons, who were accompanied by the Herodians. The dispute about tribute, however natural between these two classes, was made for the occasion.
Master, we know, etc. This was true, but not truth fully spoken. The devil never lies so foully as when he speaks the truth.
Teachest the way of God, i.e., the true doctrine, in truth. This was certainly hypocritical, for both the Pharisees and Herod condemned this Teacher of the truth.
And carest not for any one. His independence and sincerity had just been demonstrated, but their acknowledgment of these peculiarities was to tempt Him: as if one party would say, You do not care for the Roman authorities; the other, You do not care for the authority of the Pharisees and Jewish rulers.
Thou regardest not the person of men. Comp. Lev 19:15; Jud 1:16; Deu 16:19; 2Sa 14:14; Act 10:34; Jas 2:1; Jas 2:3; Jas 2:9; 1Pe 1:17.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 16
Herodians; the partisans of Herod.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
22:16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the {g} Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God {h} in truth, neither carest thou for any [man]: for thou regardest not the {i} person of men.
(g) Those who with Herod made a new religion, composed of both heathen and Jewish religion.
(h) Truly and sincerely.
(i) You are not moved with any appearance and outward show.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The unholy alliance introduced its question with a flattering preamble. The leaders credited Jesus with being a teacher or rabbi. Moreover they said they believed He spoke the truth and taught God’s will truthfully. If Jesus failed to reply to their question after such an introduction, He would appear to be trying to hide something, perhaps because of pressure He felt. His integrity would be open to question.
Their question was theological since all such issues involved God’s will in Israel. They wanted to know how Jesus felt about their Roman overlords. Paying the poll or head tax was a kind of litmus test of one’s feelings toward Rome, as one’s attitude toward paying taxes has indicated one’s attitude toward government throughout history. This was a particularly volatile issue in Israel since it was a theocracy. The poll tax was not objectionable because it was large. Really it was quite small. However it was almost universal, covering women between the ages of 12 and 65 and men between 14 and 65. "Caesar," the family name of Julius Caesar, had become a title for Roman rulers by this time. The Roman emperor then was Tiberius. The accusers phrased their question to elicit a yes or no answer from Jesus. They thought that either answer would embroil Him in controversy.
"The poll tax had been among the taxes imposed on Judea following the imposition of direct Roman rule in A.D. 6, not long before, and had been fiercely resented by patriotic Jews, resulting in a serious revolt led by Judas (Josephus, War 2.117-18; Ant. 18.4-10). That revolt was the inspiration for the later Zealot movement which led to the war of independence beginning in A.D. 66 and so to the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of its temple in A.D. 70." [Note: Ibid., p. 829.]