Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 22:35
Then one of them, [which was] a lawyer, asked [him] a [question,] tempting him, and saying,
35. one of them, which was a lawyer] i. e. an interpreter of the written law, as distinguished from the “traditions” or unwritten law.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 35. A lawyer] , a teacher of the law. What is called lawyer, in the common translation, conveys a wrong idea to most readers: my old MS. renders the word in the same way I have done. These teachers of the law were the same as the scribes, or what Dr. Wotton calls letter-men, whom he supposes to be the same as the Karaites, a sect of the Jews who rejected all the traditions of the elders, and admitted nothing but the written word. See Wotton’s Mishna, vol. i. p. 78. These are allowed to have kept more closely to the spiritual meaning of the law and prophets than the Pharisees did; and hence the question proposed by the lawyer, (Mark, Mr 12:28, calls him one of the scribes,) or Karaite, was of a more spiritual or refined nature than any of the preceding.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Then one of them, which was a lawyer,…. Or that was “learned”, or “skilful in the law”, as the Syriac and Persic versions, and Munster’s Hebrew Gospel read. The Ethiopic version calls him, “a Scribe of the city”, of the city of Jerusalem; but I do not meet with any such particular officer, or any such office peculiar to a single man any where: mention is made of “the Scribes of the people” in Mt 2:4 and this man was one of them, one that interpreted the law to the people, either in the schools, or in the synagogues, or both; and Mark expressly calls him a “Scribe”: and so the Arabic version renders the word here; and from hence it may be concluded that the lawyers and Scribes were the same sort of persons. This man was by sect a Pharisee, and by his office a Scribe; or interpreter of the law, and suitable to his office and character,
asked him a question, tempting him, and saying: he put a difficult and knotty question to him, and thereby making a trial of his knowledge and understanding of the law; and laying a snare for him, to entrap him if he could, and expose him to the people, as a very ignorant man: and delivered it in the following form.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(35) A lawyer.The precise distinction between the lawyer and the other scribes rested, probably, on technicalities that have left little or no trace behind them. The word suggests the thought of a section of the scribes who confined their attention to the Law, while the others included in their studies the writings of the Prophets also. In Luk. 7:30; Luk. 11:45, they appear as distinct from the Pharisees. The question asked by the lawyer here and in Luk. 10:25 falls in with this view. So it would seem, in Tit. 3:13, that Zenas the lawyer was sent for to settle the strivings about the Law that prevailed in Crete.
Tempting him.There does not appear to have been in this instance any hostile purpose in the mind of the questioner; nor does the word necessarily imply it. (Comp. Joh. 6:6; 2Co. 13:5, where it is used in the sense of trying, examining.) It would seem, indeed, as if our Lords refutation of the Sadducees had drawn out a certain measure of sympathy and reverence from those whose minds were not hardened in hypocrisy. They came now to test His teaching on other points. What answer would He give to the much-debated question of the schools, as to which was the great commandment of the Law? Would He fix on circumcision, or the Sabbath, or tithes, or sacrifice, as that which held the place of pre-eminence? The fact that they thus, as it were, examined Him as if they were His judges, showed an utterly imperfect recognition of His claims as a Prophet and as the Christ; but the lawyer who appeared as their representative was, at least, honest in his purpose, and not far from the kingdom of God (Mar. 12:34).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
35. One of them Who seems to have been of their party, and knew too their plots and plans. He will try Jesus with a profound question, and fairly see what is his depth. A lawyer One who was professedly well read in the law of Moses.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And one of them, a teacher of the law, asked him a question, testing him out.’
This time there would be no pretence that the question came from innocent seekers. Rather they wanted to bring out their big guns against Him, and they approached Him through ‘a teacher of the Law’ (nomikos), with a question which was a much debated, and one on which there were many views.
The word for ‘teacher of the Law’ is nomikos (thus ‘law expert’), only found here in Matthew, but more often in Luke where it generally has in mind the Scribes. Matthew may have used it because the regular tradition of the church incorporated it into this story (but then it would be in contrast with Mark). Or more likely it was because a ‘nomikos’ was a higher grade of Scribe, a leading expert. If that is so the distinction would have been important here to Matthew’s Jewish Christian readers. Perhaps a top lawyer of high experience was selected so that once Jesus gave His answer, possibly citing one of the ten commandments, he could engage in controversy with Him on the matter, exposing His viewpoint as wrong, and hopefully entangling Him and showing Him up.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 22:35. Thena lawyer asked, &c. A scribe, or public teacher. See Luk 11:44. Tempting or trying him, here, does not mean that he did this with an insidious design; and indeed St. Mark’s account, Mar 12:28 forbids such an interpretation; but he proposed the question with a view to make a farther trial of our Lord’s skill in the sacred volume. Some of the doctors declared, that the law of sacrifices was the great commandment, because sacrifices, say they, are both the expiations of sin, and thanksgivings for mercies. Others bestowed this honour on the law of circumcision, because it was the sign of the covenant established between God and the nation. A third part yielded to the law of the sabbath, because by that appointment both the knowledge and the practice of the institutions of Moses were preserved; and, to name no more, there were some who affirmed the law of meats and washings to be of the greatest importance, because thereby the people of God were effectually separated from the company and conversation of the heathens. But Jesus, with infinitely better reason,decidedinfavourof the beauties of piety and holiness; mentioning particularly that comprehensive summary of both found in Deu 6:4-5 which was one of the sentences written on their phylacteries, and Lev 19:18. See Lightfoot’s Hor. Heb. on Mar 12:28.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 22:35 . ] the only instance in Matt.; it is met with in none of the other Gospels except that of Luke. It occurs, besides, in Tit 3:13 . The word is used to signify one who is conversant with the law , (Photius), Plut. Sull. 36; Strabo, xii. p. 539; Diog. L. vi. 54; Epictet. i. 13; Anthol. xi. 382. 19. It is impossible to show that there is any essential difference of meaning between this word and (see note on Mat 2:4 ); comp. on the contrary, Luk 11:52-53 .
The term is more specific ( jurisconsultus ), and more strictly Greek; , on the other hand, is more general ( literatus ), and more Hebrew in its character ( ). The latter is also of more frequent occurrence in the Apocr.; while the former is met with only in 4Ma 5:3 . In their character of teachers they are designated , Luk 5:17 ; Act 5:37 ; 1Ti 1:7 .
] different from Mar 12:28 ff., and indicating that the question was dictated by a malicious intention (Augustine, Grotius). The ensnaring character of the question was to be found in the circumstance that, if Jesus had specified any particular of a great commandment (see on Mat 22:36 ), His reply would have been made use of, in accordance with the casuistical hair-splitting of the schools, for the purpose of assailing or defaming Him on theological grounds. He specifies, however, those two commandments themselves, in which all the others are essentially included, thereby giving His answer indirectly, as though He had said: supreme love to God, and sincerest love of our neighbour, constitute the about which thou inquirest. This love must form the principle, spirit, life of all that we do.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question , tempting him, and saying,
Ver. 35. Then one of them which was a lawyer ] Pareus gathereth out of Mark, Mar 12:28 , that this lawyer was one of them that had applauded Christ for his conquest over the Sadducees in the last conflict, Luk 20:39 , and that for a penance he was enjoined by his fellow Pharisees to undertake this following disputation with Christ: Ad liberandum igitur se uspicione, partes disputandi adversus eum nunc ibi imponi a collegio patitur.
Tempting him, and saying ] Saint Peter saith, “They found no guile in his mouth,” which implies that they sought it, 1Pe 2:22 . There are those who hear us merely to catch, cavil, and quarrel.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
35. ] These were Mosaic jurists, whose special province was the interpretation of the Law. is a wider term, including them.
] see above.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 22:35 . one of the men who met together to consult, after witnessing the discomfiture of the scribes, acting in concert with them, and hoping to do better. : here only in Mt., several times in Lk. for the scribe class = a man well up in the law.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
35. ] These were Mosaic jurists, whose special province was the interpretation of the Law. is a wider term, including them.
] see above.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 22:35. , one of them) This man is less blamed by our Lord; wherefore he seems to have been led on by others.-, a lawyer) How great soever he was, and proud of that abundance of knowledge which he was now about to exhibit.- = , a scribe, in Luk 11:45; Luk 11:44; Luk 11:53; and , a doctor of the law, in Luk 5:17; Luk 5:21.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
lawyer
(Greek – ,” “of the law”; occurs also Luk 7:30; Luk 10:25; Luk 11:45; Luk 11:46; Luk 11:52; Luk 14:3; Tit 3:13. Except in the last instance, “lawyer” is another name for “scribe.”
(See Scofield “Mat 2:4”). In Tit 3:13 the term has the modern meaning.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
a lawyer: Luk 7:30, Luk 10:25-37, Luk 11:45, Luk 11:46, Luk 11:52, Luk 14:3, Tit 3:13
tempting: Mat 22:18, Mar 10:2
Reciprocal: Psa 36:3 – The words Psa 62:4 – consult Jer 42:20 – For ye Mat 16:1 – tempting Mat 19:3 – tempting Mar 8:11 – Pharisees Luk 11:54 – seeking
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2:35
Thayer defines the original for lawyer as follows: “One learned in the law, .in the New Testament an interpreter and teacher of the Mosaic law.” Because of his profession this man could pretend to be interested in the law, and hence his approach to Jesus would have an outward appearance of being an honest one. However, the inspired writer says his purpose in asking the question was to tempt Jesus.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 22:35. Then one of them, a lawyer, an expounder of the law, one of the scribes (Mark). Luk 10:25-37 refers to another though similar occurrence.
Tempting him. The statements of Mark (Mar 12:28) and Luke (Luk 20:39), do not indicate any specially hostile purpose on the part of this lawyer. Such a purpose seems to be out of keeping with the hearty response of the scribe and our Lords commendatory words to him (Mar 12:32-44). We infer that this man, an intelligent Pharisee, a student of the law, was pleased with our Lords previous interpretation. But though personally better than his party, he was, perhaps unconsciously, their tool, in putting the tempting question. The great difficulty is, in discovering how it could be a tempting question. Explanations: (1.) Matthew classes it with the attacks, because it was put at that time, not because it was a temptation. This is contrary both to the Evangelists words, and to his habits as a writer. (2.) The lawyer only desired, by this test, to have his favorable impressions confirmed. But the previous answer had fully sustained the law. (3.) The temptation lay in the distinction of the great and small commandments (see Mat 22:36). As this was a disputed point, any answer would place our Lord in opposition to some party. This makes the attack very weak. (4.) The question was designed to draw forth in response, the first commandment: Thou shalt have no other Gods before me, so that this might be used against His claim to be the Son of God. This design was defeated by His adding the second table of the law (Mat 22:39) as like the first: As the second commandment is subordinate to the first, and yet like unto it, so the Son of man is subordinate to the Father, and yet like unto Him (Lange). This explanation is most satisfactory. The answer thus prepares the way for His triumphant counter-question (Mat 22:42-45). The seemingly innocent question becomes the greatest temptation. They expected by His answer, either to disprove His Messiahship, or to find in His own words a basis for the charge of blasphemy in making Himself the Son of God. This charge they did bring forward in the council (chap. Mat 26:63-66), and before Pilate (Joh 19:7), and it was probably in their thoughts when they put this question a few days before.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
22:35 Then {o} one of them, [which was] a lawyer, asked [him a question], tempting him, and saying,
(o) A scribe, so it says in Mr 12:28 . To understand what a scribe is, see Geneva “Mat 2:4”
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The NASB describes the Pharisees’ spokesman as a lawyer. The Greek word nomikos means "expert in the law" (NIV). He would have been a teacher of the Old Testament who was particularly learned in both theology and law. He subjected Jesus to a test (Gr. peirazon) to prove His quality.
He, too, addressed Jesus with hypocritical respect as "teacher," though as the discussions with Jesus progressed this day His opponents’ respect for Him undoubtedly increased. The Pharisee asked Jesus another controversial question to which various Scripture experts gave various answers.
"The scene is like an ordination council where the candidate is doing so well that some of the most learned ministers ask him questions they themselves have been unable to answer-in the hope of tripping him up or of finding answers." [Note: Ibid., p. 464.]
The rabbis documented 613 commandments in the Mosaic Law, 248 positive and 365 negative. Since no one could possibly keep them all, they divided them into "heavy" (more important) and "light" (less important). The Pharisees taught that the Jews needed to give attention to all the laws but particularly the "heavy" ones. This Pharisee was asking which of the "heavy" ones Jesus considered the "heaviest."