Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 22:15

Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in [his] talk.

15 22. The Temptation of the Herodians. The Tribute Money

Mar 12:13-17; Luk 20:20-25.

15. how they might entangle him ] Literally, ensnare, as a fowler ensnares birds. The Greek word is used here only in N.T.

All the previous attempts had been to discredit Jesus as a religious teacher; the present is an attempt to expose Him to the hostility of the Roman government. Will He follow Judas the Gaulonite, in disowning all human authority? or will He acquiesce in the Roman rule? In the one case He would incur the condemnation of Pilate, in the other the scorn of His Galilan followers.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

The Pharisees and Herodians endeavor to entangle Jesus – This narrative is also found in Mar 12:12-17; Luk 20:20-26.

Mat 22:15

Then went the Pharisees – See the notes at Mat 3:7.

How they might entangle him – To entangle means to ensnare, as birds are taken by a net. This is done secretly, by leading them within the compass of the net and then suddenly springing it over them. So to entangle is artfully to lay a plan for enticing; to beguile by proposing a question, and by leading, if possible, to an incautious answer. This was what the Pharisees and Herodians endeavored to do in regard to Jesus.

In his talk – The word his is supplied by the translators, perhaps improperly. It means in conversations, or by talking with him; not alluding to anything that he had before said.

Mat 22:16

The Herodians – It is not certainly known who these were.

It is probable that they took their name from Herod the Great. Perhaps they were first a political party, and were then distinguished for holding some of the special opinions of Herod. Dr. Prideaux thinks that those opinions referred to two things. The first respected subjection to a foreign power. The law of Moses was, that a stranger should not be set over the Jews as a king, Deu 17:15. Herod, who had received the kingdom of Judea by appointment of the Romans, maintained that the law of Moses referred only to a voluntary choice of a king, and did not refer to a necessary submission where they had been overpowered by force. His followers supposed, therefore, that it was lawful in such cases to pay tribute to a foreign prince. This opinion was, however, extensively unpopular among the Jews, and particularly the Pharisees, who looked upon it as a violation of their law, and regarded all the acts growing out of it as oppressive. Hence, the difficulty of the question proposed by them. Whatever way he decided, they supposed he would be involved in difficulty. If he should say it was not lawful, the Herodians were ready to accuse him as being an enemy of Caesar; if he said it was lawful, the Pharisees were ready to accuse him to the people of holding an opinion extremely unpopular among them, and as being an enemy of their rights. The other opinion of Herod, which they seem to have followed, was, that when a people were subjugated by a foreign force, it was right to adopt the rites and customs of their religion. This was what was meant by the leaven of Herod, Mar 8:15. The Herodians and Sadducees seem on most questions to have been united. Compare Mat 16:6; Mar 8:15.

We know that thou art true – A hypocritical compliment, not believed by them, but artfully said, as compliments often are, to conceal their true design. Neither carest thou for any man. That is, thou art an independent teacher, delivering your sentiments without regard to the fear or favor of man. This was true, and probably they believed this. Whatever else they might believe about him, they had no reason to doubt that he delivered his sentiments openly and freely.

For thou regardest not the person of men – Thou art not partial. Thou wilt decide according to truth, and not from any bias toward either party. To regard the person, or to respect the person, is in the Bible uniformly used to denote partiality, or being influenced in a decision, not by truth, but by previous attachment to a person, or to one of the parties by friendship, or bias, or prejudice, Lev 19:15; Jud 1:16; Deu 16:19; 2Sa 14:14; Act 10:34; Jam 2:1, Jam 2:3,Jam 2:9; 1Pe 1:17.

Mat 22:17

Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar? – Tribute was the tax paid to the Roman government.

Caesar – The Roman emperor.

The name Caesar, after the time of Julius Caesar, became common to all the emperors, as Pharaoh was the common name of all the kings of Egypt. The Caesar who reigned at this time was Tiberius – a man distinguished for the grossest vices and most disgusting and debasing sensuality.

Mat 22:18

Jesus perceived their wickedness – This must have been done by his power of searching the heart, and proves that he was omniscient.

No more man has the power of discerning the motives of others.

Tempt ye me – Try me, or endeavor to lead me into difficulty by an insidious question.

Hypocrites – Dissemblers. Professing to be candid inquirers, when their only object was to lead into difficulty. See the notes at Mat 6:2.

Mat 22:19

The tribute-money – The money in which the tribute was paid.

This was a Roman coin. The tribute for the temple service was paid in the Jewish shekel; that for the Roman government in foreign coin. Their having that coin about them, and using it, was proof that they themselves held it lawful to pay the tribute; and their pretensions, therefore, were mere hypocrisy.

A penny – A Roman denarius, worth about 14 cents =7d (circa 1880s).

Mat 22:20

This image – The likeness of the reigning prance was usually struck on the coins.

Superscription – The name and titles of the emperor.

Mat 22:21

Render, therefore, to Caesar … – Caesars image and name on the coin proved that it was his.

It was proper, therefore, to give it back to him when he called for it. But while this was done, Jesus took occasion to charge them, also, to give to God what he claimed. This may mean either,

1. The annual tribute due to the temple service, implying that paying tribute to Caesar did not free them from the obligation to do that; or,
2. That they should give their hearts, lives, property, and influence all to God, as his due.

Mat 22:22

They marveled – They had been foiled in their attempt.

Though he had apparently decided in favor of the Herodians, yet his answer confounded both parties, and wholly prevented the use which they intended to make of it. It was so wise; it so clearly detected their wickedness and foiled their aim, that they were confounded, and retired covered with shame.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Mat 22:15-22

Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

The duty of an entire surrender to God

I. What those things are which we should render unto God.

1. Our time. Especially youth; and particularly the Sabbath.

2. Our substance.

3. Our children.

4. Our hearts.

5. Our whole selves.

6. The blessed fruits, and all the glory of His own grace, should: by the Christian, be rendered back to God.

II. How this is to be performed. That it may be an acceptable service we must do it-

1. If hitherto neglected, without delay.

2. Freely, and without reluctance.

3. Thankfully, and without murmuring.

4. Humbly, and without ostentation.

5. Wholly, and without reserve.

6. For perpetuity, and without drawback.

7. In the whole of this, we should have an eye to Christ. He is the medium of all communication from God, and conveyance to Him. (B. Beddome, M. A.)

Twenty-third Sunday after Trinity

This narrative-

I. In reference to what is in man.

1. Here was a profession of great piety and holiness, conjoined with very inexcusable hatred. The Pharisees were the most pretentious religionists of the day; this no proof of genuine piety. They could not refute Christ, but hated Him.

2. We observe here also a very base design. They took counsel how they might entangle Him in His talk.

3. We observe here a very iniquitous co-partnership. The Pharisees and Herodians were radical enemies.

4. We observe here also a glib, obsequious, but treacherous and lying flattery: Master, we know that Thou art true. Their design was to throw Him off His guard.

5. Observe the devilish cunning of the plot. Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, etc. They professed honest doubt in order to fasten Him on the horns of a dilemma.

II. With reference to what was in Christ.

1. We are here shown that Christ was a very dignified man. He was poor; but imposing majesty went along with His humble simplicity.

2. We are here shown that our Saviour had the reputation of a truthful man.

3. He was also a man of acknowledged intelligence.

4. He was, moreover, a man of honest faithfulness. But the subsequent parts of the narrative attest still higher qualities in our blessed Lord.

(1) With all the dissimulation of these men Jesus saw through the mask, and all their secret thoughts were open to Him. He perceived their nakedness.

(2) He found an easy way out of the net from which human trickery believed it impossible for Him to escape. (J. A. Seiss, D. D.)

God and Caesar

I. The gospel ought to penetrate everything. Human life in its most widely sundered spheres must submit to its action. That being said, I affirm-

II. That religious and civil society are profoundly distinct. This will appear if we consider-

1. The nature of the dominion they exercise. The dominion of the State is that of the present life, and of purely temporal interests. It must guarantee to each citizen the free enjoyment of his rights and liberties. Its supreme ideal is justice. On this side it meets morals. There is a social morality which should not be considered as doing violence to the individual conscience, but which may claim submission from all, and sacrifice, if necessary. They are mistaken, therefore, who make of civil society a mere community of interests. It knows, and can form, the citizen; it ought not to have possession of the man. It must stop at the threshold of religious conscience.

2. Nor is it only by the sphere in which their authority is to be felt that the Church and the State differ; it is still more by the nature of the means which they employ. The arm of the State is force; the arm of the Church is the Word (2Co 10:4).

3. Differing thus, the Church and civil society should in their inevitable relations conserve, each for itself, their independence with zealous care. This independence may be compromised in two ways: by the theocracy which submits the State to the Church, and by the opposite systems, which submit the Church to the State. In the eyes of many representatives of modern democracy, a religious society should be considered as any other society would be. It is to be governed by the rule of the majority of its members. But Christianity is a revealed fact, and does not depend on the chances of majorities. The Church should not be associated with any political party; it suffers in such alliance. An analogy will illustrate my thought: Every modern nation has two fundamental institutions-the army and the school. Now, that is no wise head which does not understand that neither the one nor the other of these should be open to discussion concerning politics. An army in which the generals became judges would surrender the nation to all sorts of dangers and assaults; schools, in which masters introduced the burning questions which divide us, would become a thorough raid on the liberty of families. In demanding that our soldiers and professors shall not intermingle political debates with their duties, no one understands that they are required to abdicate their independence, their patriotism, and their dignity as citizens. Need I say that the Church is a sphere infinitely superior to the school and the army, and that it is folly to allow party passions and hatreds to penetrate it? The Church places us face to face with eternity; she does not look at questions from the standpoint of the day or the hour, but rules over time and our passing differences. The mere earthly life becomes enslaving-and when has it been more so than to-day?-the more necessary it is that, from above it, we should affirm the grand invisible realities which do not pass away. The absolute, which is only another aspect of the eternal-that is the thing which the Church should proclaim. She must see questions in their relation to God. The domain of politics, on the contrary, is relative, and often even less than that. Politics takes men as they are, and circumstances as they are. I do not ask that religion should remain silent before the immoralities of politics; quite the contrary. I wish that, in order to denounce them with the greater force, she should not descend into the political arena; for, if she is suspected of speaking, not in the name of conscience, but in the name of party, she becomes nothing more than one voice more amid the discordant clamours of the day. Let us take a celebrated example, to which it behoves us always to recur. There is not one of us who has not admired the conduct of John the Baptist at Herods court, and the firm courage with which he said to the blameworthy king, It is not lawful for thee to have her. But let John the Baptist, in place of being the prophet of conscience, become a popular judge, and all his authority crumbles: for, behind his denunciation, you discern a political end and the triumph of a party.. Well, then, I cannot cease saying to those whose honour and privilege it is to represent the Church, Never compromise it in struggles to which it should remain a stranger. Its grandeur and its force are in being the voice of eternal right, and of justice toward all. (E. Bersier, D. D.)

Money morally stamped

The destination of money. How might a man moralize over a large heap of gold pieces, before they go forth from the mint to have their purity soiled by the rough usage of human hands. How many of you, he might say, are going to be the currency of selfishness, to be coined over by the chill spirit of avarice, and to have the symbol which the mint has left upon you effaced by the figure of Mammon, and the miserly mottoes that will be graved upon you when you become the instruments and objects of selfish greed? Some of them, the prophetic eye might see, were going to be spent for intemperate indulgence, to be offered on the altar of Bacchus, and so morally to be recoined with his reeling figure bloated upon it, and that awful text from his gospel, Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die. Others, it might be seen, were on their way to the hot prizes of the gaming-table, the innermost sanctuary of the pit, where feverish eyes should be fastened upon them, and desperate hearts stake their last treasure for them, and where they seem almost visibly to gleam with the fiery portrait of Satan, his chosen medallions, that burn every hand unlucky enough to win. Others go to purchase learning and culture, and the recorded thoughts of genius, and upon them the image and superscription of Apollo and Minerva are outlined. Some, again, will wear the forms of the Graces or the Muses, inlaid into their substance by the human tastes that make them serve as ministers. If the eye could foresee what ones would go on missions of mercy, would strengthen the interests of truth, would put wings on good ideas, would endow beneficent institutions with new power, would carry sympathy and help to the bed of some poor sufferer, kindle a fire upon the desolate hearth, spread a meal upon the table of destitution, clothe a pallid and shivering child, or give it some training of mind or heart-those, a man might say, are the Christian coins. It should seem that they ought to gleam more brightly among the heaps where they lie. The form of Christ is really stamped upon that silver and gold, and His superscription, It is more blessed to give than to receive, enwreathes His image with immortal truth. Those are the dollars that look precious in the sight of heaven. The touch of benevolence transmutes them into eternal possessions. Who would not wish to own them? Who, when the hour of death comes, would not prefer to have spent such coin? What pleasure or profit would then look so bright, or give such comfort as the retrospect of these golden benefactors of the world! (T. Start King.)

The conscience exempt from civil rule

When certain persons attempted to persuade Stephen, King of Poland, to constrain some of his subjects, who were of a different religion, to embrace his, he said to them, I am king of men, and not of consciences. The dominion of conscience belongs exclusively to God.

The citizens twofold stewardship

Christ is not here defining two duties which stand in contrast or antithesis to each other. He is defining one duty, in its just relation to another and a higher duty out of which it grows. Recall the occasion of His words. Some one has brought to Him a penny, and asks Him whether it is lawful for a Jew to pay tribute to a Roman ruler. Says Christ in effect, My brother, the penny itself has settled that question. It has, stamped upon it, an image or medallion which is Caesars likeness. It is current here because this is Caesars country; and you use it, whether you choose to own the fact or no, because you are Caesars subject. Give Caesar, therefore, his due. Pay your taxes, obey the laws, honour the civil authorities; but that you may do so, begin by paying your taxes to God. The penny bears an image; so do you. The penny is from the mint of the emperor; you are from the mint of God. The use of the penny is determined by its likeness. So, too, your use is determined by your likeness. Every faculty in you, every gift, every grace and charm and power which is most characteristic and distinctive, is the stamp of the Divine. You are Gods child. You bear His image. Render to Him your supreme and unceasing tribute; and in doing that, all other and minor questions will settle themselves. Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, do I say? Yes. But render them because, and in the inspiration, of that higher duty which bids you render unto God the things that are Gods! (Bishop H. C. Potter.)

The coinage of love and service for God and man

With many of us the stewardship of money is not our chiefest stewardship: of such a coinage we have little or nothing to put in circulation. Still, though we may not be able to circulate the currency that buys and sells, it is ours to circulate the far mightier currency that cheers and inspires and consoles. The world to-day is waiting for something besides money. It is waiting for love and thought and personal interest and painstaking. Whether, therefore, you are a capitalist or a clerk, a student or a teacher, a professional man or a woman living in the retirement of your kindred and home, take your slumbering sympathy (I will not believe that God has not implanted it within you!) and coin that into love and service for your kind. On your brow rests the stamp of Him whose coinage and currency you are. There are lost pieces of silver, aye and of gold, which also bear His image. They have long ago been missing from the Fathers treasury, and are trampled under foot of man and beast alike. But, if you can find them in the mire, if you will wash them with your tears, and burnish them back to brightness and beauty by your patient and loving touch, you will find on them the image of Him who made them, and the superscription of His immortal kingdom. Light the candle of your love, then, and sweep diligently till you find them. Think of some one, to-day, whose life is lonely, whose youth is gone, whose lot is hard and cheerless and unlovely, and try to lift them up, at least for the hour, into the atmosphere of a warmer and more beneficent brotherhood. (Bishop H. C. Potter.)

The claims of God and man

I. Notice the claims of Caesar, or civil governments. The just claims of civil governments are limited to civil exactions, in opposition to religious or sacred claims. Civil governments rightly demand-

1. Homage and subjection (Rom 13:1, etc.; 1Pe 2:13, etc.).

2. Obedience, and tribute, or taxes. Christ did this (Mat 17:27; Tit 3:1).

3. Thanksgiving and prayer to God on their behalf (1Ti 2:17, etc.). There are the claims of Caesar and civil governments. But civil governments may demand more than their rights; if they do so, they will be either in matters civil or ecclesiastical; if they levy unjust civil exactions, then, as citizens, they may be peacefully, yet firmly, resisted. This has been repeatedly done. By the three Hebrews, Daniel, Peter, and the apostles (Act 4:18).

II. The claims of God. We are to render to God-

1. Religious belief and homage.

2. Religious awe and fear. Fear before Him all the earth (Psa 96:4; Psa 96:9).

3. Praise and thanksgiving.

4. Our highest love and delight.

5. Universal obedience.

Learn-

1. That the Christian religion is favourable to order and obedience, but it limits the authority of the State to civil concerns.

2. It distinctly exhibits true liberty of conscience. Should not this be dear and sacred to every good man, especially when sanctioned by the spirit of our text? (J. Burns, LL. D.)

Our duties as subjects

I. That they should honourably and fully pay all taxes which are imposed upon them. The advantages of civil government are cosily, and means must be provided by the individuals of the nation. We must not defraud the government, or a neighbour, who will have to make good our default.

II. That Christians should acquiesce in that form of government under which they live, whatever be its character and origin. A nation has the right to secure its independence of a foreign nation; a nation has the right to amend its institutions; but the duty alleged is that of individuals. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. This is Gods will. But if human government has its rights, God has His rights. As human governments depend on the authority of God, they must be subordinate to it. His rights are supreme, and the rights of the human government terminate where the rights of God begin. The contrast in the things which are Caesars.

1. It is the right of God to demand our worship.

2. General obedience to His laws.

3. That we should maintain that truth which He has revealed, by which He is glorified, and the world is to be blessed. How small a portion all this is of what we owe to God. Admire this feature of the law of Christ, which secures the order of states. Let us he good subjects. (B. W. Noel, M. A.)

Caesars dues

I. We owe them honour inward, by a reverent conceit.

II. And outward, by an honourable testimony of the virtues in them, and the good we receive by them. And sure I am this we owe, Not to speak evil of them that are in authority, and if there were some infirmity, not to blaze, but to conceal and cover it, for that the Apostle maketh a part of honour (1Co 12:28).

III. We owe them our prayers, and daily devout remembrances; for all, saith St. Paul, but, by special prerogative, for princes.

IV. We owe them the service of our bodies, which if we refuse to come in person to do, the angel of the Lord will curse us, as he did Meroz (Jdg 5:23). (Bishop Andrewes.)

Rights of Caesar and rights of God

I. Some particular rights and privileges belong to Caesars, or sovereign princes:

1. Honour to their persons.

2. Obedience to their laws.

3. Tribute.

II. Some peculiar rights and prerogatives belong to God only.

1. All religious worship.

2. Due reverence and regard to all sacred things, such as

(a) ministers;

(b) Gods house;

(c)the Lords Day;

(d) Tenth part of our substance.

III. The duty of all Christians with reference to both, and that is, to render the respective rights and dues to each. (Matthew Hole.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 15. In his talk.] , by discourse: intending to ask him subtle and ensnaring questions; his answers to which might involve him either with the Roman government, or with the great Sanhedrin.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Mark saith, Mar 12:13, They send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words. Luke saith, Luk 20:20, They watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor. His life was what they sought for. This they had no power allowed by the Romans to take away without the sentence of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor. That they might have something to accuse him of before him, which he might condemn him for, they first take counsel. They saw he did nothing worthy of death; they therefore issue their counsels in a resolution to send some persons to discourse with him, under the pretence of conscientious, good men, to propound some questions to him, his answer to which might give them some opportunity to accuse him of blasphemy or sedition. The men they pitch upon were some of them Pharisees, some Herodians.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

Then went the Pharisees,…. After they had heard the parables of the two sons being bid to go into the vineyard, of the vineyard let out to husbandmen, and of the marriage feast; for it is clear from hence, that these stayed and heard the last of these parables, in all which they saw themselves designed; and though they were irritated and provoked to the last degree, they were obliged to hide their resentments, nor durst they use any violence for fear of the people; wherefore they retired to some convenient place, to the council chamber, or to the palace of the high priest, or where the chief priests were gone, who seem to have departed some time before them:

and took counsel; among themselves, and of others, their superiors; not how they should behave more agreeably for the future, and escape due punishment and wrath to the uttermost, which the King of kings would justly inflict on them, very plainly signified in the above parables; but

how they might entangle him in his talk, or “take hold of his words”, as in Luke; or “catch him in his words”, as in Mark: they consulted to draw him into a conversation, on a dangerous and ensnaring subject; when they hoped a word might drop unwarily from him, which they might catch at, lay hold on, and improve to his disadvantage; either with the common people, or the government, and especially the latter; as is to be learned from Luke, who expressly says their end was,

that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor; the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, should he say any thing against Caesar, which they endeavoured to ensnare him into; by which means, they doubted not of setting the populace against him, and of screening themselves from their resentments; and of gaining their main point, the delivery of him up into the hands of the civil government, who, for treason and sedition, would put him to death.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

The Question Respecting Tribute.

      15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.   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.   17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?   18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?   19 show me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.   20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?   21 They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.   22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

      It was not the least grievous of the sufferings of Christ, that he endured the contradiction of sinners against himself, and had snares laid for him by those that sought how to take him off with some pretence. In these verses, we have him attacked by the Pharisees and Herodians with a question about paying tribute to Csar. Observe,

      I. What the design was, which they proposed to themselves; They took counsel to entangle him in his talk. Hitherto, his encounters had been mostly with the chief priests and the elders, men in authority, who trusted more to their power than to their policy, and examined him concerning his commission (ch. xxi. 23); but now he is set upon from another quarter; the Pharisees will try whether they can deal with him by their learning in the law, and in casuistical divinity, and they have a tentamen novum–a new trial for him. Note, It is in vain for the best and wisest of men to think that, by their ingenuity, or interest, or industry, or even by their innocence and integrity, they can escape the hatred and ill will of bad men, or screen themselves from the strife of tongues. See how unwearied the enemies of Christ and his kingdom are in their opposition!

      1. They took counsel. It was foretold concerning him, that the rulers would take counsel against him (Ps. ii. 2); and so persecuted they the prophets. Come, and let us devise devices against Jeremiah. See Jer 18:18; Jer 20:10. Note, The more there is of contrivance and consultation about sin, the worse it is. There is a particular woe to them that devise iniquity, Mic. ii. 1. The more there is of the wicked wit in the contrivance of a sin, the more there is of the wicked will in the commission of it.

      2. That which they aimed at was to entangle him in his talk. They saw him free and bold in speaking his mind, and hoped by that, if they could bring him to some nice and tender point, to get an advantage against him. It has been the old practice of Satan’s agents and emissaries, to make a man an offender for a word, a word misplaced, or mistaken, or misunderstood; a word, though innocently designed, yet perverted by strained inuendos: thus they lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate (Isa. xxix. 21), and represent the greatest teachers as the greatest troublers of Israel: thus the wicked plotteth against the just,Psa 37:12; Psa 37:13.

      There are two ways by which the enemies of Christ might be revenged on him, and be rid of him; either by law or by force. By law they could not do it, unless they could make him obnoxious to the civil government; for it was not lawful for them to put any man to death (John xviii. 31); and the Roman powers were not apt to concern themselves about questions of words, and names, and their law, Acts xviii. 15. By force they could not do it, unless they could make him obnoxious to the people, who were always the hands, whoever were the heads, in such acts of violence, which they call the beating of the rebels; but the people took Christ for a Prophet, and therefore his enemies could not raise the mob against him. Now (as the old serpent was from the beginning more subtle than any beast of the field), the design was, to bring him into such a dilemma, that he must make himself liable to the displeasure either of the Jewish multitude, or of the Roman magistrates; let him take which side of the question he will, he shall run himself into a premunire; and so they will gain their point, and make his own tongue to fall upon him.

      II. The question which they put to him pursuant to this design, Mat 22:16; Mat 22:17. Having devised this iniquity in secret, in a close cabal, behind the curtain, when they went abroad without loss of time they practised it. Observe,

      1. The persons they employed; they did not go themselves, lest the design should be suspected and Christ should stand the more upon his guard; but they sent their disciples, who would look less like tempters, and more like learners. Note, Wicked men will never want wicked instruments to be employed in carrying on their wicked counsels. Pharisees have their disciples at their beck, who will go any errand for them, and say as they say; and they have this in their eyes, when they are so industrious to make proselytes.

      With them they sent the Herodians, a party among the Jews, who were for a cheerful and entire subjection to the Roman emperor, and to Herod his deputy; and who made it their business to reconcile people to that government, and pressed all to pay their tribute. Some think that they were the collectors of the land tax, as the publicans were of the customs, and that they went with the Pharisees to Christ, with this blind upon their plot, that while the Herodians demanded the tax, and the Pharisees denied it, they were both willing to refer it to Christ, as a proper Judge to decide the quarrel. Herod being obliged, by the charter of the sovereignty, to take care of the tribute, these Herodians, by assisting him in that, helped to endear him to his great friends at Rome. The Pharisees, on the other hand, were zealous for the liberty of the Jews, and did what they could to make them impatient of the Roman yoke. Now, if he should countenance the paying of tribute, the Pharisees would incense the people against him; if he should discountenance or disallow it, the Herodians would incense the government against him. Note, It is common for those that oppose one another, to continue in an opposition to Christ and his kingdom. Samson’s foxes looked several ways, but met in one firebrand. See Psa 83:3; Psa 83:5; Psa 83:7; Psa 83:8. If they are unanimous in opposing, should not we be so in maintaining, the interests of the gospel?

      2. The preface, with which they were plausibly to introduce the question; it was highly complimentary to our Saviour (v. 16); Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth. Note, It is a common thing for the most spiteful projects to be covered with the most specious pretences. Had they come to Christ with the most serious enquiry, and the most sincere intention, they could not have expressed themselves better. Here is hatred covered with deceit, and a wicked heart with burning lips (Prov. xxvi. 23); as Judas, who kissed, and betrayed, as Joab, who kissed, and killed.

      Now, (1.) What they said of Christ was right, and whether they knew it or no, blessed be God, we know it.

      [1.] That Jesus Christ was a faithful Teacher; Thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth. For himself, he is true, the Amen, the faithful Witness; he is the Truth itself. As for his doctrine, the matter of his teaching was the way of God, the way that God requires us to walk in, the way of duty, that leads to happiness; that is the way of God. The manner of it was in truth; he showed people the right way, the way in which they should go. He was a skilful Teacher, and knew the way of God; and a faithful Teacher, that would be sure to let us know it. See Prov. viii. 6-9. This is the character of a good teacher, to preach the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and not to suppress, pervert, or stretch, any truth, for favour or affection, hatred or good will, either out of a desire to please, or a fear to offend, any man.

      [2.] That he was a bold Reprover. In preaching, he cared not for any; he valued no man’s frowns or smiles, he did not court, he did not dread, either the great or the many, for he regarded not the person of man. In his evangelical judgment, he did not know faces; that Lion of the tribe of Judah, turned not away for any (Prov. xxx. 30), turned not a step from the truth, nor from his work, for fear of the most formidable. He reproved with equity (Isa. xi. 4), and never with partiality.

      (2.) Though what they said was true for the matter of it, yet there was nothing but flattery and treachery in the intention of it. They called him Master, when they were contriving to treat him as the worst of malefactors; they pretended respect for him, when they intended mischief against him; and they affronted his wisdom as Man, much more his omniscience as God, of which he had so often given undeniable proofs, when they imagined that they could impose upon him with these pretences, and that he could not see through them. It is the grossest atheism, that is the greatest folly in the world, to think to put a cheat upon Christ, who searches the heart, Rev. ii. 23. Those that mock God do but deceive themselves. Gal. vi. 7.

      3. The proposal of the case; What thinkest thou? As if they had said, “Many men are of many minds in this matter; it is a case which relates to practice, and occurs daily; let us have thy thought freely in the matter, Is it lawful to give tribute to Csar or not?” This implies a further question; Has Csar a right to demand it? The nation of the Jews was lately, about a hundred years before this, conquered by the Roman sword, and so, as other nations, made subject to the Roman yoke, and became a province of the empire; accordingly, toll, tribute, and custom, were demanded from them, and sometimes poll-money. By this it appeared that the sceptre was departed from Judah (Gen. xlix. 10); and therefore, if they had understood the signs of the times, they must have concluded that Shiloh was come, and either that this was he, or they must find out another more likely to be so.

      Now the question was, Whether it was lawful to pay these taxes voluntarily, or, Whether they should not insist upon the ancient liberty of their nation, and rather suffer themselves to be distrained upon? The ground of the doubt was, that they were Abraham’s seed, and should not by consent be in bondage to any man, John viii. 33. God had given them a law, that they should not set a stranger over them. Did not that imply, that they were not to yield any willing subjection to any prince, state, or potentate, that was not of their own nation and religion? This was an old mistake, arising from that pride and thathaughty spirit which bring destruction and a fall. Jeremiah, in his time, though he spoke in God’s name, could not possibly beat them off it, nor persuade them to submit to the king of Babylon; and their obstinacy in that matter was then their ruin (Jer 27:12; Jer 27:13): and now again they stumbled at the same stone; and it was the very thing which, in a few years after, brought final destruction upon them by the Romans. They quite mistook the sense both of the precept and of the privilege, and, under colour of God’s word, contended with his providence, when they should have kissed the rod, and accepted the punishment of their iniquity.

      However, by this question they hoped to entangle Christ, and, which way soever he resolved it, to expose him to the fury either of the jealous Jews, or of the jealous Romans; they were ready to triumph, as Pharaoh did over Israel, that the wilderness had shut him in, and his doctrine would be concluded either injurious to the rights of the church, or hurtful to kings and provinces.

      III. The breaking of this snare by the wisdom of the Lord Jesus.

      1. He discovered it (v. 18); He perceived their wickedness; for, surely in vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird, Prov. i. 17. A temptation perceived is half conquered, for our greatest danger lies from snakes under the green grass; and he said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Note, Whatever vizard the hypocrite puts on, our Lord Jesus sees through it; he perceives all the wickedness that is in the hearts of pretenders, and can easily convict them of it, and set it in order before them. He cannot be imposed upon, as we often are, by flatteries and fair pretences. He that searches the heart can call hypocrites by their own name, as Ahijah did the wife of Jeroboam (1 Kings xiv. 6), Why feignest thou thyself to be another? Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Note, Hypocrites tempt Jesus Christ; they try his knowledge, whether he can discover them through their disguises; they try his holiness and truth, whether he will allow of them in this church; but if they that of old tempted Christ, when he was but darkly revealed, were destroyed of serpents, of how much sorer punishment shall they be thought worthy who tempt him now in the midst of gospel light and love! Those that presume to tempt Christ will certainly find him too hard for them, and that he is of more piercing eyes than not to see, and more pure eyes than not to hate, the disguised wickedness of hypocrites, that dig deep to hide their counsel from him.

      2. He evaded it; his convicting them of hypocrisy might have served for an answer (such captious malicious questions deserve a reproof, not a reply): but our Lord Jesus gave a full answer to their question, and introduced it by an argument sufficient to support it, so as to lay down a rule for his church in this matter, and yet to avoid giving offence, and to break the snare.

      (1.) He forced them, ere they were aware, to confess Csar’s authority over them, Mat 22:19; Mat 22:20. In dealing with those that are captious, it is good to give our reasons, and, if possible, reasons of confessed cogency, before we give our resolutions. Thus the evidence of truth may silence gainsayers by surprise, while they only stood upon their guard against the truth itself, not against the reason of it; Show me the tribute-money. He had none of his own to convince them by; it should seem, he had not so much as one piece of money about him, for for our sakes he emptied himself, and became poor; he despised the wealth of this world, and thereby taught us not to over-value it; silver and gold he had none; why then should we covet to load ourselves with the thick clay? The Romans demanded their tribute in their own money, which was current among the Jews at that time: that therefore is called the tribute-money; he does not name what piece but the tribute money, to show that he did not mind things of that nature, nor concern himself about them; his heart was upon better things, the kingdom of God and the riches and righteousness thereof, and ours should be so too. They presently brought him a penny, a Roman penny in silver, in value about sevenpence half-penny of our money, the most common piece then in use: it was stamped with the emperor’s image and superscription, which was the warrant of the public faith for the value of the pieces so stamped; a method agreed on by most nations, for the more easy circulation of money with satisfaction. The coining of money has always been looked upon as a branch of the prerogative, a flower of the crown, a royalty belonging to the sovereign powers; and the admitting of that as the good and lawful money of a country is an implicit submission to those powers, and an owning of them in money matters. How happy is our constitution, and how happy we, who live in a nation where, though the image and superscription be the sovereign’s, the property is the subject’s, under the protection of the laws, and what we have we can call our own!

      Christ asked them, Whose image is this? They owned it to be Csar’s, and thereby convicted those of falsehood who said, We were never in bondage to any; and confirmed what afterward they said, We have no king but Csar. It is a rule in the Jewish Talmud, that “he is the king of the country whose coin is current in the country.” Some think that the superscription upon this coin was a memorandum of the conquest of Judea by the Romans, anno post captam Judam–the year after that event; and that they admitted that too.

      (2.) From thence he inferred the lawfulness of paying tribute to Csar (v. 21); Render therefore to Csar the things that are Csar’s; not, “Give it him” (as they expressed it, v. 17), but, “Render it; Return,” or “Restore it; if Csar fill the purses, let Csar command them. It is too late now to dispute paying tribute to Csar; for you are become a province of the empire, and, when once a relation is admitted, the duty of it must be performed. Render to all their due, and particularly tribute to whom tribute is due.” Now by this answer,

      [1.] No offence was given. It was much to the honour of Christ and his doctrine, that he did not interpose as a Judge or a Divider in matters of this nature, but left them as he found them, for his kingdom is not of this world; and in this he hath given an example to his ministers, who deal in sacred things, not to meddle with disputes about things secular, not to wade far into controversies relating to them, but to leave that to those whose proper business it is. Ministers that would mind their business, and please their master, must not entangle themselves in the affairs of this life: they forfeit the guidance of God’s Spirit, and the convoy of his providence when they thus to out of their way. Christ discusses not the emperor’s title, but enjoins a peaceable subjection to the powers that be. The government therefore had no reason to take offence at his determination, but to thank him, for it would strengthen Csar’s interest with the people, who held him for a Prophet; and yet such was the impudence of his prosecutors, that, though he had expressly charged them to render to Csar the things that are Csar’s, they laid the direct contrary in his indictment, that he forbade to give tribute to Csar, Luke xxiii. 2. As to the people, the Pharisees could not accuse him to them, because they themselves had, before they were aware, yielded the premises, and then it was too late to evade the conclusion. Note, Though truth seeks not a fraudulent concealment, yet it sometimes needs a prudent management, to prevent the offence which may be taken at it.

      [2.] His adversaries were reproved. First, Some of them would have had him make it unlawful to give tribute to Csar, that they might have a pretence to save their money. Thus many excuse themselves from that which they must do, by arguing whether they may do it or no. Secondly, They all withheld from God his dues, and are reproved for that: while they were vainly contending about their civil liberties, they had lost the life and power of religion, and needed to be put in mind of their duty to God, with that to Csar.

      [3.] His disciples were instructed, and standing rules left to the church.

      First, That the Christian religion is no enemy to civil government, but a friend to it. Christ’s kingdom doth not clash or interfere with the kingdoms of the earth, in any thing that pertains to their jurisdiction. By Christ kings reign.

      Secondly, It is the duty of subjects to render to magistrates that which, according to the laws of their country, is their due. The higher powers, being entrusted with the public welfare, the protection of the subject, and the conservation of the peace, are entitled, in consideration thereof, to a just proportion of the public wealth, and the revenue of the nation. For this cause pay we tribute, because they attend continually to this very thing (Rom. xiii. 6); and it is doubtless a greater sin to cheat the government than to cheat a private person. Though it is the constitution that determines what is Csar’s, yet, when that is determined, Christ bids us render it to him; my coat is my coat, by the law of man; but he is a thief, by the law of God, that takes it from me.

      Thirdly, When we render to Csar the things that are Csar’s, we must remember withal to render to God the things that are God’s. If our purses be Csar’s, our consciences are God’s; he hath said, My son, give me thy heart: he must have the innermost and uppermost place there; we must render to God that which is his due, out of our time and out of our estates; from them he must have his share as well as Csar his; and if Csar’s commands interfere with God’s we must obey God rather than men.

      Lastly, Observe how they were nonplussed by this answer; they marvelled, and left him, and went their way, v. 22. They admired his sagacity in discovering and evading a snare which they thought so craftily laid. Christ is, and will be, the Wonder, not only of his beloved friends, but of his baffled enemies. One would think they should have marvelled and followed him, marvelled and submitted to him; no, they marvelled and left him. Note, There are many in whose eyes Christ is marvellous, and yet not precious. They admire his wisdom, but will not be guided by it, his power, but will not submit to it. They went their way, as persons ashamed, and made an inglorious retreat. The stratagem being defeated, they quitted the field. Note, There is nothing got by contending with Christ.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Went (). So-called deponent passive and redundant use of the verb as in 9:13: “Go and learn.”

Took counsel ( ). Like the Latin consilium capere as in 12:14.

Ensnare in his talk ( ). From , a snare or trap. Here only in the N.T. In the LXX (1Kgs 28:9; Eccl 9:12; Test. of Twelve Patriarchs, Joseph 7:1). Vivid picture of the effort to trip Jesus in his speech like a bird or wild beast.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Entangle [] . From pagiv, a trap or snare. Better, therefore, Rev., ensnare.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

Mat 22:15

. That they might entrap him in his words. The Pharisees, perceiving that all their other attempts against Christ had been fruitless, at length concluded that the best and most expeditious method of destroying him was, to deliver him to the governor, as a seditious person and a disturber of the peace. There was at that time, as we have seen under another passage, (59) a great disputing among the Jews about the tribute-money; for, since the Romans had claimed for themselves the tribute-money, which God commanded to be paid to Himself under the Law of Moses, (Exo 30:13,) the Jews everywhere complained that it was a shameful and intolerable crime for profane men to lay claim, in this manner, to a divine prerogative; besides that, as this payment of tribute, which was enjoined on them by the Law, was a testimony of their adoption, they looked upon themselves as deprived of an honor to which they had a just claim. Now the deeper any man’s poverty was, (60) the bolder did it render him to raise sedition.

This trick of taking Christ by surprise is therefore continued by the Pharisees, that, in whatever way he reply as to the tribute money, they may lay snares for him. If he affirm that they ought not to pay, he will be convicted of sedition. If, on the contrary, he acknowledge it to be justly due, he will be held to be an enemy of his nation, and a betrayer of the liberty of his country. Their principal object is, to lead the people to dislike him. This is the entrapping to which the Evangelists refer; for they suppose that Christ is surrounded on all sides by nets, so that he can no longer escape. Having avowed themselves to be his enemies, and knowing that they would, on that account, be suspected, they put forward — as Matthew states — some of their disciples. Luke, again, calls them spies, who pretended to be righteous men; that is, persons who deceitfully professed an honest and proper desire to learn: for the pretense of righteousness is not here used in a general sense, but is limited to the present occasion, because they would not have been received, had they not made a pretense of docility and of genuine zeal.

With the Herodians. They take along with them the Herodians, because they were more favorable to the Roman government, and therefore would be more disposed to raise an accusation. It is worthy of attention that, though those sects had fierce contentions with each other, so bitter was their hatred against Christ, that they conspired to destroy him. What the sect of the Herodions was, we have formerly explained (61) for, Herod being only half a Jew, or a spurious and corrupt professor of the Law, those who desired that the Law should be kept with exactness and in every part, condemned him and his impure worship; but he had his flatterers, who gave plausible excuses for his false doctrine. In addition to the other sects, therefore, there sprung up at that time a religion of the Court.

(59) Harmony, vol. 2, p. 368

(60) “ Selon qu’un chacun estoit plus poure, et n’avoit rien à perdre;” — “according as any man was poorer, and had nothing to lose.” Harmony, vol. 2.

(61) Harmony, vol 2, p. 282.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

CRITICAL NOTES

Mat. 22:15. Entangle.Ensnare (R.V.), as a fowler ensnares a bird. The Pharisees set a trap for Jesus.

Mat. 22:16. Their disciples.The old Pharisees who had challenged His authority keep in the background, that the sinister purpose of the question may not appear; but they are represented by some of their disciples, who, coming fresh upon the scene, and addressing Jesus in terms of respect and appreciation, may readily pass for guileless inquirers (Gibson). With the Herodians.Whose divergence of view on the point made it all the more natural that they should join with Pharisees in asking the question; for it might fairly be considered that they had been disputing with one another in regard to it, and had concluded to submit the question to His decision, as to one who would be sure to know the truth and fearless to tell it (ibid.). The party thus described are known to us only through the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark; and their precise relation to the other sects or schools among the Jews are consequently matters of conjecture. The Herodians were known, first to the Romans, and then to the people, as adherents of the house of the Herods. In what sense they were adherents, and why they now joined with the Pharisees is less clear; and two distinct theories have been maintained:

1. That, as it was the general policy of all the princes of the Herodian family to court the favour of Rome, their partisans were those who held that it was lawful to give tribute to 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 (Plumptre). We know that Thou art true.Nothing could exceed the insidious hypocrisy of this attack on Jesus. His enemies approach Him as a teacher whom they trust (Carr).

Mat. 22:17. Tribute.The word rendered tribute () is properly the Roman word census. It denoted, as used by the Jews, the annual poll-tax which was levied on the people, for the treasury of the Roman emperor. The publicans collected it, and were obliged to transmit to the Roman treasury as much as accorded with the official census of the population. Hence the designation of the tax (Morison).

Mat. 22:19. A penny.A denarius bearing probably the image of Tiberius. The Jewish coins were not impressed with the effigy of their kings. Herod Philip, alone of his family, out of flattery to the emperor, had caused his coins to be stamped with the likeness of Csar (Carr).

Mat. 22:20. Superscription.Or inscription. Sir John Cheke renders the word onwriting.

Mat. 22:21. Render, therefore, unto Csar, etc.One of the wisest, deepest, and yet simplest maxims ever uttered in human language (Morison). The Jewish doctors laid down the principle that He is king whose coin passes current (Carr).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Mat. 22:15-22

A political snare.The direct attacks of the Jewish rulers on the authority of Jesus having only succeeded in shaking their own (Mat. 21:46), they next betake themselves to indirect modes of assault. The Pharisees are the first to try their hands in this line. They have seen how ready He is in instructing, how prompt in replying, how faithful in rebuking. They will turn these qualities to His ruin. They will entangle Him in His talk (Mat. 22:15). Most subtle and promising was the scheme of attack. Most simple and triumphant the plan of defence.

I. The scheme of attack.The general idea of this was that of putting the Saviour into a position from which, with His known antecedents and recent utterances, it would be impossible for Him to escape. Two opposite powers were then in existenceCsar on the one side and the multitude on the otherboth feared by them much. Here was one claiming to be a third power still. They would embroil Him with one of these two. The special question by which they hoped to do this was well adapted (seemingly) for this purpose. It was so, first, in its purport. What thinkest Thou? Is it lawful to give tribute to Csar or not? (Mat. 22:17). Only two answers seem possible to this question. If He says Yes, He will outrage the multitude. If He says No, He will have the Romans upon Him. This seems the more sure, also, because of the persons chosen to propound this question. The Pharisees on this occasion are not by themselves. They have some of the Herodians also with them. This would greatly emphasise, of course, the difficulty of the question. Whichever side He took there were some present who would denounce Him at once. Finally, being such as He wassuch as He was known to be by all who knew Him at allHe could not take the third course of avoiding this question without absolute ruin. Master, we know that Thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, and carest not for any one; for Thou regardest not the person of men. How was He to be silent when challenged to speak on grounds such as these? That would be worse even than embroiling Him with one side or the other; for it would utterly degrade Him with both. Altogether, therefore, the question seemed to involve a snare from which there was no way of escape.

II. The plan of defence.The first step was to expose the flattery involved in this question; to show that its treachery was seen through. Why tempt ye Me, ye hypocrites? From one point of view this question itself was a sufficient answer to theirs. You are not asking for information. You are asking only to tempt. To asking of that kind I am not bound to give a reply. No answer at all is sufficient answer to so dishonest an inquiry. Why should I part with anything whatever in exchange for such counterfeit coin? The next step was to expose the fallacy of the question propounded. Asking from His questioners (what they could not refuse) a specimen of the tribute money, they hand Him a Roman penny or denarius. Asking againwhat again they could not refuse to saywhose image and superscription it bears, they say unto Him, Csars. In that one fact lay the two-fold answer to the question they asked. For what was that fact but a token and evidence that God had allowed them to be under Csars yoke, and that they themselves also were practically acquiescing in it for the time? Obvious was the inference, therefore, on the one hand, that they ought to give to Csar what God had thus given to Csar for the time. And equally obvious the inference, on the other, that they ought to give to God whatever God had still reserved to Himself. Instead, in short, of there being any contradiction, as assumed by them, between these two things, both Gods appointment and their own behaviour proved that they ought to do both.

Here we learn, therefore, for ourselves:

1. A lesson in politics.Notwithstanding all the difficulties and differences and contentions which beset this subject, here is a rule about it in which all Christian folk may safely agree. To render unto Csar the things that are Csars is to render unto God the things that are Gods (cf. Rom. 13:1; Rom. 13:6-7). Remember also that the Saviour spake as He does here imperante Tiberio. St. Paul, also, not improbably, imperante Nerone.

2. A lesson in science.How forcibly the contrasted examples and experience of Christ and the Pharisees in this case illustrate His own words in Mat. 6:22-23. Truth of all kinds only comes to the true. No sinister motives can help us to know. No amount of ingenuity, no depth of subtlety can help the lover of darkness to discover the light.

3. A lesson in trust.How truly the Lord Jesus was all that these men said of Him here! (Mat. 22:16). How much more He proved Himself to be by His answer to them! How fitted, therefore, in every way to be a Leader and Guide! Who can be trusted more to know what is truth? Who can be trusted more to impart it in turn?

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES.

Mat. 22:15-21. Christs victory over cunning.

I. They take counsel.He is thoroughly armed.

II. They would entangle Him.He seeks to deliver them out of their own snare.

III. They praise Him in order to His destruction.He rebukes them for their awakening and salvation.J. P. Lange, D.D.

Mat. 22:16. Christ true.This is the testimony, not of friends, but of enemies; they are the words of the Pharisees and the Herodians. But even the enemies of Christ are bound to give this testimony. Whatever the theoretical beliefs or moral characters of men may be they are bound to say, We know Thou art true.

I. Philosophically.

1. In all Thou sayest about God. Thou hast revealed Him as a Person, a Spirit, a Father, and the sole Author of the universe; and our reason binds us to accept all this.

2. In all Thou sayest about the universe. Thou hast taught us that it had a beginning, that it originated with one Being who is eternal, etc.

3. In all Thou hast said concerning man.

II. Ethically.

1. In all that Thou hast said concerning our duty to God.

2. Concerning our duty to others.

III. Personally.We look at Thy life and it illustrates and confirms the doctrine Thy lips declare. Thou art the true, the beautiful, and the good.Homilist.

Mat. 22:21. Public opinion and God.

1. The only Csar which we have to fear nowadays is called public opinionthe huge, anonymous idol which we ourselves help to make, and then tremble before the creation of our own cowardice; whereas, if we will but face him, in the fear of God and the faith of Christ, determined to say the thing which is true, and do the thing which is right, we shall find the modern Csar but a phantom of our own imaginationa tyrant, indeed, as long as he is feared, but a coward as soon as he is defied. To that Csar let us never bow the knee. Render to him all that he deservesthe homage of common courtesy, common respectability, common charitynot in reverence for his wisdom and strength, but in pity for his ignorance and weakness. But render always to God the things which are Gods.

II. There are three sacrifices which every man, woman, and child can offer, and should offer, however lowly, however uneducated in what the world calls education nowadays.

1. The sacrifice of repentance.Of which it is written: The sacrifice of God is a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise.

2. The sacrifice of thankfulness.Of which it is written: I will offer to Thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the Lord.

3. The sacrifice of righteousness.Of which it is written: Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.C. Kingsley, M.A.

Politics for Christians.

I. The duties which we owe, as citizens, to God.It is due to God:

1. That the claims of His everlasting kingdom should stand first in all our plans and efforts.
2. That a sense of our accountability to Him should control us in regard to our civil duties.
3. That we should practically acknowledge the supremacy of His Word as the rule of right.

II. The duties which, as citizens, we owe to the state.Every citizen is bound:

1. To perform his part in the support and direction of the government under which he lives.
2. To cultivate friendly feelings towards all his fellow-citizens.
3. To render a peaceful submission to the exercise of lawful authority.H. J. Van Dyke, D.D.

Duties to our earthly and our heavenly King.

I. The wisdom of this answer, as a reply to the question proposed.

II. The importance of it, as a precept for general observance.

1. The extent of Gods requirements.
2. The harmony of them. Recommend to all:
(1) Integrity in the discharge of your duty to man.
(2) Spirituality in the discharge of your duty to God.C. Simeon, M.A.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

SECTION 58
JESUS ANSWERS CAPTIOUS QUESTIONS
A. QUESTION OF TRIBUTE TO CAESAR

(Parallels: Mar. 12:13-22; Luk. 20:20-26)

TEXT: 22:1522

15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might ensnare him in his talk. 16 And they sent to him their disciples, with the Herodians, saying, Teacher, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, and carest not for any one: for thou regardest not the person of men. 17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not? 18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why make ye trial of me, ye hypocrites? 19 Show me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a denarius. 20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21 They say unto him, Caesars. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesars; and unto God the things that are Gods. 22 And when they heard it, they marvelled, and left him, and went away.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

In the splendid compliments the Pharisees disciples gave Jesus, are they telling the truth? Is there any statement in their estimate of His ministry and personal life that is false? If you think their words are their honest evaluation of our Lord, how do you account for Jesus unhesitatingly negative reaction to them? Do you think it possible to hide hatred and malice in such apparently generous praise? If so, how does this work?

b.

Do you think that Jewish nationalism versus Roman domination was the only motive behind the Jews question to tribute to Caesar, even if it were the one most obvious? To what extent would covetousness and greed be involved? Do you think the Jews wanted to keep their tribute money only for political reasons, and not also for personal use?

c.

Do you think that the Old Testament Law covered the problem these Pharisees present Jesus here? If so, what texts lead you to this conclusion?

d.

How was Jesus request to be shown a denarius an integral part of His answer to their challenging question? What did their possession of (or easy access to) a denarius have to do with their own politically compromised position that in turn validated the truth of His final answer?

e.

How did Jesus principle not only answer their questions but actually defuse the explosive political implications of their dilemma?

f.

What is the difference between their formulation of the question and Jesus answer? They said, Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar? He answered, Pay Caesar what is Caesars. Or do you see any difference between what each said? If so, what is it?

g.

Since the Pharisees are normally a religious sect, why should they here resort to political questions, when they could have brought up religious ones? Do you think they felt themselves at a disadvantage in the religious field trying to combat with Jesus? What possible advantage could they hope for in a political approach such as this?

h.

What do you see was particularly effective about the method Jesus used in this story? Instead of answering their question directly, He requested a denarius. In what way did He render His own answer so far more memorable to His original listeners by doing this? What may we learn from His way of handling this situation?

i.

What criteria would you list that help us to distinguish what is Gods from what is Caesars?

j.

To what extent is Jesus answer binding on Christian consciences today? What must a Christian do when his own government is bad, i.e. follows anti-Christian policies by creating laws that violate the Christian conscience? Should we then continue to render Caesar what Caesar claims? What Biblical teachings are specifically given to cover this particular case?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

Then the Pharisees went out and plotted together how to trap Jesus in the course of conversation. So they kept Him under surveillance and sent their secret agents to Him, some of them disciples of the Pharisees themselves and some of them supporters of Herods party. These pretended to be men devoted to righteousness. They hoped to lead Him to say something that might be useful to them so they could deliver Him up to the jurisdiction and authority of the Roman governor.
So they approached Him and asked, Rabbi, we are convinced that you are a man of integrity, and that you speak and teach Gods way sincerely and correctly. You are not afraid of anyone and you show no partiality for anyone. You honestly and truly teach what God wants men to know. So, give us your ruling on the following question: according to Gods Law is it right to give taxes or tribute to the Roman Emperor or not? Should we do it or not? Yes or no?
Jesus, however, aware of their malice, detected their hidden motives and challenged them, Why do you hypocrites set this trap for me? Hand me a denariusthe money for the tax. Let me look at it!
When they handed Him a denarius, Jesus quizzed them, Whose image and inscription are on this coin?
Caesars was their answer.
Thats fine, the Lord went on, So pay Caesar what belongs to him and pay God what belongs to Him!
So they were unable to trap Him in any of His public utterances. Rather, when they heard His reply, they were taken by surprise. Disoriented by His answer, they held their tongues and simply left Him and retreated.

SUMMARY

Determined opposition attempted to trap Jesus by remote control, using their own disciples posing as sincere seekers after truth, a deliberately mixed group composed of political conservatives and liberals. They attempted to blind Him with flattery as a smokescreen for their politically explosive question, Should the control of Caesar over our lives be admitted by free men under God? He parried their thrust by showing how thoroughly they already accepted the Emperors influence, then brought balance to the question by specifying the proper sphere of influence rightly occupied by God and the State respectively.

NOTES
I. A QUESTION TO TRAP THE TEACHER (22:1517)

Mat. 22:15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might ensnare him in this talk. Bested at their own game of Embarrassing Questions, they beat a hasty retreat (Mar. 12:12) to seek advice from fellow Sanhedrinists on further strategy against the Galilean. Although Matthews account appears at first glance to blame only the Pharisees for the plotting that hatched the political attack, the Synoptists all agree that the chief priests (= Sadducees) are as surely involved as the Traditionalists (Mat. 21:45; Luk. 20:19 f.; cf. Mar. 11:27; Mar. 12:1; Mar. 12:12 f., where they seems always to refer to the chief priests, scribes and elders). Even though the Pharisees may have taken counsel among their own at first, as the sequel proves, it was essential that they bring together representatives of politically contrasting views in order to make their trap work.

That the Pharisees should have been so keenly involved in a politically oriented ambush makes sense, if it be remembered that they were not merely or only concerned with specifically religious matters (so far as they can ever be detached), but for the proper ordering of the whole of society (Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees, 21). Their hope of making holiness possible for all Israel would necessarily affect their understanding of the political football involved in the tribute questions they direct to Jesus. In fact, if Israel is to function as a holy people under God, must it not be free from foreign hindrance? In the popular mind this must exclude Romes domination. Therefore, the Pharisees popular, sympathetic contact with the people with whom they enjoyed extensive influence and from whom they received considerable support (cf. Ant. XVIII, 1, 3, 4; XIII, 10, 6), would appear to guarantee these sectaries power to punish Jesus unmercifully, if He made the politically suicidal choice of espousing the unpopular Roman tribute.

Mat. 22:16 And they send to him their disciples. Desperately struggling to recover the initiative, the ringleaders remained in the background. They ran in a team of understudies, perhaps hoping that Jesus would not recognize these younger men as their henchmen. Lukes word for these Pharisean henchmen is spies who pretended to be sincere that is, men paid to set up the ambush. Their cover consisted in their pretense to be sincere.

The second essential component in this ambush was the Herodians, supporters of the Roman puppet government of Herod Antipas. Because the Herods enjoyed their right to rule by the grace of Rome, the Herodians were essentially a pro-Roman political position. These would naturally favor the Roman tribute,

Some commentators see this combination of politicians as strange and ironic. This, because the Pharisees pretended high piety and endeavored to sidestep every contact with the ceremonial contamination of others, and because the Herodians were not at all concerned about keeping Gods holy law. The common virulent hatred for Jesus, felt by Herodians and Pharisees alike, had now reached such a white-hot intensity that they temporarily forgot their mutual enmities and formed this temporary unholy alliance to stop Him.

However, it is not at all ironic that Pharisees should have willingly set this political trap. It is a historical misjudgment to perceive of the Pharisees as being TOTALLY uninterested in political questions, because, earlier, they had defied widely held public opinion by not swearing their goodwill to Caesar and his government (Ant., XVII, 2, 4). And they suffered for it.

So, the Herodians belonged in this plot, because Jesus denunciations undeniably targeted their purely materialistic concerns too (Mat. 22:5; Mat. 21:38). Further, these supporters of Herodian political rule could see nothing but trouble in the Messianic royalty implied in Jesus triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He had seriously disturbed the status quo whereby these fawning sycophants of Herodian rulers retained their position and influence. So, all the vested interests in the nation stand to lose, if the Galilean Prophet is not stopped and soon! This seemingly unlikely alliance is perfectly explicable in terms of sheer political expediency and dovetails neatly with the secret, devious ways the Pharisees and Herodians had shown in cooperating earlier (Mar. 3:6) and against which Jesus warned (Mar. 8:15). Both recognized that in this situation He could harm them worse than either of them could harm the other. Their only unity here is their common hatred and fear of the rabbi from Nazareth.

Teacher, we know that thou art true. Because they were about to place Jesus in the position of judge, it was important to affirm the judges personal character as qualification for that function. Because teachers in Israel knew Gods Law best, they naturally qualified as judges over all questions that concerned Israels duty either personal or collective. Thou teachest the way of God in truth. Although among other nations this would not be a judges qualification, in Israel this was a prime consideration, because the Law of God was the supreme standard of judgment. He dare not teach his own dream or vision, but the way God prescribes for men in truth! Thou carest not for any one does not mean He is indifferent or unconcerned about others. Rather, they mean that a magistrate cannot take into consideration whether the person judged is wealthy or destitute, influential or a nobody. (Cf. 1Sa. 16:7; Lev. 19:15; Exo. 23:3; Exo. 23:6.) Nor may he fear personal consequences from the verdict he renders against one side or the other. Truth and impartiality must be his primary concern (Deu. 1:16-17; Deu. 10:17; Pro. 24:23 ff.). He must not care who is opposed to his final ruling, be it even the Emperor himself (Lev. 19:15; Deu. 16:18-20; Deu. 1:17; Mal. 2:9)! Thou regardest not the person of men. While a judge must take into consideration a mans character, he must not be influenced by his money, influence or position. (Study Act. 10:34; Gal. 2:6; Jas. 2:1-12; 1Pe. 1:17 where respecter of persons. means partial.) In short, this high praise intends to describe a great and godly teacher. They picture a rabbi of unassailable integrity and honesty, one who is immune to blackmail, the precise opposite of an opportunist.

This new strategy stands in contrast with the authorities earlier attack. There they had challenged His authority from their position of official dignity. Here they pretend to bow humbly to His authority, trusting His integrity. But this is escalation, not retreat, because few are the men who, while courageously and ably defending their position against all assailants, can withstand the subtler danger of warm praise. But these apparently earnest, courteous compliments were triply treacherous:

1.

The common people standing there listening, unaware of any sinister motive, could not have guessed that the apparently sincere people who make these positive public declarations of confidence in Jesus, would ever mean Him harm. This disarmed any popular resistance to the attack.

2.

They hoped to disarm Jesus Himself in the process. They calculated His hard, countable results to be few and far between (discounting, of course, the mob enthusiasm of the triumphal entry), so He NEEDED public recognition by someone like these friendly, potential disciples. So, if they could just say a few kind words that anyone in His shoes would be straining to hear, hopefully they would succeed in setting the fatal trap while He suspected nothing.

3.

By laying particular emphasis on Jesus courageous stand taken in the past without fear or favor against the rich and influential by His bold denunciations of their corruption and sins, these hit-men hope to push Jesus into taking the fatal dare to come out fearlessly either against Rome or against His own nation.

Mat. 22:17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? On the basis of His claim to speak Gods message, they freely expect Him to act in character as a typical rabbi accustomed to resolving difficult questions of conscience and duty. He could not now refuse their question without discrediting Himself as a Teacher.

When Matthew states that the questioners are Pharisees and Herodians, does he imply that this fact was revealed as part of their approach and question? Farrar (Life, 522) says yes: They evidently designed to raise the impression that a dispute had occurred between them and the Herodians, and that they desired to settle it by referring the decision of the question at issue to the final and higher authority of the Great Prophet. However, if their purpose was to keep their relative positions and interest in the question unknown to Him, so as to make their trap function better, these men probably presented themselves as strangers to Jesus. Matthew only informs his readers what he learned later about their true political colors.

In order to execute Jesus, His enemies must secure the consent of the local Roman authorities (Joh. 18:31). However, they yet have no legal basis to accuse Him, unless some compromising statement of His could enflame the Romans. The Jewish authorities are not averse to stoning Him themselves, even without prior authorization, were the conditions right (cf. Joh. 5:18; Joh. 7:1; Joh. 7:19; Joh. 7:25; Joh. 8:59; Joh. 10:31; Joh. 11:8). What prompts their hesitation here is His powerful public image and extraordinary popularity. The Jewish authorities must deflect from themselves all responsibility for His removal, so they could survive the furor that might erupt over His elimination.

Is it lawful? (xestin) asks: Is it permitted, possible or proper? (Arndt-Gingrich, 274), but the basis of judgment for Gods people is ever the Law and will of God. Because these mens preamble pretended interest in Jesus teaching the way of God truthfully, this question means: According to you, what does Gods Law require of us on this subject? They care not whether other peoples should pay it, but is it lawful for GODS PEOPLE to pay it? Is it lawful? in this context, intends to force Jesus into a three-way bind, because He may not answer according to some political expedient forged for a given period but which might conceivably be altered as conditions change. Not only must He avoid offending the Romans while satisfying the Jewish nationalists. He must answer to God, truth and righteousness.

The tribute to Caesar in question was a poll-tax to be paid to the imperial treasury, instituted in Judea when Archelaus, son of Herod the Great, was deposed in A.D. 6 (Ant. XVIII, 1, 1; Mat. 2:1; cf. Mat. 2:22). Because the tax was not one denarius, it was not excessive, being equivalent to one days work of a common day-laborer. Rather, it was galling because it was Roman, the tangible expression of foreign domination of Gods people. More than one Jew who paid this tribute was unsure of the basis on which supporting a pagan government could be defended. Several factors contributed to this confusion:

1.

In the Mosaic legislation God had not spelled out His will for His people when they became subjects of foreign powers, so no Old Testament text could be cited. True, various prophets had addressed themselves to specific situations, but what should Israel do in Jesus day? THAT was the issue. The whole debate revolved around the contradiction between ideal Israel (under God alone) and actual Israel (under Caesar too), or between what seemed to be prophesied for Israel and what Israel suffered under Rome at the time. Although Mosaic legislation had decreed that Israel must establish as king over them only men of Hebrew descent, the choice must be Gods appointment (Deu. 17:14 f.). Since the close of the Old Testament no genuine prophet had arisen to indicate the Lords choice and anoint His appointee (cf. 1Ma. 14:41; 1Ma. 4:46).

2.

Before Christs coming the Jewish people had been conquered various times by pagan peoples and had been forced to pay them tribute. Naturally, this subjugation bred its deeply-felt bitterness and fiercely proud resentment toward the occupying powers, be they Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek or Roman. As a result of these invariably heathen influences in the national life, there arose religious patriots at various intervals who fomented political revolution. They preached holy war against the pagans as Gods will. Engaging in terrorist activities, they sowed terror in the land. Their war-cry was No King but Jahv! No Law but the Torah! (Cf. Ant. XVIII, 1, 1, 6; Wars, II, 8, 1.)

3.

One of the great ironies of Jewish history especially in this context is that around 4 B.C. the Jews sent their best ambassadors to plead with Caesar to establish ROMAN government over them in decided preference to semi-Jewish Herodian rule! (Ant. XVII, 11, 12; and again in 6 A.D., Ant. XVII, 13, 12, 5; XVIII, 1, 1) And, if they had requested it, should they not also pay for it?

So, the Pharisees baited trap was a vexed question at the center of furious debate in Israel. (Cf. Judas the Galileans bloody revolt over this issue.) So, it is misguided to refer to this issue as a purely political question and not a religious issue, because in the ideal theocracy of Israel, what is political can very well be a highly religious issue too. The tragedy here is that the question is legitimate, but the questioners do not really care about His answer. They only intend to push Jesus to make a fatal commitment.

The trap is now set and the designated victim incited to walk into it. The instigators add further pressure by demanding a straightforward yes or no answer (Mar. 12:15). In their repeated question there is the urgency of spiritual anxiety: Shall we pay or not? to push Him into the deadly two-way trap of positive self-commitment either way,

1.

Should He opt for paying Roman taxes, the Pharisean contingent could shout to the four winds that the Galilean prophet had given the nod to paying the hated pagan tax. Thus He would be blackballed as impious toward God and unpatriotic, a traitor to Israel, the people of God. Any hope that He might be the great Messianic King must then be laughed off as absurd. He would instantly alienate many of His Galilean disciples and infuriate the Zealots whose violent nationalism would explode. These would perhaps destroy Him themselves, leaving the national leaders unscathed to run the country in relative calm.

2.

If He chose the popular, nationalistic position that tax-paying to the oppressor was tantamount to unfaithfulness to Godthe option they hoped He would choose (Luk. 20:20)the pro-Roman Herodian group could carry His pronouncement directly to the Roman governor, Pilate. The pragmatic Romans did not concern themselves with the religious questions of a subject people so long as that nation behaved itself and paid its taxes. (Cf. Act. 18:15 f.) But to declare in favor of non-payment of Roman tribute is an audacious declaration of independence, hence a treasonable offense against Rome. The Jewish leadership was so confident that this accusation would move Pilate that they falsely accused Jesus of declaiming against the tax (Luk. 23:1 f.). They well knew that Pilates policy of reckless tyranny had a low combustion point, especially toward dangerous subversives or those who might be suspected of being revolutionaries (cf. Luk. 13:1).

Their formulation of the dilemma is clear: either one must be a rebel against Rome and a true, Jewish patriot, or else a traitor to Israel and a Roman puppet. They were certain that there could be no acceptable third alternative. Their dilemma, however, is badly formed, because it wrongly assumes that one cannot have both Israel and Rome, both God and Caesar. Essentially, Jesus debating tactic will consist in nothing more complicated than disposing of their false dichotomy by showing that a reasonable third alternative exists which embraces the best parts of both extremes.

II. A COUNTER-TRAP (22:1820)

Mat. 22:18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness. Does wickedness here mean their motives, which only God can know, or their result, which anyone could perceive? That is, did He perceive their wickedness by omniscience or by normal godly insight? This latter is the more interesting choice for us, because it reveals that evil is self-defeating! Jesus perceived their wickedness, not only or merely by His power of supernatural insight to expose their clever plotting (cf. Act. 5:1-11), but because of the unintended truth spoken by these very hypocrites. He really was all that they said!

1.

Because He was a man of integrity, i.e. true. His genuine humility would instantly sense how sharply the grotesqueness and absurdity of their high-sounding compliments lavished on Him contrasted with His own view of Himself. The fact that they were; in His eyes, unqualified to judge Him even favorably, disqualified their praise and warned Him.

2.

Because He taught the way of God in truth, He breathed the same air as Jeremiah and John the Baptist and all the other great prophets whose clear vision of Israels uniqueness in the world always included appropriate disclaimers of any Jewish spiritual superiority and exclusive privilege. For all of these prophets, including the Nazarene, the timely use of evil foreign powers to chasten Israel and prepare her to accomplish her Messianic mission was not at all beyond Gods range of options (2Ch. 12:8; Habakkuk). From this perspective, Roman government, Roman taxes and Jewish submission are not the mutually exclusive options implied in the text question now before Jesus. His knowledge of Gods will expressed in Hebrew history saved Him.

3.

Because He really did not show partially to anyone or pay attention to a persons rank, He could actually look past their great show of respect and discern their need for correction. They ranked themselves among His would-be disciples, as sincere seekers after truth. But, unbeknown to them, Jesus did not even show partiality for His own followers! He could challenge their basic presuppositions with as much equanimity as that with which He battled those of His opponents. (Cf. Joh. 3:1-12; Mat. 15:12 f; Mat. 16:5-12; Mat. 16:21-23; Mat. 17:16-21; chapter 18; Mat. 19:10-15, Mat. 19:23 to Mat. 20:16, Mat. 20:20-28, etc.) So, His dispassionate impartiality saved Him.

His pure spirit recoiled from this fumbling appeal to His pride. He thirsted, not for the paltry praise of ignorant men, but for that approval that comes from GOD ALONE (Joh. 5:44).

Why make ye trial of me, ye hypocrites? In their question our Master could sense something more than the latent nationalism burning in the people who usually pondered this problem. These questioners, rather, exposed their lack of integrity by demanding that He commit Himself first on an obviously loaded and politically dangerous question that could not fail to call down wrath upon Him regardless of which option He selected. This is no free, academic discussion about the meaning of Gods Law. It is a frame-up pure and simple! So Jesus called their hand, shattering their carefully constructed illusion. You hypocrites is a just sentence, because there was no correlation between what they were thinking or planning and what they were saying publicly. So, by unmasking them instantly, He proved to the gullible bystanders that His enemies cleverness had not deceived Him. By suddenly attacking as hypocrites those whom the unsuspecting might judge to be friends and potential disciples, the Lord surprised everyone, causing them to give far more attention to the reasons behind this unexpected move. So doing, He demonstrated personally what it means to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves (Mat. 10:16).

Mat. 22:19 Show me the tribute money means: Bring me the legal coin with which the tax is paid. Mark adds: Let me look at it. There is a flicker of humor here, because, although the dilemma was already resolved by the coins common circulation in Palestine, Jesus called for the coin as if He must carefully ponder the question. The point is really that THEY TOO must look at it, because it contained irrefutable proof of His conclusion. To ask for the legal coin they knew meant, Bring me a denarius (Mar. 12:15; Luk. 20:24). Hendriksen (Matthew, 802) affirms that the denarius was minted specifically for this tax. While Jewish and even Greek coins might be used in everyday business, all knew that the Roman tribute must be paid with Roman money. But, by demanding Roman money, Jesus asked for a coin bearing the image and inscription of Caesar, and consequently, representing his authority. Thus, He cocked His counter-trap.

And they brought unto him a denarius, apparently having no trouble finding the right coin. Its commonness in the Palestine of Jesus day is well illustrated. (Cf. Mat. 18:28; Mat. 20:2; Mat. 20:9 f., Mat. 20:13; Mar. 6:37; Mar. 14:5; Luk. 7:41; Luk. 10:35; Joh. 6:7; Joh. 12:5.) The Jews relation to Caesar and his institutions, including the current monetary system, was not so tenuous and distant as they would believe after all. Rather, whether or not they were carrying in their own purses the very coin of the realm, the damning proof that they themselves had tacitly accepted the reality, if not also the benefits of Caesars rule, is that the coin was current in their country. The fact that they brought him a denarius need not be construed to mean that they necessarily had to go some distance (e.g. to the money-changers) to find and return with the requested coin, as if they would not have carried heathen money with him. After all, the Herodians are present, and they reek of paganism: this is why they are there! In fact, all attention is focused on what the Prophet would do with the coin, rather than on the fact that they were caught using Caesars money in Israel.

Mat. 22:20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? What an exciting piece of showmanship! His request for the coin already attracted everyones attention, but this question now raises their level of curiosity about how He would handle this tense situation. But what keen-witted diplomacy! He began by asking them to identify the coins image and inscription. His approach was neither due to ignorance on His part nor merely to gain time, but because He could thereby better expose the illogic of their stance. The coin bore stamped on it the answer to their own question.

Whose is this image and superscription? Because the Law had forbidden the making of images, most Jewish coins bore no human picture, just a design with an inscription.

After the time of Christ, Herod Agrippa (4744 A.D.) struck coins bearing the head of the emperor with the title of Augustus in Greek. Also Agrippa II (48100 A.D.) issued coins with Neros head as well as that of Agrippa (I.S.B.E., III, 2079b). After Jerusalems fall this same ruler even issued coins with a DEITY on the reverse side! (ibid., 2080b)

Even Roman coins intended for circulation in Palestine were coined without the emperors image by concession to this Jewish scruple (Farrar, Life, 524). But as Providence would have it, the very coin they brought to Jesus that day was a completely Gentile piece, in that it bore both the image and superscription (Edersheim, Life, II, 386). So, right in Jerusalem, Gods holy City, the considerations of business pressures and personal convenience had quietly brushed aside scruples against using these ungodly, pagan coins.

Whether they saw it immediately or not, His question implied a recognized principle: the power to define legal money belongs to the State. Consequently, that government which can declare what constitutes legal tender for the payment of all debts, public and private, is the government which is commonly recognized as legitimate and having the right to rule. The making and financial backing of coins is one of the areas wherein the State most obviously represents the interest of the citizens. They must see that they could not consistently refuse to pay the tax that enabled the government to guarantee their own economic system, while at the same time making use of Tiberius coins as a medium of exchange. This image and superscription implied not only Caesars right to coin money, but his right to organize the economic world, a right that the circulation of his money involved and implied. Although belonging to Caesar, the coin Jesus held up was employed as a medium of exchange by people all over the empire without any relationship to their religious or political leanings. Their use of it as legal tender implied their concession to Romes political claim to organize Mediterranean world economics.

It is not a side issue to notice that the inscription on that denarius read: TI[berius] CAESAR DIVI AUG[usti] F[ilius] AUGUSTUS or Tiberius Caesar Augustus, son of the deified Augustus, virtually ascribing godhood to the emperor in violation of Jewish religious convictions that no human being could pretend to be a god. Jesus final dictum (v. 21), while not implying any criticism of their using coins bearing images of the emperor and his blasphemous titles, definitely condemns the idolatry involved in worship of the images themselves or in confessing the content of the inscriptions. The reverse side of the denarius portrayed a seated figure with the inscription: PONTIF[ex] MAXIM[us], or Highest Priest or religious head of the State.

III. THE THEOLOGY OF DOUBLE TAXATION (22:21)

Mat. 22:21 They say unto him, Caesars. Whether or not they could have surmised where He would go with their answer, evasion and denial were impossible. Plainly visible on the coin was the image and inscription of Tiberius, the then-reigning Caesar (A.D. 1437; cf. Luk. 3:1). Jesus point is not so much that this particular coin is Caesars as the right to coin is his. He does not mean Caesar personally, but his office and function.

Jesus went straight to the heart of the reality and stripped away perplexities from this perennial problem that had troubled many conscientious Jews for centuries and had sparked controversy as useless as it was endless. In one simple, concise sentence He clarified the issue so logically and so universally that His questioners appear foolish for not having seen it first.

A. Mans Relationship to the State

1.

Render unto Caesar. Jesus attackers had asked, Shall we give tribute unto Caesar (donai knson Kasari)? Although ddmi, when used in contexts involving taxes, tribute, rent and the like, should be rendered pay, its usual meaning is give. (Cf. Arndt-Gingrich, 191ff.) Nevertheless, because Jesus Himself does not use their term in His answer, but rather the intensified form, apoddmi. He implies a subtle verbal contrast between their word and His. Accordingly, their question means, Is it right to GIVE taxes to Caesar? and He retorts, PAY BACK Caesar and God what is their right. Your tribute is no voluntary gift as your question implies. You are paying back the Roman government money you legally and morally owe for every benefit and advantage that this regime provides its subjects.

2.

The things that are Caesars. What does this involve?

a.

Both Jesus and Paul explain that what is Caesars has been delegated to him by God in the first place. (Rom. 13:1; Joh. 19:11; Study Psa. 82:1; Psa. 82:6 in connections with Exo. 21:6; Exo. 22:8 f., Exo. 21:28 and Joh. 10:34 f. Had the Jews forgotten Dan. 2:21; Dan. 2:37 f.; Dan. 4:17; Dan. 4:24-32; Dan. 5:21; Dan. 5:23?) The political irony of the historical situation in which the first century Hebrew nation found itself was the fact that God had not intervened to free them from Roman domination. It could be argued, therefore, that it was at least His permissive will that this domination continue to exist. Even king Agrippa argued similarly (Wars, II, 16, 4).

Could any Jew seriously affirm that Romes liberal policy toward the Jewish faith interfered with its free exercise? Had not Rome rectified the controversy over the images? (Ant. XVIII, 3, 1; Wars, II, 10) Had not Rome recalled and banished Archelaus? (Ant, XVII, 13, 15) Was not even Jewish religion solicitous of the Emperors good health and government by virtue of the sacrifices offered on his behalf? (Wars, II, 10, 4; Mat. 17:2) Did not even the Jewish authorities themselves distinctly admit that the acceptance and use of a sovereigns coin was tantamount to recognizing his sovereignty? (Edersheim, Life, II, 385, cites Babha K.113a and Jer.Sanh. 20b) This was not unlikely based on earlier practice (1Ma. 15:6). In fact, Jewish independence from Rome was celebrated by coins blatantly celebrating the first Jewish revolt (6670 A.D.) Later, Bar-Cochbas revolt spawned a new series of Jewish shekels around 132135 A.D. (Davis Dictionary of the Bible, 512) Jesus too had expressed the common understanding that taxes were leveled upon subject people (Mat. 17:25 f.). For Jews, therefore, to pay Caesars head-tax meant that they thereby admitted his political lordship, an admission they later shouted to Pilate (Joh. 19:15).

Insofar as the political government does not interfere with the activities and adoration of God and His people, there is no violation of religious liberty in the paying of revenue to the State to pay for goods and services on behalf of the taxed. Money must come from somewhere to pay for law and order, to build highways for ready access to the entire empire, to construct harbors and public buildings. God expects His people to help pay for the whole realm of governmental activity whereby the State benefits all its citizens by good laws, the protection of civil and religious rights and the general administration of justice. This is no gift to Caesar, but a legal and moral obligation. Can it be right to accept the advantages of orderly government and yet be unwilling to pay the cost of them?

b.

Jesus word is the States charter that guarantees its right to function. It also condemns every conniving attempt of tyrannous churchmen to usurp the States authority. Duty to God recognizes the sphere of obedience to State law too (Rom. 13:1-10; 1Ti. 2:1 f.; 1Pe. 2:13-17).

c.

But we must render ONLY the things that are Caesars to him, nothing more. Jesus second dictum demands this limitation. (Cf. the position taken by Daniel and his three friends: Dan. 1:3-16; Dan. 3:16-18; Dan. 3:28; Dan. 6:1-27.)

B. Mans Relationship to God

1.

But the first is that we must be religious about paying our taxes! Obedience to God means to respond conscientiously and positively to His ministers who are attending to this very thing (Rom. 13:5-7). There is a direct chain of command running from God down to the common citizen, a chain which runs right through the hands of the governing authorities of the land. Recognition of this reality should take all the sting out of paying all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. From this point of view, to render unto Caesar IS to render unto God what is Gods! There is no necessary conflict of responsibility between God and the State.

2.

The crisis of conscience arises for the believer only when Caesar thinks that he is god and begins to require that we render unto Caesar the things that are Gods. Despite Jehovahs Witnesses protestations to the contrary, Christ has not established a theocracy wherein we must render unto God what is Caesars. The Kingdom of God and the State are not essentially in competition.

At this juncture we must face the dilemma of Act. 4:19; Act. 5:29. The Lord does not suggest that no situations would ever arise where the choice would be the State over against God. In fact, many such occasions have arisen in Church history when wicked rulers have persecuted and slaughtered Gods people for refusal to render to Caesar what belongs to God, their highest loyalty and worship. (Study Revelation 13.) Such times call for resolute refusal to submit to this pagan worship and the choice of death to compromise. God has already demonstrated His sovereign might against rulers who claimed His rights (Act. 12:10-23; Daniel 4, 5; Isaiah 36, 37). And He will do so again (Rev. 16:6; Rev. 19:11-21; Rev. 20:7-15)!

3.

The doctrine of separation of Church and State is solidly rooted in Jesus declaration. Our Lord did not demand unquestioning submission to all tyrants whatever their requirements, because this would render it absolutely impossible to render unto God the things that are Gods. His latter demand places the freedom of conscience and the Church above every secular claim. But only bad, wrong-headed exegesis could ever justify the conclusion that our Lord left the respective spheres of influence of God and of Caesar as so separate that Gods will cannot interfere with the Christian citizens relationship and duty to the State. (Religion and politics do not mix!) Rather, the State could not exist or function without Gods permission and it is responsible to Him for the exercise of its proper functions. The child of God must always act in harmony with Gods will therefore, even when he serves as a citizen of the State. God is ABOVE the State, not sharing equal time with it!

4.

Jesus sharp distinction between God and Caesar denounces all forms of Caesarworship. Any godless political philosophy that would deify the State must reckon with Jesus spiritual demand: and to God! Although His questioners could object that His reply evades what they considered the real issue, His word was clear and definite enough to uphold the principle of the State and civil government. His view of the abuses of the Roman state is more clearly and concretely expressed elsewhere. (See notes on Mat. 20:20-28.) For Jesus, the ruthless exercise of raw power, or power for powers sake, is Satanic. In His eyes, all ambition to become great and to maintain power by arbitrary and oppressive rule is to be decisively rejected and stedfastly resisted by His disciples. Only humble, useful service is the path to true greatness and proper dominion. (See notes on Matthew 18.)

IV. THE TRAPPERS GIVE UP (22:22)

Mat. 22:22 And when they heard it, they marvelled, and left him and went away. Despite their hostility, His attackers could not miss the fact that, not only had He deftly eluded their clever trap, but, more importantly, He had brilliantly resolved a hotly-debated issue with one clear pithy pronouncement that, because of its profoundness and simplicity, really left no phase of the issue untouched. With unimpeachable wisdom He had adroitly outmaneuvered them, avoiding political entanglements and, in the same stroke, He left them responsible to both God and Caesar!

To those multitudes who yearned for a political Messiah who would establish an earthly Kingdom of God and launch a violent revolt against Rome, this answer of Jesus was highly disappointing. He did not denounce Rome outright nor repudiate the tribute. This is a tacit admission of Romes continued right to demand it, a confession of Romes right to rule over Israel. In this, He stood on the side of the Herodians. This compromise would have damned Him in the eyes of the Zealots and tarnished His image in the mind of all partisans longing for independence.

They marvelled. True, Jesus had refused to bow before the worldlyminded ambitions of wrong-headed patriots months before (Joh. 6:14 f.). Among His own disciples He had found and denounced political ambition (Mat. 20:20-28) and exposed its misguided principles (Mat. 18:1-35). But it was precisely this immunity to flattery that left His attackers open-mouthed. They could not imagine a man who, in their view, so desperately needed hard, countable results and eager supporters (as they pretended to be), but who, at the same time, could be so immune to their flattery! Did not every man have his price? Further, they just could not fathom how anyone could propose to establish his own kingdom while demanding loyalty to the existing State. This completely baffled these materialists. He was clearly not their kind of Messiah. (Praise God!)

But why did they leave Jesus? A Teacher who had so quickly avoided their trap and who taught eternal truth with such finesse could perhaps teach them more. Perhaps He who so dexterously solved this long-standing puzzle, could lead them into the secrets of lifes other problems. But they have no interest in learning; only in destroying Him. Rather than stay to grow in His light, they simply left him and went away.

FACT QUESTIONS

1.

What religious group led in this attack?

2.

Why was another party brought into this question, even though they were the political enemies of the others? How could their presence create significant trouble for Jesus?

3.

Matthew informs us that they sent their disciples to present Jesus this question. How does Luke explain this particular choice? How would sending disciples help them achieve their goal?

4.

Quote the fine introduction these disciples made to Jesus. Show how these words, in and of themselves, accurately picture our Lord.

5.

Now explain why such true words could hide the malice that Jesus exposed in His reaction to them.

6.

Explain the background of the question posed to Jesus, showing how there could ever have arisen such a problem. What is the tribute involved here?

7.

In what did their trap consist? Show the ingenuity of their plot.

8.

What was Jesus first reaction to their approach?

9.

What was the first answer He gave to their question? How did this pave the way for His second, final answer?

10.

What is a denarius? How did their having one in common use help Jesus argument?

11.

What basic principle did Jesus appeal to in answer to their original question?

12.

Show how the Jews were unable to evade the truth of His answer,

13.

What was the effect of Jesus answer on His questioners?

14.

What did the questioners do next?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(15) How they might entangle him.Literally, ensnare. The phrase is identical in meaning with our colloquial set a trap. The plot implies that they did not dare to take measures openly against Him as long as popular feeling was at the same level.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

115. PHARISEES, HERODIANS, SADDUCEES, AND A SCRIBE QUESTION JESUS.

JESUS QUESTIONS THE PHARISEES, Mat 22:15-46.

The Pharisees had now, in answer to their question as to his authority, (Mat 21:23,) listened to some three home-coming and searching parables. They now resort to allies for aid. First, they bring up the HERODIANS, who retire from the encounter silenced, Mat 22:16-22. Then come up the SADDUCEES, who retire in similar defeat, Mat 22:23-33. Then from a group of the Pharisees a LAWYER tries him with a question, and is forced to acknowledge the wisdom of his answer; and finally the Lord, taking the aggressive with a query, completes their confusion and overthrow, 34-46. Jesus in the next chapter turns to the people and to his disciples.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

15. Entangle him in his talk Ensnare him, (a metaphor drawn from taking wild birds,) by involving him with the government; or by exposing his ignorance upon some point of law or religion.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might ensnare him in his talk.’

‘Took counsel.’ This may signify that the Scribes of the Pharisees and the other leading Pharisees came together to discuss the matter, or it may even have included the Herodians and others in the discussions. Whichever way it was the Pharisees were prominent in the matter. Their purpose, Matthew tells us, was in order to ensnare Him by making Him say what could only condemn Him.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Test Concerning the Tribute Money: Jesus Contrasts Men’s Attitudes Towards The Kingly Rule Of Men and the Kingly Rule of God (22:15-22).

In the light of His establishment of His new congregation on earth, and His new Kingly Rule, the question is now raised as to what men’s attitudes are to be towards human authorities and towards God. Matthew answers this question in terms which are connected with further belligerence revealed by the Pharisees. Gathered in Jerusalem for Passover the Pharisees have come together to discuss how they can ensnare Jesus, and in the course of this, because Jesus as a Galilean was subject to Herod’s jurisdiction, they have entered into discussions with the Herodians who had connections with Herod’s court and supported Herod (unlike the majority of the people of Galilee and Peraea who simmered under his rule). They now think that they have at last discovered how they can trap Him.

The Pharisees disliked the Herodians intensely, and the feeling was no doubt mutual, for they were religiously and politically at opposite extremes, the former seeing their duty as owed to God, and the latter as owed to Herod. But the Herodians would be necessary for the trap that they aimed to set for Jesus just in case His answer was to suggest the refusal of tribute, which they probably suspected that it would be. If He did so the Pharisees could hardly accuse Him before the civil authorities themselves, for to do such a thing would have degraded them before the people, but that was something that Herodians could be expected to do. On the other hand if He agreed that tribute should be paid to Caesar then the Pharisees would be in a position to discredit Him totally before the people as a prophet who supported Rome. Thus they were a formidable combination.

The Jews as a nation saw themselves as the people of God, and therefore found their subjection to the Romans extremely trying. It went against all that they believed. And they found particularly aggravating the taxes that they had to pay to Rome, especially the poll tax. These were on top of the taxes which they much more willingly paid to their own national leadership and to the Temple. They thus paid the Roman taxes very grudgingly, and considered that they were the equivalent of extortion, and therefore immoral. Indeed they saw it as questionable whether in God’s eyes they were even ‘lawful’. They themselves believed that they only owed such ‘duties’ towards God. So this taxation by Rome was something that caused much bitterness in their hearts, and especially the tribute per head that was payable directly to Caesar. That almost became a question of an offering to a foreign god. Thus for anyone to have suggested that it was right for them to have to pay such tribute would have been looked on as the equivalent of blasphemy. As far as they were concerned such taxes suggested that the Romans were usurping the place of God. Any such person, therefore, would have found himself immediately ostracised as the equivalent of a ‘public servant’ and a traitor. And for a prophet to do so would have filled them with horror, and would have rendered him a false prophet, and therefore totally unacceptable to almost all the people.

On the other hand the Roman authorities demanded these taxes, and they would have looked on anyone who said that they should not be paid as a rebel and an insurgent. If anyone openly and authoritatively declared that the tribute should not be paid they would immediately have been arrested, and even executed. Thus the whole subject was one that no one spoke about, with all grudgingly paying their tribute (apart from the few obstinate rebels) but with all muttering under their breaths that it was not right that they should have to do so.

And herein the Pharisees realised that they had the unanswerable question, for whichever reply Jesus gave to it He would be finished. He would either be despised by the people, or executed by the Romans. There was no way out. At last they knew that they had got Him.

Analysis.

a Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might ensnare him in his talk. 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” (Mat 22:15-16).

b “Tell us therefore, What do you think? Is it right to give tribute to Caesar, or not?” (Mat 22:17).

c But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, “Why do you put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the tribute money” (18-19a)

d And they brought to him a denarius (Mat 22:19 b).

c And he says to them, “Whose is this image and superscription?” They say to him, “Caesar’s” (20-21a).

b Then he says to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mat 22:21 b).

a And when they heard it, they marvelled, and left him, and went away (Mat 22:22).

Note that in ‘a’ the aim is to trap Jesus while in the parallel they leave Him, filled with wonder. In ‘b’ comes the question about paying tribute to Caesar, and in the parallel comes Jesus’ reply to the question. In ‘c’ He asks to see the tribute money and in the parallel He is shown the tribute money. Central is the fact that they brought Him a denarius which demonstrated their hypocrisy, for it was Caesar’s coin.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Three Testimonies of the Authority of God the Father Mat 22:15-40 emphasizes the authority of God the Father through three testimonies, the authority of civil government (Mat 22:15-22), the testimony of the faith of the patriarchs (Mat 22:23-33), and the testimony of the Law (Mat 22:34-40).

Here is a proposed outline:

1. The Question Concerning Paying Taxes unto Caesar Mat 22:15-22

2. The Question Concerning the Resurrection Mat 22:23-33

3. The Question Concerning the Greatest Commandment Mat 22:34-40

Mat 22:15-22 The Question Concerning Paying Taxes unto Caesar ( Mar 12:13-17 , Luk 20:20-26 ) In Mat 22:15-22 Jesus is tempted by the Pharisees regarding whether it is lawful for Jews to pay taxes unto Caesar or not. Jesus reveals that civil government testifies of the need to obey God the Father.

Mat 22:17  Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

Mat 22:17 Comments – The Jewish people despised their Roman oppressors. Although a few Rabbis advised the Jews to submit and accept this rule, the masses of the people hated the idea of Roman authority over them. The Jews knew that this was a tricky question for the Lord Jesus. They felt that either way He answered the question he would be in trouble. If he told the people to give tribute unto Caesar, they felt that Jesus would loose popularity with the people knowing that they hated paying taxes to Caesar. On the other hand, if Jesus told the people to withhold their tribute money to Caesar, the Jewish leaders could then have Jesus arrested for inciting rebellion against Roman rule. These Jewish rebellions were not uncommon in the periods of history when Jews were under foreign rule. Such rebellions always ending with the arrest or death of the leader of such rebellions. The Jews that asked Jesus this question hoped for one of these two outcomes.

Mat 22:18  But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

Mat 22:18 “Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites” – Comments – They were hypocrites in the sense that they appeared to be asking an innocent question, but their motive was to cause problems for the Lord Jesus. Their hearts were deceptive.

Mat 22:21 “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s” – Comments – Other verses in the Holy Bible show that those leaders in authority are due tribute and honor:

1. Taxes:

Mat 17:24-27, “And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.”

Rom 13:7, “Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.”

2. Honor:

Rom 13:7, “Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.”

3. Prayer:

1Ti 2:1-3, “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4. Obedience to the laws of the land:

Rom 13:1, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.”

Mat 22:21 “and unto God the things that are God’s” – Comments – What do we render unto God?

1. Titles

2. Obedience

3. Fear

Mat 22:21 Comments – Mat 22:21 clearly declares that we should not only pay our government taxes, but that we should pay our church tithes.

Mat 22:22  When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

Mat 22:23-33 The Question Concerning the Resurrection ( Mar 12:18-27 , Luk 20:27-40 ) In Mat 22:23-33 Jesus answers the question about the resurrection from the dead. Jesus reveals that the faith of the patriarchs testify of the resurrection through obedience to God the Father.

Mat 22:30 “they neither marry, nor are given in marriage” – Comments – In this time, as in many cultures today and in the past, it was the man that married, and the woman was taken in marriage. In the East African language called Luganda, there are even two distinct words for “marry” and “given in marriage.” That is, the woman cannot marry. She can only be given in marriage.

Mat 22:30 Comments – Now Mat 22:30 does not say that humans will become like the angels in every respect, for there will always be a distinction between the natures of men and angels. However, in Heaven we will become like them in respect that we will not be marrying and giving in marriage to one another.

Mat 22:31  But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

Mat 22:32  I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

Mat 22:33  And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

Mat 22:34-40 The Question Concerning the Greatest Commandment ( Mar 12:28-34 , Luk 10:25-28 ) In Mat 22:34-40 Jesus responds to the question about the greatest commandment. Jesus reveals that the Law testify of the need to obey God the Father.

The Shema – The Ten Commandments can be grouped into two sections. The first four commandments refer to our relationship to God, while the last six refer to our relationships with men. In the parallel passage in Mar 12:29-31, Jesus quoted from Deu 6:4-5, which was a part of the Jewish “creed” called “the Shema” ( ), a name derived from the first Hebrew word in this biblical text. [530] The Shema was a passage of Scripture that every scribe knew by heart. Jesus was summarizing the first four commandments when He told the scribe to love the Lord thy God with all of your heart, soul, mind and strength. The first commandment refers to serving the Lord with our heart. The second commandment refers to serving the Lord with all of our soul, where our emotions, feelings and will exist. The third commandment refers to serving the Lord with all of our mind, and deals with the words of our mouth. The fourth commandment refers to serving the Lord with all of our strength, or bodies. He then summarized the last six commandments when He said to love our neighbour as ourselves. Perhaps the difference between the soul and the mind would be that one emphasizes our thoughts and attitudes, while the other emphasizes our words that we speak. Thus, our soulish realm has a two-fold aspect of thoughts and confession.

[530] Alfred Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ (New York: Hodder & Stoughton, n.d.), 268.

Deu 6:4-5, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.”

Mat 22:36 Comments This Jewish lawyer asked Jesus a question, probably expecting Him to quote one of the “Thou shalt not” commandments. Instead, Jesus says, “Thou shalt” The Law condemned man, and the lawyer lived with a mindset of condemnation. Jesus came to set men free, free from condemnation and restored to fellowship with God so that he could love God and his neighbor.

Mat 22:40 Comments – Creflo Dollar said that love is like a curtain rod, and faith is like the curtain hooks. God’s blessings hang on all of these. [531]

[531] Creflo Dollar, “Sermon,” (Fort Worth, Texas: Kenneth Copeland’s Southwest Believer’s Conference), 7 August 2007.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Question Concerning Tribute.

Insincere flattery:

v. 15. Then went the Pharisees and took counsel how they might entangle Him in His talk.

v. 16. And they sent out unto Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that Thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest Thou for any man; for Thou regardest not the person of men.

The Pharisees had again felt the sting of the application in the last parable, and it did not improve their temper. Force was out of the question on account of the people, so they contemplated ways and means to find a catch-question, the answer to which could be construed so as to invite either the hatred of the common people or the investigation of the Roman government. They deliberately plan and study out some question which would serve this purpose. Having found one which, in their opinion, was suitable, they first tried to divert the attention of Jesus by placing the sand of flattery in His eyes, a bungling attempt at best when one remembers the omniscience of Christ. They sent some of their own disciples with the Herodians. The latter belonged to a sect or clique related to the Sadducees in belief, but more strongly political in organization. According to the most trustworthy accounts, they came into existence at the time of Herod the Great, and encouraged the idea of a national kingdom under the rule of the Herodian dynasty. With learning, wealth, and influence at their command, they were not to be despised as allies by the Pharisees and Sadducees, with their political hopes. They seem to have been drafted for this delegation in order not to make the design too apparent. The strangest part was that their words were absolutely true. Jesus, being the Truth Himself, did indeed teach the way of God and to God in truth; He was entirely independent of all people and had not the slightest hesitation, if need be, to speak His opinion before any man. But in the mouth of these enemies these facts became hollow mockery and malice, a false flattery calculated to deceive and dupe. It was most insincere, devilish hypocrisy.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Mat 22:15. Entangle him Ensnare him.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Mat 22:15 ff. Comp. Mar 12:13 ff.; Luk 20:20 ff.

]. now no longer in their official capacity, as deputed by the Sanhedrim (Mat 21:23 ; Mat 21:45 ), but on their own responsibility, and as representing a party adopting a still bolder policy, and proceeding upon a new tack.

] They took counsel (comp. , Dem. 947, 20), expressly with a view to . Not equivalent to , the reading in D, and originating in a mistaken gloss. Comp. Mat 12:14 . For , consultation , comp. Mat 27:1 ; Mat 27:7 , Mat 28:12 ; Mar 3:6 ; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 43; classical writers commonly use , . Others (Keim included), without grammatical warrant, render according to the Latin idiom: consilium ceperunt . Euthymius Zigabenus correctly renders by: .

] in an utterance, i.e . in a statement which he might happen to make. This statement is conceived of as a trap or snare ( , see Jacobs ad Anthol . VII. p. 409, XI. p. 93), into which if He once fell they would hold Him fast, with a view to further proceedings against Him. Others explain: (Euthymius Zigabenus). But Jesus could not become involved in the snare unless He gave such an answer to their queries as they hoped to elicit. , illagueare , is not met with in classical writers, though it frequently occurs in the Septuagint.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

B. The Attach of the Herodians or the Politicians, and the Victory of the Lord. Mat 22:15-22

(Mar 12:13-17; Luk 20:20-26. The Gospel for the 23d Sunday after Trinity.)

15Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle [ensnare, en trap] him in his talk [with a word, ].12 16And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians,13 saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teaches the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man [one, ]: for thou regardest not the person of men. 17Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cesar, or not? 18But Jesus perceived [knowing, ] their wick- edness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? 19Shew me the tribute money [to ], And they brought unto him a penny denary].14 20And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription [the inscription, ]? 21They say unto him, Cesars. Then saith he unto them, Render15 therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesars [the things of Csar to Caesar, ]; and unto God the things that are Gods [the things of God to God, ]. 22When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Mat 22:15. Then went the Pharisees.The Pharisees formed the main element in the deputation of the Sanhedrin, which aimed to annihilate the Lord by a stroke of authority. But their blow He had made to recoil upon themselves. They stood as persons who were stripped of their spiritual authority; while He, by the same words which stripped them, demonstrated His own Messianic power, and remained in the temple as its actual Lord. His authority with the people, which it was sought to impair, was thus strengthened anew. His enemies enter into the fact of their position; yet not with repentance and obedience, but with a hypocritical acknowledgment, that they might again ensnare Him by cunning. This they could compass only by bringing Him into suspicion of the crime, of which they were themselves conscious, of exciting machinations against the Roman government. They wanted a political Messiah: that He would not become. They now sought to involve Him in the appearance of being a political Messiah, in order that they might band Him over to the Roman authorities as an insurrectionary. They would suggest to Him, or impose upon Him, the sedition of their own hearts, that thus they might ruin Him. Thus they went further and further into the most Abandoned course of lying, urged by the exasperation which His last great warning parables had provoked to the uttermost. How great this exasperation was, appears from the fact that it was the Pharisees of the Sanhedrin, the bitterest enemies of Rome, who made this attack, and connected themselves, for the accomplishment of their purpose, with the Herodian political party. And the greatness of their obduracy and blindness appears in this, that after all they actually brought Him to the cross under the charge of being a political Messiah, although He rebuked and repelled every solicitation to utter a seditious word. They hoped to succeed in their temptation, because they were blinded by the spirit of absolutism which regards every departure from its laws and demands as rebellion and revolution.

And took counsel.It is a counsel of cunning. Their purpose is now to confront Him as private persons, who have much respect for His person; and for this purpose they have a perilous question ready. Hence the new assault upon our Lord assumes the form of a series of distinct party attacks. The Pharisees take the lead with theirs; and theirs was, indeed, the most cunningly devised. The Sadducees then follow, in an attack more direct and outspoken, though equally disguised as to its ultimate purpose. And then come, lastly, the scribes of the Pharisees party, and try their strength on His.

Mat 22:16. Their disciples with the Herodians.It was part of the cunning of this new attack, that the Phariseesthe most dignified members of the Sanhedrinwho had just officially encountered Jesus, did not now appear before Him in the new character of hypocritical submission. He should by no means know their design. Hence they sent their disciples, young and unknown persons, who were students of the science of expounding Scripture. But for these they had been able to provide an accompaniment of political partisans, Herodians, probably also of the younger sort. They were the high-born academical youth of Jerusalem: an appropriate organ to use in a temptation to theocratical revolution around the temple of Zion. Meyer :The Herodians were that party of the Jews who were devoted to the royal house of Heroda party political, not hierarchical, yet not purely Roman; popular royalists, in opposition to the pure principle of the theocracy, but also to the unpopular Roman dominion (against Csar), Biding with the powerful Pharisees from policy and according to circumstances. For other and in part very singular interpretations, see Wolf and Kcher in loc.16 The passage in Joseph. Antiq. xiv. 15, 10, refers to other circumstances, comp. Ewald, p. 196. To regard them as adherents of the Roman government generally (and not specifically a faction devoted to the Herodian family), is forbidden by the special name which they bore. It was deep cunning in the hierarchy to unite themselves with this royalist faction; for thus they hoped to embolden Jesus to utter a word which might be interpreted against the census-tribute. Their flattering introduction had this design; and their further plan was to urge a political complaint against Him before the Roman authorities. Comp. Luk 20:20. But, should an affirmative answer upset this scheme, they would at least succeed in placing the Herodians in antagonism to Him. Rather, they would in this case make Him hateful to the people, in consequence of His unconditional testimony in favor of subjection to the Roman dominion. The Herodians were, after all, anti-theocratic in their sentiments, and could only wear the mask of a patriotic royalism, which might serve as a temptation to the Lord. A third contingency, that Jesus might decline giving any answer, His opponents seem scarcely to have at all contemplated. It may have occurred to their minds, however, that they might possibly use Him yet as a tool in a gigantic rebellion.

Master, we know.A cunning hint,17 that they were ready to pay Him honor as the Messiah. In a sincere spirit Nicodemus said the same thing, Joh 3:2.

That Thou art true: truthful.With all their deceit, they actually thought this. The most abandoned falsehood is constrained to acknowledge His pure sincerity.

Thou teachest the way of God in truth.Hypocritical recognition, (1) of His doctrine, and (2) of His manner of teaching or His orthodoxy. The way of God, in the Jewish scholastic sense; emphatically, the practical instruction which came from God Himself and represents His will; the revelation of God as the standard for human conduct. See Bretschneider, sub .

Neither carest Thou for any one.A cunning temptation to lift Himself, in His proud consciousness, above all respect or care for the Roman authorities. They had indeed found that their power had no effect to intimidate Him in the way of truth. But they might have known that His independence was always connected with the purest submission to the powers that are. Their involuntary acknowledgment shines through their false speech.

Regardest not the person of man. is the outward appearance: the representative of an authority. is essentially the same as Lukes , Mat 22:21, but stronger.

Mat 22:17. Is it lawful ?To the Jew. De Wette According to theocratical principles, which regard ed Jehovah as the only King in Israel. The theocratical prerogative, however, had not interfered with the representation of Jehovah by human kings in Israel; and the Israelites had paid tribute always to them. In fact, they had in past times paid tribute even to foreign potentatesthe Babylonians, Persians, etc. How then, in the face of such precedents, could the question be urged as it was urged on the present occasion ? The explanation is to be found in the fact, that the Jewish fanaticism had increased from generation to generation, and that it was now rapidly approaching the point of culmination which it reached at last in the Jewish war. And the hope of the Messiah was also increasing in strength. Thus, while the payment of tribute to a human king might generally be lawful, it was otherwise with a heathen king, especially Caesar, who threatened to take the place of the Messiah as His dark rival in the rule of the world: this might appear apostasy from the theocracy and the hope of Messiahs kingdom. In this spirit Judas the Gaulonite (Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 1; Act 5:37) had refused the census of the Romans; regarding it as the decisive sign of servitude. And certainly the Jews might have been justified in refusing all political homage to the Caesar, if the history of the theocracy had not established a distinction between the religious and the political element, and introduced and accustomed them to such a difference between the Church and the State. But fanaticism ignored this distinction as a temporary abuse, and supposed that with the advent of the Messiah it would disappear; meanwhile it was a disorder that must be cunningly submitted to as a necessity. Christ opposes to their temptation the perfect and clear distinction as it was appointed by God. The question: Is it lawful? of itself obscures the supposition of duty; and the question: Must we, as servants of the theocracy, refuse the tribute ? meant, in other words: Must we resist the dominion of the Romans, and rise up in rebellion ?

Or not ?The not lawful they would fain have put in His mouth.

Mat 22:18. Hypocrites.Bengel: Jesus verum se eis ostendit ut dixerant, Mat 22:16.

Mat 22:19. The tribute money.The coin in which the tribute is paid. Ubicunque numisma regis alicujus obtinet, illic incol regem istum pro domino agnoscunt. Maimon. in Gezelah, v. 18.

Mat 22:20-21. Whose is this image?The Lords answer gains infinitely in emphasis when we connect it with the action in which He clothes it Bearing this coin in their hands, they were obliged to appear before Him as the subjects of Csar, and themselves read the decision of their own question in the. word Csar. But the truth of the answer consists in this, that every one has subjected himself to the actual obligations of a State who has entered into its rights, as symbolized by its currency. Or, he who acknowledges the rulers right of coining, acknowledges also his right to tribute; he who takes the coin from Csar, must give it back to him again. Thus Jesus makes the payment of tribute a duty of virtual obligation. The coin is already Csars. But the word is , the things of Csar, and it includes therefore all the obligations to the State. But this obedience must ever be conditioned by obedience to God, to whom all must pay the trib.ute of , the things of God. And here we must not think merely of any particular tributethe temple tribute (the usual interpretation), or repentance (Ebrard)but of all religious obligations. Erasmus: Give to God that which has the image and inscription of God, the soul (quod Dei habet inscriptionem et imaginem, i.e,, animum).

Mat 22:21. And unto God the things that are Gods.The word was not only a precept, but also a correction; since they denied to the father Himself, in the person of Jesus, the honor due to Him. And so also the word: Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesars, might have spared them the Jewish war, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the downfall of their nation.

[The answer of our Saviour in Mat 22:21 is perhaps the wisest answer ever given to any question, certainly the wisest which could possibly be made in this case, and we need not wonder that the enemies who elicited it, marvelled and left Him. It establishes the rights, regulates the duties, and distinguishes the jurisdiction of the spiritual and temporal powers and their subjects. It contains the fundamental principle and guide for the settlement of the vexed question of Church and State, which has created so much trouble and persecution in the history of Christianity. If men would always strictly adhere to this rule, there never would be a hostile collision between the two powers, which are both of divine origin and authority, the one for the temporal, the other for the eternal welfare of man, and which ought to be kept distinct and independent in their respective spheres without mixture and confusion, and yet without antagonism, but in friendly relation in View of their common origin in God, and their common end and completion in the ,, where God shall be all in all.P. S.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The temptation of Christ to revolution, through the students and aristocracy of Jerusalem, as the instruments of His enemies.
2. The Messiah Himself divides here the theocracy, which was both Church and State, into Church and State as two distinct parts: He consigns the kingdom of this world to Caesar, while He limits and conditions it by the kingdom of God.
3. Render unto Csar that which is Csars.Here the duty of obedience is deduced from the fact of the existing dominion. Csar had the coin, therefore it should be given to him; Csar had the power, therefore he should be obeyed. De Wette distinguishes in a futile way between the principles of conscience, of right, and of power and prudence. Prudence is also matter of conscience. To revolt against authority, is contrary to conscience. Political obligations have entered in, as matter of fact, wherever people have settled themselves in the enjoyment of political rights. Hence the passages, Rom 13:1; 1Ti 2:1; 1Pe 2:13; 1Pe 2:17, belong here. On the distinction between legitimate and unrighteous dominion, this text says nothing. But it does say that he who has accepted the protection of an actual government, has entered into its political constitution, and acknowledged thereby its rights. The legitimist feeling of devotion to an oppressed power must maintain its propriety by banishment and suffering with it. It can co-exist with the new bond of subjection only as a wish, a sentiment, a longing for deliverance. Enjoying the protection of the exist power, it must submit to the obligations which thence arise. But the antithesis, Unto God that which is Gods, is self characterized as the higher or absolute principle, which is the condition of the former. Comp Act 4:19 [which contains the right of disobedience to the temporal power, where it clearly contradicts the laws of God.P. S.].

4. Money represents the palpable earthly side of government and civil relations. He who, in the impress of the coin, is acknowledged as the ruler over the money of the land, is thereby marked out as the ruler of the land. In a certain sense, therefore, the money circulation is a permanent symbol of political subjection and mark of allegiance.18 But, over against the external and visible dominion of Csar over tho civil life, there is the immediate dominion of God over the internal and unseen life. These two dominions are not indeed coordinate; the latter is supreme over the former; but it has a pre-eminence which admits of a certain appearance of division between the power of Csar and the power of God. But the impress of God is upon the spirit; therefore the life of the soul must be given to God. By the requirement: Give unto God the things that are Gods, Christ certainly, as Gerlach remarks, pointed out to them the way in which they might become really free again; yet not in any such sense as would encourage them to hope for a return of the old theocracy. Obedience to God will make Christendom free from the violence of secular power, and ready for admission into the perfect kingdom of God.

5. The right distinction between that which is Gods and that which is Csars, must lead to the true unity of life; while the confusion of these two must lead to division, lie, and hypocrisy. The Jewish hierarchy, in their superstition, made some scruple whether they should pay Csar his tribute; and then they threw their own Messiah to him, whose golden fidelity displayed most gloriously the image of God.
6. Langii opus Bibl.: We may easily imagine how ashamed these conceited young men must have felt when they departed: wicked as they were they could not but feel that they and their teachers must have nothing but confusion to expect from their encounters with Christ.

7. The peculiar case where the magistrate confounds political and spiritual subjugation, and exerts tyranny over conscience, as Antiochus Epiphanes did and many others, is here not taken into account, inasmuch as the Roman government at the time of Christ tolerated and respected the rights of conscience, and for some time even protected the Christians (though not Christ Himself) against the fanaticism of the Jews.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The temptation of our Lord to pronounce a watchword of rebellion: 1. The cunning attempt of the enemies; 2. the instruments; 3. the issue.The political temptations of Christians: 1. To refuse tribute (insurrection and rebellion); 2. to sacrifice the conscience (servility).19Christ supreme victor over all the cunning and all the violence of His enemies.The counsel of the ungodly, Psalms 2.; their snares, Pro 29:5.Canning, the ancient fellow of violence, especially in the government of the hierarchy.Christs victory over cunning is the victory of Gods kingdom over cunning.The contest of the Lord with the cunning of His foes tended to the glorification of His Wisdom 1. They take counsel: He is thoroughly prepared. 2. They would entangle Him: He seeks to deliver them out of their own snare. 3. They praise Him in order to His destruction: He rebukes them, in order to arouse and save them. 4. They would fain involve Him in their own wicked designs: He punishes them in His righteousness. 5. They wish to judge Him as guilty: He dismisses them as Judge.The covenant of the hierarchs and Herodians in order to overwhelm Christ.The various decisions of Christ touching money.The salutary distinction of Christ between Church and State.The decision of Christ upon the rights of Csar: 1. They are rights which are derived from God; 2. they are co-ordinate to the spiritual rights of the church; 3. they are subordinate to the rights of God.The weight of the clause, And to God that which is Gods.Only he who rightly distinguishes between religious and civil duties will know how to connect them aright.The hypocritical blending of religion and policy: 1. By withholding the dues to the civil government, under pretext of saving the rights of God; 2. by sacrificing the most sacred rights of God and His church to the secular power.The enemies of the Lord gather strength from every new humiliation to harden themselves afresh.The three kinds of assault which His enemies make upon the cause of Christ: 1. With violence; 2. with cunning; 3. with cunning and violence combined.

Starke:Canstein: Wicked hearts are only more wicked and malicious by faithful warning.The two kinds of serpents, the crooked and Um straight (Isa 27:1; first cunning, then might).Zeisius: When Christ is to be opposed, Herod and Pilate soon become one.Hypocrites and Bars have honey on their lips, and gall in their hearts, Psa 55:21.Quesnel: The praise of ungodly men is full of snares.Zeisius: No attack and no cunning of any avail against the Lord.He who has Gods word and truth on his side is sure to carry off the victory.Osiander: He who would put to shame Gods servants will himself be put to shame.The cunning which would entrap wisdom is itself caught.

Lisco:Christ shows here that it is not His purpose to effect any change in earthly political relations (that is, in a political and earthly way).

Heubner:The Truth, Christ, stands hero in the presence of falsehood.It is the vocation of the pious to have to move among those who continually pervert their words.The Christians bearing toward the various political parties in the world.What they did in cunning and malice, we should do in earnest sincerity: ask Christs advice in all cases of doubt and conflict of duties.The Christian living under a wicked government must submit in all things that do not molest his conscience.The voice of the gospel on the duties of subjects.The Christian should recommend his religion by his civil and political honesty.Christs dignity in the answer to these questions concerning the duties of subjects and rulers.

Reinhard:The right of subjects to judge the rule and commands of their governors.T. W. Wolf:How little the Lord is served by false praise.Rambach:The most pious Christian is the best citizen.

Footnotes:

[12] Mat 22:15[ (from , a snare, a trap) , Lange: um ihn (mit List) zu fangen in einem Aunspruch; Ewald: durch sin Wort. The word here refers to the artful question in Mat 22:17, to which, they thought, He must either answer yes or no, and In either ease fatally compromise Himself. Meyer: , in ciner Rede, d. h., in cinem Auespruche, welchen er ihun wrde. Dieser ist als Fatte oder Schlings () gedacht In Cod. Sinait. the words: , are omitted.P. S.]

[13] Mat 22:16.[Dr. Lange inserts after Herodians In small type: Politicians, adherents of the Roman party of the Herodian house,P. S.]

[14] Mat 22:19.[. See the Critical Notes on Mat 18:28 and Mat 20:2.P. S.]

[15] Mat 22:21.[ , reddite, render as a due, not: , date, as a gift. Comp. Rom 8:7 : , Render unto all their dues. Tertullian (De idol. 15): “Reddite imaginem Csari quae in nummo est, el imaginem Dei Deo qu in homine est.P. S.]

[16][The Edinb trsl. reads here: For some remarkable hint, see Woif,mistaking probably the sehr sonderbare deutungen of the original or wunderbare Andeutungen. Mistakes of this kind, whether of carelessness or ignorance of the German language, and ail sorts of arbitrary omissions and changes, occur on every page, yes almost in very sentence of this and several preceding chapters, and make the revision a more tedious and disagreeable task than a new translation.P. S.]

[17][A cunning and malignant captatio benevolenti, as Meyer calls it.P. S.]

[18][Comp. Quesnel. in loc.: The image of princes stamped on their coin denotes that temporal things belong all to their grovernance; and the image of God imprinted on the null of man teaches that whatever use he makes either of himself or of the creatures, ought to be referred to God. . . . Princes [Rulers] being more the images of God than other men, ought aim to render to God whatever they receive from men, by directing it all to His glory.P. S.]

[19][The preceding sentences in the Homiletical and the concluding paragraphs of the Doctrinal sections, nearly half a column, are omitted entire in the Edinb. trsl., and the Homiletical Hints which follow are either omitted or arbitrarily abridged.P. S.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

“Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. (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. (17) Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? (18) But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? (19) Show me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. (20) And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? (21) They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s. (22) When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.”

A sweet instruction ariseth from hence to the children of God, If Jesus was thus beset, wonder not that his people should be. Oh! how earnest are the ungodly to wound the followers of the Lord! Reader! pray consult that sweet scripture. Joh 15:18-21 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 81

Prayer

Almighty God, do thou write thy law upon, our heart, and give us a disposition towards obedience, so that every word which thou hast spoken may become the rule of our conduct. To this end do thou grant us, through Jesus Christ our Lord and Priest, the continual ministry of the Holy Ghost, to enlighten the mind, to sanctify the will, to subdue and control the whole heart, so that there may be no disobedience or rebellion in us, but a quiet and loving delight in thy sacred word. We thank thee that thou hast addressed a speech to every heart: thou has left none out of the number to which thou hast spoken: may each hear the word thou hast sent to it in particular, and answer it with a readiness of joy and thankfulness then shall our life spread itself out in beauty before thee, and shall receive the showers of thy blessing and answer them with growing fruitfulness.

Thy Son Jesus Christ hath revealed thee unto us: he is our Lord and Saviour, he made atonement for our sins, and his blood is the answer to thy law. We rejoice in the revelation of thy person which he has made unto us, now we pray for the healthful influences of thy Spirit, that we may read that revelation deeply and truly, and receive it into our hearts with all joyfulness, and manifest it unto the world according to our opportunity and power. We have come up to thine house that we may make mention of thy lovingkindness: surely thy mercies shall not lie forgotten in unthankfulness we will preserve the memory of them, and in the rehearsal of all thou hast done for us in the years that are now gone, will we find the inspiration and the comfort we need for the days that are yet to come. We live in thy presence, thy goodness towards us is the sanctuary in which our souls dwell with the quietness of infinite security. Thou didst deliver us from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear: thou didst enable us to overcome the uncircumcised Philistine in the valley, and on the hill thy light has been round about us like a promise, and in all the winds that have blown around our life, we have heard the sound of thine own going. Therefore do we look onward to the unknown time, with the inspiration of gratitude, and the confidence of tender love. Thou wilt not bring down the grey hairs of thy servants with sorrow to the grave, thou wilt yet interpose in every crisis and difficulty, out of darkness thou wilt bring light, and thou wilt write songs for the night season. Give us confidence in these truths and hopes, yea establish us and build us upon them as upon rocks that cannot be shaken. May our whole life rise upon thee like a temple towards the Heavens, complete and beautiful and resonant with thy praise.

Thou hast been mindful of us: we should be witnesses against ourselves if we denied thy care or questioned thy providence. Every day uttereth speech to us concerning thy love. Wherein we have done wrong thou wilt come to us with infinite forgiveness. Where sin abounds grace shall, through Christ Jesus the Lord, much more abound, so that the littleness of the one shall not be thought of because of the greatness of the other. By grace are we saved, by blood are we cleansed, by the precious blood of Christ are we redeemed. We know our ransom price, and we know thou hast not paid it in vain thou wilt surely redeem us utterly, and bring us with completeness out of the snare of him who would entangle us, and out of the wilderness of despair and loneliness. Our hope is in Christ, our confidence is in God, our inspiration is from the Holy Ghost Thou knowest our life in its entireness: how few its days, how small its strength, how easily blown out its best hopes, and how soon blighted its noblest ambitions. Thou hast dug a grave in the garden, thou hast hidden a pit under the hearthstone, there is poison in the cup out of which we drink our life, and our whole course lies through thorns and thickets and most difficult places. Yet surely our extremity will be the opportunity of God, and because of the supreme difficulty of the road shall be the fulness and the tenderness of the ministry which waits upon us.

We now lovingly put ourselves into thine hands, to be conducted as thou wilt through all difficulties and snares. Disappoint us if it be for our souls’ health that we should be stung and wounded and have sudden night descending upon our brightest days. Do thou hunger us and impoverish us and give us pain continually if it can be only through this process that we may be saved. Not our will but thine be done, only take not thy Holy Spirit from us.

Regard us in our special relationships, and according to our necessity let the blessing of the Most High God come to us this day. Preserve the little one that he may become a strong man, speak to the aged that he may renew his youth in the immortal hope of fellowship with the angels and with the spirits of the just made perfect. Address the busy man who is seeking his fortune in the dust, and excite in his soul a hunger which the bread of life alone can satisfy. Tell the afflicted that the time of weakness is but for a moment, and the time of immortal health is as the duration of God. Regard all who rule over us in the kingdom, preserve the wise and the strong for many years, that they may surpass themselves in the nobleness of their patriotism and their trust in the God of nations.

Be with all for whom we ought to pray and for whom it is our loving delight to intercede. For the absent, for the travelling, for those who are in danger, in weakness, in peculiar sorrow, in sharp agony. Be with those who are going through their highest joys, and with those who are far out in the deep waters of peculiar trouble. Sanctify all varieties of discipline and training through which we pass, and at last, washed in the blood of the everlasting covenant, sanctified and inspired by God the Holy Ghost, may we take our place in the city whose hills are light, whose walls are jasper, whose streets are gold. Amen.

Mat 22:15-46

15. Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle (ensnare) him in his talk.

16. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians (advocates of national submission to the emperor), 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.

17. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Csar, or not?

18. But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

19. Shew me the tribute money (the denarius, which was in common circulation). And they brought unto him a penny.

20. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

21. They say unto him, Csar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Csar the things which are Csar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.

22. When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

23. The same day came to him the Sadducees (largely the upper classes of the priesthood), which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him.

24. Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

25. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:

26. Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.

27. And last of all the woman died also.

28. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for all had her.

29. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err (a less stern tone than that in which the Pharisees were accosted), not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

31. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

32. I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

33. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine (teaching).

34. But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.

35. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

36. Master, which (what kind) is the great commandment in the law? (The meaning of this question was, whether anything were more perfect than the law, because he taught a new kind of doctrine, whereby the expounders of the law held themselves to be disgraced).

37. Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38. This is the first and great commandment.

39. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

41. While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,

42. Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.

43. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,

44. The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

45. If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

46. And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

Tempting Questions and Divine Answers

You will notice that the attacks which were made upon the Saviour were prepared. There is evidence everywhere of premeditation, arrangement, concert, so that there might be no weakness on the part of those who were about to approach the great and marvellous Teacher. No notice was sent of the questions: the preparation was complete on the side of the interrogators without Jesus Christ having any intimation that an attack was about to be made upon him. So far the advantage was upon the side of the questioners. They talked the whole matter over, they proposed and re-arranged and amended, and then settled the terms: having done so, they went with unanimous purpose to ensnare the Speaker.

Not only so, the questions were subtly adapted to the then state of the Speaker’s mind. We have just seen that he was uttering parables of judgment in place of parables of illustration. His parabolical tone had changed completely. In the thirteenth chapter of this gospel, he spoke, as we have repeatedly said, a whole picture gallery of beauties into existence. Since the time of his revelation of his personality to his disciples, he has been speaking parables of fire, judgment, anathema, fraught with most searching and terrible penal criticism. The people round about him, therefore, had supposed that he was excited, and knowing what they themselves were when under excitement, they supposed they would catch this marvellous Speaker at a great disadvantage; he had lost his balance, he was off his guard, he was goaded into an unusual strain of adjuration, and now in this changed temper of his mind, they would very likely be able to ensnare him in his speech, and so to accomplish their own malign purpose.

Still further, the attacks were not inspired by love of truth or by anxiety to know God’s mind upon this or that subject, but by hatred of the Man. Hence we have the most unusual combinations of parties, hence we have the horse and the ass yoked together in one team, hence we have colours that ought never to have been brought into juxtaposition, stitched together, hence we have contrasts which under other circumstances would be accounted anomalies and would evoke destructive criticism, but any union will do where such a Man’s life is to be taken!

In the gospel by Luke, we read that these persons approached Christ feigning themselves to be just men, painting their faces with the colours of justness, borrowing clothes of righteousness and respectability, assuming with fatal skill the very tone of earnestness. Yet under all this feigning and similitude and hypocrisy, their aim was not to inquire about truth, its foundations and responsibilities and issues, but to strike with a dart the life of an excited Man.

This point is the one which brings its severe lesson to us. Herein we find the reality of the inspiration of the attacks which are made upon Christianity today. When men go forward to assail the Book, why do they exhibit so much anxiety to dispute its claim and invalidate its integrity and enfeeble its hold upon the attention of mankind? Judging by history, it is no whit uncharitable to suggest that they are not so anxious about its literary discrepancies and incoherencies and difficulties, as that they hate its moralities. It would be worth the while of any number of men to pay ten thousand pounds down today on any counter, if they could buy themselves off from the moral discipline of the Scriptures. Such an investment would be the beginning of their fortune from a merely secular point of view. The rope would be broken, the tether would be snapped, the chain that binds them would give way at its strongest link, and men would be free to do what they pleased. What wonder then if oftentimes they should shape themselves into little deputations and go in twos and threes for the purpose of asking questions about the literary part of the Bible, when the real heart and core of their purpose is to rid themselves of its moral rule?

How can I be charged with uncharitableness in making such a suggestion, when I have before me Pharisees and Herodians feigning themselves to be just persons, who go to ask a question about the tribute money, not that they care either for the Csar or the Jew in this or that particular, but that they want to ensnare an excited Man in his fluent and vehement eloquence? Let every man search himself in this matter. What if we go to the Bible for the purpose of propounding difficulties and asking religious questions, and take upon us the air of injured critics and anxious pilgrims, having but one supreme purpose, and that to find out the literal word and meaning of God, and in reality we want to rid ourselves of the humiliations of the Book? The Book takes no note of king or peasant, gentle or simple, rich or poor, but judges every man on the broad basis of manhood and sinfulness and dishonoured obligation, and commands every man to his knees, to put his mouth in the dust and to say, “Unclean, unclean.” What if we want to escape its humiliations, under the mean pretence of wanting to rearrange its translation, and revise its literature, and throw into new arrangements that which is historical, chronological, and of antiquarian interest? Search your heart in this matter, say why you do go to the Book or to Christ. Do you feign to be just men when in reality you want to put your knife through the Bible’s morality and to rid yourselves of the daily discipline of its abasements and humiliations? Be severe with yourself on this matter; do not play the fool to yourself, and never lose the dignity and the restfulness of your self-respect.

So much for the attacks which were made upon Jesus Christ. Now let us turn and look at the answers which he made to the onslaughts. Note in the first place that Jesus Christ’s answers were extemporaneous, and herein they stand in contrast to the first point made, that the attacks of the enemy were premeditated and arranged. Speaking from a purely human point of view, the assailants knew by heart every word they were going to say, but Jesus Christ had no knowledge or intimation of the questions that were about to be put to him. His answers therefore were not prepared, studied, arranged, and calculated as to the force and value of words. Herein an argument begins. It surely cannot be an easy thing to answer the supreme intellects of the age, instantaneously, when they put knotty questions, yet this is the very thing Jesus Christ does. He never says, “The question is a novel one, I must consider it.” We have seen old judges upon the English bench posed by novel suggestions or constructions of the law, and the hoary and learned men have had to ask to be permitted to consult some brother judge because of the novelty of the situation. This is wise on the part of all merely human critics, because no man is all men, and no man knows or can know so much as all men know. Consultation, therefore, and comparison of men’s thoughts is not only desirable but just and right in all merely human consultations and inquiries. But here is a man who consults nobody, who asks for no time to think, who answers with the suddenness and the brilliance of lightning. Touch him, and you are healed, if the touch be that of faith. Speak to him, and you evoke a revelation; pray to him, and the whole firmament widens into a great answer to your request, wherein it is just and proper. But never was he to be allowed to consult the authorities or to take into his confidence the learned men of his day. He drew from the quiver of his own heart every arrow that he required. From the fulness of his grace he drew every gospel adapted to his age, from the infiniteness of his own sufficiency he satisfied the hunger of the world.

But an answer may be extemporaneous and nothing more. It may be as instant as lightning, and yet there may be nothing in it but words. But in this case we have the answers before us, and with those answers open to our criticism we may surely pronounce them to be intellectually acute. Sit down in your quietest leisure, when your head is coolest and your mind is steadiest, and try to amend any answer that is here given. Take paper and pen and ink, and in the mood of mind at which you are at your very best, write out a thousand possible answers to the attacks of the Pharisees and Herodians, the Sadducees and the Lawyers. Rearrange your replies, pick out the choicest English in which to express them, and when you have done, you will find that you cannot amend in one line or tone or hue the answers which are here given, perfect in wit, covering the whole case, silencing with gags for that is the true rendering of the speechlessness of the assailants those who made the attack. He put gags in their mouths, and forced them into silence. The dumbness was reluctant, but it was not to be broken through.

Sometimes we think only of Jesus Christ as a good man, kind-hearted, full of love, always trying to make the world better, yea even to save the world. All that is right, but we ought sometimes to consider the simple intellectual force and majesty of this unique mind. Christ had a great heart true but do not therefore disparage his mind. It suits the purpose of some persons to regard Jesus Christ as morally noble, but intellectually feeble. Wherein is the intellectual feebleness shown? Certainly not in this instance. The answer about the tribute money was an answer surprising and conclusive as a revelation from heaven. There was nothing else to be said; no man could add a word to it without spoiling its infinite simplicity, no mind can suggest a new turn to the phrase without trying to bend the sky into a completer circle.

Not only so for in that he might simply have been the greater wit of the two his answers were profoundly Scriptural. Take the instance of the resurrection of the dead. What was his reply? Was there any shuffling here, or any disposition to evade the difficulty? He said, in effect, “Sadducees, you are perfectly right from your point of view. The anecdote is exactly as you have related it; I myself knew all the circumstances of the case a very surprising instance indeed, rarely to be met with, and from your point of view it must really shape itself into something like a fatal argument. But, gentlemen, where you get wrong is in your foundation. You have nothing to stand upon but a handful of sand: I take it away and down you drop the whole fabric, anecdote, historians, and critics, and all. Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures and the power of God. You omit from your calculation the two great factors, you are perplexed by details, you rest upon no infinite rock.” And they all were gagged. When the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine, or astonished at his teaching. Not so much at the substance as in the new way in which he put old truths and avowed revelations, and under his setting these old things shone with a new light. Herein is the greatness of all true teaching not to be inventing new theories and hypotheses, but so to set the old truth as to give it modern force, so to interpret the eternal as to make it a gospel to the dying time.

Poor Sadducees! I pity the Pharisees about their penny, and the Sadducees about their one little anecdote. Both parties seem to have been deprived of their one ewe lamb. It is sad to see how these little critics who suppose they had a case against Christ, have the case taken right out of their hands and turned to the advantage of the other side. I never knew a critic go away from Christ otherwise than with a slouching gait and with a kind of unconfessed wish that he had never made such a fool of himself as to go and touch that burning mountain.

Do not let us be misled by little cases that occur, by parochial anecdotes and by local circumstances that appear to contravene the infinite revelation of God. Let your circumstances go down and accommodate themselves to the eternal. Woe to the peace of any man who lives in mere details.

How did Jesus know all these Scriptures? He himself wrote them. The Scriptures were quoted from him, he did not quote from the Scriptures. He only quotes himself, and quotes himself with the emphasis which the writer of any deep literature alone can give to his own words.

I must add that the answers were complete. From our point of view we cannot suggest a solitary deficiency in the replies. He does not evade the question, but addresses himself honestly, morally, to the difficulty that was put before him. A lawyer thought he could put a case that might puzzle this singular Teacher. “Which is the great commandment of the law?” Jesus answered, “Thou shalt love.” That must have been a surprise to any man who was nothing but a lawyer thou shalt love. It does not read like a legal phrase thou shalt love. And yet Jesus Says, “I did not invent that expression: you will find it in the law” and he goes to the very chapter with which he himself seems to have been peculiarly familiar, for in the Temptation in the wilderness, two of his quotations were out of that very selfsame chapter. And now when the lawyer comes to him, probably an emissary of an old tempter, he answers him out of the same chapter. Wonderful things you will find in any chapter of the Bible if you dig for them as for hidden treasure, and search it as for surprises of incalculable value. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly. What can be a completer answer to the inquiry of the lawyer than “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart”? and to accommodate himself still further to the lawyer’s possible condition, he says, “There is another commandment very nearly as great,” and looking at him like a judgment, searching him through and through like a fire, he said, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” If a lawyer can do that, I know not what he cannot do.

We too send deputations to Christ, send our Criticism to him, and we say in effect, “Jesus, son of David, behold the document: we find that the date in this place does not accord with the date in that place; we find that one Evangelist relates a circumstance in one way, and another evangelist relates the same circumstance in another way. Now what are we to do?” And instantly he says, “You are not saved by the literary coherencies of the Book, but by its moral consistency. Look for its consistency in its consistent demands for righteousness and truth and purity and honour.” Then our Criticism coming away from him, we send up our Curiosity, and curiosity, feigning itself to be very reverent and profoundly inquisitive in a right spirit, says, “Jesus, why not tell us more about heaven and hell, about the invisible world generally?” and instantly he answers, “I have told you enough for life, conduct, discipline, sanctification: use what you do know, and he that is faithful in little, shall afterwards be appointed ruler over many cities.” Then we send up to him our Vulgarity, and the vulgarity says to him broadly, “Why is there so much mystery about this Book, why not make things much plainer?” and he answers, “The mystery is in yourself: there is no mystery in the Book that has not its counterpart in the mystery of your own psychology: you are the mystery, and until you recognise that fact, you will never rise to the occasion demanded of you as true students of the Book, which is not an invention apart from mankind, but a revelation to human nature as it is now constituted.”

The questions are over, the assailants are quiet. “Now,” says Jesus, “if you do want to ask a question that is a real difficulty from your point of view, I will put it into your possession: you shall have a really hard and deep question. Now, what think ye of the Christ?” Not “What think ye of me as the Christ?” but “What think ye of the Christ that is promised in your books? Whose son is he?” And they instantly answer like a number of children who had learned the Catechism, “The son of David.” “Now how then doth David in spirit call him Lord? If David call him Lord, how is he his son?” A difficulty indeed to the literal intellect, a difficulty to those who live in pen and ink, a difficulty to those who suppose there is no multiplication beyond what is literally given in the multiplication table, yet no difficulty at all to the reverent imagination, that higher and sublimer life that embraces the whole revelation of God in its noblest suggestiveness. If the Christ were only the son of David, he could never be David’s Lord: the fact that David sets lordship above sonship suggests that this Man is Wonderful, Emmanuel, God with us, a ladder with the foot on the earth, with the head bathed in the glad heavens. Great is the mystery of godliness, God manifest in the flesh. “Pharisees, Herodians, Sadducees, Lawyers,” said he, “do not trouble yourselves about the tribute money, and questions of succession in family relationships: do not trouble yourselves with the merely numerical relationships of the points of the law, but do ask deep questions, grand questions, massive, noble questions, get up into the higher region of thinking, and there learn how possible it is for reason to blossom into faith, and for the hard, literal intellect to bow down in tender homage before the infinite God.”

Such are the infinite retorts of Christ. Be sure, when you go to him with a question, that it is neither little nor irreverent.

Selected Notes

Mat 22:21 . “And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Csar the things which be Csar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.”

Render. A clear acknowledgment of the divine authority of human government.

1. Though they went to pay Csar’s tribute, they were not to adopt Csar’s religion.

The paying earthly tribute does not defraud the Lord’s service.

“Fear God, honour the king.” 1Pe 2:17 .

“Curse not the king, no not in thy thought.” Ecc 10:20 .

“Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.” Act 23:5 .

“The wicked are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.” 2Pe 2:10 .

2. Obedience to the laws. “Let every soul be subject to the higher powers.” Rom 13:1 .

“Use not your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness.” 1Pe 2:16 .

“License they mean, when liberty they cry.” Milton.

There are times when resistance becomes a virtue. Psa 149:8 , Psa 149:9 .

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.

Ver. 15. Then went the Pharisees ] They were, as one saith, Puncti et repuncti, minime tamen ad resipiscentiam compuncti. They were stung with the former parables, and grew more enraged. It is a vain persuasion for any godly man to think by any discretion wholly to still and escape the clamours and hates of wicked persons; Christ himself could not do it.

How they might entangle him in his talk ] As beasts are in the hunter’s toil, or birds in the fowler’s net. a Every man hunteth his brother with a net, was an old complaint, Mic 7:2 . And, “They make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate,” &c., Isa 29:21 . Doctor Story’s rule to know a heretic was, They will say, The Lord, and, We praise God, and, The living God. So, The Lord, and not to say, Our Lord, is called by Stephen Gardiner, Symbolum haereticorum, the heretic’s badge. But God will take these wizards in their own craft,1Co 3:191Co 3:19 , he will catch them in their own cunning, he will over shoot them in their own bow, he will take his handful of them, so that they shall not make escape, as the word there signifies, , comprehendens et quasi manum complens. Aret.

a , Metaph. a venatione ferarum. Piscator. Metaph. a feris quibus tenduntur laquei et retia. Par.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

15 22. ] REPLY CONCERNING THE LAWFULNESS OF TRIBUTE TO CSAR. Mar 12:13-17 . Luk 20:20-26 . On the Herodians , see above, ch. Mat 16:6 . By the union of these two hostile parties they perhaps thought that the (Luke), who were to feign themselves honest men, Luk 20:20 , would be more likely to deceive our Lord . For this also is their flattery here designed. ‘The devil never lies so foully, as when he speaks the truth.’ Meyer compares that other , Joh 3:2 . The application may have been as if to settle a dispute which had sprung up between the Pharisees, the strong theocratic repudiators of Roman rule, and the Herodians, the hangerson of a dynasty created by Csar. In case the answer were negative , these last would be witnesses against Him to the governor ( Luk 20:20 ); as indeed they became, with false testimony, when they could not get true, Luk 23:2 ; in case it were affirmative , He would be compromised with the Roman conquerors, and could not be the people’s deliverer, their expected Messias; which would furnish them with a pretext for stirring up the multitudes against Him (see Deu 17:15 ).

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Mat 22:15-22 . The tribute question (Mar 12:13-17 , Luk 20:20-26 ). In this astute scheme the Sanhedrists, according to Mk., were the prime movers, using other parties as their agents. Here the Pharisees act on their own motion.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Mat 22:15 . , then, with reference to Mat 21:46 , when the Sanhedrists were at a loss how to get Jesus into their power. may refer either to process: consulting together; or to result: formed a plan. , either how ( quomodo , Beza, wie , 11. C.), which, however, would more naturally take the future indicative (Fritzsche), or, better, in order that . , they might ensnare, an Alexandrine word, not in classics, here and in Sept [124] ( vide Ecc 9:12 ). , by a word, either the question they were to ask ( , Euthy.), or the answer they hoped He would give (Meyer). For the idea, cf. Isa 29:21 .

[124] Septuagint.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 22:15-22

15Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said. 16And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any. 17Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?” 18But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, “Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites? 19Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax.” And they brought Him a denarius. 20And He said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” 21They said to Him, “Caesar’s.” Then He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.” 22And hearing this, they were amazed, and leaving Him, they went away.

Mat 22:15 “Pharisees” See Special Topic below.

SPECIAL TOPIC: PHARISEES

“plotted together” This term is used by Matthew to document the numerous times and ways that the religious leaders gathered together to plan to thwart Jesus’ ministry (cf. Mat 12:14; Mat 22:15; Mat 26:4; Mat 27:1; Mat 27:7; Mat 28:12).

In this instance Pharisees even consulted with Herodians to trick Jesus. They hated each other, but they both felt threatened by Jesus and His teachings. Hate makes strange “bedfellows”!

Mat 22:16 “Herodians” See Special Topic at Mat 2:1.

“Teacher” This group of religious leaders is trying to flatter Jesus in order to trick Him (cf. Mat 22:15). Notice how they characterize Him.

1. we know You are truthful

2. we know You teach the way of God in truth

3. we know You defer to no one

4. we know You are not partial to any (lit. “do not lift the face”)

If these Pharisees and Herodians really believed these statements, why did they reject His teachings?

Mat 22:17 “Is it lawful” This meant according to the oral traditions which interpreted the Mosaic Law (i.e., “traditions of the elders,” Mat 15:2). Jesus changed the question from an “either/or” to a “both/and” (cf. Mat 22:21).

“poll-tax” This was a Roman tax that went directly to the Emperor. It was levied on every male 14-65 years old and every female 12-65 years old who lived in the imperial provinces.

Mat 22:18 “testing” This Greek term had the connotation of “to test with a view toward destruction.” See Special Topic at Mat 4:1. These Jewish leaders knew that the Jewish population was not in support of this tax. If Jesus answered one way He would be in trouble with the Roman authorities; if the other, the Jewish population.

“hypocrites” This compound term meant “to judge under” (cf. Mat 6:2; Mat 6:5; Mat 6:16; Mat 7:5; Mat 15:7; Mat 16:3; Mat 23:13; Mat 23:15; Mat 23:25-27; Mat 23:29; Mat 24:51). It referred to people who acted one way while truly living or feeling another.

Mat 22:19 “Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax” This coin was a “denarius.” It was a day’s wage for soldiers and laborers. On the front was a picture of Tiberius with the saying, “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, son of the Divine Augustus.” On the back was a picture of Tiberius seated on a throne and an inscription, “Highest Priest.” Tiberius ruled the Roman Empire from A.D. 14-37. Coinage was a symbol of who was in governmental control. See Special Topic: Coins in Use in Palestine in Jesus’ Day at Mat 17:24.

Mat 22:21 “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” The Bible is clear that believers are to pray for and support the governmental authority they live under regardless of its form unless it usurps the place of God in the life of the believer (cf. Rom 13:1 ff.; Tit 3:1; 1Pe 2:13). Jesus changed the word “pay” of Mat 22:17 to “pay back.”

“and to God the things that are God’s” The government, although ordained by God, cannot demand allegiance as a divine power. Believers must reject all ultimate claims of authority, for God alone is the ultimate authority. We must be careful of basing our modern political theory of separation of church and state on this passage. The Bible does not clearly speak on this issue, but western history does!

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

This is a study guide commentary which means that you are responsible for your own interpretation of the Bible. Each of us must walk in the light we have. You, the Bible and the Holy Spirit are priority in interpretation. You must not relinquish this to a commentator.

These discussion questions are provided to help you think through the major issues of this section of the book. They are meant to be thought provoking, not definitive.

1. Can you list and define all the religious and political groups within Judaism of Jesus’ day mentioned in the NT?

2. Why were these groups trying to trick Jesus?

3. What is the implication of Jesus’ statement in Mat 22:21 for our day?

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

went = came: as in Mat 22:23. A threefold temptation. See above.

the Pharisees. See App-120.

entangle = entrap. Greek. pagideuo. Occurs only here.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

15-22.] REPLY CONCERNING THE LAWFULNESS OF TRIBUTE TO CSAR. Mar 12:13-17. Luk 20:20-26. On the Herodians, see above, ch. Mat 16:6. By the union of these two hostile parties they perhaps thought that the (Luke), who were to feign themselves honest men, Luk 20:20, would be more likely to deceive our Lord. For this also is their flattery here designed. The devil never lies so foully, as when he speaks the truth. Meyer compares that other , Joh 3:2. The application may have been as if to settle a dispute which had sprung up between the Pharisees, the strong theocratic repudiators of Roman rule, and the Herodians, the hangerson of a dynasty created by Csar. In case the answer were negative, these last would be witnesses against Him to the governor (Luk 20:20); as indeed they became, with false testimony, when they could not get true, Luk 23:2; in case it were affirmative, He would be compromised with the Roman conquerors, and could not be the peoples deliverer, their expected Messias; which would furnish them with a pretext for stirring up the multitudes against Him (see Deu 17:15).

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Mat 22:15. , …, then went the Pharisees, etc.) On the malignant spirit of our Lords adversaries, see Mar 12:12-13; Luk 20:20.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Mat 22:15-22

PAYING TAXES TO CAESAR

Mat 22:15-22

15-22 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel.-Parallel records of this may be found in Mar 12:12-17 and Luk 20:20-26. “Then went the Pharisees”; this is the beginning of a series of councils of the Sanhedrin which resulted in the violent scenes which follow; thy were frightened by the miracle of the raising of Lazarus (Joh 11:48-53), and enraged by the parables which Jesus had just pronounced against them. They had listened to three searching parables which put them to a very great disadvantage; they now resort to allies for aid. The first they bring up are the Herodians, who retire from the encounter silenced. The purpose of the Pharisees is to “ensnare him in his talk”; that is, they want to confuse him or entangle him in contradiction. “Ensnare” is a figure drawn from taking wild birds in a snare or net. This first attempt with the Herodians is to involved him in difficulty with the Roman government; they seek to expose, as they thought, his ignorance upon some point of law or religion. The Herodians were a political party rather than a religious sect, as it is not known exactly what their opinions were on religious subjects. It is plain from their name that they were attached to Herod, or rather to his political views; they took their title from Herod the Great. Some think that they taught that it was the safest, most politic wisdom to follow the customs of the Roman law rather than seek to insist upon obedience to the law of God, and especially when those precepts of the law caused any difficulty or danger.

Representatives of the Pharisees and the Herodians came to Jesus and said, “Teacher, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, and carest not for any one for thou regardest not the person of men.” If they had been sincere, they were paying a high tribute to Jesus. In attempting to ensnare him, they begin with flattery and deceit; they seek to inflate him with pride. They make four statements in their attempted flattery. First, “we know that thou art true,” that is, that he is genuinely sincere second, that thou “teachest the way of God in truth,” that is, that he taught the truth of God (if they so thought why did they not accept his teaching?) third, that thou “carest not for any one,” that is, that he was courageous enough to speak his convictions regardless of whom it might oppose and fourth, that “thou regardest not the person of men,” that is, he was not biased or prejudiced because of any one. What they said of Jesus was true, but they did not believe it as the truth about him. They put on the air of expecting complete independence from him under the hope that he would commit himself to some rebellious statement with respect to Roman law.

Having prepared him now, as they thought, for their question, they propounded it, “What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?” They mean, is it permitted by the law of Moses to pay tribute to Cesar? The Jews did not like paying tribute to a foreign government. By this question they thought they would put Jesus in a dilemma. If he said that it was not lawful to pay tribute to Caesar, then he would be in bad with the Roman authorities; but if he said that it was lawful, then he would lose some of his popularity with the people and would be in bad with them. These Pharisees did not care how he answered the question; they thought that his answer would hang him on one horn of the dilemma. The Jews based their opposition to paying tribute to a foreign government on Deu 17:14-15.

18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness.—Jesus knew their hearts, he knew their intentions and he asked them, “Why make ye trial of me, ye hypocrites?” Jesus was quick to “discern the thoughts and intents of the heart,” and knew all that was in man. (Joh 2:24-25.) They were seeking to condemn Jesus by his words, but he reveals to them the thoughts of their hearts. They were asking as though seeking information, but had an evil motive in their question; hence, Jesus called them “hypocrites.” This was a severe condemnation. He called for a coin and was given a “denarius”; this coin was worth about seventeen cents in our money. He asked them, “Whose is this image and superscription?” The denarius had on it the image of the Roman emperor and a motto for an inscription. Some claim that it had this inscription: “Caesar Augustus, Judea being subdued.” They answered, “Caesar’s.” They did not give the superscription, only the image, while Jesus had asked for both. The inscription was odious to them and they did not wish to repeat it. Jesus then answered, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” Give to Caesar or human government the things which belong to it; no one could object to this. Neither could any one object to giving to God the things that belong to God; he did not want that which belonged to Caesar, neither did he want his things given to Caesar; human laws have no right to infringe upon the laws of God. Christians must as far as possible comply with both, but when human law conflicts with the divine, Christians must obey God and take the consequences. These Pharisees “marvelled” at his wisdom “and left him, and went away.” They went away wondering, but not believing; they departed to plot other wickedness, and to accomplish by violence what they could not effect by their skill.

[Tertullian over 1,500 years ago commented on this incident as follows: “The image of Caesar, which is on the coin, we give to Caesar. The image of God, which is in man, is to be given to God. Therefore, thou must give the money, indeed, to Caesar, but thyself to God, for what will remain to God, if both man and money be given to Caesar?”]

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Duties to God and Society

Mat 22:15-22

This reading begins a marvelous cycle of interviews between our Lord and His questioners. First the Herodians, then the Sadducees, and finally the Pharisees were answered and silenced. What inimitable wisdom there was in His replies! How masterfully He turned the battle from the gate and slew them with their own swords!

Theoretically God was King in Israel. Were, then, the Jews justified in paying tribute to Caesar? If our Lord had said so, His enemies would have accused Him of treachery to the theocracy. If He had forbidden it, they would have accused Him of treachery to their Roman conquerors. Our Lord answered with marvelous wisdom. He tore aside the veil and revealed their hypocrisy. That coin indicated that the Romans were responsible for maintaining law and order. It was surely right that Caesars dues should be paid. But it was equally right to give to God the souls that He had redeemed. Are we as careful in rendering to God our hearts and lives as we are in paying our taxes and serving the state?

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Chapter 64

Trappers Trapped

Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. 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. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesars. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesars; and unto God the things that are Gods. When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way. The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine. But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

(Mat 22:15-46)

In the passage before us the Holy Spirit has recorded a series of subtle snares laid by our Lords enemies during the last days of his earthly ministry. By their pretentious questions, asked with the pretense of seeking to honor God and understand his truth, these hell-inspired religionists were trying to entangle our Lord, trying to trick him into saying something they could use as an accusation against him. Obviously, their schemes failed. They were taken in their own snare, and retreated in utter confusion. There is much to be learned from this event.

Religious knowledge is not spiritual knowledge. Spiritual knowledge and discernment comes only by faith in Christ (Heb 11:3). It is attained only by divine revelation (1Co 2:11-16). A saving knowledge of Christ is not a carnal apprehension of the intellect, but the gift and revelation of God the Holy Spirit. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more (2Co 5:16). Let us be sure we understand what the Spirit of God tells us. Our knowledge of Christ is not a carnal apprehension of the intellect, but the gift and revelation of God the Holy Spirit. Being born again by the omnipotent grace and irresistible mercy of God the Holy Spirit, all who are taught of God, know Christ after the Spirit, and not after the flesh. John Owen wrote

Of all the poison which at this day is diffused in the minds of men, corrupting them from the mystery of the gospel, there is no part that is more pernicious than this one perverse imagination, that to believe in Christ is nothing at all but to believe the doctrine of the gospel!

A Question about Taxes

The Herodians obviously had some connection with both Herod and with the Pharisees. It is really unknown to us who they were, what their connections were, and what their beliefs were. Many have tried to figure out who these men were. I will leave that to them. I want you to see the message the Holy Spirit of God would have us to learn. The Herodians hoped to entangle our Savior with a political question, asking whether it is lawful to pay taxes.

Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. 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. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesars. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesars; and unto God the things that are Gods. When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way (Mat 22:15-22)

The word then in Mat 22:15 directs our attention to the preceding parables given by our Lord. In the parable of the two sons our Savior told them that their religious works would profit them nothing before God (Mat 21:31). In the parable of the husbandmen the Pharisees perceived that he spake of them (Mat 22:45), when he said, The kingdom shall be taken from you, and judgment shall fall upon you (Mat 22:42-45). Then, the parable of the marriage feast plainly declared the message of Gods sovereign, electing love and irresistible, saving grace (Mat 22:14). That message of grace was the clincher. The Pharisees, the Herodians, and the Sadducees were all enraged by it, and sought to destroy the Son of God for preaching it.

Here is the first thing set before us in this passage. The cross of Christ, the gospel of Gods free, sovereign, saving grace in Christ, the gospel of Gods free, sovereign, saving grace in Christ alone, is an offence to all natural men, and more offensive to lost religious people than to anyone else (Gal 5:11).

Why is the gospel of Christ so offensive to self-righteous people? The gospel of Christ declares that man is totally depraved, that all men are spiritually dead, evil at heart, and utterly incapable of doing good before God (Rom 5:12; Eph 2:1; Mar 7:20-23; Rom 3:10-20). The gospel doctrine of unconditional election makes salvation to be a matter wholly determined by the immutable will of God, not the will of man (Joh 15:16; Eph 1:3-6; 2Th 2:13-14). The sweet message of accomplished redemption by Christ alone, limited atonement, makes salvation to be merited by and effectually secured by Christ, taking man out of the work altogether (2Co 5:18-21; Gal 3:13; Eph 1:7; Heb 9:12). The gospel proclaims grace that is free, irresistible, and effectual, making the new birth and faith in Christ the gifts and operations of the irresistible grace and omnipotent mercy of God the Holy Spirit, not the work of mans imaginary free will (Psa 65:4; Psa 110:3; Eph 2:8-9; Col 2:12). And the gospel of Christ assures every believing sinner of an everlasting, indestructible salvation by Christ (Joh 10:27-30). The perseverance of the saints makes salvation, grace, and eternal life entirely dependent upon the work of God, and in no way dependent upon the works of man.

Second, we see in Mat 22:16 how Satan often comes against us as a flattering friend, rather than an enraged enemy. The Herodians, who hated our Savior, said to him, 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. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Many may be deceived by seductive kindness and flattery of deceitful men, who would never be moved by direct opposition. Samson, Solomon, and Hezekiah are well-known examples of that fact. Sweet things cause more sickness than bitter things. The warm, balmy sunshine of a bright summer day is far more likely to make a man shed his protective armor than the freezing blasts of winter. Satan is never so dangerous as when he appears to be our friend.

The third lesson, the primary lesson taught by our Lords answer to the Herodians is the fact that in all matters of civil law it is our duty to be obedient to civil government. Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesars; and unto God the things that are Gods (Mat 22:21; Rom 13:1-7). I do not approve of many things, indeed, of most things promoted and encouraged by the institutions of government in our country. I am thankful for the nation, love it, and am willing to fight to the death to defend the land and liberty God has given us. But those laws of the land that tend to destroy the very fabric of society, I do not and cannot condone.

Yet, wherever the laws of the land do not demand that I violate the Word of God, I am and must be obedient to the laws of civil government. We must be obedient to God, regardless of cost or consequence, even when law forbids our obedience (Act 4:18-20). But, where Caesar does not demand disobedience to Christ, we must render unto Caesar the things that are his. That includes paying taxes (Mat 17:27).

A Question about the Resurrection

In Mat 22:23-33 the Sadducees attempted to entangle the Son of God with a question about the resurrection. The Sadducees were the liberals of the day. They denied the resurrection. The Sadducees and the Pharisees were not at all friendly with one another. But they were willing to put aside their differences when it came to opposing Christ. They were happy to work together against him, as in Mat 22:15-22. There are three things in these verses that are as obvious as the sun

First, we see how utterly dishonest people can be while pretending to sincerely serve God.

The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God (Mat 22:23-29).

These men pretended to honor Moses, the Scriptures, and God, though they sought honor only for themselves. And, in their pretentiously pious attempt to destroy the doctrine of Christ, they fabricated a story. Imaginary suppositions are the strongest weapons of religious infidels. While ignoring obvious evidences of divine truth, they pile up suppositions and hypothetical situations to cast reproach upon the revealed truth of the God they despise. When we are confronted with such people, we should simply ignore them. We must never be drawn into debate (which God the Holy Spirit calls the work of the flesh) with people who are ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth (2Ti 3:7). There are some things we know (1Pe 1:18-25), and some things we do not know (Act 1:7). Spiritual things can be known only by the Word of God and the power of God the Holy Spirit (Mat 22:29). They are never learned by carnal debate.

In Mat 22:30 our Savior shows us something of the blessedness of the resurrection For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven (Mat 22:30). In that blessed, glorious state we shall be as the angels of God. We know very little about the life that awaits us in the resurrection. But there are some things about that which awaits us in resurrection glory that the Lord our God has graciously revealed; and those things are sure: The glory awaiting us is beyond imagination (1Co 2:9). No consequence of sin shall follow us into eternity (Rev 21:4). We shall be as the angels of God. We shall forever enjoy the immediate presence of our Lord! In heavenly glory we shall be forever perfectly obedient to his will, serving him perfectly, giving him all glory, without sin, and without the restraints or needs of these carnal bodies!

Then, the Lord Jesus speaks about his eternality as God our Savior.

But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine (Mat 22:31-33).

Our Savior quotes Exo 3:6 in the present tense: I am (not was) the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Remember, the God who spoke those words to Moses out of the burning bush is Christ himself, the Angel of the Lord. Then he adds these words God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. He is telling us that he is the eternal God, and assures us that all who die in him are not dead, but living. Because he is the Resurrection and the Life, those who trust him shall never die (Joh 11:25-26).

A Question about the Law

Next, the Pharisees sent one of their lawyers to tempt the Savior with a question about the law.

But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets (Mat 22:34-40).

The word lawyer here does not refer to the kind of lawyer you might find in a court of law. This man was not a trial lawyer, or a civil lawyer, but a religious lawyer, the worst kind of lawyer! He was a man whose life and business it was to study and teach the Mosaic law, with all the customs and traditions appended to it by men.

Again, there are three things in these verses that must be understood: (1.) The law of God is holy, just, and good. What a blessed place this world would be if all men loved God and one another! But, (2.) no sinful man is capable of obeying Gods holy law. The grace of God teaches us to love God and one another (1Jn 3:16-17; 1Jn 4:9-11), and enables us in a measure to do so; but our best love is full of sin! (3.) The only way any sinner can obey and fulfil Gods holy law is by the doing and dying of Christ, our Representative and Substitute (Rom 8:1-4). He obeyed the law for us. He paid our debt to the full satisfaction of divine justice. And we fulfill the law by trusting him, only by faith in him (Rom 3:28).

One Significant Question

In Mat 22:41-46 the Son of God puts forth one question before which all other questions fade into insignificance. What think ye of Christ? With this question of all questions, he snared the fowlers and trapped the trappers. These learned religious men were put to silence by this question. To answer it honestly, they would have been compelled to acknowledge that the Messiah must be both God and man. But, rather than be honest, they held to their religious traditions and went to hell!

I put this question to you. What think ye of Christ? Let me answer for myself and for every saved soul, according to the Scriptures. The Man Christ Jesus is the mighty God (1Ti 3:16). Yet, he is really and truly man, the womans Seed (Gal 4:4-6). He is the Lord our Righteousness! (Jer 23:6; Jer 33:16). He is our all-sufficient Substitute! (2Co 5:21). He is our omnipotent Savior! (Heb 7:25; Mat 1:21). He is our all-prevailing Advocate with the Father! (1Jn 2:1-2). And he is precious (1Pe 2:7).

Overruling Providence

Once more, we see how that our Lord takes what wicked men, inspired by Satan himself, meant for evil, and turns it for good. We should never miss an opportunity to admire the overruling providence of our God, who constantly works all things together for the everlasting salvation of his elect (Gen 50:20; Psa 76:10; Rom 8:28).

The malice of the Herodians, Sadducees, and Pharisees was sweetly overruled to the glory of Christ and the comfort of our souls. Had those wicked men not raised their trivial questions of strife, we would never have had the precious things revealed in this passage. We certainly could never have known the meaning of those words spoken to Moses out of the burning bush had our Savior not explained it to us here. God in Christ, wrote Robert Hawker, is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Speaking of those who have died in Christ, Hawker continued, All live to him; their souls among the spirits of just men, made perfect, and their bodies, from an union with Christ, resting in this covenant hope of being raised at the last day. For if the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead, dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead, shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

What a sweet, delightful thing it is to realize that our great God made the malice of these wicked men an occasion to put forth that one question of indescribable importance, What think ye of Christ? Again, I am compelled to give you Mr. Hawkers tremendous comments on that question.

What think ye of Christ? What think ye of his person, of his offices, characters, relations? What think ye of the completeness, fulness, suitableness, all-sufficiency of his salvation? What think ye of Christ as to his worth, preciousness, beauty, glory? What, as to his value, importance, his absolute necessity, and the living without knowing him, and the dying without enjoying him? Oh! for the proper apprehension of Jesus! Oh for the absolute and certain union with him, and interest in him! The soul that hath so learned Christ, will best know how to enter into the full sense of our Lords question; and will best appreciate the being found in him, so as to render all other knowledge of no value, but the knowledge of Christ, the power of God, and the wisdom of God, for salvation to every one that believeth.

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

The King’s Enemies try to Ensnare him

Mat 22:15. Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.

Then went the Pharisees: they must have perceived that the parable of the wedding feast, like that of the wicked husbandmen, was spoken against them. Our Lord’s words, however, did not move them to repentance; but only increased their malice and hatred against him. Their hearts were hardened, and their consciences seared; so they took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. They would not acknowledge that Christ was the wisdom of God and the power of God; had they done so, they would not have attempted their impossible task. They saw that, to ensnare Jesus in his talk, was a difficult undertaking; and therefore they “took counsel” how they might accomplish it. If he had been as faulty as we are, they might have succeeded; for men who wish to entrap us in our talk need not consult much about how to do it.

This incident teaches us that men who can be as precise and formal as these Pharisees were, can yet deliberately set themselves to entangle an opponent. Great outward religiousness may consist with the meanest spirit.

Mat 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.

They sent out unto him their disciples: they were probably ashamed to appear again in the presence of Christ, after his exposure of their conduct towards himself as the King’s Son; so they despatched a select detachment of their disciples, in the hope that the scholars might succeed where their teachers had failed. With the Herodians: the disciples of the Pharisees were to be reinforced by a company from an opposite section of the enemies of Christ. The united band could operate against Jesus from different sides. The Pharisees hated the rule of a foreign power, while the Herodians advocated the supremacy of Csar. Differing as these two sections did, even to mutual hate, they for the time laid aside their own disputes, that they might in one way or another ensnare our Lord.

They began with fair speeches. They addressed Jesus by a title of respect, “Master”: they only used the word in hypocrisy; but they professed to regard him as a teacher of the Law, and an authority on disputed points of doctrine or practice. They also admitted his sincerity and truthfulness: “we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth.” They further praised him for his fearlessness: “neither carest thou for any man.” They then lauded him for his impartiality: “for thou regardest not the person of men” ” Thou wilt speak without any regard for what Csar, or Pilate, or Herod, or any of us may think, or say, or do.” Thus did they try to throw him off his guard by what they uttered in sheer flattery. All that they said was true; but they did not mean it. From their lips it was mere cajolery. Let us take note that, when evil men are very loud in their praises of us, they usually have some wicked design against us. They fawn and flatter that they may deceive and destroy.

Mat 22:17. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Csar, or not?

” Tell us therefore “: “because thou art true, because thou teachest the way of God in truth, because thou carest not for any man’s opinion when thou art thyself in the right, and because thou regardest not the person of men, but darest to speak the truth, whether they will hear or whether they will forbear; tell us therefore, What thinkest thou?” “We are very anxious to have thy opinion upon this important point; on which some teach one thing, some another. It is a matter of great public interest; everybody is talking about it; it must have been considered in all its bearings by such a learned teacher as thou art, and we should like to know thy thoughts upon it: What thinkest thou? “Dear innocents! Much they wanted instruction from him! All the while that they were speaking, they were inwardly gloating over the triumph which they felt sure would be theirs, when by any answer that he might give, or even by his silence, he must provoke the animosity of one portion of the people, or the other.

Here is the question they put to our Lord: “Is it lawful to give tribute unto Csar, or not? “They referred to the annual capitation tax, imposed by the Romans, which was the cause of great indignation among the Jews, and led to frequent insurrections. Judas of Galileo (Act 5:37), one of the many pretended Messiahs, had taught that it was not lawful to give tribute unto Csar, and ho had perished in consequence of his rebellion against Rome. Christ’s questioners may have hoped that some such fate would befall him.

Their question was a delicate and difficult one in many ways. Any answer whatever would bristle with points by which his enemies hoped to entrap him. If he said, “It is lawful,” then they would denounce him as in league with the oppressor of his people, and a traitor to the Theocracy of which they boasted, even though they had virtually cast off the divine rule over them. If he said, “It is not lawful,” they could accuse him to the Roman governor as exciting the multitude to rebellion. This was, in fact, one of the false accusations brought against Jesus when he was before Pilate: “We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Csar, saying that ho himself is Christ a King.” If ho remained silent, they would twit him with being a coward who did not dare to say what he thought, lest he should offend his hearers. Very cleverly was the net spread; but those who had so cunningly made and laid it little thought that they were only setting a snare in which they themselves would be caught. Thus doth it often happen, as David said, “The wicked is snared in the work of his own hands.”

Mat 22:18. But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

Our great thought-reading King was not to be deceived either by their flattery or their crafty questioning: But Jesus perceived their wickedness; for it was that, with a vengeance. Malice and deceit designed his overthrow; but he saw through the cunning of his enemies, and perceived the wickedness that prompted them thus to assail him. Onlookers may not have perceived their wickedness, and our Lord’s disciples may have been puzzled as to how he would reply; but, as in all other trying circumstances, Jesus himself knew what he would do.

Probably even his enemies did not expect such a question as he now put to them: “Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? “They hoped that they had disguised their real purpose so cleverly, that they must have been surprised to have the mask so quickly torn from their faces, and to be exposed to public gaze in their true character as “hypocrites.” Jesus compared them to stage-players, dissemblers, men acting a false part with intent to deceive. Rightly did he name them; and wisely did he say to them, “Why tempt ye me? “It is as if he had said, “You see that I am not deceived by your false and flattering speeches, I can read the malice that is written in your hearts, you are just powerless before me if I choose to treat you as I can do; what can poor, puny creatures, such as ye are, do against me? Why tempt ye me? “There is infinite scorn in our Saviour’s question; yet there is an undertone of pity even for those who deserved it not: “Why tempt ye me? Have I given you any cause why you should seek to entrap me? Why are you so foolish as to ask questions which must be to your own hurt?”

Whenever men pretend great reverence for Jesus, and then seek, by their erroneous teaching, or their science falsely so-called, to overthrow his gospel, they are base hypocrites.

Mat 22:19. Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

Having exposed their folly and hypocrisy, Jesus proceeds to put them publicly to shame. He said to them, “Shew me the tribute money.” This request on his part, and their compliance with it, would make the whole matter more vivid and impressive to the bystanders. When there is something to see and handle, a lesson becomes the more striking. Our Lord asked them to show him a specimen of the coin usually paid for the capitation tax: and they brought unto him a penny, a denarius. This coin represented the daily pay of a Roman soldier, and in the parable of the vineyard it was said to be the daily wage of the labourer. Had these men guessed the use to which Jesus would put the denarius, they would not have so quickly procured one for him. They bought their own confusion with that coin. They would never afterwards be able to look upon the tribute money without remembering how they were foiled in their attempt to entangle the hated Nazarene.

Mat 22:20-21. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Csar the things which are Csaris; and unto God the things that are God’s.

He asked another question, that they might themselves assist in replying to themselves: He saith unto them, “Whose is this image and superscription?” Or rather, inscription. Before them were the image and inscription of the Roman emperor on the piece of money; but he would make them say as much, so he asks,” Whose is this? “The Jewish Rabbis taught that “if a king’s coin is current in a country, the men of the country do thereby evidence that they acknowledge him for their lord.”

When we are dealing with ungodly men, it is well if we can make them to be their own accusers.

They say unto him, “Csar’s.” No other answer was possible. This tribute money was not a shekel of Jewish coinage, but money of the Roman empire. This was a plain proof that, whether they liked it or not, they were Roman subjects, and Csar was their ruler. What then must follow but that they should pay to their acknowledged ruler his due? Then saith he unto them, “Render therefore unto Csar the things which are Csar’s.” Whatever belongs to Csar is to be rendered to him. Jesus did not say what was Csar’s, the coin itself settled the question of paying tribute; his reply covered all the duties of loyal subjects to the ruler under whose jurisdiction they lived; but this did not touch the sovereignty of God. Jehovah held rule over consciences and hearts; and they must see to it that, as Csar had his own, the Lord had his own also. Render therefore “unto God the things that are God’s.” This was not an evasive reply on Christ’s part; it was full of meaning, and very much to the point; and yet it was so put that neither Pharisees nor Herodians could make anything out of it for party purposes, or for their wretched design of entangling Jesus in his talk. Neither of the two sects turned a penny by their penny.

| To us the lesson of this incident is, | that the State has its sphere, and wo must discharge our duties to it; but we must not forget that God has his throne, and we must not allow the earth-kingdom to make us traitors to the heaven-kingdom. Csar must keep his place, and by no means go beyond it; but God must have the spiritual dominion to himself alone.

Mat 22:22. When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

They had some sense left even if they had no feeling. They saw that their plot had ignominiously failed; they marvelled at the wisdom with which Christ had baffled their cunning; they knew that it was hopeless to continue the conflict: so they left him, and went their way. Their way was not his way. They had already admitted, in their flattering speech, that he was a true teacher of God’s way; and now they completed their own condemnation by leaving him, and going their own way.

Lord, save us from following their evil example! Rather, may we cleave to Christ, and go his way!

Fuente: Spurgeon’s The Gospel of the Kingdom

Then went

In the different classes, vs. Mat 23:15-39. Jesus meets representatives of all Israel, Pharisees, Sadducees.

Herodians. (See Scofield “Mat 3:7”).

For them, silenced but unrepentant, no message is left but “woe.” Mat 23:1-39.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

went: Psa 2:2, Mar 12:13-17, Luk 20:20-26

how: Psa 41:6, Psa 56:5-7, Psa 57:6, Psa 59:3, Isa 29:21, Jer 18:18, Jer 20:10, Luk 11:53, Luk 11:54, Heb 12:3

Reciprocal: Num 4:48 – General Neh 6:13 – that Psa 28:3 – speak Psa 36:3 – The words Psa 41:7 – against Psa 62:4 – consult Psa 142:3 – In the way Pro 26:5 – a fool Jer 18:22 – and hid Jer 42:20 – For ye Mat 3:7 – the Pharisees Mat 16:1 – Pharisees Mat 22:41 – General Mar 8:11 – Pharisees Mar 8:15 – of Herod Luk 19:48 – could

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

2:15

Took counsel means the Pharisees consulted together to decide upon some plan to entangle Jesus in his talk. The word is from PAGIDEUO which occurs in no other place in the New Testament. Thayer defines it, “to ensnare, entrap,” and he explains the definition to mean, “of the attempt to elicit [draw out] from one some remark which can be turned into an accusation against him.”

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Mat 22:15. Then went the Pharisees. The main element, no doubt, in the deputation which had assailed Him.

Ensnare him in speech. This mode of attack was adopted in view of the complete failure of the last attempt, and was the most artful of all.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Subdivision 4. (Mat 22:15-46.)

Testing and tested.

Thus the Lord has made, and made good for Himself, the highest claim. He has searched out the hearts of His accusers, and summoned their consciences before Him, not in vain; though they have not yielded to their convictions. On the contrary we are now to find their whole strength massed against Him to try and remedy their desperate condition, and give Him, if possible, even yet an overthrow. For this Pharisees and Herodians combine together, and Sadducees seek to retrieve the lost battle of the Pharisees. But all is vain; and the leaders and factions among the people appear before Him only to receive severally specific judgment from Him, until He turns upon them at last with one decisive question which completely silences them all, and that with regard to the very claim which He is making. From that time they have but the one answer, in deeds, not words.

1. The Pharisees, who are all through the leaders, lead now in the attack. But they confess their fear in the subtlety with which they make it, sending their disciples instead of openly appearing themselves, and with them their adversaries the Herodians, with whom it would not be expected they could have collusion. Between them they would catch Him as between the opposite blades of shears; not with an argument either, but only a matter for His decision, as to which they can depend upon His entire and unfearing truthfulness, teaching the way of God in truth, and regarding not the person of men. “Tell us, therefore, what thinkest thou? is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?”

A dangerous question, however it were decided: whether to refuse it, under the iron heel of Rome as they were, or to yield it in the face of a people constantly fretting against the sign of their humiliation. Was He too, if indeed their King, to bring them no deliverance? Would it not be the collapse of all His claims to leave a question of this sort even for a moment doubtful?

In reply, He assures them that their object was fully known to Him. They were hypocrites, only tempting Him; and yet for all that, they should have their answer; indeed should help to find it for themselves: let them show Him the tribute money. So they brought Him the Roman coin; and there was the image of Caesar upon its face. “Whose is this?” He asks; and they say, “Caesar’s.” “Render, then,” He replies, “what is Caesar’s to Caesar; and to God the things that are God’s.”

It is a mistake to consider this as simply settling the rights and distinguishing the jurisdictions of the civil and spiritual powers. It was the dominion of the Gentile over the people of God that was felt by the Pharisees, – a yoke under which they never would have come, had they rendered, as the Lord bids them, to God His own. It was the refusal of this which had put them into Caesar’s hands, and now to seek escape was only to refuse the chastisement of their sins, and dills was rebellion against God Himself.

The Gentile yoke had come as their father Jacob had long since prophesied. Issachar had become “like a strong ass, couching between the hurdles; and he saw rest that it was good, and the land that it was pleasant, and bowed his shoulder to bear and become servant to tribute” (Gen 49:14-15 Notes). Israel had accepted fellowship with the Gentile, and Caesar’s coin was only the sign of this. Gentile in heart and way, God had reckoned her where she belonged; but then she could not maintain an independence, which for her could only be another name for dependence on God. Let them give Caesar his own; but let them give God His own also. When they really do this, there will be no question at all to settle as to Caesar. Not by self-assertion, but by repentance only can deliverance come for them.

While the principle, of course, remains the same for the Christian, the case of the Christian is far different. He is not a citizen of earth, but a pilgrim and a stranger. He is to “render to all their due; tribute to whom tribute is due” (Rom 13:1-7). For him, “the powers that be are ordained of God,” and to “resist the power” would be to “resist the ordinance of God”: while this, of course, defines the limit also. If there be collision between the higher and the lower power, the apostles, rule, “We must obey God rather than men” (Act 5:29) is the only real fulfilment of duty both to God and man. To render to man what belongs to God is evil every way.

Thus the first attack upon the Lord turns only to the confusion of His adversaries: “when they heard it, they marvelled and left Him, and went their way.”

2. There follows now an attack on the part of the Sadducees, the unbelievers in resurrection, who had their question (more honest, as it would seem, than that of the Pharisees), though displaying, as the Lord tells them, ignorance both of the Scriptures and the power of God. But the Pharisees on their part had done much to give occasion to such difficulties with regard to the future life as their opponents here suggest; perhaps, in spite even of the Lord’s words here, we are not at the present time altogether beyond them.

Their question is as to the relationship in the resurrection of a woman who, according to the law in Deuteronomy (Deu 25:5-6), had married seven brethren. “In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife shall she be of the seven: for they all had her?”

The Lord answers their question first, and then rebukes the unbelief which had inspired it. The question He answers with a simple affirmation, in which He contradicts another article of their unbelieving creed, – that there were no angels (Act 23:8). It was sufficient to meet a mere argument from their ignorance with His own perfect knowledge. Angels there were, and in the resurrection the saints would be like these, neither marrying nor giving in marriage. They knew not the power of God, and could conceive of nothing else than a mere reproduction of earthly conditions. Their perplexity was but the fruit of their own carnal imaginations.

But as for the truth of resurrection; it underlay the very simplest assurance of God’s covenant-relationship with men. The “dead” were for the Sadducees extinct, and the denial of any enduring personality was the natural root of the denial of resurrection. It is here, therefore, that the Lord meets them; for, if death be not extinction, but the spirit survives it, not only is all argument for extinction taken away, but this survival by itself implies that death is but a temporary interference with what creation shows to be God’s thought of man, and may be perfected but cannot be abandoned. If man still continue to exist in death, then it is natural and reasonable that, whether for judgment or reward, the body should rise again.

Sadduceeism was thorough in its denial; and for the Sadducee “I am the God of Abraham,” said to Moses at the bush, could be but mockery. Abraham was a shadow that had passed without even hope of recall. The God of a nonentity – what of comfort or blessing was in that? Could there be even such?

It was by that title, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob,” and as that “I am,” who had looked upon and had respect unto His people, that God had sent forth Moses from “the bush” to be their deliverer. Sadduceeism never could have been the gospel of that deliverance, nor the inspiration of it. A living God in covenant with men meant life, not death; and if death were, then a life supreme above it. Thus resurrection was the necessary filling out of such a declaration: the hand that God held out to man was not to clasp the listless fingers of a corpse.

3. So the Pharisees hear that He has put the Sadducees to silence, and they are gathered together; not, alas, to own His divine wisdom, but to “tempt” Him yet again. Still there has been an effect produced, as Mark tells us, upon the questioner, and some better thing is hidden under the test question he proposes. Matthew takes no note of this because he is occupied with the position of the nation as a whole with regard to the Lord, and the state of the individual does not indicate this.

The question is, “which is the great commandment of the law?” The answer shows what is the heart of it, the life-pulse beating through it all. Alas, that this should be a question. The apostle answers it afterward in a similar manner to the Lord here, – “love is the fulfilling” – or, the fullness – “of the law” (Rom 13:10). God claims heart and soul and mind; but then; on that very account, man as the image of God must come in under it. Thus the second commandment is like unto the first: that commandment which they were so manifestly breaking. Nay, here was the Image of God indeed; and in Him they had seen and hated both Himself and His Father (Joh 15:24).

But He adds no word of reproach; only enlarges upon the central place which these two commandments had, not in the law only, but also in the prophets: wherever, therefore, the mind of God was expressed. All, in fact, depended upon them there: they were the moral unity manifested in all.

4. And now the Lord appeals to them as they are gathered there before Him as to that which was now for them the question of questions: what do they think of Christ? “whose son is He?” To that they readily reply, “The son of David.” This was the truth, and they knew He would not deny it: it was in fact a question which any child among them could have answered.

He did not deny it: it was truth, but was it the whole truth? “How then,” He asks, “does David in Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying, ‘The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand until I put thine enemies beneath thy feet’? If David, then; call Him Lord, how is He his Son?”

The argument was complete and crushing, and so they felt it.* “No one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day did any one dare to ask Him further.”

{*It “proceeded, of course,” says Edersheim, “on the two-fold supposition that the psalm (110 Neither of these statements would have been questioned by the Synagogue. But we could not rest satisfied with the explanation that this sufficed for the purpose of Christ’s argument, if the foundation on which it rested could be seriously called in question. Such, however, is not the case. To apply Psa 110:1-7, verse by verse and consistently, to any one of the Maccabees, were to undertake a critical task which only a series of unnatural explanations of the language could render possible. Strange, also, that such an interpretation of what at the time of Christ would have been a comparatively young composition, should have been wholly unknown alike to Sadducee and Pharisee. For our own part, we are content to rest the Messianic interpretation on the obvious and natural meaning of the words taken in connection with the general teaching of the Old Testament about the Messiah, on the undoubted interpretation of the ancient Jewish synagogue, on the authority of Christ, and on the testimony of history.” (Life and Times of Jesus, vol. 2, 405.)}

Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary

WOE AND FAREWELL

Another effort to entangle him in his talk, and a new enemy, the Herodians. They were the politicians of the time, a low class of Jews who, for selfish reasons, favored the Roman rule represented by Herod. With flattery He is approached (Mat 22:16), but had He answered their question negatively (Mat 22:17), the Herodians would have accused Him before the Roman judges, while affirmatively, the Pharisees could have done so before the Sanhedrin. No true Messiah, they would have said, would teach subjection to the Gentiles. But as before, He silences them, for had they rendered unto God the things that were Gods, they would not now be obliged to render anything unto Caesar (Mat 22:18-22). The Sadducees were the rationalists who denied the future life and all connected with it; hence their question, although founded on Deu 25:5, and the following, was combined of ignorance and sarcasm. There will be a resurrection but it does not imply marriage (Mat 22:30). The proof of resurrection He employs (Mat 22:32), is a proof also of the inspiration of the words of the original Scriptures. In the quotation from Exo 3:14, the present tense of to be is used, and on that He bases His argument for the future life. The Pharisees fare no better with their inquiry than the other two (Mat 22:32-40), and then our Lord asks them a question which ends attempts of this kind on their part. He quotes Psalms 110 which at once proves Him the Messiah and the very God (Mat 22:41-46).

Now the declaration of the judgments on His enemies. The Scribes and Pharisees were the national leaders of the Jews, in which sense they sat in Moses seat, and it became necessary to obey them. But to observe their instruction was one thing, and to follow their example another (Mat 23:3). As to the first, compare Rom 13:1-7 and 1Pe 2:13-17. Phylacteries, meaning things to observe, get their name from Exo 13:9-16, Deu 6:9 and the following verses. A phylactery is a strip of leather attached to a small box containing a parchment copy of Deu 6:4-8. This strip is used to fasten the box around the head so that it rests in the middle of the forehead. Another is wound around the left arm. This literal interpretation of the Scriptures was for show (5-7). And they not only loved show, but to be addressed by high-sounding names, which must not be true of disciples of Christ (Mat 23:8-12).

The eight woes of the next chapter all pronounced against various forms of hypocrisy, and with which our Lord closed His public ministry, suggest the Beatitudes with which He opened that ministry. We cannot do more than touch upon a few of the distinctions He makes. The first, that of hindering (Mat 23:13), comes home to preachers and teachers of Christianity who are not regenerated and taught of the Spirit in the Word. The second and third, Mat 23:14-15, need no explanation. The fourth, Mat 23:16-22, displays the ignorance of the mere ritualist. The fifth and sixth describe the formalist (Mat 23:23-26). The seventh is a figurative description of their religious character (Mat 23:28), and the eighth no less so (Mat 23:29-31). They made a show of zeal in adorning the burial places of the prophets their fathers had slain, and yet they were exhibiting the same spirit. Did our Lord ever utter a severer word than Mat 23:33? And in that connection note the personal pronoun of authority Behold, I send unto you prophets. All He there predicts was soon fulfilled in the Acts.

Now the pathetic farewell (Mat 23:37-39). Their house is left desolate. It is Tuesday of that last week, and as He leaves the temple and the city it is not to return until Thursday, the day of the last passover and the betrayal. And yet His final word is one of hope. Israel would see him again, i.e., at His second coming, and the faithful remnant would exclaim, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord.

QUESTIONS

1. Who were the Herodians?

2. What is the spiritual significance of the words, Render unto Caesar?

3. How does the quotation from Psalms 110 prove the deity of Christ?

4. Explain the reference to the phylacteries.

5. How many woes are there, and against what feature of iniquity are they directed?

6. Quote our Lords final words of hope.

Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary

Here we have another new design to entangle our blessed Saviour in his discourse.

Where observe, 1. The persons employed to put the ensnaring question to our Saviour, namely, the Pharisees and the Herodians. The Pharisees were against paying tribute to Cesar; looking upon themselves as a free people, and the emperor as an usurper. But the Herodians were for it. Herod being made by the Roman emperor king of the Jews, was zealous for having the Jews pay tribute to Cesar; and such of the Jews as sided with him, and particularly his courtiers and favourites, were called Herodians.

Observe, 2. The policy and wicked craft here used, in employing these two contrary sects to put the question to our Saviour concerning tribute; thereby laying him under a necessity (as they hoped) to offend one side, let him answer how he would. If to please the Pharisees he denied paying tribute to Cesar, then he is accused of sedition; if to gratify the Herodians he voted for paying tribute, then he is looked upon as an enemy to the liberty of his country, and exposed to a popular odium: it has been the old policy of Satan and his instruments, to draw the ministers of God into dislike, either with the magistrates or with the people, that they may either fall under the censure of the one, or the displeasure of the other.

Observe, 3. With what wisdom and caution our Lord answers them; he first calls for the tribute-money, which was the Roman penny, answering to seven pence halfpenny of our money, two of which they paid by way of tribute, or poll-money, for every head to the emperor.

Christ asks them whose image or superscription their coin bore? They answer, Cesar’s: Render then, says Christ, to Cesar the things that are Cesar’s. As if he had said, “The admitting of the Roman coin amongst you, is a testimony that you are under the subjection to the Roman emperor, because the coining and imposing of money is an act of sovereign authority. Now you have owned Cesar’s authority over you, by accepting of his coin as current amongst you, give unto him his just dues, and render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar’s.”

Learn hence, That there was no truer paymaster of the king’s dues, than he that was King of kings; he preached it, and he practised it, Mat 17:27 And as Christ is no enemy to the civil rights of princes, and his religion exempts none from paying their civil duties; so princes should be as careful not to rob him of his divine honour, as he is not to wrong them of their civil rights. As Christ requires all his followers to render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar’s, so should princes oblige all their subjects to render unto God the things that are God’s.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Mat 22:15-17. Then went the Pharisees Greatly incensed by the two last parables delivered by our Lord; and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk Gr. , might entrap him in his discourse, so as to find something on which they might ground an accusation against him, and effect his destruction. And they sent out their disciples Persons who had imbibed their spirit of hostility against him, and entered fully into their designs; with the Herodians Probably, says Dr. Campbell, partisans of Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee, who were for the continuance of the royal power in the descendants of Herod the Great, an object which, it appears, the greater part of the nation, especially the Pharisees, did not favour. They considered that family not indeed as idolaters, but as great conformists to the idolatrous customs of both Greeks and Romans, whose favour they spared no means to secure. The notion adopted by some, that the Herodians were those who believed Herod to be the Messiah, hardly deserves to be mentioned, as there is no evidence that such an opinion was maintained by any body. On account of their zeal for Herods family, they were of course also zealous for the authority of the Romans, by whose means Herod was made and continued king. Their views and designs being therefore diametrically opposite to those of the Pharisees, there had long existed the most bitter enmity between the two sects. So that the conjunction of their counsels against Christ is a very memorable proof of the keenness of that malice which could thus cause them to forget so deep a quarrel with each other. In order to insnare Christ, they came to him, feigning themselves just men, (Luk 20:20,) men who had a great veneration for the divine law, and a dread of doing any thing inconsistent with it; and, under that mask, accosted Christ with an air of great respect, and flattering expressions of the highest esteem, saying, Master, we know that thou art true A person of the greatest uprightness and integrity; and teachest the way of God in truth Declarest his will with perfect impartiality and fidelity; neither carest thou for the censure or applause of any man; for thou regardest not the person of men Thou favourest no man for his riches or greatness, nor art influenced by complaisance or fear, or any private view whatever, to deviate from the strictest integrity and veracity. Tell us, therefore, Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cesar? In asking this question they imagined that it was not in Christs power to decide the point, without making himself obnoxious to one or other of the parties which had divided upon it. If he should say, it was lawful; they believed the people, in whose hearing the question was proposed, would be incensed against him, not only as a base pretender, who, on being attacked, publicly renounced the character of the Messiah, which he had assumed among his friends; (it being as they supposed, a principal office of the Messiah to deliver them from a foreign yoke;) but as a flatterer of princes also, and a betrayer of the liberties of his country. But if he should affirm that it was unlawful to pay, the Herodians resolved to inform the governor of it, who they hoped would punish him as a fomenter of sedition. Highly elated therefore with their project, they came and proposed their question.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

CIX.

JEWISH RULERS SEEK TO ENSNARE JESUS.

(Court of the Temple. Tuesday, April 4, A. D. 30.)

Subdivision A.

PHARISEES AND HERODIANS ASK ABOUT TRIBUTE.

aMATT. XXII. 15-22; bMARK XII. 13-17; cLUKE XX. 20-26.

a15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might ensnare him in his talk. c20 And they watched him, and sent forth {bsend unto him} atheir disciples, bcertain of the Pharisees and of {awith} bthe Herodians, that they might catch him in talk. [Perceiving that Jesus, when on his guard, was too wise for them, the Pharisees thought it best to speak their cunning through the mouths of their young disciples, whose youth and apparent desire to know the truth would, according to their calculation, take Jesus off his guard. Having no ancient statement giving us the tenets or principles of the Herodians, we are left to judge them solely by their name, which shows that they were partisans of Herod Antipas. Whether they were out-and-out supporters of the Roman government, or whether they clung to Herod as one whose intervening sovereignty saved them from the worse fate of being directly under a Roman procurator (as Juda and Samaria then were), would not, as some suppose, affect their views as to the payment of tribute. If they accepted Herod merely for policy’s sake, policy would also compel them to favor the tribute, for Antipas, being appointed [597] by Rome, would have to favor the tribute, and could count none as his adherents who opposed it.] cspies, who feigned themselves to righteous [sincere seekers after truth], that they might take hold of his speech, so as to deliver him up to the rule and to the authority of the governor. [Pontius Pilate was the governor. We are not surprised at the destruction of Jerusalem when we see the religious teachers of the nation employing their young disciples in such a work as this. To play detective and entrap a rogue in his speech and thus become a man-hunter is debasing enough; but to seek thus to entrap a righteous man is simply diabolical.] b14 And when they were come, they say unto him, {csaying,} Teacher, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, bwe know that thou art true, and carest not for any one; for thou regardest not the person of men, cand acceptest not the person of any, but of a truth teachest the way of God: ain truth [The meaning of their preface is this: “We see that neither fear nor respect for the Pharisees or the rulers prevents you from speaking the plain, disagreeable truth; and we are persuaded that your courage and love of truth will lead you to speak the same way in political matters, and that you will not be deterred therefrom by any fear or reverence for Csar.” Fearless loyalty to truth is indeed one of the noblest attributes of man. But instead of honoring this most admirable quality in Jesus, these hardened reprobates were endeavoring to employ it as an instrument for his destruction], 17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? c22 Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Csar, or not? b15 Shall we give, or shall we not give? [The Jews were required to pay annually a large sum of money to the Roman government as an acknowledgment of their subjection. About twenty years before this Judas of Galilee had stirred up the people to resist this tribute, and the mass of the Jews was bitterly opposed to it. To decide in favor of this tribute was therefore to alienate the affection and confidence of the throng in the temple who stood listening to him–an end most desirable to the Pharisees. If, [598] on the other hand, Jesus said that the tribute should not be paid, the Herodians were present to hear it, and would be witnesses sanctioned by Herod, and therefore such as Pilate would be compelled to respect. What but divine wisdom could escape from so cunningly devised a dilemma!] a18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, ccraftiness, bknowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, {aand said} Why make ye trial of me, ye hypocrites? [Thus, before answering, Jesus exposes the meanness and hypocrisy in their question, thereby emphasizing the important fact that he did not dodge, but answered it.] 19 Show me the tribute money. c24 Show me a denarius. bbring me a denarius, that I may see it. [Religious dues and tributes had been paid in shekels or old Jewish coin, but the tribute to Rome was paid in Roman coin of which the denarius was a sample.] aAnd they brought unto him a denarius. [See Rom 13:1, Rom 13:7.] c26 And they were not able to take hold of the saying before the people: a22 And when they heard it, they marvelled, bgreatly at him. cat his answer, and held their peace. aand left him, and went away. [They were amazed to find how far his wisdom transcended that of the teachers in whom they had such supreme confidence.]

[FFG 597-600]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

TRIBUTE TO CAESAR

Mat 22:15-22, Mar 12:13-17; Luk 20:20-26. And lying in wait for Him, they sent sharpers, hypocritically claiming to be righteous, that they may catch His word, in order to deliver Him up to the tribunal and authority of the governor. And they asked Him, saying, Teacher, we know that Thou dost speak and teach correctly, and that Thou dost not receive the face, but teachest the Word of God in truth: is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar or not? And He, knowing their rascality, said to them, Why do you tempt Me? Show Me the denarion. Whose image and superscription hath it? And they responding, said, That of Caesar. And He said to them, Therefore render unto Caesar the things which are Caesars, and unto God the things which are Gods. And they were not able to capture His word before the people. And being astonished at His answer, they kept silent. We have given you Lukes narrative, who simply states that sharpers i.e., critical tricksters waited on Him in this adroit interview, hoping to perplex Him, and get some clew at Him, deduced from His phraseology of and Mark state that these critics were Pharisees and Herodiana the former the most loyal and enthusiastic Jewish party, and the latter consisting of a political faction favorable to Roman rule. Though diametrically opposed either to other, in this instance, as ever and anon hitherto, they united their forces against Jesus. How common its for the belligerent sects to make peace among themselves and unite their forces against holiness! They felt sure of success in this united hypocritical assault on Jesus, as the Pharisees represented the Jewish interest and the Herodians the Roman. In case that He had decided in favor of paying tribute to Caesar, the Pharisees aimed to prefer treasonable charges against Him, and arraign Hint before the Sanhedrin for disloyalty to the Theoeratic Government. On the contrary, if He answered the question in the negative, the Herodians were ready to have Him arrested and brought before Pilate to answer charges of treason against the Roman Empire. Now, you see how easily and conveniently He foils them both by simply asking them to show Him the denarion, a Roman coin, worth fifteen cents, and used to pay regular poll-tax, as well as the revenue to the Roman Government. Now, asking Whose image and superscription is on this coin? they respond, Caesars. Then He simply says, Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesars, and unto God the things which are Gods. As the Jews claimed to be under the Divine government, while they were also subject to Roman rule, this answer covered all the ground in both cases, at the same time showing up absolute equity in behalf of each, so that no exception could be taken. Consequently the sharpers were all dumfounded.

Mat 22:22. And hearing, they were astonished, and leaving Him they went away. We see most indubitable manifestations of His Divinity thus cropping out on all occasions. Here, He is besieged by the most intellectual and cultured men of Church and State, criticizing every utterance, and doing their best to lasso Him, and all are signally foiled, defeated, and dumfounded. No other man ever trod the globe whose ordinary utterances, day by day, were utterly invulnerable.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Mat 22:15-22. The Question of Tribute (Mar 12:13-17*, Luk 20:20-26).Note how Mt. (Mat 22:15) changes Mk.s indefinite subject into the Pharisees, and so has to change Mk.s object the Pharisees into their disciples. Lk.s expansions are interesting. Jesus points out that to pay tribute to Rome was not merely lawful, it was a moral obligation in return for the beneficent experiences of a stable government, it was not a gift (Mat 22:17) but the rendering (Mat 22:21) of a debt, and did not compete or clash with mens obligations to God. Mt. rounds off the incident with words used by Mk. (Mar 12:12) after the parable of the vineyard.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

22:15 {f} Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in [his] talk.

(f) Snare him in his words or talk. The Greek word is derived from snares which hunters lay.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

3. Rejection by the Pharisees and the Herodians 22:15-22 (cf. Mar 12:13-17; Luk 20:20-26)

The dialogue continued in the temple courtyard. Israel’s leaders proceeded to confront Jesus three times attempting to show that He was no better than any other rabbi. Jesus responded with great wisdom, silenced His accusers with another question of His own, and disclosed His identity again in a veiled way.

"Jesus was going to die as the Lamb of God, and it was necessary for the lamb to be examined before Passover (Exo 12:3-6). If any blemish whatsoever was found on the lamb, it could not be sacrificed. Jesus was examined publicly by His enemies, and they could find no fault in Him." [Note: Wiersbe, 1:79.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The Pharisees wanted to ensnare or entrap (Gr. pagideuo) Jesus by their question. Clearly their purpose was not simply to get Jesus’ opinion on a controversial issue. It was to alienate Him from a major portion of the Jewish population or to get Him to lay Himself open to a charge of treason, depending on His answer, and to lose face.

The Pharisees had come into existence during the Babylonian exile. The word "Pharisee" means "separate one." During the Exile the Jews were in danger of assimilation by the Gentiles. The Pharisaic party began because the Jews wanted to maintain their distinctiveness from their pagan neighbors. This was a good thing then. However, as time passed and the Jews returned to the Promised Land, the Pharisees’ separation became too much of a good thing. It resulted in isolation as those Jews built up traditions designed not just to keep the Mosaic Law but to enforce the rabbis’ interpretations of the Law. The result was what we have seen in this Gospel, namely, Pharisaic devotion to the traditions of the elders that surpassed devotion to the Word of God.

The Herodians constituted a party within Judaism that favored cooperation with the Herods who ruled Israel under Rome’s authority. They supported the reigning Herods and their pro-Roman policies. The Romans had deposed the Herod who ruled over Judea in A.D. 6, but Herods ruled other parts of Palestine. [Note: France, The Gospel . . ., p. 832.] This position compromised Jewish independence and distinctiveness in the minds of many Jews including the Pharisees. Consequently it was very unusual that representatives from these two competing groups would unite in opposing Jesus. They rarely united on any subject, but both parties viewed Jesus as a threat to their individual interests.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)