Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 22:24
saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
24. his brother shall marry his wife ] This is sometimes called the “levirate law,” from Lat. levir, a brother-in-law; see Deu 25:5. “The law on this subject is not peculiar to the Jews, but is found amongst various Oriental nations, ancient and modern.” Speaker’s Comment., Deu 25:5.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 24. Raise up seed unto his brother.] This law is mentioned De 25:5. The meaning of the expression is, that the children produced by this marriage should be reckoned in the genealogy of the deceased brother, and enjoy his estates. The word seed should be always translated children or posterity. There is a law precisely similar to this among the Hindoos.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Saying, master,…. Rabbi, or doctor, as he was usually called;
Moses said, in De 25:5
if a man die having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother; which, though not expressed in the self same words, yet is the sense of the passage referred to, and was a practice in use before the times of Moses, as appears from the case of Er and Onan; the design of which was, to preserve families, and keep their inheritances distinct and entire. This law only took place, when a man died without children; for if he left any children, there was no need for his brother to marry his wife; yea, as a Jewish writer observes x, she was forbidden, it was not lawful for him to marry her, and was the case if he had children of either sex, or even grandchildren: for as another of their commentators notes y, his having no child, regards a son or a daughter, or a son’s son, or a daughter’s son, or a daughter’s daughter; and it was the eldest of the brethren, or he that was next in years to the deceased, that was obliged by this law z, though not if he had a wife of his own; and accordingly in the following case proposed, each of the brethren married the eldest brother’s wife in their turn, according to the course of seniority; and by this law, the first child that was born after such marriage, was reckoned the seed of the deceased, and was heir to his inheritance. The Jews in their Misna, or oral law, have a whole tract on this subject, called Yebamot, which contains various rules and directions, for the right observance of this law.
x Aben Ezra in Deut. xxv. 5. y Jarchi in ib. Vid. Maimon. Hilch. Yebum, c. 1. sect. 3. z Jarchi in Deut. xxv. 5. Misn. Yebamot, c. 2. sect. 8. & 4, 5. Maimon. Hilch. Yebum, c. 2. sect. 6.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Shall marry (). The Sadducees were “aiming at amusement rather than deadly mischief” (Bruce). It was probably an old conundrum that they had used to the discomfiture of the Pharisees. This passage is quoted from Deut 25:5; Deut 25:6. The word appears here only in the N.T. and elsewhere only in the LXX. It is used of any connected by marriage as in Gen 34:9; 1Sam 18:22. But in Ge 38:8 and De 25:5 it is used specifically of one marrying his brother’s widow.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Shall marry [] . From gambrov, a word used in classical Greek to denote any one connected by marriage : a brother – in – law, father – in – law, even a bridegroom. The word is appropriate here because it refers to marriage between marriage – relatives.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
24. Master, Moses said. As it was enough to mention the bare fact, why do they make use of this preface? They cunningly employ the name of Moses, for the purpose of proving that they were lawful marriages, which had been contracted not by the will of men, but by the command and appointment of God himself. But that God should contradict Himself is impossible. Their sophistry therefore is this: “If God shall one day collect believers into His kingdom, He will restore whatever He had given to them in the world. What then shall become of the woman, whom God assigned to seven husbands?” Thus all ungodly persons and heretics forge their calumnies, that by means of them they may disfigure the true doctrine of godliness, and put to shame the servants of Christ. Nay, the Papists are restrained by no shame from openly ridiculing God and his word, when they attempt to take us by surprise. And not without reason, therefore, does Paul enjoin a teacher to be furnished with armor for repelling the adversaries of the truth, ( Titus 1:9.) With respect to the law, (Deu 25:5,) by which God commanded the relatives, who were nearest of kin, to succeed the dead in marriage, if the first had died without children, the reason was, that the woman who had married into a particular family should leave offspring in it. But if there had been children by the first marriage, a marriage within the degrees forbidden by the law (Lev 18:16) would have been incestuous.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
24. Moses said, If a man die Deu 25:5-6. This law requiring a man to marry the widow of a deceased elder brother and raise up children as being his, was intended to prevent the loss of the memory of a son of Abraham. It was a part of the system by which the memory of the institutes of the old and true religion was to be preserved.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Saying, “Teacher, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed to his brother.”
The Sadducees began by briefly outlining the law. Strictly the law said ‘a brother living in the same household’, but as the Book of Ruth demonstrates, it was sometimes applied on a wider basis. Note again the use of ‘Teacher’. They had earlier questioned His authority. Now they were pretending that they recognised His authority. There were no depths to which they would not stoop.
‘Raise up seed.’ The same word is used for ‘raise up’ as is used for the resurrection. The Samaritans believed that that was the way in which people were ‘raised up’, by living on in their children.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 22:24-28. Master, Moses said, &c. The argument by which the Sadducees endeavoured to confute the notion of a future state, was taken from the Jewish law of marriage, which, to give their objection the better colour, they observed was God’s law delivered by Moses. As they believed the soul to be nothing but a more refined kind of matter, they thought if there was any future state it must resemble the present; and that men being in that state material and mortal, the human race could not be continued, nor the individuals made happy, without marriage. Hence they affirmed it to be a necessary consequence of the doctrine of the resurrection or future state, that every man’s wife should be restored to him. See the next note.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 22:24 ff. A free citation of the law respecting levirate marriage , Deu 25:5 , and that without following the Septuagint, which in this instance does not render by the characteristic . If a married man died without male issue, his brother was required to marry the widow, and to register the first-born son of the marriage as the son of the deceased husband. See Saalschtz, M. R. p. 754 ff.; Ewald, Alterth. p. 276 ff.; Benary, de Hebraeor. leviratu, Berl. 1835. As to other Oriental nations, see Rosenmller, Morgenl. V. p. 81; Bodenstedt, d. Vlker des Kaukasus, p. 82; Benary, p. 31 ff.
, to marry as brother-in-law (levir. ). Comp. Gen 38:8 ; Test. XII. patr. p. 599. Differently . in 1Ma 10:54 ; 1Sa 18:22 .
] until the seven, i.e. and in the same manner they continued to die until the whole seven were dead. Comp. Mat 18:22 ; 1Ma 2:38 .
] later than all the husbands.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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.
Ver. 24. Master, Moses said ] They pretend Scripture; so did the devil, Mat 4:1-11 . So do heretics all; Sed sensum afferunt non auferunt, but they fetch not the meaning from the Scripture, but fasten a sense (even that of their own devising) on the Scripture: Caedem Scripturarum faciunt ad materiam suam, saith Tertullian. They taw the text, as shoemakers do their leather uppers, saith Polydore Virgil, that they may bring them to serve their turns; they lay the dead child of their own corrupt glosses in the bosom of holy Scripture, and then cry out, It is hers, and not theirs.
If a man die, having no children ] This law these Sadducees seem to approve, when indeed they jeer it, as the mother of much monstrous confusion, if there ever be a resurrection. So deals the devil and his janizaries a (Jesuits, I should say) at this day, by both Scriptures and fathers, whom they either elude or deride, further than they serve their turn, to confirm their falsehoods.
Raise up seed unto his brother ] Our children are a principal part of ourselves, even the seed; as though now there were nothing left in us but the chaff.
a One of a former body of Turkish infantry, constituting the Sultan’s guard and the main part of the standing army. The body was first organised in the 14th century, and was composed mainly of tributary children of Christians; after a large number of them had been massacred in 1826, the organization was finally abolished. D
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
24. . . ] The first-born son of a leviratical marriage was reckoned and registered as the son of the deceased brother, Michaelis, Mos. R. ii. 98 (Meyer).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 22:24 . , what is put into the mouth of all is a free combination of Deu 25:5-6 , with Gen 38:8 . In the latter text the Sept [125] has for the Heb. = to perform the part of a levir (Latin for brother-in-law) by marrying a deceased brother’s widow having no children. An ancient custom not confined to Israel, but practised by Arabians and other peoples ( vide Ewald, Alterthmer , p. 278; Benzinger, H. A , p. 345).
[125] Septuagint.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Moses. See note on Mat 8:4.
If a man die. &c. An hypothetical case. See App-118. Quoted from Deu 25:5. See App-107.
die = should die.
children. Greek. teknon, here put for son. So Deu 25:5.
marry. Greek. epigambreuo. Occurs only in Matthew. Used here because it specially refers to a marriage between relatives.
seed = issue, as in Mat 22:25.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
24. . .] The first-born son of a leviratical marriage was reckoned and registered as the son of the deceased brother, Michaelis, Mos. R. ii. 98 (Meyer).
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 22:24. , children) sc. a son or a daughter, or more, see Deu 25:5.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Master: Mat 22:16, Mat 22:36, Mat 7:21, Luk 6:46
Moses: Gen 38:8, Gen 38:11, Deu 25:5-10, Rth 1:11, Mar 12:19, Luk 20:28
Reciprocal: Lev 18:16 – General Rth 3:13 – if he will Rth 4:5 – to raise up Mat 14:6 – the daughter Luk 20:33 – General Act 4:1 – the Sadducees Heb 1:3 – sat
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2:24
They correctly repeated the law of Moses on this subject which is recorded in Deu 25:5, which also was a ruling of Judah in Gen 38:8-9 in the Patriarchal Dispensation.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 22:24. Moses said. Deu 25:5, freely quoted; comp. the regulations added in that chapter. Such a marriage was called a Levirate marriage. The object was to preserve families, a matter of great importance in the Jewish economy. See chap. 1.
Seed to his brother. The first-born son would be registered as the son of the dead brother.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Mat 22:24-28. Master, Moses said, If a man die, &c. The argument by which the Sadducees endeavoured to confute the notion of a future state was taken from the Jewish law of marriage, which, to give their objection the better colour, they observed was Gods law, delivered by Moses. As they believed the soul to be nothing but a more refined kind of matter, they thought if there was any future state, it must resemble the present; and, that men being in that state material and mortal, the human race could not be continued, nor the individuals made happy, without the pleasures and conveniences of marriage. Hence they affirmed it to be a necessary consequence of the doctrine of the resurrection, or future state, that every mans wife should be restored to him. Macknight.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Verse 24
Moses said; Deuteronomy 25:5,6.–Seed; children.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
22:24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no {m} children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
(m) Daughters are also included by this word “children”, but even though they were part of his family and bore his name, the man who had only daughters was in the same position as the man who had no children at all; this is because daughters were not at this time able to carry on the family name. Therefore, by “children” here, we should understand it to be referring to “sons”.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The Sadducees also approached Jesus with hypocritical respect calling Him "teacher" (cf. Mat 22:16). They had evidently learned to appreciate Jesus’ high regard for the Old Testament because they came to Him with a question of biblical interpretation (Deu 25:5-6). This is only the second recorded time that Jesus had come into public conflict with the Sadducees (cf. Mat 16:1).
Levirate marriage was an ancient Near Eastern custom that antedated the Mosaic Law (Gen 38:8). The Law incorporated it and regulated it. This law encouraged the younger brother to marry his deceased brother’s widow and have children by her. People considered the first child born to be the older brother’s heir, and that child would perpetuate his name in Israel.
This was an unlikely question for Sadducees to ask since they did not believe in resurrection. Probably they knew that Jesus believed in resurrection and wanted to create what they thought was an impossible situation to embarrass Him.
"It was probably an old conundrum that they had used to the discomfiture of the Pharisees." [Note: Robertson, Word Pictures . . ., 1:176.]
The case they posited could have been a real one or, more likely, a hypothetical one. Their question presupposed that life the other side of the grave will be exactly as it is this side, in terms of human relationships. Since the woman had had seven husbands, whose wife would she be in the resurrection, or would she be guilty of incest? For the Sadducees, belief in resurrection created insuperable problems. Would Jesus deny the resurrection and so obviate the problem but alienate Himself even further from the Pharisees?