Chapter Twenty-Two

1–14. The parable of the royal wedding feast. — 15–22. The Pharisees’ questions about paying taxes to Caesar. — 23–33. The Sadducees’ questions about the resurrection. — 34–40. The lawyer’s questions about the greatest commandment. — 41–46. Christ — the Son of David.

Matthew 22:1. And Jesus answered and spoke to them again in parables, saying: For the whole of this chapter, John has no parallels. The parable of the royal wedding feast is considered by many to be parallel to a similar parable in Luke (Luke 14:16-24). If it were not for Matthew’s addition (verses 11–14), where it speaks of a man who came to the feast not in a wedding garment, one could assert that the parables set forth in Matthew and Luke’s Gospels show great similarity in fundamental thought and its development. But, on the other hand, along with this general similarity, there is also great difference in expression, connection, and even the purpose of both parables, so that it is difficult and even quite impossible to regard them merely as different versions of one and the same parable. Therefore, even in antiquity the view was held, accepted by all the best modern exegetes, that these are two different parables, spoken on different occasions and under different circumstances. “This parable,” says Augustine, “is recounted by Matthew alone; something similar is found in Luke as well, but it is not the same thing, as the very arrangement of the parables indicates.” The parable in Luke was spoken in the house of a Pharisee (Luke 14:1), in Matthew — in the temple (Matt 21:23). The wedding feast is called by different names (γάμος — Matthew; δεῖπνον — Luke). According to Matthew, the guests are invited by a king; according to Luke — by a certain man. The parable in Luke was spoken by Christ earlier, when the Pharisees had not yet shown such hatred as was manifested in the final days of Christ’s earthly life. Therefore, in the parable in Luke, the actions of the master calling the guests are generally gentler, and he does not send his armies to destroy the murderers and burn their city (Matt 22:7). The word “them” is indefinite both in Russian and in Greek. Here one can understand both the enemies of Christ and the people who heard Him in general.

Matthew 22:2. “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. In ancient interpretations of the parable among the fathers and church writers, we find, first, an abundance of commonplaces, and second, allegorical opinions, and this is understandable, because from the very first verses of the parable it is evident that it speaks of spiritual matters. The ancient interpreters place it in the closest connection with the parable of the wicked tenants. “Do you see,” says Chrysostom, “what a difference is shown between the son and the slaves in both the preceding parable and this one? Do you see the great similarity and at the same time the great difference between the two parables? This parable too shows the patience of God and His great care, as well as the impiety and ingratitude of the Jews. However, this parable contains more than the first one: it foretells the falling away of the Jews and the calling of the Gentiles, and moreover, it shows the right manner of life and what punishment awaits the careless.” Theophylact says that here “the bridegroom is Christ, and the bride is both the Church and every soul.”

Matthew 22:3. And he sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast; but they would not come. Christ’s words have a general meaning and refer to persons sent by God for preaching and to draw people into His kingdom. The word κεκλημένους (the invited or called) shows that the guests had already been invited by the king earlier, and the servants were only to remind them of the earlier summons. John Chrysostom and others draw attention to the fact that in the parable of the wicked tenants it was said that the Son was killed by the tenants. Despite this, in the parable under consideration, people are called again — to the wedding feast of the Son. This gives John Chrysostom reason to think that the first parable referred to events that ended with the crucifixion of Christ; and the second — to events after His resurrection. “There He is depicted as attracting them (people) to Himself before His crucifixion, and here — as urgently drawing them to Himself even after the crucifixion; and while it was fitting to punish them in the most severe manner, He draws them to the wedding feast and grants them the highest honor.” But the thought of Christ, clarified by comparing the two parables, seems deeper. The spiritual relations of people to God and His spiritual feast may not resemble their relations to ordinary earthly celebrations. Both parables clarify one and the same theological truth, but from different sides. In the spiritual sense, the suffering, death, and resurrection of the Son can be fully equated with the wedding feast of the Lamb (Rev 19:7).

Matthew 22:4. Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “Behold, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast.”’ Matthew 22:5. But they disregarded it and went away, one to his farm, another to his business. Matthew 22:6. The rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. A more vivid depiction of even more hostile relations to the king. Those who went away under various pretexts acted comparatively prudently. But there were still others (οἱ δὲ λοιποί) who expressed their anger with insults to the king’s servants and murders. For this verse there is a remarkable parallel in 2 Chr 30:10 (see also 1 Tim 1:13; Heb 10:29).

Matthew 22:7. The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Matthew 22:8. Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy.”’ Matthew 22:9. Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.”’ “The main roads” — τὰς διεξόδους τῶν ὁδῶν — shows that here are meant not the main roads or major highways where honorable guests live, but in general alleys, lanes, byways, paths where the poor people huddle, walk, and live.

Matthew 22:10. And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good; so the wedding hall was filled with guests. The expression “bad and good” can be understood both in a moral sense and in a physical sense — beggars, ragged people, the sick. These persons stand in sharp contrast to the first invited guests, whom they did not resemble at all.

Matthew 22:11. But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. Matthew 22:12. And he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you enter here without a wedding garment?’ And he was silent. When the guests were being gathered, the king was not in the palace. He enters only when the feast has already begun. The contrast between the expressions “bad and good” and “reclining” at the feast, that is, guests accepted at the royal feast in the royal palace, is drawn, undoubtedly intentionally and very subtly. Although the guests were “bad and good,” yet they were accorded the king’s invitation and were now reclining at the feast in wedding garments, that is, fine clothes. The bad and wicked are transformed here into honored guests rapidly and by some miraculous power. The meaning, of course, is that the Gospel messages, accepted by the bad and good, quickly transform them. But the king’s gaze is clouded at the sight of one man who sat at the feast not in fine, but in torn, dirty, “not in a wedding” garment, in rags. Was this man guilty if he came to the feast straight, so to speak, from the street and if he had no means to acquire fine clothing for himself? This question is resolved very simply by the fact that anyone coming to the feast prepared by the Heavenly King can take any fine garments for himself in the receiving room of the royal palace and thus appear in fitting fashion at the wedding feast of the Lamb. This is, undoubtedly, presupposed in the parable. Our church hymn: “I see Your bridal chamber, my Savior, adorned, and I have no garment to enter it,” expresses, on the one hand, the deepest humility of a Christian, and on the other — a plea addressed to God to give fitting garment in a spiritual sense: “enlighten the garment of my soul, O Light-Giver, and save me.” Thus, the sinner is required only to have the desire to acquire fine garments for himself, which will undoubtedly be given to him, and moreover, freely. The man not in a wedding garment, evidently, did not wish to take advantage of this royal mercy, and, ashamed neither of the King nor of the guests, appeared at the feast in his rags. Verses 11–14 have direct relation to the prophecy Zeph 1:7-8. By the slave who came to the feast not in a wedding garment is understood not Judas, but in general a carnal, old covenant man (cf. Rom 13:14; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:24; Col 3:12). The expression “he was silent” Jerome interprets as: “At that time there will be no place for repentance and the ability to make a defense, when all the Angels and the very world will witness against sins.”

Matthew 22:13. Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ Concerning binding, chains, ropes, there are many mentions in the Gospels (see Mark 3:27 and others). Christ spoke several times concerning binding and loosing. The words: “take him by the hands and feet” (ἄρατε αὐτὸν ποδῶν καὶ χειρῶν) are not found in the best manuscripts. Some think that the words “there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” — are not words of the king depicted in the parable, but of Christ Himself, added to the parable.

Matthew 22:14. For many are called, but few are chosen. The man who came to the feast not in a wedding garment, so to speak, became on a level with those numerous people who insulted and killed the king’s messengers (verse 6). Compared with their enormous number, the guests received by the king present a small minority that could fit in the palace. And even among the guests themselves there was found a man whose presence was undesirable and impermissible (cf. 3Ezr 8:1, 3Ezr 9:15). A similar conclusion to the parable is also in Luke (Luke 14:24).

Matthew 22:15. Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his talk. According to Mark and Luke, the Pharisees understood that the Savior in the parable of the wicked tenants spoke about them (Mark 12:12; Luke 20:19). Therefore, they wanted to entangle Him in words (Mark 12:13; Luke 20:20). In Matthew, this connection is not expressed as clearly as in the other Synoptics, but their accounts shed light on his expressions. One can conclude in the end that the Pharisees were irritated not only by the parable of the wicked tenants recounted by all the Synoptics, but also by the parable about the royal wedding feast, recounted in this context only in Matthew; the enemies of Christ could have interpreted this parable unfavorably for themselves if only they had heard it. Thus, Matthew’s account in the verse under discussion seems natural and connected. As for the time, as in Matthew, so in the parallel accounts of Mark (Mark 12:13-17) and Luke (Luke 20:20-26), it is not specified. Only one thing can be stated with certainty: these events were a continuation of the preceding ones and occurred on the third day of the Hebrew week, or, for us, on Tuesday. Perhaps the Pharisees went and deliberated during the pronouncement of the Savior’s parables, but more likely — after them. It is thought that these were not official representatives of the party, being members of the Sanhedrin (as in Matt 21:23), but rather the whole matter took place independently of the Sanhedrin; the Pharisees acted as a separate and independent party. The deliberation probably took place in the crowd that was in the temple or surrounding Christ. The Greek verb παγιδεύσωσιν is characteristic. In the whole New Testament, it occurs only here in Matthew and comes from πάγη — παγίς (Luke 21:35; Rom 11:9; 1 Tim 3:7; 2 Tim 2:26) — a net, snare, trap, pitfall. Since entangling Christ in words was important to His enemies, they used all their strength and abilities in their deliberation to invent as cleverly as possible a question by which Christ could be put in a difficult and even hopeless situation.

Matthew 22:16. And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances. Matthew 22:17. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? (See Mark 12:13-14; Luke 20:20-22). Mark does not distinguish the Pharisees from their disciples, as Matthew does, while Luke ascribes the question to the high priests and scribes (Luke 20:19), who had “sent” to Christ “wicked men,” of unspecified kind (Luke 20:20). It is evident from all this that the matter was the result of strong enmity, but at the same time also of fear of public denunciation, and this explains why some enemies of Christ only, so to speak, stick their heads out from the crowd, but say nothing themselves, instead putting forward, on their behalf, even though cunning, but inexperienced or less experienced in casuistry disciples, perhaps young men. If the latter had been publicly denounced, it would not have been shameful for the true initiators of all this affair before the people. Who were the Herodians? The majority of exegetes consider that the Herodians were members of a Jewish party devoted to the house of Herod, having more of a political rather than a hierarchical character. The basis of the question posed to Christ lay in the domination over Judea by pagan Romans. This was recognized as an evil to be fought against with all one’s strength. A tax collected in favor of the pagans was contrary to the theocratic idea. In Judea (and not in Galilee) there were uprisings, whose leader became Judas of Galilee. The cause of his rebellion was the κῆνσος, a property tax, which was considered a sign of slavery. The paying of taxes in favor of the Romans began in Judea from 63 BC. From 6 AD, the question of taxes became burning. In proposing to Christ the question about taxes to Caesar, that is, to the Roman emperor, who was then Tiberius, the Pharisees and Herodians hoped to put Christ in a hopeless situation. If Christ recognized the necessity of the tax, He would thereby arouse the people against Himself, who on the whole considered the tax in favor of Caesar offensive. But if Christ rejected the tax, He would appear as a rebel against Roman authority.

Matthew 22:18. But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Matthew 22:19. Show me the tax coin.” And they brought him a denarius. (See Mark 12:15; Luke 20:24). Among the Hebrews, images of persons were ordinarily not made on coins, because this was considered idolatry. The Asmoneans minted their coins only with inscriptions in Hebrew and Greek and images of vessels with manna, Aaron’s staff, and so forth. On Roman coins, by which taxes were paid, there were images of emperors with various inscriptions. Christ asks for not some other coin, but that one by which taxes are paid. This somewhat indefinite expression of Matthew is replaced by the other Synoptics with a more definite one — the demand for a “denarius,” as it actually was.

Matthew 22:20. And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this? (See Mark 12:16; Luke 20:24). The direct method adopted by Christ to explain the matter showed that if the Jews were an independent people, such coins as the denarius would not have been in circulation and use. The use of Roman coins indicated the dependence of the Jews on Caesar, and they should have looked this present reality straight in the face. The meaning of the verse can be expressed briefly in just one word: “if.” If you show me the coin by which you pay taxes, it will be clear to you whether it should be paid or not. If you tell me whose likeness and inscription this is, you will know to whom taxes should be paid. The Savior does not ask only: “Whose likeness is this?” or: “Whose inscription is this?” But He joins both these questions. At the sight of the image made on the coin, it was impossible to doubt that this was the likeness of Caesar, and for those who did not know this or had not seen Caesar in person, the inscription testified to this. On the denarius was probably the image of Emperor Tiberius with the inscription: TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGUSTUS, that is, “Tiberius Caesar, son of the divine Augustus, Augustus.” On the reverse of the coin were probably the letters: PONTIF МАXIМ, that is, “pontifex maximus.”

Matthew 22:21. They said to him, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. (See Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25). The meaning of the answer is: service to Caesar does not hinder true service to the Lord God.

Matthew 22:22. When they heard this, they marveled, and they left him and went away. Matthew 22:23. The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question. (See Mark 12:18; Luke 20:27). In their teachings, the Sadducees generally adhered to opinions opposite to those held by the Pharisees. “They believed neither in the resurrection nor in spirits nor in angels, being opposed to the Pharisees” (Theophylact). The discussion with the Sadducees took place on the same day and apparently soon after the discussion with the Pharisees and Herodians about taxes to Caesar, and not at the time when the Pharisees went and deliberated how to entangle Him in words (verse 15), as Origen remarks.

Matthew 22:24. “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies without children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.’ (See Mark 12:19; Luke 20:28). Denying the resurrection (cf. Acts 23:8), the Sadducees tried to confirm their teaching by reference to the ordinance of Moses concerning the so-called “levirate” marriage (from the Latin word “levir” — brother-in-law), set forth in Deuteronomy (Deut 25:5-10). In all the Synoptics at the beginning of the verse is the repetition λέγοντες (Mark — οἵτινες λέγουσιν; Luke — ἀντιλέγοντες) of the preceding verse. The quotation does not match in its wording in all the Synoptics and departs both from the Hebrew text and from the Septuagint translation. The thought of the Hebrew text is expressed by the Sadducees here very briefly and in their own words. This law of leverate marriage was understandable and was applied in practice. According to it, if anyone died, leaving a wife from whom there were no children, the wife should marry his brother (thus in the Septuagint and in the Gospels, but in the Hebrew — to the brother-in-law, which of course is the same thing; the difference is only in the wording) and raise up offspring for him. Ἐπιγαμβρεύειν is a technical term for designating levirate marriage. It is encountered in the New Testament only here in Matthew. In Lev 18:16, marriage to the widow of a deceased brother is forbidden. But in Deut 25:5-10, certain exceptions are indicated where such marriages were permitted.

Matthew 22:25. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother. Matthew 22:26. So too the second and third, down to the seventh. Matthew 22:27. After them all, the woman died. Matthew 22:28. In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her. (See Mark 12:20-23; Luke 20:29-33). The example brought forward by the Sadducees was, of course, invented, because in reality such combinations do not ordinarily occur (in Tob 3:8-9 the speech concerns a different matter). For their purpose, they could have limited themselves to two or three brothers, and their argumentation would not have lost its force. In speaking of seven brothers (perhaps they chose seven because that number was sacred), the Sadducees apparently wished to present the matter in a caricatured form, which would seem amusing even here on earth, let alone in heaven. According to some, the Sadducees wanted to express still the thought that if the legitimate teaching about levirate marriage is to be united with the Pharisaic teaching about the resurrection, it must necessarily lead to the teaching about polyandry. This was a casuistic question, whose solution troubled even the Pharisees, as can be seen from the tractate Yevamot (Talmud, trans. Pereферкovich. Vol. 3. Pp. 10 et seq.). In Yevamot (ibid., p. 30) such a case is discussed: “There are three brothers: two of them are married to two sisters, and the third is unmarried; one of the married men died, and the unmarried man performed with his widow something like an agreement (“ma’amar” — utterance, formula), and then the second brother died; the school of Shammai says: his wife (betrothed to him by the “ma’amar”) remains with him, and the second is free, as being the sister of his wife; and the school of Hillel says: he must divorce his wife with a “get” (divorce letter) and with “halitza” (taking off of the shoe), and his brother’s wife with halitza.”

Matthew 22:29. Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God. (See Mark 12:24; Luke 20:34). In Luke the words of Matthew and Mark are replaced with a completely different expression, not found in the first two Synoptics. Ignorance is the ordinary cause of errors. Jesus Christ answers the Sadducees in this sense, putting their ignorance in the foreground. It consisted in the lack of knowledge of the Scriptures, where was contained a teaching about the resurrection unknown to the Sadducees, and the power of God, because God, having given life to the living, can give it to the dead and always has the strength and authority to restore it. “Look,” says Holy John Chrysostom, “with what wisdom, befitting a true teacher, the Savior answers them. Although they approached Him with a crafty intention, their question arose more from lack of knowledge. Therefore, the Savior does not call them hypocrites.”

Matthew 22:30. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. (See Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35-36). Comparison with angels does not give grounds for the conclusion that life in the future world will be bodiless. The existence of bodies in the resurrected “is necessarily presupposed in Christ’s utterance” (cf. 1 Cor 15:40; Phil 2:10). The resurrected will have bodies, but with the restriction — the impossibility and pointlessness of entering into marriage. “Christ does not deny that there will be both males and females in heaven, but rather presupposes the existence of females, but so that by their gender they will not function for the sake of marriage and procreation. Nemo enim dicit de rebus quae non habent membra genitalia non nubent, neque nubentur” (Jerome).

Matthew 22:31. And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: Matthew 22:32. “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”? He is not God of the dead, but of the living. (See Mark 12:26-27; Luke 20:37-38). In the Old Testament there are passages where doctrine about the resurrection is stated more clearly than in the citation brought by Christ from Exod 3:6 (see Job 19:25; Isa 26:19; Ezek 37:1-14; Dan 12:12; 2 Macc 7:9 and others). Why, then, does the Savior not appeal to these clearer passages, but prefer the less clear Exod 3:6? In explaining this, Jerome supposed that they (the Sadducees) accepted only the books of Moses, rejecting the Prophets. Consequently, it would have been unreasonable to draw evidence from sources whose authority the Sadducees did not recognize. More modern exegetes, however, recognize that the Sadducees did not reject the Prophets, but only considered the Pentateuch canonical in its proper sense. If this is so, then it is fully clear why the Savior, to prove the resurrection, appealed to the Pentateuch of Moses. He chose a citation (Exod 3:6) that was certainly well known to the Sadducees, but which they did not understand. The words “He is not God of the dead, but of the living” are not taken from Exod 3:6, but are only an interpretation of the law’s words by the Savior Himself. In Luke, the Hebrew citation is conveyed in a paraphrase (in their own words), while in Matthew and Mark the text itself is given, but with slight departures both from the Hebrew and from the Septuagint translation. The meaning of Christ’s words is fully clear. If in the law of Moses it is said that God called Himself the God of those who had previously lived but afterward died, this means that they are still alive, because a true and living God cannot be the God of the dead and non-existent persons. Thus, the truth of man’s immortality and continued existence beyond the grave is based on the recognition of the truth of God’s being as a living and eternal God. Only he denies the immortality of man who denies the being of God. Against the Sadducees’ quotation from the law (verse 24), the Savior brings another quotation from the law itself, and with this weapon defeats His enemies.

Matthew 22:33. And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching. (See Mark 12:27; Luke 20:39-40). In Mark only is added: “So you are quite wrong,” but the words cited in Matthew are absent. Nor are they in Luke, but in his account is the following addition: “Some of the scribes answered, ‘Teacher, you have spoken well.’ And they no longer dared to ask Him anything.” The impression produced on the people, Matthew here designates with the word ἐξεπλήσσοντο (cf. Matt 7:28; Mark 1:22; Luke 2:48; Acts 13:12).

Matthew 22:34. But the Pharisees, having heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, gathered together. The defeat of the Sadducees brought, apparently, at least to the scribes, some satisfaction, perhaps only temporary (Luke 20:39). But this did not prevent the Pharisees from forming ever new conspiracies and intrigues against the Savior. It is very remarkable that Luke, ending his account with the words: “they did not dare question Him any more” (Luke 20:40), subsequently indeed brings forward no more questions of Christ from His enemies, but the question of the lawyer (Luke 10:25-28) he refers to a different time and places it in a different connection. But Matthew and Mark do not repeat Luke’s words here, and therefore the question of the lawyer does not serve as a contradiction to what they said earlier.

Matthew 22:35. And one of them, a lawyer, testing Him, asked, saying: Matthew 22:36. “Teacher, what is the greatest commandment in the law? (Compare Mark 12:28; Luke 10:25). Nomikos (lawyer) occurs here only in Matthew, never once in Mark, but six times in Luke (Luke 7:30, Luke 11:52), and once in the Letter to Titus (Titus 3:13). In Titus 3:9 the same word is used as an adjective. It is difficult to make a substantial distinction between nomikoi and grammateis. Perhaps one should only say that nomikos is a more specialized designation for a scribe. In contrast to the “wise man,” as the scribe was considered, nomikos designates a legal expert or jurisconsult. Mark does not mention at all that the “lawyer” approached Christ to test Him; generally the conversation appears in Mark as pleasant and sympathetic—the lawyer expresses praise for Christ at the end, and He for him. Mark’s account casts some light on Matthew’s account. Not everyone in the crowd surrounding Christ were His sworn and irreconcilable enemies. There were exceptions. Even from among His enemies—this is apparently what Matthew wants to say by introducing the word “testing”—some came, if not entirely, then almost with hostile intentions, yet departed from Him satisfied with His teaching and explanation of their doubts. But this only further intensified the darkness of that hostility toward Christ which caused His reproofs in chapter 23. Euthymius Zigabenus expresses this idea well: “In Matthew the lawyer tests, but in Mark he praises more. Why? Because at first he tested, being sent by the Pharisees. But having heard the answer, he accepted it and, having changed his way of thinking, agreed.”

Matthew 22:37. Jesus said to him: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind: Matthew 22:38. “This is the first and greatest commandment; (Compare Mark 12:29-30; Luke 10:26-27). The words of Mark, omitted by Matthew and Luke: “Hear, Israel! The Lord our God is the Lord alone,” may suggest that the Savior here explained only what was well known to the lawyer questioning Him from what is called the Hebrew “Shema” (see Talmud, trans. Perefekovitch. Vol. 1, p. 40–44), which consisted of three sections Deut 6:4-9 and Num 15:37-41, with various doxologies accompanying the “Shema.” In the tractate Berakot (see Talmud, trans. Perefekovitch. Vol. 1, p. 1–39) there are various decrees concerning the recitation of Shema in the morning and evening and in general in various circumstances.

Matthew 22:39. “And the second is like it: love your neighbor as yourself; (Compare Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27.) The citation is taken from Lev 19:18, completely consistent in Matthew and Mark, and in Luke (Luke 10:27) the word “love” is replaced by the conjunction kai (“and”). Departures from the Hebrew text and the translation of the Seventy are insignificant. This second commandment is not lower than the first, but similar to it. Euthymius Zigabenus says: “He said that in its importance the second commandment is similar to the first commandment, for this one also is great, they are mutually connected and mutually support each other.” But John Chrysostom with a light expression places the second commandment somewhat lower than the first: “Being asked about the first commandment, he brings forward the second, which is almost as important as the first” (not far behind it). From the Gospels themselves one can derive that the second commandment is not less than the first (Matt 25:40; Mark 12:31; John 13:34; 1 John 4:16).

Matthew 22:40. “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Compare Mark 12:31-34; Luke 10:28.) The verb krematai does not mean, as translated in Russian, “hang” or “are established,” but “hang” (in the Slavonic Bible—“hang”; in some texts singular rather than plural; in the Vulgate—pendet; in Luther’s German translation and in modern German translations—hänget and hängt; in the English translation—hang). The verb is in the present tense of the middle voice (with the sense of perfect action) from kremannymi, meaning to hang, to be hung, to hang down, to depend. In the New Testament this verb is used everywhere in this sense (Matt 18:6; Luke 23:39; Acts 5:30; Gal 3:13). The law and the prophets do not hang from or are established upon these two commandments, but depend on them and are a deduction from them. If there were not these commandments, then neither law nor prophets would exist. In the sense contained in the Russian translation there is essentially no great difference from the original. The verb is in the singular and is in agreement with the law. Such a construction occurs in the New Testament (compare John 2:2 and others).

Matthew 22:41. When the Pharisees had gathered together, Jesus asked them: In Mark 12:35 this verse has an obvious connection to Mark 12:34. This means that the lawyer’s question was asked at a time when (according to Matthew) the Pharisees were gathered for deliberations. In Matthew this connection is expressed quite clearly, but not so clearly in Luke. Properly speaking, this question serves in Matthew as the beginning of further reproofs (Matt 23).

Matthew 22:42. “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is He?” They said to Him: “The son of David. (Compare Mark 12:35; Luke 20:41.) Christ asks not what people consider Him to be or whether they consider Him to be the son of David, but proposes a general question about the origin of the Messiah. “Son of David” was the usual designation of the Messiah (Schürer, Geschichte, II, 615).

Matthew 22:43. He said to them: “How then does David in the Spirit call Him Lord, when he says: Matthew 22:44. “The Lord said to my Lord: sit at My right hand, until I put Your enemies under Your feet”? (Compare Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42). The reference is to Ps 109:1. In Jewish writings the entire psalm was applied to the Messiah and was considered messianic. Christ does not refute the correct answer (in verse 42) of the Pharisees who called Christ the Son of David, nor does He consider the answer insufficient; on the contrary, He confirms it by asking His question for the purpose of its interpretation. The interpretation of the psalm in the sense that it was supposedly a relatively recent composition in the time of Christ was completely unknown to either the Sadducees or the Pharisees (Edersheim). In the Hebrew Bible the psalm is inscribed “ledavid mizmor” (a psalm of David), in the Greek translation of the Seventy likewise (psalm of David).

Matthew 22:45. “If David calls Him Lord, how then is He his son? (Compare Mark 12:37; Luke 20:44). Some thought that Christ was refuting here the opinion of the Pharisees, who affirmed that the Messiah is the Son of David. But the entire context is against such an interpretation. It is more probable to suppose that Christ’s question was provoked by rumors spread by His enemies that He is not the Son of David and, consequently, is not the Messiah, as His disciples and the people recognized Him to be. If so, then Christ’s question becomes understandable. If He is not the Son of David and not the Messiah, then of whom does David speak, calling his son Lord? “The true answer did not come to their mind. It could have consisted in the following: The Messiah is the Son of David in His human descent, but as the Son of God, proceeding eternally from the Father, He is exalted above David and above all mankind, and therefore David called Him his Lord correctly. But such a twofold relationship of the Messiah to the great Hebrew king and at the same time the true appreciation of the dignity and service of the Messiah were not known in the theology of the rabbis.”

Matthew 22:46. And no one was able to answer Him a word; and from that day on no one dared ask Him any more. (Compare Mark 12:34; Luke 20:40.) What is indicated here is the power of Christ’s answers in general. In subsequent history we indeed see that His enemies do not put questions to Him with the purpose of testing Him.