Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO

Part X

There is a story told by the Jewish fathers about a woman whose husband dedicated his life to the reading and studying of God’s Word. But he died suddenly in middle age. So she made the rounds visiting synagogues and study houses asking all the Sages and Rabbis: “My husband studied much Scripture and studied much Mishnah and listened to many scholars. Why did he die in middle age?” We are then told: “There was not one person who could answer her.”¹ Apparently, this woman was taught that constant reading of Scripture would guarantee a long and healthy life. So in other words, she wanted to know what law did he miss or what law did he not obey that cost him his life so early? They had no answer because the One who both gives and takes life did not consider how much time this individual spent in reading and studying the Scriptures as having any influence on when a person dies. Therefore, one’s hope for everlasting life cannot depend solely upon what an individual does, but what on an individual believes.

From what Matthew tells us, the Pharisees were so impressed by Jesus’ knowledge and interpretation of the Torah that they were curious to find out what He believed to be the most significant law to be observed. On the other hand, they may have already made up their minds and wanted to see if He agreed or disagreed with them. They knew one answer that their Rabbis taught: “By observing the Sabbath as a day of rest as prescribed by the Torah, we testify to our belief in God as the Creator of the Universe, and as the only legitimate Lawgiver.”² This led many religious teachers to proclaim: “He who keeps the Sabbath is as if he kept the whole law.”³ But Jesus will take them in another direction:

Verses 37-38: Jesus answered, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind. This is the first and most important commandment.”

When Mark recorded this incident, he notes that Jesus followed a Jewish custom of first quoting the “Shema,” which goes: “Hear, Israel, the LORD is our God, the LORD is one.”⁴ One esteemed Jewish scholar suggests that this mantra be paraphrased as follows: “Hear, O Israel the words of the Torah and its commandment, for then you will immediately realize how the LORD is our God, possessing absolute power, being the Creator who had created all existence. You will then also realize that He is our God and has displayed His might and many-faceted abilities by means of His people, by means of us the Israelites. He has done nothing like it for any of the other nations. It follows that we more than any other nation are obligated to Him.”⁵

Matthew has our Lord beginning His quote from Deuteronomy 6:5. One Jewish Version reads: “Love ADONAI your God with all your heart, all your being and all your resources,”⁶ while another translates it: “Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.”⁷ The Greek Septuagint has: “heart, soul, and power.” One early Jewish theologian expressed his insight into this commandment by saying: “You will fear the Lord your God, and serve before Him, and swear by His Name. You shall not go after the idols of the Gentiles, the idols of the peoples who surround you (for the Lord your God is a jealous God, His Shekinah dwells among you.)”⁸ In other words, by giving the Lord all of our heart, soul, and mind, nothing is left over for the idols and gods of this world.

We see this also in the exposition of another Jewish scholar who remarks on the meaning of the words: “And you will love [the Lord].” It means: “Perform His commandments out of love. The one who acts out of love cannot be compared to the one who acts out of fear. If one serves his master out of fear, when the master sets a great burden upon him, this servant will leave him and go away [whereas if out of love he will serve him even under great burden]; with all your heart suggests: Love Him with your two inclinations [the good and the evil]. Another explanation; ‘with all your heart,’ is that your heart should not be divided [i.e., at variance] with the Omnipresent; with all your soul: Even if He takes your soul, and with all your means: with all your possessions. There are people whose possessions are more precious to them than their own bodies. Therefore, it says, ‘and with all your means.’ Another explanation is: You shall love God with whatever measure He metes out to you, whether it be the measure of good or the measure of retribution. Thus also did David say: ‘I will lift up the cup of salvation [and I will call upon the name of the Lord];’⁹ ‘I found trouble and grief [and I called out in the name of the Lord]‘¹⁰.”¹¹

According to Jewish verbal teachings, the Rabbis also explain: “With all your heart” means with your two impulses — the evil impulse, as well as the good impulse [i.e., those physical functions which may be used for sin, should also be harnessed for the service of God] “With all your soul” means even though he takes your soul [life], “With all your means” i.e., with all your money. Another explanation is with whatever measure He metes out to you [whether bad or good], still you must thank Him very, very much.”¹² Another Jewish writer adds this: “Moses the prophet said to the people of the house of Israel, Follow after the true worship of your fathers, that you may love the Lord your God with each disposition of your hearts, and also that He may accept your souls and the (dedicated) service of all your wealth.”¹³ So Jesus was not far afield from what the brightest and most intelligent Jewish teachers were saying.

One well-known Jewish commentary puts it this way: “Moses suggests that the people learn to love God as anyone performing God’s commandments out of a sense of love for Him and His Kindness will automatically not make himself and his family the center of his concerns, but will cleave to his Creator.”¹⁴ In other words, keeping the Sabbath focuses on mans’ virtues, while loving God with one’s whole being puts the emphasis on God’s virtues. But our Lord is not through:

Verse 39: “And the second command is like the first: ‘Love your neighbor the same as you love yourself.’”

Now the focus is on mankind’s virtues and ethics. Here our Lord quotes from Leviticus 19:18. In Luke’s version of this incident, someone asks Jesus to define neighbor, and Jesus tells the story of the good Samaritan.¹⁵ So we know that this was already in our Lord’s mind, that the word “neighbor” did not just mean the individual next door. It was already part of the verbal law, as it says: “The following are the things for which a man enjoys the fruits in this world, while the principal [reward is not diminished and] remains for him in the World To Come: honoring one’s father and mother, practicing charity and making peace between man and his neighbor, but the study of Torah is equal to all of them.”¹⁶

Origen adds his thoughts to what our Lord lists as the second great commandment: “The Lord Himself responds to them and teaches us. Not only is the greatest commandment to love the Lord, but as well it is the first commandment. It is first, however, not in the order of the Scriptures but in the order of virtue. And as this comes from such a source, it must be adhered to, since as with many established commands, Christ says that it is the first and greatest command that ‘you love the Lord your God with your whole heart and your whole mind and your whole soul,’ and the second, however, ‘is like unto’ the first; and accordingly, this similitude is also great, ‘that you love your neighbor as you love yourself.’ This is how we understand the second one, while another may be third in magnitude and order, or a fourth, and so in order we number the commands of the law, accepting this as wisdom from God, who orders them even to the least. Such is the task of no one else but Christ alone since He is ‘the power of God and the wisdom of God.’¹⁷”¹⁸

Bishop Cyril of Alexandria draws this conclusion: “Therefore, the first commandment teaches every kind of godliness. For to love God with the whole heart is the cause of every good. The second commandment includes the righteous acts we do toward other people. The first commandment prepares the way for the second and in turn is established by the second. For the person who is grounded in the love of God clearly also loves his neighbor in all things himself. The kind of person who fulfills these two commandments experiences all the commandments.”¹⁹

From this, we can conclude, that what Jesus is pointing out with this two-fold commandment is that no true believer can adhere to one without adhering to the other. In other words, it is impossible to love the Lord with all one’s heart, soul, mind, and strength and not love their neighbor as themselves. Likewise, to love one’s neighbor as themselves is another way of loving God wholeheartedly. So the real question for us today is: Why are so many who call themselves children of God living a double life by claiming adherence to the one commandment but not practicing the other?

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO

Part IX

Verse 33: When the people heard this, they were amazed at Jesus’ teaching.

In a campaign speech given in California by former US President William Jefferson Clinton, Investor’s Business Daily, October 25, 1996. quoted him as saying: “The last time I checked, the Constitution said, ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people.’ That’s what the Declaration of Independence says.” The truth is, that is not what the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution says. It is part of the “Gettysburg Address” by President Abraham Lincoln on Thursday, November 19, 1882. In the same fashion, the religious leaders who confronted Jesus often misquoted what the Law said and our Lord was always ready to point out their errors.

Likewise, the Sadducees came with what they considered a superior knowledge of the Scriptures than this carpenter’s son from Nazareth in Galilee. But the Word Himself quickly proved He knew the Scriptures better than they did. Since the Sadducees did not believe in life after death, when Jesus told them that they were misinterpreting the Scriptures, it wouldn’t surprise me if He had this prophecy from Daniel in mind, “There are many who are dead and buried. Some of them will wake up and live forever, but others will wake up to shame and disgrace forever. The wise people will shine as bright as the sky. Those who teach others to live right will shine like stars forever and ever.”¹ And who could miss the famous words in Hosea: “I will save them from the grave. I will rescue them from death. O Death, where are your diseases? O Grave, where is your power?”²

Furthermore, by not believing in the resurrection they were also questioning God’s power. After all, what did the great prophet Jeremiah say, “LORD God, with your great power you made the earth and the sky. There is nothing too hard for you to do.”³ Our Lord answered the Sadducees by using the Scriptures which they could not dispute because they were considered holy writ. What really scolded their attitudes was that Jesus was more or less saying since God is the God of resurrection if you don’t believe in the resurrection you don’t believe in God.

Jesus could not accept that these so-called religious wise men did not know what Job said about the resurrection;⁴ and what Daniel had to say.⁵ When Jesus told them there would be no marriage in heaven because the risen saints would be like angels, this was coming from the Son of God who was the Word. Just think about this: Marriage on earth was established so that mankind could procreate and raise their offspring in the safety and knowledge of their parents. Heaven will not be populated by human procreation, no more than the angels are produced that way. God made each angel by His own power. Likewise, each person who is resurrected from death or changed in the rapture will be considered remade by God. They did not remake themselves by way of human reproduction.

To this, our Lord adds the words of His heavenly Father: “I am the God of your father. I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.”⁶ By adding Moses’ father, Amram, to this list of names, one Jewish commentator says: “Amram, was honored by being mentioned first due to his humble son who had hidden his face from the spectacle, not feeling worthy of being addressed by God, even through an angel.”⁷ This statement quoted by Jesus is in the present tense, thereby indicating that God is still Isaac’s God. Predicated on that, we must conclude that since God is ever present yet never ending, then Isaac must also be such, otherwise, God would not be His God anymore.

Interesting to note here, if we place a comma after “I am,” making it the divine appellation, “I AM,” it still retains the same meaning, but adds to the eternal belief that Abraham’s God is the real living God that we all serve. No wonder the multitude was astonished to hear that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were alive and existed somewhere! Even though Jesus was discussing the resurrection, it appears that they were of the mind that only after the resurrection would these patriarchs once again be as alive as they were when they actually lived on earth. However, Jesus has given them a clear truth: once we are separated from our dead bodies our spirits still live on.

There has been a lot of debate about where human spirits will spend their time awaiting the resurrection where they will face the judgment seat of God. For the believer, we can be assured, whether we are alive in the body or separated from our body by death, we will all be changed, in a split second when the Messiah comes in the clouds to rapture us all away together at the same time. So, what does it matter where our spirits will rest until that day? The important thing is, that we will not be forgotten on resurrection day. But this debate still wasn’t over.

Verses 34-36: The Pharisees learned that Jesus had made the Sadducees look so foolish that they stopped trying to argue with Him. So the Pharisees called another meeting. Then one of them, an expert in the Law of Moses, asked Jesus a question to test Him. He said, “Teacher, which command in the law is the most important?”

In your mind’s eye, can you see the Pharisees going off to the side and huddling while they discuss their strategy on how to stump this prophet from Galilee? He always puts it back on them and leaves them standing with empty mouths because of their empty minds. To just walk away now would be to admit defeat. So they were determined to keep trying until they could point to some successful mastery over this non-certified teacher.

After discussing the matter, the Pharisees decide to make one more attempt. This is the last inquiry by the religious opponents of Jesus in this series. It started out with a religious question: “Tell us! What authority do you have to do these things you are doing? Who gave you this authority?”⁸ Then it proceeded to a political question: “So tell us what you think. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”⁹ This was followed by a theological question: “But all seven men had married her. So when people rise from death, whose wife will she be?”¹⁰ Now we have a legal question: “Teacher, which command in the law is the most important?”

This was by far the hardest one. After all, there were all the written laws, followed by the verbal laws. However, it seems as though these Pharisees were looking for an answer regarding the Laws of Moses because the verbal laws were established by Rabbis, many of whom they disagreed with. But the Laws of Moses were given by God, and they covered legal, moral, and ceremonial issues. Knowing and following these laws were very important.

Early church apologist Bishop Cyril had this to say: “After the humiliation of the Sadducees Jesus was highly regarded by the crowds. The Pharisees, filled with envy out of an immeasurable shamelessness, again were testing Him, hypocritically asking if He might deliver a ruling concerning the first commandment. By doing so, perhaps Jesus would amend the commandment in a manner that might lead to an accusation against Him. Now, Matthew and Luke call the person who asked the question a lawyer, while Mark calls him a teacher of the law. This does not indicate a disagreement.¹¹ For they both represent the questioner as one learned in the law and as a teacher of the law who is an interpreter of the law to the people. But the Lord publicly reveals their evil. They were not coming to have Him interpret the law so that they might benefit but because they were seized by envy. So Jesus teaches that one should not measure out one’s devotion, loving God in part but also clinging in part to the concerns of this world. Through His teaching, Jesus said that His commandment was the summary of all the commandments. The lawyer thought He could cast Jesus into danger as one who makes Himself out to be God. Jesus failed to respond in the manner he expected, but he ends up praising Jesus, as Mark says.¹²”¹³

Early church scholar Origen gives us his commentary on this last question. He writes: “Now let us consider one argument of entrapment. He calls Jesus “teacher” trying to entrap Him since he offers his thoughts, not as a disciple of Christ. This, however, will be clearer from an example we now offer. Consider: The father of a son is indeed the father, and no one else is able to call him father except the son; the mother of a daughter is indeed her mother, and no one else can call her mother except her own daughter. And so the teacher of a disciple is indeed his teacher, and the disciple of a teacher is truly His disciple. As a result, no one is able to say “teacher” properly except a disciple. And see how, on account of this, that not all who call Him teacher do so appropriately but only those who have a desire to learn from Him. He said to His disciples, ‘You call me teacher and lord, and rightly so, for so I am.’¹⁴ Therefore disciples of Christ properly indeed address Him as teacher, and by this word from the Lord Himself His servants rightly call Him Lord.”¹⁵

Origen also makes a salient point by showing how this lawyer tried to disarm Jesus by flattering Him with the term Rabbi. Origen goes on to say this to his readers: “Thus the apostle spoke well when he said, ‘Yet for us, there is one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and for whom we exist.’¹⁶ And consider what he says, ‘It is enough for the disciple to be’ not simply like a teacher but ‘like his teacher.”¹⁷ Therefore, if anyone does not learn something from this word or surrender himself with his whole heart, in order to become his delightful dwelling place but still calls him ‘teacher,’ he is brother to the Pharisees attempting to entrap Christ while calling him ‘teacher.’ And so all who say ‘Our Father who art in heaven’ ought not to have ‘the spirit of slavery in fear but a spirit of the adoption of sons.’¹⁸ However, whoever does not have ‘the spirit of adoption of sons’ and yet says ‘Our Father who art in heaven’ is lying, since he is not a son of God while calling God his father.”¹⁹

How true this is even today. Not everyone who bows their head and begins reciting the Lord’s Prayer by saying, “Our Father,” is truly a child of God. For any person to walk up to a man and address him as “father”, they can only do so if they were born from that man’s seed. That’s why, anyone professing to be a believer who calls God, “Father,” can only do so if they have been born again by His grace, through His Son. Perhaps this can explain why so many who erroneously call God, “Father,” never get an answer.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO

Part VIII

Verse 30: “After the resurrection takes place, there will be no marriage or men and women. Instead, everyone will be like the angels in heaven.”

This was not a new theology. Jewish Rabbis taught the same thing. One of their most respected Rabbis repeated a tradition that was already extant in Jesus’ day and made it one of his favorite sayings. It went: “[The future world is not like this world.] In the future world there is no eating nor drinking nor procreation nor business nor jealousy nor hatred nor competition, but the righteous sit with their crowns on their heads feasting on the brightness of the divine presence, as it says, And they beheld God and did eat and drink.¹”²

This Jewish concept extended into the Middle Ages, as we can see from this commentary: “In the world to come, there is no body or physical form, only the souls of the righteous alone, without a body, like the ministering angels. Since there is no physical form, there is neither eating, drinking, nor any of the other bodily functions of this world like sitting, standing, sleeping, death, sadness, laughter, and the like. Thus, the Sages of the previous ages declared: ‘In the world to come, there is neither eating, drinking, nor sexual relations. Rather, the righteous will sit with their crowns on their heads and delight in the radiance of the Divine Presence.’ From that statement, it is clear that there is no body, for there is no eating or drinking. [Consequently,] the statement, ‘the righteous sit,’ must be interpreted metaphorically, i.e., the righteous exist there without work or labor.”³ So it is possible that not only did Jesus quote from their Torah but also from their Mishnah to prove their question as baseless.

And in his perusal of all the sayings of the Jewish fathers, Rabbi Nathan made note of this: “What is recited on the seventh day [of the week]? A Psalm, a Song. For the Sabbath day:⁴ For a day which is wholly Sabbath, in which there is neither eating nor drinking nor commerce, but the righteous sit with their crowns on their heads and are nourished by the splendor of the Shekinah; as it is said, ‘And they beheld God and did eat and drink⁵ – like the ministering angels.”⁶

Not only that, but in one of their most coveted books we read: For in the heights of that world shall they dwell, and they shall be made like unto the angels, and be made equal to the stars, and they shall be changed into every form they desire, from beauty into loveliness, and from light into the splendor of glory.”⁷ Also, in their much read apocalyptic work they say: “There my eyes saw their dwelling with the Angels, and their resting places with the Holy Ones.”⁸

In other words, just like Jesus said, the resurrected saints will exist like the angels. So this was not some heretical doctrine our Lord was teaching, but something already part of the Jewish canon. Not only did Jesus debunk the Sadducees’ concept of no resurrection, but He also struck back at their disbelief in angels. This was always a part of Jewish theology, as one well-known Jewish Philosopher stated: “God, therefore, having added the good doctrine, that is Abel, to the soul, took away from it evil doctrine, that is Cain: for Abraham also, leaving mortal things, ‘is added to the people of God,’ having received immortality, and having become equal to the angels; for the angels are the host of God, being incorporeal and happy souls.”⁹

However, at the same time other Rabbis taught: “Observe when the Holy One shall raise the dead He will form bodies for them similar to what they were incarnated in during their earthly existence, whether they lived in a foreign country or in the Holy Land; for in every body there exists a mysterious bone, like unto a seed hidden in the earth, and by it the body will be formed anew at the day of resurrection.”¹⁰ This concept is certainly reflected in the teachings of the apostle Paul.¹¹

In fact, there is a legend in the Jewish commentary on Hebrew scriptures that the Roman Emperor Hadrian asked how humans would be revived in the world to come, and Rabbi Joshua Ben Hananiah replied that it would be “From Luz, in the back-bone.” “Prove this to me,” said Hadrian. Then the Rabbi took Luz, a small bone of the spine, and immersed it in water, but it was not softened; he put it into the fire, but it was not consumed; he put it into a mill, but it could not be crushed; he placed it upon an anvil and struck it with a hammer, but the anvil split and the hammer was broken.¹² So it is starting with this bone called “luz” that the new body will be formed, he exclaimed.

This brings us to the point of Christian thinking about the new body we will receive on the day of resurrection. Since there will be no eating or drinking, and procreation, it would be completely unnecessary then to think in terms of a corporeal existence. Therefore, the body made for the new world existence should be understood as something far superior to what we have in this world.

Verses 31-32a: “Surely you have read what God said to you about people rising from death. God said, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’”

Here our Lord repeats the words of God His father to Moses at the burning bush: “I am the God of your father,” he continued, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.”¹³ The Sadducees thought they had come to argue with Jesus, but now He’s telling them they are arguing with God, Moses, and God’s Word.

But Jesus was not the only one who found the Sadducees’ exegesis of Scripture to be faulty, the Jews noted that: “It has been taught: Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Jose, said: In this matter I refuted the books of the sectarians, who maintained that resurrection is not deducible from the Torah. I said to them: You have falsified your Torah, yet it has availed you nothing. For you maintain that resurrection is not a Biblical doctrine, but it is written, ‘[Because he has despised the word of the Lord, and has broken his commandment], that soul will utterly be cut off; his iniquity will be upon him.’¹⁴ Now, [seeing that] he will utterly be cut off in this world, when will his iniquity be upon him? surely in the next world.”¹⁵

Chrysostom gives us his impression of our Lord’s wise and ingenious answer to these Sadducees: “It is again by Moses that He stops their mouths. It is they who had brought forward Moses. Jesus says He is not the God of those who are not, who are utterly blotted out and rise no more. He did not say ‘I was’ but ‘I am.’ I am the God of those that are, those who live. Adam lived on the day he ate of the tree, then died in the sentence. Even though the progeny of Adam died, they live in the promise of the resurrection. How then does he say elsewhere, ‘That he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living?’¹⁶ But this is not contrary to that. For here he speaks of the dead, who are also themselves to live. Furthermore, ‘I am the God of Abraham’ is another thing from ‘That he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.’ He knew of another death too, concerning which he says, ‘Let the dead bury their dead.’¹⁷ And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at his teaching. Yet not even here did He persuade the Sadducees. They go away defeated, while the crowd, with less vested interests, reaps the benefit.”¹⁸

The Jews had other scriptures that emphasized the eternal nature of God’s relationship with the patriarchs. For instance, we read: “And I fell prone and bowed down to the Lord, and the Lord with His lips said to me: Have courage, Enoch, do not fear, arise and stand before my face into eternity. And the archangel Michael lifted me up and led me to before the Lord’s face. And the Lord said to His servants tempting them: Let Enoch stand before my face into eternity, and the glorious ones bowed down to the Lord and said: Let Enoch go according to Your word. And the Lord said to Michael: Go and take Enoch from out of his earthly garments, and anoint him with my sweet ointment, and put him into the garments of My glory.”¹⁹ If God did this for Enoch, certainly He would maintain the same relationship with Abraham. The point is, had God said: “I was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” then that would show the relationship was over. By saying: “I am,” it means their relationship is still alive, even though their bodies were put away long ago in the tomb. This leads Jesus then to say:

Verse 32b: “Therefore, He is not the God of dead people but of living people.”

Here our Lord builds on what was already part of Jewish thinking. There is a story about Rabbi Hiyya the Elder and Rabbi Jonathan who were visiting a cemetery, and Rabbi Jonathan walked by some of the graves to get to the coffin of Rabbi Simeon bar Yose bar Leqonia. His friend Rabbi Hiyaa said, somewhat satirically, “Because of what you are doing the dead will say, ‘Tomorrow they will join us in the grave. But now they trample upon us.’ He said to him, ‘Do the dead know anything about what the living do? Is it not so written, “The dead know nothing.”²⁰ Hiyya said to him, ‘You know how to recite Scripture but you do not know how to interpret the verse:’ ‘For the living know that they will die’²¹ refers to the righteous who are called “the living” even when they are dead; and ‘the dead know nothing’²² refers to the wicked who are called ‘the dead’ even when they are alive.’”²³

So clearly, many Jews believed that even after a righteous person’s body dies, as far as God is concerned their souls are still alive. In fact, one Rabbi of the first century presented the same Scripture²⁴ that Christ cites to prove the immortality of the soul in refuting the Sadducean belief. “…for God is not the God of the dead for the dead are not; but of the living, for the living exist; therefore also the Patriarchs in respect of the soul, may rightly be inferred from hence to live.”²⁵ No doubt this is a clear reference to what Jesus called: “eternal life.” It doesn’t start at the resurrection, but as soon as a believer is born again. So then, it is the body that dies, not the spirit. That’s why Paul and the Apostles preached that those who depart their body on this earth, await in their spirit the day of resurrection. Once their spirits are awakened they will then receive a new form fit for eternity.²⁶

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO

Part VII

Verse 25: “Now, there were seven brothers among us. The first brother married but died. He had no children. So his brother married the widow.”

It is possible that these Sadducees took this story from their own Mishnah where it states: “If there were two brothers and one of them died childless, and the second performed the levirate marriage with his deceased brother’s wife, and after a third brother was born the second died childless, the first [wife i.e., the widow of the first deceased brother, who is also the widow of the second], is now exempt from halitzah and levirate marriage with the third brother on account of her being the wife of his brother who was not his contemporary.”¹

So we can see that Jesus had a pat answer, but He took this occasion to teach an important lesson even though these Sadducees extended the required law to seven brothers just to make it complicated for Him. In addition, there was another factor that I’m sure both the questioners and Jesus knew was in the teaching of the Rabbis, about how long each brother must wait before they married their brother’s widow: “The deceased brother’s wife shall neither perform the halizah nor contract levirate marriage before three months have passed.”² Jewish scholars explain, this 90 day period was to protect the younger brother from getting married, only to find out that his brother’s widow was already pregnant by his deceased brother or someone else.³

Early church preacher Chrysostom has his own opinion about this story. He says: “To avoid censure for the fact that the seven brothers had one wife, they refer to Moses’ authority. However, I believe that their whole story was just fiction. For the third would not have taken her when he saw the two bridegrooms dead, or if the third, yet not the fourth or the fifth; and if even these, much more the sixth or the seventh would not have come to the woman but have shrunk from her. For such is the custom of the Jews. If they now still have this resistance, how much more did they have it then? They often avoided marrying under these circumstances, even when the law was restricting them.”⁴

Verses 26-28: “Then the second brother also died. The same thing happened to the third brother and all the other brothers. The woman was the last to die. But all seven men had married her. So when people rise from death, whose wife will she be?”

Their question involved the teaching of Moses on marriage, and the obligation that any brother who died childless, should be honored by his younger brother marrying his widow so as to bring a son into the world who might bear his name as a legacy, is reflected in the story told about Judah: “Judah chose a woman named Tamar to be the wife of his first son Er. But Er did many bad things. The Lord was not happy with him, so the Lord caused him to die. Then Judah said to Er’s brother Onan, ‘Go and sleep with your dead brother’s wife. Become like a husband to her. If children are born, they will belong to your brother Er.’”⁵

This was based on the Law given by Moses, “If two brothers live together, and one of them dies without a son, the wife of the dead man must not marry a stranger outside the family. Her husband’s brother must take her as his wife and be intimate with her. He must do the duty of a husband’s brother for her. Then the first son she has will be considered the dead man’s son in order to keep the dead man’s name alive in Israel.”⁶ However, Moses added this: If the brother refuses to cooperate, “Then the leaders of the city must call the man and talk to him. If the man is stubborn and says, ‘I don’t want to take her,’ then his brother’s wife must come to him in front of the leaders. She must take his sandal off his foot and spit in his face. She must say, ‘This is being done to the man who will not give his brother a son!’”⁷

According to Jewish customs and manners, this sandal used to slap the uncooperative brother is called a “Ḥaliẓah.” Jewish scholars say that the law given here in Deuteronomy made a change from what was given in Genesis.⁸ They teach that by the second giving of the Law, only one brother-in-law needed to perform the ceremony. The old custom of the levirate marriage,⁹ is thus modified in the Deuteronomic code by permitting the surviving brother to refuse to marry his brother’s widow, provided he submits to the ceremony of ḥaliẓah. So by knowing all of the legal twists and turns contained in this statute, it was chosen by the Sadducees as a test case just for that reason, hoping it would confuse Jesus and force Him to show His ignorance of the law.

So, between Genesis and Deuteronomy came a taboo mentioned in Leviticus: “You must not be intimate with your brother’s wife. That would be like being intimate with your brother.”¹⁰ And later,¹¹ such a forbidden union would not allow any children to be recognized. So the only exclusion from this would be if the brother married his brother’s widow in order to raise up a child in his honor as part of this “Levirate Marriage.” But Jesus had no interest in parsing words with these Sadducees. That’s why He gives a blunt and direct response.

Chrysostom puts it this way: “Watch Jesus answering these like a crafty teacher. For though they deceitfully came to Him, yet their question was one of ignorance. Therefore He does not say to them, “You hypocrites.”¹² Jesus knew that if He gave His own opinion on this subject these opponents could go away and tell others that the prophet from Galilee was making up His own rules. But our Master knew their cunning and was able to quickly outmaneuver them. The Psalmist describes Him this way: “Lord, you are faithful to those who are faithful. You are good to those who are good. You never do wrong to those who have done no wrong. But you outsmart the wicked, no matter how clever they are. You help those who are humble, but you humiliate the proud.”¹³

Verse 29: Jesus answered, “You are so wrong! You don’t know what the Scriptures say. And you don’t know anything about God’s power.”

So we see that in response, our Lord does not call them names, nor does He foster His own opinion on the matter, but He does what He so often did and that was turn to the Scriptures. The two things that He says these people missed was what the Word of God had to say about it, and what the power of God had to do with it.

Let’s look at how the Jews interpreted the Scriptures and how the power of God to raise the dead was understood. We find one example in their Babylonian Talmud: “How is resurrection derived from the Torah? — As it is written, And you will give the Lord’s heave-offering to Aaron the priest.¹⁴ But would Aaron live forever; he did not even enter Palestine that offerings should be given him? But it teaches that he would be resurrected, and Israel would give him offerings. Therefore, resurrection is derived from the Torah.”¹⁵ In the same document, we read: “Rabbi Simai said: How do we learn about the resurrection from the Torah? — From the verse, ‘And I also have established my covenant with them, [the Patriarchs] to give them the land of Canaan.’¹⁶”¹⁷

On another occasion, several Sadducees asked Rabban Gamaliel: “How do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, will resurrect the dead?” Gamaliel answered these skeptics: “From the Torah, the Prophets, and the Holy Writings…‘From the Torah’: for it is written, And the Lord said to Moses, Behold, you will sleep with your fathers and rise up [again].¹⁸ ‘But perhaps,’ said they to him, ‘[the verse reads], and the people will rise up?’ ‘From the prophets’: as it is written, Your dead men will live, together with my dead body will they arise. Awake and sing, you that dwell in the dust: for your dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth will cast out its dead.¹⁹ But perhaps this refers to the dead whom Ezekiel resurrected?²⁰ ‘From the Holy Writings’: as it is written, And the roof of your mouth, like the best wine of my beloved, that goes down sweetly, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak.²¹ But perhaps it means merely that their lips will move, even as Rabbi Johanan said: If a halachah²² is said in any person’s name in this world, his lips speak in the grave, as it is written, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak? [Thus he did not satisfy them] until he quoted this verse, which the Lord swore unto your fathers to give to them;²³ not to you, but to them is said; hence resurrection is derived from the Torah. Others say that he proved it from this verse, But you that did hold fast onto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day;²⁴ just as you are all alive today, so shall you all live again in the world to come.”²⁵

None of this should surprise us today because there are many around who do not believe in life beyond the grave. They say that we evolved from animals, and like animals when we die we cease to exist in any fashion because our bodies are consumed in the grave. While serving in the military, I was confronted by a fellow soldier who told me he did not believe in God, heaven or hell. So he asked me how could I accept such false notions. So I replied to him: Let’s say that you and I die right now. If you’re right, you’ve won but I haven’t lost anything. But if I’m right, then you’ve lost and I’ve won everything. I’ll end up in heaven and you’ll end up in hell. So it all depends on if you want to take a chance on being wrong. He looked at me and said, “I never thought of it that way before.” So I said to him, “Once you’re dead, it will be too late to think about it, so you’d better think about it now.”

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO

Part VI

Verse 21b: Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.”

This same story is told in a non-canonical Gospel, but reads a little differently: “They showed Jesus a gold coin and said to him, ‘The Roman emperor’s people demand taxes from us.’ He said to them, ‘Give the emperor what belongs to the emperor, give God what belongs to God, and give me what is mine.’”¹ So, now His critics were on the defensive. Perhaps they thought Jesus would take the same position as another Galilean, whose name was Judas. Josephus tells us: “Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to revolt, and said they were cowards if they would tolerate paying taxes to the Romans and would, next to God, submit to mortal men as their lords.”² Josephus goes on to say: “This man was a teacher of a peculiar sect of his own, and was not at all like the rest of those their leaders.”³

This may not have been Judas Iscariot, but it sure did sound like him. However, Jesus makes it clear to them, you must recognize Caesar as the power and authority behind the taxes and fees that were required of all those living under the flag of the Roman empire, so there was no penalty in a Jew paying his due. However, should that same Caesar demand what is given to God, such as obedience, loyalty, service, praise, and worship, then do not give it to him, but give it only to God.

Since Jesus knew what they were up to, He was able to respond with measured and precise words. One early church scholar gives us his take on this dialogue: “What then! You permit us to serve a man, and not God? And how is this not a violation of the law? It will amount to nothing. Indeed, the act of giving tax to Caesar does not prevent the service of God, although you would like to think so. This is why it is necessary for you to give to God equally what is God’s, in such a manner that if what is Caesar’s is kept for the service of God, it is necessary that God be preferred to him. If you remain a contributor to Caesar, you should attribute this to your sins, not to God. In the same way, Paul similarly applies himself to the same distinction. In sending a letter to the Romans he wrote, ‘Pay to the world, therefore, what is due to the world; to those you owe taxes, taxes; to those you owe tribute, tribute.’⁴”⁵

Jesus did not take a cultist position on this, for He knew that the Jewish Rabbis had taught: “For the law established by the king is binding law. Indeed, anyone who does not pay this tax transgresses, for he is taking what is due the king. This applies whether the king is Jewish or Gentile.”⁶

Verse 22: When they heard what Jesus said, they were impressed. So they left Him and went away.

Caught in their own trap, the Herodians and Pharisees are exposed for who they really were. Our Lord’s show-and-tell illustration answered their question without rebuttal. I like the way one commentator describes what happened. This English text is dated from the 1800’s so it may seem a little Shakespearean, but I think you’ll get the point.

“This conclusion is drawn from their own maxims and premises. They held that “wherever the money of any king is current, there the inhabitants acknowledge that king for their lord.” Now, by admitting that this was Cæsar’s coin, and by consenting to receive it as the current coin of their country, they, in fact, acknowledged their subjection to his government, and of course their obligation to pay the tribute demanded of them. This answer was full of consummate wisdom, and it completely defeated the harmful designs of His enemies. He avoided rendering Himself detestable to the Jewish people by opposing their notions of liberty or appearing to pay court to the emperor, without exposing Himself to the charge of sedition and disloyalty to the Roman government.⁷

Whatever the Herodians and Pharisees had hoped to gain, they left carrying less than they arrived with. For sure, their own reputations had suffered devaluation, but they went away with an increased admiration and respect for Jesus of Nazareth. Even though the Pharisees cut their losses, the word of their failure got around town in a hurry. So the Sadducees decided to try their luck in causing Jesus to misspeak by using a “religious question” as bait. Paradoxically enough, it was on a subject they themselves did not believe in – the resurrection.

Although Caesars no longer rule the world, the principle remains the same today. As citizens, we are to be good stewards and support honest government and leaders by paying our fair share of the needed taxes to provide necessary services and protection. But at the same time, we are citizens of heaven’s kingdom and we should have the same attitude in providing for the mission that Jesus started, and continue doing the work all of us were called to do in this world.

Verse 23: That same day some Sadducees came to Jesus. (Sadducees believe there will be no resurrection from death.) The Sadducees asked Jesus a question.

Most scholars believe that this parenthetical statement was either added by Matthew’s scribe to his Greek translations, or a copier who felt the reader needed to know. The Syriac version reads, “and were saying to Him there is no resurrection of the dead,” while the Ethiopic version renders it: “saying, there is no resurrection of the dead.” But whatever the source, it is a fact that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, angels, or spirits.

According to Rabbi Nathan it all started when two disciples of Antigonus of Soko, one named, Zadok, and the other, Boethius, interpreted his words: “Be not like slaves that serve their master for the sake of compensation; be rather like slaves who serve their master with no thought of compensation, and let the fear of Heaven be upon you,” to mean there was no life beyond the grave, so enjoy life while you have it. They said: “Why did our ancestors see fit to say such a thing? Doesn’t it make sense that if a laborer works all day should he not take his reward in the evening?” They go on to say: “If therefore, our ancestors had really believed that there is another world and that there will be a resurrection of the dead, they would never say such a thing.”⁸

So the one group that followed Zadok became known as Sadducees,⁹ and the other group who followed Boethius became known as Boethusians, but both maintained their denial of the resurrection and were perpetual opponents of the Pharisees. According to Jewish scholars, “There certainly were some differences between the Sadducees and the Boethusians, but the latter appear to have been a subgroup or an offshoot of the Sadducean group.”¹⁰ But by the time Jesus came, the Pharisees and Sadducees were functioning as two opposing groups.

In an early church commentary on Matthew we find the following observation on what took place here: “On the day when the Pharisees returned, the Sadducees acquiesced. The Sadducees then returned, and in turn, the Pharisees withdrew. So it was one opponent and then another through many days of struggle. They accosted Him frequently so that one or the other might be able to best Him, or if they were not able to put Him down squarely, they might instead undermine others’ judgment of Him. So they frequented His company. Among numerous enemies, the strongest warrior will be found. While they were not able to put Him down simply by words, they all surrounded Him. They could not overcome Him by strength; they sought to turn everyone against Him, with the crowd close behind.”¹¹

Verse 24: They said, “Rabbi, Moses told us that if a married man dies and has no children, his brother must marry his widow. Then they will produce children for the dead brother.”

Apparently, these Sadducees had heard how Jesus always used the written law to explain His theological position. So they begin by quoting Moses’ words on how a younger brother can keep the family tree alive for an older brother who dies without having any children.¹² In fact, any son born to this remarried widow would then be given the name of her deceased husband in order to keep his name alive.¹³

Rabbi Rashi gives us further information concerning certain exemptions that were allowed: “If a man dies, and his brother is born after his death, his widow may not marry the brother of her deceased husband. This law applies only to brothers who share in the inheritance“together” [namely, paternal brothers]. This excludes maternal brothers.”¹⁴

And, another Jewish commentator adds this: “The Torah’s words: ‘When one of them dies childless’ [should not be interpreted narrowly]. When the deceased has a son, a daughter, a descendant of a son, or a descendant of a daughter, as long as he has left progeny – whether from the woman to whom he is presently married or from another woman, his wife is free from the obligation of chalitzah¹⁵ or yibbum.¹⁶ Even if he has a descendant who is illegitimate or an idolater, that descendant frees the deceased’s wife from the obligation of chalitzah or yibbum.”¹⁷

However, some scholars add: “If a man fathered a child or children, and they all died in the father’s lifetime, the man’s wife is obligated to perform the rite of yibbum.”¹⁸ Since these questioners did not believe in the resurrection, Jesus knew they were using this as bait in getting Him to misspeak or go against the teaching of the Law. So He waited to see what else they had to say.

The great Chinese philosopher Confucius wrote several important works, but he was also quoted by many who heard him teach. One quote ascribed to him reads: “Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without.” It is a poetic way of saying: “It is better to be imperfect and useful than to be perfect and useless.”

This concept of recognizing the value in things with blemishes was also expressed in other Chinese Proverbs such as: “Better be a piece of broken jade than unbroken tile— it’s better to die with honor than to survive in disgrace.”

Dr. Peter G. Vajda, seminar leader, workshop facilitator, and motivational speaker made this comment on the subject of seeing good in the midst of bad: “One way we measure success and greatness is by assessing our failures – or rather, what we have learned about ourselves through these failures. There is no perfection without fault – none. The self-reflection that follows failure is the catalyst that fosters improvement, growth, and greatness.”

Such insight can have immeasurable value, especially in our spiritual lives. Too many Christians give up trying because they just can’t seem to measure up to the expectations of their fellow believers or the church group they belong to. I cannot remember, ever meeting anyone who was more interested in getting approval and applause from those they didn’t know than from those closest to them.

We must never forget that the One we should please first and foremost is our heavenly Father. No matter what others may think of our performance, as long as He is satisfied, that’s what really counts. We see how important this is in the fact that many of those who disapprove of our character because of flaws in our moral judgment or the function of our virtues, only take time to criticize us. Our Heavenly Father, however, not only convicts us of our wrongs but then extends His divine hand to help us stand up again after we fall so that we can continue to make progress.

So let this proverb become a reality in your life. Just keep telling yourself: “I’d rather be a useful defective diamond in God’s eyes, than a useless perfect pebble in the eyes of my fellow man.” – Dr. Robert R Seyda

FROM SCARY TO SACRED

I shared this story several years ago, but with so many new friends visiting my website I felt led to tell it again.

It was a tense and frightening few days as I witnessed the people power rebellion against Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos growing by the hour for holding on to power after losing the election to Corazon C. Aquino. His former Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile and a top General Fidel Ramos were barricaded inside Camp Crame in the city of Manila. Hundreds and thousands of supporters for the rebellion peacefully filled the streets around the Camp. Many other military and political leaders were joining the rebellion. The head of the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines, Cardinal Jaime Sin, was on the radio pleading for peace and restraint. Camp Crame was filling up as supporters poured in.

All at once, seven Sikorsky helicopters bristling with rockets and cannons dotted the skyline. The opposition leaders and armed forces members siding with them braced themselves for a bloody attack. Enrile and Ramos were told to vacate the upper level of the building they were operating from because that’s where the helicopters would fire first. Tensions rose as those inside the camp waited breathlessly for the first volley. As the helicopters drew menacingly near as if lining up to bombard the camp, one of the high profile supporters, Rene Cruz, saw that the helicopters were now coming in slowly, with landing lights on. He knew then that they were on their side and getting ready to land. He was afraid that the people might not realize it and fire at them, so he ran out shouting as loud as he could: ‘Do not fire! They are coming in for us! They are joining us!’

Suddenly, emboldened by rebel air force helicopters and surrounded by rebel troops, Juan Ponce Enrile addressed the wildly cheering crowd announcing, “This is the day of our liberation!” General Ramos, who was usually low-keyed, raised his clenched fist in the air invoking People Power, then displaying a dash of uncharacteristic frivolity leap frogged into the air, drawing squeals of delight from the crowd.

But their euphoria was short lived, because the roar of two fighter jets were heard and soon appeared and began to circled over Camp Crame as if lining up for their first bombing run. Now, General Ver, President Marcos’ belligerent head of the Army, finally had the rebels where he wanted them. A couple of devastating bombing runs and it would all be over; the leaders would be killed, the helicopters would be blown apart and the People Power uprising would become an asterisk in history. As everyone in Camp Crame bowed their heads, ready to accept the inevitable massacre, the two fighter jets suddenly, and for no apparent reason, tilted their wings and flew off in the direction of the US Air Force’s Clark Air Base to the north. Even though these pilots had orders to bomb the Camp they did not carry out their orders and everyone wondered why.

I didn’t know either, but I was about to find out personally from one of the pilots a few nights later. I was invited to the house of attorney Ed Claudio and his wife Marylou to celebrate their 15th wedding anniversary. Everybody was still talking about the revolution and how fortunate we were that very few lives were lost, if any. Ed came over to me and said he wanted me to meet someone. So I followed him over to a small group men who were talking. They looked up as we approached and Ed said, “Brother Bob, I want you to meet one of the pilots of those fighter bombers that didn’t attack Camp Crame.”

A young man reached out and shook my hand. Then he looked up in my eyes and began to speak slowly with a somewhat quivering voice. He said, “Brother Bob, another pilot and I took off from our airbase to bomb Camp Crame with every intention of completing our mission. But when we arrived in the area and begin circling the Camp to get our co-ordinances, we looked down and saw the massive crowds lining the streets from Cubao to Ortigas and the cross street of Santolan. From the air it looked like a giant cross, and that’s what stopped us. For you see, Brother Bob, I was in Rizal Theater two weeks ago and you preached on the cross, and when you gave the invitation I went forward to receive Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. So when I saw the cross on the ground, I remembered your sermon and decided to obey the impression the cross had made on me.”

We chatted for several minutes and then Ed led me over to another group. As we departed Ed said very loudly, “You see Brother Bob, you are a hero!” My heart was burning inside me; not because anything I had done, but because of the power of the Cross of Jesus Christ. It struck me that the cross of Christ had changed the course of the world over 2,000 years ago, and now it had changed the course of a nation. I was also impressed with that pilot’s act of courage that played a large role in keeping the revolution against Marcos from becoming a bloody civil war. The message of the cross had always been one of my favorite subjects, but from that night on it became more precious to me than ever before. I hope you feel the same as I, because I will forever cherish that old rugged cross. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO

Part V

By now, the Pharisees and other opponents of Jesus are faced with the reality that this Jesus of Nazareth was the real thing. For a man with no paper trail showing his religious training to be able to answer questions and field inquiries with the wisdom and insight that Jesus did, clearly indicated that He had access to a divine mind. But spiritually speaking, these opponents of the Messiah were brain dead. Our Lord’s royal ancestor had the same thing happen to him. King David once said, “If they come to see me, they don’t say what they are really thinking. They come to gather a little gossip and then go to spread their rumors.”¹ And no doubt Jesus felt the same way the son of Jesse did: “My enemies are always twisting my words. They are always making plans against me.”² Our Lord also had empathy with the prophet Jeremiah who revealed that his enemies conferred and said, “Come, let us make plans against Jeremiah. We will always have a priest to tell us what the law says. We will still have wise men to advise us and prophets to tell us a message from God. So who needs Jeremiah? Let’s tell lies to ruin him and stop listening to what he says.”³

Since the Pharisees were not able to penetrate our Lord’s shield of wisdom, they decided to enlist the help of some other opponents. Their choice of teammates is a mystery. They asked people from a group they hated and despised to help them out. These solicited accomplices were called, “Herodians.” What an odd partnership. It reminds me of a character named Trinculo in one of William Shakespeare’s plays discussing how to find shelter from a coming storm, and it appears that he would be forced to get under the cloak of someone he detested named Caliban. So he says, “…misery acquaints a man with strange bed-fellows.”⁴ It is usually quite rare to see people with strongly opposing views working together to do good, but it has become an everyday spectacle to see known enemies scheming together to do wrong.

A Greek theologian in the early church preached on this text and stated: “Jesus’ opponents expect that one of two outcomes must result for them from His response. They think they can show clearly that Jesus was acting wrongly against the law of Moses or against the power of the Romans. ‘Indeed, if He responds that it is necessary for us to pay the tribute,’ the Pharisees will necessarily slander Him alongside those who obey the Romans, saying, ‘He is guiding us outside the law of Moses away from the service of God. He is leading us to a foreign power and a foreign race.’ That is indeed why Luke says, ‘They could not catch Him at fault in His teaching before the people.’⁵ For it is public, that is to say, in the midst of the people, that they are questioning Him, in order to set the people against Him. And if He does not permit the tax to be paid, the Herodians will immediately lay their hands on Him as on one who does not submit to the Roman authorities.”⁶

So the plot is set, and it involves the religious, priestly, philosophical, and political powers that operated within the Jewish hierarchy. Then Severus goes on to say: “Observe what is the passion of hypocrisy, how it has hidden all the hostility and the homicidal thought of the Jews beneath flattery’s vile veil, and how those who hate involuntarily honor as they attempt to cause a death. Indeed, those who were saying, ‘We are the disciples of Moses, but we don’t know where that one is from,’⁷ call Him ‘Master.’ Those who were calling Him a ‘deceiver’ and ‘seducer’ say, ‘We know that you are truthful.’ Those who were doing their best to resist with jealousy and with ignorance, saying, ‘This man does not come from God, because He does not observe the Sabbath’ and ‘He has a demon,’⁸ witness that He teaches the way of God in all truth.”⁹

Verses 18-20: But Jesus knew that these men were trying to trick him. So He said, “You hypocrites! Why are you trying to catch me saying something wrong? Show me a coin used for paying the tax.” They showed Jesus a silver coin. Then He asked, “Whose image is on the coin? And whose name is written on the coin?”

To most readers, this question by Jesus would appear obvious. But from a Jewish perspective, it had an additional implication. First of all, we find that there was no national currency in Jesus’ day. Different kings and different areas struck their own coins, and some areas would not accept the money of others. But with the Romans being there as an occupying force, it was common then to use Roman coins for payment and barter. We read how these differences of opinion by governments over the value each others currency affected how Jews living outside of Israel would be able to come home and use their money to buy and sell.

In their Talmud, we read: “The statement of Samuel as explained by Rabbi Nahman referred to the case where the Governments of the different provinces were antagonistic to one another, how would it be possible to bring the coins to the province where they still have currency?” However, in Jerusalem, there was a coin that is described this way: “The names David and Solomon were inscribed on one side and the name of Jerusalem on the other.”¹⁰ With God’s warning not to create images that could become objects of worship, the Jews did not have images on their coins.

So when Jesus asked about the image on the coin, it certainly eliminated the Jewish shekel. This same source goes on to ask: “What was the coin of Abraham our father? an old man and an old woman, (Abraham and Sarah,) on one side, and a young man and a young woman, (Isaac and Rebekah,) on the other side.” However, Jewish scholars add: “Not that there was on it the form of an old man and an old woman on one side, and of a young man and a young woman on the other, for it is forbidden to make the form of a man; but so it was written on one side, an old man and an old woman, and on the other side, a young man and a young woman.”¹¹

On the subject of taxation, an early church theologian who lived in Antioch, Syria during the reign of the last emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire (AD 457-565), had this to say about their question: “What then does the Wisdom and the Word of God do? Jesus allows all their feelings to appear for all to see, without them taking back the words they spoke for no reason. And like a skillful physician, He then lances their feelings with a deep incision, when He cut with the first word. ‘Why are you testing me, hypocrites?’ And after having shown by a rebuke that the skin of deceitful hypocrisy was unresponsive, but gently and with tranquility, He nipped their inescapable question like the web of a spider. Indeed, He said, ‘Show me a coin for the tax.’ And they presented a coin. And He said to them, ‘This image and this inscription concern whom?’ They said to Him, ‘Caesar.’ ‘If the coin is Caesar’s,’ Jesus says, ‘because that is what you have said—it is necessary to give it to Caesar himself.’”¹² In other words, Jesus let them answer their own question.

Verse 21a: They answered, “It is Caesar’s image and Caesar’s name.”

Matthew does not indicate what coin this was. We do read an interesting story about what the Jews thought of Roman coins. It reads: “A certain Min¹³ once sent on his festival day a Caesarean denar to Rabbi Judah Nesi’a, while Resh Lakish happened to be visiting him. The Min asked: ‘What should I do? If I accept it, he will go and praise the idols for it; if I do not accept it, he will be displeased.’ ‘Take it,’ answered Resh Lakish,‘ and drop it into a well in the messenger’s presence.’ ‘But this will displease him all the more!’ ‘I mean you should do it by sleight of hand.’”¹⁴ One famous Rabbi put it this way: “When the coins issued by a king are the tender of the land. This indicates that the inhabitants of that land have accepted him and consider him to be their leader and themselves to be his subjects.”¹⁵ But now comes the rub, who do they accept as their Lord, God or Caesar?

The early church writer who remains anonymous offers this comparison of what man owes Caesar and what they owe God. He writes: “The image of God is not depicted on gold but is imaged in humanity. The coin of Caesar is gold; that of God, humanity. Caesar is seen in his currency; God, however, is known through human beings. And so give your wealth to Caesar but reserve for God the sole innocence of your conscience, where God is beheld. For the hand of Caesar has crafted an image by likenesses and lives each year by renewable decree. However, the divine hand of God has shown His image in ten points.

What ten points? From five carnal ones and five spiritual ones through which we see and understand what things are useful under God’s image. So let us always reflect the image of God in these ways:

I do not swell up with the arrogance of pride;

nor do I droop with the blush of anger;

nor do I succumb to the passion of greed;

nor do I surrender myself to the ravishes of gluttony;

nor do I infect myself with the deceit of hypocrisy;

nor do I contaminate myself with the filth of rioting;

nor do I grow flippant with the pretension of conceit;

nor do I grow enamored of the burden of heavy drinking;

nor do I alienate by the discord of mutual admiration;

nor do I infect others with the biting of detraction;

nor do I grow conceited with the vanity of gossip.

Rather, instead, I will reflect the image of God in that I feed on love;

grow certain in faith and hope;

strengthen myself on the virtue of patience;

grow tranquil by humility;

grow beautiful by chastity;

am sober by abstention;

am made happy by tranquility;

and am ready for death by practicing hospitality.

It is with such inscriptions that God imprints His coins with an impression made neither by hammer nor by chisel but has formed them with His primary divine intention. For Caesar required his image on every coin, but God has chosen mankind, whom He has created, to reflect His glory.”¹⁶ What a beautiful illustration! Here Jesus is telling His inquisitors to look at the image on the coin and give it back to its creator. But then look in the mirror, and give themselves back to the One who created them in His own image.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO

Part IV

Verses 15-16a: Then, the Pharisees walked out of the Temple court where Jesus was teaching so they could hatch a plot to catch Him saying something wrong. Once they came up with a plan, they sent some men to Jesus. They were several of their own followers, along with some from the group called Herodians.

HERODIANS: A Priestly party under the reign of King Herod and his successors; called by the Rabbis “Boethusians,” as adherents of the family of a priest named Simon son of Boethus from Alexandria, Egypt. Some sources say that Boethus was made high priest around 25 BC by Herod the Great in order that his marriage to Boethus’ daughter, Mariamne, might not be regarded as a mésalliance – a marriage with a person thought to be unsuitable or of a lower social position. This made the Herodians the most politically oriented Jewish group that Jesus encountered. They were likely to one who brought it to Pilate’s attention that Jesus was being touted as the new King of the Jews.

Flavius Josephus makes this observation about Boethus‘ daughter, Mariamne, “This man [Boethus] had a daughter, who was esteemed the most beautiful woman of that time; and when the people of Jerusalem began to speak much in her commendation, it happened that Herod was much affected with what was said of her; and when he saw the damsel, he was smitten with her beauty.”¹ Josephus goes on to say, “And when Agrippa had entirely finished all the duties of the Divine worship, he removed Theophilus, the son of Ananus, from the high priesthood, and bestowed that honor on Simon the son of Boethus, whose name was also Cantheras whose daughter king Herod married…Simon, therefore, had the [high] priesthood with his brethren, and with his father, in like manner as the sons of Simon, the son of Onias, who were three, had it formerly under the government of the Macedonians.”²

The Herodians followed the Sadducees in their opposition to the Pharisees, and were therefore often identified with them. The hatred of the Pharisees toward this high-priestly family is shown by the words of the Tanna Abba Saul ben Baṭnit, who lived about the year 40 AD in Jerusalem. It must be especially noted, that “the house of Boethus” heads the list of the wicked and sinful priestly families enumerated by Abba. In Jewish writings we find this said about them: “And it was of these and of such as these that Abba Saul ben Bothnith said in the name of Abba Joseph ben Hanin: ‘Woe is me because of the house of Boethus; woe is me because of their staves! Woe is me because of the house of Hanin, woe is me because of their whisperings! Woe is me because of the house of Kathros, woe is me because of their pens! Woe is me because of the house of Ishmael the son of Phabi, woe is me because of their fists! For they are High Priests and their sons are [Temple] treasurers and their sons-in-law are trustees and their servants beat the people with staves.’”³

They were known for their sensuality and corrupt living, and were supporters of the policies and government of the Herodian family. As such, they were a political rather than religious party. They were very friendly with Herod the Great and with his dynasty. For them, there was no such thing as separation of church and state. But what they were good at, was setting someone up with flattery in order to knock them down with disdain. But Jesus knew they were of the same ilk as those who tormented His royal ancestor, David: “My enemies never tell the truth. They only want to destroy people. Their words come from mouths that are like open graves. They use their lying tongues to deceive others.”⁴ And as David said about another foe, “His words about getting along are as smooth as butter, but he has only fighting on his mind. His words are as slick as grease, yet they cut like a knife.”⁵ But Solomon puts it in perspective, “If you give false praise to others in order to get what you want, you are only setting a trap for yourself.”⁶ This tendency has without doubt metastasized over the centuries into the bone and marrow of modern day politicians.

As part of their false praise, the Herodians tried to compare Jesus to Elihu who counseled Job, “I will treat you the same as I would treat anyone else. I will not praise you to win your favor. I cannot treat one person better than another.”⁷ But in fact, they were really saying is this: “You don’t live the way we think you should. You have not accepted our teachings. So we will cause people to hate you and decide that you are worth nothing.”⁸ However, the Herodians learned quickly that flattery did not work when setting Jesus up for an embarrassing prank. Nevertheless, our Lord chose not to disregard this praise completely, even though it was used beguilingly. It has been said, that 75% of most hyperbolas are based on a truth. If Jesus was in fact 75% of what they were saying about Him here, it still would make Him 100% better than any of them.

We find a number of references in the Jewish Mishnah and Talmud about one of Herod’s hobbies, he liked raising doves. As a matter of fact, they became known as “Herodian doves.”⁹ He built many dove-courts to house them, and they were considered tame pigeons that one might use to send messages.¹⁰ We may use this metaphor to describe these Herodians who were sent to Jesus with a message intended to catch Him in a misspeak or insult to Caesar. In Jewish genealogy we find one of these Herodians named Menahem, who, along with eighty other men dressed in gold, served king Herod from the time he was young. He stayed with king Herod 37 years and accumulated great wealth.¹¹ So politically speaking, they had great influence in the palace of the king.

One early church scholar gives his commentary on this planned attack by the Herodians. He says: “The truth frequently confounds every evil intention but without the intention being thereby reformed. This is especially true of those who intentionally sin by malice rather than out of ignorance. For example, the priests of the old covenant were unable to intimidate the Lord when they asked him, ‘By what authority do you do these things?’¹² And after the force of His parables further frustrated them, they passed judgment on themselves by saying, ‘He will utterly destroy those wretches.¹³ Since no one bore witness against them, it had to have been their conscience alone which caused them to say this. Yet certainly, the fear of sin didn’t prick their conscience. Nor did the thought of freedom from sin restrain them. What was it, then? ‘They went out and planned how to catch Him in His words.’ If anyone attempts to shut off a stream of running water by erecting some sort of blockade, the water will burst through and create a new path in another direction. Similarly, the priests’ frustrated evil intentions discovered other avenues for themselves.”¹⁴

Verse 16b-17: They said, “Teacher, we know you are an honest man. We know you teach the truth about God’s way. You are not afraid of what others think about you. All people are equal in your eyes. So tell us what you think. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

Speaking of uninvited guests trying to flatter their way into a wedding, now we have an example of it in the arrival of the Herodians who will attempt to trick the Divine King’s Son who had just told a story about His own wedding feast. Here we have a very interesting series of confrontations. First, the Pharisees joined by the Herodians are asking the Messiah a “political question” which He answered with great insight and skillfulness. It is strange that the Herodians were asking this question, because from the time of Ezra they were exempt from paying taxes. We read, “I want you men to know that it is against the law to make the priests, Levites, singers, gatekeepers, Temple servants, and other workers in God’s Temple pay taxes. They don’t have to pay taxes, money to honor the king or any customs fees.”¹⁵

But Jesus represented the average person to them. He was the champion of the peasant class. And they were not covered by Ezra’s edict. They are the ones who complained to the prophet Nehemiah, “We have to pay the king’s tax on our fields and vineyards. But we cannot afford to pay, so we are borrowing money to pay the tax.”¹⁶ So, here was Jesus’ opportunity to stand up for the poor and underprivileged, many of which followed Him and had been healed by Him. So the question was, would the Nazarite from Galilee take the bait?

One anonymous early church writer has more to say on this incident: “The priests viewed themselves as patterns of the messianic hope. Yet if they went out alone, questioning Christ, no one would believe them. Everyone would know that the Pharisees were Christ’s enemy. He had already spoken to the question of whether it was lawful to give tribute to Caesar. So they joined to their party the Herodians. The witness of enemies is always judged carefully, especially if it is true, since what is suspicious is judged doubly. The Pharisees did not wish to question Christ through the Herodians. But they had a common enemy, Christ. Both parties held Christ in great suspicion. Yet each, being suspect themselves, were afraid that they might not be able to indict Christ. An enemy in the open is far better than one hidden from view. For while the first may be feared, He is easily dealt with. The second, since He is unknown, may prevail. Therefore they sent Him disciples, as if still less known and less suspect, so that they might deceive Him easily and stealthily, or, if caught, they would at least embarrass themselves.”¹⁷

Even though his work is polemic, one German Rabbi tells of another incident where such messengers were sent to Jesus in order to fool Him into going with them so He could be arrested. It says: “At length they all resolved to send messengers to Yeshua, saying among themselves, ‘It may be that by the help of the Lord we will snare Him, bring Him judgment, and condemn Him to death.’ Therefore they sent Ananias and Achasias, most honorable men of the lesser Sanhedrin, who went and fell down before Yeshua in adoration, thereby increasing his wickedness. Therefore, thinking that they were sincere, He received them with a smiling face and appointed them leaders of His wicked flock. Then they began to appeal to him: ‘Look, the leading citizens of Jerusalem have sent us ambassadors to you, praying that you would agree to come to them, for they have heard that you are the Son of God.’ Then said Yeshua, ‘What they have heard is true, and look, I will do all that you ask, but upon this condition: “That all the senators of the greater and lesser Sanhedrin, and those also who have defamed my nativity, will come forward and worship me, receiving me even as servants receive their lords.” The messengers, returning to Jerusalem, ‘We will do all that He asks.’ Therefore, the men went again to Yeshua and declared that they would do whatever He desired. Then Yeshua said, ‘I will go with you at once.’”¹⁸

While parts of this story may be bogus, there is no reason to doubt that such an effort was initiated and that these two men were the one’s involved, and as such, earned a noble reputation among the Pharisees and Sanhedrin. Nevertheless, they were no match for the personification of wisdom, Jesus of Nazareth.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO

Part III

Verse 11-12: When the king came in to meet the guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in the right clothes for a wedding. The king said, “Friend, how were you allowed to come in here? You are not wearing the right clothes.” But the man said nothing.

Since the king sent his servants out to the street corners to invite anyone and everyone to come to this wedding, it seems odd that someone would be sighted that did not belong there. We can only surmise, that after they accepted the invitation they were told to put on special attire. Either this man was not invited, or, he didn’t think it necessary to dress up since he wanted to be accepted for who he was and not what the king wanted him to be. In any case, the king was not pleased because this man failed inspection and should have been stopped at the door.

There is a similar story in Jewish writings that goes like this: “A king summoned his servants to a banquet without appointing a time. The wise ones adorned themselves and sat at the door of the palace because they asked: ‘Isn’t there something we can do for the royal palace?’ These fools went about their business, saying: ‘How can there be a banquet without any preparation? Suddenly the king called everyone into his presence: the wise entered adorned, while the fools entered soiled. The king rejoiced at seeing the wise but was angry with the fools. ‘Those who adorned themselves for the banquet,’ ordered he, ‘let them sit, eat and drink. But those who did not adorn themselves for the banquet, let them stand and watch.’”¹

Another Rabbi recounts God giving a similar order: “Therefore, says the Lord God, Behold, my servants will eat, but you will be hungry: behold, my servants will drink, but you will be thirsty: behold, my servants will rejoice, but you will be ashamed: behold, my servants will sing for joy of heart, but you will cry for sorrow of heart.”² The Jews also have a story told by another Rabbi that goes: “Esau, the evil one, is destined to put on his cloak and to dwell with the righteous in the Garden of Eden in the age to come. But the Holy One, blessed be He, will drag him and throw him out of there. What is the Scriptural basis for this statement? ‘Though you soar aloft like the eagle, though your nest is set among the stars, I will bring you down, says the Lord.’³ And “stars” refer only to the righteous, as you say, ‘And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.⁴”⁵ Add this to what we have already learned, and this man, like Esau, may have been one of those who was invited earlier, but like Esau sold his birthright for a bowl of porridge instead of having a meal at the king’s table.

Augustine touched on this in his homily: “But someone will object, This is strange. What great matter is it that one man among this large crowd does not have a wedding garment? Why rivet attention on this one man? So what if he creeps in unperceived by the servants of the householder? How could it be said that because of just that one, ‘they invited in both good and bad together?’ Attend, therefore, beloved, and understand. This man represents a whole class of persons of whom there are many.”⁶ Here Augustine is not chiding Jesus for telling this story and pointing out that one person made it into the banquet without the proper clothing, but he is telling his congregation not to worry about such individuals, but seek to count themselves among those who were dressed in the proper attire.

Gregory the Great has an interesting take on what this wedding garment represents. He writes: “What do we think is meant by the wedding garment, dearly beloved? For if we say it is baptism or faith, is there anyone who has entered this marriage feast without them? A person is outside because he has not yet come to believe. What then must we understand by the wedding garment but love? That person enters the marriage feast, but without wearing a wedding garment, who is present in the holy church. He may have faith, but he does not have love. We are correct when we say that love is the wedding garment because this is what our Creator Himself possessed when He came to the marriage feast to join the church to Himself. Only God’s love brought it about that His only begotten Son united the hearts of His chosen to Himself. John says that ‘God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son for us.’⁷”⁸

Augustine asks the same question: “What is that wedding garment, then? This is the wedding garment: ‘The goal of this command is love,’ says the apostle, ‘which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.⁹ This is the wedding garment. Not love of any kind whatever—for very often they who are partakers together of an evil conscience seem to love one another. Those who commit robberies together, who love the destructive arts of witchcraft, and who go to the coliseum together and join together in the shout of the chariot race or the wild beast fight—these too in some sense very often may be said to love one another. But in such people, there is no love from a pure heart, a good conscience, and insincere faith. The wedding garment is love such as this: ‘Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels and have not love, I have become like a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal.’¹⁰ Suppose someone who speaks in tongues comes in and is asked, ‘How did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ Suppose he answers, ‘But I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and I have all faith so that I could remove mountains.’ But if he has no love, he has nothing. Such may be the clothing of those who in fact lack the wedding garment. ‘Though,’ he says, ‘I have all these and have not Christ,¹¹ I am nothing.’ Is then ‘the gift of prophecy’ nothing? Is then ‘the knowledge of mysteries’ nothing? It is not that these are nothing. But ‘I, if I have them, and have not love, am nothing.’¹²”¹³

Verses 13-14: So the king told some servants, “Tie this man’s hands and feet. Throw him out into the darkness, where people are crying and grinding their teeth in grief.” Yes, many people are invited. But only a few are accepted.

While reading this, we are reminded of wisdom crying in the streets, “Listen! Wisdom is shouting in the streets. She is crying out in the marketplace. She is calling out where the noisy crowd gathers.”¹⁴ But though many are invited, they must conform to the dress code that the king has established for all guests to the wedding. Here we detect the same intent in the following invitation: “He sent me to announce that the time has come for the Lord to show His kindness when our God will also punish evil people. He has sent me to comfort those who are sad, those in Zion who mourn. I will take away the ashes on their head, and I will give them a crown. I will take away their sadness, and I will give them the oil of happiness. I will take away their sorrow, and I will give them celebration clothes.”¹⁵

But Jesus tells us that someone got in without acquiring the required wedding garment. This person sounds like the one described in Isaiah, “We are all dirty with sin. Even our good works are not pure. They are like bloodstained rags.”¹⁶ Joshua the high priest went though such an inspection, “Joshua was wearing a dirty robe as he stood in front of the angel. Then the angel said to the other angels standing near him, ‘Take those dirty clothes off Joshua.’ Then the angel spoke to Joshua. He said, ‘Now, I have taken away your guilt, and I am giving you a new change of clothes.’”¹⁷ As we can see, clothing is used here as a metaphor for a person’s character and spiritual status.

When confronted, the man without the proper attire had no alibi or argument to justify his presence. So the intruder was quickly dismissed and thrown outside where those who had initially turned down the invitation were begging and pleading to get in. No sooner had Jesus finished the parable, then the conviction that came over the Pharisees was so heavy they could no longer hang around, it was more than they could handle. So, not being willing to repent they left in a huff.