Mat 22:16-33 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 16. The Herodians . It is not certainly known who these were, it is probable that they took their name from Herod the Great. Perhaps they were first a political party, and were then distinguished for holding some of his peculiar opinions. Dr. Prideaux thinks that those opinions referred to two things: the first respecting subjection to a foreign power. The law of Moses was, that a stranger should not be set over the Jews as a king , . Herod, who had received the kingdom of Judea by appointment of the Romans, held that the law of Moses referred only to a voluntary choice of a king, and did not refer to a necessary submission, where they had been overpowered by force. They supposed, therefore, that it was lawful in such cases to pay tribute to a foreign prince. This opinion was, however, extensively unpopular among the Jews; and particularly the Pharisees, who looked upon it as a violation of their law, and all the acts growing out of it as oppressive. Hence the difficulty of the question proposed by them. Whatever way he decided, they supposed he would be involved in difficulty. If he should say it was not lawful, the Herodians were ready to accuse him as being an enemy of Caesar; if he said it was lawful, the Pharisees were ready to accuse him to the people of holding an opinion extremely unpopular among them, and as being an enemy of their rights. The other opinion of Herod, which they seem to have followed, was, that when a people were subjugated by a foreign force, it was right to adopt the rites and customs of their religion. This was what was meant by the "leaven of Herod," . The Herodians and Sadducees seem on most questions to have been united. Compare . We know that thou art true . A hypocritical compliment, not believed by them, but artfully said, as compliments often are, to conceal their true design. Neither carest thou for any man. That is, thou art an independent teacher, delivering your sentiments without regard to the fear or favour of man. This was true, and probably they believed this. Whatever they might believe about him, they had no reason to doubt that he delivered his sentiments openly and freely. For thou regardest not the person of men . Thou art not partial . Thou wilt decide according to truth, and not from any bias towards either party. To regard the person, or to respect the person, is in the Bible uniformly used to denote partiality ; or being influenced in a decision, not by truth, but by previous attachment to a person, or one of the parties--by friendship, or bias, or prejudice, .

Matthew 22:16-33

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

We know that thou art true. A hypocritical compliment, not believed by them, but artfully said, as compliments often are, to conceal their true design.

Neither carest thou for any man. That is, thou art an independent teacher, delivering your sentiments without regard to the fear or favour of man. This was true, and probably they believed this. Whatever they might believe about him, they had no reason to doubt that he delivered his sentiments openly and freely.

For thou regardest not the person of men. Thou art not partial. Thou wilt decide according to truth, and not from any bias towards either party. To regard the person, or to respect the person, is in the Bible uniformly used to denote partiality; or being influenced in a decision, not by truth, but by previous attachment to a person, or one of the parties--by friendship, or bias, or prejudice, Lev 19:15, Jude 1:16, De 16:19, 2Sam 14:14, Acts 10:34, Jas 2:1,3,9, 1Pet 1:17. Verse 17. Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar? Tribute was the tax paid to the Roman government.

Caesar. The Roman emperor. The name Caesar, after the time of Julius Caesar, became common to all the emperors, as Pharaoh was the common name of all the kings of Egypt. The Caesar that reigned at this time was Tiberius--a man distinguished for the grossest vices, and most disgusting and debasing sensuality. Verse 18. Jesus perceived their wickedness. This must have been done by his power of searching the heart, and proves that he was omniscient. No mere man has the power of discerning the motives of others.

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

Hypocrites. Dissemblers. Professing to be candid inquirers, when their only object is to lead into difficulty. Mt 6:2. Verse 19. The tribute money. The money in which the tribute was paid. This was a Roman coin. The tribute for the temple-service was paid in the Jewish shekel; that for the Roman government in foreign coin. Their having that coin about them, and using it, was proof that they themselves held it lawful to pay the tribute; and their pretensions, therefore, were mere hypocrisy.

A penny. A Roman denarius, worth about 14 cents, [sevenpence halfpenny.]

(1) "penny" or, "In value, sevenpence halfpenny Verse 20. This image. The likeness of the reigning prince was probably struck on the coins, as it is now on [English and] Spanish coins.

Superscription. The name and titles of the emperor.

(2) "superscription", or "inscription" Verse 21. Render therefore unto Caesar, etc. Caesar's image and name on the coin proved that it was his. It was proper, therefore, to give it back to him when he called for it. But while this was done, he took occasion to charge them also to give to God what he claimed. This may mean either

(1) the annual tribute due to the temple-service, implying that paying tribute to Caesar did not free them from the obligation to do that; or

(2) that they should give their hearts, lives, property, and influence, all to God, as his due.

(z) "Render" Mt 17:25,27, Rom 13:7 (a) "unto God" Mal 1:6-8, 3:8-10 Verse 22. They marvelled. They had been foiled in their attempt. Though he had apparently decided in favour of the Herodians, yet his answer confounded both parties, and wholly prevented the use which they intended to make of it. It was so wise--it so clearly detected their wickedness, and foiled their aim--that they were confounded, and retired covered with shame. Verses 23-33. Conversation of Jesus with the Sadducees respecting the resurrection. See also Mk 12:18-27, Lk 20:27-38.

Verse 23. The same day came to him the Sadducees. For an account of the Sadducees, Mt 3:7.

No resurrection. The resurrection literally means the raising up the body to life after it is dead, Jn 11:24, 5:29, 1Cor 15:22. But the Sadducees not only denied this, but also a future state, and the separate existence of the soul after death, as well as the existence of angels and spirits, Acts 23:8. Both these doctrines have commonly stood or fallen together, and the answer of our Saviour respects both; though it more distinctly refers to the separate existence of the soul, and to a future state of rewards and punishments, than to the resurrection of the body.

(b) "The same day" Mk 12:18, Lk 20:27 (c) "which say" Acts 23:8 Verse 24. Saying, Master, Moses said, etc. De 25:5,6. This law was given by Moses in order to keep the families and tribes of the Israelites distinct, and to perpetuate them.

Raise up seed unto his brother. That is, the children shall be reckoned in the genealogy of the deceased brother; or, to all civil purposes, shall be considered as his.

(d) "If a man die" De 25:5, Ruth 1:11 Verses 25-28. There were with us seven brethren. It is probable that they stated a case as difficult as possible; and though no such case might have occurred, yet it was supposable, and in their view it presented a real difficulty. The difficulty arose from the fact that they supposed that substantially the same state of things takes place in the other world as here; that husbands and wives must be reunited; and they professed not to be able to see how one woman could be the wife of seven men. Verse 26. Mt 22:25

(1) "the seventh" or, "Seven" Verse 27. Mt 22:25 Verse 28. Mt 22:25 Verse 29. Ye do err, not knowing, etc. They had taken a wrong view of the doctrine of the resurrection. It was not taught that men would marry there. The Scriptures, here, mean the books of the Old Testament. By appealing to them, he showed that the doctrine of the future state was there, and that the Sadducees should have believed it as it was, and not have added the absurd doctrine to it that men must live there as they do here. The way in which the enemies of the truth attempt to make a doctrine of the Bible ridiculous is by adding to it, and then calling it absurd. He produced a passage from the books of Moses, Mt 22:32, because they had also appealed to his writings, Mt 22:24. Other places of the Old Testament asserted it more clearly, Dan 12:2, Isa 26:19; but he wished to meet them on their own ground. None of those Scriptures asserted that men would live there as they do here, and therefore their reasoning was false.

Nor the power of God. They probably denied, as many have done since, that God could gather the scattered dust of the dead, and remould it into a body. On this ground they affirmed that the doctrine could not be true--opposing reason to revelation, and supporting that Infinite Power could not reorganize body that it had at first organized, and raise a body for its own dust which it had at first raised from nothing.

(e) "not knowing" Jn 20:9 Verse 30. Neither marry, etc. This was a full answer to the objections of the Sadducees.

But are as the angels of God. That is, in the manner of their intercourse; in regard to marriage, and the mode of their existence, Luke adds, that they shall be "equal to the angels;" that is, they shall be elevated above the circumstances of mortality, and live in a manner, and in a kind of intercourse, equal to the angels. It does not imply that they shall be equal in intellect, but only in the circumstances of their existence, as that is distinguished from the way in which mortals live. He also adds, "Neither can they die any more: but are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection," Lk 20:36 or being accounted worthy to be raised up to life, and therefore sons of God raised up to him.

(f) "angels of God" Mt 18:10, 1Jn 3:2 Verses 31,32. As touching, etc. That is, in proof that the dead are raised. The passage which he quotes is recorded in Ex 3:6,15. This was at the burning bush, (Mark and Luke.) Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had been long dead when Moses spoke this: Abraham 329 years, Isaac 224, and Jacob 198. Yet God spoke then as being still their God. They must, therefore, be still somewhere living; for God is not the God of the dead--i. e., it is absurd to say that God rules over those who are extinct or annihilated--but he is the God only of those who have an existence. Luke adds, "All live unto him." That is, all the righteous dead; all of whom he can be properly called their God, live unto his glory. This passage does not prove directly that the dead body would be raised, but only by consequence. It proves that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had an existence then, or that their souls were alive, This the Sadducees denied, Acts 23:8. And this was the main point in dispute. If this was admitted--if there was a state of rewards and punishments--then it would easily follow that the bodies of the dead would be raised. Verse 32. Mt 22:31

(g) "I am the God" Ex 3:6,15,16, Heb 11:16 Verse 33.

(h) "astonished at his doctrine" Mt 7:28, Mk 12:17