An other Christian WordPress.com site – Een andere Christelijke WordPress.com site

Archive for the ‘Bible study’ Category

The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son.

Several times Jesus got tested. The Pharisees loved to tempt him to give the wrong answers or to give them something to show that he was not a real rebbe or master rabbi, not having enough knowledge of Scriptures.

Jesus answered the Pharisees and Sadducees by going on with his ministry as it happened more, speaking again by parables. They came to him with quibbles, he replied by parables. Though the Pharisees perceived that he spoke of them, it did not stop them to attack him further. Their partly concealed anger was all the greater because, through fear of the multitude, they could not yet lay hands on Jesus, and put him to death. They had wilfully closed their eyes to the light, set it continued to shine upon them.

When we look at the Parable of the King and the marriage of His son, we should see that it is all about Jehovah God and the bridegroom, Jehovah’s son, Jesus Christ. This parable must be distinguished from the one recorded in Luke 14:16-24, which was spoken on another occasion, and with a different object. It would be worth while to compare the two parables, and to note their resemblances and their differences.

In this parable we have the Great King, or King of glory celebrate the union of his Son with our humanity. The divine Son of God, as the Son of David,is the central figure of the feast presented by the King, Who first of all invited His Own People. But we come to hear that many of them who were invited were unwilling to come. That is also what we clearly can see what happened with the People of Israel, today many living in the darkness, and lots of Jews even not believing any more in God.

As it was long ago said by a Spartan, that the Athenians knew what was right, but did not choose to practice it; so Christ now brings it as a reproach against the Jews, that they gave utterance to beautiful expressions about the kingdom of God, but, when God kindly and gently invited them, they rejected His grace with disdain. There is no room to doubt that the discourse is expressly levelled against the Jews.

Matthew says that a king made a marriage for his son: Luke only mentions a great supper. The former speaks of many servants, while the latter refers to no more than one servant; the former describes many messages, the latter mentions one only; the former says that some of the servants were abused or slain, the latter speaks only of their being treated with contempt. Lastly, the former relates that a man was cast out, who had gone in to the marriage without a wedding garment, of which Luke makes no mention.

Jehovah God bestowed on the Jews distinguished honour, by providing for them, as it were, a hospitable table; but they despised the honour which had been conferred upon them. The marriage of the King’s son is explained by many commentators to mean, that Christ is the end of the Law (Romans 10:4), and that God had no other design in his covenant, than to make His sent one, the only begotten son of God, the Governor of His people, and to unite the Church to him by the sacred bond of a spiritual marriage.

When Jesus says, that the servants were sent to call those who were invited, these words are intended to point out a double favour which the Jews had received from God; first, in being preferred to other nations; and, secondly, in having their adoption made known to them by the prophets.
The allusion is to a practice customary among men, that those who intended to make a marriage drew up a list of the persons whom they intended to have as guests, and afterwards sent invitations to them by their servants. In like manner, God elected the Jews in preference to others, as if they had been his familiar friends, and afterwards called them by the prophets to partake of the promised redemption, which was, as it were, to feast at a marriage.

We know that all received an offer of the same salvation, of which they were deprived by their ingratitude and malice; for from the commencement, God’s invitation was impiously despised by that people.

The gospel is a glorious festival in honour of that wondrous marriage. It was a grand event, and grandly did the King, propose to celebrate it by a wedding feast of grace. The marriage and the marriage festivities were all arranged by the King, He took such delight in His only-begotten and well-beloved Son, that everything that was for his honour and joy afforded infinite satisfaction to the great Father’s heart. In addition to the son’s equal glory with the Father as Creator, Preserver, and Provider, by his marriage he was to be crowned with fresh honours as Saviour, Redeemer, and Mediator.

+

Preceding

Matthew 22:1-6 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Parable of Invitation to a Marriage

Matthew 22:7-10 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Invitations after City’s Destruction

Matthew 22:11-13 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: King’s Inspection and Marriage Garments

Matthew 22:14 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Many Invited – Few Chosen

Matthew 22:15-22 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Caesar’s Things and God’s Things

Matthew 22:23-28 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Sadducees Question on the Resurrection

Matthew 22:29-33 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Resurrection Proof from Moses

Matthew 22:34-40 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Which Is the Greatest Commandment

Matthew 22:41-46 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Jesus Asks a Trump Question

Additional readings to Matthew 22:41-46

A Look of the Expositor Bible at The Marriage Feast {Matthew 22:1-14 }

A Look of the Expositor Bible at The Ordeal of questions {Matthew 22:15-46 }

A Look of the Expositor Bible at The Ordeal of questions {Matthew 22:15-46 }

II —The Ordeal of questions. {#Mt 22:15-46 }

The open challenge has failed; but more subtle weapons may succeed. The Pharisees have found it of no avail to confront their enemy; but they may still be able to entangle Him. They will at all events try. They will spring upon Him some hard questions, of such a kind that, answering on the spur of the moment, He will be sure to compromise Himself.

1. The first shall be one of those semi-political semi-religious questions on which feeling is running high — the lawfulness or unlawfulness of paying tribute to Caesar. The old Pharisees who had challenged His authority keep in the background, that the sinister purpose of the question may not appear; but they are represented by some of their disciples who, coming fresh upon the scene and addressing Jesus m terms of respect and appreciation, may readily pass for guileless inquirers. They were accompanied by some Herodians, whose divergence of view on the point made it all the more natural that they should join with Pharisees in asking the question; for it might fairly be considered that they had been disputing with one another in regard to it, and had concluded to submit the question to His decision as to one who would be sure to know the truth and fearless to tell it. So together they come with the request:

“Master, we know that Thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest Thou for any man: for Thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us therefore, What thinkest Thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?”

But they cannot impose upon Him:

“Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye Me, ye hypocrites?”

Having thus unmasked them, without a moment’s hesitation He answers them. They had expected a “yes” or a “no”—a “yes” which would have set the people against Him, or better still a “no” which would have put Him at the mercy of the government. But, avoiding Scylla on the one hand, and Charybdis on the other, He makes straight for His goal by asking for a piece of coin and calling attention to Caesar’s stamp upon it. Those who use Caesar’s coin should not refuse to pay Caesar’s tribute; but, while the relation which with their own acquiescence they sustain to the Roman emperor implied corresponding obligations in the sphere it covered, this did not at all interfere with what is due to the King of kings and Lord of lords, in Whose image we all are made, and Whose superscription every one of us bears:

“Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”

Thus He not only avoids the net they had spread for Him, and gives them the very best answer to their question, but, in doing so, He lays down a great principle of far-reaching application and permanent value respecting the difficult and much-to-be-vexed question as to the relations between Church and State. “O answer full of miracle!” as one had said. No wonder that

“when they had heard these words they marvelled, and left Him, and went their way.”

2. Next come forward certain Sadducees. That the Pharisees had an understanding with them also seems likely from what is said both in ver. 15, which seems a general introduction to the series of questions, and in ver. 34, from which it would appear that they were somewhere out of sight, waiting to hear the result of this new attack. Though the alliance seems a strange one, it is not the first time that common hostility to the Christ of God has drawn together the two great rival parties. {see #Mt 16:1 } If we are right in supposing them to be in combination now, it is a remarkable illustration of the deep hostility of the Pharisees that they should not only combine with the Sadducees against Him, as they had done before, but that they should look with complacency on their using against Him a weapon which threatened one of their own doctrines. For the object of the attack was to cast ridicule on the doctrine of the resurrection, which assuredly the Pharisees did not deny.

The difficulty they raise is of the same kind as those which are painfully familiar in these days, when men of coarse minds and fleshly imaginations show by their crude objections their incapacity even to think on spiritual themes. The case they supposed was one they knew He could not find fault with so far as this world was concerned, for everything was done in accordance with the letter of the law of Moses, the inference being that whatever confusion there was in it must belong to what they would call His figment of the resurrection:

“In the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.”

It is worthy of note that our Lord’s-answer is much less stern than in the former case. These men were not hypocrites. They were scornful, perhaps flippant; but they were not intentionally dishonest. The difficulty they felt was due to the coarseness of their minds, but it was a real difficulty to them. Our Lord accordingly gives them a kindly answer, not denouncing them, but calmly showing them where they are wrong:

“Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.”

Ye know not the power of God, or ye would not suppose that the life to come, would be a mere repetition of the life that now is, with all its fleshly conditions the same as now. That there is continuity of life is of course implied in the very idea of resurrection, but true life resides not in the flesh, but in the spirit, and therefore the continuity will be a spiritual continuity; and the power of God will effect such changes on the body itself that it will rise out of its fleshly condition into a state of being like that of the angels of God. The thought is the same as that which was afterwards expanded by the apostle Paul in such passages as #Ro 8:5-11, 1Co 15:35-54.

Ye know not the Scriptures, or you would find in the writings of Moses from which you quote, and to which you attach supreme importance, evidence enough of the great doctrine you deny.

“Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?”

Here, again, Jesus not only answers the Sadducees, but puts the great and all-important doctrine of the life to come and the resurrection of the body on its deepest foundation. There are those who have expressed astonishment that He did not quote from some of the later prophets, where He could have found passages much clearer and more to the point: but not only was it desirable that, as they had based their question on Moses, He should give His answer from the same source; but in doing so He has put the great truth on a permanent and universal basis; for the argument rests not on the authority of Moses, nor, as some have supposed, upon the present tense “I am,” but on the relation between God and His people. The thought is that such a relation between mortal man and the eternal God as is implied in the declaration

“I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”

is itself a guarantee of immortality. Not for the spirit only, for it is not as spirits merely, but as men that we are taken into relation to the living God; and that relation, being of God, must share His immortality:

“God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”

The thought is put in a very striking way in a well-known passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews:

“But now they the patriarchs desire a better country, that is, a heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for He hath prepared for them a city.”

Our Lord’s answer suggests the best way of assuring ourselves of this glorious hope. Let God be real to us, and life and immortality will be real too. If we would escape the doubts of old Sadducee and new Agnostic, we must be much with God, and strengthen more and more the ties which bind us to Him.

3. The next attempt of the Pharisees is on an entirely new line. They have found that they cannot impose upon Him by sending pretended inquirers to question Him. But they have managed to lay their hands on a real inquirer now — one of themselves, a student of the law, who is exercised on a question much discussed, arid to which very different answers are given; they will suggest to him to carry his question to Jesus and see what He will say to it. That this was the real state of the case appears from the fuller account in St. Mark’s Gospel. When, then, St. Matthew speaks of him as asking Jesus a question, “tempting Him,” we are not to impute the same sinister motives as actuated those who sent him. He also was in a certain sense tempting Jesus — i.e., putting Him to the test, but with no sinister motive, with a real desire to find out the truth, and probably also to find out if this Jesus was one who could really help an inquirer after truth. In this spirit, then, he asks the question,

“Which is the great commandment in the law?”

The answer our Lord immediately gives is now so familiar that it is difficult to realise how great a thing it was to give it for the first time. True, He takes it from the Scriptures; but think what command of the Scriptures is involved in this prompt reply. The passages quoted lie far apart — the one in the sixth chapter of Deuteronomy, the other in the nineteenth of Leviticus in quite an obscure corner; and nowhere are they spoken of as the first and second commandments, nor indeed were they regarded as commandments in the usually understood sense of the word. When we consider all this we recognise what from one point of view might be called a miracle of genius, and from another a flash of inspiration, in the instantaneous selection of these two passages, and bringing them together so as to furnish a summary of the law and the prophets beyond all praise which the veriest unbeliever, if only he have a mind to appreciate that which is excellent, must recognise as worthy of being written in letters of light. That one short answer to a sudden question—asked indeed by a true man, but really sprung upon Him by His enemies who were watching for His halting—is of more value in morals than all the writings of all the ethical philosophers, from Socrates to Herbert Spencer.

It is now time to question the questioners. The opportunity is most favourable. They are gathered together to hear what He will say to their last attempt to entangle Him. Once more He has not only met the difficulty, but has done so in such a way as to make the truth on the subject in dispute shine with the very light of heaven. There could not, then, be a better opportunity of turning their thoughts in a direction which might lead them, if possible in spite of themselves, into the light of God.

The question Jesus asks (vv. 41-45) is undoubtedly a puzzling one for them; but it is no mere Scripture conundrum. The difficulty in which it lands them is one which, if only they would honestly face it, would be the means of removing the veil from their eyes, and leading them, ere it is too late, to welcome the Son of David come in the name of the Lord to save them. They fully accepted the psalm to which He referred as a psalm of David concerning the. Messiah. If, then, they would honestly read that psalm they would see that the Messiah when He comes must be, not a mere earthly monarch, as David was, but a heavenly monarch, one who should sit on the throne of God and bring into subjection the enemies of the kingdom of heaven. If only they would take their ideas of the Christ from the Scriptures which were their boast, they could not fail to see Him standing now before them. For we must remember that they had not only the words He spoke to guide them. They had before them the Messiah Himself, with the light of heaven in His eye, with the love of God in His face; and had they had any love for the light, they would have recognised Him then — they would have seen in Him, whom they had often heard of as David’s Son, the Lord of David, and therefore the Lord of the Temple, and the heavenly King of Israel. But they love the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds are evil: therefore their hearts remain unchanged, the eyes of their spirit unopened; they are only abashed and silenced:

“No man was able to answer Him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask Him any more questions.”

+

Preceding

Matthew 22:1-6 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Parable of Invitation to a Marriage

Matthew 22:7-10 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Invitations after City’s Destruction

Matthew 22:11-13 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: King’s Inspection and Marriage Garments

Matthew 22:14 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Many Invited – Few Chosen

Matthew 22:15-22 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Caesar’s Things and God’s Things

Matthew 22:23-28 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Sadducees Question on the Resurrection

Matthew 22:29-33 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Resurrection Proof from Moses

Matthew 22:34-40 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Which Is the Greatest Commandment

Matthew 22:41-46 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Jesus Asks a Trump Question

Additional readings to Matthew 22:41-46

A Look of the Expositor Bible at The Marriage Feast {Matthew 22:1-14 }

A Look of the Expositor Bible at The Marriage Feast {Matthew 22:1-14 }

The Marriage Feast. {#Mt 22:1-14 }

The manner in which this third parable is introduced leaves room for doubt whether it was spoken in immediate connection with the two preceding. The use of the word “answered” (ver. 1) would rather suggest the idea that some conversation not reported had intervened. But though it does not form part of a continuous discourse with the others, it is so closely connected with them in scope and bearing that it may appropriately be dealt with, as concluding the warning called forth by the first attack of the chief priests and elders. The relation between the three parables will be best seen by observing that the first has to do with their treatment of John; the second and third with their treatment of Himself and His apostles. The second and third differ from each other in this: that while the King’s Son, Who is prominent in both, is regarded in the former as the last and greatest of a long series of heavenly messengers sent to demand of the chosen people the fruits of righteousness, in the latter He is presented, not as demanding righteousness, but as bringing joy. Duty is the leading thought of the second parable, privilege of the third; in the one sin is brought home to Israel’s leaders by setting before them their treatment of the messengers of righteousness, in the other the sin lies in their rejection of the message of grace. Out of this distinction rises another—viz., that while the second parable runs back into the past, upwards along the line of the Old Testament prophets, the third runs down into the future, into the history of the apostolic times. The two together make up a terrible indictment, which might well have roused these slumbering consciences, and led even scribes and Pharisees to shrink from filling up the measure of their iniquities.

A word may be necessary as to the relation of this parable to the similar one recorded in the fourteenth chapter of St. Luke, known as “The parable of the Great Supper.” The two have many features in common, but the differences are so great that it is plainly wrong to suppose them to be different versions of the same. It: is astonishing to see what needless difficulties some people make for themselves by the utterly groundless assumption that our Lord would never use the same illustration a second time. Why should He not have spoken of. the gospel as a feast, not twice merely, but fifty times? There would, no doubt, be many variations in His manner of unfolding the thought, according to the circumstances, the audience, the particular object in view at the time; but to suppose that because He had used that illustration in Galilee He must be forbidden from reverting to it in Judea is a specimen of what we may call the insanity of those who are ever on the watch for their favourite “discrepancies.” In this case there is not only much variation in detail, but the scope of the two parables is quite different, the former having more the character of a pressing invitation, with only a suggestion of warning at the close; whereas the one before us, while preserving all the grace of the gospel as suggested by the figure of a feast to which men are freely invited, and even heightening its attractiveness inasmuch as it is a wedding feast—the most joyful of all festivities—and a royal one too, yet has throughout the same sad tone of judgment which has been characteristic of all these three parables, and is at once seen to be specially appropriate to the fateful occasion on which they were spoken.

As essentially a New Testament parable, it begins with the familiar formula “The kingdom of heaven is like.” The two previous parables had led up to the new dispensation; but: this one begins with it, and is wholly concerned with it. The King’s Son appears now, not as a messenger, but as a bridegroom. It was not the first time that Jesus had spoken of Himself as a bridegroom, or rather as the Bridegroom. The thought was a familiar one in the prophets of the Old Testament, the Bridegroom, be it remembered, being none other than Jehovah Himself. Consider, then, what it meant that Jesus should without hesitation or explanation. speak of Himself as the Bridegroom. And let. us not imagine that He simply took the figure, and applied it to Himself as fulfilling prophecy; let us not fail to realise that He entered fully into its tender meaning. When we think of the circumstances in which this parable was spoken we have here a most pathetic glimpse into the sanctuary of our Saviour’s loving heart. Let us. try with reverent sympathy to enter into the feeling of the King’s Son, come from heaven to seek humanity for His bride, to woo and to win her from the cruel bondage of sin and death, to take her into union with Himself, so that she may share with Him the liberty and wealth, the purity and joy, the glory and the hope of the heavenly kingdom! The King “made a marriage for His Son”—where is the bride? what response is she making to the Bridegroom’s suit? A marriage for His Son! On Calvary?

It must have been very hard for Him to go on; but He will keep down the rising tide of emotion, that He may set before this people and before all people another attractive picture of the kingdom of heaven. He will give even these despisers of the heavenly grace another opportunity to reconsider their position. So He tells of the invitations sent out first to “them that were bidden”— i.e., to the chosen people who had been especially invited from the earliest times, and to whom, when the fulness of the time had come, the call was first addressed. “And they would not come.” There is no reference to the aggravations which had found place in the former parable. {#Mt 21:39 } These were connected not so much with the offer of grace, which is the main purport of this parable, as with the demand for fruit, which was the leading thought of the one before. It was enough, then, in describing how they dealt with the invitation, to say, “They would not come”; and, indeed, this refusal hurt Him far more than their buffets and their blows. When He is buffeted He is silent, sheds no tears, utters no wail; His tears and lamentation are reserved for them: “How often would I, have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” “They would not come.”

But the love of the King and of His Son is not yet exhausted. A second invitation is sent, with greater urgency than before, and with fuller representations of the great preparations which had been made for the entertainment of the guests: “Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.” As the first invitation was that which had been already given and which they were now rejecting, the second refers to that fuller proclamation of the gospel which was yet to be made after the work of the Bride-groom-Redeemer should be finished when it could be said, as not before: “All things are ready.”

In the account which follows, therefore, there is a foreshadowing of the treatment the apostles would afterwards receive. Many, indeed, were converted by their word, and took their places at the feast; but the people as a whole “made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: and the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.” What was the consequence? Jerusalem, rejecting the gospel of the kingdom, even when it was “preached with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven,” must be destroyed; and new guests must be sought among the nations that up till now had no especial invitation to the feast. This prophetic warning was conveyed in terms of the parable; yet there is a touch in it which shows how strongly the Saviour’s mind was running on the sad future of which the parable was but a picture: “When the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.” Why “city”? There had been no mention of a city in the parable. True; but Jerusalem was in the Saviour’s heart, and all the pathos of His lament over it is in that little word. “Their city” too, observe, -reminding us of “your house” at the close of this sad day. {#Mt 23:38 } In the same way the calling of the Gentiles is most skilfully brought within the scope of the parable, by the use of the peculiar word translated in the Revised Version—”the partings of the highways,” which seems to suggest the thought of the servants leaving the city precincts and going out in all directions along the main trunk roads to “the partings of the highways,” to carry the gospel to all without distinction, wherever could be found an ear of man to listen, or a human heart to welcome the King’s grace and the Bridegroom’s love. Thus, after all, the wedding was to be furnished with guests.

The parable, as we have seen, is one of grace; but righteousness too must find a place in it. The demand for fruits of righteousness is no less rigid in the new dispensation than it had been in the old. To make this clear and strong the parable of the Feast is followed by the pendant of the Wedding Garment.

There are two ways in which the heavenly marriage feast may be despised: first, by those who will not come at all; next, and no less, by those who try to snatch the wedding joy without the bridal purity. The same leading thought or motive is recognisable here as in the parable of the two sons. The man without the wedding garment corresponds to the son who said “I go, sir,” and went not, while those who refuse altogether correspond to the son who answered “I will not.” By bearing this in mind we can understand, what to many has been a serious difficulty—how it is that the punishment meted out to the offender in this second parable is so terribly severe. If we simply think of the parable itself, it does seem an extraordinary thing that so slight an offence as coming to a wedding feast without the regulation dress should meet with such an awful doom; but when we consider whom this man represents we can see the very best of reasons for it. Hypocrisy was his crime, than which there is nothing more utterly hateful in the sight of Him Who desireth truth in the inward parts. It is true that the representation does not at first seem to set the sin in so very strong a light; but when we think of it, we see that there was no other way in which it could be brought within the scope of this parable. It is worthy of notice, moreover, that the distinction between the intruder and the others is not observed till the king himself enters, which indicates that the difference between him and the others was no outward distinction, that the garment referred to is the invisible garment of-righteousness. To the common eye he looked like all the rest; but when the all-searching Eye is on the company he is at once detected and exposed. He is really worse than those who would not come at all. They were honest sinners; he was a hypocrite—at the feast with mouth and hand and eye, but not of it, for his spirit isnot robed in white: he is the black sheep in the fold; a despiser within, he is worse than the despisers without.

Even to him, indeed, the king has a kindly feeling. He calls him “Friend,” and gives him yet the opportunity to repent and cry for mercy. But he is speechless. False to the core, he has no rallying point within to fall back upon. All is confusion and despair. He cannot even pray. Nothing remains but to pronounce his final doom (ver. 13).

The words with which the parable closes (ver. 14) are sad and solemn. They have occasioned difficulty to some, who have supposed they were meant to teach that the number of the saved will be small. Their difficulty, like so many others, has been due to forgetfulness of the circumstances under which the words were spoken, and the strong emotion of which they were the expression. Jesus is looking back over the time since He began to spread the gospel feast, and thinking how many have been invited, and how few have come! And even among those who have seemed to come there are hypocrites! One He specially would have in mind as He spoke of the man without the wedding garment; for though we take him to be the type of a class, we can scarcely think that our Lord could fail to let His sad thoughts rest on Judas as He described that man. Taking all this into consideration we can well understand how at that time He should conclude His parable with the lamentation: “Many are called, but few chosen.” It did not follow that it was a truth for all time and for eternity. It was true for the time included in the scope of the parable. It was most sadly true of the Jewish nation then, and in the times which followed on immediately; but the day was coming, before all was done, when the heavenly Bridegroom, according to the sure word of prophecy, should “see of the travail of His soul, and be satisfied.” No creed article, therefore, have we here, but a cry from the sore heart of the heavenly Bridegroom, in the day of His sorrows, in the pain of unrequited love.

+

Preceding

Matthew 22:1-6 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Parable of Invitation to a Marriage

Matthew 22:7-10 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Invitations after City’s Destruction

Matthew 22:11-13 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: King’s Inspection and Marriage Garments

Matthew 22:14 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Many Invited – Few Chosen

Matthew 22:15-22 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Caesar’s Things and God’s Things

Matthew 22:23-28 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Sadducees Question on the Resurrection

Matthew 22:29-33 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Resurrection Proof from Moses

Matthew 22:34-40 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Which Is the Greatest Commandment

Matthew 22:41-46 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Jesus Asks a Trump Question

Additional readings to Matthew 22:41-46

++

Additional reading

  1. Memorizing wonderfully 31 Son of David and God’s Kingdom
  2. Wilderness Transformed

+++

Related articles

  1. Twentieth week of ordinary time-cycle -I- Thursday-gospel-reading – Matthew 22:1-14
  2. The Lord’s Goodness – Two Souls, One Heart

Matthew 22:41-46 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Jesus Asks a Trump Question

Matthew 22:41-46 – Jesus Asks a Trump Question

|| Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44

MT22:41 Now as the Pharisees were all together, Jesus inquired of them, asking: MT22:42 “What is your opinion about the Messiah?[1] Whose son is he?” They answered, “[Son] of David.” MT22:43 Jesus responded to them, “How then could David under inspiration call Messiah ‘Master,’ when he says,[2] MT22:44 ‘YHWH[3] said to my Master, “Sit at My right hand[4] until[5] I put your enemies beneath your feet.”’ [Psalm 110:1] MT22:45 So, if David calls Messiah ‘Master’ how can Messiah be his son?” MT22:46 And none were able to answer the question of Jesus. From that day none dare test him any longer.

*

[1] Messiah: The English words Messiah and Christ mean the same thing. Messiah (the Anointed) is rooted in Hebrew, while Christ (the Christened One) in Greek. The idea of a foretold coming one who will be anointed by Yehowah is based on Psalm 2:1, Isaiah 61:1, and Daniel 9:26.

[2] David under inspiration call Messiah ‘Master,’ when he says: Jesus is to quote one of the most quotable verses in the Christian Bible: Psalm 110:1 (Acts 2:34, 35; 1 Corinthians 15:24-28; Hebrews 1:13; 10:12, 13; 1 Peter 3:22). It is also a text Jesus often combines with Daniel 7:13 in a conflate: ‘Son of Man at the right hand of God.’ By inspiration David discerns the Messiah of Psalm 2:1 is his future “Lord” upon his resurrection from the dead. It is clear from Psalm 110:1 that Messiah (Jesus Christ) is not Yehowah. In the KJV there are two “Lords” one is in all caps.

[3] YHWH: In Psalm 110:1, both in the Hebrew Text and in the Jewish Greek Septuagint the four letters of the Tetragram, which stand for the Name of God, appear. See notes elsewhere on whether Jesus vocalized a Name the Jews were forbidden to pronounce. The fact the Jews never make an issue over this as a charge against Jesus (as in the case of the Sabbath) may indicate he followed their tradition.

[4] Sit at My right hand: We have inspired quotations of Psalm 110:1 indicating Messiah begins his rule upon his return to heaven (1 Corinthians 15:24; Ephesians 1:19-22). The prophet Daniel foretold this ascension to a heavenly throne would occur during the period of Roman rule (Daniel 2:44; Daniel 7:13). Jesus told his disciples and his religious enemies that they would live to see his enthronement at the right hand of God (see the notes on Matthew 10:23, Matthew 16:28, Matthew 26:64). For details on Psalm 2:1-7 and Psalm 110:1 research these texts in Nazarene Apocalypse and NAZARENE PRINCIPLES within Nazarene Commentary.

[5] Until: This time period stretches from the ascension of Jesus to heaven (Daniel 7:13; John 6:62) until the end of his Thousand Year reign (1 Corinthians 15:24-28; Revelation 20:12-14). The view Jesus ‘waits to rule’ contradicts the above. Jesus ‘rules… waiting.’

+

Preceding

Matthew 22:1-6 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Parable of Invitation to a Marriage

Matthew 22:7-10 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Invitations after City’s Destruction

Matthew 22:11-13 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: King’s Inspection and Marriage Garments

Matthew 22:14 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Many Invited – Few Chosen

Matthew 22:15-22 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Caesar’s Things and God’s Things

Matthew 22:23-28 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Sadducees Question on the Resurrection

Matthew 22:29-33 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Resurrection Proof from Moses

Matthew 22:34-40 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Which Is the Greatest Commandment

Matthew 22:34-40 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Which Is the Greatest Commandment

Matthew 22:34-40 – Which Is the Greatest Commandment?

|| Mark 12:28-31; Luke 10:25-28

MT22:34 Having heard that Jesus had hushed the Sadducees they gathered together as a body. MT22:35 One of them educated in the Law tested Jesus, MT22:36 “Teacher, which kind of commandment is the greatest in the Law?” MT22:37 Now Jesus responded, “‘You shall love YHWH[1] your God with your complete heart, your total person, and your whole mind.’[2] [Deuteronomy 6:5] MT22:38 This is the greatest and premier commandment. MT22:39 A second [commandment] is similar, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’[3] [Leviticus 19:18] MT22:40 The entire Law, and the Prophets, hang on these two[4] commandments.”

*

[1] You shall love YHWH: The quote is from Deuteronomy 6:5. In the Hebrew Text (as well as the earlier versions of the Jewish Greek Septuagint) the Tetragram YHWH occurred. Whether Jesus actually uttered the Divine Name is a subject of debate. It is likely that he did not but followed the Jewish custom of substituting ADONAI or “Lord.”

[2] Your complete heart, your total person, and your whole mind: Or, KJV: all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all they mind. Mark 12:30 adds, “… and with your whole strength.”

[3] You shall love your neighbor as yourself: The quote is from Leviticus 19:18.

[4] Hang on these two: Or, RHM: all the law is contained; WEY: summed up in these two. Paul virtually quotes the Nazarene at Romans 13:10 and Galatians 5:14.

+

Preceding

Matthew 22:1-6 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Parable of Invitation to a Marriage

Matthew 22:7-10 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Invitations after City’s Destruction

Matthew 22:11-13 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: King’s Inspection and Marriage Garments

Matthew 22:14 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Many Invited – Few Chosen

Matthew 22:15-22 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Caesar’s Things and God’s Things

Matthew 22:23-28 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Sadducees Question on the Resurrection

Matthew 22:29-33 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Resurrection Proof from Moses

++

Additional reading

  1. Hashem השם, Hebrew for “the Name”
  2. Jehovah Yahweh Gods Name
  3. I am that I am Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh אהיה אשר אהיה
  4. Spelling Yahshuah (יהשע) vs Hebrew using Yehoshuah (יהושע)
  5. Taught by God to love one another
  6. Avoiding friction and distraction in the body of Christ
  7. Not being saved by faith in Christ alone
  8. Examples of Living Faith
  9. Today’s thought “Clothing yourselves with the right attitude” (May 16)
  10. Commanded to love

+++

Related articles

  1. True Love And Devotion To God
  2. Thou Shalt Love the Lord Thy God
  3. Most Important Commandment
  4. Your Daily Readings – Verse of the Day – Matthew 22:39 – May 4, 2019
  5. Matthew 22:35-40
  6. 2 Serious Questions for Church Leaders
  7. 5 Things the US Church Needs to Realize
  8. Some Thoughts on the Book “What’s the Least I Can Believe and Still Be a Christian?” (Post #13): Chapter 12- “Jesus’ Priority”
  9. March 5: “Christians, and the Laws of Love”
  10. The Great Commandment and Healing Prayer – An Unlikely Connection?
  11. Putting Jesus’ Commands in Context – Law or Love?
  12. God Helps Us Love
  13. Love Is Of One Piece
  14. When Emotions Become an Idol
  15. It’s time we lived Christ’s Gospel of Love with more conviction and more volume
  16. Four Things Are Found In The Life Of A Disciple
  17. Faith is a Gift
  18. Love Poems and Rejected Stones
  19. “This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.” ~Apostle John
  20. Christian Characteristics
  21. Hospitality {Five Minute Friday}
  22. The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and Other Mysteries
  23. Loving Yourself: A High Holidays Primer for Non-Jews
  24. Love Yourself, Too.
  25. To Love Ourselves
  26. Love thy neighbor
  27. Not Me
  28. Lead With Love
  29. The “chosen” people – Marilyn Armstrong
  30. Salvation to the Jews

Matthew 22:29-33 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Resurrection Proof from Moses

Matthew 22:29-33 – Resurrection Proof from Moses

|| Mark 12:24-27; Luke 20:34-40

MT22:29 Now Jesus answered them: “Not knowing the Scriptures[1] or the dynamism[2] of The God, you are mistaken. MT22:30 For in the resurrection men do not marry[3] nor are women given in marriage[4] but they are like the angels in heaven.[5] MT22:31But concerning the subject of the resurrection of the dead did you never read what The God said to you: MT22:32 ‘I am The God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob’?[6] [Exodus 3:16] He is not The God of the dead but of those alive.”[7] MT22:33 Upon hearing this the crowds were astounded at his teaching.

*

[1] Not knowing the Scriptures: A powerful thing to say to Jewish scholars. It is proof what the others had said earlier in verse 16.

[2] Dynamism: The Greek is DYNAMIN as is generally translated “power.”

[3] Men do not marry: “Men” are inferred by the phrase and context.

[4] Women given in marriage: “Women” are inferred by the phrase and context.

[5] They are like the angels in heaven: That is celibate spirits. Compare Galatians 3:28.

[6] I am The God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob: The quote is from Exodus 3:6 (Compare Exodus 6:3). There are far better verses Jesus could quote to prove the resurrection in the Scriptures. However, the Sadducees only accepted the first five books of Moses. So this is an adept rabbinical move on the part of the Nazarene to find the resurrection in such a vague phrase.

[7] But of those alive: Or, Luke 20:38 adds, “… for they are all living to him.” The dead are unconscious in sleep and reside within the memory of God (Job 14:12-14). From this standpoint dead Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob sleep within the Mind of God.

+

Preceding

Matthew 22:1-6 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Parable of Invitation to a Marriage

Matthew 22:7-10 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Invitations after City’s Destruction

Matthew 22:11-13 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: King’s Inspection and Marriage Garments

Matthew 22:14 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Many Invited – Few Chosen

Matthew 22:15-22 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Caesar’s Things and God’s Things

Matthew 22:23-28 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Sadducees Question on the Resurrection

++

Additional reading

  1. Death

+++

Related articles

  1. Matthew 22 Verse by Verse
  2. Restoration, Resurrection, and Reconciliation
  3. Resurrection of the Dead, Part I
  4. Resurrection of the Dead, Part II
  5. Resurrection of the Dead, Part III
  6. The Investigative Judgment
  7. Katelyn’s Question #5
  8. Where is king David? [935d]
  9. Resurrection and Afterlife in the Old Testament
  10. The Hope of the Resurrection

Matthew 22:23-28 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Sadducees Question on the Resurrection

Matthew 22:23-28 – Sadducees Question on the Resurrection

|| Mark 12:18-23; Luke 20:27-33

MT22:23 On that same day the Sadducees[1] approached Jesus. Not believing in the resurrection,[2] they asked Jesus, MT22:24 “Teacher, Moses said[3] that if a man should die without children his brother should take in marriage his woman and raise up his brother’s seed.[4] [Deuteronomy 25:5] MT22:25 Now we had seven brothers and the first one died without children and so his woman[5] was released to his brother. MT22:26 This happened also with the second, the third, and finally all seven brothers. MT22:27 In the end the woman died. MT22:28 Therefore, in the resurrection to which of the seven will the woman belong? For all seven had her.”

*

[1] Sadducees: See the notes on Matthew 3:7.

[2] Resurrection: The Greek is ANASTASEI means again + stand. A synonym for it is raised up. Research the word resurrection. For a thorough considering see Where are the Dead?

[3] Moses said: The Sadducees only accepted the five books of Moses as inspired of God. They allude to Deuteronomy 25:5. Compare also Ruth 1:11; 3:13. This is called “brother-in-law marriage” and though it may seem quaint to a modern western world the need to preserve the family, tribe, and nation were obsessive to the Israelites. Jesus himself is the product of such a relationship (see the book of Ruth).

[4] Seed: The Greek is SPERMA.

[5] His woman: Or, “wife.” See notes elsewhere under wife.

+

Preceding

Matthew 22:1-6 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Parable of Invitation to a Marriage

Matthew 22:7-10 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Invitations after City’s Destruction

Matthew 22:11-13 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: King’s Inspection and Marriage Garments

Matthew 22:14 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Many Invited – Few Chosen

Matthew 22:15-22 – The Nazarene’s Commentary: Caesar’s Things and God’s Things

Tag Cloud

Zion, Sion and Zsion News and Journal

About Politics, Religion, Culture, Society, Joy, Thank, Praise, Faith, Hope, Love, Community, Freedom, Peace, Islam, Justice, Truth, Patience and much more.

johnsweatjrblog

Doxology rooted in Theology: Nothing more, Nothing less

jamesgray2

A discussion of interesting books from my current stock A WordPress.com site

Unmasking anti Jehovah sites and people

Showing the only One True God and the Way to That God

The Eccentric Fundamentalist

Musings on theology, apologetics, practical Christianity and God's grace in salvation through Jesus Christ

John 20:21

"As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you."

The Biblical Review

Reviewing Publications, History, and Biblical Literature

Words on the Word

Blog by Abram K-J

Bybelverskille

Hier bestudeer ons die redes vir die verskille in Bybelvertalings.

Michael Bradley - Time Traveler

The official website of Michael Bradley - Author of novels, short stories and poetry involving the past, future, and what may have been.

BIBLE Students DAILY

"Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life." Revelation 2:10

God's Simple Kindness

God's Word Made Simple

takeaminutedotnet

All the Glory to God

Groen is Gezond

van zaadjes in volle grond tot iets lekkers op het bord

Jesse A. Kelley

A topnotch WordPress.com site

JWUpdate

JW Current Apostate Status and Final Temple Judgment - Web Witnessing Record; The Bethel Apostasy is Prophecy

Sophia's Pockets

Wisdom Withouth Walls

ConquerorShots

Spiritual Shots to Fuel the Conqueror Lifestyle

Examining Watchtower Doctrine

Truth Behind the "Truth"

Theological NoteBook

Dabbling into Theology

%d bloggers like this: