Mateus 22
John MacArthur · Citado em PreceptAustin
Mateus 22
MacArthur says parabole is "A spiritual or moral truth would often be expressed by laying it alongside, so to speak, a physical example that could be more easily understood. A common, observable object or practice was used to illustrate a subjective truth or principle. That which was well known was laid alongside that which was not known or understood in order to explain it. The known elucidated the unknown. The parable was a common form of Jewish teaching… Teaching through parables and other figurative means is effective because it helps make abstract truth more concrete, more interesting, easier to remember, and easier to apply to life. When a truth is externalized in the figures of a parable, the internalizing of moral and spiritual meaning is much easier. In the series of parables in chapter 13, Jesus uses such familiar figures as soil, seed, birds, thorns, rocks, sun, wheat, tares, mustard seed, leaven, hidden treasure, and a pearl. But in these particular parables themselves the truth is not made clear, because the basic story tells nothing but the literal account, without presenting the moral or spiritual truth. It was only to His disciples that Jesus explained what the soil, the seed, the thorns, and the other figures represent. And an unexplained parable was nothing but an impossible riddle, whose meaning could only be guessed at." (See Matthew Commentary) Related Resources: Parable in Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology What is a parable? | GotQuestions.org Matthew Henry Concise Mt 22:1-14. The provision made for perishing souls in the gospel, is represented by a royal feast made by a king, with eastern liberality, on the marriage of his son. Our merciful God has not only provided food, but a royal feast, for the perishing souls of his rebellious creatures. There is enough and to spare, of every thing that can add to our present comfort and everlasting happiness, in the salvation of his Son Jesus Christ. The guests first invited were the Jews. When the prophets of the Old Testament prevailed not, nor John the Baptist, nor Christ himself, who told them the kingdom of God was at hand, the apostles and ministers of the gospel were sent, after Christ's resurrection, to tell them it was come, and to persuade them to accept the offer. The reason why sinners come not to Christ and salvation by him, is, not because they cannot, but because they will not. Making light of Christ, and of the great salvation wrought out by him, is the damning sin of the world. They were careless. Multitudes perish for ever through mere carelessness, who show no direct aversion, but are careless as to their souls. Also the business and profit of worldly employments hinder many in closing with the Saviour. Both farmers and merchants must be diligent; but whatever we have of the world in our hands, our care must be to keep it out of our hearts, lest it come between us and Christ. The utter ruin coming upon the Jewish church and nation, is here represented. Persecution of Christ's faithful ministers fills up the measure of guilt of any people. The offer of Christ and salvation to the Gentiles was not expected; it was such a surprise as it would be to wayfaring men, to be invited to a royal wedding-feast. The design of the gospel is to gather souls to Christ; all the children of God scattered abroad, John 10:16; 11:52. The case of hypocrites is represented by the guest that had not on a wedding-garment. It concerns all to prepare for the scrutiny; and those, and those only, who put on the Lord Jesus, who have a Christian temper of mind, who live by faith in Christ, and to whom he is all in all, have the wedding-garment. The imputed righteousness of Christ, and the sanctification of the Spirit, are both alike necessary. No man has the wedding-garment by nature, or can form it for himself. The day is coming, when hypocrites will be called to account for all their presumptuous intruding into gospel ordinances, and usurpation of gospel privileges. Take him away. Those that walk unworthy of Christianity, forfeit all the happiness they presumptuously claimed. Our Saviour here passes out of the parable into that which it teaches. Hypocrites go by the light of the gospel itself down to utter darkness. Many are called to the wedding-feast, that is, to salvation, but few have the wedding-garment, the righteousness of Christ, the sanctification of the Spirit. Then let us examine ourselves whether we are in the faith, and seek to be approved by the King. Son (5207)(huios means "a son," primarily signifying the relation of offspring to parent, is used of the "foal" of an ass in Matt. 21:5. Vine- primarily signifies the relation of offspring to parent (see John 9:18-20; Gal. 4:30. It is often used metaphorically of prominent moral characteristics (see below). "It is used in the NT of (a) male offspring, Gal. 4:30; (b) legitimate, as opposed to illegitimate offspring, Heb. 12:8; (c) descendants, without reference to sex, Rom. 9:27; (d) friends attending a wedding, Matt. 9:15; (e) those who enjoy certain privileges, Acts 3:25; (f) those who act in a certain way, whether evil, Matt. 23:31, or good, Gal. 3:7; (g) those who manifest a certain character, whether evil, Acts 13:10; Eph. 2:2, or good, Luke 6:35; Acts 4:36; Rom. 8:14; (h) the destiny that corresponds with the character, whether evil, Matt. 23:15; John 17:12; 2 Thess. 2:3, or good, Luke 20:36; (i) the dignity of the relationship with God whereinto men are brought by the Holy Spirit when they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, Rom. 8:19; Gal. 3:26. "The Apostle John does not use huios, 'son,' of the believer, he reserves that title for the Lord; but he does use teknon, 'child,' as in his Gospel, John 1:12; 1 John 3:1, 2; Rev. 21:7 (hunios) is a quotation from 2 Sam. 7:14. "The Lord Jesus used huios in a very significant way, as in Matt. 5:9, 'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God,' and Matt. 5:44, 45, 'Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you; that ye may be (become) sons of your Father which is in heaven.' The disciples were to do these things, not in order that they might become children of God, but that, being children (note 'your Father' throughout), they might make the fact manifest in their character, might 'become sons.' See also 2 Cor. 6:17, 18. "As to moral characteristics, the following phrases are used: (a) sons of God, Matt. 5:9, 45; Luke 6:35; (b) sons of the light, Luke 16:8; John 12:36; (c) sons of the day, 1 Thess. 5:5; (d) sons of peace, Luke 10:6; (e) sons of this world, Luke 16:8; (f) sons of disobedience, Eph. 2:2; (g) sons of the evil one, Matt. 13:38, cp. 'of the Devil,' Acts 13:10: (h) son of perdition, John 17:12; 2 Thess. 2:3. It is also used to describe characteristics other than moral, as: (i) sons of the resurrection, Luke 20:36; (j) sons of the Kingdom, Matt. 8:12; Matt. 13:38; (k) sons of the bridechamber, Mark 2:19; (l) sons of exhortation, Acts 4:36; (m) sons of thunder, Boanerges, Mark 3:17."* [* From Notes on Galatians, by Hogg and Vine, pp. 167-169, and on Thessalonians, pp. 158,159.] Notes: (1) For the synonyms teknon and teknion see under CHILD. The difference between believers as "children of God" and as "sons of God" is brought out in Rom. 8:14-21. The Spirit bears witness with their spirit that they are "children of God," and, as such, they are His heirs and joint-heirs with Christ. This stresses the fact of their spiritual birth (Rom. 8:16, 17). On the other hand, "as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God," i.e., "these and no other." Their conduct gives evidence of the dignity of their relationship and their likeness to His character. (2) Pais is rendered "son" in John 4:51. For Acts 13:13, 26 see below. The Son of God In this title the word "Son" is used sometimes (a) of relationship, sometimes (b) of the expression of character. "Thus, e.g., when the disciples so addressed Him, Matt. 14:33; Matt. 16:16; John 1:49, when the centurion so spoke of Him, Matt. 27:54, they probably meant that (b) He was a manifestation of God in human form. But in such passages as Luke 1:32, 35; Acts 13:33, which refer to the humanity of the Lord Jesus, … the word is used in sense (a). "The Lord Jesus Himself used the full title on occasion, John 5:25; John 9:35 [some mss. have 'the Son of Man'; see RV marg.]; Son 11:4, and on the more frequent occasions on which He spoke of Himself as 'the Son,' the words are to be understood as an abbreviation of 'the Son of God,' not of 'the Son of Man'; this latter He always expressed in full; see Luke 10:22; John 5:19, etc. "John uses both the longer and shorter forms of the title in his Gospel, see John 3:16-18; John 20:31, e.g., and in his Epistles; cp. Rev. 2:18. So does the writer of Hebrews, Heb. 1:2; Heb. 4:14; Heb. 6:6, etc. An eternal relation subsisting between the Son and the Father in the Godhead is to be understood. That is to say, the Son of God, in His eternal relationship with the Father, is not so entitled because He at any time began to derive His being from the Father (in which case He could not be co-eternal with the Father), but because He is and ever has been the expression of what the Father is; cp. John 14:9, 'he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.' The words of Heb. 1:3, 'Who being the effulgence of His (God's) glory, and the very image of His (God's) substance' are a definition of what is meant by 'Son of God.' Thus absolute Godhead, not Godhead in a secondary or derived sense, is intended in the title." * [* From Notes on Galatians, by Hogg and Vine, pp. 99, 100.] Other titles of Christ as the "Son of God" are: "His Son," 1 Thess. 1:10 (in Acts 13:13, 26, RV, pais is rendered "servant"); "His own Son," Rom. 8:32; "My beloved Son," Matt. 3:17; "His Only Begotten Son," John 3:16; "the Son of His love," Col. 1:13. "The Son is the eternal object of the Father's love, John 17:24, and the sole Revealer of the Father's character, John 1:14; Heb. 1:3. The words, 'Father' and 'Son,' are never in the NT so used as to suggest that the Father existed before the Son; the Prologue to the Gospel according to John distinctly asserts that the Word existed 'in the beginning,' and that this Word is the Son, Who 'became flesh and dwelt among us.'" * [* From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine pp. 46,47.] In addressing the Father in His prayer in John 17 He says, "Thou lovedst Me before the foundation of the World." Accordingly in the timeless past the Father and the "Son" existed in that relationship, a relationship of love, as well as of absolute Deity. In this passage the "Son" gives evidence that there was no more powerful plea in the Father's estimation than that coeternal love existing between the Father and Himself. The declaration "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee," Psa. 2:7, quoted in Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; Heb. 5:5, refers to the birth of Christ, not to His resurrection. In Acts 13:33 the verb "raise up" is used of the raising up of a person to occupy a special position in the nation, as of David in Acts 13:22 (so of Christ as a Prophet in Acts 3:22; Acts 7:37). The word "again" in the AV in Acts 13:33 represents nothing in the original. The RV rightly omits it. In Acts 13:34 the statement as to the resurrection of Christ receives the greater stress in this respect through the emphatic contrast to that in Acts 13:33 as to His being raised up in the nation, a stress imparted by the added words "from the dead." Accordingly ver. 33 speaks of His incarnation, ver. 34 of His resurrection. In Heb. 1:5, that the declaration refers to the Birth is confirmed by the contrast in verse 6. Here the word "again" is rightly placed in the RV, "when He again bringeth in the Firstborn into the world." This points on to His Second Advent, which is set in contrast to His first Advent, when God brought His Firstborn into the world the first time (see FIRSTBORN).* [* The Western text of Luke 3:22 reads "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee," instead of "Thou art My beloved Son, in Thee I am well pleased." There is probably some connection between this and those early heresies which taught that our Lord's Deity began at His baptism. So again in Heb. 5:5, where the High Priesthood of Christ is shown to fulfill all that was foreshadowed in the Levitical priesthood, the passage stresses the facts of His humanity, the days of His flesh, His perfect obedience and His sufferings. Son of Man In the NT this is a designation of Christ, almost entirely confined to the Gospels. Elsewhere it is found in Acts 7:56, the only occasion where a disciple applied it to the Lord and in Rev. 1:13; Rev. 14:14 (see below). "Son of Man" is the title Christ used of Himself; John 12:34 is not an exception, for the quotation by the multitude was from His own statement. The title is found especially in the Synoptic Gospels. The occurrences in John's Gospel, John 1:51; John 3:13, 14; John 5:27; John 6:27, 53, 62; John 8:28 (John 9:35 in some texts); John 12:23, 34 (twice); John 13:31, are not parallel to those in the Synoptic Gospels. In the latter the use of the title falls into two groups, (a) those in which it refers to Christ's humanity, His earthly work, sufferings and death, e.g., Matt. 8:20; Matt. 11:19; Matt. 12:40; Matt. 26:2, 24: (b) those which refer to His glory in resurrection and to that of His future advent, e.g., Matt. 10:23; Matt. 13:41; Matt. 16:27, 28; Matt. 17:9; Matt. 24:27, 30 (twice),37,39,44. While it is a Messianic title it is evident that the Lord applied it to Himself in a distinctive way, for it indicates more than Messiahship, even universal headship on the part of One who is Man. It therefore stresses His manhood, manhood of a unique order in comparison with all other men, for He is declared to be of heaven, 1 Cor. 15:47, and even while here below, was "the Son of Man, which is in Heaven," John 3:13. As the "Son of Man" He must be appropriated spiritually as a condition of possessing eternal life, John 6:53. In His death, as in His life, the glory of His Manhood was displayed in the absolute obedience and submission to the will of the Father (John 12:23; John 13:31), and, in view of this, all judgment has been committed to Him, who will judge in full understanding experimentally of human conditions, sin apart, and will exercise the judgment as sharing the nature of those judged, John 5:22, 27. Not only is He man, but He is "Son of Man," not by human generation but, according to the Semitic usage of the expression, partaking of the characteristics (sin apart) of manhood belonging to the category of mankind. Twice in the Apocalypse, Rev. 1:13; Rev. 14:14, He is described as "One like unto a Son of man," RV (AV,"… the Son of Man"), cp. Dan. 7:13. He who was thus seen was indeed the "Son of Man," but the absence of the article in the original serves to stress what morally characterizes Him as such. Accordingly in these passages He is revealed, not as the Person known by the title, but as the One who is qualified to act as the Judge of all men. He is the same Person as in the days of His flesh, still continuing His humanity with His Deity. The phrase "like unto" serves to distinguish Him as there seen in His glory and majesty in contrast to the days of His humiliation. (Online Vine's Expository Dictionary) Gilbrant (Complete Biblical Library) - Classical Greek - Huios means “son” in the broadest sense in classical Greek. Thus it means not only “son” as in the male offspring of human parents but also “offspring” as in the offspring of animals or even plants. Neither is it restricted to meaning the offspring of the first generation, for it can be used of “grandchildren” or of “descendants” in general. The relationship between a teacher and a student may also be conveyed in terms of the father-son relationship. In addition it can describe nationality (e.g., son of Achaia; cf. Braumann, “Child,” Colin Brown, 1:287). Finally huios functions in a religious capacity, such as in the expressions “the sons of darkness” or “the sons of light” (ibid.). Septuagint Usage - The understanding of huios in classical Greek closely parallels the understanding of bēn, “son,” in Hebrew, an equivalency that occurs in the Septuagint no less than 4,800 times. Besides the simple denotation of “male child” the words son or sons carry quite a number of nuances in Scripture. Thus, huios can stand for a “grandson” (Genesis 29:5; 2 Samuel 19:24 [ LXX 2 Kings 19:24]) or for “descendants” in general (Numbers 2:14), or it can denote a people (for example the “children of the east,” 1 Kings 4:30 [LXX 3 Kings 4:30]). Furthermore, the high priest Eli called his disciple Samuel his “son” (1 Samuel 3:6 [ LXX 1 Kings 3:6]). Figuratively an arrow is the “son” of a bow (Job 41:28, see NASB, margin note; cf. the expression “the arrows of his quiver,” Psalm 127:4,5 [LXX 126:4,5], a figure of speech for children). The metaphoric use of son was even more common in Israel than among the Greeks. The Hellenistic Jews of the New Testament period commonly used the terminology in this way. The documents from the Qumran community provide us with a valuable example of how extensive such usage was. The members of that group distinguish between “sons of light” and “sons of darkness,” or “sons of righteousness” and “sons of unrighteousness,” and the “sons of Belial” and the “sons of the good pleasure of God.” They saw the world in dualistic terms, and the line of separation is between the “sons of heaven and grace” and the “sons of the world, the sons of transgressions and destruction” (ibid., 1:288). Being able to have many children was considered a blessing in Israel (Genesis 1:28); it was a tremendous privilege to see one’s descendants (Genesis 50:23; Proverbs 17:6). Corresponding to this view, the birth of a child was a time of great joy and celebration (cf. Genesis 30:23). This was even more the case if the child were a boy (Psalm 127:4,5, see RSV). Unlike daughters who would leave the family when they married, male offspring insured ongoing protection and provision under the patriarchal family system. Within a family the eldest son held the privileged position among his siblings. Upon the father’s death he assumed the duties and responsibilities of the head of the family. He received a double portion of the inheritance (see also teknon [4891]). Son acquires a unique significance when it concerns a relationship with God. The title “Son of God” is given a wide and diverse range of meaning in the Biblical account (ibid.). Essentially it describes a personal being who somehow, either spiritually or morally, stands in a unique relation to God. The angels are depicted as “sons of God” because they are considered to be particularly near God and because they are spirit beings (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Psalm 89:6). The first man, Adam, who was a direct creation of the Creator, was the son of God in a very unique way (cf. Luke 3:38). On a grander scale, Israel, as God’s chosen people, was called the “son of God” or the “sons of God.” The Lord called Israel “my son . . . my firstborn,” an allusion to His having chosen them (Exodus 4:22). Israelites were the sons of God because they were a people created for His glory and called by His name (Isaiah 43:6; cf. Deuteronomy 32:6; Isaiah 64:8; Malachi 2:10). As the chosen sons of God they were uniquely the object of His love and care (Jeremiah 31:20; Hosea 11:1). Along with the privileges of sonship came a special demand for obedience and service. As a “son” Israel was also the “servant” of the Lord (Isaiah 1:2; 44:1; 45:4; Malachi 1:6). The people of Israel recognized that the status of son belonged first and foremost to them (Romans 9:4). They were initially participants in that relationship, and they are the “first” to whom salvation is offered (Romans 1:16). The king of the people represented the entire nation. He, likewise, was the one responsible for establishing God’s kingdom on earth; i.e., he was God’s representative. This relationship is depicted in terms of “the chosen one” whose Father is God: “I will be his father, and he shall be my son” (2 Samuel 7:14). The king—as God’s son—came under God’s special care and protection (Psalm 89:27f.). He was uniquely charged to obey God and to execute His will on earth. Nonetheless, despite this unique relationship, the kings of Israel were never regarded as divine themselves; the same could not be said for the practices of some of its neighbors. The king was God’s son only because he was the instrument chosen for carrying out the will (i.e., the kingdom) of God. The king of Israel was God’s son only as he functioned in the theocratic (i.e., “God-ruled”) government in Israel. The coming Messiah was seen as God’s Son to an even larger degree. The starting point for the view that Messiah was the Son of God is found in Nathan’s prophecy in 2 Samuel (7:13f.). This messianic prophecy declares: “I will be his father, and he shall be my son.” The hope for a future, eschatological king emerged most prominently after the kingdom in Israel had fallen. In Psalms 2:7 and 89:28,29, both of which are eschatological psalms, Messiah is called the Son of God. Of all the Old Testament messianic passages Psalm 89 draws the most complete picture of the Messiah as God’s Son. Isaiah 9:6 connects the deity of the Messiah with the fact that He is God’s Son. All the privileges of sonship granted to Israel, as well as to kings as God’s sons, are bestowed upon Messiah in a unique way. He is the only begotten of God and His chosen one in a sense unlike any before Him. He is God’s absolute representative on earth; He, in God’s stead, makes known the promises of salvation. Israel’s role as God’s servant is realized in His person, and He fulfills this role in perfect obedience. New Testament Usage These Old Testament prophecies are resumed in the New Testament. Here, however, the title “Son of God” is exclusively applied to God’s only Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus’ unique status as God’s Son is declared by angels upon His entrance into the history of mankind: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee (Mary), and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). Jesus’ own testimony about himself defines further His unique status as God’s Son. As He offers praise to the Father He says: “All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him” (Matthew 11:27). In His eschatological discourse in Mark chapter 13 Jesus comments about the time of His return: “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father” (verse 32). He shows us in this statement that He sees himself above both heavenly and earthly beings. Another significant witness to Jesus’ sonship is contained in Jesus’ own summons to missions: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19). Here Jesus unites himself with the Father and the Spirit and gives us a glimpse of the divine Trinity. Jesus’ self-testimony of His status as Son climaxes in John’s Gospel. He acknowledges that He is the only begotten Son of God whom the Father in His love sent to save the world (John 3:16-18). No one else can claim the position of Son as Jesus does. He alone is the object of the Father’s love (John 3:35; 5:20; 17:24-26). He is aware of His preexistent nature: “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). “Glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5; cf. 3:13; 6:62). Jesus further witnessed to His unique status as Son through His works. His miracles far surpass mere human ability; they point to the Father who has given Him the authority to do them (John 5:19-30). The Father has entrusted the Son with two important tasks: to make alive and to judge (cf. 5:21,22). Both take place on two different planes; the one is eternal, and the other is spiritual (verses 24-29). Jesus realizes that not even His most ardent followers can achieve the kind of relationship He has with His Father. Therefore, we see He exclusively refers to “my Father” and “your Father” but never “our Father.” He did teach His disciples to pray the Lord’s Prayer, but He never included himself in this prayer: “After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father . . . ” (Matthew 6:9). God’s testimony to His Son resounds throughout the New Testament writings in various ways. First, God attests to His Son in the voice which was heard at Jesus’ baptism and on the Mount of Transfiguration: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17; 17:5). In these instances God is giving express testimony to His Son. Second, the writings of John purport to be written so the readers “might believe (keep believing) that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing (they) might have (keep having) life through his name” (John 20:31) and that they might have fellowship with “the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3). He greeted the readers of his second letter with: “Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love” (2 John 3). The apostolic witnesses consistently confirm that Jesus is the Son of God in the ultimate sense of that relationship. Even on the way to the suffering awaiting Jesus in Jerusalem, Peter, as spokesman for the disciples, confessed: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). This confession was confirmed further by the disciple’s experience on the Mount of Transfiguration: “For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (2 Peter 1:17). Following Paul’s dramatic conversion in which God revealed “his Son” to him (Galatians 1:16), Paul made this a fundamental element of his preaching: “And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God” (Acts 9:20). The essence of his gospel message was Jesus, who was “declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:4). The testimony of the Church to Jesus’ status as God’s Son appears in various New Testament passages, such as Romans 1:3,4, a confession, and Philippians 2:6-9, possibly an early hymn. Huios is also used in the New Testament to denote the relationship of the “son” to his father (Mark 10:46) or to his mother (Luke 1:13) or even to ancestors (Matthew 1:20; 23:31; Luke 19:9). Paul, in particular, also called attention to the “sons of God” (e.g., Romans 8:14f.) where those who become Christians receive “sonship” by adoption (Galatians 4:5). A believer’s “sonship” to God is both a present reality and the goal of hope for future fulfillment in eternity (Romans 8:23; cf. James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23; ibid., 1:288f.). (Complete Biblical Library) HUIOS - 347V - Matt. 1:1,20-21,23,25; 2:15; 3:17; 4:3,6; 5:9,45; 7:9; 8:12,20,29; 9:6,15,27; 10:23,37; 11:19,27; 12:8,23,27,32,40; 13:37-38,41,55; 14:33; 15:22; 16:13,16,27-28; 17:5,9,12,15,22,25-26; 18:11; 19:28; 20:18,20-21,28,30-31; 21:5,9,15,37-38; 22:2,42,45; 23:15,31,35; 24:27,30,36-37,39,44; 25:31; 26:2,24,37,45,63-64; 27:9,40,43,54,56; 28:19; Mk. 1:1,11; 2:10,19,28; 3:11,17,28; 5:7; 6:3; 8:31,38; 9:7,9,12,17,31; 10:33,35,45-48; 12:6,35,37; 13:26,32; 14:21,41,61-62; 15:39; Lk. 1:13,16,31-32,35-36,57; 2:7; 3:2,22-23; 4:3,9,22,41; 5:10,24,34; 6:5,22,35; 7:12,34; 8:28; 9:22,26,35,38,41,44,56,58; 10:6,22; 11:11,19,30; 12:8,10,40,53; 14:5; 15:11,13,19,21,24-25,30; 16:8; 17:22,24,26,30; 18:8,31,38-39; 19:9-10; 20:13,34,36,41,44; 21:27,36; 22:22,48,69-70; 24:7; Jn. 1:34,42,45,49,51; 3:13-14,16-18,35-36; 4:5,12,46-47,50,53; 5:19ff,25-27; 6:27,40,42,53,62; 8:28,35-36; 9:19-20,35; 10:36; 11:4,27; 12:23,34,36; 13:31; 14:13; 17:1,12; 19:7,26; 20:31; Acts 2:17; 3:25; 4:36; 5:21; 7:16,21,23,29,37,56; 8:37; 9:15,20; 10:36; 13:10,21,26,33; 16:1; 19:14; 23:6,16; Rom. 1:3-4,9; 5:10; 8:3,14,19,29,32; 9:9,26-27; 1 Co. 1:9; 15:28; 2 Co. 1:19; 3:7,13; 6:18; Gal. 1:16; 2:20; 3:7,26; 4:4,6-7,22,30; Eph. 2:2; 3:5; 4:13; 5:6; Col. 1:13; 3:6; 1 Thess. 1:10; 5:5; 2 Thess. 2:3; Heb. 1:2,5,8; 2:6,10; 3:6; 4:14; 5:5,8; 6:6; 7:3,5,28; 10:29; 11:21-22,24; 12:5-8; Jas. 2:21; 1 Pet. 5:13; 2 Pet. 1:17; 1 Jn. 1:3,7; 2:22-24; 3:8,23; 4:9-10,14-15; 5:5,9ff,20; 2 Jn. 1:3,9; Rev. 1:13; 2:14,18; 7:4; 12:5; 14:14; 21:7,12 HUIOS IN SEPTUAGINT - OVER 3000 HITS - ONLY GENESIS IS LISTED HERE - Gen. 4:17,25-26; 5:4,7,10,13,16,19,22,26,28,30,32; 6:2,4,10,18; 7:7,13; 8:16,18; 9:1,8,18-19,24; 10:1-4,6-7,20-23,25,29,31-32; 11:5,10-11,13,15,17,19,21,23,25,31; 12:5; 14:12; 15:2; 16:11,15; 17:12,19,23,25-26; 18:10,14,19; 19:12,37-38; 21:2-3,5,7ff,13; 22:2-3,6,9-10,12-13,16,20,23; 23:3,5,7,10,16,18,20; 24:3ff,15,36-38,40,47-48,51; 25:3-6,9ff,16,19,25; 27:1,5-6,8,15,17,20-21,24,27,29-32,42,46; 28:5,9; 29:1,5,12-13,32-35; 30:5-7,10,12,14-17,19-20,23-24,35; 31:1,43; 32:1,33; 33:2; 34:2,5,7-9,13-14,18,20,24-27; 35:5,17-18,22ff,29; 36:2,5-6,10ff,32-33,35,38-39; 37:2-4,32-35; 38:3-5,11,26; 41:50; 42:1,5,11,32,37-38; 45:9-11,21,26,28; 46:5,7ff; 47:5,29; 48:1-2,5,8-9,13; 49:1-2,8-9,22,28,32-33; 50:12-13,23,25 QUESTION - What is the meaning of the Parable of the Wedding Feast? WATCH VIDEO ANSWER - Jesus told the Parable of the Wedding Feast in Matthew 22:1-14. This parable is similar in some ways to the Parable of the Great Banquet (Luke 14:15-24), but the occasion is different, and it has some important distinctions. To better understand the context of this story, it is important to know some basic facts about weddings in Jesus’ day. In Jewish society, the parents of the betrothed generally drew up the marriage contract. The bride and groom would meet, perhaps for the first time, when this contract was signed. The couple was considered married at this point, but they would separate until the actual time of the ceremony. The bride would remain with her parents, and the groom would leave to prepare their home. This could take quite a while. When the home was all was ready, the groom would return for his bride without notice. The marriage ceremony would then take place, and the wedding banquet would follow. The wedding banquet was one of the most joyous occasions in Jewish life and could last for up to a week. In His parable, Jesus compares heaven to a wedding banquet that a king had prepared for his son (Matthew 22:2). Many people had been invited, but when the time for the banquet came and the table was set, those invited refused to come (verses 4-5). In fact, the king’s servants who brought the joyful message were mistreated and even killed (verse 6). The king, enraged at the response of those who had been invited, sent his army to avenge the death of his servants (verse 7). He then sent invitations to anyone his servants could find, with the result that the wedding hall was filled (verses 8-10). During the feast the king noticed a man “who was not wearing wedding clothes” (verse 11). When asked how he came to be there without the furnished attire, the man had no answer and was promptly ejected from the feast “outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (verses 12-13). Jesus then ends the parable with this statement: “For many are invited, but few are chosen” (verse 14). The king is God the Father, and the son who is being honored at the banquet is Jesus Christ, who “came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him” (John 1:11). Israel held the invitation to the kingdom, but when the time actually came for the kingdom to appear (see Matthew 3:1), they refused to believe it. Many prophets, including John the Baptist, had been murdered (Matthew 14:10). The king’s reprisal against the murderers can be interpreted as a prophecy of Jerusalem’s destruction in A.D. 70 at the hands of the Romans (cf. Luke 21:5). More broadly, the king’s vengeance speaks of the desolation mentioned in the book of Revelation. God is patient, but He will not tolerate wickedness forever (Obadiah 1:15). His judgment will come upon those who reject His offer of salvation. Considering what that salvation cost Jesus, is not this judgment well deserved (see Hebrews 10:29-31)? Note that it is not because the invited guests could not come to the wedding feast, but that they would not come (see Luke 13:34). Everyone had an excuse. How tragic, and how indicative of human nature, to be offered the blessings of God and to refuse them because of the draw of mundane things! The wedding invitation is extended to anyone and everyone, total strangers, both good and bad. This refers to the gospel being taken to the Gentiles. This portion of the parable is a foreshadowing of the Jews’ rejection of the gospel in Acts 13. Paul and Barnabas were in Pisidian Antioch, where the Jewish leaders strongly opposed them. The apostle’s words echo the king’s estimation that those invited to the wedding “did not deserve to come”: “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles” (Acts 13:46). The gospel message, Jesus taught, would be made available to everyone. The matter of the wedding garment is instructive. It would be a gross insult to the king to refuse to wear the garment provided to the guests. The man who was caught wearing his old clothing learned what an offense it was as he was removed from the celebration. This was Jesus’ way of teaching the inadequacy of self-righteousness. From the very beginning, God has provided a “covering” for our sin. To insist on covering ourselves is to be clad in “filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6). Adam and Eve tried to cover their shame, but they found their fig leaves to be woefully scant. God took away their handmade clothes and replaced them with skins of (sacrificed) animals (Genesis 3:7, 21). In the book of Revelation, we see those in heaven wearing “white robes” (Revelation 7:9), and we learn that the whiteness of the robes is due to their being washed in the blood of the Lamb (verse 14). We trust in God’s righteousness, not our own (Philippians 3:9). Just as the king provided wedding garments for his guests, God provides salvation for mankind. Our wedding garment is the righteousness of Christ, and unless we have it, we will miss the wedding feast. When the religions of the world are stripped down to their basic tenets, we either find man working his way toward God, or we find the cross of Christ. The cross is the only way to salvation (John 14:6). For his crime against the king, the improperly attired guest is thrown out into the darkness. For their crimes against God, there will be many who will be consigned to “outer darkness”—existence without God for eternity. Christ concludes the parable with the sad fact that “many are invited, but few are chosen.” In other words, many people hear the call of God, but only a few heed it. To summarize the point of the Parable of the Wedding Feast, God sent His Son into the world, and the very people who should have celebrated His coming rejected Him, bringing judgment upon themselves. As a result, the kingdom of heaven was opened up to anyone who will set aside his own righteousness and by faith accept the righteousness God provides in Christ. Those who spurn the gift of salvation and cling instead to their own “good” works will spend eternity in hell. The self-righteous Pharisees who heard this parable did not miss Jesus’ point. In the very next verse, “the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words” (Matthew 22:15). The Parable of the Wedding Feast is also a warning to us, to make sure we are relying on God’s provision of salvation, not on our own good works or religious service. James Smith - THE MARRIAGE FEAST Matthew 22:1–14 The scope of this parable is very wide; it seems to embrace the whole of this present dispensation. The “certain King” is God the Father; the “Son,” Jesus Christ; the “marriage,” the new relationship into which the Son was about to enter; the “servants,” the apostles of Christ; “those that were bidden,” the Jews, who, as a nation, had received notice long before; the “other servants,” perhaps those who went forth after Pentecost; the “dinner,” the provision made by God in the death of His Son for hungry, perishing souls; they “made light of it,” the rejection of Christ by the Jews, His called ones; the “city burned,” destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans thirty years later; “Go into the highways,” the universal invitation of the Gospel; the “wedding furnished,” the calling out and completion of the Church; “the King came in to see the guests,” the second Coming of Christ; “Bind him, and cast him into outer darkness,” the separation of the chaff from the wheat; He shall thoroughly purge His floor. The Gospel of the grace of God is here beautifully set forth. Observe the— I. Provision. “Behold, I have prepared My dinner; all things are ready; come” (v. 4). The provision was wholly His own. “My oxen, my fatlings are killed.” He spared not His own Son, but freely gave Him up to the death for us all. “Behold the Lamb of God.” The provision was very great; it included “all things.” All things are yours if ye are Christ’s. Those who came to this feast found what sinners find on coming to Christ— 1. REST on a Princely couch. 2. SHELTER under a Princely roof. 3. SATISFACTION at a Princely table. 4. FELLOWSHIP with Princely friends. II. Invitation. “Come unto the marriage” (v. 4). This invitation is for all. Whosoever will may come; both bad and good were called. The Gospel invitation takes no notice of our character; the vilest as well as the most virtuous must accept the invitation on equal terms. None deserve it. It is the goodness of God freely offered to all. The pompous prince and the poverty-stricken beggar are both alike indebted to the mercy and grace of God for salvation. Because of this many “make light of it.” To make light of the invitation is to make light of the God who gives it. That is no light matter. III. Inspection. “The King came in to see the guests” (v. 11). All who accept the invitation expect to see the King; with joy they wait for His Coming. Those who are living in rebellion against His will, despising His grace, may well dread His appearing. He comes to see and to welcome all those who have believed His Word through His servants. Jesus Christ manifests Himself to those who yield to His call, and accept His offered mercy. Believe, and thou shalt see the glory of God. IV. Detection. “He saw a man which had not on a wedding garment” (v. 11). Only one, but the quick eye of the King soon found him out. The man was conspicuous, not for what he had, but for what he had not. “A wedding garment.” The garment was part of the King’s provision, but he refused it. It is not enough that we merely believe the invitation of the Gospel; we must lay hold of the righteousness of God, which is offered us in Christ Jesus, and upon all them that believe. Remember that mingling among the people of God does not fit us for meeting the King. You may escape the detection of the servants, but the Searcher of hearts will find you out. V. Interrogation. “Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having a wedding garment?” (v. 12). He does not take him by the throat. This is the language of tenderest compassion, but he is faithful and just. It was not the King’s fault, but perhaps he was priding himself in his own good-looking garments, prepared for the occasion, and all duly paid for. He belongs to the family of those “who go about to establish their own righteousness” (Rom. 10:3). “Prepare to meet thy God” (Amos 4:12). VI. Conviction. “He was speechless” (v. 12). He was self-condemned before a court from which there was no appeal. He may have been making fine speeches before the King came in, but now his mouth is stopped. There is no one to plead his cause; in his behalf all his friends are speechless. Oh, friend, boast of nothing now that you will not rejoice in when the King comes. This man does not even ask for mercy, so utterly hopeless is his case now. It is a solemn moment when all the refuges of lies are swept away by the power of His presence, “What wilt thou say when He shall punish thee?” (Jer. 13:21). VII. Expulsion. “Then said the King, Bind him, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness” (v. 13). The man who despises the King’s garment will never taste His feast. Think of what he was taken away from. Away from all his opportunities and companions, into the outer darkness, the darkness of hopeless despair, that is, outside the kingdom of God’s dear Son. What a change! What a disappointment! Out from the presence of a feast into the place of weeping. There will be great and sudden changes when He shall appear. Put on the Lord Jesus Christ. Matthew 22:2 “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. kingdom: Mt 13:24,31-33,44-47 25:1,14 who: Mt 25:1-13 Ps 45:10-16 Jn 3:29,30 2Co 11:2 Eph 5:24-32 Rev 19:7-9 KINGDOM OF GOD/HEAVEN PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE FROM BIBLE.ORG KINGDOM OF GOD COMPARED TO A WEDDING FEAST The kingdom (basileia) of heaven (ouranos) - This is a slight change from His previous designation of the kingdom of God (Mt 21:31, 43), but both are synonyms, the phrase Kingdom of God pointing more to the realm of God's sovereign rule. John MacArthur - In His first two parables Jesus gave no introduction, saving the explanation and application to the end. In this parable, however, He begins by stating that it illustrates the kingdom of heaven. Because most Jews believed that the kingdom of heaven was reserved exclusively for them, and possibly a few Gentile proselytes, the audience in the Temple immediately knew that what Jesus was going to say closely applied to them.....There are past, present, and future as well as temporal and eternal aspects of the kingdom (OF GOD), but it is not restricted to any era or period of redemptive history. (See Matthew Commentary) May be compared to a king (basileus) who gave a wedding feast (gamos) for his son (huios) - The wedding feast merged with the actual wedding in the Ancient Near East and was a lengthy event, often lasting a week (or longer for royal weddings) and including meals and festivities. And of course a wedding hosted by a king would picture the wedding of all weddings! Mark Moore points out that "Wedding banquets often lasted for several days. Therefore preliminary messengers were sent out to alert the guests of the upcoming gala so that they could make plans to attend. When the day rolled around for this banquet to begin, the king urgently sent out the messengers to tell the guests to come immediately since the morning meal [ariston] was on the table. The banquet was often used to symbolize the fellowship between the Messiah and his people (Mt 8:11; Lk 13:29; Rev 19:9). We should also keep in mind that the Messiah is often symbolized as a bridegroom (Mt 9:15; 25:1; Jn 3:29; Eph 5:25–32; Rev 21:2, 9). (Borrow The chronological life of Christ page 162) Son (5207)(huios means "a son," primarily signifying the relation of offspring to parent, is used of the "foal" of an ass in Matt. 21:5. Vine- primarily signifies the relation of offspring to parent (see John 9:18-20; Gal. 4:30. It is often used metaphorically of prominent moral characteristics (see below). "It is used in the NT of (a) male offspring, Gal. 4:30; (b) legitimate, as opposed to illegitimate offspring, Heb. 12:8; (c) descendants, without reference to sex, Rom. 9:27; (d) friends attending a wedding, Matt. 9:15; (e) those who enjoy certain privileges, Acts 3:25; (f) those who act in a certain way, whether evil, Matt. 23:31, or good, Gal. 3:7; (g) those who manifest a certain character, whether evil, Acts 13:10; Eph. 2:2, or good, Luke 6:35; Acts 4:36; Rom. 8:14; (h) the destiny that corresponds with the character, whether evil, Matt. 23:15; John 17:12; 2 Thess. 2:3, or good, Luke 20:36; (i) the dignity of the relationship with God whereinto men are brought by the Holy Spirit when they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, Rom. 8:19; Gal. 3:26. "The Apostle John does not use huios, 'son,' of the believer, he reserves that title for the Lord; but he does use teknon, 'child,' as in his Gospel, John 1:12; 1 John 3:1, 2; Rev. 21:7 (hunios) is a quotation from 2 Sam. 7:14. "The Lord Jesus used huios in a very significant way, as in Matt. 5:9, 'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God,' and Matt. 5:44, 45, 'Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you; that ye may be (become) sons of your Father which is in heaven.' The disciples were to do these things, not in order that they might become children of God, but that, being children (note 'your Father' throughout), they might make the fact manifest in their character, might 'become sons.' See also 2 Cor. 6:17, 18. "As to moral characteristics, the following phrases are used: (a) sons of God, Matt. 5:9, 45; Luke 6:35; (b) sons of the light, Luke 16:8; John 12:36; (c) sons of the day, 1 Thess. 5:5; (d) sons of peace, Luke 10:6; (e) sons of this world, Luke 16:8; (f) sons of disobedience, Eph. 2:2; (g) sons of the evil one, Matt. 13:38, cp. 'of the Devil,' Acts 13:10: (h) son of perdition, John 17:12; 2 Thess. 2:3. It is also used to describe characteristics other than moral, as: (i) sons of the resurrection, Luke 20:36; (j) sons of the Kingdom, Matt. 8:12; Matt. 13:38; (k) sons of the bridechamber, Mark 2:19; (l) sons of exhortation, Acts 4:36; (m) sons of thunder, Boanerges, Mark 3:17."* [* From Notes on Galatians, by Hogg and Vine, pp. 167-169, and on Thessalonians, pp. 158,159.] Notes: (1) For the synonyms teknon and teknion see under CHILD. The difference between believers as "children of God" and as "sons of God" is brought out in Rom. 8:14-21. The Spirit bears witness with their spirit that they are "children of God," and, as such, they are His heirs and joint-heirs with Christ. This stresses the fact of their spiritual birth (Rom. 8:16, 17). On the other hand, "as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God," i.e., "these and no other." Their conduct gives evidence of the dignity of their relationship and their likeness to His character. (2) Pais is rendered "son" in John 4:51. For Acts 13:13, 26 see below. The Son of God In this title the word "Son" is used sometimes (a) of relationship, sometimes (b) of the expression of character. "Thus, e.g., when the disciples so addressed Him, Matt. 14:33; Matt. 16:16; John 1:49, when the centurion so spoke of Him, Matt. 27:54, they probably meant that (b) He was a manifestation of God in human form. But in such passages as Luke 1:32, 35; Acts 13:33, which refer to the humanity of the Lord Jesus, … the word is used in sense (a). "The Lord Jesus Himself used the full title on occasion, John 5:25; John 9:35 [some mss. have 'the Son of Man'; see RV marg.]; Son 11:4, and on the more frequent occasions on which He spoke of Himself as 'the Son,' the words are to be understood as an abbreviation of 'the Son of God,' not of 'the Son of Man'; this latter He always expressed in full; see Luke 10:22; John 5:19, etc. "John uses both the longer and shorter forms of the title in his Gospel, see John 3:16-18; John 20:31, e.g., and in his Epistles; cp. Rev. 2:18. So does the writer of Hebrews, Heb. 1:2; Heb. 4:14; Heb. 6:6, etc. An eternal relation subsisting between the Son and the Father in the Godhead is to be understood. That is to say, the Son of God, in His eternal relationship with the Father, is not so entitled because He at any time began to derive His being from the Father (in which case He could not be co-eternal with the Father), but because He is and ever has been the expression of what the Father is; cp. John 14:9, 'he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.' The words of Heb. 1:3, 'Who being the effulgence of His (God's) glory, and the very image of His (God's) substance' are a definition of what is meant by 'Son of God.' Thus absolute Godhead, not Godhead in a secondary or derived sense, is intended in the title." * [* From Notes on Galatians, by Hogg and Vine, pp. 99, 100.] Other titles of Christ as the "Son of God" are: "His Son," 1 Thess. 1:10 (in Acts 13:13, 26, RV, pais is rendered "servant"); "His own Son," Rom. 8:32; "My beloved Son," Matt. 3:17; "His Only Begotten Son," John 3:16; "the Son of His love," Col. 1:13. "The Son is the eternal object of the Father's love, John 17:24, and the sole Revealer of the Father's character, John 1:14; Heb. 1:3. The words, 'Father' and 'Son,' are never in the NT so used as to suggest that the Father existed before the Son; the Prologue to the Gospel according to John distinctly asserts that the Word existed 'in the beginning,' and that this Word is the Son, Who 'became flesh and dwelt among us.'" * [* From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine pp. 46,47.] In addressing the Father in His prayer in John 17 He says, "Thou lovedst Me before the foundation of the World." Accordingly in the timeless past the Father and the "Son" existed in that relationship, a relationship of love, as well as of absolute Deity. In this passage the "Son" gives evidence that there was no more powerful plea in the Father's estimation than that coeternal love existing between the Father and Himself. The declaration "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee," Psa. 2:7, quoted in Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; Heb. 5:5, refers to the birth of Christ, not to His resurrection. In Acts 13:33 the verb "raise up" is used of the raising up of a person to occupy a special position in the nation, as of David in Acts 13:22 (so of Christ as a Prophet in Acts 3:22; Acts 7:37). The word "again" in the AV in Acts 13:33 represents nothing in the original. The RV rightly omits it. In Acts 13:34 the statement as to the resurrection of Christ receives the greater stress in this respect through the emphatic contrast to that in Acts 13:33 as to His being raised up in the nation, a stress imparted by the added words "from the dead." Accordingly ver. 33 speaks of His incarnation, ver. 34 of His resurrection. In Heb. 1:5, that the declaration refers to the Birth is confirmed by the contrast in verse 6. Here the word "again" is rightly placed in the RV, "when He again bringeth in the Firstborn into the world." This points on to His Second Advent, which is set in contrast to His first Advent, when God brought His Firstborn into the world the first time (see FIRSTBORN).* [* The Western text of Luke 3:22 reads "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee," instead of "Thou art My beloved Son, in Thee I am well pleased." There is probably some connection between this and those early heresies which taught that our Lord's Deity began at His baptism. So again in Heb. 5:5, where the High Priesthood of Christ is shown to fulfill all that was foreshadowed in the Levitical priesthood, the passage stresses the facts of His humanity, the days of His flesh, His perfect obedience and His sufferings. Son of Man In the NT this is a designation of Christ, almost entirely confined to the Gospels. Elsewhere it is found in Acts 7:56, the only occasion where a disciple applied it to the Lord and in Rev. 1:13; Rev. 14:14 (see below). "Son of Man" is the title Christ used of Himself; John 12:34 is not an exception, for the quotation by the multitude was from His own statement. The title is found especially in the Synoptic Gospels. The occurrences in John's Gospel, John 1:51; John 3:13, 14; John 5:27; John 6:27, 53, 62; John 8:28 (John 9:35 in some texts); John 12:23, 34 (twice); John 13:31, are not parallel to those in the Synoptic Gospels. In the latter the use of the title falls into two groups, (a) those in which it refers to Christ's humanity, His earthly work, sufferings and death, e.g., Matt. 8:20; Matt. 11:19; Matt. 12:40; Matt. 26:2, 24: (b) those which refer to His glory in resurrection and to that of His future advent, e.g., Matt. 10:23; Matt. 13:41; Matt. 16:27, 28; Matt. 17:9; Matt. 24:27, 30 (twice),37,39,44. While it is a Messianic title it is evident that the Lord applied it to Himself in a distinctive way, for it indicates more than Messiahship, even universal headship on the part of One who is Man. It therefore stresses His manhood, manhood of a unique order in comparison with all other men, for He is declared to be of heaven, 1 Cor. 15:47, and even while here below, was "the Son of Man, which is in Heaven," John 3:13. As the "Son of Man" He must be appropriated spiritually as a condition of possessing eternal life, John 6:53. In His death, as in His life, the glory of His Manhood was displayed in the absolute obedience and submission to the will of the Father (John 12:23; John 13:31), and, in view of this, all judgment has been committed to Him, who will judge in full understanding experimentally of human conditions, sin apart, and will exercise the judgment as sharing the nature of those judged, John 5:22, 27. Not only is He man, but He is "Son of Man," not by human generation but, according to the Semitic usage of the expression, partaking of the characteristics (sin apart) of manhood belonging to the category of mankind. Twice in the Apocalypse, Rev. 1:13; Rev. 14:14, He is described as "One like unto a Son of man," RV (AV,"… the Son of Man"), cp. Dan. 7:13. He who was thus seen was indeed the "Son of Man," but the absence of the article in the original serves to stress what morally characterizes Him as such. Accordingly in these passages He is revealed, not as the Person known by the title, but as the One who is qualified to act as the Judge of all men. He is the same Person as in the days of His flesh, still continuing His humanity with His Deity. The phrase "like unto" serves to distinguish Him as there seen in His glory and majesty in contrast to the days of His humiliation. (Online Vine's Expository Dictionary) Gilbrant (Complete Biblical Library) - Classical Greek - Huios means “son” in the broadest sense in classical Greek. Thus it means not only “son” as in the male offspring of human parents but also “offspring” as in the offspring of animals or even plants. Neither is it restricted to meaning the offspring of the first generation, for it can be used of “grandchildren” or of “descendants” in general. The relationship between a teacher and a student may also be conveyed in terms of the father-son relationship. In addition it can describe nationality (e.g., son of Achaia; cf. Braumann, “Child,” Colin Brown, 1:287). Finally huios functions in a religious capacity, such as in the expressions “the sons of darkness” or “the sons of light” (ibid.). Septuagint Usage - The understanding of huios in classical Greek closely parallels the understanding of bēn, “son,” in Hebrew, an equivalency that occurs in the Septuagint no less than 4,800 times. Besides the simple denotation of “male child” the words son or sons carry quite a number of nuances in Scripture. Thus, huios can stand for a “grandson” (Genesis 29:5; 2 Samuel 19:24 [ LXX 2 Kings 19:24]) or for “descendants” in general (Numbers 2:14), or it can denote a people (for example the “children of the east,” 1 Kings 4:30 [LXX 3 Kings 4:30]). Furthermore, the high priest Eli called his disciple Samuel his “son” (1 Samuel 3:6 [ LXX 1 Kings 3:6]). Figuratively an arrow is the “son” of a bow (Job 41:28, see NASB, margin note; cf. the expression “the arrows of his quiver,” Psalm 127:4,5 [LXX 126:4,5], a figure of speech for children). The metaphoric use of son was even more common in Israel than among the Greeks. The Hellenistic Jews of the New Testament period commonly used the terminology in this way. The documents from the Qumran community provide us with a valuable example of how extensive such usage was. The members of that group distinguish between “sons of light” and “sons of darkness,” or “sons of righteousness” and “sons of unrighteousness,” and the “sons of Belial” and the “sons of the good pleasure of God.” They saw the world in dualistic terms, and the line of separation is between the “sons of heaven and grace” and the “sons of the world, the sons of transgressions and destruction” (ibid., 1:288). Being able to have many children was considered a blessing in Israel (Genesis 1:28); it was a tremendous privilege to see one’s descendants (Genesis 50:23; Proverbs 17:6). Corresponding to this view, the birth of a child was a time of great joy and celebration (cf. Genesis 30:23). This was even more the case if the child were a boy (Psalm 127:4,5, see RSV). Unlike daughters who would leave the family when they married, male offspring insured ongoing protection and provision under the patriarchal family system. Within a family the eldest son held the privileged position among his siblings. Upon the father’s death he assumed the duties and responsibilities of the head of the family. He received a double portion of the inheritance (see also teknon [4891]). Son acquires a unique significance when it concerns a relationship with God. The title “Son of God” is given a wide and diverse range of meaning in the Biblical account (ibid.). Essentially it describes a personal being who somehow, either spiritually or morally, stands in a unique relation to God. The angels are depicted as “sons of God” because they are considered to be particularly near God and because they are spirit beings (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Psalm 89:6). The first man, Adam, who was a direct creation of the Creator, was the son of God in a very unique way (cf. Luke 3:38). On a grander scale, Israel, as God’s chosen people, was called the “son of God” or the “sons of God.” The Lord called Israel “my son . . . my firstborn,” an allusion to His having chosen them (Exodus 4:22). Israelites were the sons of God because they were a people created for His glory and called by His name (Isaiah 43:6; cf. Deuteronomy 32:6; Isaiah 64:8; Malachi 2:10). As the chosen sons of God they were uniquely the object of His love and care (Jeremiah 31:20; Hosea 11:1). Along with the privileges of sonship came a special demand for obedience and service. As a “son” Israel was also the “servant” of the Lord (Isaiah 1:2; 44:1; 45:4; Malachi 1:6). The people of Israel recognized that the status of son belonged first and foremost to them (Romans 9:4). They were initially participants in that relationship, and they are the “first” to whom salvation is offered (Romans 1:16). The king of the people represented the entire nation. He, likewise, was the one responsible for establishing God’s kingdom on earth; i.e., he was God’s representative. This relationship is depicted in terms of “the chosen one” whose Father is God: “I will be his father, and he shall be my son” (2 Samuel 7:14). The king—as God’s son—came under God’s special care and protection (Psalm 89:27f.). He was uniquely charged to obey God and to execute His will on earth. Nonetheless, despite this unique relationship, the kings of Israel were never regarded as divine themselves; the same could not be said for the practices of some of its neighbors. The king was God’s son only because he was the instrument chosen for carrying out the will (i.e., the kingdom) of God. The king of Israel was God’s son only as he functioned in the theocratic (i.e., “God-ruled”) government in Israel. The coming Messiah was seen as God’s Son to an even larger degree. The starting point for the view that Messiah was the Son of God is found in Nathan’s prophecy in 2 Samuel (7:13f.). This messianic prophecy declares: “I will be his father, and he shall be my son.” The hope for a future, eschatological king emerged most prominently after the kingdom in Israel had fallen. In Psalms 2:7 and 89:28,29, both of which are eschatological psalms, Messiah is called the Son of God. Of all the Old Testament messianic passages Psalm 89 draws the most complete picture of the Messiah as God’s Son. Isaiah 9:6 connects the deity of the Messiah with the fact that He is God’s Son. All the privileges of sonship granted to Israel, as well as to kings as God’s sons, are bestowed upon Messiah in a unique way. He is the only begotten of God and His chosen one in a sense unlike any before Him. He is God’s absolute representative on earth; He, in God’s stead, makes known the promises of salvation. Israel’s role as God’s servant is realized in His person, and He fulfills this role in perfect obedience. New Testament Usage These Old Testament prophecies are resumed in the New Testament. Here, however, the title “Son of God” is exclusively applied to God’s only Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus’ unique status as God’s Son is declared by angels upon His entrance into the history of mankind: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee (Mary), and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). Jesus’ own testimony about himself defines further His unique status as God’s Son. As He offers praise to the Father He says: “All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him” (Matthew 11:27). In His eschatological discourse in Mark chapter 13 Jesus comments about the time of His return: “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father” (verse 32). He shows us in this statement that He sees himself above both heavenly and earthly beings. Another significant witness to Jesus’ sonship is contained in Jesus’ own summons to missions: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19). Here Jesus unites himself with the Father and the Spirit and gives us a glimpse of the divine Trinity. Jesus’ self-testimony of His status as Son climaxes in John’s Gospel. He acknowledges that He is the only begotten Son of God whom the Father in His love sent to save the world (John 3:16-18). No one else can claim the position of Son as Jesus does. He alone is the object of the Father’s love (John 3:35; 5:20; 17:24-26). He is aware of His preexistent nature: “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). “Glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5; cf. 3:13; 6:62). Jesus further witnessed to His unique status as Son through His works. His miracles far surpass mere human ability; they point to the Father who has given Him the authority to do them (John 5:19-30). The Father has entrusted the Son with two important tasks: to make alive and to judge (cf. 5:21,22). Both take place on two different planes; the one is eternal, and the other is spiritual (verses 24-29). Jesus realizes that not even His most ardent followers can achieve the kind of relationship He has with His Father. Therefore, we see He exclusively refers to “my Father” and “your Father” but never “our Father.” He did teach His disciples to pray the Lord’s Prayer, but He never included himself in this prayer: “After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father . . . ” (Matthew 6:9). God’s testimony to His Son resounds throughout the New Testament writings in various ways. First, God attests to His Son in the voice which was heard at Jesus’ baptism and on the Mount of Transfiguration: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17; 17:5). In these instances God is giving express testimony to His Son. Second, the writings of John purport to be written so the readers “might believe (keep believing) that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing (they) might have (keep having) life through his name” (John 20:31) and that they might have fellowship with “the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3). He greeted the readers of his second letter with: “Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love” (2 John 3). The apostolic witnesses consistently confirm that Jesus is the Son of God in the ultimate sense of that relationship. Even on the way to the suffering awaiting Jesus in Jerusalem, Peter, as spokesman for the disciples, confessed: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). This confession was confirmed further by the disciple’s experience on the Mount of Transfiguration: “For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (2 Peter 1:17). Following Paul’s dramatic conversion in which God revealed “his Son” to him (Galatians 1:16), Paul made this a fundamental element of his preaching: “And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God” (Acts 9:20). The essence of his gospel message was Jesus, who was “declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:4). The testimony of the Church to Jesus’ status as God’s Son appears in various New Testament passages, such as Romans 1:3,4, a confession, and Philippians 2:6-9, possibly an early hymn. Huios is also used in the New Testament to denote the relationship of the “son” to his father (Mark 10:46) or to his mother (Luke 1:13) or even to ancestors (Matthew 1:20; 23:31; Luke 19:9). Paul, in particular, also called attention to the “sons of God” (e.g., Romans 8:14f.) where those who become Christians receive “sonship” by adoption (Galatians 4:5). A believer’s “sonship” to God is both a present reality and the goal of hope for future fulfillment in eternity (Romans 8:23; cf. James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23; ibid., 1:288f.). (Complete Biblical Library) HUIOS - 347V - Matt. 1:1,20-21,23,25; 2:15; 3:17; 4:3,6; 5:9,45; 7:9; 8:12,20,29; 9:6,15,27; 10:23,37; 11:19,27; 12:8,23,27,32,40; 13:37-38,41,55; 14:33; 15:22; 16:13,16,27-28; 17:5,9,12,15,22,25-26; 18:11; 19:28; 20:18,20-21,28,30-31; 21:5,9,15,37-38; 22:2,42,45; 23:15,31,35; 24:27,30,36-37,39,44; 25:31; 26:2,24,37,45,63-64; 27:9,40,43,54,56; 28:19; Mk. 1:1,11; 2:10,19,28; 3:11,17,28; 5:7; 6:3; 8:31,38; 9:7,9,12,17,31; 10:33,35,45-48; 12:6,35,37; 13:26,32; 14:21,41,61-62; 15:39; Lk. 1:13,16,31-32,35-36,57; 2:7; 3:2,22-23; 4:3,9,22,41; 5:10,24,34; 6:5,22,35; 7:12,34; 8:28; 9:22,26,35,38,41,44,56,58; 10:6,22; 11:11,19,30; 12:8,10,40,53; 14:5; 15:11,13,19,21,24-25,30; 16:8; 17:22,24,26,30; 18:8,31,38-39; 19:9-10; 20:13,34,36,41,44; 21:27,36; 22:22,48,69-70; 24:7; Jn. 1:34,42,45,49,51; 3:13-14,16-18,35-36; 4:5,12,46-47,50,53; 5:19ff,25-27; 6:27,40,42,53,62; 8:28,35-36; 9:19-20,35; 10:36; 11:4,27; 12:23,34,36; 13:31; 14:13; 17:1,12; 19:7,26; 20:31; Acts 2:17; 3:25; 4:36; 5:21; 7:16,21,23,29,37,56; 8:37; 9:15,20; 10:36; 13:10,21,26,33; 16:1; 19:14; 23:6,16; Rom. 1:3-4,9; 5:10; 8:3,14,19,29,32; 9:9,26-27; 1 Co. 1:9; 15:28; 2 Co. 1:19; 3:7,13; 6:18; Gal. 1:16; 2:20; 3:7,26; 4:4,6-7,22,30; Eph. 2:2; 3:5; 4:13; 5:6; Col. 1:13; 3:6; 1 Thess. 1:10; 5:5; 2 Thess. 2:3; Heb. 1:2,5,8; 2:6,10; 3:6; 4:14; 5:5,8; 6:6; 7:3,5,28; 10:29; 11:21-22,24; 12:5-8; Jas. 2:21; 1 Pet. 5:13; 2 Pet. 1:17; 1 Jn. 1:3,7; 2:22-24; 3:8,23; 4:9-10,14-15; 5:5,9ff,20; 2 Jn. 1:3,9; Rev. 1:13; 2:14,18; 7:4; 12:5; 14:14; 21:7,12 HUIOS IN SEPTUAGINT - OVER 3000 HITS - ONLY GENESIS IS LISTED HERE - Gen. 4:17,25-26; 5:4,7,10,13,16,19,22,26,28,30,32; 6:2,4,10,18; 7:7,13; 8:16,18; 9:1,8,18-19,24; 10:1-4,6-7,20-23,25,29,31-32; 11:5,10-11,13,15,17,19,21,23,25,31; 12:5; 14:12; 15:2; 16:11,15; 17:12,19,23,25-26; 18:10,14,19; 19:12,37-38; 21:2-3,5,7ff,13; 22:2-3,6,9-10,12-13,16,20,23; 23:3,5,7,10,16,18,20; 24:3ff,15,36-38,40,47-48,51; 25:3-6,9ff,16,19,25; 27:1,5-6,8,15,17,20-21,24,27,29-32,42,46; 28:5,9; 29:1,5,12-13,32-35; 30:5-7,10,12,14-17,19-20,23-24,35; 31:1,43; 32:1,33; 33:2; 34:2,5,7-9,13-14,18,20,24-27; 35:5,17-18,22ff,29; 36:2,5-6,10ff,32-33,35,38-39; 37:2-4,32-35; 38:3-5,11,26; 41:50; 42:1,5,11,32,37-38; 45:9-11,21,26,28; 46:5,7ff; 47:5,29; 48:1-2,5,8-9,13; 49:1-2,8-9,22,28,32-33; 50:12-13,23,25 Matthew 22:3 “And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come. KJV Matthew 22:3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. BGT Matthew 22:3 καὶ ἀπέστειλεν τοὺς δούλους αὐτοῦ καλέσαι τοὺς κεκλημένους εἰς τοὺς γάμους, καὶ οὐκ ἤθελον ἐλθεῖν. NET Matthew 22:3 He sent his slaves to summon those who had been invited to the banquet, but they would not come. CSB Matthew 22:3 He sent out his slaves to summon those invited to the banquet, but they didn't want to come. ESV Matthew 22:3 and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. NIV Matthew 22:3 He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come. NLT Matthew 22:3 When the banquet was ready, he sent his servants to notify those who were invited. But they all refused to come! NRS Matthew 22:3 He sent his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding banquet, but they would not come. NJB Matthew 22:3 He sent his servants to call those who had been invited, but they would not come. NAB Matthew 22:3 He dispatched his servants to summon the invited guests to the feast, but they refused to come. YLT Matthew 22:3 and he sent forth his servants to call those having been called to the marriage-feasts, and they were not willing to come. MIT Matthew 22:3 He sent his couriers to rally those who had been previously invited to the festivities. The invited guests, however, were not interested. sent: Mt 3:2 10:6,7 Ps 68:11 Pr 9:1-3 Isa 55:1,2 Jer 25:4 35:15 Mk 6:7-11 Lu 9:1-6 14:15-17 Rev 22:17 those who had been invited: 1Sa 9:13 Zep 1:7 they were unwilling: Mt 23:37 Ps 81:10-12 Pr 1:24-32 Isa 30:15 Jer 6:16,17 Ho 11:2,7 Lu 13:34 15:28 19:27 Jn 5:40 Ac 13:45 Ro 10:21 Heb 12:25 Related Passages : Matthew 8:11+ “I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; Luke 13:29+ “And they will come from east and west and from north and south, and will recline at the table in the kingdom of God. Revelation 19:9+ Then he *said to me, “Write, ‘Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.’” And he *said to me, “These are true words of God.” Matthew 23:37+ “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. WEDDING INVITATIONS REFUSED And he sent out (apostello) his slaves (doulos) to call (kaleo) those who had been invited (kaleo) to the wedding feast (gamos_, and they were unwilling (ouk,= absolutely not + = thelo - willing) to come (erchomai) - Note slaves plural because there was so many guests invited. Notice also had been invited (kaleo) is past tense indicating they had previously received an invitation and knew they were invited and expected to attend the celebration. Not willing is in the imperfect tense picturing one after another repeatedly, persistently refusing the invitation from the king to actually attend the wedding feast! Their wills were set against coming! Amazing! To call this a breach of protocol would be an understatement! If a king invited me I would hardly think of refusing the invitation. Of course, this is a parable and Jesus is ultimately speaking about the invitation to believe in Him, receive eternal life and be allowed to attend the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Rev 19:9+)! It is notable that a wedding banquet frequently depicted the fellowship of the Messiah with his people at the eschatological consummation (Mt 8:11; cf. Lk 13:29; Rev 19:9+) THOUGHT - So this king actually repeats his invitation after it has been turned down—a true picture of God’s repeated calls of grace (Lenski interpretation of st. matthew's gospel page 848) Craig Blomberg - The sending of the servants corresponds to the standard Oriental practice of issuing an invitation to an event without specifying the exact time until a later date. (New American Commentary) David
Mateus 22
MacArthur adds "The first test of Jesus by the Pharisees, made through their disciples and the Herodians, was political, dealing with the payment of the despised poll-tax (Mt 22:17). The second test, by the Sadducees, was theological, pertaining to the reality of the resurrection, which they denied (Mt 22:23, 28). Now the Pharisees were about to test Him again in the area of theology. (See Matthew Commentary - Page 336)" Perhaps they were hoping the old adage would prove true that the "third time is the charm!" But when the Pharisees (pharisaios) heard that Jesus had silenced (phimoo - "muzzled" see English definition) the Sadducees (saddoukaios) - The prideful pretenders reconvened seeking a new strategy. Previously Jesus had left the Pharisees marveling, silenced by His wisdom on the poll-tax test, causing them to quietly slither away (Mt 22:21-22+). But now they soon got wind of Jesus’ dismantling of the Sadducees’ resurrection argument, in effect making them speechless. It is interesting to note that 3/7 NT uses of phimoo were describing rebuking of demon possessed men! They gathered themselves together (sunago) - Recall the Pharisees had plotted together (not verb sunago) in Matthew 22:15+. Here they gathered together (sunago) to plot against Jesus. The irony is that sunago gives us our English word synagogue a place where Jews would gather to pray and worship. In this context the Pharisees are clearly gathered together to determine how they can trap and ultimately murder Jesus. Mark Moore says "They went out and regrouped, deciding to send one of their “hot-shot” legal professors rather than a novice this time." John MacArthur on gathered themselves together - In doing so, they unintentionally and unknowingly fulfilled prophecy by plotting together “against the Lord, and against His Christ” (Acts 4:26–28+). Out of that conclave came the third and final question to test Jesus. (See Matthew Commentary - Page 336) Matthew Henry Concise Mt 22:34-40. An interpreter of the law asked our Lord a question, to try, not so much his knowledge, as his judgment. The love of God is the first and great commandment, and the sum of all the commands of the first table. Our love of God must be sincere, not in word and tongue only. All our love is too little to bestow upon him, therefore all the powers of the soul must be engaged for him, and carried out toward him. To love our neighbour as ourselves, is the second great commandment. There is a self-love which is corrupt, and the root of the greatest sins, and it must be put off and mortified; but there is a self-love which is the rule of the greatest duty: we must have a due concern for the welfare of our own souls and bodies. And we must love our neighbour as truly and sincerely as we love ourselves; in many cases we must deny ourselves for the good of others. By these two commandments let our hearts be formed as by a mould. Silenced (5392) phimoo from phimós = muzzle for a beast's mouth) means to close the mouth with a muzzle, to muzzle, gag, restrain as an ox (1 Co 9:9; 1 Ti 5:18). Figuratively, phimoo means to stop one's mouth in order make speechless or reduce to silence (Mt 22:34; 1 Pe 2:15) Phimoo is a more vigorous word than just "Be Quiet" The picture is “Be muzzled” like an ox. PHIMOO - 7V- muzzle(1), quiet(2), silence(1), silenced(1), speechless(1), still(1). Matt. 22:12; Matt. 22:34; Mk. 1:25; Mk. 4:39; Lk. 4:35; 1 Tim. 5:18; 1 Pet. 2:15 Gathered...together (4863) sunago from sun = with + ago = to lead, ) means literally to lead together. To gather (in) or gather (up) (Mt 13:47; 25:24, 26; Lk 3:17; 15:13; Jn 6:12f; 15:6). To bring or call together, gather (Mt 22:10; 25:32; Mk 2:2; 7:1; Jn 11:47; 18:2; Acts 13:44; 14:27; 1 Cor 5:4). To invite or receive as a guest (Mt 25:35, 38, 43). This verb gives us our English word synagogue a place where Jews pray and worship. We see a gathering for judgment similar to Lk 3:17 in Joel 3:11+ where God is commanding a gathering of unholy Gentiles, not for the purpose of worship, but for wrath! In the Valley of Jehoshaphat, the Valley of Decision, for it is judgment time for the nations of the world is "ripe!" SUNAGO - 59V - NOTE CONCENTRATION IN THE LAST WEEK OF JESUS' LIFE! - Matt. 2:4; Matt. 3:12; Matt. 6:26; Matt. 12:30; Matt. 13:2; Matt. 13:30; Matt. 13:47; Matt. 18:20; Matt. 22:10; Matt. 22:34; Matt. 22:41; Matt. 24:28; Matt. 25:24; Matt. 25:26; Matt. 25:32; Matt. 25:35; Matt. 25:38; Matt. 25:43; Matt. 26:3; Matt. 26:57; Matt. 27:17; Matt. 27:27; Matt. 27:62; Matt. 28:12; Mk. 2:2; Mk. 4:1; Mk. 5:21; Mk. 6:30; Mk. 7:1; Lk. 3:17; Lk. 11:23; Lk. 12:17; Lk. 12:18; Lk. 15:13; Lk. 22:66; Jn. 4:36; Jn. 6:12; Jn. 6:13; Jn. 11:47; Jn. 11:52; Jn. 15:6; Jn. 18:2; Acts 4:5; Acts 4:26; Acts 4:27; Acts 4:31; Acts 11:26; Acts 13:44; Acts 14:27; Acts 15:6; Acts 15:30; Acts 20:7; Acts 20:8; 1 Co. 5:4; Rev. 16:14; Rev. 16:16; Rev. 19:17; Rev. 19:19; Rev. 20:8 Henry Blackaby - Borrow The Experience - The Greatest Commandment Matthew 22:34–39 The Pharisee had a question for Jesus: “Which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” It was a loaded question, designed to trap Jesus and discredit him. No doubt the Pharisee expected Jesus would have to choose one of the Ten Commandments over the other nine, opening the door for debate. Then he’d have this unschooled carpenter’s son right where he wanted him. The Pharisee was an expert in the Law; he had scrutinized the Scriptures for years and had memorized many passages. The Law was his life. This uneducated carpenter would be no match for his expertise. It was going to be an easy victory. Jesus showed who the expert really was. He condensed all ten commandments into one statement that targeted the Pharisees’ most vulnerable spot. The Pharisees were adept at keeping the letter of the law but fell pitifully short in following the spirit of the law, which was love. The Pharisees were doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. In God’s eyes, this was still sin. God expected them to obey his commands because they loved him, not because they were trying to be perfect. God was more concerned with their hearts than with their actions. Sometimes we’re like the Pharisees. We make Christianity too complicated. Although God has the right to demand anything he wants, he asks one thing of us: love. If we devote our hearts, minds, and souls to God, we will fulfill the law as it was meant to be followed, and everything else will fall into place. Matthew 22:35 One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, KJV Matthew 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, BGT Matthew 22:35 καὶ ἐπηρώτησεν εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν [νομικὸς] πειράζων αὐτόν· NET Matthew 22:35 And one of them, an expert in religious law, asked him a question to test him: CSB Matthew 22:35 And one of them, an expert in the law, asked a question to test Him: ESV Matthew 22:35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. NIV Matthew 22:35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: NLT Matthew 22:35 One of them, an expert in religious law, tried to trap him with this question: NRS Matthew 22:35 and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. NJB Matthew 22:35 and, to put him to the test, one of them put a further question, NAB Matthew 22:35 and one of them (a scholar of the law) tested him by asking, YLT Matthew 22:35 and one of them, a lawyer, did question, tempting him, and saying, MIT Matthew 22:35 One of them, trying to provoke him into saying something they could put a spin on, questioned him: GWN Matthew 22:35 One of them, an expert in Moses' Teachings, tested Jesus by asking, a lawyer: Lu 7:30 10:25-37 11:45,46,52 14:3 Titus 3:13 tempting: Mt 22:18 Mk 10:2 Related Passages: Mark 12:28+ One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?” PHARISEES SEND A LEGAL EXPERT One of them - One of who? Who is them? One of the Pharisees (Mt 22:34) who is called a scribe in Mk 12:28+. Earlier they had sent their disciples (Mt 22:16+), but that attempt to trap Jesus had failed. A lawyer (nomikos) - Matthew calls him a "lawyer," an expert in the Mosaic Law (NLT - "expert in religious law"). Mark 12:28 calls him a "scribe" (grammateus), a title for someone who studies, teaches, and interprets the Law. In 1st-century Jewish culture, a lawyer (nomikos) was often a scribe (grammateus) by function. They are different terms, but describe overlapping roles. The Pharisees wanted a man who had unusual expertise in the Mosaic law. He was probably their "rising star," their "best shot" to match wits with Jesus. They just do not grasp that they are dealing with God in the flesh, the Human personification of divine wisdom and all their attempts would be futile. Asked Him a question, testing (peirazo - present tense) Him - Earlier the Pharisees had sent their disciples to text Jesus (Mt 22:17-18). Now we have a lawyer an expert in the interpretation of the Mosaic law. The related (cognate) verb for test (ekpeirazo) had been described the devil's attempt to tempt in Lk 4:12+, so in a sense, this Jewish lawyer was serving as a pawn for Satan his father (Jn 8:44+). Like his father, the lawyer was a liar for He was not really seeking truth but laying a trap. He thought he had eternal life by virtue of his self-righteous works. As Wiersbe said "It was a good question asked with a bad motive!" The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (online) - The ulterior purpose of the lawyer is not fully evident, and it must be noticed that Jesus treated the question forthrightly and then commended the astuteness of the lawyer's response (Mk 12:34). It is often suggested that he wanted to draw Jesus into argument regarding the rabbis' computation of 613 commandments. Leon
Mateus 22
MacArthur writes that agapao "expresses the purest, noblest form of love, which is volitionally driven, not motivated by superficial appearance, emotional attraction, or sentimental relationship. (SEE 1 & 2 Thessalonians MacArthur New Testament Commentary)
Mateus 22
MacArthur points out that "The wedding feast represented God’s promised blessing to Israel, a figure understood by everyone in the Temple that day. According to talmudic literature, the Messiah’s coming would be accompanied by a grand banquet given for His chosen people." (Matthew Commentary - Page 307) Leon
Mateus 22
MacArthur - When the Roman general Titus conquered Jerusalem in that year, he killed some 1,100,000 Jews, threw their bodies over the wall, and slaughtered countless thousands more throughout Palestine. In his Jewish War, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem, graphically chronicled the horrible scene: That building [the Temple at Jerusalem], however, God long ago had sentenced to the flames; but now in the revolution of the time periods the fateful day had arrived, the tenth of the month Lous, the very day on which previously it had been burned by the king of Babylon.… One of the soldiers, neither awaiting orders nor filled with horror of so dread an undertaking, but moved by some supernatural impulse, snatched a brand from the blazing timber and, hoisted up by one of his fellow soldiers, flung the fiery missile through a golden window.… When the flame arose, a scream, as poignant as the tragedy, went up from the Jews … now that the object which before they had guarded so closely was going to ruin.… While the sanctuary was burning, … neither pity for age nor respect for rank was shown; on the contrary, children and old people, laity and priests alike were massacred.… The emperor ordered the entire city and sanctuary to be razed to the ground, except only the highest towers, Phasael, Hippicus, and Mariamne, and that part of the wall that enclosed the city on the west. NET NOTE - Grk “he sent his soldiers, destroyed those murderers.” The verb ἀπώλεσεν (apōlesen) is causative, indicating that the king was the one behind the execution of the murderers. In English the causative idea is not expressed naturally here; either a purpose clause (“he sent his soldiers to put those murderers to death”) or a relative clause (“he sent his soldier who put those murderers to death”) is preferred. The Greek text reads here πόλις (polis), which could be translated “town” or “city.” The prophetic reference is to the city of Jerusalem, so “city” is more appropriate here. Enraged (3710) orgizo from orge = wrath) describes a brooding, simmering anger that is nurtured and not allowed to die. It is seen in the holding of a grudge, in the smoldering bitterness that refuses to forgive. It is the anger that cherishes resentment and does not want reconciliation. TDNT - (Root word orge) denotes “upsurging” (of sap of vigor), comes to be used for “impulsive nature.” This is a tragic element in drama, since it inclines people to decisive acts. A demonic excess of will combines with fate to bring disaster. A second and resultant meaning is “anger” as the most striking manifestation of impulsive passion. Unlike thumos, a complementary term, orge is especially oriented to revenge or punishment. Thus it is applied to rulers who must avenge injustice. There then develops the sense of “punishment.” Apart from this legitimate form, however, orge is recognized to be an evil, or the source of other evils. Matthew 22:8 “Then he *said to his slaves, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. KJV Matthew 22:8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. BGT Matthew 22:8 τότε λέγει τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ· ὁ μὲν γάμος ἕτοιμός ἐστιν, οἱ δὲ κεκλημένοι οὐκ ἦσαν ἄξιοι· NET Matthew 22:8 Then he said to his slaves, 'The wedding is ready, but the ones who had been invited were not worthy. CSB Matthew 22:8 "Then he told his slaves, 'The banquet is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. ESV Matthew 22:8 Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. NIV Matthew 22:8 "Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. NLT Matthew 22:8 And he said to his servants, 'The wedding feast is ready, and the guests I invited aren't worthy of the honor. NRS Matthew 22:8 Then he said to his slaves, 'The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. The wedding: Mt 22:4 but: Mt 10:11-13,37,38 Lu 20:35 21:36 Ac 13:46 2Th 1:5 Rev 3:4 22:14 INVITATION DOES NOT GUARANTEE ADMISSION! Then he *said (historical present tense) to his slaves (doulos), ‘The wedding (gamos) is ready (hetoimos, but (strong, sad term of contrast) those who were invited (kaleo) were not (ouk - absolutely not) worthy (axios) (did not deserve the honor to come)(‘worthy to come’ [NCV], ‘worthy of the honor’ [NLT], ‘fit’ [BAGD]) - The fact that they were not worthy is because they refused the invitation which ironically itself was based solely on grace and not on their worthiness to receive the invitation. There is only one way to be declared worthy and that is by accepting the king's gracious invitation. The "invitation rejecters" are like those in Acts 13:46+ who repudiated "it (THE WORD OF GOD ~ THE GOSPEL) and judge yourselves (NOTE WHO BRINGS THE JUDGMENT ON THEM - THEMSELVES!) unworthy (ouk - absolutely not + axios) of eternal life." In short, their unworthiness was not in the lack of some particular merit (grace cannot be earned), but in their willful persistent rejection of the king's offer of grace! In the context of this parable their unworthiness is the result of their persistent rejection of the Gospel and the wooing of the Holy Spirit (see Acts 7:51+). One of Matthew's favorite themes is worthiness (see Mt 3:8; 10:10–11, 13, 37–38) MacArthur says "The people God here declared not worthy were His chosen people, Israel, who would not come to Him freely and without merit through His Son. And because they rejected the Son, God rejected them for a season. Because they rejected their own Messiah, they were temporarily cast off as a nation and as God’s unique chosen people. (See Matthew Commentary - Page 309) Worthy (adjective) (514) áxios (axios) from ágō = to weigh) strictly speaking means bringing up the other beam of the scales. Having the weight of another thing of like value, worth as much. Counterbalancing - weighing as much (of like value, worth as much). Bringing into balance and hence equivalent or equal value/similar worth (Ro 8:18, see use in Lxx of Pr 3:15, 8:11). Other nuances of axios include describing that which is fitting or appropriate (1Cor 16:2), that which is deserving (Mt 10:10), that which "deserves" to be considered or accepted (1Ti 1:15), that which is worthy of praise (Rev 4:11), that which corresponds to or is congruent with something else (Mt 3:8, Luke 3:8, 23:41, 26:20). Worthy or deserving of evil (Rev 16:6). AXIOS - 39V - Matt. 3:8; Matt. 10:10; Matt. 10:11; Matt. 10:13; Matt. 10:37; Matt. 10:38; Matt. 22:8; Lk. 3:8; Lk. 7:4; Lk. 10:7; Lk. 12:48; Lk. 15:19; Lk. 15:21; Lk. 23:15; Lk. 23:41; Jn. 1:27; Acts 13:25; Acts 13:46; Acts 23:29; Acts 25:11; Acts 25:25; Acts 26:20; Acts 26:31; Rom. 1:32; Rom. 8:18; 1 Co. 16:4; 2 Thess. 1:3; 1 Tim. 1:15; 1 Tim. 4:9; 1 Tim. 5:18; 1 Tim. 6:1; Heb. 11:38; Rev. 3:4; Rev. 4:11; Rev. 5:2; Rev. 5:4; Rev. 5:9; Rev. 5:12; Rev. 16:6 Matthew 22:9 ‘Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast.’ KJV Matthew 22:9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. BGT Matthew 22:9 πορεύεσθε οὖν ἐπὶ τὰς διεξόδους τῶν ὁδῶν καὶ ὅσους ἐὰν εὕρητε καλέσατε εἰς τοὺς γάμους. NET Matthew 22:9 So go into the main streets and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet.' CSB Matthew 22:9 Therefore go to where the roads exit the city and invite everyone you find to the banquet.' ESV Matthew 22:9 Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.' NIV Matthew 22:9 Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.' NLT Matthew 22:9 Now go out to the street corners and invite everyone you see.' NRS Matthew 22:9 Go therefore into the main streets, and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet.' NJB Matthew 22:9 go to the main crossroads and invite everyone you can find to come to the wedding." Pr 1:20-23 8:1-5 9:4-6 Isa 55:1-3,6,7 Mk 16:15,16 Lu 14:21-24 Lu 24:47 Ac 13:47 Eph 3:8 Rev 22:17 Go (present imperative - keep on going!) therefore to the main (diexodos - only here) highways (hodos) ("main streets," "roads that exit the city," "street corners," "intersections," "main crossroads"), and as many as you find (heurisko - by searching or by "accident" ~ providence) there, invite (kaleo) to the wedding feast (gamos) - Invite (kaleo) is a command in the aorist imperative which means "Do this now!" "Do not delay!" It conveys a sense of urgency. Main (diexodos - only here) strictly speaking means passage through, the place where a main street cuts through the city boundary and goes out into the open country (BDAG). Leon
Mateus 22
MacArthur comments "Until that point the man had been utterly presumptuous, thinking he could come to the king’s feast on his own terms, in any clothes he wanted. He was proud and self-willed, thoughtless of the others, and, worst of all, insulting to the king. Arrogantly defying royal protocol, he was determined to “be himself." (See Matthew Commentary)
Mateus 22
MacArthur - Since Cain’s first attempt to please God by offering his self-appointed sacrifice, men have been trying to come to the Lord on their own terms. They may fellowship with believers, join the church, become active in the leadership, give generously to its support, and speak of devotion to God. Like the tares among the wheat, they freely coexist for a while with God’s people. But in the day of judgment their falsehood will become obvious and their removal certain. Some will dare to say to God “on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then [Christ] will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness’ ” (Matt. 7:21–23+). The proper wedding garment of a true believer is God-imputed righteousness, without which no one can enter or live in the kingdom. Unless a person’s righteousness exceeds the hypocritical self-righteousness that typified the scribes and Pharisees, he “shall not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:20). The only acceptable wedding garment is the genuine “sanctification without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14). (See Matthew Commentary) Weeping (2805) klauthmos from klaio = to weep or bewail) is a noun which describes a strong inner emotion which is evoked in weeping, crying, lamentation (cries of grief, the act of bewailing as an expression of sorrow). Hell is a place of conscious sorrow for the unconscious would not weep. KLAUTHMOS - 8V - Matt. 2:18; Matt. 8:12; Matt. 13:42; Matt. 13:50; Matt. 22:13; Matt. 24:51; Matt. 25:30; Lk. 13:28; Acts 20:37 In most of these NT uses the tears are genuine, but their effect on the wrath of God is nil, as it is too late for those who shed them. The image is of utter hopelessness and is intended as a warning to those who read or hear these difficult to accept sayings! Gnashing (1030) (brugmos from brucho = grind, make sounds striking teeth together)(see gnashing teeth) describes striking, grinding or biting of teeth together. The picture is of one making a grating sound by rubbing one's teeth together as an expression of anger, pain, suffering. In the context of the NT uses brugmos is a manifestation or picture of the extreme anguish and utter despair of those consigned to eternal torment in hell. Webster says gnash means to strike the teeth together as in anger or pain, both emotions probably in play in the fires of hell. The root verb brucho is used in Acts 7:54+ to describe the Jews who were "cut to the quick" by Stephen's sermon and began "gnashing their teeth at him", clearly a manifestation of intense anger (and guilt). TDNT says the root brucho was used "of the cry of pain of a stag mortally wounded by snake-bite." BRUGMOS - 7x/7v - Matt. 8:12; Matt. 13:42; Matt. 13:50; Matt. 22:13; Matt. 24:51; Matt. 25:30; Lk. 13:28 (see these passages above under the discussion of weeping) The only OT use is in the Septuagint translation of Pr 19:12.= "King's wrath is like the roaring (growling; Lxx = brugmos) of a lion." QUESTION - What does the Bible mean when it refers to the gnashing of teeth? | GotQuestions.org ANSWER - The precise phrase gnashing of teeth is found in several places in the Bible and is used exclusively in reference to the final judgment of sinners, where it is combined with either weeping or wailing. The Greek phrase for “gnashing of teeth” literally means “grinding one’s teeth together.” Surely, part of what the gnashing of teeth communicates is pain, especially when the gnashing is combined with weeping. When a person hits his thumb with a hammer, he will commonly squeeze his eyes closed and grind his teeth together hard. The weeping and gnashing of teeth in Scripture, however, is much more dreadful, partly because it lasts for eternity. Gnashing one’s teeth shows up elsewhere in Scripture in contexts other than feeling pain. In Acts 7:54 the gnashing of teeth is done in anger because of what Stephen had said to the Jewish Council: “They were furious and gnashed their teeth at him.” Psalm 37:12 says, “The wicked plot against the righteous and gnash their teeth at them” (see also Psalm 35:16; 112:10; and Lamentations 2:16). In these passages, wicked persons gnash their teeth at righteous persons as the wicked plot against them or disapprove of them. Apparently, gnashing teeth was a sign of great disrespect and anger. Jesus’ first reference to weeping and gnashing of teeth comes in Matthew 8:12 where He compares the kingdom of heaven to a feast where “many” come from all parts of the world to “recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” The others, however, are thrown into “outer darkness” where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. In His parable of the weeds sown in the field, Jesus again describes the fate of those who reject Him, this time adding to the description “the fiery furnace” into which they will be cast (Matthew 13:41–42). The story of the guest who comes to the wedding feast of the Lamb without the proper clothing is cast into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 22:11–13), as is the wicked servant described in Matthew 24:44–51 and the worthless servant in the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14–30). All these references to weeping and gnashing of teeth have one thing in common—the undeniable fact that those who do not belong to Christ will suffer a terrible fate, while His children will enjoy bliss in heaven with Him forever. Hell will be a place of anguish, remorse, pain, and misery. Heaven will be a place where God eventually “will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away" (Revelation 21:4). The misery that causes the gnashing of teeth will be unknown in heaven, and there will be no weeping, no wailing, and no tears. Sadly, those who reject God will realize in hell what they have truly lost, and the realization that there is no “second chance” will cause them to feel the full weight of the pain that goes with that knowledge. The anguish of being separated from God does not go away. It is eternal and unrelenting. We all deserve that kind of punishment: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), but God, in His mercy, made it possible for us to avoid that eternal pain and suffering. Paul explains, “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23). All who accept the gift God has provided through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ will escape the everlasting weeping and gnashing of teeth. Paul proclaims, “If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved” (Romans 10:9–10). Jesus uses powerful imagery like wailing and gnashing of teeth to illustrate the importance of turning away from the sin that leads to hell and turning to Him who alone provides salvation. QUESTION - Why will there be weeping and gnashing of teeth in hell | GotQuestions.org ANSWER - On multiple occasions, Jesus refers to hell as a place where “there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30). This coupling of weeping and gnashing of teeth in hell reflects the unspeakable torment of those who will be separated from God for all eternity. In the Bible, both “weeping” and “gnashing of teeth” represent physical and spiritual anguish. When Jerusalem was destroyed, and the Jews were exiled from their homeland, the people wept in anguish (Isaiah 22:12; Lamentations 1:2, 16; 2:11). In the New Testament, James warned the rich oppressors to prepare for God’s judgment, advising, “weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you” (James 5:1). Gnashing (or “grinding”) of teeth also appears throughout the Bible, always depicting people in moments of violent, furious torment and vexation (Psalm 37:12; Lamentations 2:16; Acts 7:54). In every instance that Jesus uses the expression weeping and gnashing of teeth, He associates it with someone coming to the excruciating realization that he or she will not be allowed to enter the kingdom of heaven. In Matthew 8:12, it is the Jewish people who reject Christ’s salvation; in Matthew 13:36–43, it is the evil enemies of God; in Matthew 13:47–52, it is the wicked; in Matthew 22:1–14, it is all who refuse Christ’s invitation; in Matthew 24:48–51, it is the evil, disobedient servant; and in Matthew 25:14–30, it is the worthless, faithless servant. Long before Jesus talked about weeping and gnashing of teeth in hell, the psalmist presented an end-of-the-world snapshot of the wicked observing the blissful destiny of the righteous (Psalm 112:1–9) while gnashing their teeth in rage (Psalm 112:10). There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth in hell because the unredeemed will finally see and understand all that they have lost. Likewise, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth in hell because it is a place of eternal punishment (Jude 1:7). Hell was originally intended for Satan and his angels (Matthew 25:41; 2 Peter 2:4; Revelation 20:1–3, 10), but it is also for people who choose to reject the Lord (Matthew 13:40–42; Mark 9:42–48; Romans 2:8; Hebrews 10:26–29; 2 Peter 3:7; Revelation 20:15; 21:8). Since God is a God of love (1 John 4:7–8), He wants everyone to understand the truth about hell. Through a relationship with Jesus Christ, God offers us eternal life in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 4:17; 25:31–34; John 3:16–18). If we reject His offer, the alternative is hell. And Scripture is clear—hell is a reality not to be taken lightly or ignored. Judgment and punishment in hell are expressed in the Bible as “God’s wrath” (John 3:36; Deuteronomy 32:22; Zephaniah 1:18; Romans 2:5), “torment” (Luke 16:23–24; Revelation 14:11; Revelation 20:10), “destruction” and “corruption” (Psalm 55:23; Romans 9:22; Philippians 3:18–19; Galatians 6:8; 2 Peter 1:4), and “eternal” and “unquenchable fire” (Matthew 3:12; Hebrews 10:27; Revelation 19:20). Scripture also emphasizes the extreme isolation of hell, referring to it as “blackest darkness” (Jude 1:6, 13; 2 Peter 2:17), “the Abyss” (Revelation 9:1–2), and “death” (John 8:21; Romans 6:23; 1 Corinthians 15:26; 1 Corinthians 15:54–55; Revelation 20:14–15; 21:8). Perhaps the most distressing aspect of hell is that it means total and eternal separation from God (Matthew 7:23). The apostle Paul describes the Lord’s judgment as coming “in flaming fire . . . on those who don’t know God and on those who refuse to obey the Good News of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with eternal destruction, forever separated from the Lord and from his glorious power” (2 Thessalonians 1:8–9, NLT). The finality of hell is cause for anguish and torment, for there will be no escape for those who find themselves there (Luke 16:26 Hebrews 6:4–6; 10:26–27). In the endless absence of God’s love, light, peace, and joy, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. But for all who enter God’s eternal dwelling, “He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or sorrow or crying or pain” (Revelation 21:4, NLT). QUESTION - What is the outer darkness in Matthew 22:13? | GotQuestions.org ANSWER - In the Parable of the Wedding Feast, Jesus tells of a “wedding crasher” of sorts: a man in the wedding hall was discovered to have entered the feast without authorization. Jesus says that the king, the master of the feast, issued a dire command concerning the interloper: “Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness” (ESV). Jesus uses the term “outer darkness” in the parable to describe a condition of great sorrow, loss and woe. It stands in vivid contrast to the brightly lit and joyous celebration attended by those who accepted the king’s invitation. Interpreting the wedding feast as heaven, the “outer darkness” must be the place of eternal punishment. Most Bible scholars agree that the phrase “outer darkness” refers to hell or, more properly, the lake of fire (Matthew 8:12; 13:42; 13:50; and 25:30,41). The outer darkness of Jesus’ parable is called “blackest darkness” in Jude 1:13. Again, a place of judgment is the obvious meaning, since it is reserved for “godless men” (verse 4). Perhaps the place of judgment is pictured as “dark” because of the absence of God’s cheering presence. “When you hide your face, they are terrified” (Psalm 104:29). God is called “light” in 1 John 1:5, and if He withdraws His blessing, only darkness is left. Throughout the Scriptures light symbolizes God’s purity, holiness, and glory. Darkness is used as a symbol of moral depravity (Psalm 82:5; Proverbs 2:13; Romans 3:12). Darkness can also refer to trouble and affliction (Job 5:12; Proverbs 20:20; Isaiah 9:2) and to death and nothingness (1 Samuel 2:9; Ecclesiastes 11:8; Job 3:4-6). The outer darkness of judgment is accompanied by “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” The “weeping” describes an inner pain of the heart, mind, and soul. The word in the original denotes a bewailing or lamentation by beating the breast in an expression of immense sorrow. The “gnashing of teeth” describes an outward pain of the body. Taken together, the weeping and gnashing of teeth says hell is a place of indescribable spiritual agony and unending physical pain (see Luke 16:23-28). The outer darkness is a place of anguish, heartache, grief, and unspeakable suffering. Such will be the lot of all who reject Christ (John 3:18, 36). Christ is the Light of the World (John 8:12). When one rejects the Light, he will be cast into eternal darkness. Just like the man in the parable, the one who rejects Christ will lose his chance for joy, blessing and fellowship and will be left with nothing but darkness and eternal regret. Matthew 22:14 “For many are called, but few are chosen.” KJV Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen. BGT Matthew 22:14 πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσιν κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί. NET Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen." CSB Matthew 22:14 "For many are invited, but few are chosen." ESV Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen." NIV Matthew 22:14 "For many are invited, but few are chosen." NLT Matthew 22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen." NRS Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen." NJB Matthew 22:14 For many are invited but not all are chosen.' NAB Matthew 22:14 Many are invited, but few are chosen." YLT Matthew 22:14 for many are called, and few chosen.' MIT Matthew 22:14 Many are invited but few are chosen. GWN Matthew 22:14 "Therefore, many are invited, but few of those are chosen to stay." BBE Matthew 22:14 For out of all to whom the good news has come, only a small number will get salvation. RSV Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen." NKJ Matthew 22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen." ASV Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few chosen. DBY Matthew 22:14 For many are called ones, but few chosen ones. NIRV Matthew 22:14 "Many are invited, but few are chosen." RWB Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen. Mt 7:13-14 Mt 20:16 Lu 13:23-24 Related Passages: Luke 13:23-28+ And someone said to Him, “Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?” And He said to them, 24 “Strive (present imperative see our need to depend on the Holy Spirit to obey) to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. 25 “Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, ‘Lord, open up to us!’ then He will answer and say to you, ‘I do not know where you are from.’ (COMPARE Mt 7:23+) 26 “Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets’ 27 and He will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you are from; DEPART (aorist imperative) FROM ME, ALL YOU EVILDOERS.’ 28 “In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out. MANY CALLED FEW CHOSEN For (gar) - This is a very strategic term of explanation, explaining why many will suffer the fate of eternal punishment. Many are called (kletos - invited), but few (oligos) are chosen (ekletos) - GWT "few of those are chosen to stay." BBE="For out of all to whom the good news has come, only a small number will get salvation." Many are called refers to all those who hear the Gospel. Though many are invited, only some (the "chosen") accept the gift of salvation and are clothed in the righteousness of Christ. Few are chosen describes those who heard the Gospel but were unwilling to accept it. The few are chosen parallels Jesus' quantitative description in Matthew 7 commanding His hearers on the Sermon on the Mount to "Enter (aorist imperative and the only way to obey is by the work of the Holy Spirit enabling you to obey) through the narrow gate; FOR (term of explanation) the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are MANY (COMPARE MANY ARE CALLED BUT FEW CHOSEN) who enter through it. “FOR (term of explanation) the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to (ETERNAL) life, and there are FEW (COMPARE MANY ARE CALLED BUT FEW CHOSEN) who find it." (Mt 7:13-14+) People must respond to God’s summons with both repentance and right (ED: SUPERNATURAL) living to be part of God’s elect! -- Grant Osborne David Guzik highlights the mysterious teaching of God's sovereignty and Man's responsibility writing "This statement of Jesus, in this context, touches on the great working together of the choices of man and the choosing of God. Why did they not come to the wedding party? Because they refused the invitation. Why did they not come to the wedding party? Because they were called, but not chosen. John MacArthur - The gospel invitation is sent to everyone, because it is not the Father’s will that a single person be excluded from His kingdom and perish in the outer darkness of hell (2 Pet. 3:9). But not everyone wants God, and many who claim to want Him do not want Him on His terms. Those who are saved enter God’s kingdom because of their willing acceptance of His sovereign, gracious provision. Those who are lost are excluded from the kingdom because of their willing rejection of that same sovereign grace. (See Matthew Commentary - Page 313) Called (2822) kletos rom kaleo = basic meaning is to call - see amplification below. See study of related word klesis) is a "verbal adjective" which is sometimes used as a verb and sometimes used as a noun referring to believers. Literally kletos means invited or welcomed and was originally used to designate those invited to a banquet. In fact in 1Ki 1:41, 49 kletos is used in the Septuagint in the sense of called or invited to a meal or banquet. In the NT kletos is generally used of one who has accepted a calling or an invitation to become a guest or member of a select group. Believers have been invited by God in the proclamation of the Gospel to obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom through Christ. KLETOS - 10V - Matt. 22:14; Rom. 1:1; Rom. 1:6; Rom. 1:7; Rom. 8:28; 1 Co. 1:1; 1 Co. 1:2; 1 Co. 1:24; Jude 1:1; Rev. 17:14 In Stephen Motyer's well done article on Call, Calling he writes that… This prominent biblical term is used with particular theological significance in three ways: in connection with worship, with election, and with vocation. (1) Worship. To "call on" God or the Lord is a frequent biblical expression: it occurs fifty-six times in total (Old Testament, 45; New Testament, 11); on four occasions it is applied to other gods. It often appears in the fuller form, "call on the name of" (31 times). The highest concentration is in the psalms (16 times). (Click for full discussion on "Worship")… (2) Election. "Call" is one of the biblical words associated with the theme of election. In both Hebrew and Greek, "call" can be used in the sense of "naming" (Ge 2:19; Luke 1:13), and in biblical thought to give a name to something or someone was to bestow an identity. Names often encapsulated a message about the person concerned (Ruth 1:20, 21; Jn 1:42; cf. Mt 16:18). When God is the one who bestows names, the action is almost equivalent to creation: "Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing" (Isa 40:26). This theme is developed particularly in Isaiah 40-55, which forms an important background to the New Testament use of the term. The creative "calling" of the stars is matched by the "calling" of Abraham, which meant both the summons to leave Ur and the call to be the father of Israel: "When I called him he was but one, and I blessed him and made him many" (Is 51:2). Similarly Israel the nation has been called-"I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you" (Is 41:9; cf. Is 48:12)-and this means that they are "called by my name … created for my glory" (Is 43:7; cf. Hos 1:10). God has bestowed his own name upon Israel as part of the creative act that made Israel his own elect people. Now also the Servant of the Lord has been "called" to be the Savior of the world (Is 42:6; 49:1); and so has Cyrus, to be the instrument of judgment of Babylon (Is 48:15). Thus in Isaiah "call" brings together the ideas of naming, election, ownership, and appointment, as the word is used with different nuances in different contexts. It connotes the creative word of God, by which he acts effectively within the world. The New Testament picks up all these ideas and takes them further. The influence of Isaiah is seen particularly in the writings of Paul and Peter, who use "call" as a semi-technical term denoting God's effective summons of people to faith in Christ; verb and noun together are used approximately forty-three times with this general denotation. However, within this overall usage various shades of meaning of and nuances may be discerned: Initiation… Naming… Destiny… Holiness (Click for full discussion of each of these "nuances" of call, calling)… Vocation. The notion of appointment to office, which we observed in Isaiah, is also taken up in the New Testament. When Paul was "called by grace, " it meant not just his conversion but also his appointment as apostle to the Gentiles (Gal 1:15). He is therefore "called to be an apostle" (Ro 1:1; 1Co 1:1). (Click for Stephen Motyer's full discussion on Call, Calling). (Bolding added) Related Resource: What is the effectual calling/call? | GotQuestions.org Elect (1588) eklektos; Chosen in Christ from verb eklego which in middle voice [eklegomai] means select or pick out for one's self which is derived from ek =out + lego =call) means literally the "called out ones" or "chosen out ones". The idea of eklektos is the ones who have been chosen for one's self, selected out of a larger number. In regard to election as related to salvation,
Mateus 22
MacArthur - Assuming that Jesus was inwardly reveling in their flattery, the men sprang their trap question: “Tell us therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?” One of the highest forms of praise is to ask a person’s advice on an important issue. Therefore, after Jesus’ ego was, as they supposed, stimulated by the previous compliments, the questioners were certain that, like most men, He would be eager to display the wisdom for which He had just been praised. In doing so He would blurt out an unguarded answer that would become His death warrant. (See Matthew Commentary - Page 318) David Turner points out that "Their question about paying taxes to the Roman emperor is evidently about the “head tax” (tributum capitis), which was based on a census of Israel’s population by the Romans (Luke 2:1–5; Josephus, J.W. 1.154; 2.118, 403–5, 433; Tacitus, Ann. 2.42; Schürer 1973: 1.399–427). This is different from the biblically mandated tax to support the temple, which Jesus did pay (17:24–27)." (See Matthew Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)) NET NOTE - poll-tax - According to L&N 57.180 the term κῆνσος (kēnsos) was borrowed from Latin and referred to a poll tax, a tax paid by each adult male to the Roman government. This question concerning taxes was specifically designed to trap Jesus. If he answered yes, then his opponents could publicly discredit him as a sympathizer with Rome. If he answered no, then they could go to the Roman governor and accuse Jesus of rebellion. Poll-tax (tribute)(2778) kensos from Latin census, which means a counting of the people and valuation of property. Kensos is equivalent to the Greek word apographé (582) which literally means a write-up or an assessment. In the NT, tribute or poll-tax paid by each person whose name was taken in the census which the Greeks called epikephálaion, head tax (found 4x - Mt 17:25, 22:17, 19, Mk 12:14). Gilbrant adds "This noun (kensos) is the Greek transliteration of the Latin word censēre, meaning “enrollment” (cf. the English word census). It is quoted in Greek literature from the First Century B.C. meaning “poll tax, tribute.” The Romans always levied a tax in conjunction with a census, so the two meanings of “enrollment” and “tax” were closely associated.It occurs only four times in the New Testament. In Mt 17:25; 22:17,19; and Mk 12:14, the tax in view is the “census” or “poll tax” paid with a Roman coin on which appeared Caesar’s image, such an image being objectionable to the Jews. It is significant that Matthew, a tax collector, should use this term." (Complete Biblical Library) KENSOS - 4V - Matt. 17:25; Matt. 22:17; Matt. 22:19; Mk. 12:14 QUESTION - What does the Bible say about paying taxes? | GotQuestions.org ANSWER - In Matthew 22:17–21, the Pharisees asked Jesus a question: "'Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?' But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, 'You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.' They brought Him a denarius, and He asked them, 'Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?' 'Caesar’s,' they replied. Then He said to them, 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.'" In full agreement, the apostle Paul taught, "This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor" (Romans 13:6–7). It seems there is an endless amount of the types of taxes to which citizens and participants in the local and global economy are subjected. Taxes are unpopular, and sometimes the government agencies in charge of collecting those taxes are thought of with disgust, whether they are corrupt or not. This is nothing new. Tax collectors were not thought highly of in Bible times either (Matthew 11:19; 21:31–32; Luke 3:12–13). As much as we hate taxes, as much as any tax system can be corrupt and unfair, as much as we believe there are far better things our money could go toward—the Bible commands, yes, commands us to pay our taxes. Romans 13:1–7 makes it clear that we are to submit ourselves to the government. The only instance in which we are allowed to disobey the government is when it tells us to do something the Bible forbids. The Bible does not forbid paying taxes. In fact, the Bible encourages us to pay taxes. Therefore, we must submit to God and His Word—and pay our taxes. Generally speaking, taxes are intended to enable the beneficial running of society. Depending on one’s priorities, tax revenue is not always put to the best use. The most frequent objection to paying taxes is that the money is being misused by the government or even used for evil purposes by the government. That, however, is not our concern. When Jesus said, "Give to Caesar...," the Roman government was by no means a righteous government. When Paul instructed us to pay taxes, Nero, one of the most evil Roman emperors in history, was the head of the government. We are to pay our taxes even when the government is not God-honoring. We are free to take every legal tax deduction available. We do not have to pay the maximum amount of taxes possible. If the government allows you a tax break, you are free to take it. If there is a legal way you can shelter some of your money from being taxed, you are free to shelter it. Illegal and/or dishonest methods of evading taxes must be rejected. Romans 13:2 reminds us, "Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." Christians know that everything we have ultimately belongs to God. We are stewards and are called upon to invest our money and other resources into things with eternal value. We are called upon to provide for our families (1 Timothy 5:8) and to give generously (2 Corinthians 9:6–8). It is also wise to save (Proverbs 6:6–8) and perfectly acceptable to spend money on ourselves and thank God for His good gifts (James 1:17; Colossians 3:17). Paying taxes is the duty of a citizen, and Christians are called to be good citizens. But Christians are ultimately citizens of heaven (Philippians 3:20). Reducing our tax burden in this life should have as its goal investing in God’s kingdom for eternity. Matthew 22:18 But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, “Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites? KJV Matthew 22:18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? BGT Matthew 22:18 γνοὺς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὴν πονηρίαν αὐτῶν εἶπεν· τί με πειράζετε, ὑποκριταί; NET Matthew 22:18 But Jesus realized their evil intentions and said, "Hypocrites! Why are you testing me? CSB Matthew 22:18 But perceiving their malice, Jesus said, "Why are you testing Me, hypocrites? ESV Matthew 22:18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, "Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? NIV Matthew 22:18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? NLT Matthew 22:18 But Jesus knew their evil motives. "You hypocrites!" he said. "Why are you trying to trap me? NRS Matthew 22:18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, "Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites? NJB Matthew 22:18 But Jesus was aware of their malice and replied, 'You hypocrites! Why are you putting me to the test? NAB Matthew 22:18 Knowing their malice, Jesus said, "Why are you testing me, you hypocrites? YLT Matthew 22:18 And Jesus having known their wickedness, said, 'Why me do ye tempt, hypocrites? perceived: Mk 2:8 Lu 5:22 9:47 20:23 Jn 2:25 Rev 2:23 Why: Mt 16:1-4 19:3 Mk 12:5 Lu 10:25 Jn 8:6 Ac 5:9 JESUS PERCEIVES THE HYPOCRITES' TEST But (term of contrast) Jesus perceived (ginosko) their malice (poneria), and said, “Why are you testing (peirazo) Me, you hypocrites (hupokrites - "religious actors") - One could say He arrived at this perception by His "divine discernment" ( MacArthur - Jn 2:25), but normal logic would have told Him this was a trap spoken by a brood of vipers seeking to inflict a fatal wound. Therefore Jesus immediately exposes their evil ruse and as He so often did, answer their question with His question, knowing full well the answer. These hypocrites were great pretenders, pretending to be righteous like whitewashed tombs on the outside appearing beautiful but inside full of dead men's bones and uncleanness (Mt 23:25+). 🙏 THOUGHT - He is forcing them to look at their own hearts in this matter. Their hearts are hard and their consciences are surely seared by this time, so the effect would be nil. One wonders if some of these men later on recalled Jesus' piercing questions like this one and were moved by His words and the Spirit to come to their senses and believe in Him. Testing (3985) peirazo rom the noun peira = test from peíro = perforate, pierce through to test durability of things) is a morally neutral word simply meaning “to test”. Whether the test is for a good (as it proved to be in Heb 11:17) or evil (Mt 4:1 "Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil") depends on the intent of the one giving the test and also on the response of the one tested. (See study of similar word dokimazo) See also word study on related word - peirasmos PEIRAZO - 35V - Matt. 4:1; Matt. 4:3; Matt. 16:1; Matt. 19:3; Matt. 22:18; Matt. 22:35; Mk. 1:13; Mk. 8:11; Mk. 10:2; Mk. 12:15; Lk. 4:2; Lk. 11:16; Jn. 6:6; Jn. 8:6; Acts 5:9; Acts 9:26; Acts 15:10; Acts 16:7; Acts 24:6; 1 Co. 7:5; 1 Co. 10:9; 1 Co. 10:13; 2 Co. 13:5; Gal. 6:1; 1 Thess. 3:5; Heb. 2:18; Heb. 3:9; Heb. 4:15; Heb. 11:17; Heb. 11:37; Jas. 1:13; Jas. 1:14; Rev. 2:2; Rev. 2:10; Rev. 3:10 Hypocrites (5273) hupokrites from hupó = under, indicating secrecy + krino = to judge) describes one who acts pretentiously, a counterfeit, a man who assumes and speaks or acts under a feigned character. A hypocrite is someone who pretends to be something he or she is not. The 1828 Webster's English dictionary says a hypocrite is "One who feigns to be what he is not; William
Mateus 22
MacArthur explains why Jesus asked for a denarius - only the Roman denarius could be used to pay the poll-tax. It was a silver coin, minted expressly by the emperor, who alone had the authority to issue coins in silver or gold. All such coins, including the denarius, bore an engraving of the emperor on one side and an identifying inscription on the other. That fact made the coins especially offensive to Jews for several reasons. For one thing, the emperor’s picture was a reminder of Roman oppression, and for another, the Mosaic law specifically forbade the making of images (Ex. 20:4). In modern Israel, certain extremely orthodox Jews strictly forbid the taking of their photographs, because the resulting picture is considered a graven image. If the particular coin in Jesus’ hand was minted by Tiberius, one side bore an engraving of his face and the reverse an engraving of him sitting on his throne in priestly robes, with an inscription designating him as the high priest. Several emperors, including Julius Caesar, had even accepted appellations of deity for themselves, thereby demanding religious as well as political homage. At the appearance of an unusual star in 17 B.C., Augustus Caesar had proclaimed a twelve-day celebration, at which the Roman college of priests, of which he was chief, granted mass absolution from sin for all the people of the empire. During that same year coins were minted claiming Augustus as the Son of God. And the idea of a divine emperor was inconceivably repulsive to Jews. (See Matthew Commentary) NET NOTE - denarius - Here the specific name of the coin was retained in the translation, because not all coins in circulation in Palestine at the time carried the image of Caesar. In other places δηνάριον (dēnarion) has been translated simply as “silver coin” with an explanatory note. A denarius was a silver coin worth approximately one day’s wage for a laborer. The fact that they had such a coin showed that they already operated in the economic world of Rome. The denarius would have had a picture of Tiberius Caesar stamped on it. Matthew 22:20 And He *said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” KJV Matthew 22:20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? BGT Matthew 22:20 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· τίνος ἡ εἰκὼν αὕτη καὶ ἡ ἐπιγραφή; NET Matthew 22:20 Jesus said to them, "Whose image is this, and whose inscription?" CSB Matthew 22:20 "Whose image and inscription is this?" He asked them. ESV Matthew 22:20 And Jesus said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" NIV Matthew 22:20 and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" NLT Matthew 22:20 he asked, "Whose picture and title are stamped on it?" NRS Matthew 22:20 Then he said to them, "Whose head is this, and whose title?" NJB Matthew 22:20 and he said, 'Whose portrait is this? Whose title?' NAB Matthew 22:20 He said to them, "Whose image is this and whose inscription?" YLT Matthew 22:20 and he saith to them, 'Whose is this image and the inscription?' MIT Matthew 22:20 Then he said to them, "Whose image and inscription are struck on the coin?" inscription, Lu 20:24 Related Passages: Mark 12:16 They brought one. And He *said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” And they said to Him, “Caesar’s.” Luke 20:24+ “Show Me a denarius. Whose likeness and inscription does it have?” They said, “Caesar’s.” TRICK QUESTION TURNED INTO TRUTH And He *said (historical present tense) to them, “Whose likeness (eikon) and inscription (epigraphe) is this? - Again Jesus is the interrogator drawing them into His argument/defense. Jesus takes their "either-or" QUESTION and gives a brilliant "both-and" ANSWER!
Mateus 22
MacArthur - Because Jesus had claimed deity, calling Himself God’s Son, the disciples of the Pharisees confidently expected Him to denounce as a false god and blasphemer the caesar whose likeness and inscription He was holding up before them. But instead, Jesus said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.” The profundity of that statement is often missed because of its simplicity. Apodidōmi (render) means to pay or give back, implying a debt. It carries the idea of obligation and responsibility for something that is not optional. Jesus’ answer to the original question (v. 17) was therefore, “Yes, it is entirely lawful and right to pay the poll-tax to Caesar, because that tax is Caesar’s, belonging to the things in his domain.”(See Matthew Commentary) R T France on render - “Render generally means ‘give back’ (whereas the verb they had used in Mt 20:17 was simple ‘give’. It is the verb for paying a bill or settling a debt; they owe it to him.” (See The Gospel of Matthew - Page 44)
Mateus 22
MacArthur comments that these religious leaders "Instead of marveling at Christ’s astonishing wisdom and reexamining their obligation to God, the frustrated leaders were amazed, but rather than admit that to Jesus, they became silent. Their attitude toward Him had not changed. Though they had failed to elicit the incriminating response from Him that they had hoped for, they stubbornly persisted in trying to find another way. When they finally managed to bring Jesus before Pilate, they lied and said, “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar” (Luke 23:2).Their sinful stubbornness left them in a hopeless, irremediable, unredeemable situation." (See Luke Commentary) Brian Bell summarizes this section on the trap set by the Herodian spies - It was a perfect trap! To affirm would alienate him from the Jews who were against this tax. To deny the lawfulness of this tax would bring Roman wrath upon him So Jesus hits them right between the horns of their dilemma. But Jesus did not deal with it as a political question. He saw it as a spiritual issue! Just as the coin bore the image of Caesar, so man bears the image of God and has a responsibility to Him. But that also means we have a responsibility to human government, because government was instituted by God (Ro 13:1-7) It is not an either/or situation, but a both/and! If you live under a governments rule; If you are protected by your government (police, military, national guard, etc); If you are using your governments money to buy & sell; then you are in debt to the gov under which you live & enjoy its benefits. But whose image & superscription is upon you?The greatest Potentate is stamped upon every human face...God Himself! – We have been made in the image and likeness of God! The superscription on every human life is that God alone is Pontifex Maximus. Thus He said in effect, “As is the coin to Caesar, so are you to God.” Give to Caesar what’s his, but don’t forget to give to God what is His! So what’s God’s? Everything I have, everything I am! If you live under a God’s rule; If you are protected by your God; If you are using God’s power and gifts; then you are in debt to God under which you live & enjoy His benefits. Read - Ro 13:7,8 (our debt to Him is love) Christians must accept the state as ordained by God and render respect and obedience to the governments. When a conflict arises between our allegiance to the state & our allegiance to God, we must be true to God (ED: JESUS SAID IT THIS WAY -“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." Mt 6:24-+ JESUS ALONE IS OUR LORD AND OUR MASTER). (Commentary) Steven
Mateus 22
MacArthur: The verb mistaken is planao from which we get the word planet, wandering bodies. The verb means to cause to wander, to lead astray. You are leading yourselves astray by your biblical ignorance. You’re mentally wandering. You’ve been cut loose from reality. You’ve been cut loose from reason. You’ve been cut loose from truth. That is why false teachers in Jude 13 are called wandering star PLANAO - 37V- Matt. 18:12; Matt. 18:13; Matt. 22:29; Matt. 24:4; Matt. 24:5; Matt. 24:11; Matt. 24:24; Mk. 12:24; Mk. 12:27; Mk. 13:5; Mk. 13:6; Lk. 21:8; Jn. 7:12; Jn. 7:47; 1 Co. 6:9; 1 Co. 15:33; Gal. 6:7; 2 Tim. 3:13; Tit. 3:3; Heb. 3:10; Heb. 5:2; Heb. 11:38; Jas. 1:16; Jas. 5:19; 1 Pet. 2:25; 2 Pet. 2:15; 1 Jn. 1:8; 1 Jn. 2:26; 1 Jn. 3:7; Rev. 2:20; Rev. 12:9; Rev. 13:14; Rev. 18:23; Rev. 19:20; Rev. 20:3; Rev. 20:8; Rev. 20:10 Some Unanswered Questions - The Scriptures leave many questions about the hereafter unanswered. Do children grow up in heaven? What about the saints with the Lord who do not yet have their resurrection bodies? What is a spiritual body? And of course through the ages bereaved hearts have asked, "Shall we know each other over there?" Of course it has been said many times that surely we shall have as much sense there as we have here! The Sadducees asked our Lord about the woman who had been married seven times: whose wife would she be in the resurrection? He replied; "Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God"? (Mark 12:24). When we know not God's Word nor His power we fall into all kinds of error. Error is grounded in ignorance. Jesus went on to say that in the resurrection we neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels. He was not covering the whole subject of our status in the hereafter and we can read too much into or out of these words. He simply said that angels do not marry and in this respect we shall be like the angels, for earthly relationships do not obtain in the hereafter. This does not necessarily mean that we shall feel exactly the same way toward everybody, a stranger or our dearest loved one. I do not know how God will work it all out and I may be speculating, but I cannot feel that I will react just the same when I see my mother or wife over there as to somebody I never saw before. I know that we shall have new bodies and that old emotions will have been displaced by a new personality appropriate to our heavenly life. But I cannot think that there will be one general uniformity of thought and feeling with no degrees of delight as we meet again those we have loved long since and lost awhile. Our Father will grant us fullest joy, and I am not going to let the problem of one woman with seven husbands spoil my anticipation when I walk the golden streets with the one I loved above all others on earth. Nor do I think that all the residents of that fair city will have the same capacity for enjoyment. The Scriptures teach that some will be beaten with few stripes and some with many and some shall rule over five cities and some over ten. By the same token I cannot believe that heaven will mean no more to faithful saints who walked close to God on earth than to some poor disciple who barely got into heaven saved as by fire with his life gone up in smoke. Just how the Father will do it I do not know, but my joy will not be less there than here and it will be intensified, not toned down to one unvarying pattern. Even this poor world abounds in color and variety and my eternal home will be no monolithic set-up. I still feel that the dearest here will be dearer there in a way I could never know in this world. But I approach it with no trepidation. My Father knows how to do it and five seconds after I arrive all my questions will have disappeared in ecstasy as I take up my abode in the house of the Lord forever (Vance Havner) Matthew 22:30 “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. KJV Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. BGT Matthew 22:30 ἐν γὰρ τῇ ἀναστάσει οὔτε γαμοῦσιν οὔτε γαμίζονται, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἄγγελοι ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ εἰσιν. NET Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. CSB Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like angels in heaven. ESV Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. NIV Matthew 22:30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. NLT Matthew 22:30 For when the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. In this respect they will be like the angels in heaven. NRS Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. NJB Matthew 22:30 For at the resurrection men and women do not marry; no, they are like the angels in heaven. NAB Matthew 22:30 At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven. YLT Matthew 22:30 for in the rising again they do not marry, nor are they given in marriage, but are as messengers of God in heaven. MIT Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection epoch no male marries nor is a woman given in marriage, but everyone resembles the angels of heaven [as singles]. GWN Matthew 22:30 When people come back to life, they don't marry. Rather, they are like the angels in heaven. in the resurrection: Mk 12:24,25 Lu 20:34-36 Jn 5:28,29 1Co 7:29-31 1Jn 3:1,2 but are like angels : Mt 13:43 18:10 Ps 103:20 Zec 3:7 1Jn 3:2 Rev 5:9-11 19:10 THE STATE IN THE FIRST RESURRECTION For (gar) - Term of Explanation. Jesus will explain their error. In the resurrection (anastasis) - In the resurrection refers to the future resurrection of believers (known as the "First Resurrection") not the "Second Resurrection" which is the resurrection that will occur at the Great White Throne judgment when all unbelievers of all time will be resurrected and will stand before Jesus the Righteous Judge (Rev 20:11-15+). In this passage Jesus is referring to the "First Resurrection," the resurrection that will occur in several stages (as summarized in the table below). They neither marry (gameo) nor are given in marriage, but (term of contrast) are like angels (aggelos/angelos - of God - note) in heaven (ouranos) - Note "like" (term of comparison - simile) angels. Glorified men and women will BE angels. Here Jesus deals with their failure to understand the Scriptures which they mistakenly thought taught marriage in the afterlife (even though they did not believe in an afterlife)! Why will they be like the angels? They will be eternal beings. There is no death in heaven, so there is no longer need for procreation to continue the race of mankind! 🙏 THOUGHT - Jesus gives the Biblical truth about marital relationships in heaven which is dramatically different from the more sensual depictions of heaven as propounded in Islamic theology (INCLUDING 72 VIRGINS!) and Mormon theology (cf "Celestial Marriage"). Luke's parallel adds "but those who are considered worthy (kataxioo) to attain to that age ("To share in heaven" "To take part in that future age") and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage." (Lk 20:35+) Summary - Jesus responds to the Sadducees explaining where they are mistaken There will be a resurrection. There will be no marriage relationship as we know it in this life. In some sense we will become like the angels - no procreation, no death Steven
Mateus 22
MacArthur explains - Jesus’ excellent exegetical argument is based on the emphatic present tense of the I am (ego eimi) used in that passage from the Pentateuch. After Abraham and Isaac and Jacob were long dead, the Lord was still their God every bit as much as when they were alive (ED: ON EARTH)—in fact, in many ways even more so, because they had become perfectly sinless and their souls were experiencing the fellowship of His eternal presence. These three patriarchs are singled out, and each is specifically related to God, suggesting His unique personal intimacy with each one. Whether the genitive preposition "OF" refers to God’s belonging to the patriarchs or to their belonging to God, both meanings are true. The present tense is used because God is not the God of the dead but of the living, and if He is presently the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then those men obviously are still alive in another realm. They would also still have to be living so that God could fulfill His promises to them which were not fulfilled during their lifetimes. (SEE Heb. 11:13–16) Jesus had accomplished what the wisest Pharisee or scribe had never been able to do: unequivocally prove the resurrection even from the Pentateuch. And in so doing, “He had put the Sadducees to silence” (Matt. 22:34). (See Matthew Commentary) Lawrence Richards - This is a fascinating passage for any who are uncertain about the integrity and full authority of Scripture. It’s popular with some scholars to assume that the books attributed to Moses are a much later fiction: the name of a mythical Jewish hero, Moses, was attached in the 600 B.C's to give the editors’ invention credibility. With scissors and paste many modern scholars romp through the Old Testament, cut up the Pentateuch and Prophets, and assign this verse to one supposed set of authors, and that to another. How different from the way Jesus viewed the Scriptures. According to Christ, it was Moses who spoke what is recorded in Exodus, and even a seemingly minor thing like the tense of a verb is authoritative. Do the dead really live again? They live now! The God of the Old Testament is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, long after their biological deaths. On this issue of Scripture, I suspect it’s wiser to trust Jesus’ pronouncement than to trust the theories of the self-proclaimed wise men of our day. When we do so, we rejoice in the confidence that we too will live forever with Abraham’s and our God. (Borrow 365 Day Devotional Commentary page 750) Related Resources: The New Testament Use of the Old Testament - Robert Thomas What does it mean that the Bible is inspired? Steven
Mateus 22
MacArthur says "The purpose of this approach is to get Jesus to say something they’re positive will not be in the writings of Moses because they all have concluded that He’s against Moses, He’s anti-Judaism, He’s anti-Moses. He is setting Himself up as some supreme authority. He is saying things that are not like what we hear, what we teach and what we believe. And if they can get Him to elevate Himself above Moses, then the people will be more likely to turn from Him." (Loving God) It is interesting to compare the narrative differences between Matthew and Mark. Matthew notes that the question from the lawyer was meant to test Jesus. Mark presents the scribe in a more favorable light — thoughtful and impressed by Jesus’ answer. Mark even includes Jesus telling him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God” (Mark 12:34). Mark's version of Jesus' interaction with a religious leader seems different from the previous 3 if we read only Mark's version. However Mt 22:34 makes it clear that that the lawyer "asked Him a questions, testing (peirazo cf Mk 12:15+) Him." Notice in Mt 22:34 it speaks of the group of Pharisees and then one which Matthew singles out and calls a lawyer (nomikos) who asks Jesus the question. Mark calls him a scribe. Zodhiates explains that "It may be inferred that “scribes” is a generic name, and the nomikoí, lawyers, are the specialized ones skilled in law and jurisprudence of the Law of Moses." Lawyer (3544) nomikos from nomos - law) means related to the law and generally refers to a legal scholar, an expert in the Mosaiac law, in interpreting Jewish law. The lawyers were, for the most part, the same as the scribes. Some of them were charged with copying the Scriptures. Mostly, however, they were the official interpreters of the more than six hundred commandments in the Torah, as well as teachers of the law and judges of law breakers. These “lawyers” were usually scribes, men who dedicated their lives to meticulously copying the Hebrew Scriptures to preserve them from decay or corruption. Consequently, their constant contact with God’s Word made them extremely knowledgeable, and they would be called upon to explain and apply the Law.
Mateus 22
MacArthur explains why the lawyer would have asked such a relatively simple question - Over the years, the rabbis had supposedly determined that, just as there were 613 separate letters in the Hebrew text of the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments, in the book of Numbers, there were also 613 separate laws in the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses. Such letterism, as it is sometimes called, was extremely popular and was considered to be a valuable exegetical tool for interpreting Scripture. The rabbis had divided those 613 laws into affirmative and negative groups, holding that there were 248 affirmative laws, one for every part of the human body, as they supposed, and 365 negative laws, one for each day of the year. The laws were also divided into heavy and light, the heavy ones being absolutely binding and the light ones less binding. There had never been unanimity, however, as to which laws were heavy and which were light, and the rabbis and scribes spent countless hours proudly debating the merits of their particular divisions and the ranking of laws within the divisions. It was doubtlessly that superficial and fanciful orientation to the law that led them to think Jesus had his own scheme. Because He considered Himself to be the Messiah, they assumed that surely Jesus had devised a system to display His erudition in the law just as they were accustomed to doing. And judging by the lawyer’s single and extremely simple question, they assumed that His naming the one great commandment in the Law would be sufficiently unorthodox to condemn Him. (See Matthew Commentary) Teacher(1320)(didaskalos from didasko = teach to shape will of one being taught by content of what is taught <> cp didaskalía) is one who provides instruction or systematically imparts truth. The teacher teaches in such a way as to shape will of one being taught by content of what is taught. Someone else has said that "The great teacher is the one who turns our ears into eyes so that we can see the truth." Henry Brooks added that "A (Bible) teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops!" Didaskalos refers to Jesus (the Master Teacher) in 41 of 58 NT uses. Richards writes that "Jesus’ teaching focused on shaping the hearers’ perception of God and God’s kingdom, and thus it dealt with the implications of a personal relationship with God. In John’s Gospel, much of Jesus’ public instruction focused on himself and his own place as Son of God." (Expository Dictionary of Bible Words) Mounce makes the point that when the Jewish leaders called Jesus "Teacher", they may not have been sincere "For instance, in Lk 10:25 an expert in the law comes to test Jesus and calls him didaskalos. However, attempts to expose him as a pretender to the title of teacher are unsuccessful and therefore serve to endorse his status as rabbi (Mt 22:46; Mk 12:34; Lk 20:39). (Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words) Power Of Simplicity Then one of the scribes came, and . . . asked Him, “Which is the first commandment of all?” —Mark 12:28 Today's Scripture & Insight: Mark 12:28-34 Few people take time to study the US Internal Revenue Service income tax regulations—and for good reason. According to Forbes magazine, in 2013 tax codes surpassed the four million-word mark. In fact, the tax laws have become so complex that even the experts have a hard time processing all the regulations. It’s burdensome in its complexity. The religious leaders in ancient Israel did the same thing in their relationship with God. They made it too complex with laws. The growing burden of religious regulations had increased to the point where even an expert in Moses’ law struggled to understand its core. When one such leader asked Jesus what mattered most in the Commandments, Jesus responded, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these” (Mark 12:30-31). My Jesus, I love thee, I know thou art mine; for thee all the follies of sin I resign; my gracious Redeemer, my Savior art thou; if ever I loved thee, my Jesus, 'tis now. I love thee because thou hast first loved me and purchased my pardon on Calvary's tree; I love thee for wearing the thorns on thy brow; if ever I loved thee, my Jesus, 'tis now. I'll love thee in life, I will love thee in death, and praise thee as long as thou lendest me breath, and say when the deathdew lies cold on my brow: If ever I loved thee, my Jesus, 'tis now. In mansions of glory and endless delight, I'll ever adore thee in heaven so bright; I'll sing with the glittering crown on my brow: If ever I loved thee, my Jesus, 'tis now. —Featherstone God’s love in our heart gives us a heart for Him and others. No Greater Love Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends. — John 15:13 Today's Scripture: Mark 12:28-34 You can’t show a greater love for people than James Harrison demonstrated. And he did it for people he didn’t even know. Harrison, a member of the Ouachita Baptist University choir, was returning home from Europe with his fellow singers. As their plane was landing in Little Rock, Arkansas, it was hit by heavy rains and high winds. The jet skidded off the runway and hit a bank of lights, ripping open the fuselage. As chaos reigned and flames broke out in the mangled plane, Harrison began to help others. Over and over, he pulled passengers to safety and ran back to the plane for more. On his last trip into the burning wreckage, he was overcome with smoke. He didn’t make it out alive. At his funeral, the choir director quoted John 15:13, “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.” Jesus was really speaking of His own death on our behalf, and the choir leader pointed out the value of this ultimate sacrifice. The more Christ's love within us grows, The more His graciousness outflows; And when we face a fiery test, His love we then will manifest. —Hess In a world that "couldn't care less," Christians should care more. Matthew 22:37 And He said to him, “ ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ KJV Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. BGT Matthew 22:37 ὁ δὲ ἔφη αὐτῷ· ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ καρδίᾳ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ψυχῇ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ διανοίᾳ σου· NET Matthew 22:37 Jesus said to him, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' CSB Matthew 22:37 He said to him, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. ESV Matthew 22:37 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. NIV Matthew 22:37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' NLT Matthew 22:37 Jesus replied, " 'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.' NRS Matthew 22:37 He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' NJB Matthew 22:37 Jesus said to him, 'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. NAB Matthew 22:37 He said to him, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. YLT Matthew 22:37 And Jesus said to him, 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thine understanding -- MIT Matthew 22:37 He replied to him: "Love Yahveh your God completely in your heart, with all your vitality, and in all your thinking. GWN Matthew 22:37 Jesus answered him, " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' Dt 6:5 Dt 10:12 Dt 30:6 Mk 12:29,30,33 Lu 10:27 Ro 8:7 Heb 10:16,17 1Jn 5:2-5 Related Passages: Deuteronomy 6:4-5+ “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart (aheb/ahab) and with all your soul and with all your might. MacArthur on Hebrew word for love (aheb/ahab) - Aheb, the Hebrew word for love used in Deuteronomy 6:5, refers primarily to an act of mind and will, the determined care for the welfare of something or someone. It might well include strong emotion, but its distinguishing characteristics were the dedication and commitment of choice. It is the love that recognizes and chooses to follow that which is righteous, noble, and true, regardless of what one’s feelings in a matter might be. It is the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek agapaō in the New Testament, the verb of intelligent, purposeful, and committed love that is an act of the will. This love is in contrast to the emotion and tender affection of phileō and the physical, sensual love of eros (which is not used in the New Testament). (See Matthew Commentary - Page 339) Deuteronomy 10:12 “Now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require from you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all His ways and love Him, and to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, Deuteronomy 30:6 “Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live. Mark 12:30+ Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; 30 AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.’ THE HEART - THE HEART OF THE COMMANDMENTS And He said to him - If we compare with Mark's version, in Matthew Jesus leaves out the famous Jewish "Shema" (Dt 6:4+) ‘HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD. This is surprising in light of the fact that Matthew tends to be slanted more to a Jewish audience. YOU SHALL LOVE (agapao - carries force of a command) THE LORD (kurios) YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART (kardia), AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL (psuche), AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND (dianoia) - Jesus gives the one commandment that shapes all others, the heart of the commandments that sums up the Law, that fulfills the Law. What's repeated? "Your" (4x)! "All" (3x)! In short Jesus says "Love God with all you are." God is to be loved with all our powers and faculties, and nothing is to be loved more than God. Heart, soul and mind calls for "holistic" love of God, with one's whole being! This is love which flows from one's entire being toward the Eternal Being. Note He is "your" God which speaks of possession. Yes ultimately He possesses us but in an act of amazing grace, we possess Him as our "summum bonum," our highest good. This call to love God calls for a supernaturally enabled unconditional commitment to God from a whole heart. Ultimately the only way a fallen creature can love God like this is by depending on the Holy Spirit to energize that quality of love. This love is not "natural" but is "supernatural." MacArthur - The heart in the Hebrew understanding is the core of a person’s identity; it is the source of all thoughts, words, and actions. For that reason Proverbs 4:23 commands, “Watch over your heart with all diligence, for from it flow the springs of life.” Love for God must flow from the deepest part of a person’s being. Soul adds the emotions. In Matthew 26:38 Jesus said, “My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death,” speaking of His soul as the seat of emotion. Mind embraces the will, the intentions, and purposes. Strength refers to physical energy and function. The intellectual, emotional, volitional, and physical elements of personhood are all involved in loving God. Genuine love for God is an intelligent love, an emotional love, a willing love, and an active love. In short, it is a comprehensive, all-consuming love and singular adoration. God’s wholehearted love for believers must not be reciprocated with half-hearted devotion. (See Mark 9-16 MacArthur New Testament Commentary) Hiebert - Love to God must possess the whole heart, the seat of personality, the whole soul, the self-conscious life, the whole mind, the rational faculties, and the whole strength, the entire active powers of man. (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary) MacArthur on soul (psuche) and Mind (dianoia) - The term soul is closest to what we would call emotion and is the word Jesus used when He cried out in the Garden of Gethsemane the night He was arrested: “My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death” (Matt. 26:38)....Mind (dianoia) is used here in the sense of intellectual, willful vigor and determination, carrying both the meaning of mental endeavor and of strength. Genuine love of the Lord is intelligent, feeling, willing, and serving. It involves thought, sensitivity, intent, and even action where that is possible and appropriate.... I believe that the transforming new creation that takes place at salvation produces a new will, desire, and attitude deep within the person that can best be described as love for God.....The person who truly loves the Lord with all his heart and soul and mind is the person who trusts Him and obeys Him. (See Matthew Commentary - Page 339) Grassmick describes this love as a "a volitional commitment to God that is personal, comprehensive, and wholehearted. This is emphasized by the repeated words with (ex, “out of,” denoting source), all (holēs, “the whole of”), your (sing.), and the various terms relating to the human personality—heart (control center; cf. Mark 7:19), soul (self-conscious life; cf. 8:35–36), mind (thought capacity), and strength (bodily powers). " (See The Bible Knowledge Commentary) Daniel Akin - What is called for is a total response of love and devotion to our Great God. Indeed the four-fold use of heart, soul, mind and strength is not intended as a “psychological analysis of human personality”, but a call to love God wholly and completely. Kent
Mateus 22
MacArthur points out that "The arrogant, prideful scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees did neither; they failed to love either God or their neighbor (as illustrated by Jesus in the Good Samaritan parable). This command must not be twisted into a call for self-love, which is natural; such is not its intent. The Lord’s point is that we are to have the same love and care for neighbors, strangers, and enemies that we possess for ourselves." (See MacArthur Commentary) Love for one’s neighbor means acting toward others with their good, their well-being, their fulfillment, as the primary motivation and goal of our deeds Donald Hagner: The two love commandments belong together, covering the vertical (relationship with God) and the horizontal (relationship with others) dimensions. The first entails the second; the second presupposes and depends on the first. It is obvious, however, that the use of the verb ἀγαπήσεις (lemma - agapao), “you shall love,” does not mean the same thing in both places. In neither case is love construed as an emotion. Love for one’s neighbor means acting toward others with their good, their well-being, their fulfillment, as the primary motivation and goal of our deeds. Such love is constant and takes no regard of the perceived merit or worth of the other person. Love of God, on the other hand, is to be understood as a matter of reverence, commitment, and obedience. It is at once an acknowledgment of his identity as Creator and Redeemer and a reflection of that reality in the ordering of our lives. With this orientation toward God and others, the law and the prophets have reached their ultimate goal. Further concern with commandments, further elaboration of ethical stipulations—these all depend upon the real manifestation of the love commandments for their legitimacy. (See Matthew 14-28, Volume 33B - Page 648) (bold added) Joseph Parker - "Love of God means love of man. Religion is the divine side of philanthropy; philanthropy is the practical side of religion. We must first be right with God, or we never can be right with man. If we begin by endeavouring to get right with our neighbour, we shall fail. But if we begin by establishing right relations with God, according to the conditions which he himself has laid down, we shall find that being right with God our whole life is elevated and all social relationships are redeemed from error, and our neighbour is loved with a lofty and pure charity." (Inheriting Eternal Life ) Gilbrant - The first commandment actually guarantees the second; they cannot be separated. Note that Jesus did not command us to love ourselves. It is assumed throughout the Bible that men love themselves. Love for self caused the fall of both Lucifer and man. Since the Fall, all men love themselves more than anything else until they are born of the Spirit and are filled with the love of God (Romans 5:5). One of the signs of the end times is that men will be "lovers of themselves" to an unusual degree (2 Timothy 3:2)....The fact that these are "thou shalt's" shows that "love" is more than "feelings." It involves one's will (ED: both uses of "shall love" are in active voice = choice of one's will - and I submit we need the Spirit's enablement - see "will" in Php 2:13 and nicely paraphrased in Php 2:13NLT+ ), shown in acts of kindness and mercy. To love is to will the highest eternal good for a person, and to demonstrate it in action. (Complete Biblical Library) Daniel Akin - Some hear the phrase “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” and wrongly think how narcissistic. Jesus, the unselfish one, actually tells me to selfishly love myself. How do we make sense of this? First, there is a healthy kind of self love that is cognizant of the truth that we are the objects both of the “creating” and “redeeming” love of our God. To hate myself is actually an offense to God and calls into question His wisdom and goodness. Second, the love a person naturally 7 has for himself is now “turned out” toward others. The object of my affection and concern moves from me to others (cf. Phil 2:3-5). Third, the fact that this is a command makes clear that the primary focus is on our actions and not our feelings or emotions. Fourth, there is certainly a mysterious paradox in all this, for the same Jesus who tells us to love ourselves also tells us to deny ourselves and die to ourselves (Mark 8:34). In other words the more I truly love myself the more I will deny myself and love others. To love my neighbor as myself means I will serve the needs of others with all the energy, passion and zeal with which I serve and attempt to meet my own needs. However, only by loving my God supremely will I be able to love others, “all others,” genuinely. And, as I love others genuinely I demonstrate that I love my God supremely. No wonder Jesus said, “There is no greater commandment than these.” Akin adds that "Don Carson preached a wonderful sermon at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Feb. 2012 at a large college conference that really helped us see what it means to love others genuinely. He also taught all of us a good lesson in hermeneutics or biblical interpretation. He encouraged us to examine the context in which Lev. 19:18 was located. There you discover that loving your neighbor as yourself means a lot! Among other things it means that you will 1) care for the poor (Lev 19:10), 2) not steal (Lev 19:11), 3) not lie (Lev 19:11), 4) be fair in business dealings (Lev 19:14), 5) care for the deaf (Lev 19:14), 6) care for the blind (Lev 19:14), 7) deal justly with all (Lev 19:15), 8) avoid slander (Lev 19:16), 9) not “jeopardize” (HCSB) the life of your neighbor (Lev 19:16), 10) not “hate your brother in your heart” (Lev 19:17), 11) rebuke your neighbor when necessary for his and your good (Lev 19:17), and 12) not 8 take revenge or bear a grudge against others (Lev 19:18). Wow! God does not leave it to our imaginations as to what He means when He tells us to love our neighbors as yourself. In short, Jesus' two commands summed up the Ten Commandments, the first half of which describes how to love God, while the second half describes how to love one’s neighbor. As noted in John's first letter, clearly love of God (v30) is intimately intertwined with love of man (neighbor) (see 1 Jn 4:20 above). Your neighbor is literally "one who is nearby" and thus describes our fellow man, whoever and wherever we encounter them. It means anyone and everyone we have opportunity to meet in any way! This word (plesion) is "all inclusive." As stated the dynamic in this passage is interesting -- we have no trouble (usually) loving ourselves, but this passage calls on us to love others with the same quality of love! Are you as convicted as I am? Jesus ratcheted this up in Mt 5:43-47 calling for love of our enemies! If you are not convicted now than you are deceiving yourself! Neighbor (Near) (4139)(plesion from pélas = near, near to or from plesios = close by) literally means near (literal use only in Jn 4:5), quite near, nearby = position quite close to another position. Figuratively, plesion means to be near someone and thus be a neighbor. Generally, plesion refers to a fellow man, any other member of the human family. TDNT explains that "Ho plesion" is the "neighbor," the person next to one" then more generally the “fellow human being.” Eight of 17 uses of plesion occur in a citation of or allusion to Leviticus 19:18: “You shall love your neighbor (Hebrew translated in Septuagint with plēsion) as yourself” (Mt 5:43; 19:19; 22:39; Mk 12:31; Luke 10:27; Ro 13:9; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8). It should be noted that the TDNT entry states that "there is allusion to Lev. 19:18 in 12 instances." All uses of plesion - Matt. 5:43; Matt. 19:19; Matt. 22:39; Mk. 12:31; Mk. 12:33; Lk. 10:27; Lk. 10:29; Lk. 10:36; Jn. 4:5; Acts 7:27; Rom. 13:9; Rom. 13:10; Rom. 15:2; Gal. 5:14; Eph. 4:25; Jas. 2:8; Jas. 4:12 Henry Blackaby - Borrow The Experience - Love Those Neighbors Matthew 22:39–40 When you consider Jesus’ audience, his message was revolutionary! The Old Testament Law was everything to the Pharisees; they devoted their entire lives to following the Law to the letter. Now Jesus was telling them that all their efforts were futile unless they loved their neighbors. The Pharisees weren’t in the habit of loving their neighbors; they were actually in the habit of criticizing them, judging them, even pitying them. After all, their neighborhood included some pretty unsavory characters. How could they love prostitutes, beggars, or tax collectors—those traitorous Jews who’d sold out to the Roman government? These were nasty, sinful people. The Pharisees had their standards. God has standards too—high standards. He expects us to treat others exactly as we want to be treated. It’s tempting to avoid those we find hard to love and to stick with people who are more like us. That way we can still be loving, but it doesn’t really put us out. That’s not what Jesus was talking about; he said anyone can do that. God expects us to show love to our neighbors, no matter who they are. Do you find some people impossible to love? Jesus used the word love as a verb—an action word. We like to think of it as a noun—something we have (or don’t have), not something we do. Don’t waste your time considering whether someone is worthy of your love; that’s not your concern. Instead, ask God to help you act lovingly today toward everyone you encounter, even when it’s difficult. John MacArthur- WHO IS YOUR NEIGHBOR? MATTHEW 22:39 Truth for Today: A Daily Touch of God's Grace - Page 231 Jesus answered the Jewish lawyer’s question, “Who is my neighbor?” with the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30–37). In this familiar story, a Jewish man is beaten and left for dead on the road. A compassionate Samaritan rescues the man, even though Samaritans and Jews normally hated one another. The point of the story is that your neighbor is whoever comes across your path with a need. Would you have reacted the way the Samaritan did if you had encountered the injured man along the side of the road? Hopefully you would not have passed him by, as the priest and Levite did in the story. The lesson of the parable is not that you must stop and help everyone who has a flat tire, or that you have to give money to every panhandler you meet. But God wants you to be sensitive to such situations and willing to help if you think your assistance is the only aid the person is likely to receive. In other words, follow the Golden Rule: “‘Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them’” (Matt. 7:12). Question: What does it mean to love your neighbor as you love yourself? | GotQuestions.org Answer: An expert in the law tried to test the Lord Jesus by asking Him to declare what was the greatest commandment in the Law of Moses. In one masterful statement, Jesus condensed the entire law that God had given Moses: “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:37–40). When we read the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, we are struck with the realization that they focus on these two issues. Certainly we are to love God supremely. But what does it mean to love our neighbor as ourselves? Jesus is quoting here from Leviticus 19. Let’s look at its context: “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather every grape of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger: I am the LORD your God. You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another. And you shall not swear by My name falsely, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. You shall not cheat your neighbor, nor rob him. The wages of him who is hired shall not remain with you all night until morning. You shall not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling block before the blind, but shall fear your God: I am the LORD. You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor. You shall not go about as a talebearer among your people; nor shall you take a stand against the life of your neighbor: I am the LORD. You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD” (Leviticus 19:9–18). Notice that loving our neighbor would include sharing with the poor and the alien; compassion and absolute honesty and justice in our relationships with others; impartiality; a refusal to be a party to gossip or slander; an absence of malice toward anyone and a refusal to bear a grudge; taking care never to put another’s life at risk and never taking private vengeance upon another. It is also interesting to note that when we have an issue with anyone, we should strive to make it right by going to him or her directly. James calls this the “royal law” (James 2:8). Our Lord taught that we should do to others as we would have them do to us (Matthew 7:12). It is a fact that anyone who does not have a personal relationship with God through the Lord Jesus Christ will die in his sins and face eternity in hell. Therefore, we owe it to our neighbors to lovingly share with them the good news of the gospel. True believers have been forgiven, possess eternal life, and have blessings forever as the result of others who have shared the gospel with them. God’s love is evidenced in us as we communicate this precious gospel and love others as we have been loved. Question - What does the Bible say about self-love, loving self? | GotQuestions.org Answer: Love as described in the Bible is quite different from the love as espoused by the world. Biblical love is selfless and unconditional, whereas the world’s love is characterized by selfishness. In the following passages, we see that love does not exist apart from God and that true love can only be experienced by one who has experienced God’s own love firsthand: Romans 13:9–10, “The commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not covet,’ and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” John 13:34–35, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” 1 John 4:16–19, “And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. We love because he first loved us.” The statement “love your neighbor as yourself” is not a command to love yourself. It is natural and normal to love yourself—it is our default position. There is no lack of self-love in our world. The command to “love your neighbor as yourself” is essentially telling us to treat other people as well as we treat ourselves. Scripture never commands us to love ourselves; it assumes we already do. In fact, people in their unregenerate condition love themselves too much—that is our problem. (ED: compare 2 Ti 3:2+). In Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan, there was only one who showed himself to be a true neighbor to the man in need: the Samaritan (Luke 10:30–37). There were two others, a priest and a Levite, who refused to help the man in need. Their failure to show love to the injured man was not the result of loving themselves too little; it was the result of loving themselves too much and therefore putting their interests first. The Samaritan showed true love—he gave of his time, resources, and money with no regard for himself. His focus was outward, not inward. Jesus presented this story as an illustration of what it means to love one’s neighbor as one’s self (verse 27). We are to take our eyes off ourselves and care for others. Christian maturity demands it. “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others” (Philippians 2:3–4). According to this passage, loving others requires humility, a valuing of others, and a conscious effort to put others’ interests first. Anything less than this is selfish and vain—and falls short of the standard of Christ. None of this should be taken to mean that we should see ourselves as “worthless.” The Bible teaches that we are created in the image of God, and that fact alone gives us great worth (see Luke 12:7). The balanced, biblical view is that we are God’s unique creation, loved by God in spite of our sin, and redeemed by Christ. In His love, we can love others. We love others based on God’s abiding love for us in Christ. In response to this love, we share it with all whom we come in contact with—our “neighbors.” Someone who is worried that he doesn’t love himself enough has the wrong focus. His concern, biblically, should be his love for God and his love for his neighbor. “Self” is something we want out of the way so that we can love outwardly as we ought. Related Resources: How should a Christian view self-esteem? What does the Bible say about self-worth? What does the Bible say about self-image? Norman Geisler - When Critics Ask - MATTHEW 22:39—Does Jesus want us to love ourself first or others? PROBLEM: Jesus says in Matthew that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. But, if we love ourselves first, before we love our neighbor, then this would be putting self before neighbor. Is Jesus teaching that we should be selfish? SOLUTION: Loving others as we love ourselves can be understood in different ways, but in no way is Jesus implying that we should be selfish. The Bible condemns “lovers of themselves” (2 Tim. 3:2). It exhorts us not to consider only our own interests, but also the interest of others (Phil. 2:4). There are three ways to understand the phrase, “love others as yourself.” First, some believe that Jesus is saying that we ought to love others as we ought to love ourselves, namely, unselfishly. This, however, seems far too subtle and dialectical for Jesus’ normally straight-forward moral assertions. It would have been more forthright to simply say do not be selfish than the tangled command of loving oneself unselfishly. Second, Jesus could have meant that we should love others as we ought to love ourselves, namely, properly. There is a legitimate self-respect or self-love. Ephesians tells us to care for our own bodies, “for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it” (5:28–29). There is nothing wrong with a legitimate self-care and self-respect. The Bible condemns someone for “thinking of himself more highly than he ought,” but urges him to think “soberly” (Rom. 12:3). In this sense, Jesus may be saying love others as you ought to love yourselves. Third, Jesus could have meant that we should love others as much as we do love ourselves. That is, He might have been saying that we should measure how we ought to love others by how we actually do love ourselves without implying that the way we love ourselves is correct. Rather, God may be simply pointing to love for self as the standard by which we should judge how much to love others. In this way, there would be an automatic check on our selfish love, since we would have to love others this much too. The Good Atheist You shall love your neighbor as yourself. —Romans 13:9 When a man learned that an elderly woman could no longer buy her medicine and pay her rent, he came to her rescue. He took her into his home and treated her as if she were his mother. He gave her a bedroom, prepared the food for her meals, bought her medicine, and transported her whenever she needed medical attention. He continued to care for her when she could no longer do much for herself. I was amazed when I learned that this good man was a zealous atheist! The Jews were shocked by Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan, because He put him in a positive light. They despised the Samaritans the way I tend to look down on atheists. A lawyer had tested Jesus by asking how he could inherit eternal life. Jesus asked him what the law said. The man answered that he must love the Lord with all his heart and his neighbor as himself (Luke 10:25-27). He asked Jesus, “Who is my neighbor?” (v.29). In Jesus’ story, the Samaritan was the neighbor who showed kindness to the wounded man. To love my neighbor as myself Is not an easy task, But God will show His love through me If only I will ask. —Sper Needy people need our helping hand. Matthew 22:40 “On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” KJV Matthew 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. BGT Matthew 22:40 ἐν ταύταις ταῖς δυσὶν ἐντολαῖς ὅλος ὁ νόμος κρέμαται καὶ οἱ προφῆται. NET Matthew 22:40 All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments." CSB Matthew 22:40 All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commands." ESV Matthew 22:40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." NIV Matthew 22:40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." NLT Matthew 22:40 The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments." NRS Matthew 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." NJB Matthew 22:40 On these two commandments hang the whole Law, and the Prophets too.' NAB Matthew 22:40 The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments." YLT Matthew 22:40 on these -- the two commands -- all the law and the prophets do hang.' MIT Matthew 22:40 The full application of the law and prophets derives from these two commands!" GWN Matthew 22:40 All of Moses' Teachings and the Prophets depend on these two commandments." BBE Matthew 22:40 On these two rules all the law and the prophets are based. RSV Matthew 22:40 On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets." Mt 7:12 Jn 1:17 Ro 3:19-21 13:9 1Ti 1:5 1Jn 4:7-11,19-21 Jas 2:8 Related Passages: Mark 12:31+ “The second is this, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” Romans 13:8-10+ Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 9 For this, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. LOVE THE HEART OF THE LAW On these two commandments depend (hang - kremannumi) the whole Law and the Prophets (refers to entire OT) - The Law referred to the the Torah (Genesis–Deuteronomy) while the Prophets referred to the prophetic and historical writings (e.g., Isaiah, Jeremiah, Samuel, Kings). In other words these designations in effect refer to all of God’s revealed will in the Hebrew Scriptures. The picture of the verb depend is of a door that swings on two hinges, or a structure hanging from a central beam. These two commandments are like hooks — everything else hangs on them. All the laws in Scripture flow from love -- Laws about worship, justice, mercy, purity, honesty, and community all express love for God or neighbor. You can’t fulfill the Law without love. Even perfect obedience (clearly impossible) to rules without love misses the heart of God’s commandments. On the other hand, love is not a replacement for the Law — it is its fulfillment (cf. Romans 13:8–10). Love for God and others isn’t just part of obedience — it is the essence of it. These two commandments are intimately related to each other. In short, the inevitable proof of our love for God is our love for men (especially fellow believers) (1 John 2:9-10; 3:17; 4:8, 12) Together, these two commandments essentially are a summation of all Ten Commandments, because the first four commandments are all related to love for God while the last six describe features of love for man. Without these two commandments, the Bible is sterile. D. A. Carson: There is no question here of the priority of love over law—i.e., one system over another—but of the priority of love within the law. These two commandments are the greatest because all Scripture “hangs” on them; i.e., nothing in Scripture can cohere or be truly obeyed unless these two are observed. Love is “the primary hermeneutical principle for interpreting and applying the law” (Mohrlang, Matthew and Paul, 95). The entire biblical revelation demands heart religion marked by total allegiance to God, loving him and loving one’s neighbor. Without these two commandments, the Bible is sterile. This pericope prepares the way for the denunciations of Mt 23:1–36 and conforms fully to Jesus’ teaching elsewhere. (See The Expositor's Bible Commentary) To fulfill these commands is to fulfill all others. --Grassmick Paul writes "Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Ro 13:10+) Hiebert adds that "All other commands will be fulfilled to the measure that these two are fulfilled. The first commandment summarizes the first table of the Decalogue (Exod. 20:2–11+), a man’s duties to God, while the second summarizes the second table (Exod. 20:12–17+), man’s duties to his fellow man. Matthew recorded that Jesus went on to say, “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (22:40). The prophetic as well as the legal Scriptures find their inspiration in love. This double love comprehends all righteousness.Thus the essence of the believer’s duty, both godward and manward, is moral and not ceremonial. (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary)
Mateus 22
MacArthur comments on David's Son and David's Lord - No Middle Eastern father would ever under any circumstances call his son “Lord.” That would be to honor and respect on its head. And yet David’s Son is also David’s Lord....This is Jesus' last time to engage the religious leaders of Israel...You would assume that if His conversation with them is the last one, He is going to discuss what is the most important matter, and He does. (David's Son and Lord) Matthew 22:44 ‘THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET”’? KJV Matthew 22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? BGT Matthew 22:44 εἶπεν κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου· κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου, ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν σου; NET Matthew 22:44 'The Lord said to my lord, "Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet"'? CSB Matthew 22:44 The Lord declared to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand until I put Your enemies under Your feet'? ESV Matthew 22:44 "'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet"'? NIV Matthew 22:44 " 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." ' NLT Matthew 22:44 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit in the place of honor at my right hand until I humble your enemies beneath your feet.' NRS Matthew 22:44 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet" '? NJB Matthew 22:44 The Lord declared to my Lord, take your seat at my right hand, till I have made your enemies your footstool? NAB Matthew 22:44 'The Lord said to my lord, "Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies under your feet"'? YLT Matthew 22:44 The Lord said to my lord, Sit at my right hand, till I may make thine enemies thy footstool? MIT Matthew 22:44 Yahveh said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I relegate your enemies under your control. GWN Matthew 22:44 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Take the highest position in heaven until I put your enemies under your control."' The Lord: Ps 110:1 Ac 2:34,35 1Co 15:25 Heb 1:3,13 10:12,13 12:2 my Lord: Jn 20:28 1Co 1:2 Php 3:8 till: Ge 3:15 Ps 2:8,9 21:9 Isa 63:1-6 Lu 19:27 Rev 19:19-21 Rev 20:1-3,11-15 Related Passages: Psalm 110:1+ A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.” Mark 12:36 “David himself said in the Holy Spirit, ‘THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET.”’ Luke 20:42 “For David himself says in the book of Psalms, ‘THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, 43 UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET.”’ DAVID'S LORD THE EXALTED MESSIAH THE LORD (kurios) SAID TO MY LORD (kurios) - Mark 12:36 adds a note on the inspiration of this quote beginning with "David himself said in the Holy Spirit." Luke 20:42+ emphasizes the human author "“For David himself says in the book of Psalms." Jesus is as we might say in a law court, "leading the witnesses," extending s the question so that the inevitable answer one must arrive at from a logical look at Psalm 110. In this psalm in Hebrew it transliterates as "YHWH said to Adonai" — God the Father speaks to David’s Lord (the Messiah). Jesus points out that David calls the Messiah “Lord,” showing the Messiah is greater than David. Then the prhase sit at my right hand the describes a place of honor, authority, and divine rule (cf. Acts 2:33, Hebrews 1:3). Put your enemies beneath your feet which is a picture of complete victory and subjugation of all opposition — often used of a king’s enemies being humiliated or defeated (cf. 1 Cor 15:25). In short, Jesus is not just David’s son — He is David’s Sovereign. The verse testifies to His deity, exaltation, and ultimate victory. ❞ Akin notes that "Psalm 110 is the most quoted psalm in the New Testament. Verse 1, which Jesus cites here, is quoted or alluded to 33 times in the New Testament. Luther so loved the psalm he wrote 120 pages of commentary on it." (Mark 12:28-34 Two Great Commandments, Two Great Loves) Hiebert on Lord...my Lord -- It is clear that both names refer to Persons of the Godhead. It is obvious that the scribes accepted the pictures as messianic; otherwise they would immediately have repudiated the argument of Jesus. While there is no evidence for this interpretation in rabbinic literature until two hundred years later, “the silence is due to anti-Christian polemic stimulated by the freedom with which the Psalm was quoted in the primitive Church.” Aside from this event, the Psalm is quoted directly five times in the New Testament (Acts 2:34–35; Heb. 1:13; 5:6; 7:17, 21), and numerous allusions to the thought contained in it reveal the profound influence it had upon the teaching of the Christian church (cf. 1 Cor. 15:25; Eph. 1:20–22; Phil. 2:9–11; Col. 3:1; Heb. 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22). The Christian church accepted the exaltation and enthronement of the risen Christ as the fulfillment of this prophetic invitation to the Messiah by Jehovah: “Sit thou on my right hand,” assume the place of honor and authority. Till I make thine enemies thy footstool indicates that the enthronement in heaven would follow Messiah’s rejection by His enemies. The Jewish leaders had clearly shown themselves the enemies of Jesus through their efforts during the day. (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary) “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET - The Father decrees that the Son first will sit at His right hand which clearly indicates His deity. The word "until" indicates that the Son will sit for a period unspecified, but after that period is fulfilled (the "until") the Son will conquer His enemies, which is the picture of "enemies beneath" His feet ("YOUR FEET" is the Son's feet). Near and far fulfillment schematic UNTIL - See discussion of this important expression of time. The preposition UNTIL can indicate the time before an event takes place (Ezek 33:22), the time until it takes place (Ps 104:23), or occasionally the time during which an event takes place (2 KI 9:22). It can also “mark a relative limit beyond which the activity of the main clause still continues” as it does in Psalm 112:8. in Psalm 110 UNTIL signifies the time until an event occurs. Stated another way, UNTIL indicates enemies will be active up to a point and then it will not happen. The point that it will not happen is when Jesus reigns over and subjugates all His enemies. Deffinbaugh elaborates on another aspect of UNTIL - "While the Messiah was to share in the power and prestige of Yahweh’s reign, there was a GAP OF TIME indicated between the time of His exaltation (“Sit …”) and His triumph (“UNTIL”). There is both a present and a future dimension to the prophetic oracle of Yahweh. The enemies of the Messiah will, at a later time, be subjected to Him, but not immediately. To make someone “the footstool for their feet” (v. 1c) was to completely subject him (cf. Ps. 8:6; 18:39), an expression probably based upon the practice of military conquerors who placed their feet on the necks of their defeated foes (cf. Josh. 10:24-25). Messiah was elevated to a position of equality with Yahweh, yet the outworking of His power was yet viewed as future." (Ref) (Bold font added) It is interesting to note that Jesus answered the high priest shortly before He went to the Cross - And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.” (Mark 14:62+) We see an allusion to this prophecy in Psalm 2:7-9+ “But as for Me, I have installed My King Upon Zion, My holy mountain.” 7 “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. 8‘Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Your possession. 9 ‘You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like earthenware.’” Peter reiterates this truth in his great evangelistic sermon Acts 2:34-36+ “For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: ‘THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, 35 UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET.”’ 36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ (MESSIAH)–this Jesus whom you crucified.” Paul writes 1 Corinthians 15:24-27+ then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. The writer of Hebrews also affirms this truth Hebrews 10:12; 13+ but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13 waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. TSK - This passage is expressly referred to the Messiah by several of the Jews. Rabbi Joden says, "In the world to come, the Holy Blessed God shall cause the king Messiah to sit at his right hand, as it is written, The Lord said to my Lord," etc. So Rabbi Moses Hadarson; and Saadias Gaon says, "This is Messiah our righteousness, as it is written, The Lord said to my Lord," etc. NET NOTE - The Lord said to my Lord. With David being the speaker, this indicates his respect for his descendant (referred to as my Lord). Jesus was arguing, as the ancient exposition assumed, that the passage is about the Lord’s anointed. The passage looks at an enthronement of this figure and a declaration of honor for him as he takes his place at the side of God. In Jerusalem, the king’s palace was located to the right of the temple to indicate this kind of relationship. Jesus was pressing the language here to get his opponents to reflect on how great Messiah is.