Mateus 22
William Barclay · Citado em PreceptAustin
Mateus 22
Barclay says that when a great social event happened in the Jewish culture of that day, people were invited but without a set time. On the appropriate day, when the host was ready to receive the guests, they sent out messengers to say that all things were ready and it was time to come to the feast. "“So, then, the king in this parable had long ago sent out his invitations; but it was not till everything was prepared that the final summons was issued – and insultingly refused.” (Barclay) John
Mateus 22
Barclay: It reminds us that the things which make people deaf to the invitation of Christ are not necessarily bad in themselves. In the parable, one man went to his estate: the other to his business. They did not go off on a wild binge or an immoral adventure. They went off on the, in itself, excellent task of efficiently administering their business life. It is very easy to be so busy with the things of the present that the things of eternity are forgotten, to be so preoccupied with the things which are seen that the things which are unseen are forgotten, to hear so insistently the claims of the world that the soft invitation of the voice of Christ cannot be heard. The tragedy of life is that it is so often the second bests which shut out the bests, that it is things which are good in themselves which shut out the things that are supreme. We can be so busy making a living that we fail to make a life; we can be so busy with the administration and the organization of life that we forget life itself. One to his own farm (agros), another to his business (merchandise) - They were preoccupied with their personal concerns for profit, their secular activities clearly taking precedence over the royal offer from the king! Imagine being willing to trade a place at the king's table with more time in your dirty field (agros means field)! As the saying goes they were looking out for number one and had no interest in honoring the king. Van Parunak: In the present context, the interpretation is straightforward. Remember from v. 1 that the feast represents the kingdom of heaven. These first verses recall the history of the invitation to the Jewish nation. Throughout the OT, the Lord taught Israel the basic principles of his kingdom. They had an early invitation to enter into it, and were given many clear signs when it should arrive—so much so that in the first century, there were those like Simeon, “waiting for the consolation of Israel” (Luke 2:25), or Anna, who “spake … to all them that looked for redemption in Israel” (Luke 2:38), or Joseph of Arimathea, “who also himself waited for the kingdom of God” (Luke 2:51). Even the pagan wise men, knowing Daniel’s prophecies, recognized that the time was right for the arrival of “the king of the Jews.” During his earthly ministry, the Lord’s focus was on “the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” He told his disciples to go only to these (10:6) and he rebuffed the Canaanite woman on the same grounds (15:24). But these were exceptions. The bulk of the nation rejected the prophets when they brought additional details of the invitation, just as we saw in the previous parable. Now, when the final invitation arrives, announcing that the kingdom of God is at hand, their leaders spurn the king’s son, who will rule over the kingdom. Their behavior is parallel to that of the husbandmen in the previous parable. Paid no attention (neglected) (272) ameleo from "a" = without + melo = to care for, to show concern, forethought or interest) means literally without care and thus showing no concern. To be careless. To be unconcerned about or to care nothing for something or someone. It is to recognize but to ignore, to know but to fail to do, to admit but not to administer. Ameleo describes the opposite attitude or response to the parallel verb prosecho (used in Hebrews 2:1) which calls for one to be in a continuous state of readiness to learn of a danger, need, error, etc, and to respond appropriately. AMELEO - 4V - care(1), neglect(2), paid no attention(1). Matt. 22:5; 1 Tim. 4:14; Heb. 2:3; 8:9 Matthew 22:6 and the rest seized his slaves and mistreated them and killed them. KJV Matthew 22:6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them. BGT Matthew 22:6 οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ κρατήσαντες τοὺς δούλους αὐτοῦ ὕβρισαν καὶ ἀπέκτειναν. NET Matthew 22:6 The rest seized his slaves, insolently mistreated them, and killed them. CSB Matthew 22:6 And the others seized his slaves, treated them outrageously and killed them. ESV Matthew 22:6 while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. NIV Matthew 22:6 The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. NLT Matthew 22:6 Others seized his messengers and insulted them and killed them. NRS Matthew 22:6 while the rest seized his slaves, mistreated them, and killed them. NJB Matthew 22:6 and the rest seized his servants, maltreated them and killed them. NAB Matthew 22:6 The rest laid hold of his servants, mistreated them, and killed them. YLT Matthew 22:6 and the rest, having laid hold on his servants, did insult and slay them. MIT Matthew 22:6 The rest, having seized his couriers, humiliated them, even to the point of killing them. the rest: Mt 5:10-12 10:12-18,22-25 21:35-39 23:34-37 Jn 15:19,20 16:2,3 Ac 4:1-3 5:40,41 7:51-57 8:1 1Th 2:14,15 Related Passages: Luke 8:10+ And He said, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest (loipos) it is in parables, so that SEEING THEY MAY NOT SEE, AND HEARING THEY MAY NOT UNDERSTAND. THE VILE REJECTERS TURN VIOLENT And - While the previous group was indifferent, this group is far from indifferent, their actions showing brazen contempt for the king's offer of grace! the rest (loipos - see use in Lk 8:10+ above) seized (krateo) his slaves (doulos) and mistreated (hubrizo) them and killed (apokteino) them - Who are the rest? Others had just gone back to their secular interests. This word rest (loipos) indicates some individuals were remaining and violently attached the king's couriers. In the context of the nation of Israel this would speak of those who killed the prophets, the "couriers" the King had sent to invite them into the Kingdom of God. It should also be noted that Jesus had just used this same verb krateo in the previous parable, Matthew recording "When they (THE HYPOCRITICAL RELIGIOUS LEADERS) sought to seize (krateo) Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet." (Mt 21:46+) In fact the verb krateo would be used 5 times in Matthew 26 all referring to seizure of Jesus, especially the evil plans of Judas. (Matt. 26:4; Matt. 26:48; Matt. 26:50; Matt. 26:55; Matt. 26:57) And mistreated (hubrizo) them - "Did insult" (YLT), "Humiliated them" (MIT), "Maltreated them" (NJB), "insolently mistreated them" (NET), "treated them outrageously" (CSB), "treated them shamefully" (ESV) And killed (apokteino) them - Mistreated implies they attacked more with words, but killed indicates they attacked with acts! By now the crowd and especially the religious fakers must have been getting an "ear full" of this Greek word killed (apokteino) because Jesus had used it 3 times in the preceding parable of the vine-grower, and it had clearly incited a desire in the religious hacksters to seize Jesus (and ultimately to kill Him) (Mt 21:46+)! In short, this third parable was like Jesus pouring salt on their wounds! Seized (2902) krateo from kratos = strength) has basic meaning be strong or possess power and thus means to take hold of, grasp, hold fast. Krateo is used most often in the sense of “take hold of forcibly” as when Pharisees wanted to “take hold of” Jesus (Mt 21:46; Mark 12:12). Krateō can also mean “hold fast” with the idea of being loyal to or closely united with someone or something. The Pharisees were admonished for holding the traditions of the elders (Mark 7:3ff.), while Christians are encouraged to hold to the traditions of Christianity (2 Th 2:15). (1) take hold of (forcibly), seize, grasp (Mt 9.25); (2) take into custody, seize, arrest (Mt 14.3); (3) take control of, hold (fast) (Acts 2.24); (4) hold back, restrain from, hinder, prevent (Lk 24.16); Mistreated (insulted) (5195) hubrizo from húbris = injury, insult, reproach, arrogance, insolence, ill-treatment. Our English word hubris refers to exaggerated pride or self-confidence) means act with insolence, wantonness, wicked violence, to treat injuriously. To act spitefully toward someone, treat shamefully, and therefore to injure or to abuse. It conveys the idea of treating someone contemptuously in an insolent and arrogant way. Hubrizo expresses insulting and outrageous treatment and especially treatment which is calculated to publicly insult and openly humiliate the victim. Thayer writes that "in Greek usage the mental injury and the wantonness of its infliction being prominent." in Classical Greek "Hubrizō means “to run riot,” especially “in the use of superior strength or power, or in sensual indulgence” (Liddell-Scott; cf. the noun hubris, “wanton violence,” and hubristēs, “a violent person”). Thus, it can mean “to mistreat, to insult,” or passively, “to be arrogant, rude.” The word has the connotation of severity and harshness. In the papyri it occurs at times in connection with a husband’s mistreatment of his wife; the example illustrates the intensity behind hubrizō (Moulton-Milligan; cf. Trench’s comments on hubris; he suggests the motive for hubris is the “pleasure” of the inflicting party [Synonyms of the New Testament, pp.97f.]). (Complete Biblical Library Greek-English Dictionary) Matthew 22:7 “But the king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire. KJV Matthew 22:7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. BGT Matthew 22:7 ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς ὠργίσθη καὶ πέμψας τὰ στρατεύματα αὐτοῦ ἀπώλεσεν τοὺς φονεῖς ἐκείνους καὶ τὴν πόλιν αὐτῶν ἐνέπρησεν. NET Matthew 22:7 The king was furious! He sent his soldiers, and they put those murderers to death and set their city on fire. CSB Matthew 22:7 The king was enraged, so he sent out his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned down their city. ESV Matthew 22:7 The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. NIV Matthew 22:7 The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. NLT Matthew 22:7 "The king was furious, and he sent out his army to destroy the murderers and burn their town. NRS Matthew 22:7 The king was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. NJB Matthew 22:7 The king was furious. He despatched his troops, destroyed those murderers and burnt their town. NAB Matthew 22:7 The king was enraged and sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. YLT Matthew 22:7 'And the king having heard, was wroth, and having sent forth his soldiers, he destroyed those murderers, and their city he set on fire; MIT Matthew 22:7 Then the king, having become furious, sent his militia, executed those murderers, and set their city ablaze. GWN Matthew 22:7 "The king became angry. He sent his soldiers, killed those murderers, and burned their city. he was: Mt 21:40,41 Da 9:26 Zec 14:1,2 Lu 19:27,42-44 21:21,24 1Th 2:16 1Pe 4:17,18 his: De 28:49-68 Isa 10:5-7 13:2-5 Jer 51:20-23 Joe 2:11,25 3:2 Lu 19:27 PATIENT INVITATION TURNS INTO A DECISIVE JUDGMENT But - Term of contrast. Violent treatment of slaves versus vindictive treatment of the violators! The but introduces a turn from patient invitation to decisive judgment. God's grace and patience have their limits and here give way to anger, which should never be equated with human anger, but with perfectly righteous and fully justified anger at persistent refusal of His offer of amazing grace. The king (basileus) was enraged (orgizo), and he sent his armies (strateuma) and destroyed (apollumi) those murderers (phoneus) and set their city on fire - This verse is surely prophetic, picturing the coming judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70, when the Roman armies destroyed the city. Some argue this was not a prophecy of destruction in 70 AD because, while the Temple was burned, the entire city was not burned. Notice that while Jesus has portrayed a king (God) who is slow to anger in Mt 22:3-4, ultimately he is a king who is just and thus passes fair judgment in this verse. The “but” in verse 7 is a hinge word marking the moment when divine mercy gives way to divine justice!
Mateus 22
Barclay on hupokrites - Originally the Greek word hupokrites (Greek #5273) meant one who answers; it then came to be specially connected with the statement and answer, the dialogue, of the stage; and it is the regular Greek word for an actor. It then came to mean an actor in the worse sense of the term, a pretender, one who acts a part, one who wears a mask to cover his true feelings, one who puts on an external show while inwardly his thoughts and feelings are very different. To Jesus the Scribes and Pharisees were men who were acting a part. What he meant was this. Their whole idea of religion consisted in outward observances, the wearing of elaborate phylacteries and tassels, the meticulous observance of the rules and regulations of the Law. But in their hearts there was bitterness and envy and pride and arrogance. To Jesus these Scribes and Pharisees were men who, under a mask of elaborate godliness, concealed hearts in which the most godless feelings and emotions held sway. And that accusation holds good in greater or lesser degree of any man who lives life on the assumption that religion consists in external observances and external acts. There is an unwritten saying of Jesus which says, "The key of the Kingdom they hid." His condemnation of these Scribes and Pharisees is that they are not only failing to enter the Kingdom themselves, they shut the door on the faces of those who seek to enter. What did he mean by this accusation? We have already seen (Matthew 6:10) that the best way to think of the Kingdom is to think of it as a society on earth where God's will is as perfectly done as it is in heaven. To be a citizen of the Kingdom, and to do God's will, are one and the same thing. The Pharisees believed that to do God's will was to observe their thousands of petty rules and regulations; and nothing could be further from that Kingdom whose basic idea is love. When people tried to find entry into the Kingdom the Pharisees presented them with these rules and regulations, which was as good as shutting the door in their faces. The Pharisees preferred their ideas of religion to God's idea of religion. They had forgotten the basic truth that, if a man would teach others, he must himself first listen to God. The gravest danger which any teacher or preacher encounters is that he should erect his own prejudices into universal principles and substitute his own ideas for the truth of God. When he does that he is not a guide, but a barrier, to the Kingdom, for, misled himself, he misleads others. (Matthew 23 - William Barclay's Daily Study Bible) HUPOKRITES - 18V - Matt. 6:2; Matt. 6:5; Matt. 6:16; Matt. 7:5; Matt. 15:7; Matt. 22:18; Matt. 23:13; Matt. 23:14; Matt. 23:15; Matt. 23:23; Matt. 23:25; Matt. 23:27; Matt. 23:29; Matt. 24:51; Mk. 7:6; Lk. 6:42; Lk. 12:56; Lk. 13:15 Matthew 22:19 “Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax.” And they brought Him a denarius. KJV Matthew 22:19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. BGT Matthew 22:19 ἐπιδείξατέ μοι τὸ νόμισμα τοῦ κήνσου. οἱ δὲ προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ δηνάριον. NET Matthew 22:19 Show me the coin used for the tax." So they brought him a denarius. CSB Matthew 22:19 Show Me the coin used for the tax." So they brought Him a denarius. ESV Matthew 22:19 Show me the coin for the tax." And they brought him a denarius. NIV Matthew 22:19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, NLT Matthew 22:19 Here, show me the coin used for the tax." When they handed him a Roman coin, NRS Matthew 22:19 Show me the coin used for the tax." And they brought him a denarius. NJB Matthew 22:19 Show me the money you pay the tax with.' They handed him a denarius, NAB Matthew 22:19 Show me the coin that pays the census tax." Then they handed him the Roman coin. YLT Matthew 22:19 show me the tribute-coin?' and they brought to him a denary; MIT Matthew 22:19 Show me the coin required for the tax." They brought to him a denarius. a penny: "In value sevenpence halfpenny." Mt 18:28 20:2 Rev 6:6 SHOW ME THE MONEY! Show (epideiknumi - aorist imperative - do it now! Don't delay!) Me the coin used for the poll-tax (kensos).” And they brought (prosphero) Him a denarius (denarion) - The coin has the definite article pointing to the specific coin Jews used to pay the poll-tax and had the image of Caesar. The coin itself was in a sense blasphemous for it held an image of the emperor with the words “Divine Caesar,” and “High Priest.” As France says, “The two titles together could hardly be more calculated to offend Jewish piety” (See Kenotic Politics- Page 29).
Mateus 22
Barclay - “Every Christian has a double citizenship (ED: Php 3:20-21+). He is a citizen of the country in which he happens to live. To it he owes many things. He owes the safety against lawless men which only a settled government can give; he owes all public services.” ESV Study (borrow page 1868) note sums up this attempt to trip up Jesus - Jesus is not establishing a political kingdom in opposition to Caesar, so his followers should pay taxes and obey civil laws. There are matters that belong to the realm of civil government, and there are other matters that belong to God’s realm. Jesus does not here specify which matters belong in which realm, but many Christian ethicists today teach that, in general, civil government should allow freedom in matters of religious doctrine, worship, and beliefs about God, and the church should not attempt to use the power of government to enforce allegiance to any specific religious viewpoint. All forms of the Christian church throughout the world today support some kind of separation between matters of church and matters of state. By contrast, totalitarian governments usually try to suppress the church and subsume everything under the realm of the state. And some extreme Islamic movements have tried to abolish independent civil government and subsume everything under the control of Islamic religious leaders. Historically, when the church and state have become too closely aligned, the result most often has been the compromise of the church. TSK - This conclusion is drawn from their own maxims and premises. They held that "wherever the money of any king is current, there the inhabitants acknowledge that king for their lord." Now, by admitting that this was Cesar's coin, and by consenting to receive it as the current coin of their country, they in fact acknowledged their subjection to his government, and of course their obligation to pay the tribute demanded of them. This answer was full of consummate wisdom, and it completely defeated the insidious designs of his enemies. He avoided rendering himself odious to the Jewish people by opposing their notions of liberty, or appearing to pay court to the emperor, without exposing himself to the charge of sedition and disaffection to the Roman government. NET NOTE - Jesus’ answer to give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s was a both/and, not the questioners’ either/or. So he slipped out of their trap. Steven Cole on “Render ... to God the things that are God’s.” - Jesus’ statement implies that just as the Roman coin had Caesar’s image stamped on it and thus rightfully fell under his jurisdiction, so every person has God’s image stamped on him or her and thus rightfully belongs to God. Just as Caesar had sole authority to issue coins stamped with his image, so God is the only one who creates human beings stamped with His image. We owe God our very existence. He rightfully owns us, our possessions, our money, and our time. If we are not yielding ourselves completely to His sovereign lordship, we are disobeying the supreme authority of the universe! By challenging Jesus, these Pharisees and Herodians were guilty of not rendering to God the things that are God’s. They came to Jesus, not to obey Him, but to trap Him. They acted as if they were sincerely interested in His opinion about a moral issue, but they had no intention of obeying what He said. But the only way you can come to Christ is to come honestly, confessing your sins, being willing to obey Him. If you come to contend with Him in order to get your own way, beware! He knows the secret motives of every heart! One day every knee will bow before Him. So the overarching principle is that we must submit all of our lives to the absolute sovereignty of God, the supreme ruler of the universe. He sets up rulers and takes them down according to His will. As Daniel 4 repeats three times, “The Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, and bestows it on whom He wishes” (Da 4:17, 25, 32+). When God’s authority confronts our authority to rule our lives, we must submit to Him or face His judgment. We’ve all got to do business with God who examines our hearts. Don’t risk playing games with Him! It always causes great damage to the cause of Christ when a man who has crusaded against pornography gets caught with a prostitute. We need to judge our hypocrisy and live with integrity before God. A few years ago, the late Senate Chaplain Richard Halverson told about a senator who was speaking at a church men’s dinner. The senator asked how many men believed in prayer in the public schools. Almost every hand went up. He then asked, “How many of you pray daily with your children in your home?” Only a few hands were raised. Ouch! Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. But above all, render to God the things that are God’s. (Guile, Government, and God) McQuilkin - Christ responded to a trick question from the Herodians. He told them that they should "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" (Matt. 22:21). Whole theologies of cultural integration have been built on that enigmatic statement. However, it is plain from the context that Jesus was giving an answer in kind to those who would trap Him with an insincere question. Research into the cultural background indicates that "secular" money was not legitimate as an offering in the Temple. That is why there were money changers in the Temple. Temple offerings had to be made in Temple currency, so there were money exchange banks on the premises. The Herodians were trying to trap Jesus into making an unpatriotic statement. Either He would have to oppose the law of the land, the hated Roman taxation, and thus be unlawful; or He would have to favor the taxation and be a traitor to His own people. In the face of that, He sidestepped the question by indicating that if a coin had a man's name and face on it, it must belong to him! Similarly, Temple coins should be put in the Temple offering, not used to pay Roman taxes. By His answer Jesus remained both a law-abiding subject of Rome and a loyal son of Israel. Profound teaching concerning a cultural mandate to be involved in the affairs of this world will have to be sought elsewhere in Scripture. Hence, the cultural background can help considerably in the understanding of a passage. (See Understanding and Applying the Bible: Revised and Expanded) Render (aorist imperative) (591)(apodidomi from apó = from + didomi = give and so to "give off” from one’s self) literally means to give back, then to put away by giving and then in a more figurative sense to pay back or recompense. To give what is proper and due. APODIDOMI 46V - Matt. 5:26; Matt. 5:33; Matt. 6:4; Matt. 6:6; Matt. 6:18; Matt. 12:36; Matt. 16:27; Matt. 18:25; Matt. 18:26; Matt. 18:28; Matt. 18:29; Matt. 18:30; Matt. 18:34; Matt. 20:8; Matt. 21:41; Matt. 22:21; Matt. 27:58; Mk. 12:17; Lk. 4:20; Lk. 7:42; Lk. 9:42; Lk. 10:35; Lk. 12:59; Lk. 16:2; Lk. 19:8; Lk. 20:25; Acts 4:33; Acts 5:8; Acts 7:9; Acts 19:40; Rom. 2:6; Rom. 12:17; Rom. 13:7; 1 Co. 7:3; 1 Thess. 5:15; 1 Tim. 5:4; 2 Tim. 4:8; 2 Tim. 4:14; Heb. 12:11; Heb. 12:16; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 3:9; 1 Pet. 4:5; Rev. 18:6; Rev. 22:2; Rev. 22:12 Caesar (2541)(kaisar of Latin origin) refers to the emperor of Rome. It was originally a surname of Julius Caesar, later taken as a title by the chief Roman ruler. Zodhiates on Caesar - The title taken by each of the Roman emperors, e.g., Augustus Caesar who reigned when the Lord Jesus was born (Luke 2:1); his successor Tiberius Caesar, who reigned from a.d. 14-37 (Luke 3:1); Claudius Caesar, from a.d. 41-54 (Acts 11:28; 18:2); Nero, under whom Peter and Paul were martyred, a.d. 54-68 (Phil. 4:22); Domitian was Caesar from a.d. 81-96, and under him John was exiled to Patmos. Caesar is mentioned by the Lord Jesus in Luke 20:22-25, both literally as referring to Tiberius Caesar and figuratively as meaning any earthly ruler. The name Caesar came to be used as a symbol of the state in general and is often used in this sense in the NT (Matt. 22:17, 21; Mark 12:14, 16, 17; Luke 20:22, 24, 25). (Borrow The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament ) Walter Kaiser - Render to Caesar? Hard Sayings For many readers of the Gospels this does not seem to be a particularly hard saying. They pay their taxes to the state and give financial support to the church and various forms of religious and charitable action, and consider that this is very much in line with the intention of Jesus’ words. There are others, however, who find in these words material for debate, arguing that their meaning is not at all clear, or else, if it is clear, that it is quite different from what it is usually taken to be. Our first business must be to consider the setting in which the words were spoken. When we have done that, we may realize that some of those who heard them felt that here was a hard saying indeed. Mark, followed by Matthew (Mt 22:15–22) and Luke (Lk 20:19–26), tells how a deputation of Pharisees and Herodians came to Jesus while he was teaching in the temple precincts during his last visit to Jerusalem and, expressing their confidence that he would give them a straight answer, without fear or favor, asked him if it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not. By “lawful” they meant “in accordance with the law of God, the basis of Israel’s corporate life.” Mark says that the questioners planned “to entrap him in his talk” (Mk 12:13 RSV); Luke spells this out more explicitly: their purpose, he says, was to “take hold of what he said, so as to deliver him up to the authority and jurisdiction of the governor” (Lk 20:20 RSV). The governor or prefect of Judea was the representative of Caesar, and any discouragement of the payment of taxes to Caesar would incur sharp retribution from him. It was, indeed, a very delicate question. After Herod the Great, king of the Jews, died in 4 B.C., the Romans divided his kingdom into three parts, giving each to one of his sons. Galilee, where Jesus lived for most of his life, was ruled by Herod Antipas until A.D. 39. Judea, the southern part, with Jerusalem as its capital, was given to Archelaus (compare Mt 2:22). The sons of Herod received taxes from their subjects, as their father Herod had done. The Herods were not popular, but religiously they were Jews, so no religious difficulties stood in the way of paying taxes to them. But Archelaus’s rule in Judea proved to be so oppressive that, after nine years, the Roman emperor removed him to forestall a revolt and reorganized Judea as a Roman province, to be governed by a prefect appointed by himself. From now on the people of Judea were required to pay their taxes to the Roman emperor, Caesar. A census was held in A.D. 6 to determine the amount of tribute the new province was to yield. The Jews had been subject to Gentile overlords for long periods in their history, but no prophet or religious teacher had ever taught in earlier days that there was anything wrong in paying tribute to those overlords. On the contrary, the prophets taught them that if they fell under Gentile domination, this was by God’s permission, and they should acknowledge the divine will by paying tribute to their foreign rulers. But around the time of the census in A.D. 6 a new teaching was spread abroad, to the effect that God alone was Israel’s king, and therefore it was high treason against him for his people to recognize any Gentile ruler by paying him tribute. The principal teacher of this new doctrine was Judas the Galilean, who led a revolt against the Romans (see Acts 5:37). The revolt was crushed, but its ideals lived on, and the propriety of paying taxes to Caesar continued to be a subject for theological debate. It would be generally agreed that Jews in the lands of the Dispersion, living on Gentile territory, should pay taxes in accordance with the laws of the areas where they lived. But the land of Israel was God’s land; this was recognized by its inhabitants when they handed over one-tenth of its produce to the maintenance of his temple in Jerusalem. But the taxes that the Roman emperor demanded were also derived from the produce of God’s land. Was it right for God’s people, living on God’s land, to give a proportion of its produce to a pagan ruler? When the question was framed in those terms, the obvious answer for many was no. What would Jesus say? While he stayed in Galilee the question did not arise; taxes in that region were paid to a Jewish tetrarch. But when he visited Judea, he came to a place where it was a burning question. However he answered it, it would be almost impossible to avoid giving offense. If he said that it was unlawful to pay taxes to Caesar, the Roman governor would get to hear of it and he could be charged with sedition. If he said that it was lawful, he would offend those who maintained the ideals of Judas the Galilean, and many would think him unpatriotic. This would lose him much of his following in Judea. “Bring me a denarius,” said Jesus; “let me look at it.” The denarius was a Roman silver coin; Roman taxes had to be paid in Roman coinage. When a denarius was forthcoming, Jesus asked, “Whose face is this? Whose name is this?” The answer, of course, was “Caesar’s.” Well, said Jesus, the coin which bears Caesar’s face and name is obviously Caesar’s coin; let Caesar have it back. The verb translated “render” has the sense of giving back to someone that which belongs to him. Did he imply that the use of Caesar’s coinage was a tacit acknowledgment of Caesar’s sovereignty? Perhaps he did. There were some Jews whose orthodoxy was such that they would not look at, let alone handle, a coin which bore a human face. Why? Because it was said to infringe the second commandment of the Decalogue, which forbade the making of “any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (Ex 20:4 RSV). Jesus did not necessarily share this attitude—money of any kind was held in little enough regard by him—but there may have been an implication in his words that the Pharisees among his questioners might have appreciated: such coins were unfit for use by people who were so scrupulous about keeping the law of God, and should go back where they came from. Caesar’s coins were best used for paying Caesar’s tribute. If that was what Caesar wanted, let him have it; the claims of God were not transgressed by such use of Caesar’s money. What was really important was to discover what God’s claims were, and see to it that they were met. Once again, he laid primary emphasis on seeking God’s kingdom and righteousness. Some interpreters have discerned more subtle ambiguities in Jesus’ answer, as though, for example, he included in “the things that are God’s” the produce of God’s land and meant that none of it should go to Caesar, not even when it was converted into Roman coinage. But this kind of interpretation would render the whole business about producing a denarius pointless. Certainly his answer would not satisfy those who believed that for Judeans to pay tribute to Caesar was wrong. If some of the bystanders had been led by the manner of his entry into Jerusalem a few days before to expect a declaration of independence from him, they must have been disappointed. And indeed, there seems to have been less enthusiasm for him in Jerusalem at the end of Holy Week than there had been at the beginning. On the other hand, if his questioners hoped that he would compromise himself by his reply, they too were disappointed. He not only avoided the dilemma on the horns of which they wished to impale him, but turned it so as to insist afresh on the central theme of his ministry. (Go to page 407 in Hard Sayings) CIVIL OBEDIENCE Jesus taught that Christians should render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. In this passage, Jesus did not elaborate on all the issues related to a Christian citizen's responsibility to the state, but he did indicate a preference for compliance and civil stability. So . . . Choose your battle carefully. No state is perfect. If you refuse to live with moments of unfairness or bureaucratic hassle, you'll need to live by yourself on an island. Cooperate and support the state as far as faith will take you. Fortunately in democratic countries (unlike Judea in Jesus' time), we can work for peaceful change through speeches, publications, assemblies, boycotts, and media campaigns. There is no need to be a hermit or a rebel. Be wary of radicals on the left and reactionaries on the right. Militia movements have appealed to worried Christians and caused them to become more worried still. Leftist movements have attracted other Christians, who confuse political change with spiritual growth. When resistance is required, pray a lot and take counsel from Christian friends. Citizenship requires compromise, but Christians should not compromise Christ or do injustice before God. (See Matthew - LAC) GOOD TIMING The Pharisees and Herodians thought they could trap Jesus by forcing him to choose between two responsibilities. He stunned them by choosing both. He demonstrated that behind many of our conflicts lies a failure to recognize priorities. Should we give time and attention to our families or our work? Can we communicate our relationship with God through the work we do or by setting our work aside and engaging our fellow workers in conversation? Should we support our church or other worthy causes? According to Jesus' handling of this situation, these problems are issues of timing and priority, not right and wrong. The real challenge for most of us concerns whether or not we are doing what we should be doing at the appropriate time. Citizenship in the kingdom of God doesn't lessen commitments. In fact, it often intensifies them! Marriage duties, parental roles, church involvement, earthly citizenship-all take specific place under God's authority. Make sure your commitment to God stays strong, then all your priorities will be under his authority. (See Matthew - LAC) Question - What did Jesus mean when He said, “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s”? Answer: “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s” is a well-known quote that appears in Matthew 22:21 and is part of Jesus’ response to a joint attempt by the Herodians and Pharisees to make Jesus stumble in front of His own people. The Herodians were a non-religious Jewish party who supported the dynasty of Herod and the general policy of the Roman government. They perceived that Christ’s pure and spiritual teaching and influence were antagonistic to their interests. The Pharisees, on the other hand, were members of an ancient Jewish sect who believed in the strict observance of oral traditions and the written Law of Moses. They didn’t believe that Christ was the Messiah, despite His many miracles during His earthly ministry. Although Herodians and Pharisees were at opposite ends of the political spectrum, their common hatred of Christ was enough for them to join forces to try to destroy Him. Here is the context of Jesus’ command to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”: in Matthew 22 Jesus had just returned to Jerusalem for the final time and recently finished sharing several parables with the crowd. Jesus’ enemies saw an opportunity to put Jesus on the spot in front of His followers. In verse 17, they say to Jesus, “Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” (ESV). It was a trick question, and they knew it. If Jesus answered, “No,” the Herodians would charge Him with treason against Rome. If He said, “Yes,” the Pharisees would accuse Him of disloyalty to the Jewish nation, and He would lose the support of the crowds. To pay taxes or not to pay taxes? The question was designed as a Catch-22. Jesus’ response is nothing short of brilliant: “But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, ‘Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin for the tax.’ And they brought him a denarius” (Matthew 22:18–19ESV). The denarius was a coin used as the tax money at the time. It was made of silver and featured an image of the emperor with an inscription calling him “divine.” The Jews considered such images idolatry, forbidden by the second commandment. This was another reason why, if Jesus answered, “Yes,” He would be in trouble. His acceptance of the tax as “lawful” could have been seen as a rejection of the second commandment, thus casting doubt on His claim to be the Son of God. With the coin displayed in front of them, Jesus said, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” The Herodians and Pharisees, stating the obvious, said, “Caesar’s.” Then Jesus brought an end to their foolish tricks: “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21ESV). Upon hearing this, Jesus’ enemies marveled and went away (verse 22). When Jesus said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” He was drawing a sharp distinction between two kingdoms. There is a kingdom of this world, and Caesar holds power over it. But there is another kingdom, not of this world, and Jesus is King of that (John 18:36). Christians are part of both kingdoms, at least temporarily. Under Caesar, we have certain obligations that involve material things. Under Christ, we have other obligations that involve things eternal. If Caesar demands money, give it to him—it’s only mammon. But make sure you also give God what He demands. Caesar minted coins, as he had a right to do, and he demanded some coins in return, as was his right. After all, his image was stamped on what he had made. God has “minted” the human soul, and He has stamped His image on every one (Genesis 1:27). So give Caesar his due—the temporary stuff of this world—but make sure to give God His due: “Offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness” (Romans 6:13). (Source: GotQuestions.org) Money And Time Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. —Mark 12:17 Today's Scripture: Mark 12:13-17,28-31 During a trip to London, I visited the Bank of England Museum, then made my way to The Clockmakers’ Museum. At some point, it struck me that both money and time have been very important commodities as far back as anyone can remember. Yet they present one of the great dilemmas of life. We trade our valuable time working for money, and then we spend our money to make the most of our time off. We seldom possess the two with any degree of balance. In contrast, our Lord never seemed perplexed by money or time. When asked if it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, Jesus answered: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17). With great demands on His time, Jesus spent early mornings and late nights in prayer, seeking to know and do His Father’s will. Hymnwriter Frances Havergal wrote: Take my life, and let it be Consecrated, Lord, to Thee; Take my moments and my days, Let them flow in ceaseless praise. Take my silver and my gold, Not a mite would I withhold; Take my intellect and use Every power as Thou shalt choose. Spend time and money wisely—they both belong to God. The Alice Tax Having food and clothing, with these we shall be content. — 1 Timothy 6:8 Author Calvin Trillin’s wife, Alice, held a unique view of income tax. She believed that “after a certain level of income, the government would simply take everything.” She thought there should be a limit on how much money people were allowed to keep for themselves. Writing in The New Yorker, Trillin said of his wife, “She believed in the principle of enoughness.” In Mark 12, Jesus avoided a carefully laid trap by telling His questioners to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (v.17). When Jesus watched people making their offerings to the temple treasury, He commended a woman who would have been considered foolish for her extravagance. “This poor widow has put in more than all those who have given to the treasury; for they all put in out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all that she had, her whole livelihood” (vv.43-44). Jesus placed more importance on wholehearted love for God than on wholesale concern over material needs. His tranquil attitude toward money and possessions was based on trusting His Father to supply each day’s needs. “Your Father knows the things you have need of” (Matt. 6:8). He clothes the lilies, feeds the birds; Would He to you, then, pay less heed? Look up to Him with prayerful heart, He will supply your every need. —Renfrow Contentment is not getting what we want but being satisfied with what we have. Related Resources: What does the Bible say about government? What does the Bible say about paying taxes? Matthew 22:22 And hearing this, they were amazed, and leaving Him, they went away. KJV Matthew 22:22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way. BGT Matthew 22:22 καὶ ἀκούσαντες ἐθαύμασαν, καὶ ἀφέντες αὐτὸν ἀπῆλθαν. NET Matthew 22:22 Now when they heard this they were stunned, and they left him and went away. CSB Matthew 22:22 When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left Him and went away. ESV Matthew 22:22 When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away. NIV Matthew 22:22 When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away. NLT Matthew 22:22 His reply amazed them, and they went away. NRS Matthew 22:22 When they heard this, they were amazed; and they left him and went away. NJB Matthew 22:22 When they heard this they were amazed; they left him alone and went away. NAB Matthew 22:22 When they heard this they were amazed, and leaving him they went away. YLT Matthew 22:22 and having heard they wondered, and having left him they went away. MIT Matthew 22:22 When they heard that, they experienced such consternation they gave up on him and went away. they were amazed: Mt 22:33,46 10:16 Pr 26:4,5 Lu 20:25,26 21:15 Ac 6:10 Col 4:6 Related Passages: Luke 20:26+ And they were unable to catch (epilambano - get a grip on, take possession of) Him in a saying in the presence of the people; and being amazed at His answer, they became silent (sigao). AMAZED BUT UNMOVED EXCEPT TO RETREAT And hearing (akouo) this, they were amazed (thaumazo - marveled), and leaving (aphiemi) Him, they went away (aperchomai) - Strike one—the Herodians are out. The Pharisees, however, will be back for a second beating. Their amazement caused them to be "dumbstruck" which means to become so shocked or surprised as to be unable to speak. Luke adds that Jesus in effect shut their mouths! Then they left but they were led by Satan who after the wilderness temptations "departed from Him until an opportune time." (Lk 4:13+) These snakes (brood of vipers - Mt 3:7+, Mt 12:34+, Mt 23:33+) would soon slither back on the scene!. They were unable to trap Him. The debate had come to a sudden end for they had no reply for the truth. They were silenced by the truth, for Jesus' wisdom stunned them. These enemies knew they were defeated and they left in order to "cut their losses." And saddest of all, they were convicted but not converted by Jesus' truth! How many there are who here the truth, are convicted but fail to be converted! I picture these religious leaders scurrying away like a dog with his tail between his legs! They did not have a clue that God's plan for fallen mankind was in full swing and on time. One contemporary British' writer has commented, "The problem with humanity is this: humanity stands at the crossroads, and all of the signposts have fallen down." This aptly portrays the religious leaders of Israel in one sense, that they were at the crossroads of the the event which would soon determine the fate of every soul ever born -- the crucifixion. However, the "signposts" had not fallen down, but had been clearly shown for three years. Their problem was that their spiritual blindness made them unable to see the "signposts." What about you dear reader - all of the signposts point to Jesus as the Savior and Redeemer of the world. Have you seen that He alone is the Way, the Truth and the Life and that no one comes to the Father but through Him?
Mateus 22
Barclay: The most common title of the Messiah was Son of David. Behind it lay the expectation that there would one day come a great prince of the line of David who would shatter Israel’s enemies and lead the people to the conquest of all nations. The Messiah was most commonly thought of in nationalistic, political, military terms of power and glory. This is another attempt by Jesus to alter that conception. . . The clear result of the argument is that it is not adequate to call the Messiah Son of David. He is not David’s son; he is David’s lord. When Jesus healed the blind men, they called him Son of David (Matthew 20:30). When he entered Jerusalem, the crowds hailed him as Son of David (Matthew 21:9). Jesus is here saying: ‘It is not enough to call the Messiah Son of David. It is not enough to think of him as a prince of David’s line and an earthly conqueror. You must go beyond that, for the Messiah is David’s lord.’ What did Jesus mean? He can have meant only one thing – that the true description of him is Son of God. Son of David is not an adequate title; only Son of God will do. And, if that is so, Messiahship is not to be thought of in terms of Davidic conquest, but in terms of divine and sacrificial love. Here, then, Jesus makes his greatest claim. In him, there came not the earthly conqueror who would repeat the military triumphs of David, but the Son of God who would demonstrate the love of God upon his cross. (See The Gospel of Matthew - volume 2) Christ (5547) Christos from chrio = to rub or anoint, consecrate to an office) describes one who has been anointed with oil, one who has been consecrated. The majority of the NT uses refer to Jesus (exceptions = "false Christs" - Mt 24:24, Mk 13:22).Christos describes one who has been anointed, symbolizing appointment to a task. It is used here as the title "Anointed One" and is the Greek synonym for "Messiah." Christos is used in the Septuagint describing everyone anointed with the holy oil, especially the priesthood (Lev. 4:5+, Lev 4:16+) and it is also a name applied to those who were acting as redeemers like Cyrus. Gilbrant writes that "Hamilton suggests a fourfold significance to such anointing (“māshach,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 1:530): (1) separation unto God, (2) authorization by God, (3) divine enablement, and (4) the coming Deliverer. CHRISTOS IN MATTHEW - Matt. 1:1; Matt. 1:16; Matt. 1:17; Matt. 1:18; Matt. 2:4; Matt. 11:2; Matt. 16:16; Matt. 16:20; Matt. 22:42; Matt. 23:10; Matt. 24:5; Matt. 24:23; Matt. 26:63; Matt. 26:68; Matt. 27:17; Matt. 27:22 Related Resource: See Messiah - Anointed One BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW - As will be discussed Psalm 110:1 when properly interpreted shows that the Messiah would be a man (David's son) and would also be God (David's Lord). The Jews then believed Messiah would be human but not God. The Jews of Jesus' day believed Messiah would descend from the line of David. However, because all Jewish genealogy records were destroyed in 70 AD, there is no way a Jew today could even determine if a supposed Messiah was actually a descendant of David! So while Jesus was alive the Jews still had the ability to validate that His lineage was from David on both His father's and mother's side. While there is no Biblical record that His lineage was studied by the religious leaders, there is little doubt that they meticulously reviewed the Temple genealogy records. If they could have proven definitively from these records that Jesus did not fulfill the criterion of origin from the line of David, then they would have used that as evidence to demonstrate He could not possibly have been the Messiah. And not only is there no record of their refutation of His origin from the line of David, there is also not one Biblical record that the religious leaders ever questioned the authenticity of any of Jesus' miraculous works. It would have been difficult, for example, for them to question the miraculous resurrection of Lazarus because everywhere he went he was dramatic proof that Jesus had the power to raise the dead from the grave! Keep these background thoughts in mind as you study Jesus "exposition" on Psalm 110:1 which all the Jews of Jesus' day recognized and fully accepted as being a prophecy of the coming Messiah! Also for reference below is a quote from the Jewish website Judaism 101 which summarizes the belief of modern Jews regarding the idea of the coming Messiah (they do not accept that he has come but that he will come in the future) and note especially that while they mention the Messiah is ""mashiach ben David" (mashiach, Son of David)" they have no genealogy records to prove any future Messiah candidate is actually from David's line! And this is not a minor but a major deficiency, because the Old Testament repeatedly testifies that the Messiah MUST COME FROM THE LINE OF DAVID! Thus you can see the major fallacy inherent in modern Jewish thinking regarding the identity of any prospective Messiah! Quote from Judaism 101 on Identity of the Messiah (this view is apparently generally held by modern orthodox Jews) - The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben David" (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5-my note). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15-my note). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being. It has been said that in every generation, a person is born with the potential to be the mashiach. If the time is right for the messianic age within that person's lifetime, then that person will be the mashiach. But if that person dies before he completes the mission of the mashiach, then that person is not the mashiach....Jews do not believe that Jesus was the mashiach. Assuming that he existed, and assuming that the Christian scriptures are accurate in describing him (both matters that are debatable), he simply did not fulfill the mission of the mashiach as it is described in the biblical passages cited above. Jesus did not do any of the things that the Scriptures said the messiah would do. (Source: Judaism 101) (Bold font added for emphasis) Comment: That last line in bold above is absolutely amazing, ignorant and arrogant! May God's Spirit open the eyes of the blind writers of these words to see that in contrary to their false statement Yeshua fulfilled EVERY Messianic prophecy perfectly including Psalm 110:1 regarding which His first century Jewish hearers made no reply and no refutation (as far as the Biblical record testifies). As an aside, while I am not Jewish, I can personally testify that the Spirit of the Living God used the many truths of Messianic Prophecy in the Old Testament (I was saved in the BSF study of the Minor Prophets!) to clarify in my mind the identify of the NT Jesus and ultimately to cause me to be born again (cf 1 Peter 1:3+). Related Resources: The Jewish Tradition Of Two Messiahs Messianic Prophecies Signs and Wonders - The miracles of Jesus The Miracles Of Jesus The Passion Of Christ: Reflecting On History’s Darkest Hour The Amazing Names of the Messiah Norman Geisler - When Cultists Ask - MATTHEW 22:42—Does this verse support the doctrine of reincarnation, as the Unity School of Christianity argues? MISINTERPRETATION: In Matthew 22:42 Jesus asked the Pharisees, “What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?” The Pharisees responded, “The son of David.” The Unity School of Christianity says this verse indicates that Jesus was a reincarnation of David. CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: “Son of” in Hebrew thinking meant “descendent of” (see Matt. 1:1–17), not “reincarnation of.” This verse indicates that Jesus came from the lineage of David, not that Jesus was a reincarnation of David. Jesus’ birth in the line of David was important, for the Old Testament Scriptures taught that the Messiah had to come from the line of David (2 Sam. 7:12–16; Isa. 9:6–7; 11:1). Reincarnation goes against the whole of Scripture. For example, while the doctrine of reincarnation teaches that people die over and over again until they reach perfection (Nirvana), the Bible teaches that “it is appointed for men to die once, and after this comes judgment” (Heb. 9:27 NASB). Each human being lives once as a mortal on earth, dies once, and then faces judgment. Jesus taught that people decide their eternal destiny in a single lifetime (Matt. 25:46). This is precisely why the apostle Paul emphasized that “now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2). Scripture indicates that at the moment of death believers go into the presence of the Lord (2 Cor. 5:8) and unbelievers go to a place of suffering (Luke 16:19–31), not into another body. From a practical perspective, if the purpose of karma is to rid humanity of its selfish desires, then why has there not been a noticeable improvement in human nature after all the millennia of reincarnations? And how do reincarnationists explain the immense and ever-worsening social and economic problems in India (including widespread poverty, starvation, disease, and horrible suffering), where reincarnation has been systematically taught throughout its history? J J Knapp - What Think Ye of Christ? Mat. 22:42 Observe here a most earnest personal question of great importance, because once we will be judged according to the attitude we have taken in this life concerning that Christ. There is barely anything of any importance or we have a personal opinion about it. The word “I think” lies almost permanently upon our lips. The rumour that comes to us cannot be so strange or we are ready with our judgement. How is it possible that so many withdraw themselves from a positive answer upon the question that concerns our eternal well-being: “What think ye of Christ?” What is our answer upon this soul piercing question? There are many in our times who praise Him as a Teacher in spiritual things, whose wisdom far exceeds that of other people. Certainly, He speaks in the gospel of wonderful things that no eye has seen, no ear heard, and that have not come up in the heart of man. However, if we have no greater expectation of Him, we shall not inherit the salvation despite our respect for His wisdom. There are others who dote upon Him as a heavenly example that we should follow. Certainly, He calls us in His gospel to walk in His footsteps. However, if He is not more to us than this, we face with all our doting love a certain condemnation. What are we to do with a Teacher or an example in the need of our soul when we have need of a Mediator who in His blood redeems us with the holy God? Of a Surety who has paid our debt? Of a Priest who brought the sacrifice of His life to save us from death? Of a King and God who rules us from on high and who leads us in the paths of righteousness? Only if we have this esteem of Christ, oh, not because we were prompted by others, but because the grace of God gave us enlightened eyes to see Him as such a One and to worship Him accordingly, are we safe for time and eternity and do we even have nothing to fear of the judgement. The question: “What think ye of Christ?”can only be answered if this other question is placed beside it: “What think ye of yourself?” Everyone of us turn to himself with this question. What think ye of your heart? If it is pure, you do not need a Christ who washes you in His blood. If, however, it is spotted, you cannot do without this Christ. What think ye of your debt? If you have no debt, a Surety is superfluous. However, if you are burdened with it yourself, you cannot do without Christ. The less you think of yourself, the more you esteem Christ, before whom you kneel down as before the Son of the living God. James Smith - WHAT THINK YE OF CHRIST? MATTHEW 22:42 1. As a Teacher 2. As a Worker 3. As a Sufferer. 4. As a Saviour 5. As a Master 6. As a Friend 7. As a Judge. Robert