Matthew 22:14-34

14 See Mat_20:16.

15-22 Compare Mar_12:13-17; Luk_20:20-26.

15 Fulsome flattery has proven the undoing of many men, and seldom fails to throw them off their guard. The man of God should beware off it, for it is far more dangerous than calumny. But it did not deceive our Lord. Was He true? Was He unafraid to teach the way of God in truth? Was He unmoved by men? Were their wiles transparent to His gaze? If this was so, and it was, they did not believe it. But He soon demonstrated that their flattery was plain fact. He saw through their trap, and not only answered their question but convicted them of one of the crimes which they hoped to fasten on Him. He has shown them how little authority they have. They know their helplessness. They must get Him into conflict with the people or with the government. Then they might manage His destruction. They formulate a leading question. If He says “Yes”, the Pharisees will inform the people and His popularity will be forfeited. If He says “No”, the Herodians will accuse Him to the government and He will be tried for sedition. So He avoids the catch in their question. So long as they accepted the Roman currency they were obliged to acknowledge Rome's ascendency and pay taxes. The use of Roman currency denoted their subjection to Rome. So long as they were subject they should pay. The use of temple currency showed their subjection to God. To Him, also, they should give His due.

23-33 Compare Mar_12:18-27; Luk_20:27-40. See Act_23:8.

23 The Pharisees and Herodians having been silenced, the Sadducees tried their best argument on Him. Like many another theological deduction, it was based on two errors, ignorance of the Scriptures and of the power of God. Yet they sought to find a foundation for it in the law. The principle of error which seemed to give weight to their reasoning is still very widespread. It is the lack of proper apportionment of truth. What Moses said for their guidance in this life is transported into the life to come. Moses did not legislate for the resurrection, especially not in regard to matters which do not reappear in the life that is to be. Let us by all means avoid their methods. Even if we think we can involve some passages of scripture in doubt and ridicule by a course of reasoning or questioning, it proves nothing except our lack of discernment and our ability to confuse things which are clear when left in their own place. Moses made provision that a man's name should not be blotted out of Israel by death (Deu_25:5-6). What possible place can this have in the resurrection, where there is no death? Why provide for a contingency which cannot occur? Furthermore, what ground is there for the idea that the marriage state is resumed in resurrection? Nevertheless, a powerful sect in Israel was built on such flimsy bases!

32 Our Lord is proving the necessity resurrection. Abraham and Isaac and Jacob are dead. God is the God of the dead, if they will not be raised. But He is not the God of the dead. The dead praise not the Lord (Psa_115:17). They know not anything (Ecc_9:5). In death there is no remembrance of Him (Psa_6:5). Apart from resurrection His saints are lost, our faith is vain, we are still in our sins (1Co_15:16-19). The dead have no God. He is the God of the living. There must be a resurrection-which was to be proved (Exo_3:6).

34-36 Compare Mar_12:28; Luk_10:25-28.