Mateus 22

Charles Spurgeon · Citado em PreceptAustin

Mateus 22

Spurgeon reminds us that "Behold is a word of wonder; it is intended to excite admiration. Wherever you see it hung out in Scripture, it is like an ancient sign-board, signifying that there are rich wares within, or like the hands which solid readers have observed in the margin of the older Puritanic books, drawing attention to something particularly worthy of observation." I would add, behold is like a divine highlighter, a divine underlining of an especially striking or important text. It says in effect "Listen up, all ye who would be wise in the ways of Jehovah!" Come (1205) deute is an adverb which means "Come here!" or "Come on!" in the sense of a command or an exhortation. Deute is used with the plural imperative either expressed or more often understood (as in Mt 11:28). For example in Mt 4:19 Jesus says "Follow Me" or more literally "Come you after me" where the adverb deute functions as an aorist imperative, a command to do this now! Deute is used most often by Jesus - Mt 4:19, 11:28, 19:21, Mt 25:34 (When He reigns as King in the Millennium), Mk 1:17, 6:31, 10:21, 18:22, Jn 11:43 (Call to Lazarus), Jn 21:12 (Post-resurrection invitation to His disciples to eat breakfast). DEUTE - 21X/21V - come(9), come away(1), follow*(2). Matt 4:19; 11:28; 19:21; 21:38; 22:4; 25:34; 28:6; Mark 1:17; 6:31; 10:21; 12:7; Luke 18:22; John 4:29; 11:43; 21:12; Acts 7:3, 34; Rom 1:13; Rev 17:1; 19:17; 21:9. Matthew 22:5 “But they paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business, KJV Matthew 22:5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: BGT Matthew 22:5 οἱ δὲ ἀμελήσαντες ἀπῆλθον, ὃς μὲν εἰς τὸν ἴδιον ἀγρόν, ὃς δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν ἐμπορίαν αὐτοῦ· NET Matthew 22:5 But they were indifferent and went away, one to his farm, another to his business. CSB Matthew 22:5 "But they paid no attention and went away, one to his own farm, another to his business. ESV Matthew 22:5 But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, NIV Matthew 22:5 "But they paid no attention and went off--one to his field, another to his business. NLT Matthew 22:5 But the guests he had invited ignored them and went their own way, one to his farm, another to his business. NRS Matthew 22:5 But they made light of it and went away, one to his farm, another to his business, NJB Matthew 22:5 But they were not interested: one went off to his farm, another to his business, NAB Matthew 22:5 Some ignored the invitation and went away, one to his farm, another to his business. YLT Matthew 22:5 and they, having disregarded it, went away, the one to his own field, and the other to his merchandise; MIT Matthew 22:5 But disinterested, they backed off. For instance, one went out into his field and another to his business. they: Ge 19:14 25:34 Ps 106:24,25 Pr 1:7,24,25 Ac 2:13 24:25 Ro 2:4 Heb 2:3 one: Mt 13:22 24:38,39 Lu 14:18-20 17:26-32 Ro 8:6 1Ti 6:9,10 2Ti 3:4 1Jn 2:15,16 DECLINING A GRACIOUS INCREDIBLE INVITATION But - A sad, even tragic term of contrast, contrasting the king's incredible offer which is still turned down! In short the “but” marks a sharp contrast between the king’s gracious invitation (v.4) offering a lavish, prepared wedding banquet and the invited guests’ callous response (v.5) to ignore the offer and give priority to their daily lives instead. And as one can easily discern in this parable about the kingdom of heaven, the king was God and the guests called in the past were God's Chosen People, the Jews (Hos 11:1, Amos 3:2; cp the summation statement - "many are called, but few are chosen." Mt 22:14+). They paid no attention (ameleo) - "were indifferent" (NET), "Made light of it" (KJV), "paid no attention" (CSB), "were not interested" (NJB), "disregarded it" (YLT). The verb ameleo is interesting because it carries the thought that they recognized the offer but ignored it and failed to act on it. Note that the invitation speaks of grace, for they had done absolutely nothing to warrant the king sending them an invitation. Amazing grace indeed! And went their way (aperchomai) - This same verb went...away (aperchomai) is used in the tragic real-life event (in a sense an acting out of the present parable) of the rich young ruler to whom Jesus' gave the following "invitation" -- "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” (Mt 19:21+ - red = 5 commands!) Tragically, Matthew records "But when the young man heard this statement, he went away (aperchomai - same verb describing those passed on the king's invitation) grieving; for he was one who owned much property." (Mt 19:22+) The difference of course is (1) one is a parable and the other a true story and (2) those in parable simply went back to what they doing before, whereas the young ruler at least went away grieving. Unlike those in the parable, the young man clearly was not indifferent to the idea of inheriting eternal life (Mt 19:16+). Spurgeon - “The rebel seemed to say, ‘Let the King do as he likes with his oxen and his fatlings; I am going to look after my farm, or attend to my merchandise.” Grant Osborne: From rudeness they turn to indifference, just walking away (lit., “those who did not care walked away”) from the king’s emissaries. “Paid no attention” (ἀμελήσαντες) connotes not just inattention but also unconcern. They act as if no invitation has come at all and just return to their daily work. . . The mention of “field” and “business” sums up the basic two categories, agriculture and commerce, which thus stand for all the different occupations. Luke 14:18–20 is similar, with the people providing excuses for not coming—buying a field, buying five oxen, and recently getting married. Again, the insult is far greater than we realize. These typify the reaction of the Jewish people to Jesus—rejection and apathy. (See Matthew - Page 799) William

Mateus 22

Spurgeon - He came because he was invited, but he came only in appearance. The banquet was intended to honor the King’s Son, but this man meant nothing of the kind; he was willing to eat the good things set before him, but in his heart there was no love either for the King or his well-beloved Son.”

Mateus 22

Spurgeon - He had, by his action, if not in words, said, ‘I am a free man, and will do as I like.’ So the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him.’ Pinion him; let him never be free again. He had made too free with holy things; he had actively insulted the King.” David

Mateus 22

Spurgeon writes on the image of Christ in us "I have heard it said that the good sculptor, whenever he sees a suitable block of marble, firmly believes that there is a statue concealed within it, and that his business is but to take away the superfluous material, and so unveil the “thing of beauty,” which shall be “a joy for ever.” Believer, you are that block of marble; you have been quarried by divine grace, and set apart for the Master’s service, but we cannot see the image of Christ in you yet as we could wish; true, there are some traces of it, some dim outlines of what is to be; it is for you, with the chisel and the mallet, with constant endeavour and holy dependence upon God, to work out that image of Christ in yourself, till you shall be discovered to be by all men like unto your Lord and Master., “The life of Jesus will be manifested in your bodies that Christ would be formed in you.” (cf 2 Cor 4:10) Amazed (2296) thaumazo from thauma [from thaomai = to wonder] = wonder, admiration) means to wonder, marvel, be struck with admiration or astonishment. To be surprised by the unexpected. Thaumazo describes the human response when confronted by divine revelation in some form (Mt 9.33). Be surprised (Gal 1:6). It denotes incredulous surprise. Thaumazo was a rhetorical device used in law courts and politics to attack things done by the opposition party. NIDNTT on Thaumazo in Classic Greek - The word-group associated with thauma is found in Gk. from the 8th and 7th centuries, to designate that which by its appearance arouses astonishment and amazement. The root is cognate with theaomai, to look at. TDNT on Classic Greek uses - The group has first the sense of astonishment, whether critical or inquisitive, then admiration, with a nuance of awe or fear at what is unusual or mysterious, e.g., miracles or oracles in religion, also magical acts or media, and certain phenomena (prior to their explanation) in philosophy. THAUMAZO 43V - am amazed(1), amazed(15), amazement(1), astonished(3), being amazed(1), flattering(1), marvel(4), marveled(5), marveling(2), surprised(2), wonder(2), wondered(4), wondering(2). Matt. 8:10; Matt. 8:27; Matt. 9:33; Matt. 15:31; Matt. 21:20; Matt. 22:22; Matt. 27:14; Mk. 5:20; Mk. 6:6; Mk. 15:5; Mk. 15:44; Lk. 1:21; Lk. 1:63; Lk. 2:18; Lk. 2:33; Lk. 4:22; Lk. 7:9; Lk. 8:25; Lk. 9:43; Lk. 11:14; Lk. 11:38; Lk. 20:26; Lk. 24:12; Lk. 24:41; Jn. 3:7; Jn. 4:27; Jn. 5:20; Jn. 5:28; Jn. 7:15; Jn. 7:21; Acts 2:7; Acts 3:12; Acts 4:13; Acts 7:31; Acts 13:41; Gal. 1:6; 2 Thess. 1:10; 1 Jn. 3:13; Jude 1:16; Rev. 13:3; Rev. 17:6; Rev. 17:7; Rev. 17:8 Matthew 22:23 On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him, KJV Matthew 22:23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, BGT Matthew 22:23 Ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ προσῆλθον αὐτῷ Σαδδουκαῖοι, λέγοντες μὴ εἶναι ἀνάστασιν, καὶ ἐπηρώτησαν αὐτὸν NET Matthew 22:23 The same day Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to him and asked him, CSB Matthew 22:23 The same day some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came up to Him and questioned Him: ESV Matthew 22:23 The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question, NIV Matthew 22:23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. NLT Matthew 22:23 That same day Jesus was approached by some Sadducees-- religious leaders who say there is no resurrection from the dead. They posed this question: NRS Matthew 22:23 The same day some Sadducees came to him, saying there is no resurrection; and they asked him a question, saying, NJB Matthew 22:23 That day some Sadducees -- who deny that there is a resurrection -- approached him and they put this question to him, NAB Matthew 22:23 On that day Sadducees approached him, saying that there is no resurrection. They put this question to him, YLT Matthew 22:23 In that day there came near to him Sadducees, who are saying there is not a rising again, and they questioned him, saying, MIT Matthew 22:23 On that day the Sadducees, who expect no resurrection of the dead, approached him. GWN Matthew 22:23 On that day some Sadducees, who say that people will never come back to life, came to Jesus. They asked him, On that day: Mk 12:18-27 Lu 20:27-40 the Sadducees: Mt 3:7 16:6 Ac 4:1 5:17 23:6-8 who say: 1Co 15:12-14 2Ti 2:18 Parallel passages in synoptic Gospels - Mt 22:23–33; Mk 12:18–27; Lk 20:27–40 Related Passages: Acts 23:6-8+ But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!” 7 As he said this, there occurred a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. On that day some Sadducees (saddoukaios) (who say there is no resurrection [anastasis]) came to (proserchomai0 Jesus and questioned (eperotao) Him - And as you have likely heard, since they do not believe in a resurrection that is why they were "sad you see!" (Get it?) Alan Carr: The Sadducees controlled all the buying and selling that went on at the Temple. Thus, they were angry with Jesus because He had interrupted their business enterprises when He cleansed the Temple, Mark 11:12-19. When the Temple was destroyed in AD 70 so the Sadducees disappeared from history. NET NOTE - The Sadducees controlled the official political structures of Judaism at this time, being the majority members of the Sanhedrin. They were known as extremely strict on law and order issues (Josephus, J. W. 2.8.2 [2.119], 2.8.14 [2.164–166]; Ant. 13.5.9 [13.171–173], 13.10.6 [13.293–298], 18.1.2 [18.11], 18.1.4 [18.16–17], 20.9.1 [20.199]; Life 2 [10–11]). See also Matt 16:1–12; 22:23–34; Mark 12:18–27; Luke 20:27–38; Acts 5:17; 23:6–8. Matthew Henry Concise Mt 22:23-33. The doctrines of Christ displeased the infidel Sadducees, as well as the Pharisees and Herodians. He carried the great truths of the resurrection and a future state, further than they had yet been reveled. There is no arguing from the state of things in this world, as to what will take place hereafter. Let truth be set in a clear light, and it appears in full strength. Having thus silenced them, our Lord proceeded to show the truth of the doctrine of the resurrection from the books of Moses. God declared to Moses that he was the God of the patriarchs, who had died long before; this shows that they were then in a state of being, capable of enjoying his favour, and proves that the doctrine of the resurrection is clearly taught in the Old Testament as well as in the New. But this doctrine was kept for a more full revelation, after the resurrection of Christ, who was the first-fruits of them that slept. All errors arise from not knowing the Scriptures and the power of God. In this world death takes away one after another, and so ends all earthly hopes, joys, sorrows, and connexions. How wretched are those who look for nothing better beyond the grave! Daniel Akin has an interesting (understatement) introduction to this section writing "There is a playful saying that teachers of the Bible will often cite: “If you want to build a big crowd then teach on “sex” or “the end times.” And, if you want to build a really big crowd then teach on “sex in the end times!”” 2) Interestingly, that very issue was raised by a group of religious leaders who did not even believe in the end times, who rejected outright any doctrine of life after death. They are known in the Bible as the Sadducees. 3) The question of life after death has always fascinated humans, especially the religious. Every religion has some perspective on the issue though they vary widely in what they believe. Recent surveys point out the 80% of Americans believe in some form of life after death, with another 9% saying it may be true but that they were not sure. 4) Christianity has always had a strong doctrine concerning life after death, even if we had to admit to a good bit of mystery on the precise details. There is nothing surprising about this, after all we build our understanding of the future, end times and eternity from the teachings of Jesus, an empty tomb, and a resurrected and living Savior. The Bible tells us a lot but it does not tell us everything. 5) In this passage we will see how Jesus countered the troubling riddle of the Sadducees and demolished their theology and doctrine of annihilation. In the process, we will allow additional scriptures and theological reflection to help us craft a healthy perspective on what we can expect for the future. For those who know and trust Christ for salvation one thing is certain: it is all good! (Will There Be Sex in Heaven?) The Sadducees did not accept the OT passages that teach a future resurrection and a quick scan of the passages reveals the most likely reason they did not accept the following passages. Why not? Because none are taken from the Torah which was their primary authoritative source. Jesus would soon crush their absurd argument with Scripture from the Torah! Job 19:25-27 (probably the oldest book in the Bible indicating belief in resurrection from ancient times) “As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, And at the last He will take His stand on the earth. 26 “Even after my skin is destroyed, Yet from my flesh I shall see God; 27 Whom I myself shall behold, And whom my eyes will see and not another. My heart faints within me! Comment - A site I respect feels this is not a resurrection passage, but I disagree. Daniel Akin agrees that "The doctrine of resurrection finds Old Testament support in places like Job 19:25-27; Psalm 16:9-11; and Daniel 12:2." Psalm 16:9-11+ (A Messianic Psalm) Therefore my heart is glad and my glory rejoices; My flesh also will dwell securely. 10 For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay. 11 You will make known to me the path of life; In Your presence is fullness of joy; In Your right hand there are pleasures forever. Comment: Psalm 16:10 is quoted by Peter in Acts 2:27+ in his first sermon to the Jews after Pentecost as a prophecy that was fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Peter states clearly that David did not fulfill the promise of this psalm (Acts 2:29+). (Read the full context - Acts 2:22-27+ and compare Acts 13:33-35+) Gotquestions - The resurrection of the Messiah is strongly implied in another Davidic psalm. Again, this is Psalm 22. In verses 19–21, the suffering Savior prays for deliverance “from the lion’s mouth” (a metaphor for Satan). This desperate prayer is then followed immediately in verses 22–24 by a hymn of praise in which the Messiah thanks God for hearing His prayer and delivering Him. The resurrection of the Messiah is clearly implied between the ending of the prayer in verse 21 and the beginning of the praise song in verse 22. Psalm 49:15+ But God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol, For He will receive me. Selah. Isaiah 53:10-11+ But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring (CLEARLY IMPLIES HE WOULD LIVE AFTER BEING RENDERED AS A GUILT OFFERING), He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. 11 As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. Comment: And back again to Isaiah 53: after prophesying that the Suffering Servant of God would suffer for the sins of His people, the prophet says He would then be “cut off out of the land of the living.” But Isaiah then states that He (Messiah) “will see His offspring” and that God the Father will “prolong His days” (Isaiah 53:5, 8, 10). Isaiah proceeds to reaffirm the promise of the resurrection in different words: “As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see light and be satisfied” (Isaiah 53:11). (Scriptures prophesy resurrection of Messiah) Isaiah 26:19 Your dead will live; Their corpses will rise. You who lie in the dust, awake and shout for joy, For your dew is as the dew of the dawn, And the earth will give birth to the departed spirits. Daniel 12:2+ “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. Daniel 12:13+ “But as for you (DANIEL), go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion (REWARD SURELY ALLUDED TO IN Da 12:3+) at the end of the age.” Comment: When will Daniel be resurrected (and the other OT saints)? This passage says at the end of the age (see timing of resurrections). We are still in that same age now and it will be brought to an abrupt end when Messiah returns at His Second Coming, defeats all opposition (Gentile and Jew) and sets up His Millennial Kingdom. Sadducees (4523) saddoukaios is one of the four major sects of Judaism and were in opposition to the Pharisees and Essences (the Zealots were the fourth sect). Sadducees were the religious and political liberals of the day and made up most of priests and their primary concerns were for the operation of the temple and the interpretation of the Law. They were fewer in number than their major rivals, the Pharisees (who had more influence on the people), but they were more influential and all the high priests of that day were from this sect (cf Acts 5:17) and presided over the Sanhedrin or Jewish "supreme court." The Sadducees were men of position and often wealthy landowners (aristocrats). The irony is that while they were the dominant religious force in Israel, they were worldly minded, materialistic secularists with little genuine interest in religion. They generally were against any opposition to Rome for fear that it would jeopardize their political position and wealth. John records "Therefore the chief priests (SADDUCEES) and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, “What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs. 48“If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” (Jn 11:47-48) The Sadducees were not many in number; but they were the wealthy, the aristocratic, and the governing class.” (Barclay) Akin's excellent summary of the Sadducees - A small sect of the priestly families. - Wealthy aristocrats with significant political/temple influences. They dominated the Sanhedrin (cf. Acts 5:17). - Sympathetic to Hellenism, the Herods and Rome. - Considered only the books of Moses (Pentateuch) as authoritative. In a sense this made them theological conservatives. - Had a strong doctrine of human free will. - Did not believe in angels and demons (Acts 23:8). - Were not looking for a Messiah-King from David’s line. - Did not believe in the immortality of the soul. - Did not believe in a future bodily resurrection. Josephus said, “The doctrine of the Sadducees is this: souls die with bodies.” (Antiquites, 18:1, 4 - INTERESTING NOTE AS HE DISCUSSES PHARISEES IN 18:3). - With the total destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70, their center of power, and political influence came to an end and they vanished from history. (Will There Be Sex in Heaven?)

Mateus 22

Spurgeon - Probably, this was one of the stock stories they were in the habit of telling in order to cast ridicule upon the resurrection. NET NOTE - A quotation from Deut 25:5. This practice is called levirate marriage (see also Ruth 4:1–12; Mishnah, m. Yevamot; Josephus, Ant. 4.8.23 [4.254–256]). The levirate law is described in Deut 25:5–10. The brother of a man who died without a son had an obligation to marry his brother’s widow. This served several purposes: It provided for the widow in a society where a widow with no children to care for her would be reduced to begging, and it preserved the name of the deceased, who would be regarded as the legal father of the first son produced from that marriage. Daniel Akin has a related note on the background of the Sadducee's question - It was grounded in the issue of “levirate (Latin for “brother-in-law”) marriage” mentioned in Genesis 38:8-10 and Ruth, and explained in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 which says, “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’ Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him, and if he persists, saying, ‘I do not wish to take her,’ then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face. And she shall answer and say, ‘So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’ And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, ‘The house of him who had his sandal pulled off.’” The gist of the issue is therefore this: God made a provision for a family to be raised up in name and property rights for a husband who dies with no male heir. You have to love the way the Bible describes this! The Sadducees took this teaching and created what we call a reductio ad absurdum argument, an argument that reduces things to the absurd or the ridiculous. A man marries a woman and he dies. Fortunately (or “unfortunately”) he has 7 brothers who can step in and fulfill the levirate obligation. Tragically, she married each one and each one, all 7, died without bearing a child. Now, since the Pharisees and most rabbis believe the world to come is basically an improved and better one like this world, which therefore would include things like marriage, to whom then will she be married? Assuming monogamy which is a given, which one will have her in marriage with its privileges “in the resurrection” (v. 23), in the world to come? Such a scenario is clearly unthinkable and it shows the foolishness of believing in a future resurrection. Look at all the problems it could potentially cause. No, God is too smart for that and the books of Moses which are the undisputed Word of God make no mention of a future resurrection. Interestingly Jesus has already spoken of his own resurrection 3 times (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34). The Sadducees think they have him, but they are headed toward a big disappointment. Matthew 22:25 “Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother; KJV Matthew 22:25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: BGT Matthew 22:25 ἦσαν δὲ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἑπτὰ ἀδελφοί· καὶ ὁ πρῶτος γήμας ἐτελεύτησεν, καὶ μὴ ἔχων σπέρμα ἀφῆκεν τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ· NET Matthew 22:25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children he left his wife to his brother. CSB Matthew 22:25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first got married and died. Having no offspring, he left his wife to his brother. ESV Matthew 22:25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother. NIV Matthew 22:25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. NLT Matthew 22:25 Well, suppose there were seven brothers. The oldest one married and then died without children, so his brother married the widow. NRS Matthew 22:25 Now there were seven brothers among us; the first married, and died childless, leaving the widow to his brother. NJB Matthew 22:25 Now we had a case involving seven brothers; the first married and then died without children, leaving his wife to his brother; NAB Matthew 22:25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died and, having no descendants, left his wife to his brother. YLT Matthew 22:25 'And there were with us seven brothers, and the first having married did die, and not having seed, he left his wife to his brother; MIT Matthew 22:25 There were among us seven brothers. The oldest died after he was married. Not having seed (i.e., children), he left his wife to his brother. GWN Matthew 22:25 There were seven brothers among us. The first married and died. Since he had no children, he left his widow to his brother. Mk 12:19-23 Lu 20:29-33 Heb 9:27 Related Passages: Mark 12:20+ “There were seven brothers; and the first took a wife, and died leaving no children. Luke 20:29+ “Now there were seven brothers; and the first took a wife and died childless; Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother - This was apparently the "trump card" for the Sadducees against the Pharisees who believed in resurrection and it was one no Pharisee had ever been able to adequately answer. So they knew that now they could throw this curve ball at Jesus and He would be stumped. You can just imagine their sense of "Gotcha Now Jesus" mentality that stirred their prideful hearts as they began this question which takes up six verses (including the Scripture they quoted above) of the inspired Word of God! We know Jesus was filled with the Spirit for He was very patient to let them finish their lengthy question. Hiebert on having no children - All seven brothers successively fulfilled their duty to marry their brother’s wife, but the seven left no seed. This childlessness left none of them with a superior claim to be her husband in the resurrection. (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary) Stevenson - The question presupposes a situation in which there are seven brothers. The oldest is married, but before his marriage can produce any children, he dies. According to Jewish Law, it is now the responsibility of the second brother to have a child by that wife and to raise the child as the heir of the first brother (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). And so, he marries her, but dies before there are any children. And so it goes with the third and the fourth and the fifth and the sixth and the seventh. By this time, I think that I would be a bit suspicious of the woman. But she eventually dies, too. Matthew 22:26 so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh. KJV Matthew 22:26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. BGT Matthew 22:26 ὁμοίως καὶ ὁ δεύτερος καὶ ὁ τρίτος ἕως τῶν ἑπτά. NET Matthew 22:26 The second did the same, and the third, down to the seventh. CSB Matthew 22:26 The same happened to the second also, and the third, and so to all seven. ESV Matthew 22:26 So too the second and third, down to the seventh. NIV Matthew 22:26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. NLT Matthew 22:26 But the second brother also died, and the third brother married her. This continued with all seven of them. NRS Matthew 22:26 The second did the same, so also the third, down to the seventh. NJB Matthew 22:26 the same thing happened with the second and third and so on to the seventh, NAB Matthew 22:26 The same happened with the second and the third, through all seven. YLT Matthew 22:26 in like manner also the second, and the third, unto the seventh, MIT Matthew 22:26 The same sequence of events transpired with the second brother, the third, and all of them including the seventh. GWN Matthew 22:26 The second brother also died, as well as the third, and the rest of the seven brothers. seventh: Luke 20:31 so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh - Matthew lumps all the husbands into one verse! One would have thought that after the third had died, all would have viewed her as a consummate widow maker and avoided her like the plague! But this is just an absurd story (See Reductio ad absurdum)! Matthew 22:27 “Last of all, the woman died. KJV Matthew 22:27 And last of all the woman died also. BGT Matthew 22:27 ὕστερον δὲ πάντων ἀπέθανεν ἡ γυνή. NET Matthew 22:27 Last of all, the woman died. CSB Matthew 22:27 Then last of all the woman died. ESV Matthew 22:27 After them all, the woman died. NIV Matthew 22:27 Finally, the woman died. NLT Matthew 22:27 Last of all, the woman also died. NRS Matthew 22:27 Last of all, the woman herself died. NJB Matthew 22:27 and then last of all the woman herself died. NAB Matthew 22:27 Finally the woman died. YLT Matthew 22:27 and last of all died also the woman; MIT Matthew 22:27 Last of all the woman died. THE WIDOW IS DEAD Last of all, the woman died - And everyone took a deep breath, thanking God that the "widow maker" has passed! Matthew 22:28 “In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her.” KJV Matthew 22:28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. BGT Matthew 22:28 ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει οὖν τίνος τῶν ἑπτὰ ἔσται γυνή; πάντες γὰρ ἔσχον αὐτήν· NET Matthew 22:28 In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her." CSB Matthew 22:28 In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will she be of the seven? For they all had married her." ESV Matthew 22:28 In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her." NIV Matthew 22:28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?" NLT Matthew 22:28 So tell us, whose wife will she be in the resurrection? For all seven were married to her." NRS Matthew 22:28 In the resurrection, then, whose wife of the seven will she be? For all of them had married her." NJB Matthew 22:28 Now at the resurrection, whose wife among the seven will she be, since she had been married to them all?' NAB Matthew 22:28 Now at the resurrection, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had been married to her." YLT Matthew 22:28 therefore in the rising again, of which of the seven shall she be wife -- for all had her?' MIT Matthew 22:28 Therefore, in the resurrection whose wife of the seven will she be, for they all had her?" GWN Matthew 22:28 Now, when the dead come back to life, whose wife will she be? All seven brothers had been married to her." Related Passages: Mark 12:23+ "In the resurrection, when they rise again, which one's wife will she be? For all seven had married her." Luke 20:33+ “In the resurrection therefore, which one’s wife will she be? For all seven had married her.” WHOSE WIFE WILL SHE BE? In the resurrection (anastasis), therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her - Matthew lumps all seven husbands into one verse. Of course, Jesus immediately proceeds (Mt 22:29-30) to correct their erroneous presupposition by pointing out that there is a marked distinction between life in this age and life in that age which is to come (resurrection life). Stevenson - Do you see what the Sadducees are doing? They are not asking this question because they are actually worried about this situation. They are asking it because they think that the question shows a flaw in the whole teaching about the resurrection. They expect Jesus to stutter and stammer and get red in the face so that they can laugh at Him. But he does nothing of the sort. D A Carson makes a good point that the Sadducees question was based on their presupposition "that resurrection life is an exact counterpart to earthly life; and if so, the resurrected woman must be guilty of incestuous marriages or arbitrarily designated the wife of one of the brothers. And if so, which one? Or—and this is the answer the Sadducees pressed for—the whole notion of resurrection is absurd." (Borrow The Expositor's Bible Commentary - 1994 edition - Abridged - New Testament) The argument that the Sadducees are employing is what is commonly known as Reductio ad absurdum, which is "Latin for "reduction to absurdity" "a form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible." In the present context the goal of the Sadducees is the former, that is, to disprove the resurrection by showing that this belief inevitably would lead one to come to an absurd, even impossible conclusion. In other words they are attempting to show that the resurrection cannot be true because the implications of that belief are absurd or ridiculous in the case of the woman with seven former husbands! Imagine the scene in heaven! Whose wife is she going to be? And remember also that since none of them would die (it's heaven), the scene would be utter chaos (a state of extreme confusion and disorder in a place that was supposed to be just the opposite! Just imagine all these people wandering around heaven trying to discover who their wife is or who their husband is!). This would be absolutely absurd! It simply could not occur they reason. And then the logical conclusion is that there is not such a thing as the resurrection because there was no way the Law of Levirate marriage in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 could be fulfilled! And so the Sadducees thought they had Jesus this time, for this argument had never failed when they had used it to stump their rivals the Pharisees who believed in the resurrection. As an aside, although the story of the Sadducees seems a bit ridiculous, their question is not merely theoretical for there will be many in heaven who have had more than one spouse, for any number of reasons. But as Jesus will go on to explain, multiple spouses, bitter divorces, jealousies, etc will (thank God), not be relevant in the life to come! That's good news! Matthew 22:29 But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. KJV Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. BGT Matthew 22:29 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· πλανᾶσθε μὴ εἰδότες τὰς γραφὰς μηδὲ τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ θεοῦ· NET Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered them, "You are deceived, because you don't know the scriptures or the power of God. CSB Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered them, "You are deceived, because you don't know the Scriptures or the power of God. ESV Matthew 22:29 But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. NIV Matthew 22:29 Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. NLT Matthew 22:29 Jesus replied, "Your mistake is that you don't know the Scriptures, and you don't know the power of God. NRS Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God. NJB Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered them, 'You are wrong, because you understand neither the scriptures nor the power of God. NAB Matthew 22:29 Jesus said to them in reply, "You are misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God. YLT Matthew 22:29 And Jesus answering said to them, 'Ye go astray, not knowing the Writings, nor the power of God; MIT Matthew 22:29 Jesus replied to them: "Your error derives from your neither knowing the Scriptures nor God's power. GWN Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered, "You're mistaken because you don't know the Scriptures or God's power. not: Job 19:25-27 Ps 16:9-11 17:15 49:14,15 73:25,26 Isa 25:8 26:19 Isa 57:1,2 Da 12:2,3 Ho 13:14 Lu 24:44-47 Jn 20:9 Ro 15:4 nor: Ge 18:14 Jer 32:17 Lu 1:37 Ac 26:8 Php 3:21 Related Passages: Luke 20:34+ Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, JESUS EXPOSES THE ERRORS OF THE SADDUCEES But Jesus answered and said to them - And so Jesus first points out that the Sadducees have made a major mistake in assuming that (future) that age (Lk 20:35+) is simply a continuation of this age. He proceeds to describe how they differ, especially regarding marriage. In Luke 20, Jesus deals with their not understanding God’s power in verses Lu 20:34-36+ and with their not understanding the Scriptures in verses Lu 20:37-38. "Theological error must be confronted quickly and clearly. That is exactly what Jesus does with the skeptical and cynical Sadducees." (Akin) You are mistaken (planao - present tense - continually) - Jesus gives two reasons their question is absurd and non-Scriptural. Steven

Mateus 22

Spurgeon - The angelic life Matthew 22:30 (full sermon The Angelic Life) We shall be like the angels in heavenliness. Here we come to the vital meaning of the text. They are not married or given in marriage; they have other things to think of, and they have other cares and other enjoyments; they mind not earthly things, but are of a heavenly spirit. So is it with the blessed spirits before the throne. To eat and drink, to be clothed—these are things which fret their minds no more. To keep the house, to maintain the children, to thrust the wolf from the door—such anxieties never trouble celestial spirits. Brethren, this is one of the things which makes the great change so desirable to us, that after death our thoughts, our cares, our position, our desires and our joys will all be in God. Here we want externals, here we seek after carnal things; for we must eat and drink, and be clothed and housed. Here we must be somewhat hampered by the grosser elements of this poor materialism, but up yonder they have no needs like our own; they consequently have no desires of an earthly kind; their desires are all concerning their God. No creature drags them downward. They are free to bow before the Creator and to think alone of him, to ‘Plunge into the Godhead’s deepest sea, And bathe in his immensity.’ What a deliverance that must be! If now for a minute or two we soar to sublimer things and climb as upon the top of Pisgah to look down upon the world, we are called to descend again into the valley amid the noise and dust of the battle; but there for ever and ever we shall abide in the loftiness of heavenly things, absorbed with the glory which shall then be revealed. Norman Geisler - When Critics Ask - MATTHEW 22:30—Will we be like angels (spirits) in heaven, beings without physical bodies? PROBLEM: Jesus said that in the resurrection we will be “like the angels of God” (Matt. 22:30). But angels have no physical bodies—they are spirits (Heb. 1:14). Thus, it is argued that we will have no physical bodies in the resurrection. This, however, is contradictory to those verses that claim there will be a resurrection of the physical body from the grave (John 5:28–29; Luke 24:39). SOLUTION: Jesus did not say that we would be like angels in that they are spirits, but like them in that they do not marry. Two observations are relevant here. First of all, the context is not talking about the nature of the resurrection body, but whether or not there will be marriage in heaven. The question Jesus answered with this statement was, “In the resurrection, whose wife of the seven [husbands she had] will she be, for they all had her?” (22:28) Jesus’ reply was that, like angels, there will be no marriage in heaven. So the woman will not be married to any of these seven husbands in heaven. But Jesus said nothing here about having immaterial bodies in heaven. Such a conclusion is totally unwarranted by the context. Second, when Jesus said “in the resurrection … [they] are like angels of God,” He obviously meant like angels in that they will “neither marry nor are given in marriage” (v. 30). He did not say they would be like angels in that they would have no physical bodies. Rather, they would be like angels in that they would be without sexual propagation. David Thompson: What do other religions say about the afterlife? - Mormons: say you go to 1 of 3 kingdoms based on approval of Joseph Smith - Hindus: Reincarnated based on your works - Muslims, Islam -- Die and go to a pleasure palace; if you die a martyr you get 72 virgins - Indians: you need to be buried with your bow and arrows as you go to your Happy and Holy Hunting Ground - Egyptians: be buried with things you can take with you into eternity - Some Greeks: bury with a coin in mouth so you can pay the fee to cross into the land of the afterlife Religious people just make it up as they go and people believe it; bunch of crazy views Important to understand what the Scriptures teach about the afterlife. Henrietta Mears - There is an old hymn that says, “I want to be an angel and with the angels stand.” (Here is the vocal version) Do you want to be an angel when you die? If you do, I am afraid you are never going to make it. God has something much better for you than being an angel. God’s children will reign with Him; angels serve Him. Statements like the words of the hymn quoted above have given a very wrong idea of just what angels are. People have an idea that those who have died have been given a pair of wings and a harp and now are angels. This is a common mistake and it is not what the Scriptures teach. It is true that all Christians who die trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior are in His presence in heaven, but they are not angels. The Bible teaches that angels are a distinct class of beings who have never been human beings. They are ministering spirits (see Heb. 1:14+). Our Lord said that human beings after they die and rise from the dead “are like angels of God in heaven” (Mt 22:30) in the matter of marriage and giving in marriage. This shows that human beings in heaven are like angels in this respect, but they are not angels. Know this: Christians will no more become angels when they die than they will become birds or fish. Believers in Christ are called saints; they are never called angels in the Bible. (God's Plan: Finding Yourself in His Grand Design) Marriage In Heaven When they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. —Mark 12:25 Today's Scripture: Mark 12:18-27 When I was a student at a Christian high school, I knew a professor whose wife had died. Later he married the widow of his best friend. One day a student asked him,“Will your first wife know about your second marriage when you see her in heaven, and if so, how do you think she’ll react?”The professor smiled and said,“ Of course she will, and because she will be perfect she will not be jealous. Even though we will not live as marriage partners, I believe we will know each other. We will all be the best of friends forever.” In Mark 12, we read about some enemies of Jesus who invented a story about a woman whose husband died and left no son. Under Jewish law, the brother of the deceased had to marry the widow for the purpose of having a son (Deuteronomy 25:5). According to their story, this happened with seven brothers. Jesus’ detractors asked,“When they rise, whose wife will she be?”He said they neither understood the Scriptures nor God’s power to raise the dead to a glorious new existence without marriage. The love we’ve known while here below In heaven will find its highest joy, For we will know Christ’s perfect love That memories cannot destroy. —D. De Haan The pleasures of earth cannot compare to the joys of heaven. 🙏 THOUGHT - Do you really believe this? What difference should it make in your ongoing battle with lust? Be motivated to press on the power of the Spirit, for the glory of the Lamb, by pondering the following quote from one of America's greatest theologians. Jonathan Edwards wrote that in heaven "the glorified spiritual bodies of the saints shall be filled with pleasures of the most exquisite kind that such refined bodies are capable of….The sweetness and pleasure that shall be in the mind, shall put the spirits of the body into such a motion as shall cause a sweet sensation throughout the body, infinitely excelling any sensual pleasure here.” Excursus: The Order of Resurrections There are several resurrection “events” which transpire in history, each of which falls into one of two categories. All but the last resurrection event make up the FIRST RESURRECTION. The point is that you want to participate in the FIRST RESURRECTION! The SECOND RESURRECTION is at the Great While Throne where all will be thrown into the Lake of Fire Click here for more explanation of this table from Tony Garland. See related discussion on the two Resurrections - "First" and "Second" - charted out. Order Which Timing Who Description Scriptures 1 First The Third Day Jesus Christ The resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, the “firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.” Mt. 28:1-7; Mk 16:1-11; Lk 24:1-12; Jn 20:1-18; 1 Cor. 15:20 2 First Shortly after Christ’s Resurrection. A Few OT Saints At the earthquake attending the crucifixion, graves were opened. Shortly after the resurrection of Christ, these saints were raised Mt. 27:50-53 3 First Before the Tribulation. Church The resurrection of Church-age believers at the Rapture. Jn 14:3; 1Th. 4:13-18; 1Cor. 15:50-53 4 First Middle of the Tribulation Two Witnesses God’s two witnesses will be raised after being killed by The Beast. Rev. 11:11-12 5 First After Jacob’s Trouble or Great Tribulation OT Saints Old Testament saints will be resurrected to enter the Millennial Kingdom Da 12:1-2 Isa 26:19; Ezek 37:13-14 6 First Beginning of Millennial Kingdom. Tribulation Martyrs The Tribulation martyrs will be resurrected so that they can rule and reign with Christ. Rev. 20:4-6 7 Second End of Millennial Kingdom Unbelieving Dead At the end of the millennial reign of Christ, the final resurrection will consist of all of the unbelieving, wicked dead. They will be found guilty at the Great White Throne Judgment and cast into the Lake of Fire. Rev. 20:11-15 Matthew 22:31 “But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: KJV Matthew 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, BGT Matthew 22:31 περὶ δὲ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑμῖν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ λέγοντος· NET Matthew 22:31 Now as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, CSB Matthew 22:31 Now concerning the resurrection of the dead, haven't you read what was spoken to you by God: ESV Matthew 22:31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: NIV Matthew 22:31 But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you, NLT Matthew 22:31 "But now, as to whether there will be a resurrection of the dead-- haven't you ever read about this in the Scriptures? Long after Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had died, God said, NRS Matthew 22:31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, NJB Matthew 22:31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you never read what God himself said to you: NAB Matthew 22:31 And concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, YLT Matthew 22:31 'And concerning the rising again of the dead, did ye not read that which was spoken to you by God, saying, MIT Matthew 22:31 Now as far as the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what God says to you? — GWN Matthew 22:31 Haven't you read what God told you about the dead coming back to life? He said, have: Mt 9:13 12:3,7 21:16,42 But regarding the resurrection (anastasis) of the dead (nekros), have you not read (anaginosko) what was spoken to you by God - Jesus questions these religious experts again using the Scripture, showing us a good pattern to imitate when dealing with skeptics. Notice Jesus emphasizes that the Scripture is the actual words spoken...by God. David

Mateus 22

Spurgeon - “The living God is the God of living men; and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are still alive and identified as the same persons who lived on earth.” Luke's version records the reaction to Jesus' reply to the Sadducees... Luke 20:39+ Some of the scribes answered and said, “Teacher, You have spoken well.” 40 For they did not have courage to question Him any longer about anything. John

Mateus 22

Spurgeon - Morning and Evening - “What think ye of Christ?” —Matthew 22:42 The great test of your soul’s health is, What think you of Christ? Is he to you “fairer than the children of men”—“the chief among ten thousand”—the “altogether lovely”? Wherever Christ is thus esteemed, all the faculties of the spiritual man exercise themselves with energy. I will judge of your piety by this barometer: does Christ stand high or low with you? If you have thought little of Christ, if you have been content to live without his presence, if you have cared little for his honour, if you have been neglectful of his laws, then I know that your soul is sick—God grant that it may not be sick unto death! But if the first thought of your spirit has been, how can I honour Jesus? If the daily desire of your soul has been, “O that I knew where I might find him!” I tell you that you may have a thousand infirmities, and even scarcely know whether you are a child of God at all, and yet I am persuaded, beyond a doubt, that you are safe, since Jesus is great in your esteem. I care not for thy rags, what thinkest thou of his royal apparel? I care not for thy wounds, though they bleed in torrents, what thinkest thou of his wounds? are they like glittering rubies in thine esteem? I think none the less of thee, though thou liest like Lazarus on the dunghill, and the dogs do lick thee—I judge thee not by thy poverty: what thinkest thou of the King in his beauty? Has he a glorious high throne in thy heart? Wouldest thou set him higher if thou couldest? Wouldest thou be willing to die if thou couldest but add another trumpet to the strain which proclaims his praise? Ah! then it is well with thee. Whatever thou mayest think of thyself, if Christ be great to thee, thou shalt be with him ere long. “Though all the world my choice deride, Yet Jesus shall my portion be; For I am pleased with none beside, The fairest of the fair is he” C H Spurgeon - Questions of the day and the question of the day (Full sermon Questions of the Day and the Question of the Day) ‘What think ye of Christ?’ Matthew 22:42 ‘Unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s;’ to maintain order, to repress crime, to preserve individual liberty, to protect each man’s rights, this is Caesar’s business. To teach us religion? Is Caesar to do that? God forbid, for what religion will Caesar teach us? Is he a Pagan? He will enforce idolatry. Is he a Papist? He will ordain Popery. Is he an atheist? He will establish infidelity. Remember the days of Queen Mary and see what Caesar is capable of when he meddles with religion. It is none of Caesar’s business to deal with our consciences, neither will we ever obey Caesar in any matter which touches conscience. He may make what laws he will about religion, but by our loyalty to God we pour contempt on Caesar when he usurps the place of God. He is no more to us than the meanest beggar in the street if he goes beyond his legitimate authority. To Caesar, Caesar’s; politics to politicians; obedience, cheerful and prompt, to civil rulers: to God, and to God only, the things that are God’s; and what are these? Our hearts, our souls, our consciences. Man himself is the coin upon which God has stamped his image and superscription (though, alas, both are sadly marred), and we must render to God our manhood, our wills, our thoughts, our judgments, our minds, our hearts. Consciences are for God. Any law that touches a conscience is null and void ipso facto, for the simple reason that kings and parliaments have no right to interfere in the realm of conscience. Conscience is under law to none but God. We do not believe in liberty of conscience towards God. We are bound towards him to believe what he tells us and to do what he bids us; but liberty of conscience in respect to all mankind is the natural right of every man of woman born, and it ought to be tenderly respected. D L Moody - WHAT THINK YE OF CHRIST? What think ye of Christ?—Matt. 22:42. I SUPPOSE there is no one here who has not thought more or less about Christ. You have heard about Him, and read about Him, and heard men preach about Him. For eighteen hundred years men have been talking about Him and thinking about Him; and some have their minds made up about who He is, and doubtless some have not. And altho all these years have rolled away, this question comes up, addresst to each of us, to-day, “What think ye of Christ?” I do not know why it should not be thought a proper question for one man to put to another. If I were to ask you what you think of any of your prominent men, you would already have your mind made up about him. If I were to ask you what you thought of your noble queen, you would speak right out and tell me your opinion in a minute. If I were to ask about your prime minister, you would tell me freely what you had for or against him. And why should not people make up their minds about the Lord Jesus Christ, and take their stand for or against Him? If you think well of Him, why not speak well of Him and range yourselves on His side? And if you think ill of Him, and believe Him to be an impostor, and that He did not die to save the world, why not lift up your voice and say you are against Him? It would be a happy day for Christianity if men would just take sides—if we could know positively who is really for Him and who is against Him. It is of very little importance what the world thinks of any one else. The queen and the statesman, the peers and the princes, must soon be gone. Yes; it matters little, comparatively, what we think of them. Their lives can only interest a few; but every living soul on the face of the earth is concerned with this Man. The question for the world is, “What think ye of Christ?” I do not ask you what you think of the Established Church, or of the Presbyterians, or the Baptists, or the Roman Catholics; I do not ask you what you think of this minister-or that, of this doctrine or that; but I want to ask you what you think of the living person of Christ? I should like to ask, Was He really the Son of God—the great God-Man? Did He leave heaven and come down to this world for a purpose? Was it really to seek and to save? I should like to begin with the manger, and to follow Him up through the thirty-three years He was here upon earth. I should ask you what you think of His coming into this world and being born in a manger when it might have been a palace; why He left the grandeur and the glory of heaven, and the royal retinue of angels; why He passed by palaces and crowns and dominion and came down here alone. I should like to ask you what you think of Him as a teacher. He spake as never man spake. I should like to take Him up as a preacher. I should like to bring you to that mountain-side, that we might listen to the words as they fall from His gentle lips. Talk about the preachers of the present day! I would rather a thousand times be five minutes at the feet of Christ than listen a lifetime to all the wise men in the world. He used just to hang truth upon anything. Yonder is a sower, a fox, a bird, and He just gathers the truth around them, so that you cannot see a fox, a sower, or a bird, without thinking what Jesus said. Yonder is a lily of the valley; you cannot see it without thinking of His words, “They toil not, neither do they spin.” He makes the little sparrow chirping in the air preach to us. How fresh those wonderful sermons are, how they live to-day! How we love to tell them to our children, how the children love to hear! “Tell me a story about Jesus,” how often we hear it; how the little ones love His sermons! No story-book in the world will ever interest them like the stories that He told. And yet how profound He was; how He puzzled the wise men; how the scribes and the Pharisees would never fathom Him! Oh, do you not think He was a wonderful preacher? I should like to ask you what you think of Him as a physician. A man would soon have a reputation as a doctor if he could cure as Christ did. No case was ever brought to Him but what He was a match for. He had but to speak the word, and disease fled before Him. Here comes a man covered with leprosy. “Lord, if thou wilt thou canst make me clean,” he cried. “I will,” says the Great Physician, and in an instant the leprosy is gone. The world has hospitals for incurable diseases; but there were no incurable diseases with Him. Now, see Him in the little home at Bethany, binding up the wounded hearts of Martha and Mary, and tell me what you think of Him as a comforter. He is a husband to the widow and a father to the fatherless. The weary may find a resting-place upon that breast, and the friendless may reckon Him their friend. He never varies, He never fails, He never dies. His sympathy is ever fresh, His love is ever free. Oh, widow and orphans, oh, sorrowing and mourning, will you not thank God for Christ the comforter? But these are not the points I wish to take up. Let us go to those who knew Christ, and ask what they thought of Him. If you want to find out what a man is nowadays, you inquire about him from those who know him best. I do not wish to be partial; we will go to His enemies, and to His friends. We will ask them, What think ye of Christ? We will ask His friends and His enemies. If we only went to those who liked Him, you would say: “Oh, he is so blind; he thinks so much of the man that he can‘t see His faults. You can’t get anything out of him unless it be in His favor; it is a one-sided affair altogether.” So we shall go in the first place to His enemies, to those who hated Him, persecuted Him, curst and slew Him. I shall put you in the jury-box, and call upon them to tell us what they think of Him. First, among the witnesses, let us call upon the Pharisees. We know how they hated Him. Let us put a few questions to them. “Come, Pharisees, tell us what you have against the Son of God, What do you think of Christ?” Hear what they say! “This man receiveth sinners.” What an argument to bring against Him! Why, it is the very thing that makes us love Him. It is the glory of the gospel. He receives sinners. If He had not, what would have become of us? Have you nothing more to bring against Him than this? Why, it is one of the greatest compliments that was ever paid Him. Once more: when He was hanging on the tree, you had this to say to Him, “He saved others, but He could not save Himself and save us too.” So He laid down His own life for yours and mine. Yes, Pharisees, you have told the truth for once in your lives! He saved others. He died for others. He was a ransom for many; so it is quite true what you think of Him—He saved others, Himself He cannot save. Now, let us call upon Caiaphas. Let him stand up here in his flowing robes; let us ask him for his evidence. “Caiaphas, you were chief priest when Christ was tried; you were president of the Sanhedrin; you were in the council-chamber when they found Him guilty; you yourself condemned Him. Tell us; what did the witnesses say? On what grounds did you judge Him? What testimony was brought against Him?” “He hath spoken blasphemy,” says Caiaphas. “He said, ‘Hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.’ When I heard that, I found Him guilty of blasphemy; I rent my mantle and condemned Him to death.” Yes, all that they had against Him was that He was the Son of God; and they slew Him for the promise of His coming for His bride! Now let us summon Pilate. Let him enter the witness-box. “Pilate, this man was brought before you; you examined Him; you talked with Him face to face; what think you of Christ?” “I find no fault in him,” says Pilate. “He said he was the King of the Jews [just as He wrote it over the cross]; but I find no fault in him.” Such is the testimony of the man who examined Him! And, as He stands there, the center of a Jewish mob, there comes along a man elbowing his way in haste. He rushes up to Pilate, and, thrusting out his hand, gives him a message. He tears it open; his face turns pale as he reads—“Have thou nothing to do with this just man, for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.” It is from Pilate’s wife—her testimony to Christ. You want to know what His enemies thought of Him? You want to know what a heathen thought? Well, here it is, “no fault in him”; and the wife of a heathen, “this just man.” And now, look—in comes Judas. He ought to make a good witness. Let us address him. “Come, tell us, Judas, what think ye of Christ? You knew the Master well; you sold Him for thirty pieces of silver; you betrayed Him with a kiss; you saw Him perform those miracles; you were with Him in Jerusalem. In Bethany, when He summoned up Lazarus, you were there. What think you of Him? I can see him as he comes into the presence of the chief priests; I can hear the money ring as he dashes it upon the table, “I have betrayed innocent blood!” Here is the man who betrayed Him, and this is what he thinks of Him! Yes, those who were guilty of His death put their testimony on record that He was an innocent man. Let us take the centurion who was present at the execution. He had charge of the Roman soldiers. He told them to make Him carry His cross; he had given orders for the nails to be driven into His feet and hands, for the spear to be thrust in His side. Let the centurion come forward. “Centurion, you had charge of the executioners; you saw that the order for His death was carried out; you saw Him die; you heard Him speak upon the cross. Tell us, what think you of Christ?” Hark! Look at him; he is smiting his breast as he cries, “Truly, this was the son of God!” I might go to the thief upon the cross, and ask what he thought of Him. At first he railed upon Him and reviled Him. But then he thought better of it: “This man hath done nothing amiss,” he says. I might go further. I might summon the very devils themselves and ask them for their testimony. Have they anything to say of Him? Why, the very devils called Him the Son of God! In Mark we have the unclean spirit crying, “Jesus, thou Son of the most high God.” Men say, “Oh, I believe Christ to be the Son of God, and because I believe it intellectually I shall be saved.” I tell you the devils did that. And they did more than that, they trembled. Let us bring in His friends. We want you to hear their evidence. Let us call that prince of preachers. Let us hear the forerunner; none ever preached like this man—this man who drew all Jerusalem and all Judea into the wilderness to hear him; this man who burst upon the nations like the flash of a meteor. Let John the Baptist come with his leathern girdle and his hairy coat, and let him tell us what he thinks of Christ. His words, tho they were echoed in the wilderness of Palestine, are written in the Book forever, “Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world!” This is what John the Baptist thought of him. “I bear record that He is the Son of God.” No wonder he drew all Jerusalem and Judea to him, because he preached Christ. And whenever men preach Christ, they are sure to have plenty of followers. Let us bring in Peter, who was with Him on the mount of transfiguration, who was with Him the night He was betrayed. Come, Peter, tell us what you think of Christ. Stand in this witness-box and testify of Him. You denied Him once. You said, with a curse, you did not know Him. Was it true, Peter? Don’t you know Him? “Know Him!” I can imagine Peter saying: “It was a lie I told then. I did know Him.” Afterward I can hear him charging home their guilt upon these Jerusalem sinners. He calls Him “both Lord and Christ.” Such was the testimony on the day of Pentecost. “God had made that same Jesus both Lord and Christ.” And tradition tells us that when they came to execute Peter he felt he was not worthy to die in the way his Master died, and he requested to be crucified with the head downward. So much did Peter think of Him! Now let us hear from the beloved disciple John. He knew more about Christ than any other man. He had laid his head on his Savior’s bosom. He had heard the throbbing of that loving heart. Look into his Gospel if you wish to know what he thought of Him. Matthew writes of Him as the royal king come from His throne. Mark writes of Him as the servant, and Luke of the Son of Man. John takes up his pen, and, with one stroke, forever settles the question of Unitarianism. He goes right back before the time of Adam. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Look into Revelation. He calls him “the bright and the morning star.” So John thought well of Him—because he knew Him well. We might bring in Thomas, the doubting disciple. You doubted Him, Thomas? You would not believe He had risen, and you put your fingers into the wound in His side. What do you think of Him? “My Lord and my God!” says Thomas. Then go over to Decapolis and you will find Christ has been there casting out devils. Let us call the men of that country and ask what they think of Him. “He hath done all things well,” they say. But we have other witnesses to bring in. Take the persecuting Saul, once one of the worst of his enemies. Breathing out threatenings he meets Him. “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” says Christ. He might have added, “What have I done to you? Have I injured you in any way? Did I not come to bless you? Why do you treat Me thus, Saul?” And then Saul asks, “Who art thou, Lord?” “I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.” You see, He was not ashamed of His name, altho He had been in heaven; “I am Jesus of Nazareth.” What a change did that one interview make to Saul! A few years afterward we hear him say, “I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dross that I may win Christ.” Such a testimony to the Savior! But I shall go still further. I shall go away from earth into the other world. I shall summon the angels and ask what they think of Christ. They saw Him in the bosom of the Father before the world was. Before the dawn of creation, before the morning stars sang together, He was there. They saw Him leave the throne and come down to the manger. What a scene for them to witness! Ask these heavenly beings what they thought of Him then. For once they are permitted to speak; for once the silence of heaven is broken. Listen to their song on the plains of Bethlehem, “Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day, in the city of David, a Savior, which is Christ the Lord.” He leaves the throne to save the world. Is it a wonder the angels thought well of Him? Then there are the redeemed saints—they that see Him face to face. Here on earth He was never known, no one seemed really to be acquainted with Him; but He was known in that world where He had been from the foundation. What do they think of Him there? If we could hear from heaven we should hear a shout which would glorify and magnify His name. We are told that when John was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and being caught up, he heard a shout around him, ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands and thousands of voices, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing!” Yes, He is worthy of all this. Heaven cannot speak too well of Him. Oh, that earth would take up the echo and join with heaven in singing, “Worthy to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing!” But there is still another witness, a higher still. Some think that the God of the Old Testament is the Christ of the New. But when Jesus came out to Jordan, baptized by John, there came a voice from heaven. God the Father spoke. It was His testimony to Christ: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Ah, yes! God the Father thinks well of the Son. And if God is well pleased with Him, so ought we to be. If the sinner and God are well pleased with Christ, then the sinner and God can meet. The moment you say, as the Father said, “I am well pleased with Him,” and accept Him, you are wedded to God. Will you not believe the testimony? Will you not believe this witness, this last of all, the Lord of hosts, the King of kings himself? Once more he repeats it, so that all may know it. With Peter and James and John, on the mount of transfiguration, He cries again, “This is my beloved Son; hear him.” And that voice went echoing and re-echoing through Palestine, through all the earth from sea to sea; yes, that voice is echoing still, Hear Him! Hear Him! My friend will you hear Him to-day? Hark! what is He saying to you? “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” Will you not think well of such a Savior? Will you not believe in Him? Will you not trust in Him with all your heart and mind? Will you not live for Him? If He laid down His life for us, is it not the least we can do to lay down ours for Him? If He bore the cross and died on it for me, ought I not to be willing to take it up for Him? Oh, have we not reason to think well of Him? Do you think it is right and noble to lift up your voice against such a Savior? Do you think it is just to cry, “Crucify Him! crucify Him!” Oh, may God help all of us to glorify the Father, by thinking well of His only-begotten Son. Matthew 22:43 He *said to them, “Then how does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying, KJV Matthew 22:43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, BGT Matthew 22:43 λέγει αὐτοῖς· πῶς οὖν Δαυὶδ ἐν πνεύματι καλεῖ αὐτὸν κύριον λέγων· NET Matthew 22:43 He said to them, "How then does David by the Spirit call him 'Lord,' saying, CSB Matthew 22:43 He asked them, "How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls Him 'Lord': ESV Matthew 22:43 He said to them, "How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, NIV Matthew 22:43 He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says, NLT Matthew 22:43 Jesus responded, "Then why does David, speaking under the inspiration of the Spirit, call the Messiah 'my Lord'? For David said, NRS Matthew 22:43 He said to them, "How is it then that David by the Spirit calls him Lord, saying, NJB Matthew 22:43 He said to them, 'Then how is it that David, moved by the Spirit, calls him Lord, where he says: NAB Matthew 22:43 He said to them, "How, then, does David, inspired by the Spirit, call him 'lord,' saying: YLT Matthew 22:43 He saith to them, 'How then doth David in the Spirit call him lord, saying, MIT Matthew 22:43 "How is it," he said, "that David was spiritually inspired to call him Lord ? David said: GWN Matthew 22:43 He said to them, "Then how can David, guided by the Spirit, call him Lord? David says, BBE Matthew 22:43 He says to them, How then does David in the Spirit give him the name of Lord, saying, in the Spirit 2Sa 23:2 Mk 12:36 Lu 2:26,27 Ac 1:16 2:30,31 Heb 3:7 2Pe 1:21 Rev 4:2 Related Passages: Mark 12:36-37+ “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.”’ 37 “David himself calls Him ‘Lord’; so in what sense is He his son?” And the large crowd enjoyed listening to Him. 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.”’ 44 “Therefore David calls Him ‘Lord,’ and how is He his son?” DAVID'S SON AND DAVID'S SOVEREIGN! He *said (historical present tense) to them - The historical present is a vivid, dramatic mode of storytelling, pulling the reader into the living moment. “Then how does David in the Spirit (pneuma) call Him ‘Lord (kurios),’ saying - Don't miss the important implication that Jesus affirms that David’s words in Psalm 110:1 were spoken by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, underscoring the divine authority of Scripture. Clearly David acknowledged the Messiah as superior and not just as a descendant (which He of course was). As an aside, it is worth noting that the Holy (hagios) Spirit (pneuma) spoke in many passages in the New Testament Hebrews 9:8+ = "The Holy Spirit is signifying this" Hebrews 10:15+ = "the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying" Matthew 10:20+ = "but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you" Matthew 22:43+ = "Then how does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord"; Mark 12:36+ = "David himself said in the Holy Spirit" Acts 1:16+ = "the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas"; Acts 28:25+ = "The Holy Spirit rightly spoke through Isaiah the prophet to your fathers" 1 Timothy 4:1+ = "But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times..." Revelation 2:7+ = "let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches" Also in Rev 2:11 Rev 2:17 Rev 2:29 Rev 3:6 Rev 3:13 Rev 3:22 (IN THE OT) 2 Sa 23:2+ = "The Spirit of the LORD spoke by me" Grant Osborne: It was a common rabbinic ploy to harmonize two seemingly contradictory texts; here Jesus harmonizes two seemingly contradictory messianic ideas: Given that the Messiah is David’s “son” (v. 42), how then can the great king David address him as “Lord”? In other words, how can his son at the same time be his Lord? (See Matthew - Page 828) Jesus is not just David’s Son — He is David’s Sovereign.