Matthew 22:28 Komentář

And Jesus answered and spake unto them again,.... Not to the multitude only, but to the chief priests, elders, Scribes, and Pharisees: for though Mark seems to intimate, that upon the delivery of the last parable of the vineyard, they left him, and went their way; yet since he does not relate the following parable, they might not leave him until they had heard that, which is spoken with much the same design as the former, and might increase their resentment the more: or if the chief priests and elders did go away, the Pharisees remained behind, as is clear from Mat 22:15 to whom he spake by parables, similitudes, and comparisons, taken from earthly things, and against whom he directed the following one; and said, as hereafter related.

But as touching the resurrection of the dead,.... In proof of that doctrine, and which will greatly serve to confirm and establish it, and that it may appear that the dead are, or will be raised, and to put it out of all doubt, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, as Mark adds, "in the book of Moses"; which was written by him, the book of Exo 3:6 and though the words were spoke to Moses, yet were designed for the use, instruction, and comfort of the Israelites; not only at that time, but in succeeding ages, they being the posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; whose God the Lord there declares himself to be. Moreover, whereas these words were spoken by God to Moses, there is some little difficulty occasioned, by Luke's representing them to be the words of Moses; for he says, "Moses showed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord, the God of Abraham", &c. which may be removed by observing, that the sense is, that when Moses showed to the children of Israel, what he heard and saw at the bush on Mount Sinai, he called the Lord by these names, in which he spoke of himself to him; he recited to them what the Lord said to him; and indeed he was bid to say to them these words; See Exo 3:14. saying, as follows,

And again, these too attack Him with a show of moderation, saying, "Master, Moses said, If a man die, not having children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 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. Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife shall she be of the seven?" See Him answering these like a teacher. For though out of craft they came unto Him, yet was their question rather one of ignorance. Therefore neither doth He say unto them, "Ye hypocrites." Moreover, in order that He might not blame, saying, "Wherefore had seven one wife?" they add the authority of Moses; although, as I have said before, it was a fiction, in my judgment at least. For the third would not have taken her, when he saw the two bridegrooms dead; or if the third, yet not the fourth or the fifth; and if even these, much more the sixth or the seventh would not have come unto the woman, but have shrunk from her. For such is the nature of the Jews. For if now many have this feeling, much more then had they; when at least, even without this, they often avoided marrying in this way, and that when the law was constraining them. Thus, at any rate, Ruth, that Moabitish woman, was thrust off to him that was further off from her kindred; and Tamar too was thus compelled to obtain, by stealth, seed from her husband's kinsman. And wherefore did they not feign two or three, but seven? In order the more abundantly to bring derision, as they thought, upon the resurrection. Wherefore they further say, "they all had her," as driving Him into some difficulty.

(Verse 28) Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife will she be? For they all had her. They oppose the absurdity of the story in order to deny the truth of the resurrection.

They conclude with asking, in the resurrection whose shall she be? Though it might be that such an instance might really occur in their nation.

When the mouths of the Pharisees and the Herodians had been shut, again the Sadducees put Him to the test. Their heresy was this: they believed neither in a resurrection of the dead, nor in the existence of an immaterial spirit, nor in angels, and in general took a position opposite to that of the Pharisees. Here they contrive an impossible situation. For supposing that two brothers took her and then died, would not the third consider it an omen and refuse the marriage, learning from those who had preceded him? So the Sadducees invent a situation, intending to perplex Christ and so to refute the resurrection. They even draw Moses as an advocate into their invention. They speak of seven brothers so as to ridicule the mystery of the resurrection even more. "Whose wife shall she be?" they ask. One could answer, "O foul Sadducees, she shall be the wife of him who first married her, if we concede that there is marriage in the resurrection; for the others are surrogates and not true and lawful husbands" (Deut. 25:5-6).

Hence they ask: all died, and they all had her: whose wife shall she be in the resurrection, for she cannot belong to all? This opinion is not good, and it is against the Pharisees, because they believed that the resurrection should be with respect to this life, that each one would have his wife back and his possessions, etc. Hence they say, whose wife shall she be? Because she cannot be the wife of all. This opinion is refuted in Job 7:10: he shall not return to his own house. Hence he will not rise to the same manner of living.

PARABLE OF THE MARRIAGE OF THE KING'S SON. (Mat 22:1-14) The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son--"In this parable," as TRENCH admirably remarks, "we see how the Lord is revealing Himself in ever clearer light as the central Person of the kingdom, giving here a far plainer hint than in the last parable of the nobility of His descent. There He was indeed the Son, the only and beloved one (Mar 12:6), of the Householder; but here His race is royal, and He appears as Himself at once the King and the King's Son (Psa 72:1). The last was a parable of the Old Testament history; and Christ is rather the last and greatest of the line of its prophets and teachers than the founder of a new kingdom. In that, God appears demanding something from men; in this, a parable of grace, God appears more as giving something to them. Thus, as often, the two complete each other: this taking up the matter where the other left it." The "marriage" of Jehovah to His people Israel was familiar to Jewish ears; and in Psa. 45:1-17 this marriage is seen consummated in the Person of Messiah "THE KING," Himself addressed as "GOD" and yet as anointed by "HIS GOD" with the oil of gladness above His fellows. These apparent contradictions (see on Luk 20:41-44) are resolved in this parable; and Jesus, in claiming to be this King's Son, serves Himself Heir to all that the prophets and sweet singers of Israel held forth as to Jehovah' s ineffably near and endearing union to His people. But observe carefully, that THE BRIDE does not come into view in this parable; its design being to teach certain truths under the figure of guests at a wedding feast, and the want of a wedding garment, which would not have harmonized with the introduction of the Bride.