มัทธิว 22:35 วิจารณ์

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.

This is the first and great commandment. Whether the object of it is considered, who is the first and chief good; or the manner in which it is to be observed, which requires and engrosses the whole heart, soul, and mind, and all the strength and power of man; or its being the principle from whence all the duties, and actions of men should flow, and the end to which all are to be referred; and is not only a compendium of the duties of the first table of the decalogue, but of all others that can be thought to, and do, belong to God. This is the first command in order of nature, time, dignity, and causality; God being the first cause of all things, infinitely above all creatures, and love to him being the source, spring and cause of love to the neighbour; and it is the greatest in its object, nature, manner, and end. That this command, and these words our Lord cites, are so full and comprehensive, the Jews themselves cannot deny. A noted writer of their's (x) says, "the root of "all the commandments" is, when a man loves God with all his soul, and cleaves unto him. And, says (y) another, "in this verse only, "thou shalt love the Lord thy God", &c, , "the ten words, or decalogue, are comprehended". (x) Aben Ezra in Exod. xxxi. 18. (y) Tzeror Hammor, fol. 138. 1.

Now let us consider one argument of entrapment: “Teacher,” he says, “what is the greater commandment in the law?” He says “teacher” trying to entrap him, since he offers his thoughts not as a disciple of Christ. This however, will be clearer from an example we now offer. Consider: The father of a son is indeed the father, and no one else is able to call him father except the son; and the mother of a daughter is indeed her mother, and no one else can call her mother except her own daughter. And so the teacher of a disciple is indeed his teacher, and the disciple of a teacher is truly his disciple. As a result, no one is able to say “teacher” properly except a disciple. And see how, on account of this, that not all who call him teacher do so appropriately but only those who have a desire to learn from him. He said to his disciples, “You call me teacher and lord, and rightly so, for so I am.” Therefore disciples of Christ properly indeed address him as teacher, and by this word from the Lord himself his servants rightly call him Lord. Thus the apostle spoke well when he said, “Yet for us there is one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and for whom we exist.” And consider what he says, “It is enough for the disciple to be” not simply like a teacher but “like his teacher.” Therefore if anyone does not learn something from this word or surrender himself with his whole heart, in order to become his delightful dwelling place but still calls him “teacher,” he is brother to the Pharisees attempting to entrap Christ while calling him “teacher.” And so all who say “Our Father who art in heaven” ought not to have “the spirit of slavery in fear but a spirit of the adoption of sons.” However, whoever does not have “the spirit of adoption of sons” and yet says “Our Father who art in heaven” is lying, since he is not a son of God, while calling God his father.

All who thus ask questions of any teacher to try him, and not to learn of him, we must regard as brethren of this Pharisee, according to what is said below, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of mine, ye have done it unto me. (Matt. 25:40.)

Again doth the evangelist express the cause, for which they ought to have held their peace, and marks their boldness by this also. How and in what way? Because when those others were put to silence, these again assail Him. For when they ought even for this to hold their peace, they strive to urge further their former endeavors, and put forward the lawyer, not desiring to learn, but making a trial of Him, and ask, "What is the first commandment?" For since the first commandment was this, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God," thinking that He would afford them some handle, as though He would amend it, for the sake of showing that Himself too was God, they propose the question.

The Pharisees having been themselves already confuted (in the matter of the denarius), and now seeing their adversaries also overthrown, should have taken warning to attempt no further deceit against Him; but hate and jealousy are the parents of impudence. The Pharisees and Sadducees, thus foes to one another, unite in one common purpose to tempt Jesus.

(Verse 34 and following) But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him: "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" What we read about Herod and Pontius Pilate, that they conspired in the death of the Lord, we also see now concerning the Pharisees and the Sadducees, who are opposed to each other, but agree with the same mind in testing Jesus. Therefore, those who had already been confuted in the display of the coin and had seen the faction of the opposing party undermined, should have been warned by example not to plot further snares: but malice and envy nourish audacity. One of the legal experts, not desiring to not know but attempting, asks whether the one being questioned knew what was being asked, what the greater commandment is: not asking about the commandments, but what the first and great commandment is; so that when all that God has commanded is great: whatever he may answer, he may have an opportunity to slander, asserting that something else is great among many. Therefore, whoever knows and asks not by desire to learn, but by the desire to know, whether the one who is going to respond knows, approaches in the likeness of the Pharisees, not as a disciple, but as a tempter.

(de Cons. Ev. ii. 73.) Let no one find a difficulty in this, that Matthew speaks of this man as putting his question to tempt the Lord, whereas Mark does not mention this, but concludes with what the Lord said to him upon his answering wisely, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. (Mark 12:34.) For it is possible that, though he came to tempt, yet the Lord's answer may have wrought correction within him. Or, the tempting here meant need not be that of one designing to deceive an enemy, but rather the cautious approach of one making proof of a stranger. And that is not written in vain, Whoso believeth lightly, he is of a vain heart. (Ecclus. 19:4.)

Or the Pharisees meet together, that their numbers may silence Him whom their reasonings could not confute; thus, while they array numbers against Him, showing that truth failed them; they said among themselves, Let one speak for all, and all speak, through one, so if He prevail, the victory may seem to belong to all; if He be overthrown, the defeat may rest with Him alone; so it follows, Then one of them, a teacher of the Law, asked him a question, tempting him.

Out of immeasurable spite this man comes forward to put the Lord to the test. For when they saw the Sadducees put to shame and the Lord praised for His wisdom, they came forward to test Him to see if He would add something to the first commandment, and thus give them the chance to accuse Him of being an innovator who corrects the law. But the Lord discloses their malice, and because they came not to learn, but rather, devoid of love, to show their envy and their spite, He reveals to them the exceedingly great love expressed by the commandments. And He teaches that we ought not to love God partially, but to give all of ourselves to God. For we perceive these three distinctions of the human soul: the vegetative, the animal, and the rational. When the soul grows and is nourished and begets what is like unto it, it resembles the plants; when it experiences anger or desire, it is like the animals; when it understands, it is called rational. See, then, how these three facets are indicated here. "Thou shalt love thy God with all thy heart" - this is the animal part of a man; "and with all thy soul [or life]" - this is the vegetative part of a man, for plants are alive and animate; "and with all thy mind" - this is the rational (Deut. 6:5). So one must love God with all one's soul, that is, one must attend to Him with all the parts and powers of one's soul. "This is the first and great commandment," training us in piety. "The second is like unto it," which exhorts us to do to other men what is just and right. For there are two things which lead to perdition, evil doctrines and a corrupt life. Lest we fall into unholy doctrines, we must love God; so that we do not lead a corrupt life, we must love our neighbor (Levit. 19:18). For he who loves his neighbor fulfills all the commandments, and he who fulfills all the commandments, loves God. So by means of each other these two commandments are welded together and united, containing within themselves all the other commandments. For who is it that loves God and his neighbor, but also steals, or bears grudges, or commits adultery, or murders, or fornicates? This lawyer, then, at the onset came to test Him but then, hearing Christ's answer, he amended his ways, and the Lord praised him, as Mark also says that Jesus looked at him with love, and said, "Thou art not far from the kingdom of heaven" (Mk. 12:34).

Likewise, their calculated malice is touched upon, because, in order to confute him more effectively, they gather together; Psalm 2:2: the princes met together against the Lord. They came together in one. It can be said that the Pharisees and Sadducees came together, for although they differed in their sects, yet they united against the Lord. Or the Pharisees came together in one against the Lord. Likewise, their deceitfulness is signified, because although they were gathered in a multitude, they did not wish all of them to pose the question, but one; so that if he were defeated, the others would not be confuted, and if he prevailed, all would glory in him. And one of them, a doctor of the law, asked him, tempting him, because it was not with the intention of learning; Job 16:11: they have opened their mouths upon me, and reproaching me, they have struck me on the cheek. Here there can be a difficulty from the text, because Mark says that the Lord looking on him, said: thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And how is it said here that he tempted him? Augustine resolves this, because he first came with the intention of tempting, but when Christ gave him satisfaction, he agreed with him. And therefore the fact that he tempted him should be referred to the beginning; the fact that he is not far from the kingdom of God should be referred to the end. And thus it was not surprising if the words of the Lord changed his mind. It should be known, moreover, that some tempt because they are not certain, because, as the wise man says in Sirach 19:4, he that is hasty to give credit is light of heart. This man, since he had heard many things about Christ, wished to test whether he was such: and this temptation would not be evil.

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.