TRV
Jerome
Nicene & Post-Nicene · AD 325–500 · 5,299 passages across 63 books
Commentary
Matthew 22:4-5
Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
(Vers. 4, 5.) He sent other servants again, saying: Tell those who are invited: Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and fatted cattle have been slaughtered, and everything is ready: come to the wedding feast. But they disregarded him. The servants who were sent the second time are better understood as prophets than apostles, if the word 'servant' is written above. But if you read 'servants' in the same place, then the second servants should be understood as apostles. The prepared dinner, the oxen, and the slaughtered fatted cattle either describe the riches of the kingdom using a metaphor, so that the spiritual may be understood from the carnal, or certainly the greatness of doctrine and the richness of God's teaching can be perceived.
Matthew 22:6
And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
(Verse 6) And they went away, some to their own village, and others to their business. The rest held his servants, and treating them with contempt, they killed them. Among those who do not accept the truth of the Gospel, there is much diversity. For those who were occupied with other matters and did not want to come are guilty of a lesser crime than those who, despite the invitation of the host, turned their affection into cruelty and mistreated or killed the king's servants. In this parable, the silence of the wedding guests and the deaths of the servants illustrate the contempt for the wedding feast.
Matthew 22:7
But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
(Verse 7) But when the king heard this, he was angry. Regarding what was said above: The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding feast and showed acts of mercy. The man's name was given, but now when it comes to vengeance, the man is silent and only the king is mentioned.
And having sent his armies, he destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. The armies, or avenging angels, of whom it is written in the Psalms: He sent upon them a destroying angel (Psalm 77:49); or we may understand the Romans, under the leadership of Vespasian and Titus, who, having killed the Jewish people, burned the rebellious city.
And having sent his armies, he destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. The armies, or avenging angels, of whom it is written in the Psalms: He sent upon them a destroying angel (Psalm 77:49); or we may understand the Romans, under the leadership of Vespasian and Titus, who, having killed the Jewish people, burned the rebellious city.
Matthew 22:8-10
Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
(Verse 8 and following) Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding feast is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Therefore, go to the street corners and invite to the wedding feast whoever you find.' So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, the bad and the good alike, and the wedding hall was filled with guests. There were no Gentiles on the streets, but at the exits of the streets. However, it is questioned how among those who were outside, some bad and good ones were found. The Apostle to the Romans discusses this place more fully ((al. added, saying)) (Rom. 2:14): that the Gentiles, who naturally do the things that are of the law, condemn the Jews who have not made the written law. Among the ethnic groups themselves, there is infinite diversity; since we know that some are prone to vices and inclined to evil, while others are dedicated to the virtues of honorable customs.
Matthew 22:11-12
And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
(Verse 11, 12.) But the king entered to see the guests, and he saw there a man who was not wearing a wedding garment. And he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' But he was speechless. Those who were invited to the wedding feast had filled it up from the hedges and corners and streets and various places. But later, when the king came in to see the guests at his feast (that is, those who were resting in his trust, so that on the day of judgment he could visit the guests and discern the merits of each one), he found one who was not wearing a wedding garment. This one, all those who are associated with wickedness are understood. But the wedding garment, the commandments of the Lord, and the works that are fulfilled from the law and the Gospel, make the clothing of the new man. Therefore, if anyone is found at the time of judgment not having the wedding garment, that is, the garment of the heavenly ((Al. celestial)) man; but having a polluted garment, that is, the old man's rags, he is immediately seized and it is said to him: Friend, how did you ent…
(Verse 11, 12.) But the king entered to see the guests, and he saw there a man who was not wearing a wedding garment. And he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' But he was speechless. Those who were invited to the wedding feast had filled it up from the hedges and corners and streets and various places. But later, when the king came in to see the guests at his feast (that is, those who were resting in his trust, so that on the day of judgment he could visit the guests and discern the merits of each one), he found one who was not wearing a wedding garment. This one, all those who are associated with wickedness are understood. But the wedding garment, the commandments of the Lord, and the works that are fulfilled from the law and the Gospel, make the clothing of the new man. Therefore, if anyone is found at the time of judgment not having the wedding garment, that is, the garment of the heavenly ((Al. celestial)) man; but having a polluted garment, that is, the old man's rags, he is immediately seized and it is said to him: Friend, how did you enter here? He calls his friend because he was invited to a wedding: he accuses him of impudence because he has stained the wedding with his dirty clothes. But he remained silent. For in that moment there will be no place for repentance, nor the opportunity to deny, when all the angels and the world itself are witnesses of sins.
Matthew 22:13
Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
(Verse 13) Then the king said to the servants: Bind his hands and feet and send him into the outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The hands and feet being bound, the weeping of the eyes, and the gnashing of teeth, signify the truth of the resurrection being tested. Or certainly, the hands and feet are bound so that they may not do evil and run to shed blood. In the weeping of the eyes and the gnashing of teeth, the intensity of the torments is shown metaphorically through the limbs of the body.
Matthew 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen.
(Verse 14) For many are called, but few are chosen. This parable encompasses in a brief sentence: that in the work of the vineyard, in the building of the house, and in the wedding feast, the focus should be on the end rather than the beginning.
Matthew 22:15
· 2 passages
Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
(Verse 15.) Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to trap him in his words. And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and teach the way of God in accordance with truth, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?” Caesar Augustus had appointed Herod, the son of Antipater, a foreigner and a proselyte, as the king of the Jews, who would be in charge of collecting taxes and obeying the Roman rule. Therefore, the Pharisees sent their disciples along with the Herodians, that is, the soldiers of Herod, or those who were called Herodians by the Pharisees because they paid taxes to the Romans and were not devoted to divine worship. Some Latin speakers foolishly believed that the Herodians were those who believed Herod to be the Christ, but we never read this anywhere at all.
Lately under Cæsar Augustus, Judæa, which was subject to the Romans, had been made tributary when the census was held of the whole world; and there was a great division among the people, some saying that tribute ought to be paid to the Romans in return for the security and quiet which their arms maintained for all. The Pharisees on the other hand, self-satisfied in their own righteousness, contended that the people of God who paid tithes and gave first-fruits, and did all the other things which are written in the Law, ought not to be subject to human laws. But Augustus had given the Jews as king, Herod, son of Antipater, a foreigner and proselyte; he was to exact the tribute, yet to be subject to the Roman dominion. The Pharisees therefore send their disciples with the Herodians, that is, with Herod's soldiers, or those whom the Pharisees in mockery called Herodians, because they paid tribute to the Romans, and were not devoted to the worship of God. This smooth and treacherous enquiry was a kind of challenge to the answerer to fear God rather than Cæsar, and immediately they say, T…
Lately under Cæsar Augustus, Judæa, which was subject to the Romans, had been made tributary when the census was held of the whole world; and there was a great division among the people, some saying that tribute ought to be paid to the Romans in return for the security and quiet which their arms maintained for all. The Pharisees on the other hand, self-satisfied in their own righteousness, contended that the people of God who paid tithes and gave first-fruits, and did all the other things which are written in the Law, ought not to be subject to human laws. But Augustus had given the Jews as king, Herod, son of Antipater, a foreigner and proselyte; he was to exact the tribute, yet to be subject to the Roman dominion. The Pharisees therefore send their disciples with the Herodians, that is, with Herod's soldiers, or those whom the Pharisees in mockery called Herodians, because they paid tribute to the Romans, and were not devoted to the worship of God.
This smooth and treacherous enquiry was a kind of challenge to the answerer to fear God rather than Cæsar, and immediately they say, Tell us therefore, what thinkest Thou? Is it lawful to give tribute to Cæsar or not? Should He say tribute should not be paid, the Herodians would immediately accuse Him as a person disaffected to the Emperor.
This is the first excellence of the answerer, that He discerns the thoughts of His examiners, and calls them not disciples but tempters. A hypocrite is he who is one thing, and feigns himself another.
Wisdom does ever wisely, and so the tempters are best confuted out of their own words; therefore it follows, show me the tribute money; and they brought unto Him a denarius. This was a coin reckoned equivalent to ten sesterces, and bore the image of Cæsar. Let those who think that the Saviour asks because He is ignorant, learn from the present place that it is not so, for at all events Jesus must have known whose image was on the coin. They say unto Him, Cæsar's; not Augustus, but Tiberius, under whom also the Lord suffered. All the Roman Emperors were called Cæsar, from Caius Cæsar who first seized the chief power. Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's; i. e. the coin, tribute, or money.
That is, tithes, first-fruits, oblation, and victims; as the Lord Himself rendered to Cæsar tribute, both for Himself and for Peter; and also rendered unto God the things that are God's in doing the will of His Father.
They who ought to have believed did but wonder at His great wisdom, that their craft had found no means for ensnaring Him: whence it follows, When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left Him, and went their way, carrying away their unbelief and wonder together.
This smooth and treacherous enquiry was a kind of challenge to the answerer to fear God rather than Cæsar, and immediately they say, Tell us therefore, what thinkest Thou? Is it lawful to give tribute to Cæsar or not? Should He say tribute should not be paid, the Herodians would immediately accuse Him as a person disaffected to the Emperor.
This is the first excellence of the answerer, that He discerns the thoughts of His examiners, and calls them not disciples but tempters. A hypocrite is he who is one thing, and feigns himself another.
Wisdom does ever wisely, and so the tempters are best confuted out of their own words; therefore it follows, show me the tribute money; and they brought unto Him a denarius. This was a coin reckoned equivalent to ten sesterces, and bore the image of Cæsar. Let those who think that the Saviour asks because He is ignorant, learn from the present place that it is not so, for at all events Jesus must have known whose image was on the coin. They say unto Him, Cæsar's; not Augustus, but Tiberius, under whom also the Lord suffered. All the Roman Emperors were called Cæsar, from Caius Cæsar who first seized the chief power. Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's; i. e. the coin, tribute, or money.
That is, tithes, first-fruits, oblation, and victims; as the Lord Himself rendered to Cæsar tribute, both for Himself and for Peter; and also rendered unto God the things that are God's in doing the will of His Father.
They who ought to have believed did but wonder at His great wisdom, that their craft had found no means for ensnaring Him: whence it follows, When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left Him, and went their way, carrying away their unbelief and wonder together.
Matthew 22:16
And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
(Verse 16.) Teacher, we know that you are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and you do not care about anyone's opinion. For you do not show partiality to people. So tell us, what do you think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not? This is a clever and deceitful question, designed to trap the one being questioned and force him to fear God more than Caesar, and say that taxes should not be paid, so that the Herodians listening will immediately arrest him for sedition against the Roman ruler.
Matthew 22:18
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
(Verse 18.) But Jesus, knowing their wickedness, said: Why do you tempt me, hypocrites? The first virtue of a respondent is to understand the minds of those who ask, and to call not disciples, but tempters. Therefore, a hypocrite is called someone who is one thing and pretends to be another, that is, someone who acts one way in action and another in words.
Matthew 22:19
Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
(Verse 19.) Show me the coin of the census. And they offered him a denarius. Wisdom always acts wisely, so that its accusers are mainly confuted by their own words. Show me, he said, the denarius, that is, the kind of coin which was valued at ten coins and had the image of Caesar.
Matthew 22:20
And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
(Verse 20) And Jesus said to them, Whose image is this and superscription? Those who think that this question indicates ignorance on the part of the Savior, and not dispensation, let them learn from the present passage that Jesus could certainly know whose image was on the coin; but he asks in order to respond appropriately to their words.
Matthew 22:21
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
(Verse 21) They said to Him, 'Caesar's.' Then He said to them, 'Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.' We cannot consider Augustus as Caesar, but Tiberius is understood to be his stepson, who succeeded him and under whom our Lord suffered. However, all the Roman emperors, from the first Caesar, who seized power, have been called Caesars. Furthermore, what He says, 'Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's,' that is, the tribute and money, and to God the things that are God's, let us understand as tithes, first fruits, offerings, and sacrifices, just as He Himself paid taxes for Himself and Peter (Matthew 17). And He rendered to God the things that are God's, doing the will of the Father (John 6).
Matthew 22:22
When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.
(Verse 22) And those who listened were amazed. They, who should have believed in such wisdom, were amazed that their cunning for plotting had found no opportunity.
And having left him, they departed. Bringing back unfaithfulness along with a miracle.
And having left him, they departed. Bringing back unfaithfulness along with a miracle.
Matthew 22:23
· 5 passages
The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
There were two heresies among the Jews: one of the Pharisees and the other of the Sadducees. The Pharisees preferred tradition and the observance of the law, which two things they referred to as “divine service.” They preferred them over justice. The Sadducees, however, were thought to be just and punished themselves because they were not. Hence the two parties were thought by the people to be quite different. The Sadducees denied everything about the resurrection. As we find in the Acts of the Apostles, they were opposed to the believers and confessors of the resurrection of the body and soul. These are the two houses about which Isaiah clearly teaches that because they had climbed high they would surely be knocked down on the ground.
They who ought to have believed did but wonder at His great wisdom, that their craft had found no means for ensnaring Him: whence it follows, When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left Him, and went their way, carrying away their unbelief and wonder together. There were two sects among the Jews, the Pharisees and the Sadducees; the Pharisees pretended to the righteousness of traditions and observances, whence they were called by the people 'separate.' The Sadducees (the word is interpreted 'righteous') also passed themselves for what they were not; and whereas the first believed the resurrection of body and soul, and confessed both Angel and spirit, these, according to the Acts of the Apostles, denied them all, as it is here also said, Who say that there is no resurrection. (Acts 23:8.) As they disbelieved the resurrection of the body, and supposed that the soul perished with the body, they accordingly invent a fable to display the fondness of the belief of a resurrection. Thus they put forward a base fiction to overthrow the verity of the resurrection, and conclude…
They who ought to have believed did but wonder at His great wisdom, that their craft had found no means for ensnaring Him: whence it follows, When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left Him, and went their way, carrying away their unbelief and wonder together.
There were two sects among the Jews, the Pharisees and the Sadducees; the Pharisees pretended to the righteousness of traditions and observances, whence they were called by the people 'separate.' The Sadducees (the word is interpreted 'righteous') also passed themselves for what they were not; and whereas the first believed the resurrection of body and soul, and confessed both Angel and spirit, these, according to the Acts of the Apostles, denied them all, as it is here also said, Who say that there is no resurrection. (Acts 23:8.)
As they disbelieved the resurrection of the body, and supposed that the soul perished with the body, they accordingly invent a fable to display the fondness of the belief of a resurrection. Thus they put forward a base fiction to overthrow the verity of the resurrection, and conclude with asking, in the resurrection whose shall she be? Though it might be that such an instance might really occur in their nation.
They therefore err because they know not the Scriptures; and because they know not the power of God.
In these words the Latin language cannot follow the Greek idiom. For the Latin word 'nubere' is correctly said only of the woman. But we must take it so as to understand marry of men, to be given in marriage of women.
This that is added, But areas the Angels of God in heaven, is an assurance that our conversation in heaven shall be spiritual.
For none could say of a stone and a tree or inanimate things, that they shall not marry nor be given in marriage, but of such things only as having capacity for marriage, shall yet in a sort not marry.
In proof of the resurrection there were many plainer passages which He might have cited; among others that of Isaiah, The dead shall be raised; they that are in the tombs shall rise again: (Is. 26:19. juxta LXX.) and in another place, Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake. (Dan. 12:2.) It is enquired therefore why the Lord should have chosen this testimony which seems ambiguous, and not sufficiently belonging to the truth of the resurrection; and as if by this He had proved the point adds, He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. We have said above that the Sadducees confessed neither Angel, nor spirit, nor resurrection of the body, and taught also the death of the soul. But they also received only the five books of Moses, rejecting the Prophets. It would have been foolish therefore to have brought forward testimonies whose authority they did not admit. To prove the immortality of souls therefore, He brings forward an instance out of Moses, I am the God of Abraham, &c. and then straight subjoins, He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; so that having established that souls abide after death, (forasmuch as God could not be the God of those who had no existence any where,) there might fitly come in the resurrection of bodies which had together with their souls done good or evil.
There were two sects among the Jews, the Pharisees and the Sadducees; the Pharisees pretended to the righteousness of traditions and observances, whence they were called by the people 'separate.' The Sadducees (the word is interpreted 'righteous') also passed themselves for what they were not; and whereas the first believed the resurrection of body and soul, and confessed both Angel and spirit, these, according to the Acts of the Apostles, denied them all, as it is here also said, Who say that there is no resurrection. (Acts 23:8.)
As they disbelieved the resurrection of the body, and supposed that the soul perished with the body, they accordingly invent a fable to display the fondness of the belief of a resurrection. Thus they put forward a base fiction to overthrow the verity of the resurrection, and conclude with asking, in the resurrection whose shall she be? Though it might be that such an instance might really occur in their nation.
They therefore err because they know not the Scriptures; and because they know not the power of God.
In these words the Latin language cannot follow the Greek idiom. For the Latin word 'nubere' is correctly said only of the woman. But we must take it so as to understand marry of men, to be given in marriage of women.
This that is added, But areas the Angels of God in heaven, is an assurance that our conversation in heaven shall be spiritual.
For none could say of a stone and a tree or inanimate things, that they shall not marry nor be given in marriage, but of such things only as having capacity for marriage, shall yet in a sort not marry.
In proof of the resurrection there were many plainer passages which He might have cited; among others that of Isaiah, The dead shall be raised; they that are in the tombs shall rise again: (Is. 26:19. juxta LXX.) and in another place, Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake. (Dan. 12:2.) It is enquired therefore why the Lord should have chosen this testimony which seems ambiguous, and not sufficiently belonging to the truth of the resurrection; and as if by this He had proved the point adds, He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. We have said above that the Sadducees confessed neither Angel, nor spirit, nor resurrection of the body, and taught also the death of the soul. But they also received only the five books of Moses, rejecting the Prophets. It would have been foolish therefore to have brought forward testimonies whose authority they did not admit. To prove the immortality of souls therefore, He brings forward an instance out of Moses, I am the God of Abraham, &c. and then straight subjoins, He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; so that having established that souls abide after death, (forasmuch as God could not be the God of those who had no existence any where,) there might fitly come in the resurrection of bodies which had together with their souls done good or evil.
(Verse 23) On that day the Sadducees approached him, who say that there is no resurrection. There were two sects among the Jews: the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The Pharisees prioritized the righteousness of traditions and observances, which they call 'second law', and this is why they were referred to as 'separated' from the people. However, the Sadducees, who are referred to as 'just', claimed for themselves what they were not: while the former believed in the resurrection of the body and soul and confessed angels and spirits, the Sadducees denied all of these (according to the Acts of the Apostles). These are two houses, of which Isaiah teaches more clearly that they are causes of offense in the stumbling block (Isaiah 8).
I say nothing of the Jewish heretics who before the coming of Christ destroyed the law delivered to them: of Dositheus, the leader of the Samaritans who rejected the prophets: of the Sadducees who sprang from his root and denied even the resurrection of the flesh: of the Pharisees who separated themselves from the Jews on account of certain superfluous observances, and took their name from the fact of their dissent: of the Herodians who accepted Herod as the Christ.
He could have used other far clearer examples to prove the truth of the resurrection. For example...[Isaiah 26:19, Daniel 12:2]...people ask why the Lord wanted to bring forth this testimony for himself: "I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." This passage seems ambiguous and not sufficiently to the point about the truth of the resurrection…Above we said that the Sadducees, who confessed neither angel nor spirit nor the resurrection of bodies, also preached the destruction of souls. They received only the five books of Moses and rejected the predictions of the prophets. It would have been foolish, then, to bring forth testimonies [from the prophets], whose authority the Sadducees did not follow. Further, in order to prove the eternity of souls from the writings of Moses, he offers the citation: "I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." [Exodus 3:6] Then he immediately adds: "He is the God not of the dead but of the living." Thus, when he proved that souls continue after death—for were they not subsisting at all, it could not be…
He could have used other far clearer examples to prove the truth of the resurrection. For example...[Isaiah 26:19, Daniel 12:2]...people ask why the Lord wanted to bring forth this testimony for himself: "I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." This passage seems ambiguous and not sufficiently to the point about the truth of the resurrection…Above we said that the Sadducees, who confessed neither angel nor spirit nor the resurrection of bodies, also preached the destruction of souls. They received only the five books of Moses and rejected the predictions of the prophets. It would have been foolish, then, to bring forth testimonies [from the prophets], whose authority the Sadducees did not follow. Further, in order to prove the eternity of souls from the writings of Moses, he offers the citation: "I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." [Exodus 3:6] Then he immediately adds: "He is the God not of the dead but of the living." Thus, when he proved that souls continue after death—for were they not subsisting at all, it could not be the case that God would be their God—the resurrection of bodies was introduced by way of logical inference...