Matthew 22:16

ἀποστέλλουσιν, as in Mark 12:13; there intelligible, here one wonders why the sent of Mk. should be senders of others instead of acting themselves. The explanation may be that the leading plotters felt themselves to be discredited with Jesus by their notorious attitude, and, therefore, used others more likely to succeed. More than fault-finding is now intended even to draw Jesus into a compromising utterance. τοὺς μαθητὰς ἀ., disciples, apparently meant to be emphasised; i.e., scholars, not masters; young men, presumably not incapable of appreciating Jesus, in whose case a friendly feeling towards Him was not incredible, as in the case of older members of the party. μετὰ τ. Ἡρῳδιανῶν, with Herodians, named here only in Mat., associated with Sadducees in Mark 8:15; why so called is a matter of conjecture, and the guesses are many: soldiers of Herod (Jerome); courtiers of Herod (Fritzsche, following Syr. ver.); Jews belonging to the northern tetrarchies governed by members of the Herod family (Lutteroth); favourers of the Roman dominion (Orig., De W., etc.); sympathisers with the desire for a national kingdom so far gratified or stimulated by the rule of the Herod family. The last the most probable, and adopted by many: Wetstein, Meyer, Weiss, Keil, Schanz, etc. The best clue to the spirit of the party is their association with the Pharisees here. It presumably means sympathy with the Pharisees in the matter at issue; i.e., nationalism versus willing submission to a foreign yoke; only not religious or theocratic, as in case of Pharisees, but secular, as suited men of Sadducaic proclivities. The object aimed at implies such sympathy. To succeed the snare must be hidden. Had the two parties been on opposite sides Jesus would have been put on His guard. The name of this party probably originated in a kind of hero worship for Herod the Great. Vide on Matthew 16:1. λέγοντας, etc., the snare set with much astuteness, and well baited with flattery, the bait coming first. διδάσκαλε, teacher, an appropriate address from scholars in search of knowledge, or desiring the solution of a knotty question. οἴδαμεν, we know, everybody knows. Even Pharisees understood so far the character of Jesus, as here appears; for their disciples say what they have been instructed to say. Therefore their infamous theory of a league with Beelzebub (Matthew 12:24) was a sin against light; i.e., against the Holy Ghost. Pharisaic scholars might even feel a sentimental, half-sincere admiration for the character described, nature not yet dead in them as in their teachers. The points in the character specified are (1) sincerity ἀληθὴς; (2) fidelity, as a religious teacher καὶ τ. ὁ τ. θ. ἐν ἀληθείᾳ διδάσκεις; (3) fearlessness οὐ μέλει, etc.; (4) no respecter of persons οὐ βλέπεις, etc. = will speak the truth to all and about all impartially. The compliment, besides being treacherous, was insulting, implying that Jesus was a reckless simpleton who would give Himself away, and a vain man who could be flattered. But, in reality, they sinned in ignorance. Such men could not understand the character of Jesus thoroughly: e.g., His humility, His wisdom, and His superiority to partisan points of view.