Chapter 22

1 The parable of the marriage of the king’s son. 9 The vocation of the Gentiles. 12 The punishment of him that wanted the wedding garment. 15 Tribute ought to be paid to Caesar. 23 Christ confuteth the Sadducees for the resurrection: 34 answereth the lawyer, which is the first and great commandment: 41 and poseth the Pharisees about the Messias.

1. Spake unto them. [The Man Without a Wedding Garment, Matt. 22:1–14. See on parables pp. 203-207.] Compare on Luke 14:16–24. For circumstances leading to the giving of this parable see on Matt. 21:12, 23, 28, 33. Undoubtedly ch. 22 is simply a continuation of ch. 21, and therefore represents events occurring on the Tuesday before the crucifixion.

The parable of the Marriage Feast has much in common with the parable of the Great Supper (Luke 14:16–24). Some critical scholars have concluded that the similarities point to a basic identity of the two parables. Their conclusion denies Christ the privilege of relating the same story on different occasions and varying its details to suit the needs of the truth He designed to teach on each occasion.

The following differences seem to indicate clearly the separateness of the two parables: (1) The parable of the Great Supper was given in the home of a Pharisee; that of the Marriage Feast in the Temple courts. (2) The first banquet was given by an ordinary man; the second by a king. (3) The first was simply a social occasion; the second a marriage feast in honor of the king’s son. (4) In the first, emphasis is placed upon the flimsy excuses offered by those who declined the invitation; in the second, upon the preparation necessary on the part of invited guests. (5) In the first, excuses are offered; in the second, no excuses are given. (6) In the first, indifference was shown the messengers; in the second, some were abused and killed. (7) In the first, the only penalty imposed upon those who declined the invitation was exclusion from the feast; in the second, those who declined were destroyed.

Again. This expression implies that the parable was given upon the same occasion as the other parables recorded in ch. 21, as its setting in Matthew’s Gospel indicates. This word would seem inappropriate if the parable actually belonged in the setting given the parable of the Great Supper in Luke, as critics claim.

2. Kingdom of heaven. See on Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 5:2; Luke 4:19.

A certain king. Here, God the Father.

A marriage. Gr. gamoi, literally, “wedding festivities.” The pleasures of a feast were a common Jewish symbol of the privileges and joys of the Messianic kingdom (see on Matt. 8:11; Luke 14:15). In Oriental lands a feast such as this might last for several days (see Judges 14:17; see on Esther 1:4, 5; John 2:1).

His son. That is, Christ (see on ch. 25:1). For comments on Christ as the Son of God see on Luke 1:35, and as the Son of man see on Matt. 1:1; Mark 2:10. See Additional Note on John 1.

3. Sent forth his servants. Note that the guests had already been invited or “bidden.” To this present day it is customary in Oriental lands to honor guests by dispatching personal messengers to remind them of an invitation they have already accepted (see on Luke 14:17).

To call. The original invitation to the Jews had been given by the prophets of OT times (see on Matt. 21:34; Luke 14:16). This, the first call of the parable and the second invitation to the Jews, was given by John the Baptist, and by Jesus and His disciples (see on Luke 14:17).

Them that were bidden. In this parable, the Jews. The alliteration present in the Greek phrase may be rendered, “to call the called [ones].”

Wedding. See on v. 2.

Would not come. This refusal pictures the rejection of the gospel by the Jews, particularly by their leaders (see on ch. 21:38; COL 307). Jesus later expressed the same thought in the words, “ye would not” (see ch. 23:37). Even now the leaders of Israel were not only refusing to enter in themselves, but seeking also by every means to prevent others from entering in (see on ch. 23:13).

4. Again. This second call of the parable was the third invitation to the Jewish nation. The king is anxious that the invited guests come to his feast. Though bitterly disappointed and greatly humiliated, he is willing to forgive their rudeness and to forget their insults. The fact that a little later he sent bands of soldiers out and “destroyed those murderers” (v. 7) indicates that he could have compelled those who were invited to attend the feast had he desired to do so. God might compel men to accept the gospel invitation, but He does not do so. Every man may accept or decline, according to his own choice.

Other servants. This, the second call of the parable, was given the Jews by the disciples, after Christ’s crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension to heaven. The disciples were to work first “in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea” before going forth “unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8).

Dinner. Gr. ariston either “breakfast”, or “midday luncheon” (see on Luke 14:12). Here it evidently refers to the noon meal. According to Josephus Life 54) it was a Jewish custom to have “dinner,” or ariston, on Sabbath at least, at the 6th hour, or noon.

Ready. That is, “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (see on ch. 3:2). Here Jesus referred to the kingdom of divine grace set up at the time of His first advent (see on chs. 4:17; 5:2).

5. Made light. They did not even bother to make excuses (see on Luke 14:18).

Merchandise. Gr. emporia, “commerce,” “trade,” “business,” or “merchandise”; from emporos,, “merchant.”

6. The remnant. Or, “the rest,” that is, certain ones who were not content merely to ignore the invitation.

Took his servants. This refers primarily to Jewish persecution of the early Christians (see Acts 8:1–4).

Slew them. In the Jewish persecutions of the early Christian church Stephen was the first to fall (see Acts 6:9–15; 7:54–60). James, the first of the Twelve to be martyred, was also a victim of the enmity of the Jewish leaders (see Acts 12:1–3).

7. Sent forth. Hebrew narrative style often follows a topical order rather than a strictly chronological one (see p. 274; see on Gen. 25:19; Ex. 16:33 etc.).

Armies. Literally, “bands of soldiers,” rather than large “armies.”

Burned up their city. Doubtless an allusion to the fall of Jerusalem to the legions of Rome in a.d. 70 (see Matt. 24:15; Luke 21:20 p. 77).

8. Wedding is ready. Some have seen a difficulty in the statement that the wedding is still “ready” after the king has taken time to dispose of his enemies (see v. 7). But Oriental feasts often last for many days (see on v. 2), and since no guests had arrived to partake of the king’s bounties, the feast would still be “ready,” even if the appointed time for the feast had passed.

They which were bidden. See on v. 3.

Not worthy. That is, not acceptable in the sight of God (see ch. 10:11, 13).

9. Go ye therefore. This, the third call of the parable, quite evidently represents the call of mercy to the Gentiles.

Highways. That is, main thoroughfares.

10. Both bad and good. Obviously, the festive hall represents the church on earth, for there would not be “bad and good” in heaven.

11. King came in. The parable of the Great Supper (Luke 14:16–24) totally lacks any passages similar to those found here in Matt. 22:11–14.

To see the guests. He came in to see if all was going well, and particularly to see what guests his servants had gathered in from the highways. His inspection of the guests represents a process of judgment, of determining who may and who may not remain. In a special sense it represents the work of the investigative judgment (see COL 310; see on Rev. 14:6, 7).

A wedding garment. The special wedding garments were provided by the king himself. A festal hall filled with properly attired guests would be an honor to the king and to the occasion. A person inappropriately clad would bring dishonor upon the host and introduce a discordant note into the festivities.

The wedding garment represents “the righteousness of Christ” (COL 310). Hence, the rejection of the garment represents the rejection of those traits of character that qualify men to become sons and daughters of God. Like the guests in the parable, we have nothing suitable of our own to wear. We are acceptable in the presence of the great God only when clad in the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ, by virtue of His merits. This is the “white raiment” Christians are counseled to buy (see Rev. 3:18; cf. ch. 19:8).

The man without a wedding garment represents professed Christians who feel no need of a transformation of character. This guest was apparently interested only in the privilege of eating of the king’s bounties. He did not truly appreciate the privilege accorded him. The honor of the king and the importance of the occasion meant nothing to him. He forgot that the feast was being held in honor of the king’s son, and thus of the king himself. How well clad he may have been was beside the point, for he had declined the only thing that qualified him to sit at the king’s table and enjoy the festivities and bountiful provisions that accompanied the wedding celebration.

12. Friend. The king approached the offending guest tactfully and gave him ample opportunity to defend his course of action. Apparently the king was ready to forgive the man if his present condition was not his own fault, or if by some oversight on the part of the palace servants he had been missed.

Was speechless. Gr. phimooµ “to muzzle”; hence, figuratively, “to make speechless.” It was obviously the guest’s own fault, for had he been innocent, undoubtedly he would have hastened to speak in self-defense. His error had been intentional; he had declined the garment provided for him, possibly considering his own to be superior to it. He may have been wearing an expensive new garment he was eager for his fellow guests to see and admire.

13. Take him away. Men are excluded from the kingdom of heaven as a result of their own wrong choices. Thus it was with the five foolish virgins (see on ch. 25:11, 12). The man in the parable was able to enter the hall only by virtue of the royal invitation, but he alone was responsible for his being put out. No man can save himself, but he can bring condemnation on himself. Conversely, God is able to “save … to the uttermost” (Heb. 7:25), but He does not arbitrarily condemn any, or deny them entrance into the kingdom.

Outer darkness. See chs. 8:12; 25:30. This is the darkness of oblivion, of eternal separation from God, of annihilation. In the parable the darkness was all the more palpable in contrast with the brilliant light of the wedding chamber.

There. That is, in that place, out in the “outer darkness.”

Gnashing of teeth. See on ch. 8:12.

14. Many are called. The truth here stated Jesus spoke upon various occasions (see Matt. 20:16; Luke 13:23, 24). The gospel call is for all who will accept it. “Whosoever will” may “take the water of life freely” (Rev. 22:17. Any man who thirsts for the waters of salvation is privileged to accept the invitation, “Come unto me, and drink” (John 7:37). In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus promised that all who “hunger and thirst after righteousness … shall be filled” (Matt. 5:6).

Few are chosen. This truth is not based on a specific point of the parable itself, but is a general conclusion related to it. In the parable it is only implied that the guests who refused even to come to the feast were “many.” Jesus here simply states the fundamental fact that comparatively few were willing to accept the king’s gracious invitation and enter into the festive chamber. Similarly, in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus clearly stated that, comparatively speaking, only a “few” find the way to salvation, whereas “many” enter into the “broad” way “that leadeth to destruction” (see ch. 7:13, 14).

15. Pharisees. [Paying Tribute to Caesar, Matt. 22:15–22=Mark 12:13–17=Luke 20:20–26. Major comment: Matthew.]

Took counsel. For the second time this day (see on ch. 21:23), which was the Tuesday before the crucifixion.

Entangle. Gr. pagideuoµ, “to ensnare,” “to entrap,” or “to entangle.” A graphic figure depicting the intent of the Jewish leaders.

16. Their disciples. The Pharisees’ “disciples” were younger men whom the leaders probably hoped Christ would not recognize. The Pharisees feared that if they themselves came to Jesus with the question, He would immediately suspect a plot, for He had no doubt met most if not all of them. But these strangers had every appearance of being honest young men sincerely seeking an answer to what was, among the Jews of that time, a most perplexing problem (see on v. 17). Luke speaks of these disciples of the Pharisees as “spies” (see on ch. 20:20). For three years spies sent out by the Sanhedrin had been following Jesus nearly everywhere He went (see on Matt. 19:3; Luke 11:54).

Herodians. The Herodians were a Jewish political party that favored the house of Herod Antipas (see p. 54). The Pharisees were ardent nationalists, who opposed Herod as well as Caesar, whereas the Herodian partisans were collaborationists. Bitter enemies in the realm of politics, they were united against Jesus, as they had been against John the Baptist (see on Mark 6:14). On this occasion the Herodians were to be witnesses to Jesus’ answer, ready to accuse Him if He gave the slightest hint of disloyalty to the government.

We know. Their simulated honesty was in fact an attempt at deception. By flattery they hoped to put Jesus off His guard.

Neither carest thou. They hereby profess to credit Jesus with being fair and impartial (cf. Acts 10:34).

17. What thinkest thou? These spies wanted Jesus definitely to commit Himself, one way or the other. Should He approve of paying tribute to Rome, they thought to present this as evidence that He was against the law of God, which the Pharisees claimed forbade the payment of taxes to a foreign power. Thus He would forfeit His popular acclaim as the Messiah. Should Jesus forbid the payment of taxes, He would be represented to the Roman authorities as a traitor and a revolutionary. Either way, the Pharisees expected to gain. But Jesus disappointed them by refusing to go along with either one or the other of the two propositions of the dilemma. It was not a matter of either this or that, He replied, but of both.

Is it lawful? That is, in harmony with the principles of Jewish law. The Pharisees held that it was not, the Herodians the opposite. The question really involved the problem as to whether a man could be a good Jew and yet submit to Roman authority.

Tribute. Gr. keµnsos, (see on ch. 17:25). This was probably the Roman poll tax, levied in those territories directly under Roman jurisdiction. The payment of the tribute was particularly galling to the Jews, not because it was unduly burdensome, but because it was a symbol of submission to a foreign power and a bitter reminder of their lost liberties. The politically explosive question that confronted Jesus involved the problem, “Shall we submit to Rome or shall we fight for our independence?”

18. Wickedness. Mark speaks of their “hypocrisy” (ch. 12:15), and Luke of “their craftiness” (ch. 20:23). All three words aptly describe the motives that prompted the question.

Tempt ye me. That is, “put me to the test” (see on ch. 6:13). Jesus informed His would-be deceivers that He was fully aware of the trap they had so cleverly laid for Him.

Hypocrites. See on ch. 6:2.

19. Money. Gr. nomisma, literally, “anything sanctioned by law or by custom”; hence, “money.” Similarly, today we speak of money as “legal tender.” Roman taxes must be paid in Roman coin. Local rulers were permitted to issue their own copper coins, but Rome reserved the right to mint silver coins.

A penny. See on ch. 20:2.

20. Image. Gr. eikoµn, “image,” “figure,” or “likeness”; from which are derived such English words as “icon” and “iconoclastic.” In contrast with Roman coins, which bore the likeness of the emperor, Jewish coins bore images of olive trees, palm trees, and the like, which seemed to the Jews to be more in harmony with the injunction of the second commandment.

Superscription. Gr. epigrapheµ, “an inscription,” or “a title.”

21. Render. Or, “give back.” The “tribute money” (see v. 19) then in common circulation bore Caesar’s image, and must therefore have been minted by him and belong to him. The fact that the Jews had the money in their possession and used it as legal tender was in itself evidence that they acknowledged, however grudgingly, Caesar’s authority and jurisdiction. Caesar therefore had a right to claim what was his.

Things which are Caesar’s. Herewith Jesus sets forth the fundamental principle that determines the Christian’s relationship to the state. He is not to ignore the just claims of the state upon him, because there are certain “things which are Caesar’s.”

Things that are God’s. God’s authority is supreme; therefore the Christian’s supreme loyalty belongs to God. The Christian cooperates with “the powers that be” because they are “ordained of God” (Rom. 13:1). Therefore, to pay tribute to Caesar cannot be contrary to the law of God, as the Pharisees claimed (see on Matt. 22:17). But there are certain “things” in which Caesar has no right to interfere (see on Acts 5:29). God’s jurisdiction is absolute and universal, Caesar’s subordinate and limited.

22. They marvelled. The Pharisees had anticipated either a Yes or a No answer, and had not considered the possibility of an alternative to the dilemma they proposed. They were forced to realize that they were no match for Jesus, in spite of their careful planning.

23. The same day. [Marriage and the Resurrection, Matt. 22:23–33=Mark 12:18–17=Luke 20:27–38. Major comment: Matthew.] That is, Tuesday, the same day as that on which the events recorded previously in this chapter took place (see on chs. 21:23; 22:1, 15), the Tuesday before the crucifixion.

Sadducees. See p. 52. Though they professed belief in the Scriptures, they were, for all practical purposes, materialistic and skeptical in their philosophy. They believed in God as Creator, but denied that He was in any way particularly concerned with the affairs of mankind. They denied the existence of angels, of the resurrection, of the afterlife, and the operation of the Holy Spirit in men’s lives (see Acts 23:8). The Sadducees posed as intellectually superior to their fellow men, and made light of the strict legalism and traditions emphasized by the Pharisees.

In coming to Jesus at this time the Sadducees aimed to embarrass Him with one of their stock questions, which had always been most confusing for the Pharisees, who believed in the resurrection. They anticipated that Jesus would be no more able to give them an answer than were the Pharisees.

No resurrection. See Acts 23:8.

24. Master. Literally, “Teacher.”

Moses said. The Sadducees quoted, in substance, the levirate marriage law (see on Deut. 25:5, 6). According to this law, if a woman was left a childless widow, her late husband’s brother was to marry her. The first son born to this new union was to be considered the son of her first husband, to perpetuate his name, and to inherit his property.

25. Seven. A number commonly signifying completeness.

28. Whose wife? This question was not loaded with political dynamite like that on paying tribute to Caesar (see on v. 17). It was merely in the realm of speculative theology. However, failure on the part of Christ to give a satisfactory answer would deal a mighty blow to the high opinion in which He was held by the people (see ch. 21:46).

29. Do err. Gr. planaoµ (see on ch. 18:12). The Sadducees proved that the educated can be as ignorant and as steeped in error as the unlearned. Wise in their own philosophy though the Sadducees were, their information on this subject was incomplete, and there was at least one vital factor they had not considered—“the power of God.” Jesus went on to show that although the doctrine of the resurrection may not be as explicitly taught in theOT as some might wish, it is implicit throughout the OT.

Not knowing the scriptures. The Sadducees are said to have prided themselves on being more exact students of the Scriptures than the Pharisees, but Jesus here asserts that in spite of all their vaunted knowledge of the Word of God, they are profoundly ignorant. Theological concepts based on speculative reasoning from incomplete information are certain to lead astray those who resort to this fanciful method of arriving at truth. Christians today should beware lest they, too, “err, not knowing the scriptures.”

Power of God. Literally, the “dunamis of God” (see on Luke 1:35). The Sadducees forgot that a God powerful enough to raise men from the dead also had the wisdom and power to set up anew a perfect order of society in the perfect new earth. Furthermore, all who are saved will be contented and happy with the glorious new order of things, even though they cannot fully realize in this life what the future will bring forth (see 1 Cor. 2:9).

30. They neither marry. Evidently there will be no need for marriage, because a different order of life will prevail.

As the angels. Angels are created beings, not procreated beings. “The doctrine that children will be born in the new earth is not a part of the ‘sure word of prophecy’” (MM 99).

31. Have ye not read? Note the implied rebuke in these words (see on ch. 21:42).

32. The God of Abraham. What honor is there in being the God of dead men? Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were dead at the time God appeared to Moses before the burning bush. Why would God identify Himself as the God of the patriarchs, except in anticipation of the resurrection? In this same anticipation, by faith, Abraham “looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (Heb. 11:10). It has been suggested that Jesus quoted from the Pentateuch (Ex. 3:6, 16) because the Sadducees believed only in the inspiration of the books of Moses.

33. Astonished. See on ch. 7:28.

His doctrine. Literally, “his teaching.”

34. Pharisees had heard. [The Great Commandment, Matt. 22:34–40=Mark 12:28–34=Luke 20:39, 40. Major comment: Mark.] For comment on the circumstances under which the question concerning the great commandment was propounded see on Matt. 21:23, 28, 33; 22:1, 15, 23; Mark 12:28.

Put the Sadducees to silence. Literally, “muzzled the Sadducees” (see on v. 12). Though the Pharisees may have been pleased that their inveterate theological foes had been “muzzled,” they begrudged Jesus the victory that silenced those foes. Not having given up hope of yet entrapping Jesus, the Pharisees now called on one of their own number to make a final attempt to lead the Saviour to say something that could be construed as being against the law (see on ch. 5:17).

Gathered together. See on v. 15.

35. A lawyer. One learned in the civil and religious laws of Judaism (see p. 55). This particular “lawyer” was “one” of the Pharisees (v. 34), as most of the scribes were.

Tempting him. Or, “testing him.” The Pharisees who proposed the question were “tempting” Jesus, whereas likely the man who actually propounded the question was simply “testing” Him. Whatever may have been the original motive that prompted the question, the lawyer himself seems to have been honest and sincere (see on Mark 12:28, 32–34). Evidently he was not personally antagonistic to Jesus.

36. Master. Literally, “Teacher” (see on Luke 10:25).

The great commandment. Though this question dealt with fundamental principles, it was nevertheless probably prompted by the rabbinical attempt to arrange all the commandments of the law in a hierarchy of importance. Where the requirements of two commands appeared to be in conflict, the one assumed to be “greater” took precedence and released a man from responsibility for violating the “lesser” of the two (see further on ch. 5:19). Here, “great” means, in effect, “greatest.” The Pharisees exalted the first four precepts of the Decalogue as being more important than the last six, and as a result failed when it came to matters of practical religion.

37. Love the Lord. Jesus quotes from Deut. 6:5 (see on Luke 10:27). There must first be love in the heart before a person can, in the strength and by the grace of Christ, begin to observe the precepts of God’s law (cf. Rom. 8:3, 4). Obedience without love is as impossible as it is worthless. But where love is present a person will automatically set out to order his life in harmony with the will of God as expressed in His commandments (see on John 14:15; 15:10).

All thy heart. Christ’s purpose here in enumerating different parts of one’s being is simply another way of saying that love for God, if truly present, will permeate every aspect of the being.

39. Like. Like it, that is, in being based on the great principle of love, and like it in requiring the concerted attention and cooperation of all parts of one’s being.

Love thy neighbour. See on Matt. 5:43; 19:19; Luke 10:27–29. Jesus here quotes from Lev. 19:18, where “neighbour” refers to a fellow Israelite. Jesus, however, widened the definition of “neighbour” to include all who are in need of help (see Luke 10:29–37). The law of love toward God and man was by no means new. Jesus was the first, however, to unite the thoughts of Deut. 6:4, 5 and Lev. 19:18 as summing up “the whole duty of man,” though Micah comes very close to the same idea (see on Micah 6:8).

As thyself. Man’s natural tendency is to make self first, irrespective of obligations incumbent upon him in his relations to God and to his fellow men. To be completely selfless in dealing with his fellows, a man must first love God supremely. This is the very foundation of all right conduct.

40. Law and the prophets. A common Hebrew idiom designating the entire OT (see on Luke 24:44). In other words, Jesus affirms that the OT is nothing more nor less than an exposition of the two great principles here enunciated—love for God and love for man. For the reply of the “lawyer” to Jesus’ declaration see on Mark 12:32.

41. Pharisees were gathered. [Jesus Silences His Critics, Matt. 22:41–46=Mark 12:35–37=Luke 20:41–44. Major comment: Matthew.] By this time, it would appear, a large delegation of priests had gathered to listen to what Jesus might say (see on chs. 21:23, 28, 33; 22:1, 15, 23, 34). Mark notes that Jesus was still teaching in the Temple (ch. 12:35).

Jesus asked them. All three attempts (see on vs. 15, 23, 34) to make Jesus incriminate Himself had failed. Now Jesus turns the tables on His would-be accusers.

42. Of Christ. That is, of the “Anointed One,” or the “Messiah” (see on ch. 1:1). Here Jesus uses the term “Christ,” not as a personal name, but as a title. The Jews acknowledged the Messiah (Christ) of prophecy, but denied, of course, that Jesus was that Messiah.

Son of David. See on ch. 1:1.

43. How then? Jesus now confronts the critics with an apparent paradox they cannot solve, a dilemma to which they had no more of an answer than when Jesus previously propounded a difficult question (see ch. 21:25, 27).

In spirit. That is, “by inspiration.” Mark says, “by the Holy Ghost” (ch. 12:36).

44. Unto my Lord. Jesus here quotes from the book of Psalms (see Luke 20:42; see on Ps. 110:1; cf. Acts 2:34; Heb. 1:13).

45. How is he his son? In other words, if David calls Messiah “Lord,” implying that Messiah is older than David himself, how can Messiah also be David’s “Son,” and thus be younger than David? The only possible answer to Jesus’ question is that the One who was to come as Messiah would have existed prior to His incarnation on this earth. As David’s “Lord,” Messiah was none other than the Son of God; as David’s “Son,” Messiah was the Son of man (see on ch. 1:1). Obviously the Jewish leaders were unprepared to answer this question because of their erroneous concepts of the Messiah (see on Luke 4:19). They could not very well answer the question without admitting that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, the Son of God. In asking this question, then, Jesus brought the Pharisees and scribes face to face with the central idea of His mission to earth, for this question would undoubtedly, if faced sincerely and intelligently, have led to the recognition of His Messiahship.

46. No man was able. The Jewish leaders discovered that it was useless to question Jesus further, for each dilemma with which they confronted Him, He turned on them, and in so doing proved them ignorant of Scripture and incompetent to be the spiritual leaders of the people. In at least one other instance, Jesus confronted them with a question that embarrassed them (cf. ch. 21:23–27). Each attempt to discredit Jesus proved to be a boomerang.

Ellen G. White comments

1–14COL 307–319; GC 428

4, 7 COL 308

8–13COL 309

9     6T 78; WM 73, 78, 245

11   GC 428; 4T 307; 6T 296

11, 12  TM 187

11–13COL 308; 5T 509

12   COL 317

13   2T 242

14   2T 294; 5T 50

15–46DA 601–609

21   1T 220; 3T 120, 384

22   DA 602

23   AA 78; DA 603

24–30DA 605

29   FE 279, 438, 448

30   MM 99

31, 32  DA 606

36–40PK 327

37   GC 473; 1T 436; 2T 42; 4T 281; 5T 542

37, 38  CT 329; 1T 289

37, 39  CS 157; DA 607; Ev 619; FE 187; 1T 173

37–39AA 505; CT 345; WM 49, 111

37–401T 710; 2T 228; 3T 511

39   COL 381, 382; Ed 16; ML 224; Te 213; 2T 51, 520, 547, 639, 681; 3T 58; 6T 269; 7T 91; WM 32

40   DA 607

42   DA 608; MH 456

43–46DA 609