Matthew 22:16

16 . their disciples with the Herodians ] An unnatural coalition, for the Pharisees represented the patriotic resistance to all foreign power; whereas the Herodians, as their name implies, supported the Herodian dynasty, and, as the context shews, acquiesced in the Roman rule. The Herodians are not named except in the first two Gospels; nor does Josephus include them in his account of Jewish sects. They were probably numerically insignificant, and may indeed have consisted merely of a few renegade Jews, who belonged to Herod’s court. See ch. Matthew 11:8 . we know that thou art true ] Nothing could exceed the insidious hypocrisy of this attack on Jesus. His enemies approach Him as a teacher whom they trust. regardest not the person of men ] i. e. Thou art not moved by external appearance; neither wealth, power, nor prestige will influence thy decision.

And they sent out unto him their disciples with the {g} Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God {h} in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the {i} person of men. (g) Those who with Herod made a new religion, composed of both heathen and Jewish religion. (h) Truly and sincerely. (i) You are not moved with any appearance and outward show.

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.

(16) With the Herodians. —The party thus described are known to us only through the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark; and their precise relation to the other sects or schools among the Jews are consequently matters of conjecture. The form of the name (like Mariani, Pompeiani, and, we may add, Christiani ) is Latin, and may be noted as an example of the influence of that language in the public life of Palestine. The Herodians were known, first to the Romans and then to the people, as adherents of the house of the Herods. In what sense they were adherents, and why they now joined with the Pharisees, is less clear; and two distinct theories have been maintained: (1) That, as it was the general policy of all the princes of the Herodian family to court the favour of Rome, their partisans were those who held that it was lawful to “give tribute to Cæsar.” On this supposition the narrative brings before us the coalition of two parties usually opposed to each other, but united against a common foe. (2) That they were partisans of the Herods, in the sense of looking to them to restore the independence of the nation, and were therefore of one mind with the Pharisees on the tribute question, though they differed from them on most other points. A fact recorded by Jewish writers probably gives us the origin of the party.

In the early days of Herod the Great, when Hillel, the great scribe, was at the height of his fame, he had as his colleague, Menahem, possibly the Essene of that name of whom Josephus tells us that he prophesied Herod’s future greatness ( Ant. xv. 10, § 5). The latter was tempted by the king’s growing power, and, with eighty followers, entered into his service, forsook the ranks of the Pharisees, and appeared in forgeous apparel, glittering with gold (Jost, Gesch. judenthums, i. 259; see Note on Matthew 11:8 ). In Mark 3:6 we find them at Capernaum conspiring with the Pharisees who had come from Jerusalem, and are thus led to see in their present action a renewal of the previous alliance. A comparison of Matthew 16:6 and Mark 8:15 suggests a general affinity with the policy and tenets of the Sadducees. From St. Luke ( Luke 23:7 ) we learn the fact that the Tetrarch himself (and therefore probably his followers) was at this time at Jerusalem, so that the renewed combination was natural enough. On the whole, the drift of the facts seems towards the conclusion that they were advocates of national submission to the emperor rather than assertors of independence. Master, we know that thou art true.—Insidious as the praise was, intended, as it were, to goad Him who was thus addressed into showing, by some rash utterance, that He deserved it, it may be noted as an admission from the lips of adversaries of the supreme truthfulness and fearlessness of our Lord’s teaching.

Matthew 22:16 . Μαθητὰς , disciples ) With whom they thought that our Lord would deal less cautiously, and whose overthrow they thought would be attended with less disgrace to themselves.— Ἡρωδιανῶν , of the Herodians ) who were especially attached to the party of Herod, and consequently to that of Cæsar, which the Pharisees viewed with aversion; see Josephus Antiq. xvii. 3; and see Mark 3:6 ; Mark 12:13 . There might be, moreover, a variety of opinion amongst the Herodians themselves concerning holy things, Herod, etc.— ἀληθὴς — ἐν ἀληθείᾳ , true—in truth ) Truth should be known and spoken. Truth is the agreement of things with the faculties of knowing, willing, speaking, and acting.— τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ , the way of God ) A part of which way is the doctrine concerning what ought to be given to God. There is a striking antithesis here between Θεου , of God —and ἀνθρώπων , of men.— οὐ γὰρ βλέπεις εἰς πρόσωπον , for Thou regardest not the person ) They wished Jesus to deny that tribute ought to be given to Cæsar.[960] Truth truly estimates both things and persons; but he who regards persons easily betrays truth. [960] Which tribute, either a short while before (comp. ch. Matthew 17:24 ) or at that very time, namely in the month Nisam, was being paid according to custom.— Harm. , p. 465.

Matthew 22:16 . The Herodians are not Herod’s courtiers (Fritzsche, following Luther), but the political party among the Jews that sought to uphold the dynasty of the Herods, popular royalists, in opposition to the principle of a pure theocracy, though willing also to take part with the powerful Pharisees against the unpopular Roman sway, should circumstances render such a movement expedient. For other interpretations, some of them rather singular, see Wolf and Köcher in loc . The passage in Joseph. Antt. xiv. 15. 10, refers to different circumstances from the present. Comp. Ewald, Gesch. Chr . p. 97 ff.; Keim, III. p. 130 ff. To regard (as is done by Origen, Maldonatus, de Wette, Winer, Neander, Volkmar) those here referred to as supporters of the Roman sway generally (and not merely of the Herodian dynasty in particular), is certainly not in accordance with the name they bear. We may further observe that no little cunning was shown by the orthodox hierarchy in selecting some of the younger members of their order (who as such would be less liable to be suspected) to co-operate with a party no less hostile than themselves to the Messianic pretender, with a view to betray Jesus into an answer savouring of opposition to the payment of the tribute. This was the drift of the flattering preface to their question, and upon His answer they hoped to found an accusation before the Roman authorities . Comp. Luke 20:20 .

But though the plot miscarried, owing to the answer being in the affirmative , the Pharisees had at least succeeded in now getting the Herodians to assume a hostile attitude toward Jesus, while at the same time they would be able to turn the reply to good account in the way of rendering Him unpopular with the masses. λέγοντες ] that is, through their representatives. Comp. Matthew 11:2 , Matthew 27:19 . διδάσκαλε , οἴδαμεν , κ . τ . λ .] Comp. with this cunning , though in itself so true an instance of captatio benevolentiae , the sincere one in John 3:2 . ἀληθὴς εἶ ] true , avoiding every sort of ψεῦδος in your dealings, either simulando or dissimulando . In what follows, and which is still connected with ὅτι , this is made more precise, being put both positively and negatively. τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ] the way prescribed by God, i.e. the behaviour of men to each other which God requires.