Bible Commentary

Matthew 22:24

The Pulpit Commentary on Matthew 22:24

The Pulpit Commentary · Joseph S. Exell and contributors · Public domain

Moses said. They quote the substance of the law of the levirate (i.e. the brother-in-law) in , , by which it was enacted that if a married man died without a son, his brother or the next of kin should marry the widow, and the firstborn son of this union should be regarded and registered as the son of the deceased.

This was a law not peculiar to the Hebrews, but prevalent from immemorial times among many ancient peoples, e.g. Persians, Egyptians, and found in force among some nations in modern times, as Arabians, Druses, Cireassians, etc.

It seems not to have been enforced in any case, but to have been left to the good will of the survivor, who might escape the obligation by submitting to a certain social obloquy ().

The motive of the regulation was the maintenance of a family and the non-alienation of property. Many authorities assert that the law did not apply in the case of a man who left daughters (), but only in that of a childless widow.

Later rabbinism limited the obligation to a betrothed woman, not yet actually married. But whatever may have been the limitations allowed in these days, the question of the Sadducees took its stand on the old legal basis, and endeavoured to draw therefrom a ridiculous inference.

Shall marry; ἐπιγαμβρευ ìσει. The verb, found in the Septuagint, is used properly signifying "to take a woman to wife as the husband's kinsman" ( γαμβρο ìς), and generally, "to contract affinity by marriage."

Raise up seed. The firstborn son of such a marriage was the legal heir of the deceased brother, and bore his name. The natural and the legal paternities are seen in the genealogies of our Lord, and occasion some difficulties in adjustment.

Recommended reading

More for Matthew 22:24

Continue with other commentaries and DiscipleDeck content connected to this verse, chapter, or topic.

Other commentaries

commentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Matthew 22:1-46EXPOSITIONJoseph S. Exell and contributorscommentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Matthew 22:15-33Question of the Sadducees: "Whose shall she be?" The attempt of the Pharisees to ensnare our Lord in his talk was the result of a meeting called for the purpose of considering how they might silence a critic who was mak…Joseph S. Exell and contributorscommentaryMatthew Henry on Matthew 22:23-33The doctrines of Christ displeased the infidel Sadducees, as well as the Pharisees and Herodians. He carried the great truths of the resurrection and a future state, further than they had yet been reveled. There is no a…Matthew HenrycommentaryThe Question Respecting MarriageTHE QUESTION RESPECTING MARRIAGE. We have here Christ's dispute with the Sadducees concerning the resurrection; it was the same day on which he was attacked by the Pharisees about paying tribute. Satan was now more busy…Matthew HenrycommentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Matthew 22:23-33Third attack: The Sadducees and the resurrection. (Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-40.)Joseph S. Exell and contributorscommentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Matthew 22:23-33The resurrection of the dead. When Jesus had disposed of the Pharisees and Herodians, the Sadducees approached him. They were the physicists—the materialists—of their time, who did not believe in angels or spirits, and…Joseph S. Exell and contributorscommentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Matthew 22:23-33The Sadducees. I. THEIR CASE OF CASUISTRY. 1. Their doctrine. They held that there was no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit (Acts 23:8). Some of them now came to Christ, asserting their unbelief. They had not hith…Joseph S. Exell and contributors