Matthew 22 35

Matthew 22:35 kjv

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

Matthew 22:35 nkjv

Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying,

Matthew 22:35 niv

One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:

Matthew 22:35 esv

And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him.

Matthew 22:35 nlt

One of them, an expert in religious law, tried to trap him with this question:

Matthew 22 verses

Matthew 22 35 Meaning

Matthew 22:35 describes one individual from the group of Pharisees, identified as a lawyer, approaching Jesus with a question. The intention behind this inquiry was not genuine seeking of truth or understanding, but rather to challenge or trap Jesus. This event immediately follows Jesus' refutation of the Sadducees, signifying the ongoing antagonism from various Jewish religious leaders who sought to discredit or ensnare Him in His words.

Matthew 22 35 Context

Matthew 22:35 is situated within a series of confrontations between Jesus and various Jewish religious factions in Jerusalem during His final week before His crucifixion. Prior to this verse, Jesus has already effectively silenced the Herodians and Pharisees regarding tribute to Caesar (Matt 22:15-22), and then profoundly confounded the Sadducees regarding the resurrection (Matt 22:23-33). The Pharisees, having heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, gathered together (Matt 22:34). It is from this regrouped opposition that the lawyer steps forward.

The immediate chapter context highlights the religious leaders' continuous efforts to trap Jesus. Historically, the Pharisees were the dominant religious-political party, adhering strictly to the Mosaic Law and oral traditions. Lawyers (nomikoi) were specialists in this Law, experts in its interpretation and application, often part of the Pharisaic sect or aligned with their views. Their act of "testing" Jesus was a common tactic aimed at discrediting Him, either by making Him contradict scripture, speak against Roman authority, or appear ignorant. It reflects a spirit of hostility and opposition rather than genuine inquiry.

Matthew 22 35 Word analysis

• and (καί - kai): A simple conjunction, connecting this event to the previous one (Pharisees gathering). It implies a continuation of the opposition Jesus faced.
• one of them (εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν - heis ex autōn): Refers to "one" from the Pharisees who had gathered (Matthew 22:34). This signifies a collective hostile front from which an individual was delegated to confront Jesus.
• a lawyer (νομικός - nomikos): This Greek term specifically denotes an expert in the Jewish Law. These individuals dedicated their lives to studying, interpreting, and teaching the Torah and its vast body of oral tradition. Their authority derived from their knowledge of the Law. The choice of a lawyer indicates that the test was specifically designed to challenge Jesus on His legal knowledge or theological stance. It suggests the lawyer was well-versed and prepared to find fault.
• asked him a question (ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτόν - epērōtēsen auton): The verb eperotao means "to ask," "to question," "to inquire of." While seemingly neutral, the accompanying participle "testing" defines the nature of this questioning. It was not a plea for enlightenment but an interrogation.
• testing him (πειράζων - peirazōn): This participle, derived from peirazo, is crucial. It means to "try," "prove," "put to the test." In biblical Greek, peirazo can signify a legitimate test of character or faith (like God testing Abraham, Gen 22:1), but more often, especially when referring to antagonists testing God or His servants, it carries a malicious intent – to entrap, tempt to sin, or challenge with hostile motive (e.g., Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness). Here, in the context of the religious leaders' ongoing opposition to Jesus, it strongly implies a desire to find a fault, cause Him to stumble, or make Him appear heterodox, potentially for formal accusation.

Words-group by words-group analysis:

• "and one of them, a lawyer": This phrase identifies the specific individual. His professional title as a "lawyer" immediately highlights his expertise in the very domain he's about to question Jesus about—the Law. It also positions him as a representative of the hostile Pharisaic group, signaling a deliberate and calculated challenge.
• "asked him a question, testing him": The direct action is "asking a question," but the true nature and motivation are revealed by "testing him." This clarifies that the question was not born of genuine curiosity or a sincere desire to learn from Jesus. Instead, it was an attempt to probe for a weakness, create a theological dilemma, or elicit a response that could be used against Him, mirroring their persistent efforts to entrap Jesus in His words throughout the Gospels.

Matthew 22 35 Bonus section

The consistent use of the verb peirazo ("testing") in relation to the religious leaders' interactions with Jesus across the Gospels reveals a pattern. This was not an isolated incident but a characteristic of their opposition. This lawyer, representative of the elite legal scholars, would have been expected to know the answer to his own question regarding the greatest commandment, as it was a topic of much rabbinic debate. His asking, therefore, wasn't for information, but for the performance of a public theological duel. Their persistent testing ultimately formed part of the justification for their later accusations against Jesus. Their attempts to "test" or "trap" Him demonstrate a complete spiritual blindness, where academic knowledge of the Law overshadowed any genuine spiritual discernment or humility before God's Anointed One.

Matthew 22 35 Commentary

Matthew 22:35 serves as the precursor to one of Jesus' most profound teachings: the greatest commandment. This single verse lays bare the underlying tension between Jesus and the religious establishment of His day. The "lawyer" stepping forward from the collected Pharisees is not merely curious; he embodies the collective strategy of Jesus' adversaries to discredit Him. Their intention was to trap Him, either by getting Him to prioritize one commandment over another, potentially offending other legal experts or common people, or to contradict established legal traditions. This act of "testing" reveals a hardened heart unwilling to accept Jesus' authority or truth, seeking instead to assert their own self-righteousness and control.

It highlights the dangerous interplay of knowledge without submission, and intellectual curiosity used for malicious intent. The lawyer, with all his learning in the Law, approaches Jesus not as a seeker, but as a challenger. Yet, Jesus' response to this calculated challenge transcends the entrapment, turning a hostile interrogation into a moment of divine clarity regarding the essence of God's demands: love for God and love for neighbor. The example warns believers to examine their motives when approaching divine truth – whether it is for sincere understanding or to bolster self-opinion.