From: Busy Person’s Guide to Matthew 15 to 28 Return to Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2019
All reproduction of
text in paper, electronic, or computer
form both permitted and encouraged so long as
authorial
credit is given and the text is not altered.
Busy Person’s Guide to the
New Testament:
Quickly Understanding
Matthew
(Volume 2: Chapters 21 to 22)
Chapter Twenty-One
The Final—and Triumphal—Entry into Jerusalem (Matthew
21:1-11): 1 Now when they approached
Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, at the Mount of
Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2 telling them, “Go to the village ahead of you. Right
away you will find a donkey tied there, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3 If anyone says anything to
you, you are to say, ‘The Lord needs them,’ and he will send them at
once.”
4 This took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet 5 “Tell the people of
6 So the disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed
them. 7 They brought the donkey and
the colt and placed their cloaks on them, and he sat on them. 8 A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the
road. Others cut branches from the trees
and spread them on the road. 9 The crowds that went ahead
of him and those following kept shouting, “Hosanna to the Son of David!
Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna
in the highest!”
10 As he entered
21:1 Now
when they drew near
21:2 saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Loose them and bring them to Me. Their assignment was a simple but rather odd one: to go into the nearby village and look for the first donkey and colt they find together. They were to untie them and return with them. It is quite possible that the availability was due to some kind of prearrangement by Jesus with the owners.
That
these would be the first such animals the apostles would encounter
surely requires miraculous foreknowledge being involved as well. Indeed it has reasonably argued by Whitby (quoted by the Benson Commentary) that this
is one of multiple hints in that direction when we compare the multiple gospel
accounts: “He
says, 1, You shall find a colt: 2, On which no man ever sat: 3, Bound with his
mother: 4, In a place where two ways meet, Mark 11:4: 5, As you enter into the village: 6, The
owners of which shall at first seem unwilling that you should unbind him: 7,
But when they hear the Lord hath need of him, they
will let him go.”
21:3 And if
anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of them,’ and
immediately he will send them.” This
response would prove quite adequate to gain their use and there would be no
protest. The lack of any need to specify
which “lord” is in mind argues that it will be someone who, like them,
uses the term with special reference to Jesus of Nazareth.
21:4 All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying. This odd course was to be an acting out of the words of an ancient prophecy. The unspecified “prophet” was Zechariah (9:9) who deserved the title not only because he wrote what was applicable to Jesus but also he functioned as an inspired teacher to his own time (1:1).
21:5 “Tell the daughter of
Sidebar
on the equivalence of “daughter of
21:6-7 So the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them. 7 They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set Him on them. After carrying out Jesus' instructions they used their clothes as a kind of cushion for him to ride on, putting them to both animals so they would both be ready no matter which He actually chose to ride on. He actually selected only the colt as the parallel accounts in the other three gospels clearly show.
21:8 And a very great multitude spread their clothes on the road; others cut down branches from the trees and spread them on the road. The crowds accompanying Jesus were large and indicated their honor by both allowing the animals to walk over their own clothing and also by “padding” the road with branches from nearby trees. Both demonstrated their enthusiasm, honor, and respect.
21:9 Then the multitudes who went before and those who followed cried out, saying: “Hosanna to the Son of David! / ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ / Hosanna in the highest!” By this point there were crowds both in front and behind Jesus. They were all chanting praises to both God and the unique “Son of David” (= Jesus) who was in their midst. They also cried out blessings upon Him as one “who comes in the name of the Lord!” So far as they were concerned, this Jesus was especially (uniquely?) deserving of the title “Son” and on a special mission for God (i.e., coming in God’s name as no one else).
Sidebar: A comparison with the other gospels provides
a much fuller account of the various things being shouted out in praise that
day: “(1.) As here,
‘Hosanna.’ The word was a Hebrew
imperative, ‘Save us, we beseech thee,’ and had come into liturgical use from
Psalms 118. . . . The verses from it now
chanted by the people are said to have been those with which the inhabitants of
“(2.)
‘Blessed be’ (‘the King’ in St. Luke) ‘He that cometh in the name
of the Lord.’ These words, too, received
a special personal application. The welcome
was now given, not to the crowd of pilgrims, but to the King.
“(3.) As in St. Luke, one of the cries was an echo of the
angels’ hymn at the Nativity, ‘Peace on earth, and glory in the highest’ (Luke
“(4.) As in St. Mark, ‘Blessed
be the kingdom of our father David.’ We
have to think of these shouts as filling the air as He rides slowly on in
silence. He will not check them at the
bidding of the Pharisees (Luke
Elbow to
elbow conditions resulted and multiple languages sharing their question. With this large scale celebration of a
newcomer, they were naturally impressed:
with this dramatic an entry and body of followers, it had to be
someone important. Hence, the question
naturally passed from ear to ear as to who this could be. The answer is not going to reassure
the already antagonistic local religious authorities. In fact John tells us that when they realized
who it was they were utterly horrified:
“Look, the world has gone after Him” (John
Those attending from distant places would doubtless be intrigued as to the nature of His teachings. They might know nothing about Him yet, but the popularity of the label could not help but intrigue them and make them want to learn more.
After Chasing the Money Making Merchants Out
of the Temple, Jesus Proceeds to Provide Physical Healings (Matthew 21:12-17): 12 Then Jesus entered the
temple area and drove out all those who were selling and buying in the temple
courts, and turned over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of
those selling doves. 13 And he said to them, “It
is written, ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you
are turning it into a den of robbers!”
14 The blind and lame came to
him in the temple courts, and he healed them.
15 But when the chief priests and the experts in the law
saw the wonderful things he did and heard the children crying out in the temple
courts, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they became indignant 16 and said to him, “Do you
hear what they are saying?” Jesus said
to them, “Yes. Have you never read, ‘Out
of the mouths of children and nursing infants you have prepared praise for
yourself’?” 17 And leaving them, he went
out of the city to
Sidebar: These sales--and related items such as salt
and wine and sacrificial animals--were located in the Court of the
Gentiles. This naturally enriched the
sellers--and whatever element of the priesthood through whom the arrangements
had to be made. But, in a very real
sense, the practice also carried an implied insult to the Gentiles as
well: They were worthy of having their
section of the
If Jesus had merely chased out the merchants, His enemies might accuse Him of excess out of their anger and vindictiveness. But the fact that He could promptly turn from that and make the sick well argued for an authority behind His teaching and action that would further justify His actions--above and beyond resting alone on the scriptural justification He had given.
Rather than rebuke the praise, however, He appealed to the ancient text (Psalms 8:2) about how it seemed that even out of infants had come words of great praise. So what if these were the common people--no more than infants and the insignificant to them; they too had the right to give praise to God and His prophet. Whether it infuriated the religious leadership or not.
Jesus’ Withering of a Fig Tree and the Lessons
Intended (Matthew
20 When the disciples saw it
they were amazed, saying, “How did the fig tree wither so quickly?” 21 Jesus answered them, “I
tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do
what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted
up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen.
22 And whatever you ask in prayer, if you believe, you
will receive.” --New English
Translation (for comparison)
Of course
the moral lesson in this is the folly of trying to appear to be
something better than you really are.
You won’t deceive the One who counts!
This example is commonly used to illustrate the “fruitless” nature of
first century Judaism and the example of the fruitless fig tree in Luke 13:6-9
is usually cited as precedent backing this interpretation; even there, however,
the emphasis is still upon individual (not collective) responsibility
for sin (verses 1-5).
Two additional points are worth stressing. The first is that this is a notable example of narrative consolidation: The “cursing” and the withering being observed actually take place on consecutive mornings, as a comparison with Mark 11:12-14 and 20-23 shows us.
Secondly,
this sprouting was an unexpected situation and would only occur with one specific
type of fig tree: “The fig-tree loses its leaves in the winter: indeed
it looks particularly bare with its white naked branches. One species, however, puts forth fruit and
leaves in the very early spring, the fruit appearing before the leaves. It was
doubtless a fig-tree of this kind that Jesus observed, and seeing the leaves
expected to find fruit thereon. At the
time of the Passover the first leaf-buds would scarcely have appeared on the
common fig-tree, while this year’s ripe fruit would not be found till four
months later.” (
21:21 So Jesus answered and said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but also if you say to this mountain, ‘Be removed and be cast into the sea,’ it will be done. The incident is usually considered as an “acted out parable:” just as the physical fig tree was under a “curse” for being fruitless when it gave the superficial signs of bearing fruit, so is the supposed believer whose faith won’t endure a closer examination. Although a good sermonic explanation, Jesus does not actually choose to develop this theme at all.
Instead, He argues that what happened to the tree demonstrated the power of faith that lacked any doubt at all. If they had enough faith of that kind they could have done likewise (probably intended literally), but He uses this as the basis of a hyperbolic statement that similar faith could even move mountains into the sea. (We say hyperbolic for miracles served a practical purpose and moving mountains would serve none beyond an idle show of power.) The point was to impress upon them the “unlimited” power of faith if they but had enough of it.
Religious Leaders of the Temple Challenge
Jesus’ Right to Teach—and, By Implication, the Other Things He Had Done There (Such
As Chasing the Money Changers and Merchants Out of the Temple: see verses 12-17) (Matthew 21:23-27): 23 Now after Jesus entered
the temple courts, the chief priests and elders of the people came up to him as
he was teaching and said, “By what authority are you doing these things, and
who gave you this authority?” 24 Jesus answered them, “I
will also ask you one question. If you answer me then I will also tell you by
what authority I do these things. 25 Where did John’s baptism
come from? From heaven
or from people?”
They discussed this among
themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say, ‘Then
why did you not believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘From
people,’ we fear the crowd, for they all consider John to be a prophet.” 27 So they answered Jesus,
“We don’t know.” Then he said to them,
“Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”
--New English Translation (for comparison)
They
could point to the approval of some rabbi or priest for their own teaching and
behavior or even that of the Sanhedrin itself.
What could He point to that gave Him the right to teach and, for
that matter, contest what they were doing and saying as well? As they saw it, all the “people who counted”
were on their side of controversial issues and not His. Surely none of them would think for a
second to permit Him such behavior!
Saying kind
words would have done no good either.
John had spoken high praise of this Jesus (John
So far as the present confrontation went, it destroyed their opportunity to try to discredit the Lord: Since they declined to answer, Jesus insisted that there was no need for Him to answer either. They might not like it, but how could they possibly deny this was a logical and fully justified course?
Acceptability to God Is Determined by Actually
Doing the Father’s Will Rather Than Just Claiming to Do So
(Matthew 21:28-32): 28 “What do you think? A man
had two sons. He went to the first and
said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today. ’ 29 The boy answered, ‘I will
not.’ But later he had a change of heart
and went. 30 The father went to the
other son and said the same thing. This boy answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but did
not go. 31 Which of the two did his
father’s will?”
They said, “The
first.” Jesus said to them, “I tell you
the truth, tax collectors and prostitutes will go ahead of you into the
--New English Translation (for comparison)
Some say
that this son represented the Gentiles and the second son the Jews in their
rejection of Jesus--and the religious leadership in particular. Although that is a useful sermonic
application of the parable, Jesus is actually addressing Jews and gives no
hint that He is discussing any others at all.
In other words He is talking
about obedience and rebellion among His own people. And the most direct application the
text has today is to Christians and how some rebel against the Divine
will but reform while others are strong public advocates of it while hiding
their “secret life” of spiritual and/or moral decay.
But that
rebellion was not irretrievably “locked in concrete,” it was changeable
because the Lord stresses that these others “enter the
Jesus does not quite come out and say that they did not “believe” that John’s message came from heaven but, if their behavior was any guide, that conclusion could hardly be avoided. Unless one wished to opt for the equally condemning possibility that they were so prejudiced that they knew it was but refused to heed it out of arrogance and self-importance.
Another Parable: Commit Blatant Injustice Against Those Doing
What God Instructed Them To Do and You Will Incur Divine Wrath (Matthew
21:33-46): 33 “Listen to another
parable: There was a landowner who
planted a vineyard. He put a fence
around it, dug a pit for its winepress, and built a watchtower. Then he leased it to tenant farmers and went
on a journey. 34 When the harvest time was
near, he sent his slaves to the tenants to collect his portion of the
crop.
35 But the tenants seized his
slaves, beat one, killed another, and stoned another. 36 Again he sent other
slaves, more than the first, and they treated them the same way. 37 Finally he sent his son to
them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’
38 But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and get his
inheritance!’ 39 So they seized him, threw
him out of the vineyard, and killed him.
40 “Now when the owner of the
vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” 41 They said to him, “He will
utterly destroy those evil men! Then he
will lease the vineyard to other tenants who will give him his portion at the
harvest.”
42 Jesus said to them, “Have
you never read in the scriptures: ‘The
stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. This is from the Lord, and it is
marvelous in our eyes’? 43 For this reason I tell you
that the
Sidebar: Isaiah 5:1-7 contains a lengthy verbal
picture of
Of course in a court of law it would never hold up, but the old adage about “possession being 99% of the law” has a lot of truth in it. It takes a lot of effort to dislodge someone even when they are clearly in the wrong if they are in control of the contested property. (Today, it is legally called “adverse possession.”) They would, they thought, have de facto ownership of the vineyard and that the distant owner would give up and wash his hands of the matter.
More
careful thought should have warned them:
Servants are, so to speak, “expendable.”
But if the very son of the man gets murdered, the stakes have
been raised immeasurably. What if he
vows (literally) blood vengeance? (As he does in verse 41.)
Although
the religious authorities could not literally kill Jesus outside of even
Sidebar: For the Messiah pictured under the image of a stone (for strength, power, and importance) also see Isaiah 28:16 and Daniel 2:34-35.
Hence
their authority and positions would be removed.
If that were not horrifying enough, Judaism would be replaced by the new
spiritual reality of Christianity, which was consciously designed to be
congenial to both Jews with their unique spiritual roots and Gentiles who had
learned the error of their own behaviors”
“ . . . God at the first visited the Gentiles
to take out of them a people for His Name” (Acts
In this type of setting think of Matthew 24. There Jesus shows how He would ultimately use
the Romans to bring about the destruction of
Chapter Twenty-Two
A Parable of Coming Judgment: Arrogantly Reject God’s Invitation to His
Son’s “Wedding” and He Will Both Punish You and Go Out of His Way to Find Those
You Despise and Assure that They Enjoy the Festivities Instead of You (Matthew
22:1-14): 1 Jesus spoke to them again
in parables, saying: 2 “The kingdom of heaven can
be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son. 3 He sent his slaves to summon those who had been
invited to the banquet, but they would not come. 4 Again he sent other slaves, saying, ‘Tell those who
have been invited, “Look! The feast I
have prepared for you is ready. My oxen and fattened cattle have been
slaughtered, and everything is ready.
Come to the wedding banquet.”’
5 “But they were indifferent
and went away, one to his farm, another to his business. 6 The rest seized his slaves, insolently mistreated
them, and killed them. 7 The king was furious! He sent his soldiers, and they put those
murderers to death and set their city on fire.
8 “Then he said to his slaves, ‘The wedding is ready,
but the ones who had been invited were not worthy. 9 So go into the main streets
and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet.’ 10 And those slaves went out
into the streets and gathered all they found, both bad and good, and the
wedding hall was filled with guests.
11 “But when the king came in
to see the wedding guests, he saw a man there who was not wearing wedding
clothes. 12 And he said to him,
‘Friend, how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ But he had nothing to say. 13 Then the king said to his
attendants, ‘Tie him up hand and foot and throw him into the outer darkness,
where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth!’ 14 For many are called, but few
are chosen.” --New English
Translation (for comparison)
22:1 And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said. Having just rebuked the religious leadership through parabolic teaching, Jesus promptly utilizes that tool again. It allows Him to give a stern rebuke but if they dare protest, all He would have to do is loudly respond, “So you recognize yourselves, do you? Isn't it long past time for you to repent?”
There are
two distinct sections to the parable:
Verses 1-7 ends in the destruction of those who had ignored or done
outright violence to the king’s representatives. The result was “their city” (verse 7) being
destroyed. This section conceptually
fits well with the common Jewish rejection of Jesus’ message and the
destruction with the fate of
The second half of the parable (verses 8-14) would fit the sharing of Jesus’ message in the wider world and the embracing of Gentiles within His people. The punishment alluded to would convey the message that those who embraced the gospel would also be judged upon the basis of their own behavior as well.
22:2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son. Often overlooked in the analysis of this text is the reference to the fact that the king himself had “arranged a marriage for his son.” That was quite normal in that day and age. Depending upon the temperament of the parents and the local expectations of the rights of the offspring, the degree of the son’s input into the decision would vary immensely. (At least in the first marriage that introduces him to full adulthood.)
The theory behind such marriages was that the mature adult had a lot better comprehension of what was in the long-term interests of the offspring than the child himself or herself. It was also based upon the assumption that the relationship between any two newlyweds could be worked out on a reasonable basis if they so wished--especially with both sets of parents expecting it and encouraging them in that direction. Overall, the system probably worked out no worse than the modern system of individuals choosing their own spouses. (Please do not scream in frustration; just because it doesn’t match our modern preferences does not mean that it did not have its own strengths and weaknesses.)
However virtually all modern translations (excepting the NKJV) render it “arranged a marriage feast for his son.” The GW does, however, speak of “a king who planned a wedding for his son.” The Greek here can cover either or both and we would expect the two to go together whether explicitly referred to or not: Why in the world have a marriage feast if you weren’t also having a wedding? Why in the world have a wedding and not have a feast to go with it?
22:3 and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. The fact that he had to send them out argues that a specific time had not been announced--only the approximate time range. After all weather or other unexpected circumstances might arise and temporarily delay things.
But now all the preparations were ready and everyone needed to be informed that it was time for the festivities. Being a king it was both natural and expected for them to come. He was sovereign and in a position to reward or punish. Furthermore, a royal marriage feast would be the occasion for the best food and drink that one would anticipate in a lifetime. Hence there was every reason to be present and virtually none not to.
Yet these
people refused the offer of the free fine food and the entertainment that would
go with the feast. It suggests that they
harbored considerable disrespect and anger at the ruler. They then exhibited it by ignoring the
notification as unimportant (verse 5) or by inflicting abuse and even death on
those who brought the message (verse 6).
By their actions they were showing that they might be his
subjects but did not want to be!
22:4 Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.” ’ No doubt startled by such sullenness, the king incredibly gave them another opportunity by sending out different servants. People react different to different individuals and the original group would be tired out from their fruitless running around. This time the messengers were to stress the amount and quality of food available (“oxen and fatted cattle”) and that everything was ready. Why, there would not even be any need to wait for the preparations were fully completed--“all things are ready!” If another chance and such abundant generosity couldn’t “bring them in,” what possibly could?
Sidebar: Words are used with a
certain flexibility, varying from place to place and country to country
and the use of “dinner” exhibits that in our current world--the evening meal in
the
22:5 But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. The locals cast aside even the second offer. They dismissed it as unimportant (“made light of it”). The farmer chose to go to his farm. (Most farmers lived “in town” and went outside of it to their work.) The prosperous businessman went from home to his place of business as a merchant or trader.
In case of either farmer or businessman, what possible harm could a few hours delay cause? But they were so self-centered that they were convinced that they had more important things to attend to. They clearly thought they “could get away with it,” forgetting one of the primary rules in any powerful monarchy: Don’t get the king outraged at you. In fact, this monarch was showing his profound generosity of spirit in permitting them a second opportunity in the first place. He wanted to rule peacefully and gently, especially at a time of celebration.
22:6 And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. Some were even more contemptuous and treated the servants with open disrespect. Some were even murdered merely because they were fulfilling their king’s assignment of spreading the word of the feast. The reason for these varying levels of contempt is not given. At root it was really irrelevant. This was the king; his invitation inherently deserved respect--out of personal self-interest if nothing more. Ideally, out of respect for his position as leader: If he wanted you to go, you went.
The Old
Testament prophets were treated in both ways as they tried to convince the
people to follow God’s will. The same
was true of the apostles and disciples in general. They were thrown in jail (Acts 4:3; 12:4),
beaten (
22:7 But when the king heard about
it, he was furious. And he sent
out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. At this point, the king exploded in
rage. He had put up with more than
enough. He ordered his armies out and
had the rebels killed and their city burned.
The use of the singular “city” is intriguing in this context. The religious leaders had recognized that the
preceding parables were aimed at them (
22:8 Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. What happens now occurs at the same time the king is acting against his enemies in the previous verse: The wedding feast is still ready to be eaten and that is impossible due to the lack of adequate guests. Hence their numbers have to be “fleshed out” from other sources.
In making his decision, the king provides a moral judgment upon his subjects who had scorned him: they were not “worthy” to partake of His generosity. So he is going to find individuals more worthy of his blessings and assistance . . . even if they have to be found in unexpected places.
22:9 Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.’ Since the city dwellers had refused to come, the king’s servants were now to go down the nearby highways and byways and invite everyone they came upon. You didn’t have to be “important” . . . you just had to be alive, breathing, and have enough sense to take advantage of the generous offer. Jesus’ message was first spread among only the Jews but there was only a modest reception among them and then God threw the doors open to anyone of any background.
A universal kingdom was the ancient dream and it now would become such (Isaiah 2:1-4): “Now it shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow to it.”
In its application
to those who become Christians, a moral sense is attached to these
terms--people of all shades of moral character are convinced (at least
temporarily or partially) to embrace the cause.
But in terms of the parable narrative itself the idea is that
there was no discrimination based on indications of status or importance. Compare the parable of the
drag-net in which the “catch” is also of one and all (Matthew
This
would make sense in and of itself since they were not the intended
guests. Only by providing some clothing
would the feast be assured of having people appropriately attired. Many commentators believe that rulers often
provided this kind of gift, even for well-to-do attendees. As we see, even if this were not the case,
there was plenty of reason to do so in this particular situation. (Although we encounter varied occasions on
which individuals were given a gift of clothes in the Old Testament, the only
one referring to a large group getting them is in the case of Jehu’s Baal worship in 2 Kings 10:22.)
In its spiritual application to church members, the point would seem to be that they are not “dressed” in the kind of character that believers are required to wear. As a parabolic illustration of the necessity of good character the story makes excellent sense; it is the “literal” context that provides the oddity for us.
It should be noted, however, that commentators normally interpret this the exact opposite . . . that there are few who--comparatively--are chosen for salvation in contrast with the many who through inaction and rejection are chosen for eternal condemnation. Although this represents a fundamental Biblical reality, our approach seems to far better fit this particular parable.
The Spiritual Legality and Propriety of Paying
Taxes to an Occupying Power (Matthew
18 But Jesus realized their
evil intentions and said, “Hypocrites!
Why are you testing me? 19 Show me the coin used for
the tax.” So they brought him a denarius.
20 Jesus said to them, “Whose
image is this, and whose inscription?” 21 They replied,
“Caesar’s.” He said to them, “Then give
to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are
God’s.” 22 Now when they heard this
they were stunned, and they left him and went away. --New English Translation (for comparison)
Sidebar
on “entangle:” “Literally, ensnare, as a fowler
ensnares birds. The Greek word is used
here only in N.T.” (
It could prove useful to have those whose interests were politically centered present as witnesses when they attempted to embroil Jesus in a matter of political loyalty. Indeed, in a matter that--if they played their cards well and Jesus responded unwisely--could be interpreted as treason against the regime.
Sidebar
on the Herodians in the gospels: “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 gorgeous apparel, glittering with gold. . . .
“In Mark 3:6 we find them at
The fact
that it had both of these engraved on it argues, “as
Edersheim remarks, [that it] must have been either a
foreign one (Roman) or possibly one of the Tetrarch Philip, who on some of his
coins introduced the image of Tiberius.
The coins struck by the Romans in or for
Furthermore,
He has added a vital caveat: even in
paying taxes there remain things owed to God and to no government. So he has left neither anti-Roman nor
pro-Roman fully happy, but He has responded in a manner that makes the answer
least useful to agitate either the populace at large or the government. Not to mention accurately summing up God’s
position in the matter. It is not a
matter of doing one or the other; it is a duty of embracing both sets of
obligations.
The Sadducees Try
to Undermine the Credibility of a Future Physical Bodily Resurrection (Matthew
22:23-33): 23 The same day Sadducees
(who say there is no resurrection) came to him and asked him, 24 “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If
a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and father
children for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven
brothers among us. The first one married
and died, and since he had no children he left his wife to his brother. 26 The second did the same,
and the third, down to the seventh. 27 Last of all, the woman
died. 28 In the resurrection,
therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her.”
29 Jesus answered them, “You
are deceived, because you don’t know the scriptures or the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection
they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in
heaven. 31 Now as for the
resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, 32 ‘I am the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the
living!” 33 When the crowds heard
this, they were amazed at his teaching.
--New English Translation (for comparison)
With these denials went both the concepts of future judgment and future rewards or punishments. Indeed they even rejected the idea that there was any such thing as “angel[s]” that might intervene in human affairs (Acts 23:8).
The
Sadducees are important because though the Pharisees had widespread respect
among the religious population, the Sadducees usually dominated the
Sanhedrin--as can be seen in the example found in Acts 5:17-22. Their economic interests had already been
offended by Jesus’ denial of the right to sell goods in the temple. Would Jesus take issue with them on the
matter of their doctrine as well? In
fact, from the way the challenge is delivered, it would be better to say: Would He be willing to admit His “error” when
faced with a clearly un-refutable evidence that
the resurrection did not exist?
Their
“proof” concerns a man who marries and dies before he has fathered any
children. In citing what “Moses said,”
however, they overstate their case. In
real life, levirate marriage could be refused and there was a ceremony for such
(Deuteronomy 25:5-10). We have a case of
such a refusal in the book of Ruth (
This particular first husband had seven brothers. The number may be large, but families customarily were in those days. In addition to lack of effective birth control, disease could easily take half or more of one’s children before maturity and one naturally wanted to assure that there were enough to assure a “next generation.” (In light of a virtually non-existent system of social welfare they were also the parents’ own “social security” for their old age.)
In their case death comes to the grown children, who are also exposed to the ravages of disease with only a limited range of curative measures. Presumably it is the next oldest son who married the widow but he also died before any children were born.
Sidebar: Surviving rabbinical opinion was very divided on this question of a wife having had multiple husbands--but never dealt with a case this extreme. Personally, given their premises, I would have argued that it was the wife who had the choice to make. There would have been a kind of “grand equity” that it was now her turn to make the decision.
22:31-32 But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” Since the Sadducees would only concede the authority of the Torah, any appeal to the later prophetic writings (which are much clearer on the doctrine of the resurrection) would have done no good. Hence He appeals to a vaguer text from Exodus in which the God of Israel says “I am” (current tense) the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God is only God of the living; so the ancient patriarchs must still have been alive in the days of the Exodus!
“Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had been dead for a long
time when Moses spoke this - Abraham for 329 years, Isaac for 224 years, and
Jacob for 198 years - yet God spake then as being
still ‘their God.’ They must, therefore,
be still somewhere living, for God is not the God of the dead; that is, it is
absurd to say that God rules over those who are ‘extinct or annihilated,’ but
he is the God only of those who have an existence.” (Barnes Notes)
This is a verbal argument for it relies on the tense involved. Today we would feel a bit skittish about its use but the procedure was fully in accord with the interpretive attitudes of the first century. Indeed, it inherently is quite logical; it simply isn’t the kind of logic we are accustomed to.
Note that Jesus’ argument does not attempt to prove that there is a Torah text that directly asserts a physical resurrection. Rather he targets the reason the Sadducees believed there would and could never be one: There was nothing left to resurrect--“Sadducees say that there is no resurrection—and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both” (Acts 23:8).
Furthermore, Jesus does not claim to rest His position upon exegesis of this text alone (i.e., the Exodus 3:6 passage which He quotes): there were scriptures outside the Torah that would have settled the issue in Jesus’ favor if the Sadducees had recognized their authoritativeness (cf. vs. 29). Furthermore, if they had recognized the true “power of God” they would have recognized that any deity who has the power to create life also has the power to resurrect and return to life those who have died. And change their nature and attitudes in fundamental ways as well.
The Pharisees Challenge: What Is the Most Important Divine Commandment
of Them All? (Matthew 22:34-40): 34 Now when the Pharisees
heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they assembled together. 35 And one of them, an expert
in religious law, asked him a question to test him: 36 “Teacher, which
commandment in the law is the greatest?”
37 Jesus said to him, “‘Love
the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and greatest commandment
. 39 The second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the law and the
prophets depend on these two commandments.”
--New English Translation (for comparison)
Having discovered that their nemeses in the Sadducee movement had been as unsuccessful as they in dealing with this upstart challenger of established orthodoxies, the Pharisees now “gathered together” in a group to discuss what to do next. In light of their apparent promptness in acting (verse 35), the situation seems to be that they were huddled near Jesus rather than having left the scene entirely.
22:37-38 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your
God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This
is the first and great commandment. The true primary and fundamental
commandment was about loving Yahweh with all one’s nature: “heart . . . soul . . . mind.” Much time and effort can be spent trying to
mark out the fine lines between these, but “with all one’s nature” captures the
point without it: Whatever
motivates and controls us is to be governed by this fundamental principle of
loving commitment to God. Or as
Jesus chose what is—from our standpoint—the obvious answer, for it is the foundation causing the others to be obeyed. But the very fact that He is asked the question at all shows that it would have been only one of a number of possibilities that came to the first century mind.
Sidebar: Important as the Ten Commandments were
(Exodus 20), it is not even part of it--it comes from Deuteronomy 6:5 instead . The Ten
Commandments were vital, but they were not all that was vital
even when the Mosaical system was in full operation.
Having Just Been Challenged by Them, He Throws
Out His Own Question: How Can the
Promised Messiah Be Both David’s Descendant and Simultaneously His Lord
As Well? (Matthew
“Sit at my right hand, until I put your
enemies under your feet” ’
45 If David then calls him ‘Lord,’
how can he be his son?” 46 No one was able to answer
him a word, and from that day on no one dared to question him any longer. --New English Translation (for comparison)
What
happens next is “while the Pharisees were gathered together,” i.e., with
the clear implication “still gathered together”--either before they had
time to depart in total frustration . . . or while they were still whispering
among themselves what to bring up next.
At this point Jesus threw a question of His own at them. This was mere equity: He had just answered a question they had
thrown at Him without a hint of what it was going to be about. Turnabout is “fair play” either in a game or
an argument.
Furthermore
this description was not mere guess work or speculation David’s own part. It was inspired--by “the Spirit.” This is but one example of how “holy men of
God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter
The
prologue to the gospel of John explains it quite well: Deity come in the flesh; but this was not an
explanation the Pharisees were likely to have thought of. Even if they had thought of it, to
fully resolve the tension between the two statements required a radical
redefinition of the very concept of the Messiah. One that had the potential
for radically redefining of His nature and purpose away from that of mere
earthly conqueror. That
was the kind of “Messiah” they were used to thinking of--and wanting.