[And He Walks With Me] Matthew 22
1-14 Jesus continued his critique of the religious elite with a parable about a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son. In many Middle Eastern cultures, feasts were thrown for religious festivals, birthdays, marriages, funerals, and a wide variety of other occasions. These feasts were elaborate affairs, with the most important feasts lasting up to seven days, and they were a crucial part of the community social calendar.[250] Missing such an occasion was therefore unthinkable, and even more so when the host was a king. Moreover, invitations were often sent in advance of the feast and then again on the day of the feast, and guests may even be escorted to the feast by one of the host’s servants.[251] There was, then, no excuse for missing the feast. Yet, the king’s invited guests didn’t want to come. Some ignored the invitation, offering excuses that they were too busy, but others seized his servants, mistreated them, and killed them. Such behavior would have been shameful if the host was a humble pauper, but to so snub the king was utterly outrageous. Jesus’ listeners would have gasped in horror, and the seriousness of this offense is illustrated in vs 7 when the king was enraged, sent out his troops, killed those murderers, and burned down their city.
It is important to note that the blame for this offense is placed squarely upon those who were invited to the banquet. They were not worthy (8). It was not the fault of the king, who apparently ruled well, protected, and provided for his people. Rather, the fault was with those who rejected the invitation.
The king then instructed his servants to go… to where the roads exit the city and invite everyone you find to the banquet. With those who were originally invited executed and the city burned to the ground, the roads exiting the city were filled with refugees fleeing the city. Doubtless, they had little remaining, and what they did have smelled of smoke. The king did not even care if they were good or evil. They had nowhere else to go.
Given that the people who finally attended the banquet are essentially refugees, the rejection of the man who was not dressed for a wedding is curious. Some scholars observe that attending a wedding banquet in dirty clothes was considered a slight against the host,[252] but these guests were the poor and lowly who were not initially invited. More, they just survived the destruction of their city. They had nothing of their own to wear. Other scholars suggest the king provided appropriate clothing to those who his servants brought to attend.[253] This would be consistent with the structure of the parable. The religious elite are represented in the story by those who were initially invited to the banquet. These had farms and businesses (5), means of their own, and therefore seemed to deserve invitations on their own merit, but their rejection of the king’s invitation and mistreatment of the king’s servants proved them unworthy (8). Conversely, the guests who ultimately filled the banquet were survivors of the city’s destruction. They had nothing of their own and therefore were entirely dependent upon the king’s provision, just as we are entirely dependent upon God’s grace. Part of the king’s provision was appropriate clothing for the wedding, and part of God’s grace is righteousness suitable for the kingdom of heaven (see Ephesians 4:20-24). Thus, when this guest declined the change of clothing, he was removed from the wedding feast, and if we decline the righteousness to which we are called and empowered, we will be removed from the eternal feast. It is not enough to accept God’s invitation to trust in Jesus and be saved. We must also embrace transformation by his grace and the power of the Holy Spirit in us so that we are dressed appropriately (i.e., in righteousness) for heaven.
14 While the king in the parable initially invited only a select few, the invitation was ultimately extended to everyone. It is the same way with grace. The invitation to be part of God’s people was initially extended to the Jews only, but through Christ, it has been extended to everyone, both evil and good (10). Everyone is invited in God’s kingdom, but in order to be chosen and take our place at the king’s banquet table, they must be transformed.
15-16 Jesus was first challenged by the chief priests and the elders (21:15, 23). After he pointed out their hypocrisy (see note on 21:14-17) and humiliated them with three parables (21:28-32; 21:33-46; 22:1-14), they retreated to regroup. Having watched both exchanges from the sidelines, though, it was the Pharisees’ turn. There was no love lost between the chief priests and scribes and these. They were spiritual and political rivals forced to work together in the Sanhedrin. Therefore, the Pharisees saw the humiliation of the chief priests and elders as an opportunity to advance themselves. However, Jesus had proven himself able to best the chief priests and scribes, and the Pharisees had no intention of allowing him to do the same to them. Thus, rather than immediately pounce on the opportunity, they went and plotted how to trap him by what he said. Then, instead of executing their plot themselves, they sent their disciples… along with the Herodians to do it. By sending these instead of going themselves, they no doubt hoped to lower Jesus’ guard because the students “would not appear to be as much of a legal threat to Jesus.”[254]
16-17 The plot is put into motion. Whether or not the Pharisees and Herodians realized it, they were affirming Jesus and condemning themselves when they acknowledged, you are truthful and teach truthfully the way of God and don’t care what anyone thinks nor do you show partiality. Yet, their flattery was merely the setup. “It is a seemingly innocuous group that approaches him with fawning deference, attempting to disarm him so that they might entrap him.”[255] Their affirmation was intended to puff up his ego so he would respond decisively to the next question without considering fully the ramifications. It was the bait in the set trap. Beware the flattering words of the world. They may affirm now, but in the next breath, they will snap shut.
The trap of vs 17 is made apparent in the historical and cultural contexts of this question. Roman law demanded that everyone subject to the empire pay taxes to Caesar, and they hired tax collectors and dispatched soldiers to ensure this happened. Yet, Roman taxes were wildly unpopular among the Jews for two obvious reasons: (1) the excessive taxes perpetuated and exacerbated the poverty of the region; and (2) the taxes, tax collectors, and soldiers were regular reminders that they were not free. They forfeited their freedom when they chose idolatry and injustice, causing God to hand the nation of Israel to the Assyrians and Babylonians. It was a popular sentiment among the Jews, therefore, that it was against the Mosaic law to pay Caesar’s taxes, but teaching that in a public space with Roman soldiers listening was tantamount to treason. Therefore, the question placed Jesus in a difficult situation. If he answered that it was lawful and people should pay taxes to Caesar, then he would be immediately rejected by the Jewish crowd who resented the taxes. Conversely, if he answered that it was not lawful and people should not pay taxes to Caesar, then he would be taken into custody by the Roman authorities and probably executed. Either way, Jesus’ threat to the Pharisees’ power would be neutralized, and they would be able to portray themselves as the heroes who identified a traitor.
18-21 Instead of answering the question directly, Jesus asked to see the coin used for the tax. The denarius was a small silver coin generally equated to a day’s wages. On its front was a profile of Tiberius Caesar with a Latin inscription translated, “Tiberius Caesar, son of the divine Augustus.” The back side of the coin featured a picture of Pax, the Roman goddess of peace. By pointing out these things and advising them to give… to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, Jesus was acknowledging that the secular government does contribute something valuable to lives of the faithful and God’s people still have obligations to that government, even if it is oppressive on the whole.[256] Conversely, by calling them to give… to God the things that are God’s, he challenged his listeners to do far more than pay a tithe or temple tax. The notion that God created, and therefore owns, all things was a key tenet of Jewish economic philosophy. Jesus, then, was challenging the people to live as if God owns all things and they were merely stewards thereof.[257]
The implications of Jesus’ teaching here are significant. First, it makes clear that, while his kingdom is revolutionary, he had no intention of overthrowing the Roman authority through military or political action. He will someday return in glory, but until that time, “his kingdom will operate within the existing political order.”[258] Second, while coins may have the image of the proverbial Caesar stamped on them, humans are created in God’s image, and therefore, when the dictates of earthly authorities contravene God’s character or command, the Christian’s highest allegiance must always be to God.
22 The debate over whether Jews should pay secular taxes had been at an impasse for generations. Even those who insisted the tax was wrong were compelled to pay it because they were powerless to resist. Moreover, the question was designed as a trap for Jesus. Yet, by his response, he somehow managed to both neutralize the threat to himself and actually embarrass the Pharisees and their students in front of both Roman and Jewish audiences. It is no wonder, then, that they were amazed and left him and went away.
23 It may be surprising to modern readers that the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, but it was true. The Sadducees recognized only the first five books of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Consequently, they did not embrace additional supernatural concepts which were not introduced until later in the Old Testament. Indeed, while consensus was certainly solidifying, the debate over which books should be included in the formal canon of Scripture was still technically alive among Jewish scholars and leaders during the first century. In fact, it would continue for several centuries longer and was one of the main reasons why some Christian traditions (e.g., Roman Catholic, Ethiopian Orthodox) include in their Bibles some additional books. These other, apocryphal books were never considered to be Scripture by Jews, but they were well-known and highly regarded, and they are referenced or alluded to in several New Testament passages. So also, it would take more than three centuries for Christians to officially settle on the canon of the New Testament.
24-28 The notion that a brother should marry his childless sister-in-law after her husband died was called a kinsman-redeemer. While this practice seems strange, it is actually still practiced among some African cultures,[259] and it had two primary purposes. First, in a patriarchal culture where women were generally not allowed to hold property or jobs, it guaranteed that the widow would have food and shelter. Initially, this would be provided by the brother-in-law, but later, it would be provided by the children the new couple produced. Second, at least the first child produced by this new couple would carry the dead man’s name and inherit the dead man’s property. In this way, his name would not be forgotten across the generations.[260]
The Sadducees did not accept as Scripture anything outside of the Torah (see note on vs 23), but that did not stop them from using a story from Tobit 3:7-9 to stump Jesus. No doubt, their intention was to discredit both Jesus and their religious and political adversaries, the Pharisees, by pointing out the ridiculousness of their teachings about the afterlife.[261]
29-30 It is remarkable that Jesus answered them at all. This whole exchange was a familiar part of the repartee between the Sadducees and Pharisees as they constantly tried to one-up each other. The point was that it stumped the best teachers of the day, but it did not stump Jesus.
Jesus’ response no doubt stung as he indicted the Sadducees as mistaken, because you don’t know Scriptures or the power of God. They were, after all, the professional clergy of the day! However, even those who earn a paycheck for religiosity are not above the need for faith. Indeed, “those who have a superficial knowledge of the Bible will not know the power of God,”[262] and those who do not know the power of God will never have a truly deep knowledge of Scripture.
The Sadducees’ question was based upon the assumption “that resurrection is like the present life,”[263] and therefore the same principles applied to marriage in the resurrection as in the present life. In that case, the woman would be guilty of incest for being married to seven brothers at once.[264] Jesus’ response was not to say that humans will become angels. Neither did he mean that earthly relationships would be forgotten completely. Rather, our resurrected life will be fundamentally different from our earthly one. “In the same way that angelic beings do not marry or procreate, the resurrected state ends the practice of marriage and issues in entirely new relationships between resurrected humans.”[265]
31-32 Jesus recognized that the Sadducees would shrug off his response because they still did not believe in resurrection because it was most clearly taught in later additions to the Old Testament. Therefore, he punctuated his case by quoting Exodus 3:6, in which God declared, I am the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He then pointed out the present tense verb – I am – despite the fact that these ancestors were long dead. The implication is that the resurrection is not just a newfangled idea from the later books of the Old Testament, but that it is a notion firmly rooted in the very Scriptures that the Sadducees claimed to believe.
33 As it became clear that the Sadducees and Pharisees were going to tag team Jesus, but Jesus had silenced both groups of religious “experts,” the crowds were astonished. I read this: they ran to get popcorn.
34-40 Mark records a parallel account in Mark 12:28-34. There are some interesting differences between the two versions. Remarkably, Matthew’s account is the shorter of the two. Typically, Mark is known for brevity, and Matthew provides the more elaborate detail, but in this case, Mark provides some extra details. The difference may be in the focus of the narrative. Matthew is portraying the rapid escalation of tension during the Holy Week. Therefore, skipping the details builds the sense of urgency and acceleration. Luke offers a similar exchange in Luke 10:25-37. Whether the two accounts stem from the same incident is unclear because Luke’s version differs significantly from the setup of the situation to its culmination in the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
34-35 After Jesus thwarted their initial plan to trap him (see vss 15-22), the Pharisees retreated and watched the Sadducees’ second attempt (see vss 23-33). When Jesus silenced them again, the Pharisees regrouped for a second run of their own. Notice, however, two differences between this time and their first attempt: (1) They came together, and (2) the person who addressed Jesus was an expert in the law. Before, most of the Pharisees sat at a distance and sent their disciples… along with the Herodians (vs 16). Now, though, they opted to go in person and put in the proverbial heavy hitters. In boxing, this would be where the gloves came off and it was no longer a game or sport.
36 The expert in the law presented a question which he expected Jesus, a mere carpenter from Nazareth, to be unable to answer: Which command in the law is the greatest? After all, he and the other experts in the law had been debating the same question for centuries as they tried to determine which commandments were weighty and light.[266] The weighty commandments were those which had to be attended and, when two laws conflicted with each other, took precedence. The light commands were lower priority and could potentially be ignored without too much concern. From the Pharisees’ perspective, the beauty of this question was that it virtually guaranteed them an opportunity to discredit Jesus.[267] If he was stumped, they would crow about how he was just a dumb carpenter from Nazareth. Did anything good ever come from there? Conversely, if he somehow managed to answer, he would open himself to ridicule and attack from the real legal experts who had debated this question regularly throughout their careers.
37-40 The fact that Jesus was able to respond at all to the question of vs 36 must have astonished the legal expert (see note on vs 36). The fact that the answer was both intelligible and decisive must have been shocking. How many times had this expert heard some colleague bloviate on this matter? Jesus, however, was direct. Without hesitation, he identified as most important the command to Love the Lord your God, but then, without pause, he added a second most important command to Love your neighbor as yourself. The first was a quote from Deuteronomy 6:5, which everyone in the crowd would have immediately recognized as part of the Shema that they recited twice daily from the time they could talk. The Shema “was well known as the overarching obligation of each individual Jew, and it included the duty of obedience to the other commandments given by God.”[268] Moreover, the Jews understood that love here was, more than an emotional attachment, a commitment of the entire self to God.[269] Given its prominent place in Jewish culture, this choice was hardly groundbreaking. More controversial was the second commandment, which was a quote from Leviticus 19:18. Jesus was almost certainly not the first person to suggest this answer.[270] “To love is to give to someone what that person needs.”[271] Notice, however, that the command equates love for neighbor and yourself, indicating “that individuals are called to care for themselves responsibly and attune their lives to carry out God’s will.”[272] Self-care and care for others must be balanced. You cannot properly love others without loving yourself. Conversely, you must not love yourself without loving others. Perhaps the most shocking part of Jesus’ response, though, is the declaration, All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commands. The legal expert and his colleagues were trying to determine which laws they could afford to ignore or at least relax. This is the essence of legalism: determining the bare minimum one must do to accomplish the goal of reaching heaven. For some, the bare minimum is a long list of rules and regulations they must obey precisely. For others, it is a short list of things they need only get close to. However long the list is, the point is that these things must be checked off to be good enough to reach heaven. Jesus, however, made clear that these two laws were a summary of all the rest. Therefore, to obey them meant obeying all the others. His answer, then, was essentially, “All of them, and more.” In fact, being driven by love means always seeking new ways to honor, serve, and please the object of our affection. It means never becoming satisfied or complacent in our efforts. See note on Matthew 5:17-20.
41-45 Having twice entertained the Pharisees’ efforts to trap him, Jesus now sprung a trap of his own. They held David as the greatest king of Israel, and they anticipated that the messiah would share many of his traits. Yet, an important part of the patriarchal culture was that older generations were always considered greater than younger generations. Consequently, an old man would never call a young man Lord. This was a title of reverence and authority which was reserved for God and greater people. By quoting Psalm 110:1, Jesus here pointed out that the messiah could not be a typical son of David because David called the Messiah Lord. He also pointed out the special relationship which exists between Yahweh and the messiah, including Yahweh’s invitation to sit at my right hand and promise to subject all of the messiah’s enemies to the messiah.[273] It was a mind-bending observation designed to challenge the Pharisees’ preconceived notion of who and what the messiah would be, and if they were wrong about such fundamental things, perhaps they were also wrong about what the messiah would say and do, too.
[250] Arnold 2011, Matthew 22
[251] Arnold 2011, Matthew 22
[252] Keener and Walton 2016, Matthew 22:11
[253] Keener and Walton 2016, Matthew 22:11
[254] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 22:15-16
[255] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 22:15-16
[256] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 22:19-22
[257] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 22:19-22
[258] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 22:19-22
[259] Adeyemo 2010, Matthew 22:23-33
[260] Adeyemo 2010, Matthew 22:23-33
[261] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 22:23-28
[262] Adeyemo 2010, Matthew 22:23-33
[263] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 22:29-30
[264] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 22:23-28
[265] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 22:29-30
[266] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 22:34-40
[267] Adeyemo 2010, Matthew 22:34-40
[268] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 22:34-40
[269] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 22:34-40
[270] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 22:34-40
[271] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 22:34-40
[272] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 22:34-40
[273] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 22:41-46