Matthew 22
The Parable of the Wedding Banquet
1Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2"The
kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son.
3He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to
tell them to come, but they refused to come.
4"Then he sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who have been
invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been
butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.'
5"But they paid no attention and went off--one to his field, another
to his business. 6The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and
killed them. 7The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed
those murderers and burned their city.
8"Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but
those I invited did not deserve to come. 9Go to the street corners
and invite to the banquet anyone you find.' 10So the servants went
out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and
bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.
11"But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man
there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12'Friend,' he asked, 'how
did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was speechless.
13"Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and
throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing
of teeth.'
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
Matthew 22:1-14
Explanation:
Scorning the King's Son (22:1-14)
Those who dishonor the Son shame and dishonor the Father who sent him. It was
common for kings or important personages to throw wedding banquets for sons, to
which they might invite the entire village (compare, for example, Char. Chaer.
3.2.10). But the banquet here makes special allusion to the promised banquet of
the messianic era. In the narrative logic of the Gospel, Jesus is finally ready
to unveil his identity in the final week (see Kingsbury 1986:81-84).
Other Jewish prophets had also applied the principle of special accountability
to those closest to the Word (for example, Amos 3:2; 9:7). Whether the parable
emphasizes judgment on all Israel (compare Sandmel 1978a:60; Mt 27:25), on
Israel as a whole but not individual Jews (Hare 1979:39) or on the Judean
leadership in particular (21:43-45) is debated, but the burning of the city in
Matthew probably refers to the destruction of Jerusalem (Jeremias 1972:33; Hare
1979:39). In the context, Jesus' harsh words condemn Israel's leaders. Yet as
often in his Gospel, Matthew apparently uses the community's opponents to warn
members of his own community not to be like them. Not only Jesus' enemies but
even some of his supposed friends (22:11-14) would betray him.
Refusing the King's Invitation Is a Grievous Insult (22:1-6)
Papyri testify to the practice of double invitations, both among upper classes
and in regular village life (B. Scott 1989:169; Rohrbaugh 1991:139-41). The king
long ago honored the guests with an invitation, and they appropriately responded
with a promise to come; the second invitation in the parable is merely to inform
them that the dinner is now ready (v. 4). Because the exact time of completion
of preparations was difficult to determine in advance, a second invitation at
the appropriate hour was standard procedure, and the lower a person's status,
the more punctual the person was expected to be. Attendance at weddings was a
social obligation in Palestinian Judaism (Bonsirven 1964:151); attendance at a
patron's banquet was incumbent on social dependents throughout the Empire
(compare Sirach 13:9-10). In such a society, not inviting the right person, or
inviting the wrong person, could have disastrous, even fatal, consequences (b.
Gittin 55b-56a). Thus, for example, one who invited the townsfolk but not the
king to a town banquet merited much severer punishment than one who invited
neither (t. Baba Qamma 7:2). Ignoring a king's proclamation or invitation
warranted severe punishment (as in Ruth Rab. Proem 7).
By refusing to come, the guests deliberately insult the dignity of the king who
has counted on their attendance and graciously prepared food for them. For all
the invited guests to refuse to come would greatly shame the host; the unanimous
refusal (and in Lk 14:18-20, absurd excuses given) barely disguises what must be
a concerted plan to deliberately insult the host (B. Scott 1989:171).
This Act of Treason Warrants Serious Judgment (22:7)
For the king to graciously extend the honor of an invitation to a banquet and be
rebuffed as if his benefaction were meaningless was a traumatic breach of the
social order, an act of rebellion. The king can salvage some honor only by
getting others to attend the banquet and by punishing these who have insulted
his kindness; even in less dramatic circumstances, Jewish stories could envisage
a king avenging his honor by executing those who have scorned his invitation to
eat (Gen. Rab. 9:10).
Slaughtering messengers (v. 6) constituted an explicitly revolutionary act
(compare Jos. War 2.450-56; Ant. 9.264-66). The parable's audience would
naturally applaud the king's rage as just-except those who were aware that the
lesson was aimed at them (21:45). The violence is realistic: after such an
insult to a king's honor, nothing less than such vengeance as verse 7 depicts
would satisfy his honor. Of course the parable is at the same time unrealistic
to suppose that the king would engage in a military expedition while his banquet
food was getting cold (Young 1989:171)! The expedition is noted here so the
parable can climax with its primary point at the end-a point that also bursts
the bounds of realism to show the horrible fate of the disobedient.
The Kingdom Belongs to the Humble, Not the Proud (22:8-10)
The arrogant often ignore God; God seeks the lowly of this world who will humbly
acknowledge his reign. Vengeance restores some of the king's honor, but to
recoup it more fully the king must invite other guests who will accept his
invitation, even if they are of much lower status than the first invitees
(compare p. Hagiga 2:2, 5; Vermes 1993:113). The matter is urgent: otherwise the
freshly prepared food will spoil. Commentators generally believe that those
gathered from outside the destroyed city represent the Gentiles (Meier 1980:248;
Theissen 1991:272). This view would fit Matthew's emphasis on the
Jewish-Christian mission to the Gentiles.
The welcoming of both good and bad (v. 10) echoes Jesus' own mission to sinners
(9:11-13), but it may also remind us that grace not only forgives but also
transforms. All are welcome, but no one dare remain the way he or she entered,
in view of the final separation of "the wicked from the righteous" (13:49). Such
echoes of earlier passages in the Gospel prepare the reader for the parable that
follows (22:11-14): salvation is not simply a matter of those who begin the
race, for we must finish it (compare 13:20-23).
Those Inside the Church May Also Dishonor God (22:11-14)
Once the newly chosen guests have begun to dine, the host enters after the
banquet has begun, as was customary (Jeremias 1972:187). Some hold that hosts
may have provided wedding garments to guests at the door (A. Bruce 1979:272;
Gundry 1982:439). But wedding clothes may simply refer to clean garments as
opposed to soiled ones (Jeremias 1972:187-88); to come to a wedding in a soiled
garment insulted the host, and this host was in no further mood to be insulted.
Patrons invited their social dependents to banquets, expecting due honor in
return; this man, like the first guests the king invited, has responded to grace
with an insult.
Just as most of the Jewish leaders were unprepared at Jesus' first coming
(compare 23:13-33), some professing disciples of Jesus will be unprepared at his
second (24:45-51). (Judas proves merely a case in point-compare friend in 22:12;
26:50; see also 20:13.) Professing Christians who insult God's grace by
presuming on it, failing to honor his Son, will be banished to outer darkness
(compare 8:12; 25:30) and weeping with gnashing of teeth (13:42; 24:51; 25:30;
compare Meier 1980:248-49). Many are "called" or invited with the message of
repentance (22:14; 21:32), but only those who respond worthily will share the
inheritance of the chosen covenant people (also Jeremias 1971:131); compare
7:13-23.
Matthew 22
Paying Taxes to Caesar
15Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his
words. 16They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians.
"Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the
way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you
pay no attention to who they are. 17Tell us then, what is your
opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why
are you trying to trap me? 19Show me the coin used for paying the
tax." They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, "Whose
portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is
God's."
22When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went
away.
Matthew 22:15-22
Explanation:
Caesar or God (22:15-22)
Devotion to God demands a higher allegiance to him than to anything else, but it
is not an excuse to avoid our other responsibilities that do not conflict with
it.
God's Mission Sometimes Produces Powerful Enemies (22:15-17)
Courageously speaking God's message as Jesus did can yield adversaries among
those who suppose themselves his spokespersons. The Herodians (v. 16) were
unlikely allies with the Pharisees. Pharisees generally cooperated with the
aristocracy only when grave national interests were at stake, providing an
essential coalition between populist and institutional leadership (as in Jos.
Life 21-22). Here the extreme situation presented by Jesus brings the two groups
together (Smallwood 1976:164; Bowker 1973:41; compare Mk 3:6). The coalition
hopes to catch Jesus coming or going: either he will support taxes to Rome,
undercutting his popular messianic support, or he will challenge taxes, thereby
aligning with the views that had sparked a disastrous revolt two decades
earlier. In the latter case, the Herodians could charge him with being a
revolutionary-hence showing that he should be executed, and executed quickly.
Locally minted copper coins omitted the emperor's portrait due to Jerusalem's
sensitivities, but because only the imperial mint could legally produce silver
and gold coins, Palestine had many foreign coins in circulation. The silver
denarius of Tiberius, including a portrait of his head, minted especially at
Lyon, circulated there in this period and is probably in view here (Reicke
1974:137). The coin related directly to pagan Roman religion and the imperial
cult in the East: one side bore Caesar's image and the words "Tiberius Caesar,
son of the Divine Augustus," while the other side referred to the high priest of
Roman religion (Ferguson 1987:70-71). Like it or not, Jews had to use this coin;
it was the one required for the poll tax in all provinces (Lane 1974:424).
Jesus Reveals His Opponents' Hypocrisy and Greed (22:19-22)
To render to Caesar what was Caesar's was to return his own coin to him (compare
17:25; Rom 13:6-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14; Jer 26:8-9; 27:6-22; 29:4-9; Ezek 8-9); to
render to God what was God's was to render worship to him alone (compare 4:10).
Neither the image nor the superscription on coins in common usage could prevent
Jewish people's single-minded devotion to God. The appropriate response to
living in a society whose beliefs differ from one's own is to critically
evaluate and withstand its claims, not to censor such claims from being heard or
to boycott all participation in the society.
Further, some suggest that Jesus was challenging the idea that his opponents
needed to hold on to the coins at all; why not return them to Caesar?
Jerusalemites preferred death to allowing Caesar's image to enter Jerusalem on
standards (Jos. Ant. 18.59), yet they carried it in on coins. Those who hated
Caesar's image to such an extent would make an exception for coinage only if
they valued money too much (W. White 1971:233; Witherington 1990:102). By
contrast, surrendering to God what is God's implies the surrender of all one is
and possesses (Patte 1987:309-10). In Jesus' teaching elsewhere, possessions
have a zero value, and those who seek them are not the simple who trust in God
(6:19-34). Rather than compromising his popular support, Jesus ends up
embarrassing his challengers; they, not he, are the ones carrying the offensive
coin, so scruples against it cannot be their own (Danker 1972:202-3). Thus they
rightly earn his derisive title for them: hypocrites (22:18; 6:2; 15:7;
23:13-29; 24:51).
Matthew 22
Marriage at the Resurrection
23That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came
to him with a question. 24"Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that
if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have
children for him. 25Now 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. 26The same thing happened to the second and third brother,
right on down to the seventh. 27Finally, the woman died. 28Now
then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of
them were married to her?"
29Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the
Scriptures or the power of God. 30At the resurrection people will
neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
31But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God
said to you, 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."
33When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.
Matthew 22:23-33
Explanation:
Proving the Resurrection (22:23-33)
This story line would make some sense in a variety of cultures. Levirate
marriage (Deut 25:5-6; compare Gen 38:8-26) and widow inheritance (see Belkin
1970; as in Ruth 3:12-13) perpetuate the name of the deceased and serve to
provide for widows in many traditional societies where women cannot earn
sufficient wages for sustenance (for example, Mbiti 1970:188-89). Yet many
ancient hearers would assume a woman who had outlived seven husbands was
dangerous (Mart. Epig. 9.15; t. Sabbat 15:8). The Sadducees borrow the story
line of a woman with seven husbands from the popular Jewish folktale in Tobit
3:8; they want to illustrate the impossible dilemmas they believe the doctrine
of resurrection creates.
The Sadducees were known for their opposition to the doctrine of the
resurrection (Acts 23:6-8; perhaps Jos. Ant. 18.16; War 2.164-65). When Jesus
declares that they deny the power of God (compare 2 Thess 3:5), he may evoke the
traditional Jewish view that God expresses his power most visibly in the
resurrection of the dead, a view attested in the second of the regularly prayed
Eighteen Benedictions (abbreviated as "Power"; compare m. Ros Hassana 4:5; see
also Rom 1:4).
Most Jewish people agreed that angels did not eat, drink or propagate (1 Enoch
15:6-7; Test. Ab. 4, 6A; ARN 1, 37A). Some Jewish traditions also compared the
righteous after death with angels (1 Enoch 39:5; 104:2-4; 2 Baruch 51:10-11).
Since angels did not die (unless God destroyed them), they had no need to
procreate. Jesus' statement about lack of marriage and procreation in heaven (Mt
22:30) follows largely from the logic of the resurrection, to which he now turns
(vv. 31-32).
Early Jewish teachers regularly argued apart from the Bible with Gentiles or
scoffers, but from Scripture for those who knew Scripture (Moore 1971:2:381).
When debating the views of Sadducees who doubted the resurrection and demanded
proof from the law of Moses, later rabbis found ample proof for this doctrine in
the Bible's first five books (Sipre Deut. 329.2.1; b. Sanhedrin 90b). One later
rabbi went so far as to say that all texts implied the resurrection if one
simply had the ingenuity to find it (Moore 1971:2:383; Sipre Deut. 306.28.3);
however, this often meant reading it into the text! As an expert Scripture
interpreter, Jesus here exposes his opponents' lack of Scripture knowledge with
his standard formula, have you not read . . . ? (v. 31; see 12:3; 19:4; 21:42,
46).
Jesus may be arguing for God's continuing purposes with an individual after
death, which for many Palestinian Jews would imply ultimate resurrection. He
implies that God would not claim to be the God of someone who no longer existed
(compare Doeve 1954:106; Longenecker 1975:68-69); he also evokes God's covenant
faithfulness to his people, which Palestinian Jewish prayers regularly
associated with the "God of the fathers," Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Jeremias
1971:187). If God was still God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and if his power
was unlimited, then he would ultimately fulfill his promise to them-not only
corporately through their descendants, but personally to them. The crowds are
again astounded by Jesus' quick wit (compare 7:28; 22:22), just as they are by
his signs (8:27; 9:8; 12:23).
Matthew 22
The Greatest Commandment
34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got
together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this
question:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus
replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul
and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest
commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as
yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two
commandments."
Matthew 22:34-40
Explanation:
Love God and Neighbor (22:34-40)
"Testing" scholars with riddles-and God's vindication of the divine wisdom given
to his servant-is at least as old as King Solomon (1 Kings 10:1; elsewhere, for
example, Ep. Arist. 187-291). In this context, however, the intent is more
malicious (compare 16:1; 19:3), related to that of the supreme tempter (4:1).
Some Pharisees ask a question they had probably practiced before, since their
own teachers debated among themselves which commandment was the greatest.
Although all commandments were equally weighty in one sense (see comment on
5:19), rabbis had to distinguish between "light" and "heavy" commandments in
practice (see comment on 23:23).
Jesus' view does not contrast dramatically with views held by his
contemporaries. In the late first century Rabbi Akiba regarded love of neighbor
in Leviticus 19:18 as the greatest commandment in the law (Gen. Rab. 24:7;
Vermes 1993:42); while this is not where Jesus ranks it, it is close. Other
Jewish teachers also conjoined love of God with love of neighbor (Test. Iss.
5:2; 7:6; Test. Dan 5:3; Philo Decal. 108-10). Following the Jewish interpretive
principle gezerah sawah, it was natural to link two commandments on the basis of
the common opening Hebrew word we'ahabta ("you shall love"; Diezinger 1978;
Flusser 1988:479).
Yet Jesus' combination of the two as the greatest commandments, which exercised
an authoritative influence on subsequent Christian formulations (including
Paul's frequent triad of virtues with love as the greatest-1 Cor 13:13), is
distinctive (see Vermes 1993:43). Amid the multiplicity of proposals concerning
the greatest commandment in antiquity, only Jesus wielded the moral authority
among his followers to focus their ethics so profoundly on a single theme
(compare Meier 1980:257). Thence comes the early Christian "law of love" (as in
Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8; Jn 13:34-35; compare Manson 1963:80).
The first passage Jesus cites in fact portrays the love of God as a summary of
the law (Deut 6:1-7); one who loved God would fulfill the whole Torah (Deut
5:29). This passage about loving God was the central and best-known text of
Judaism, the Shema (Sema`). Likewise, the command to love one's neighbor as
oneself (Lev 19:18; compare Lev 19:34; Mt 5:43; Rom 13:9) expresses a general
principle, though its original context applied it to a more specific situation.
As in 7:12, Matthew reminds us that these commandments epitomize all the
commandments in the Bible.
If left to ourselves, we tend to grasp for power rather than seeking to serve,
and this can apply even to the ways we interpret the Bible. In contrast to some
modern readings, Jesus here assumes rather than commands self-love (so also
Piper 1977; Gundry 1982:449). Thus he elsewhere emphasizes that true love for
neighbor is demonstrated beyond one's own circle of favored people (5:43-47; Lk
10:29-37); some texts in Scripture even warn us against self-centered love (2
Tim 3:2; Paul here warns against selfishness, however, rather than advocating
masochism or self-punishment, which is also self-centered). But while Scripture
summons us to love that is other-directed, it also assumes that all of
us-including Christians-need other people's love. Perhaps as we Christians learn
to love and affirm one another better (for example, Prov 12:18; 16:24; Eph
4:29), especially the most wounded and vulnerable among us, we will not require
as much talk about self-love. Until we learn to behave that biblically, however,
it is difficult to blame broken people who desperately try to affirm themselves
when no one else will.
Matthew 22
Whose Son Is the Christ
41While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
42"What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?"
"The son of David," they replied.
43He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the
Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says,
44" 'The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet." ' 45If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can
he be his son?" 46No one could say a word in reply, and from that day
on no one dared to ask him any more questions.
Matthew 22:41-46
Explanation:
David's Son, David's Lord (22:41-46)
How can Jesus be David's Lord yet at the same time David's son, younger in age
yet superior in rank (Moule 1965:99)? Jewish teachers often asked didactic
questions that functioned as "haggadic antinomy," in which both sides of a
question were correct but their relationship needed to be resolved (Jeremias
1971:259). The Messiah, the "anointed" king, was by definition son of David in
various circles of Jewish expectation, but the title Lord describes him far more
adequately.
If David spoke to a Lord besides Yahweh, a Lord who would be enthroned at God's
right hand as his vice regent, then the eternal King was someone greater than
David, more than merely a descendant of David-perhaps to be understood on the
Near Eastern analogy of divine kings. Yet Lord was sufficiently ambiguous (in
contrast to, say, Is 9:6) to make the point without yet giving the temple
authorities words with which to condemn Jesus from his own mouth. Early
Christians often followed Jesus' use of Psalm 110 (as in Acts 2:34-35; Eph 1:20;
Heb 1:13; Justin 1 Apol. 45).
Mark announced that "they dared ask him no further questions" earlier in the
narrative (Mk 12:34, my translation), but Matthew reserves this "punch" for the
end of Jesus' public controversies. He had silenced and shamed his adversaries.
The capacity of a wise speaker's wisdom to overwhelm hearers was a common motif
in narratives meant to glorify their protagonists (for example, 1 Esdras
4:41-42; compare Ep. Arist. 186, 200). Matthew's audience could see in Jesus
their hero who could answer all the objections raised by their opponents. Jesus
must remain both our Lord and our hero today as well.