JESUS 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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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.
Original Meaning
CHAPTER 21 CONCLUDED with Jesus in direct confrontation with the religious leaders in the temple in Jerusalem (see comments on 21:23). At the center of the confrontation was the religious leaders’ challenge to Jesus’ authority. He had cleared the temple the prior day (Monday of Holy Week), which was an enacted, symbolic pronouncement of judgment on the temple establishment. It was also a precursor of the end of the temple as an institution, because his impending crucifixion would provide direct access to God’s forgiveness and salvation.
Jesus did not cower before the challenge to his authority. Instead, he turned the tables back on them by challenging them to publicly recognize the source of John the Baptist’s authority as being from God (21:24–27). He then told a series of three parables that challenged and pronounced judgment on their own authority. The first two (the parable of the two sons and the parable of the wicked tenants) are in 21:28–46 (see comments). The parable of the wedding banquet that begins chapter 22 is the third of those parables.
The Parable of the Wedding Banquet: Responses to the Invitation to the Kingdom (22:1–14)
THE PARABLE OF the wedding banquet is unique to this context, although a similar parable occurs in another context in Luke 14:15–24. Jesus confronts the religious leaders with a carefully designed parable that surfaces from the situation in the temple as he rebukes and condemns them for not responding to his invitation to the kingdom of heaven.1 Using familiar wording to introduce a parable about the kingdom (cf. 13:24, 13:31, 44, 45, 47, 52), Jesus describes the consequences that will fall on the religious leaders. This parable falls into three sections: the judgment that will befall the religious leaders for their rejection of his invitation to repent and enter the kingdom (22:1–7), a description of those who will be invited to replace them (22:8–10), and the requirements for participation in the kingdom (22:11–14).
Rejections of the invitations to the wedding (22:1–7). The setting of the parable is a celebration: “a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son.” This type of wedding would have been a countrywide celebration that would last for several days.
The parable takes its first surprising turn because some have apparently overlooked the initial invitation to the wedding celebration and then refuse the king’s personal invitation sent through his servants (22:3). Although one might overlook a first invitation, the refusal of a direct invitation from the king would be unthinkable—a dangerous affront to the monarch. Yet the king’s graciousness wins the day, and he reissues the invitation through more servants, now elaborating on the bounty of the celebration: “My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.”
Some of the invitees still reject the king’s invitation—with trivial excuses of preoccupation with everyday affairs (e.g., farming and business). The rest actually abuse and kill the king’s messengers (22:6). This is an unbelievable insult to the king, who severely punishes his insubordinate subjects with death and fire (22:7). This kind of punishment was used only in case of the most serious treason and revolt against a king.
While not as explicit, the allusion to Israel as the vineyard of Isaiah’s prophecy in the preceding parables continues, now drawing on the destruction that will come on the nation of Israel and its leaders (see comments on 21:28, 33) for despising the Holy One of Israel (cf. Isa. 5:3–12, 24–25).2 This destruction of rebellious subjects and their city parallels other rebellions in Jewish history.3 Even through he does not mention the temple here, Jesus may be alluding to the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the judgment of the religious establishment in A.D. 70, a theme to which he returns in the Eschatological Discourse (cf. 24:1–3).
An open invitation to the wedding (22:8–10). The second part of the parable draws on another inconceivable development. Instead of the privileged few being invited to the wedding, the undeserving and unworthy many (“anyone you find”) receive an invitation. Those who considered themselves able to dispense with the king’s invitation are now undeserving (22:8). They correspond to the religious leadership of Israel and the other self-righteous Jews who follow their leadership.
This continues a theme that Jesus has emphasized throughout his ministry. It is not the externally righteous or healthy but sinners and the sick who are invited to the kingdom of heaven (5:20; 9:12–13). Only those who recognize their personal helplessness (like a sick person or child, e.g., 9:12–13; 18:3–4) cast aside their self-reliance and self-worthiness to accept the grace of God. Those on the main highways correspond to the publicans and sinners of Israel, who have been the surprising object of Jesus’ ministry (9:10–11), and to the Gentiles, who will become the object of his ministry through the disciples’ worldwide outreach (28:18–20). The wedding hall is filled with these undeserving guests who respond to the gracious invitation (22:10).
Inappropriate garments for the wedding (22:11–13). The third part of the parable focuses on one of the guests who has gained entrance to the wedding but does not have the appropriate wedding garment. Since the king sent out an open invitation to those who were not worthy of such a celebration, it is fitting that he should come to see who has responded. Although the invitation was given to all, proper attire was expected. Drawing on some evidence for a king in the ancient world supplying festal garments for guests (Gen. 45:22; Est. 6:8–9), some have understood this as an allusion to the imputed righteousness that Jesus hinted at early in his ministry (5:20) and that Paul will later enunciate (e.g., Rom. 3:21–31; 4:22–25). Others suggest that this refers to clean garments as opposed to dirty ones, not symbolizing works meriting salvation but evidential works of righteousness for those already having obtained salvation.4
In either case, since the individual is addressed as “friend” (see comments on 20:13) and is left speechless when confronted by the king (22:12), the implication is that the guest has proper clothing available but has declined to wear it. The man is bound and cast into the outer place of weeping and gnashing of teeth (22:13), language that commonly refers to eternal judgment (cf. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 24:51; 25:26, 30).5
This once again points to the accountability of everyone’s response to Jesus’ invitation to the kingdom of heaven. The privileged religious leaders are judged for rejecting the invitation (22:7), and the populace of Israel, who also are privileged to be the children of God, will be judged for their response to the kingdom. But even Jesus’ professing disciples, such as Judas (called “friend” in 26:50), are culpable for what they ultimately do with the invitation. Not all who respond do so from the heart. This is the point of all three parables of judgment (21:28–32, 33–46; 22:1–14). Any who insult God’s gracious offer of the kingdom of heaven by presuming on it without honoring the Son will receive due judgment.
Many invited, few chosen (22:14). A pithy statement gives a concluding pronouncement to the parable of the wedding feast, but also to the other two preceding parables generally: “For many are invited, but few are chosen.” “Many” (polloi) without the article is a common Semitic universalizing expression, which is normally translated “everyone” or “all” (cf. 20:28). In Psalm 109:30, for example, the Hebrew rabbim becomes polloi in the LXX, indicating an inclusive reference for “all” in the congregation. Similarly, in the Qumran literature, rabbim is a fixed inclusive title for all those in the Congregation (1QS 6:8–11) or all who exercise jurisdiction as leaders in the Congregation (e.g., 1QS 6:1).6 By the expression “many are invited,” Jesus points to a universal invitation to the kingdom of heaven.
The counterbalancing point in the second half of the saying, “but few are chosen,” emphasizes that not all who are invited are chosen. This does not specify the actual amount but rather points to the divine perspective of the preceding parables. Those chosen are “the elect,” which for Jesus is an alternative expression for his true disciples (cf. 11:27; 24:22, 24, 31). Israel and her leadership had been known as the “chosen,” but even their privilege is lost through unresponsiveness to Jesus’ invitation to the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, while there is an open invitation to the kingdom, from the divine perspective it is only God’s sovereign choice that effects salvation. From a human perspective it is only those who respond to the call appropriately that are part of the banquet. Only an appropriate response reveals God’s divine election.
God is the King who has invited all to the celebration of the arrival of the kingdom of heaven in the person of his Son, Jesus Messiah.7 He has sent out an invitation to the privileged religious leaders and their followers, even to the supposedly undeserving within Israel. Israel and her leadership are held responsible for rejecting Jesus’ invitation, regardless of whether they have simply refused (22:3), are preoccupied with their own affairs (22:5), are actively rebellious (22:6), or display inappropriate personal responsiveness (22:12). Instead, as Jesus predicted in the previous parable (21:41, 43), God will turn to the undeserving outside of Israel to fill his kingdom with celebrants.
Four Debates with the Religious Leaders Concerning Jesus’ Authority and Identity (22:15–46)
THE CONFRONTATIONS CONTINUE between Jesus and the religious leaders concerning his authority to orchestrate activities in the temple and pronounce judgment on the religious establishment (cf. 21:23). Jesus now enters into four debates with various leaders: with the Pharisees’ disciples and the Herodians about paying taxes to Caesar (22:15–22), with the Sadducees about remarriage in the resurrection (22:22–23), with a law expert about the greatest commandment (22:34–40), and the Pharisees about the Messiah as the son of David (22:41–46). After these confrontations, Jesus gives his fateful woes on the religious leadership (23:1–36).
Paying taxes to Caesar: Disciples of the Pharisees and the Herodians (22:15–22). Having been the object of Jesus’ stinging pronouncement of judgment (21:45), the Pharisees went out from the temple area to develop a strategy how “to trap him in his words” (22:15). Prior to this in Galilee, the Pharisees tried to tempt (peirazo) Jesus to violate the law (16:1; 19:3). Similarly, but perhaps with an even more sinister motivation, they now try to trap (pagideuo) or ensnare Jesus in his words with the hope that he will incriminate himself in a pronouncement that they can use to take him to the Romans for execution.
The disciples of the Pharisees and the Herodians (22:15–16). Perhaps knowing that Jesus is savvy to their evil intentions, the Pharisees send “their disciples” to the temple area where the controversies continue to boil between Jesus and Israel’s religious leadership. These disciples are most likely those in training to become full initiates to the brotherhood of Pharisees and have been immersed in the Pharisaic commitment of the oral law and rigorous practice of their traditions. But since they are not legal experts yet, on the surface they would not appear to be as much of a legal threat to Jesus. It is a seemingly innocuous group that approaches him with fawning deference, attempting to disarm him so that they might entrap him.
The disciples of the Pharisees are joined by the Herodians in this sinister maneuvering (cf. also Mark 3:6; 12:13). The Herodians were supporters of the Herodian family and dynasty (c. 55 B.C.–c. A.D. 93), most immediately Herod Antipas, the Roman client tetrarch who ruled Galilee after the death of his father, Herod the Great. They most likely are a loosely organized group with a vested economic and political interest in advancing the Herods’ influence in Israel.8 Herod Antipas never liked the fact that he did not gain control over all of his father’s former territory, so his followers advance his cause to attempt to regain Judea, which Pilate governed for Rome. Although the Herodians and the Pharisees would be at odds on many political and religious issues, here they combine to combat the common threat to their respective power bases.
Calling Jesus “teacher” is an attempt to ingratiate themselves with him by using a title of respect, the equivalent of the Hebrew title “rabbi.” In Matthew it is the normal title used when nondisciples approach Jesus (9:11; 12:38; 17:24; 19:16; 22:24, 36). In this case the disciples of the Pharisees and the Herodians use the title deceptively, for Jesus has not gone through one of the rabbinical training colleges to attain the status of rabbi. They are shamelessly hypocritical in their attempt to disarm Jesus with their flattery. This address, however, is far truer than they realize and is the opposite of their own hypocrisy and that of the religious leaders whom Jesus has condemned throughout his ministry (e.g., 6:1–18). If these disciples of the Pharisees and Herodians really mean these words, they will become Jesus’ disciples.
Paying taxes to Caesar (22:17–18). These visitors to Jesus try to ambush him with a seemingly innocent question: “Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” While the question itself may be innocent, the intent behind it is not. Either answer Jesus might give can be used against him. At question was the legal requirement of paying taxes to “Caesar,” the family name of Julius Caesar, which had become a title for the following Roman emperors. Currently, Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus was emperor of Rome.9
This question reveals a volatile issue in Israel. The tax mentioned is either the annual head tax or one of the more general taxes, such as the poll tax.10 The people of Israel, indeed all of Rome’s subjects, labored under heavy taxation that kept the empire operating. The Herods had long collected taxes in the name of Rome to support their own military ventures, building projects, and lavish lifestyles. They paid a tribute to Rome directly, so they were allowed to exact heavier taxes to fill their own coffers. The roman prefect of Judea and Samaria collected the land and poll taxes directly for Rome. The Jewish religious authorities also exacted their own taxes for the temple and for their other institutional expenses (cf. 17:24–27).
Thus, the people were seething at the exhausting taxation. Some estimate that a Jewish family paid approximately 49–50 percent of its annual income to these various taxes.11 If Jesus answers that it is indeed right to pay taxes to Caesar, it will put him in disfavor with the burdened people, who will think that he has capitulated and is now in league with Roman oppression. If Jesus answers that it is not right to pay taxes to Caesar, it can be used against him with the Roman authorities to support their case that he is an insurrectionist. The Pharisees know that either answer will jeopardize Jesus’ mission—exactly their intent.
Jesus sees through their hypocritical ploy because he knows12 the evil behind their motivation (22:18). The term behind Jesus’ use of “trap” here is peirazo, the common word for “tempt” or “test.” They are attempting to get Jesus to incriminate himself. They come with fawning flattery, but their intentions are evil, which is the height of religious hypocrisy.
Giving to Caesar and to God (22:19–22). But Jesus reverses the confrontation by taking the offensive. He asks for a coin used for paying the tax, the denarius, which they produce. He points to the coin and asks them to identify the portrait and inscription forged on it. They reply, “Caesar’s.” On the obverse side of a silver denarius was a profile of the head of Tiberius Caesar, with the Latin inscription on the perimeter of the coin, “Tiberius Caesar, son of the divine Augustus.” On the reverse of the coin was a picture of the seated Pax, the Roman goddess of peace, with the Latin inscription “High Priest.”13
Replying to their statement that Caesar’s portrait and inscription are on the denarius, Jesus avows, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Jesus is not merely attempting to wiggle out of a sticky, logical riddle by offering another. Rather, behind his answer is a profound statement of his role at this point of God’s salvation-history, as well as the way those in the kingdom of God will operate in this world. (1) He has not come as a military or political threat to the established rulers of this world. His kingdom is revolutionary, but until he returns in glory, the kingdom will operate within the existing political order.
(2) Those who have responded to the invitation to the kingdom of heaven will continue to have obligations to governing authorities of this world, a fact that later New Testament writers emphasize even while living under oppressive authorities (e.g., Rom. 13:1–7; 1 Peter 2:13–17). Thus, Jesus again demonstrates that he is not establishing a political kingdom to oppose Caesar.
(3) Giving what is God’s to God implies much more than paying a temple tax. God as Creator has sovereign right over all creation and everything in it. We are to pattern our lives in such a way that we show we are God’s stewards of all he has created, and we are to use what is his in the way he has designed it to be used. This implies that even what belongs to Caesar is only his in a secondary way. Allegiance to God takes precedence over allegiance to Caesar, especially when Caesar attempts to usurp allegiance to God’s will (cf. Acts 4:19; 5:29).
Jesus may be implying further that while the “image” of Caesar was stamped on coins, humans bear the image of God from creation (Gen. 1:26–27). Thus, God has claim on all that any person has or is.14 Jesus is not saying that life is to be divided into two compartments, with obligations to Caesar and to God separated from one another. Both Caesar and the kingdom of God have rights in their respective areas as ordained by God, but “the obligation to God covers all of life; we must serve Caesar in a way that is honoring to God.”15
Jesus’ profound logic undoes the attempt of his enemies to entrap him with their contrived conundrum. They are amazed at how easily he has reversed the debate (22:22). Behind them stands the wisdom of Pharisaic scribal wizardry and the experience of the Herodian political dynasty, which is no match for Jesus’ profound understanding of how God wants his people to operate in this world. They go away, probably back to those who sent them. They are surely chagrined at their failure to trap Jesus, because the Pharisees have sent them after carefully preparing the ambush. This could have been an opportunity for them to see the superiority of Jesus’ teaching over the Pharisees’ sagacity and the Herodian political schemes, but Jesus’ wisdom does not break through their hard hearts to convict them of their sinful attempts at entrapment. This certainly is not the end of their attempts to snare him.
Marriage at the resurrection: Sadducees (22:23–33). Once the disciples of the Pharisees and the Herodians have their whack at Jesus, the Sadducees step up. This debate takes place in the temple, the stronghold of Sadducean power (see comments on 3:7). It revolves around the doctrine of resurrection. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection since they drew only on the Pentateuch for doctrine. Resurrection is a doctrine developed more clearly in the latter books of the Old Testament (cf. Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12:2) and in Second Temple Jewish literature and rabbinic writings.16 Jesus will show here what he will demonstrate physically in his own experience, that resurrection has more far-reaching implications than anyone realizes.17
The Sadducees’ question of resurrection (22:23–28). The debate begins with the Sadducees citing the Old Testament law of “levirate” marriage: “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him.” In this law the levir (the surviving brother of a childless, deceased man) was required to marry his sister-in-law. This law was designed to provide care for the widow as well as to preserve the deceased brother’s genealogical line if they should bear children (Deut. 25:5–10).
Like the Pharisees, the Sadducees try to create a theological trap to demonstrate that Jesus holds to doctrines that are biblically unsubstantiated. They essentially ask what will happen if the levirate marriage is followed by each of the succeeding seven brothers and then the woman dies. They assume their question will stump Jesus theologically: “Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”
The case they bring could possibly have happened, but they have more malicious intentions. They hope to disclose that Jesus is not qualified as a theological leader and has no right or authority to challenge their authority. Since they do not believe in the resurrection, their question reveals a hypocritical attempt to confound Jesus and others who do believe in the resurrection. They assume that resurrection life is like the present life, which will lead to the charge that the woman was guilty of incest. This attempt at developing a logical conundrum leads to the obvious conclusion that the idea of resurrection is a make-believe absurdity.
Know the Scriptures and know God (22:29–30). Once again Jesus turns the logic back upon his questioners. This time he reveals that the problem is not simply their failure to develop a foolproof, logical riddle; rather, it is their faulty theological and biblical understanding of the concept of the resurrection. He starts with their underlying foundational failure and accuses the Sadducees, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.” They should recognize that the rest of the Old Testament is also Scripture, where the doctrine of resurrection is clear. He also chides them for denying the reality of the resurrection, for what lies behind any thought of resurrection is the power of God to do so.
Jesus then turns to the specific issue that they have raised about the woman who married the seven brothers: “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (22:30). Jesus draws a parallel to angels in order to note that resurrected humans will not continue the practice of marriage. This line of argumentation holds a double edge, since Sadducees also denied the existence of angels (cf. Acts 23:8). Their doctrinal ignorance is based on their lack of biblical knowledge, which in turn dramatically impacts their deficient understanding of the way life is to be lived both here and in the hereafter.
Jesus does not suggest that humans become angels; rather, 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. With this declaration and his earlier promotion of celibacy for those who are called to such a life, Jesus rejects the “divinizing of marriage.”18 At the same time, while the state of relationships will be altered at the resurrection, this does not imply that prior earthly relationships are eliminated completely, nor does it imply that resurrected relationships are without special attachment. The wife (or husband, for that matter) of multiple spouses in this life will have an equally altered capacity and understanding of love, which will enable her (or him) to love all without measure or jealousy or possessiveness.19
I am the God of Abraham (22:31–33). Jesus develops a further clinching argument from the Sadducees’ authoritative base, the Pentateuch. “But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, ‘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.” Drawing on the present tense in Exodus 3:6 of the statement, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” Jesus states that the logical implication is that even though the patriarchs have died physically, they are still alive at the writing of the book of Exodus. They still exist as seen by the fact that God continues in a relationship with them as their God, which cannot be sustained with those who no longer exist. If they are still alive even though physically dead, and if the rest of Scripture points to the reality of resurrection, the Sadducees should believe God’s power to raise the patriarchs to enjoy his continued purposes for humanity in the eternal covenant of God.
The crowds who hear Jesus’ answer to the Sadducean challenge are “astonished” (ekplesso) at his teaching (22:33). This is the same word that expresses the reaction of the crowds to his teaching in the SM (cf. 7:28) and the reaction of his townspeople at Nazareth to his preaching (13:54). While amazement can imply a continued attachment to Jesus’ teaching (e.g., 19:25), in neither of the prior cases does this reaction imply they have become Jesus’ disciples. In fact, in spite of his townspeople’s amazement, Jesus could do no miracles in Nazareth because of their lack of faith (13:58). Here too the crowds express amazement at Jesus’ profundity in responding to the Sadducees, but this is not the same as faith. The crowds will soon be swayed by the religious leaders to ask for Jesus’ death (27:20–25). Astonishment is not faith; faith comes from conviction, not emotion.
The greatest commandment: A legal expert of the Pharisees (22:34–40). The competition among the religious leaders to trounce Jesus in debate is heating up. When the Pharisees hear how Jesus has silenced the Sadducees, they get together. Now it’s their turn to try to trip Jesus theologically. This encounter is initiated by an “expert in the law” (nomikos) from the Pharisees (22:35), who approaches Jesus to test him (peirazo; cf. 22:18).20 The lawyer initiates the interchange with a piercing question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” “The Law” in this interchange is a shorthand expression for the entire Old Testament (cf. 5:17). A regular debate went on among rabbis to determine the weighty and light commandments (see 23:23). This legal expert is probably well aware of this discussion.21
Jesus’ reply is not unexpected. He quotes Deuteronomy 6:5: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” The twice-daily repeated Shema was well known as an overarching obligation of each individual Jew, and it included the duty of obedience to the other commandments given by God (see the similar logic in 5:16–20). Love for God is not understood as simply an emotional attachment. Rather, it means giving oneself to him with one’s entire person. Heart, soul, and mind are not rigidly separated compartments of the human existence but reflect that the entire person is given to God.
Jesus continues by quoting from Leviticus 19:18, “And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ” The venerable Rabbi Akiba had declared Leviticus 19:18 to be a “great principle in the Torah.”22 This opinion was likely expressed in Jesus’ day as well. Like the first commandment, Jesus is not simply advocating an emotional attachment or an abstract love. Rather, love here indicates a concrete responsibility, the act of being useful and beneficial to one’s neighbors, both Jew and Gentile (cf. Lev. 19:18, 34).23 To love is to give to someone what that person needs. In the same way that individuals are called to care for themselves responsibly and attune their lives to carry out God’s will in their lives, they are to give themselves to others to care for them responsibly and help them attune their lives to carry out God’s will.
In this light, these two commandments are similar to the Golden Rule, which Jesus said is a summary of the Law and the Prophets (7:12). This helps explain what Jesus means by the expression, “All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (22:40). The kingdom life that Jesus inaugurates fulfills the deepest inclination of humans created in God’s image. Kingdom life enables his disciples to live the way God intends us to live, which means living responsibly in relationship to God and others. As such, the entire Old Testament hangs on love for God and others and truly brings to fulfillment the Law and the Prophets (cf. 5:17–20).
It may be helpful here to draw on a definition of “love” that was developed earlier in the Sermon on the Mount (see comments on 5:43–48): Love is an unconditional commitment to an imperfect person in which one gives oneself to another to bring the relationship to God’s intended purposes. The person who loves God with all of her being—heart, soul, and mind—will understand that God’s will for her life is revealed in the Old Testament, and she will gladly, eagerly, obey it because she knows that in doing so, she is living life the way God has designed it to be lived. In turn, her obedience to God’s will transforms her entire being—heart, soul, and mind—into the image of God so that she is more like what God has intended for her to be like. Furthermore, loving her neighbor as herself means that she gives herself to other humans to help them live as God designed life to be lived, so that she helps them in their own transformation.
These are the greatest commandments because they go to the essence of the way God has created humans to live: giving oneself to God and to others to fulfill his purposes for us as the crown of his creation in displaying in our lives the glory of God’s kingdom on earth. Jesus’ inauguration of the kingdom enables this to be a concrete reality for his disciples.
The son of David: Pharisees (22:41–46). In Matthew’s narrative of the Holy Week controversies, the first three encounters with the religious leaders were initiated as they formulated questions designed to trap Jesus. Still in the temple courts on Tuesday with the various groups in attendance—the religious leaders (Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians), the multitudes, and his disciples—Jesus takes the initiative to press the debate in a critical direction. He goes on the offensive as he poses a question to the Pharisees. Jesus goes to the heart of the issue, challenging their ability to rightly interpret one of the most important messianic texts in the Old Testament. If they cannot rightly interpret this text, they cannot possibly rightly understand his identity. So he prods them: “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?”
This must have seemed like a simple question to the Pharisees, who answer with, “The son of David.” This is the automatic reply, based on common knowledge that the prophesied Messiah (ho Christos, “the anointed One”) was from the line of David.24 This is confirmed by common practice, with the recurring declarations of Jesus’ messianic identity as “Son of David.”25
But Jesus presses them further to plumb the depths of their understanding of the true identity of the Messiah from the Old Testament prophecies: “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’?” The point that Jesus is making is taken from Psalm 110:1, which he quotes—the most quoted Old Testament passage in the New Testament.
The Pharisees recognized this psalm as a messianic prophecy by David under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.26 In this passage David refers to the coming messianic ruler—his descendant, his “son”—as kyrios, “lord.” Familial respect would not expect an older person, such as David, to refer to his offspring as “lord”; rather, the offspring, “son,” should refer to David, his “father,” as “lord.” The LXX, which is almost verbatim to what Matthew records here, has kyrios in both instances of the word “Lord.” The Hebrew, however, has Yahweh (yhwh) for the first and Adon (ʾadoni; lit., “my Lord”) for the second occurrence of “Lord.”
In other words, Jesus uses their own Scriptures to point out the obvious implication of these combined points, which the Pharisees cannot avoid. “If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” David says that the coming Messiah is One who is not just his special human descendant but is his “Lord.” Psalm 110:1 further indicates that his descendant bears a unique relationship to Yahweh—he is seated at the highest position of privilege and authority at Yahweh’s right hand, and Yahweh will subject all his enemies to him. This bears striking similarity to Daniel’s prophecy, where the Son of Man was led into the presence of the Ancient of Days and “was given authority, honor, and royal power over all the nations of the world, so that people of every race and nation and language would obey him. His rule is eternal—it will never end. His kingdom will never be destroyed” (Dan. 7:14).
The Messiah is more than what the Pharisees have understood the “son of David” to be. He is more than a human descendant of David. Since the Pharisees do not adequately understand the Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messiah, they cannot possibly understand Jesus’ identity. They do not understand the depth of the personal identity of the Messiah in relationship to Yahweh, so they cannot understand the relationship of Jesus to Yahweh. The Messiah is “Adon,” the “Son of Man,” who is given authority by the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7:13–14). Jesus prods the Pharisees to acknowledge what they should have understood all along. The Jews did not generally believe that the Messiah would be divine, but here Jesus confounds them by showing that as David called Messiah “son” and “Lord,” Messiah is indeed his human descendant, but he sustains a divine relationship to Yahweh.27
Throughout Jesus’ ministry, his relationship to God has been increasingly revealed and clarified. He is the unique Son of God (3:17; 4:3, 6; 10:32–33, 40; 11:27), a most amazing truth that his disciples have increasingly come to recognize (14:33). Their understanding came to a climax when Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ, who is uniquely “the Son of the living God” (16:16).
Matthew narrates the combined reaction to Jesus’ final spar with the religious leaders in the temple: “No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions” (22:46). Their silence and reticence to question Jesus further is not only the conclusion to the preceding pericope but also the conclusion to the series of controversies that stretch back to 21:23. Jesus has given increasing clarification of his identity everywhere in these controversies. They have not been able to entrap him. Instead, he has revealed clearly his identity and his authority. He will now soon rebuke them severely in the series of “woes” (ch. 23) for not accepting him for who he has revealed himself to be, their long-anticipated Messiah, David’s “Lord,” who sustains a matchless relationship to Yahweh as his unique Son.
Bridging Contexts
CHAPTER 22 BEGINS with the third of three parables that confront the religious leadership because they did not repent and seek to enter the kingdom of God (21:28–32). As a result, God will take away the kingdom from Israel and give it to another nation that will produce fruit (21:33–46). In the parable of the wedding banquet, Jesus declares that God judges all responses in Israel to the invitation to the kingdom of heaven, including the nation generally, the religious leaders especially, and individuals personally (22:1–14). Matthew’s narrative takes a significant turn at the conclusion of the parables. One by one he enters into theological debate with the various leadership groups in Jerusalem, each of which has tried to undercut Jesus’ messianic claims. Matthew specifies in a unique way that although they try to debate Jesus, they are all deficient in understanding the Old Testament’s witness to his messianic claims.
These controversies between Jesus and the religious leaders in the temple form the last public debates of Jesus’ earthly ministry. They occur throughout much of Tuesday of Holy Week. In less than three days Jesus will again stand before the religious leaders, but then he will be on trial for his life in the secret confines of the high priest’s stronghold (26:57–68). Thus, as Jesus confronts these leaders publicly this last time, everything about his earthly ministry is on trial.
But most important, Matthew reveals insights to show that it is really not Jesus who is on trial but the religious leaders themselves. In these brief scenes, Jesus takes to task each of the primary leadership groups in Jerusalem—Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, and even the Zealots tangentially.28 When we compare the various Gospel narratives of these scenes, Matthew specifies each group that Jesus addresses. His precise understanding of these groups reflects his intimate familiarity with the historical details of the temple controversies, the Jerusalem sectarian leadership turf wars, and the specific areas of theological culpability for which all are guilty.
Each group has its own unique theological, political, sociological, and religious agenda. Each has its strengths and weakness from which we can learn, both how to profit from their commitments and how to avoid their errors. Jesus brings out into the open the inherent theological foibles of each group, which, unless they are rectified, result in exclusion from the kingdom of heaven and ultimately in final judgment. But he goes beyond any one group’s expectations in Israel to show us how we can learn from their weaknesses and strengths to hear most clearly the message of the kingdom of heaven.
Disciples of the Pharisees. Only Matthew records the parable of the wedding banquet, which is a direct pronouncement of judgment on the religious leaders for rejecting Jesus’ invitation to the kingdom of heaven. Likewise, only Matthew records the Pharisaic conspiracy to trap Jesus theologically as their response to Jesus’ pronouncement in the parable (22:15). It is also only Matthew who specifies that it is “the disciples of the Pharisees” who are sent by their leaders to try to entrap Jesus (22:16).
This adds a unique dimension to the intrigue. These disciples of the Pharisees apparently are the Pharisees’ flunkies. Since they are not legal experts or full-fledged Pharisaic leaders, they do not appear to be as much of a legal threat to Jesus; they are a seemingly innocuous group. They come with fawning flattery, expressing accurate descriptions of Jesus, but their intentions are evil. That is the height of religious hypocrisy (22:18)—to try to disarm Jesus so that they can trap him. The painful point is that external religious performance, no matter how sincere and accurate is appears, is evil if it is driven by inner evil intentions.
Herodians. Matthew also records the presence of the group called the Herodians along with the disciples of the Pharisees (22:16; cf. Mark 12:13). In many ways they are on opposite side of the theological battle within Judaism. The Herodians represent the Herodian dynasty and its cutthroat representation of Rome in Israel. The Pharisees represent the vestiges of those within Israel who contend for legalistic purity and separation from ethnic defilement. That the two groups come together to confront Jesus highlights not only that politics makes strange bedfellows, but also that Jesus is a threat to every stratum of the Jewish establishment.
The question of whether to pay taxes to Caesar reveals the underlying issue of how much deference should be paid to secular political forces. The Pharisees and Herodians represent opposing methodologies. Although the Pharisees do not accept the Roman occupation, they express their opposition by separating themselves through ritual purity and praying for the arrival of a messianic deliverer.29 The Herodians, in representing the Herodian dynasty, have capitulated to the Romans and are promoters of Greco-Roman culture. Like the Sadducees, they reject any messianic hope and see political action as the way of promoting their own interests.30
But Jesus will not adopt either extreme. The kingdom of heaven operates within this earthly sphere, neither relying on political or military might of any human government to advance its influence, nor withdrawing and pining for God’s arrival. Jesus’ kingdom disciples are not a threat to worldly governing systems, nor do they give them first allegiance. Jesus’ disciples give due obligation to worldly governing systems (cf. Rom. 13:1–7; 1 Peter 2:13–17), but they seek and serve first the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 6:24, 33).
Sadducees. All three Synoptic Gospels narrate the instigation of the Sadducees in the third debate related to the resurrection (22:23; Mark 12:18; Luke 20:27). The Sadducees were an influential group within Jewish political circles in Jerusalem. They were the party of high priests, aristocratic families, and merchants. Within the economic system of Israel they represented the wealthier elements. Like the Herodians, they came under the influence of Greco-Roman culture and cultivated good relations with the Roman rulers. Theologically, they were basically conservative, since they accepted only the written Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) and held to a literal interpretation of the Bible. This led them to oppose the oral law of the Pharisees, but also to deny the immortality of the soul, bodily resurrection after death, the arrival of a future messianic deliverer, and the existence of angelic spirits.31
As the Sadducees attempt to entrap Jesus with a question about the resurrection, he reveals that their conservative posture is actually a self-serving ploy. Their view of the extent of Scripture serves their own interests. If, as their doctrine teaches, there is no real future, they need to grab all of the power and pleasure they can right now to make heaven on earth. If there is no real participation of God in history, then they may as well take life into their own hands to secure their own future. Their wealth and political power produce haughtiness, and their willingness to cooperate with the Roman rulers causes them to compromise their theological convictions. Jesus rails against them that they know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God (22:29).
Jesus contends that God is the God of both living and dead and that each person must live each moment under his lordship. All of the power and prestige and pleasures of this age cannot compensate for standing one day before him and receiving one’s eternal destiny.32
Crowds. Only Matthew mentions that the crowds respond with astonishment at the way Jesus’ dismantles the Sadducees’ theological riddle (22:33). A superficial reading might lead one to think that this is an expression of faith and commitment to Jesus. But as Matthew has emphasized throughout his Gospel, astonishment or amazement is not the same as faith. Faith leads to discipleship, while astonishment leads to emotional attachment, which is fickle. Jesus knows that simple popularity can be accomplished by being a people-pleaser.
The crowds that shouted “Hosanna!” at Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem and who are astonished at his teaching will soon be persuaded by the religious leaders to ask for the release of Barabbas and the execution of Jesus. They rely on human power to bring in the kingdom, not on the power of the kingdom of God. Matthew gives us keen insight throughout the Holy Week narrative that the crowds want things their way, not God’s. Jesus is no people-pleaser, as even his enemies know (22:16), so regardless of how much acclaim he receives from the crowds, he must conduct his life on this earth to do the will of God.
Pharisaic expert in the Law. Matthew gives more specific insight into the intrigue behind the third confrontation. The Pharisees are keeping track of the debate, and when the Sadducees fail, they step forward by sending one of their legal experts to test Jesus. Matthew is the only evangelist to associate this expert in the law with the Pharisees (22:34–35).
A commendable quality of the Pharisees is their commitment to the Word of God and their desire to make it practical for daily life. The legal expert’s response recorded in Mark allows us to see that he is a person who, in spite of the evil motivations of some of the Pharisees, is sincerely seeking the truth. Jesus tells him that his wise response reveals that he is not far from the kingdom of God (Mark 12:34).
Jesus is surrounded on every side by enemies, but even among those who are his harshest critics can be found those seeking from a sincere heart. It takes emotional restraint for Jesus to see the good intentions of the lawyer. So Matthew points his readers to the right kind of questions that should be put to Jesus. One of those is to find overarching truths that enable us to understand the essential, practical spirit of the Bible. By seeking the greatest commandments in the Law, the lawyer is finding principles that will enable him to obey the essence of the spirit of the Law. It is important to learn to principalize the Bible rather than be legalists who simply memorize rules and obey them like robots. We must understand God’s purpose for giving the Scripture and what stands behind why we do what we do.
The Pharisees. In the fourth debate, Jesus turns to confront at the Pharisees directly with his own question (22:41–42). Their pride in their ability to rightly interpret the Bible prevents them from seeing the real meaning of the text. Jesus prods them to go beyond the pat answers of their tradition and understand that David’s descendant is more than his human progeny; he is the “Adon,” the “Son of Man” in Daniel’s prophecy (22:43–45).
Matthew thus highlights the danger of traditionalism, which only accepts that which one’s interpretive community understands and practices. The Pharisees take the stock answer from the tradition of the elders, but they do not keep pressing to see beyond the simple answer to God’s intent revealed in the messianic prophecy. Tradition can be a helpful way of building on the skill, insight, and learning of prior generations, but it can also hinder hearing the voice of God, either in the biblical text or in the arrival of Jesus as God’s messenger.
Had the Pharisees been open to Jesus’ revelation, they would have seen even more of what this messianic psalm had to teach about Jesus’ identity and mission. Later New Testament writers cite Psalm 110 more than any other Old Testament prophecy to clarify that Jesus is Messiah (Acts 2:34–36), that he is greater than the angels (Heb. 1:13), that after his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension he is now sitting at the right hand of God the Father in heaven (Acts 2:33–35; Heb. 6:20), and that God has placed Jesus’ enemies under his feet (1 Cor. 15:25–28; Eph. 1:22; Heb. 10:13).33
But we should note one other important thing about the Pharisees. Contemporary expressions such as “You Pharisee!” and “She is so pharisaical” are based on the first-century setting. Emphasizing either strict legalism or hypocritical self-righteousness, such expressions today are used almost entirely to disparage a person. But in the first century, to call a person a Pharisee was to compliment him on his sincere accomplishment in applying the Bible to his life. To say that a person was pharisaical was to commend such a person for his diligence in pursuing righteousness, even though he wasn’t an official member of that party.
Jesus himself, who reserved the harshest criticism for the Pharisees, also saw in the intense questioning of a legal expert the genuine pursuit of the kingdom of God (Mark 12:34). The Pharisee Nicodemus became a disciple of Jesus (cf. John 19:39), as did Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin and most likely a leading Pharisee, whom Luke describes as a good and righteous man “waiting for the kingdom of God” (cf. Luke 23:50–51). They were both used by God at one of the most strategic points in history, having positions of influence that enabled them to claim Jesus’ body for burial (Matt. 27:57–60; John 19:38–42).
I do not in any way want to downgrade the evil that Jesus saw in the Pharisees or lessen their responsibility for participating in the treachery that eventually led to his crucifixion, but we should bring in a bit more objectivity when we look at the Pharisees of the first century. That is likewise true of the Sadducees, whose members included the high priest and chief priests who brought those false charges against Jesus to the Romans that resulted in his crucifixion. The priest element of the Sadducees became the early church’s primary antagonists (e.g., Acts 4:1–3; 5:17–18), but also many of the Sadducean priestly line became believers and influential members of the early church (Acts 6:7). Their background most likely was a factor in coming to believe in Jesus.
Such objectivity will help us to recognize that each of these first-century groups has strengths and weakness from which we can learn much, especially because they have characteristics that can be found in Christian circles today. As we look at the basic interactions of Jesus with these groups in the temple in Jerusalem, lessons abound for us.
Contemporary Significance
THE INVITATION TO insiders to come inside. The striking, almost frightening, point of the parable of the wedding celebration (22:1–14) is that the ones who are condemned the most severely are insiders. Jesus addresses the parables to the religious leaders, primarily Sadducees and Pharisees, and they do not miss his point (21:45; 22:15). Jesus is a threat to the Sadducean establishment in the temple and to the Pharisaic influence in the synagogues. They receive his invitation to the kingdom of God along with the rest of the people of Israel, but their commitments to their institutions blind them from seeing the truth in Jesus’ summons. So they have him killed, but their punishment will be swift and severe (22:7). One who does respond to the invitation but doesn’t wear the appropriate garment is condemned to eternal punishment. He likely represents insiders like Judas Iscariot, who betrays Jesus from the inside.
This parable does not speak of the wedding feast of the Lamb in heaven (Rev. 19:5–8) but depicts first-century responses in Israel to the invitation to the kingdom of heaven. Beyond that it illustrates responses of individuals in this life to the gospel. Many are called, but few are chosen. Jesus points out the seriousness of one’s response to the opportunity of being called into the family of God. This has important implications for us.
The parable should cause us to take stock of our true membership within the kingdom. The apostle Peter writes, “Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:10). The church does contain people who are not true members of the kingdom. There are children of solid church members who are “insiders” but who have not truly responded to the invitation of the gospel. I do not believe that continual harping will necessarily make the difference, and as we suggested above, the issues of election that Jesus and Peter emphasize are a matter of God’s sovereign choice. But if we follow Peter’s advice, we should try to “make sure” our calling and election.
To do so both personally and with those to whom we minister, including our own churches and families, involves learning from the religious leaders of Jesus’ day—those insiders who never came into the kingdom. Jesus said that the kingdom was being taken away from those not bearing fruit and would be given to those who do bear kingdom fruit. This points ahead to the work of the Holy Spirit in establishing the new covenant. The fruit produced is God’s presence reigning in his regenerated people, who demonstrate his power through lives distinguished by the fruit of righteousness (Matt. 5:20) and good works (Col. 1:5–10), the fruit of Spirit-produced transformation of character (Gal. 5:21–24), and the fruit of new generations of disciples (Matt. 28:18–20; cf. John 15:16) who bear witness to the reality of the kingdom on earth.
The encouragement from Peter is that as insiders, we can help our people, and ourselves, learn how to rightly examine ourselves. When we give unfettered allegiance to Jesus alone as our only claim to life here and eternal, then we can claim the confidence that the apostle John promised comes from obedience to his writing: “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life” (1 John 5:13). Not hope or wish or want, but that we may know we have eternal life. Those who are truly abiding in Jesus and his Word will see the fruit of a developing internal character that not only does the right thing but has the heart to do the right thing that leads to action.
While we go about this, let’s be careful not to fall into the Pharisaic legalism that counts fruit in others. The reality of the mixed nature of those who are insiders allows us to be comforted as realists about life until Jesus’ return. It will be a mixed bag of the good wheat and bad weeds until Jesus comes (see 13:24–30). As we learn to examine ourselves and to help others learn to examine themselves, we can back off and leave the judging to God.
Advice for making a difference in this world. Jesus’ response to the religious leaders about paying taxes to Caesar stands as one of the most important principles for Christians living in this world until the Lord returns: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (22:21). Jesus is not saying that life is to be divided into two compartments, with obligations to Caesar and to God separated from each other. Both Caesar and the kingdom of God have rights in their respective areas as ordained by God, but the way of fulfilling our obligations to earthly authorities is by first fulfilling our obligations to God.
The danger for religious leaders is a tendency to go to extremes. On the one side they either withdraw completely from Caesar, like the Essenes at the Qumran community, or withdraw socially, like the Pharisees. On the other side they may capitulate by joining league with Caesar, like the Sadducees and Herodians, or they may take matters into the own hands and fight against Caesar, like the Zealots. As we look around at the various groups within the larger world of Christendom today, we find the same kinds of extremes. Some separatist Christians withdraw to their own world, like the Amish, or stay socially separated, like some fundamentalist groups. Others go to the other extreme and capitulate, like various liberal denominations that use politics as their primary agenda, while others use violence and bomb abortion clinics to advance their cause. Jesus’ words should help us stay balanced.
In the days after the terrorists brought unthinkable horror to the everyday lives of people on September 11, 2001, I clearly remember watching television as the U.S. Congress was assembled in the Senate chambers. President George W. Bush gave a passionate speech. He honored several of the firefighters and police officers who were at the devastation. He honored the wife of one of the men who had rushed the hijackers and given up their lives. I was struck by the need for healing for all those who experienced firsthand the horror of those days.
As President Bush gave his speech, I could see his resolve spread to all those assembled and to all of us watching around the nation, indeed around the world. But as I watched, I saw all of those events through very different eyes than I had over thirty years ago when I was also motivated to serve my country through enlisting to fight an enemy. At that time I was a non-Christian who was called to do my duty for my country. But this time I saw a need that only you and I can fill. We have the only real hope, the only real peace.
Some Christians do enlist in the military service and serve in combat. That is between them and the Lord to understand that calling. Some become firefighters or police officers. Some become doctors or economists or engineers or building contractors, all of whom are needed to rebuild after the ravages of terrorism and war and make it safe for our children. I hope that many will respond, for an appropriate respect and support of government is a way of honoring God.
But we as Christians must never forget this: Our first allegiance is to the kingdom of God. As a Christian I can be engaged in service by bringing justice to those who perpetrate evil. However, I have already fought a war, and I know evil of a horrendous nature. I also know the evil that lurked in my own heart as I killed, not for justice but for my own ego, my own satisfaction, without any regard for the person I gunned down.
And I know now that as I am continuing to be transformed into the image of Christ, I have a different allegiance. I must fight to overcome evil with the power of the gospel, bringing real peace through the blood of the cross of Jesus Christ. I must love my enemies and overcome their evil through the powerful working of the Holy Spirit to bring them to repentance before a loving, and yet holy and righteous God. All that we give to the government, whether it be our taxes, our participation in the military or police, or our involvement in politics, is not going to hasten the coming of the kingdom of God. And an unreserved allegiance to the state infringes on the second half of Jesus’ statement; since all that is belongs to God, ultimate allegiance is to him.
In the conclusion to his insightful study of this passage, Calvin comments, “In short, the overthrow of civil order is rebellion against God, and obedience to leaders and magistrates is always linked to the worship and fear of God, but if in return the leaders usurp the rights of God they are to be denied obedience as far as possible short of offence to God.”34 Our allegiance to God should not promote aloofness from giving to Caesar or rebellion against Caesar. Nor should our allegiance to Caesar ever infringe on our allegiance to God. And when the kingdom of Caesar infringes on the kingdom of God, the penetrating proviso of Peter and the other apostles comes into play: “We must obey God rather than men!” (Acts 5:29).35
Jesus’ statement is one that should continue to cause us daily to monitor our allegiances. Dale Bruner says wisely of Jesus’ saying in Matthew 22:21:
Jesus’ great sentence does not forever settle the question of Christians’ relation to the state, because every day we must ask ourselves afresh if we are giving too little or too much of our energies to the political. Jesus’ Caesar sentence is a slide rule asking us perpetually to readjust our use of time and priorities.36
Letting God be God. The Sadducees’ question about resurrection was an attempt to trap Jesus with what they saw to be an irresolvable dilemma within the belief system of Jesus, but it also revealed their own worldview. They rightly denied the authority of the Pharisees’ oral law, but they had boxed in God’s voice to the books of the Bible that they believed were inspired, which then boxed God into what they believed he could actually do in this world—and that wasn’t much. No immortality, no resurrection, no intervention in history, no spirit world.
I was quite a fan of the Beatles in my youth. But as I consider the worldview of the Sadducees, they sound strangely like John Lennon’s song “Imagine.” In this song, Lennon calls on his listeners to imagine that there is no heaven, no hell, no countries, and nothing to kill or die for. He dreamed of a world with no religion, calling us to imagine all people living in peace. His song called for a blissfully naive fantasy world. But the tragic ending of John Lennon’s life brought to an end for many what they then considered merely a pipe dream.
The Sadducees likewise came to a tragic end in A.D. 70 with the destruction of the temple and the desolation of Jerusalem. They capitulated to the Roman rule, attempting to create political alliances that would bring them power, wealth, security, and peace. They looked for truth and power in all of the wrong places. They ended up denying their own Jewish faith, because they stifled God’s voice in the rest of Scripture and denied his power in their own lives and in the lives of the people for whom they were responsible.
The important example for us is set by Jesus’ censure of the Sadducees: “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God” (22:29). We must commit ourselves to knowing the full teaching of Scripture, not just those selections or books that we find comfortable or compatible with our own worldview. The Bible will make us uncomfortable with our sin. It will also point out that it is incompatible with our secularist cultural baggage and philosophies. As much of a fan of John Lennon that I was, I had to evaluate his secularist philosophies in the light of the Bible—and they were incompatible.
Furthermore, we must commit ourselves to know the power of God, which can change lives, make a difference in this world, break the chains of addictions, and enable marriages to last and flourish. The power of God is for every Christian, every day, every hour. One of my favorite prayers in the Bible is Paul’s prayer for the Ephesian church in Ephesians 1:18–20:
I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms.
That’s a lot of power! No power known to humans is like that. We can run cars, propel rockets to the moon, harness energy to light up entire cities, but we cannot raise anyone from the dead. And that’s the power that Paul prays will be ours to energize our lives on a daily basis. The source of that power is simply to be filled with the Holy Spirit (Eph. 5:18). That’s when our individual lives and our churches reject the error of the Sadducees and demonstrate the kind of discipleship to Jesus that relies on the full teaching of Scripture and the full power of God.
Love as God’s overarching will for disciples. Working with college and seminary students, I regularly hear them discuss God’s will for their lives—what he wants them to study, what job or ministry they should pursue, where they should live, whom they should marry! All critical issues. Finding God’s will for our lives is a heavily debated topic among young people. I usually toss out to the students Augustine’s oft-quoted dictum, “Love [God], and do as you will.” At first it sounds almost antinomian to them, but the more they think about it, usually the more helpful it is.
I think that is what the legal expert from the Pharisees was looking for—a practical handle to grasp God’s will—because the Bible is God’s written will for his people. As he asks what the greatest commandment is in the Law (22:35–36), he is looking for an overarching way to obey God’s will, which Jesus then says is to love God and one’s neighbor—and that sounds strikingly similar to Augustine’s statement. If we truly do love God with all of our heart and soul and mind, our entire person is focused on giving ourselves to him. We will not want to do anything contrary to his will for us. We will love our neighbors by giving ourselves to them, and if we truly love them, we will only do to them what is for their good. There is a great deal of freedom in that orientation toward the Bible.
In our discussion of the Sermon on the Mount, I suggested a schematic in which our transformation works from the inside to the out, with the heart directing the mind, body, and social relations to say yes to God.37 When we keep that perspective in view, it is congruent with what the lawyer seeks from Jesus and how Jesus replies. Ultimate obedience to God occurs when our entire person is directed toward loving him and others.
The nineteenth-century Christian novelist and poet George MacDonald was regarded by C. S. Lewis to be his literary master. MacDonald wrote everything from grand Victorian novels to Christian fantasies. But he also kept an extensive correspondence. In a letter to his daughter Mary when she was sixteen, MacDonald tried to extend his understanding of God’s love as a determining factor to guide her life. He wrote:
God is so beautiful, and so patient, and so loving, and so generous that he is the heart and soul and rock of every love and every kindness and every gladness in the world. All the beauty in the world and in the hearts of men, all the painting, all the poetry, all the music, all the architecture comes out of his heart first. He is so loveable that no heart can know how loveable he is—can know only in part. When the best loves God best, he does not love him nearly as he deserves, or as he will love him in time.38
That is the kind of love about which Jesus spoke to the Pharisaic lawyer. And that is the kind of love that, when practiced in giving ourselves to God so that we can love our neighbor, opens up the freedom of living in obedience to his will.
Jesus under fire. The Pharisees who responded to Jesus’ question about the identity of the Messiah (22:42) gave an answer that satisfied the tradition of their academic brotherhood, but it did not give the full picture of the Messiah. They were left with only a human descendant of David. But that kind of messiah is not able to do much more than any other human religious figure. So Jesus brilliantly prods them to open their eyes and hearts to see what David’s psalm said—that Messiah is Adon, the Lord, who is the divine Son of man of Daniel’s prophecy. That grand, mind-opening experience should have convinced the Pharisees. They were waiting for a messianic deliverer, but this didn’t fit with their preconceived ideas, so they turned away.
The upshot for us is that we must have the courage to see what Scripture truly teaches about Jesus and then act on it. Several years ago some colleagues and I put together an anthology that attempted to defend the biblical teaching concerning Jesus from modern aberrations—specifically the group known as the Jesus Seminar. We entitled the book Jesus Under Fire.39 It was a wonderful opportunity to work with leading evangelical scholars from around the country, all of whom were dedicated to one thing: refuting bad modern reinventions of Jesus in the light of a more biblical understanding.
I’m not sure if many Jesus Seminar participants have reconsidered their understanding of Jesus, but it illustrates for me what Jesus encountered. He was also under fire in the first century. The traditions of the elders of the Pharisees were reinventing the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament because they couldn’t figure out how the Messiah could be both human and divine. Jesus did not have to give the Pharisees a new Bible. All that they needed was already there. But since they couldn’t conceive of such a tremendous truth, they revised the biblical portrait.
It is no less significant for us today. The modernist and postmodernist mindset balks at the incredible claims for Jesus that the Bible makes. But what we advanced in Jesus under Fire is that the New Testament claims about Jesus of Nazareth are true, and it is reasonable to believe this is so. Our hope there, as it is here, was that a study of God’s Word would whet your appetite for the quest for God. If you are to live a life of integrity before God, it is imperative that your beliefs be true and that your questions have intellectually satisfying answers. Jesus provided those for the first century, and he does so for us today. Without him, we are spiritually bankrupt and hopeless. The kind of Messiah envisioned by the Pharisees or by modern reinventions cannot offer eternal salvation or the power to live life as we know we should.
These truths lie at the center of Christian claims. If Jesus is truly the One whom he declares himself to be, we have a unique message to proclaim. Jesus is unlike any figure ever to walk the earth, for he is not simply a messenger but the Son of God. The religious leaders’ silence is outspoken testimony that the straightforward implication of the text cannot be avoided. The Messiah has a special relationship to Yahweh, which Jesus claims for himself. Their silence is also outspoken testimony of their own hypocritical avoidance of the implications for themselves. They should acknowledge Jesus as their own Lord and Messiah. But ultimately, none of us, Christian or non-Christian, can ignore the influences for our personal lives. Jesus demands nothing less than to be accepted, served, and worshiped as our Lord.