NARRATIVE 5-4
JESUS MOVES TOWARD JERUSALEM:
 The Messiah's Final Week
Matt 19:1-22:46

 For Matt 19:1-30 click here.
For Matt 20:1-34 click here.
For Matt 21:1-46 click here.
For Matt 22:1-46 click here.

Matt 22:1-46

The Parable of the Marriage Feast (22:1-14)
 Hagner appropriately observes that this parable focuses on the general unresponsiveness of the people of Israel generally and not merely on the Jewish leadership.  The Jewish leadership, however, is naturally included since this parable is parallel to the previous one.  Hagner also observes that this parable demonstrates that there is more to being part of the elect than being called!  Not all the called respond in faith, but the elect are those who are characterized by faith and righteousness.

The expression, "again Jesus spoke to them" is a formulaic statement that ties this parable to the previous parable of the wicked tenants.  Demonstrating Matthew's eschatological perspective this parable is addressed as a parable of the kingdom of heaven and draws heavily on the Jewish concept of a final eschatological banquet to which those who are righteous and worthy are invited.  The Book of Revelation likewise draws on this concept (see Rev 19 and the marriage supper of the Lamb).

There might have been a sense that those invited who refused to come were the Jewish leaders, but by now the rejection is broader than the leaders and has spread to the general populace.  Possibly those who were invited but refused to come were those who thought they were righteous and of faith, but who were not.  The second group invited from the thoroughfares were "both bad and good."  It is interesting that Jesus mentions the bad before the good, emphasizing that it was not the "righteous" that came, but the sinners.  The "righteous" did not see the need to respond!

Some feel that since Jesus mentions the king sending out his army to punish the offenders that this might be a reference to the judgment and destruction of the Scribes and Pharisees and Jerusalem that are described in greater detains in Matt 23-25, but this might not be necessary since the figure of kings sending soldiers out to punish offenders was a common one in ancient parables and narratives.

Of the many "bad and good" that did respond to the invitation one man was present who was not wearing a wedding garment.  Questions exist among scholars as to whether the king had provided the wedding garments for his guests, and whether this was a common practice.  These details are not mentioned in the parable, which is after all a parable and not all the details would be provided nor are they pertinent to the lesson of the parable.  In a parable only those elements germane to the lesson are necessary.  What is pertinent was that he was not properly attired as was expected of wedding guests and is cast out into "outer darkness"!

The significant question that arises from this portion of the narrative is what does the wedding garment in this case mean.  In the context of the parables and events in Jesus life at this point it is apparent that wearing the the appropriate wedding garment represented being clothed by faith and righteousness, both of which were absent in the Chief Priests and Pharisees who were attempting to be part of the Messianic kingdom on their own terms, not the terms of the king!

The final verse of this parable gets to the heart of the parable, "For many are called, but few are chosen."  Again we note the difference between being called and the elect!  All are called, but only those characterized by faith and righteousness are the elect.  

 The Messiah, Taxes, and Caesar (22:15-22)
Seeking for means to entrap Jesus, the Pharisees join forces with the Herodians and hypocritically question Jesus regarding the Roman tax system.  What is significant about this little event is the apparent collusion between the Pharisees and Herodians who under normal situations would not have had anything to do with one another.  In this case, the Pharisees compromise by sending their disciples with the Herodians to trap Jesus!   By adopting this stance the Pharisees kept their distance but allied themselves in this case with the politically astute and inclined Herodians (Herodians were political supporters of the Herodian "kings", and thus not favored by the "religiously" inclined populace and Pharisees who rejected the Herodian monarchy.

The Pharisees address Jesus with the respectful title of "teacher" but decline from calling him Rabbi, thus indicating their rejection of Jesus right to interpret the Torah.

The question they ask Jesus placed Jesus between the horns of a dilemma.  Which ever way he answered the question he would have been in trouble; if he answered that it was permissible to pay taxes to Rome he would have met opposition form the crowds as well as the Pharisaic party, for the Roman tax was despised by the Jews.  If he had answered that tax should not be paid to the Romans he would have met with opposition from the Herodians and the Romans themselves.

But Jesus knew their trickery (Jesus " was aware of their malice.")  Taking the coin, which was a Roman coin, he answered that was was due Rome should be paid to Rome, and what was due God (apparently the Temple tax) should be paid to God.

Stumped again by Jesus, they left him and went away, but we know from the narrative, they were to retune again with further attempts to destroy Jesus and his influence among the crowds and Romans.

 The Sadducees and the Resurrection (22:23-33)
Following this it was the Sadducees turn to attempt to trap Jesus.  The Sadducees were the more traditional or conservative among the Jewish sects, holding that it was only the first five books of Scripture that were authoritative and comprised the Torah of God.  The resurrection could not be learned in the Pentateuch and was thus rejected by the Sadducees, along with belief in angels.  The Sadducees also differed with the Pharisees on matters of ceremonial purity and civil law.

Like the Pharisees in the previous pericope, the Sadducees, seeking to discredit Jesus as a teacher, address him as "teacher" as they question him in regard to his interpretation of the Torah.  One suspects that the address "teacher" is supercilious rather than sincere.

The setting of the Sadducees question is the Mosaic Leverite law of Deut 25:5:
5 "If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 6 And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his brother who is dead, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. 7 And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’ 8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him: and if he persists, saying, ‘I do not wish to take her,’ 9 then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, ‘So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’ 10 And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, The house of him that had his sandal pulled off.
The problem the Sadducees were addressing was who would the woman belong to in the resurrection.  The Sadducees' by denial of the resurrection posed no problem for them since if the resurrection did not exist, then the problem did not exist.  However, if the resurrection did exist, to the Sadducees this posed a serious problem.

There are some similarities between the Sadducees posed problem and Tobit 3:7-8 in which a woman (Sarah) marries seven husbands. Each husband is slain by a demon on the night of her marriage before the marriage is consummated.

 Jesus' answer was both direct and stern.  The Sadducees' problem was that they knew neither the Scriptures (a serious challenge and almost an insult!) nor the power of God (which addressed the core of the Sadducees' problem with the resurrection).  Jesus' challenge to the Sadducees regarding their lack of knowledge of Scripture came directly from a Scripture the Sadducees had to accept, Ex 3:6, 15
6 And he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob."

13 Then Moses said to God, "If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?" 14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’" 15 God also said to Moses, "Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.
Quoting from the Septuagint, the 'I am' (eimi - eimi - I am) is in the present tense, thus implying that in the present tense God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, implying that at the time God was speaking Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were alive.  This could be possible only if the resurrection were real and true.

To deny the resurrection, therefore, was to challenge God's and Moses' statement! 

Furthermore, to challenge the resurrection and to have questions about life in heaven was tantamount to challenging the Power of God.

We, like the Sadducees, might not have a full understanding of what life would be like in the resurrection, but unlike the Sadducees we believe in the power of God and leave the uncertainties to later fulfillment and understanding.  Somewhat like Paul ( 1 Cor 13:12)  "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood."

Rather than undermine Jesus' standing as a teacher, the Sadducees reinforced it, for the crowds "were astonished at his teaching."

Which is the greatest Commandment? (22:34-40)
Defeated and humbled on two fronts that is both the Pharisees and Sadducees, did not cause the Pharisees to back of  from challenging Jesus.   Their next challenge was of a concerted group action!  They came together and through a scribe (a lawyer, or expert in the Torah.  The word used in Matthew in this instance is nomikos - nomikos, a law expert, it is found only here in Matthew) the Pharisees posed a serious legal test question, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?"  Jesus' answer to this question would place him either among the fringes of Jewish teachers, or within the mainstream of Jewish legal interpretation.  

One wonders what must have motivated this particular question.  Perhaps it was Jesus' previous teaching on the Toray which seemed to go contrary to the Scribal interpretation of the Torah (Matt 5:17-48).  Jesus' answer was right down orthodox lines and got to the heart of the law.  He quoted the Shema from the Septuagint - LXX (Deut 6:5), which was quoted twice every day be all serious Jews "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind."  Jesus then followed this with a quotation from Lev 19:18, again verbatim from the LXX,  "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."   

A close examination of the Ten Commandments reveals that loving God and one's neighbor was what the Ten Commandments, and the Torah, were all about.  

Jesus' final comment "On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets"  left the Scribe silent, and no response resulted from either the Pharisees or the Scribe.

 Jesus' Unanswerable Question  to the Pharisees (22:41-46) 
While the Pharisees were still gathered together Jesus took the initiative and asked them a question regarding the Messiah (the Christ), "Whose son is he?"   They answered, "The son of David!"  this would have been a typical Rabbinic answer of the day, for it was held and stated that the Messiah would be "the son of David."  This term had by this time become a term of Messianic expectation (see Matthew 1:1ff and Matthew's structure of Jesus' genealogy).

The question was not simply one designed as a clever trap for the Pharisees, but was one with serious implications for Jesus own identity and calling as the Messiah.

Jesus' question, however, posed a serious interpretive problem for the Pharisees!  How could David call the Messiah his Lord  (Psalm 110:1) when the Messianic Lord was to be "the son of David", thus a human being.  How could David call his "son", a human descendent of his, the Messianic Lord?

The core of Jesus' question addressed the issue of a human being (a son of David) being the divine Messianic Lord (which is what Psalm 110:1 implied).  This was in fact a question of the Pharisees denying the divinity of Jesus' Lordship because he was human.

This question and how it is answered lies at the very core of Matthew's Gospel and theology.  Disciples must believe that Jesus (a human being) is at the same time a divine being (this is what the virgin birth narrative demonstrates), and that he is the divine Messiah and Christ.

Jesus question and the Pharisees inability to answer it closed this series of challenges in this major narrative section.

However, the Pharisees inherent denial of Jesus' Messiahship, and their inability to answer his final question, set the scene for the final major discourse in Matthew in which Jesus condemns the Scribes and Pharisees and pronounces judgment on Jerusalem and the Temple.