Matthew 22
Read Matthew 22. 1 – 14
This parable was directed at the chief priests and Pharisees see Matthew 21 45-46.
The parables of the sons, the tenants and the wedding have a consistent message and each
parable gives a little more information. In the parables the Jewish leaders are presented as
 A son who says he will work in the vineyard, but does not
 The tenants who agree to share the fruit of the vineyard, but do not
 Guests who have accepted an invitation to attend the wedding, but in the end do not.
In the parables there was a response to do the will of God, but the promise was not delivered.
The tenants and wedding parables describe repeated attempts to encourage a response, but with
no result.
The progressive revelation of the parables shows:
 rejection of the message in the parable of the sons
 failure of leaders to deliver fruit and loss of leadership role in the parable of the tenants
 loss of leadership role and replacement of leadership in the wedding parable.
The message for the chief priests and Pharisees was that God had rejected their leadership of his
people and the leadership responsibility was to pass to others.
V 11 There was one guest without a wedding garment. The custom was for the host to provide
clothes for the guests to wear. In this case one guest had declined to wear the clothes provided.
Jesus is making the point that the majority of guests had changed. Putting on different clothes
was symbolic of change. But one guest declined to change and without change, admission to the
wedding banquet is not possible.
Read Matthew 22. 15 – 22
The Pharisees, who were ardent nationalists and opposed taxation, joined up with the Herodians
who were part of the Roman occupation system. The Pharisees had earlier been described by
Jesus as hypocrites, play actors who wore masks. The question about paying taxes is put by
someone hiding behind a mask of deceit: “Teacher we know you are a man of integrity.”
The purpose of the question was to damage Jesus. It was hoped to produce either evidence of
inciting refusal to pay taxes or to alienate the crowd. Incitement could lead to arrest.
93
2/08
Alternatively, the crowd could be disillusioned. Their Messianic hope rested in Jesus, they
thought he was going to set up God’s kingdom at that time. Support for paying taxes to the
occupying power would dash that hope.
The question was probably about paying poll tax or tribute money to Rome, rather then general
taxation. The coin produced would bear an image of the Emperor and probably the inscription
‘son of the divine’. This was offensive to Jews. This was the coin used to pay tribute tax. Other
Roman coins without the Emperors head were also in circulation for everyday use.
The response of Jesus was in effect that people must serve Caesar in a way that honours God.
They must also honour God by serving him.
Read Matthew 22. 23 – 33
The Sadducees were wealthy and formed the priestly aristocracy. They exerted as much
influence of Jewish society as the Pharisees who practiced a hard religious formalism.
They believed in the authority of scripture, but not the additional requirements devised by the
Pharisees. They denied the existence of angel and the spirit (Acts 23:8). They believed that
everyone had freewill and that God did not intervene in individual lives because he was not
concerned with what people do.
They devised the question about re-marriage to, in their view, expose the absurdity of the idea of
a resurrection.
Jesus’ reply undermined their credibility across a range of their beliefs.
You do not know the scriptures – they believed they did know them and took pride in the fact.
They did not know the power of God – they denied that this power worked in the lives of people.
They denied the existence of angles – but in the Kingdom people will be like angles.
Resurrection is a necessity – I am the God of Abraham, not was the God of Abraham.
Read Matthew 22. 34 – 40
Jesus’ reply earlier to the Sadducees was a powerful message to the crowd of the flaws in their
beliefs. The Pharisees now needed a question that would really weaken the position of Jesus in
the eyes of the crowd. ‘Which is the greatest commandment’ gave much scope for Jesus to say
something they could argue against. In his reply Jesus talked principles, not commandments.
It is not the detail of the commandments that is important, it is the underlying principle of love.
The Law allows people to show their love for God and to show their love for man by avoiding
anything that would cause mental of physical hurt to someone else. The Law limits the creation
of victims.
94
2/08
Read Matthew 22. 41 – 45
Jesus now reverses his role from answering questions to presenting them. The first question is
uncontroversial. Who is the Christ (Greek anointed ) (Hebrew Messiah)? Scripture is quite clear
that he is the son of King David.
The following question challenges their understanding of what they wanted the Messiah to be. In
scripture and Jewish tradition, the father was always superior to the son. The Pharisees viewed
the Messiah as the king who would expel the Roman invaders and re-instate the Kingdom of
Israel to its former glory in the reign of King David. In this situation Jesus would be inferior to
his ancestor, David. However, Psalm 110 v1 says explicitly: ‘The Lord says to my Lord’
(David’s Lord). The Pharisees recognized that their understanding of the Messiah as a military
king was being challenged and they were being asked to recognize that the true role of the
Messiah was to bring the fulfillment of God’s will throughout the earth.
Because they were unwilling to move from their concept of the Messiah as a military king, they
offered no answer.
There were no more questions to put to Jesus.
95
3/08