The Parable of the Wedding Banquet
22 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. 3 He 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. 6 The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them.
7 The 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. 9 So go to the street corners and
invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ 10 So the servants went out into the
streets and gathered all the people they could find, the bad as well as the
good, 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 He asked, ‘How did you get in here
without wedding clothes, friend?’ 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.”
Paying the Imperial Tax to Caesar
15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words.
16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they
said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of
God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay
no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it
right to pay the imperial tax [A special tax levied on subject peoples, not on Roman citizens ] to Caesar or not?”
18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are
you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They
brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose
inscription?”
21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to
God what is God’s.”
22 When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went
away.
Marriage at the Resurrection
23 That 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 raise up offspring
for him. 25 Now 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. 26 The
same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the
seventh. 27 Finally, the woman died. 28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose
wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”
29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the
Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither
marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But
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’[Exodus 3:6]? He is not
the God of the dead but of the living.”
33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.
The Greatest Commandment
34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got
together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with
all your soul and with all your mind.’[Deut. 6:5] 38 This is the first and greatest
commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[Lev. 19:18]
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Whose Son Is the Messiah?
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42
“What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”
“The son of David,” they replied.
43 He 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.”’[Psalm 110:1 ]
45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” 46 No one
could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any
more questions.
22:1–14 This parable is from Q; see Lk 14:15–24. It has been
given many allegorical traits by Matthew, e.g., the burning of the city of the
guests who refused the invitation (Mt 22:7), which corresponds to the
destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70. It has similarities with the
preceding parable of the tenants: the sending of two groups of servants (Mt
22:3, 4), the murder of the servants (Mt 22:6), the punishment of the murderers
(Mt 22:7), and the entrance of a new group into a privileged situation of which
the others had proved themselves unworthy (Mt 22:8–10). The parable ends with a
section that is peculiar to Matthew (Mt 22:11–14), which some take as a
distinct parable. Matthew presents the kingdom in its double aspect, already
present and something that can be entered here and now (Mt 22:1–10), and
something that will be possessed only by those present members who can stand
the scrutiny of the final judgment (Mt 22:11–14). The parable is not only a
statement of God’s judgment on Israel but a warning to Matthew’s church.
22:2 Wedding feast: the Old Testament’s portrayal of final
salvation under the image of a banquet (Is 25:6) is taken up also in Mt 8:11;
cf. Lk 13:15.
22:3–4 Servants…other servants: probably Christian
missionaries in both instances; cf. Mt 23:34.
22:7 See note on Mt 22:1–14.
22:10 Bad and good alike: cf. Mt 13:47.
22:11 A wedding garment: the repentance, change of heart and
mind, that is the condition for entrance into the kingdom (Mt 3:2; 4:17) must
be continued in a life of good deeds (Mt 7:21–23).
22:13 Wailing and grinding of teeth: the Christian who lacks
the wedding garment of good deeds will suffer the same fate as those Jews who
have rejected Jesus; see note on Mt 8:11–12.
22:15–22 The series of controversies between Jesus and the
representatives of Judaism (see note on Mt 21:23–27) is resumed. As in the
first (Mt 21:23–27), here and in the following disputes Matthew follows his
Marcan source with few modifications.
22:15 The Pharisees: while Matthew retains the Marcan union
of Pharisees and Herodians in this account, he clearly emphasizes the
Pharisees’ part. They alone are mentioned here, and the Herodians are joined
with them only in a prepositional phrase of Mt 22:16. Entrap him in speech: the
question that they will pose is intended to force Jesus to take either a
position contrary to that held by the majority of the people or one that will
bring him into conflict with the Roman authorities.
22:16 Herodians: see note on Mk 3:6. They would favor
payment of the tax; the Pharisees did not.
22:17 Is it lawful: the law to which they refer is the law
of God.
22:19 They handed him the Roman coin: their readiness in
producing the money implies their use of it and their acceptance of the
financial advantages of the Roman administration in Palestine.
22:21 Caesar’s: the emperor Tiberius (A.D. 14–37). Repay to
Caesar what belongs to Caesar: those who willingly use the coin that is
Caesar’s should repay him in kind. The answer avoids taking sides in the
question of the lawfulness of the tax. To God what belongs to God: Jesus raises
the debate to a new level. Those who have hypocritically asked about tax in
respect to its relation to the law of God should be concerned rather with
repaying God with the good deeds that are his due; cf. Mt 21:41, 43.
22:23–33 Here Jesus’ opponents are the Sadducees, members of
the powerful priestly party of his time; see note on Mt 3:7. Denying the
resurrection of the dead, a teaching of relatively late origin in Judaism (cf.
Dn 12:2), they appeal to a law of the Pentateuch (Dt 25:5–10) and present a
case based on it that would make resurrection from the dead ridiculous (Mt
22:24–28). Jesus chides them for knowing neither the scriptures nor the power
of God (Mt 22:29). His argument in respect to God’s power contradicts the notion,
held even by many proponents as well as by opponents of the teaching, that the
life of those raised from the dead would be essentially a continuation of the
type of life they had had before death (Mt 22:30). His argument based on the
scriptures (Mt 22:31–32) is of a sort that was accepted as valid among Jews of
the time.
22:23 Saying that there is no resurrection: in the Marcan
parallel (Mk 22:12, 18) the Sadducees are correctly defined as those “who say
there is no resurrection”; see also Lk 20:27. Matthew’s rewording of Mark can
mean that these particular Sadducees deny the resurrection, which would imply
that he was not aware that the denial was characteristic of the party. For some
scholars this is an indication of his being a Gentile Christian; see note on Mt
21:4–5.
22:24 ‘If a man dies…his brother’: this is known as the “law
of the levirate,” from the Latin levir, “brother-in-law.” Its purpose was to
continue the family line of the deceased brother (Dt 25:6).
22:29 The sexual relationships of this world will be
transcended; the risen body will be the work of the creative power of God.
22:31–32 Cf. Ex 3:6. In the Pentateuch, which the Sadducees
accepted as normative for Jewish belief and practice, God speaks even now (to
you) of himself as the God of the patriarchs who died centuries ago. He
identifies himself in relation to them, and because of their relation to him,
the living God, they too are alive. This might appear no argument for the
resurrection, but simply for life after death as conceived in Wis 3:1–3. But
the general thought of early first-century Judaism was not influenced by that
conception; for it human immortality was connected with the existence of the
body.
22:34–40 The Marcan parallel (Mk 12:28–34) is an exchange
between Jesus and a scribe who is impressed by the way in which Jesus has
conducted himself in the previous controversy (Mk 12:28), who compliments him
for the answer he gives him (Mk 12:32), and who is said by Jesus to be “not far
from the kingdom of God” (Mk 12:34). Matthew has sharpened that scene. The
questioner, as the representative of other Pharisees, tests Jesus by his
question (Mt 22:34–35), and both his reaction to Jesus’ reply and Jesus’
commendation of him are lacking.
22:35 [A scholar of the law]: meaning “scribe.” Although
this reading is supported by the vast majority of textual witnesses, it is the
only time that the Greek word so translated occurs in Matthew. It is relatively
frequent in Luke, and there is reason to think that it may have been added here
by a copyist since it occurs in the Lucan parallel (Lk 10:25–28). Tested: see
note on Mt 19:3.
22:36 For the devout Jew all the commandments were to be
kept with equal care, but there is evidence of preoccupation in Jewish sources
with the question put to Jesus.
22:37–38 Cf. Dt 6:5. Matthew omits the first part of Mark’s
fuller quotation (Mk 12:29; Dt 6:4–5), probably because he considered its
monotheistic emphasis needless for his church. The love of God must engage the
total person (heart, soul, mind).
22:39 Jesus goes beyond the extent of the question put to
him and joins to the greatest and the first commandment a second, that of love
of neighbor, Lv 19:18; see note on Mt 19:18–19. This combination of the two
commandments may already have been made in Judaism.
22:40 The double commandment is the source from which the
whole law and the prophets are derived.
22:41–46 Having answered the questions of his opponents in
the preceding three controversies, Jesus now puts a question to them about the
sonship of the Messiah. Their easy response (Mt 22:43a) is countered by his
quoting a verse of Ps 110 that raises a problem for their response (43b–45).
They are unable to solve it and from that day on their questioning of him is
ended.
22:41 The Pharisees…questioned them: Mark is not specific
about who are questioned (Mk 12:35).
22:42–44 David’s: this view of the Pharisees was based on
such Old Testament texts as Is 11:1–9; Jer 23:5; and Ez 34:23; see also the
extrabiblical Psalms of Solomon 17:21. How, then…saying: Jesus cites Ps 110:1
accepting the Davidic authorship of the psalm, a common view of his time. The
psalm was probably composed for the enthronement of a Davidic king of Judah.
Matthew assumes that the Pharisees interpret it as referring to the Messiah,
although there is no clear evidence that it was so interpreted in the Judaism
of Jesus’ time. It was widely used in the early church as referring to the
exaltation of the risen Jesus. My lord: understood as the Messiah.
22:45 Since Matthew presents Jesus both as Messiah (Mt
16:16) and as Son of David (Mt 1:1; see also note on Mt 9:27), the question is
not meant to imply Jesus’ denial of Davidic sonship. It probably means that
although he is the Son of David, he is someone greater, Son of Man and Son of
God, and recognized as greater by David who calls him my ‘lord.’
BACK TO:
Copyright © 2020 by Ekklesia Katholes (Acts 9:31)
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
No part of this publication may be produced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission from the publisher.
No comments:
Post a Comment