Down to Earth But Heavenly Minded

What Does Matthew Chapter 22 Mean?

Jesus’ back-and-forth engagement in the temple with some of Israel’s religious leaders (Matthew 21:23) continues in this chapter. It begins with a third devastating parable about them. Then Jesus easily handles questions intended to trip Him up. Finally, He asks them a hard question of His own.

Jesus’ third parable goes beyond merely exposing the religious leaders to revealing God’s grace for others. Jesus compares the kingdom of heaven to a king throwing a wedding feast for his son. None of the citizens he invites will attend, however, resisting to the point of killing the king’s messengers. After destroying the murderers, the king invites as many as can be found on the public roads, and the hall is filled. The king has one guest thrown out, however, when he arrives without a wedding garment. This passage is a close parallel to His parable of the great banquet (Luke 14:12–24) but features a few important distinctions. Christ’s words here not only speak to Israel’s rejection of the Messiah, they also establish concepts related to salvation by grace (Matthew 22:1–14).

After hearing three parables in which they are pictured as rebelling against God, the Pharisees are ready to be done with Jesus. They hatch a plan to force Jesus to say something that might get Him arrested for rebellion against Rome. Some of the Pharisees’ disciples, along with Herodians, begin by flattering Jesus, then asking if paying taxes to Caesar—meaning to the Roman empire—is right according to the Old Testament law. Jesus knows exactly what they are trying to do and calls them hypocrites. He then holds a Roman denarius and asks whose image is on it. He tells the people to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. This remark establishes the idea that we, as image-bearers of God (Genesis 1:27), ought to give all of ourselves to Him (Matthew 22:15–22).

Next, some from the group known as the Sadducees approach Jesus. This was a more politically connected, aristocratic, and less spiritual sect. Sadducees did not believe in angels, a spiritual world, or an afterlife. They rejected the idea that God’s people will be raised from the dead and live eternally. To show why such an idea is absurd to them, they imagine a scenario in which one woman ends up married to each of seven brothers in turn. Each of them dies, one by one, passing her on to be married to the next. Finally, she dies (Matthew 22:23–27).

The Sadducees ask Jesus who the woman will be married to in the resurrection. Jesus rebukes them for misinterpreting Scripture and underestimating God’s power. He corrects their misguided question by pointing out that there is no marriage in heaven. This answer also establishes that both angels and the afterlife are real. He then asks them why God would claim to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob if He is the God of the living and not the dead? Using their own tactic, and their own Scriptures, He has shown a core belief of the Sadducees to be false. Again, the crowd is greatly impressed by Jesus’ teaching (Matthew 22:28–33).

Next Jesus is approached by one of the Pharisees. This man is a “lawyer,” meaning he is an expert in the Old Testament and its traditional interpretations. He tests Jesus by asking a simple question debated among the religious leaders: Which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus answers Him directly: that to love God with everything is the primary commandment. The second is to love your neighbor as you love yourself. Everything we think, believe, or do with respect to God is grounded in this fundamental idea (Matthew 22:34–40).

Finally, Jesus asks the Pharisees a challenging question of His own: Whose son is the Christ? They answer rightly that the Christ, the Messiah, is the son of David. Jesus asks how that can be since David called the Christ “my Lord,” quoting from Psalm 110:1. This perspective touches on the idea of Messiah’s divine nature. None of them can answer, and Jesus silences His opponents yet again (Matthew 22:41–46).

At this point, Jesus will deliver a devastating critique of the Pharisees, leading to His heartfelt mourning over Israel’s rejection of God (Matthew 23).

Chapter Context
This chapter extends an exchange between Jesus and several groups of religious leaders in the temple. The previous chapter concluded with two parables about the failures of the religious leaders. This chapter begins with a third parable, about chosen guests who refuse to attend a wedding feast. Jesus then fields questions from several religious groups, who fail in their attempts to trip Him up. His wise and profound answers silence all of them. At this point, Jesus launches into a full-throated condemnation of the Pharisees in chapter 23.

Verse By Verse

Verse 1 And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying,

Jesus begins a third parable (Matthew 21:28, 33), presented in an exchange with priests, elders, and Pharisees gathered in the temple, along with others who are near. All three parables reveal how the Jewish religious leaders have failed to obey God on behalf of the people of Israel. In addition, they show that God will welcome others into His kingdom and relationship with Him.

The first parable described two sons (Matthew 21:28–32). One said no to his father’s instruction but then obeyed. The other said yes and did not obey. Jesus was clear that the one who repented and obeyed did the will of his father. The second parable described some tenants of a vineyard who refused to give to the owner his share of the crops (Matthew 21:33–44). Instead, they mistreated and killed his servants and then his son. Soon the owner would come and kill the tenants and rent the vineyard to others.

Now Jesus will compare the kingdom of heaven to king who gave a wedding feast.

Verse 2 “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son,

This is the beginning of a third parable (Matthew 21:28, 33) meant to show how Israel, mostly through its leadership, had rejected God’s call to live in righteousness and receive His Son, the Messiah.

Jesus begins as He often has in Matthew: making a comparison to the kingdom of heaven. Parables should not be read too closely, as if every detail of the story is meant to line up perfectly with some real-life counterpart. Instead, parables are meant to illustrate a single main point through analogy.

This time Jesus describes the kingdom of heaven by depicting a king who threw a great wedding feast for his son. The marriage of king’s son would call for great celebration in any era. It often raises the question of who will be invited to the feast and who will be left out. Those in the lower classes would never expect an invitation, while the most prominent would anticipate being included. However, this parable approaches the question of what happens when those invited do not wish to come.

Verse 3 and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come.

Jesus is delivering a parable about a king providing a wedding feast for his son: a great event in any culture or kingdom. The invitations would have gone out in advance, notifying those who would be included in the feast. When the event was ready, the servants would have been sent out to notify the people that the time had come.

In this case, though, the invited wedding guests refused to come to the feast. They did not want to go. The idea that anyone would refuse the king’s hospitality and an opportunity to attend a great, royal feast would have been shocking to Jesus’ listeners. That none of the invitees accepted is outrageous. This parallels the hyperbole—exaggeration for effect—which Jesus employed in other parables (Matthew 18:23–24).

Given the context of the first two stories (Matthew 21:28, 33), Jesus’ meaning is already becoming clear. God is the Father throwing the feast. Entrance into the kingdom of heaven is often described with the metaphor of a great feast (Matthew 8:10–12; 9:15). Jesus Himself is the Son of the King and the Bridegroom for whom the feast is being held. The response of the invited guests will establish a lesson Jesus will continue to expand on in this chapter.

Verse 4 Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.”’

Jesus’ parable has taken a surprising turn. The central event is special, but not uncommon: a king throws a great wedding feast for his son. Usually, this raises the question of who will be allowed to attend. Shockingly, in this case, those invited refused to come (Matthew 22:3).

So, the king sends out another group of servants with a better description of what those invited can expect to find at the feast. The dinner is ready! The king has slaughtered his own royal oxen and fattened calves to serve to his guests. In other words, the king has gone to great lengths to make sure this will be a meal for the ages, a great party, a fantastic time. This is special.

Despite offering good reasons to attend the great banquet, however, the king has also told this groups of servants to deliver the invitation as a command: “Come to the wedding feast.” There is benefit and blessing involved, but ignoring the invitation is to defy the clear will of the king.

And yet, in this parable, the invited guests still will not come.

Verse 5 But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business,

After the first two parables in this dialogue (Matthew 21:28, 33), Jesus’ listeners are beginning to understand what He is suggesting. The general topic is how Israel—most specifically, her religious leaders—have ignored God’s call and command. In this story, a king has sent out two rounds of servants asking people to attend his son’s wedding. The second group described how great the meal would be and delivered the invitation as an order: come (Revelation 22:17).

Clearly, the king is meant to represent God, and the wedding feast represents the kingdom of heaven. Some listeners may have not understood yet that Jesus was picturing Himself as the son of the king, making Him the Son of God. But who were these guests that refused to attend even at the direct command of the king?

Jesus now shows that some refused directly while others simply ignored the message from the king’s servants. They paid no attention to the servants and just continued going about their daily lives. The sense is both that they were not interested in attending the feast and that they were busy with other responsibilities. This parallels the way in which some people dismiss God out of simple disinterest.

Others in the parable will be more aggressive in their refusal (Matthew 22:6), just as some in the world are actively hostile to God and His messengers.

Verse 6 while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them.

In Jesus’ parable, the chosen citizens of a kingdom are actively refusing their king’s invitation—really, a command—to come to a wedding feast for his son. Some have simply ignored the servants who delivered the message from the king, continuing to go about their daily lives (Matthew 22:1–5). Now Jesus pictures others as defiantly refusing the invitation. This group abuses the messengers and then kills them. They have gone beyond simply refusing to honor the king; they have started an active rebellion by murdering His servants.

This brings the meaning of Jesus’ parable into sharper focus; it closely follows the pattern of the previous story (Matthew 21:33–44). In that parable, those renting a vineyard not only refused to pay the rent to the owner in the form of a share of the crops, they mistreated and killed the servants sent by the owner to collect his share.

Once again, Jesus pictures the prophets sent to Israel with the message of God as these servants of the king. Like the servants, those prophets were often mistreated and killed by the leaders and people of Israel (Acts 7:52). The issue being rejected, in this case, is the son of the king. God had invited Israel’s religious leaders to welcome His Son, Jesus, as the Messiah. Not only had they rejected that invitation by rejecting Jesus; they would soon kill God’s Son, as well (Matthew 16:21–23).

In the last parable, Jesus asked how the landowner would react to the murder of his servants and his son (Matthew 21:40). The obvious response was that he would respond in terrible judgment (Matthew 21:41). Here, Jesus will not pause to ask about the response. He will simply state the obvious (Matthew 22:7).

Verse 7 The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

Jesus’ current parable (Matthew 22:1–6) started out nicely. A king spared no expense, inviting those He had specially chosen to attend a great banquet for his son. When the time came, the king sent out messengers to let the people know the feast was ready. That’s when the story got ugly. Not only did the people refuse to go, but some also simply ignored even the king’s second round of messengers. Worse, another group abused and killed them.

Now the king is understandably angry with His subjects. He sends out His army to destroy the people who killed his messengers. He even burns their city. The king will not allow an uprising to form against him.

For those who understood the meaning behind Jesus’ parable, He was delivering a warning. Israel’s religious leaders were represented in the story by those who murdered the king’s servants. Over Israel’s history, they had both ignored and killed God’s prophets or stood by while others did so (Acts 7:52). The same had happened even to the last prophet, John the Baptist (Matthew 14:1–12).

God would not bear with that rebellion forever. Judgment was coming from God for the refusal of the religious leaders to recognize and honor God’s Son. Many commentators believe the destruction of Jerusalem and burning of the temple by the Romans in A.D. 70 to be at least a partial fulfillment of this warning. Prior to Christ’s earthly ministry, God had used other nations in judgment against Israel’s rebellion (2 Chronicles 36:22; Isaiah 10:5–11; Habakkuk 1:6).

And yet, this is not the end of the parable. The feast is still ready, so the king decides to find other guests to invite since the first guests have refused.

Verse 8 Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy.

The time has come, in Jesus’ parable, to celebrate the wedding of the king’s son (Matthew 22:1–7). The oxen and calves have been slaughtered. The feast is prepared. The king, though, has no guests. The original guests he invited to the wedding refused to come, to the point of murdering the king’s messengers. The king now describes those originally invited guests as “unworthy.” This is meant as a parallel to how Israel’s leaders rejected God’s prophets and were subject to judgment.

Religious Jews of that era understood the idea of God drawing clear distinctions around what could be in His presence. Under the Old Testament law, that even extended to excluding certain people from aspects of worship. This included those who disobeyed God’s law, but also meant those with various health issues. Some in the Jewish ruling class prided themselves on their spiritual worthiness before God and their ability to keep the law and extra rules more than others.

Especially in context with the prior parables (Matthew 21:28, 33), it’s becoming clear that Jesus meant to represent Israel’s religious leaders with the guests who refused to come to the king’s feast. Those listening must have been shocked by the claim made in this verse. The king calls those very people “unworthy,” with their favored status revoked due to their own refusal to honor the king’s son.

Verse 9 Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’

In Jesus’ parable (Matthew 22:1–8), the king still wants guests at the wedding feast to honor his son. His first chosen guests have refused to come. Some lacked interest and others acted out in rebellion against him. The king has called those guests, who represent Israel’s religious leaders, “unworthy” to attend the feast.

Now the king tells his servants to take his invitation to common people they will find on the “main roads.” Some translations choose “street corners” and others “highways” for the Greek phrase diexodous tōn hodōn. The idea includes places where people are most likely to be gathered, as well as the roads that lead out of a town into the countryside. This is a point of distinction between this parable and the one Jesus relates in the gospel of Luke (Luke 14:15–24). There, the frustrated master commands invitations be given to those in all places in the city, especially those where the destitute would gather. Here, Jesus has given a dire warning about the destruction of that entire city (Matthew 22:7).

All who will come are invited, though the following verses will reveal there is yet one requirement for attendance (Matthew 22:11–12).

Verse 10 And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.

As told in this parable (Matthew 22:1–6), the king’s chosen citizens have refused to come to a wedding feast in honor of his son. After enacting harsh, but deserved, judgment (Matthew 22:7–9), the king has called the original invitees unworthy and sent his servants out of the city into highways and intersections to invite all who would willingly come to the banquet. The servants succeed in finding guests, filling the wedding hall with people of all kinds, both “bad and good.”

Those who may have somewhat followed the meaning behind Jesus’ parable may now be confused. To understand the king as God and Jesus as His Son, they are doing well. The king’s servants may represent prophets and, later, evangelists. The unworthy guests are the religious leaders who have refused to honor God’s Son, Jesus, as the Messiah. The comment about “bad and good,” however, can be confusing when it comes to the replacement guests. If the wedding banquet is the kingdom of heaven, how can both “bad and good” be represented there?

In one sense, this follows Jesus’ pattern of distinguishing between outward appearances and a person’s sincerity in responding to God (John 7:24; Matthew 21:31–32). In the form of this parable, Christ is explaining a kingdom in which some who have not rigorously followed the Old Testament law are welcomed by God. At the same time, there is a difference between superficial attendance and sincere obedience, as shown in upcoming verses (Matthew 22:11–14). It’s good to keep in mind that parables are loose analogies—not every minute detail is meant to have an explicit parallel.

Commentators disagree whether these guests gathered from the roadways are meant to predict the inclusion of Gentiles, or simply represent Jewish people who are outside of Judaism and the elite religious class. In either case, Jesus’ description of them being welcomed to the feast is something new, especially since some of them are “bad.” The following verse offers additional explanation of who might be included at the feast. Invited or not, something else is required for them to be fully welcomed by the king.

Verse 11 “But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment.

Jesus’ parable of the king and the wedding feast (Matthew 22:1–10) takes some surprising twists and turns at the end. First, the king directs his messengers to invite all the common people they find in the streets to come to the feast. This is because the chosen guests have refused to come. Those who arrive are welcomed as they fill the wedding hall, including both the bad and the good people.

Now, though, the king finds someone who has been invited, and has attended, but is not welcome. He asks the man how he was able to enter the feast without a wedding garment. The man has no answer for this. It’s not clear if the wedding garment is meant to be an explicit reference to something, or simply a representation of the man’s shallowness. In the parable, all are welcome, good or bad, to come to the king in honor of his son. But going through the motions is not the same as deeply embracing the full meaning of the event (Matthew 7:21–23). This connects to similar messages Christ has offered in recent parables (Matthew 21:28–31).

Some commentators suggest that it was traditional for a king or lord to provide clean wedding garments for his guests. If so, this man has likely refused to wear it and cast it aside. If that is the understanding, it could be that the wedding garment represents being covered by the righteousness of Jesus (Romans 3:21–31). This would make the man representative of those who want the benefits of a relationship with God but refuse to submit to Him or obey His teachings (John 14:15).

Others see the garment as representing a person’s willingness to set aside one’s former “dirtiness” before entering the king’s presence. This seems unlikely, as the man is about to be completely rejected for his choice, which would suggest merit-based salvation: the exact opposite of biblical teaching (Titus 3:5; Romans 11:5–6).

Still another idea, based on Matthew 22:14, suggests the man was not given wedding clothes because he was never chosen to attend the feast. He was called, by some of the servants, but not actually chosen by the master. Whatever is meant by the wedding clothes, the man who does not have them will pay a high price.

Verse 12 And he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless.

In a parable, a king has invited an unlikely collection of people to the wedding feast for his son. They have literally come from the roadways and street corners at the urging of the king’s servants. The wedding hall is full of both bad and good people who have all said yes to the king after his first chosen guests said no (Matthew 22:1–11).

Now, though, the king has seen a man who is not wearing a wedding garment. The story does not explain whether the man refused to wear a garment provided by the king’s servants or whether he simply came unprepared and in unclean clothes, hoping to be included in the feast anyway.

Though the king first addresses the man as friend, what comes next suggests this is a formality. As a parallel to how God interacts with sinners, this reflects how God demonstrates a level of love even to those who hate Him (Matthew 26:47–50).

The king asks how the man was able to get into the wedding hall without a wedding garment. The man has no answer to this. Either the servants failed to screen the guests carefully, or the man snuck into the hall in some way. In any case, the man will not be allowed to stay. His lack of a proper garment means he’s not here to fully participate, or to cooperate—he’s simply looking to gain benefit on his own terms (Matthew 7:21–23).

Verse 13 Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

The concept of being hurled into “outer darkness,” along with “weeping and gnashing of teeth,” is a common expression used by Jesus to describe God’s eternal judgment (Matthew 8:12; 13:42, 50; 24:51; 25:30). In the context of this parable (Matthew 22:1–12), this is the fate of a man who attempted to attend the wedding feast without a wedding garment. There are many debates over what—if anything—the wedding garment is meant to symbolize. In some way, however, this man represents those who believe they will be able to enter the kingdom of heaven without meeting God’s standard.

The New Testament teaches that God’s standard for entrance into His presence is perfect righteousness (Matthew 5:48; 19:17), and that no human being other than Jesus has ever achieved this (Hebrews 4:15). Only those who come to God covered by the righteousness of Jesus, through faith in Him, will receive God’s gracious welcome into eternity (Romans 3:21–31; 4:22–25). For this reason, some commentators suggest the wedding garment represents the righteousness of the Son who is loved by the King (Isaiah 61:10).

Verse 14 For many are called, but few are chosen.”

This passage, especially including this verse, contributes to a sense of tension between two ideas. Scripture seems to counterweight two concepts which are not contradictory, but which overlap in complex ways. On one side is God’s choice of those who will enter the kingdom of heaven. On the other is the mandate for people to accept the invitation and receive the gift of God’s grace by faith in Christ. Even in Jesus’ parable, some willingly refuse the invitation. Some accept and fully engage. One seems to accept the invitation, but not entirely. Jesus concludes by saying that many are called to come and participate, but few are chosen to stay.

In a later passage, Jesus will refer several times to a chosen group called “the elect” (Matthew 24:22, 24, 31). It is clear from the gospel that everyone included in the elect—all those who are chosen—received the gift of God’s eternal grace after trusting in Jesus (Ephesians 2:8–9). God calls to everyone to come to Him through faith in Christ (Acts 4:12). This demonstrates the limits of human understanding (Isaiah 55:8–9). Mysteriously, and in some interrelated way, only those elected by God will believe, and yet those elected will believe by their own choice. Only those who truly believe (John 3:16–18), those who sincerely and deeply obey the call, are the chosen ones.

Context Summary
Matthew 22:1–14 contains Jesus’ parable of the wedding feast. Jesus compares the kingdom of heaven to a king who threw a banquet for his son. The king’s chosen guests refuse to come, to the point of violence against his messengers. So, the king fills the wedding hall with common people he finds out and about; some bad, some good. One guest is thrown out into the darkness, though, for trying to attend the feast without wearing a wedding garment. Jesus summarizes the message with the famous phrase, “Many are called, but few are chosen.” This parable touches on Israel’s rejection of the Messiah and salvation by grace. This touches on very similar themes to those of the parable of the great banquet (Luke 14:12–24), but with critical differences.

Verse 15 Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his words.

Given the three parables Jesus has just delivered (Matthew 21:28, 33; 22:1), this verse should come as no surprise. Jesus told those stories in the temple to a group of religious authorities. In the parables, Jesus first pictured Israel’s spiritual leaders as a son who says “yes” to his father but does not actually obey. He pictured them as tenants who kill the landowner’s servants and son, rather than paying their rent. Finally, He pictured them as people chosen by a king to attend the wedding feast of his son, yet who refuse to the point of violence and are declared unworthy. All of these depict groups like the Pharisees, scribes, and Sadducees as hypocritical and rebellious against God, despite their lofty reputations with the people.

The Pharisees want Jesus out of the picture. They conspire looking for a way to trick Jesus into making a public gaffe. Ideally, they’d like to fool Jesus into saying something which will upset His crowd of followers: those who think He is the Messiah, and who hope He will soon overthrow the Romans and return Israel to glory. If they cannot do that, their next best option is getting Jesus to say something which sounds like rebellion against the Romans. Then, the Romans will arrest and execute Him.

Ironically, the Pharisees plotting against Jesus only confirms what He has said about them in the previous parables. They are actively—even violently—rejecting the Son of God as the Messiah (Matthew 21:38–39). The following verses show these men are willing to be deceptive to accomplish their goal.

Verse 16 And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone ‘s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances.

The Pharisees want Jesus out of the picture one way or another. Despite His indirect—and, according to them, blasphemous—claims to be the Messiah and the Son of God, they can’t arrest Him directly. Jesus is just too popular with the people for the moment. Earlier encounters showed that these religious leaders are more interested in political power than in honesty (Matthew 21:25–27). If they can get Him to say anything that sounds like rebellion against Rome, however, the Romans might remove Jesus for them. The Roman Empire was more than willing to execute Jewish rebels attempting to start an uprising.

Jesus, of course, was not trying to cause an uprising (John 18:36). That’s one reason this plot by the Pharisees will not work. Still, they take a shot. They send some of their disciples to Jesus, along with representative from a group known as the Herodians. These Jews were loyal to the Herods and wanted Rome to give the kingship of Israel back to them. To that end, they did not want to do anything that would make Rome feel threatened by the Jewish people.

This mixed group approaches Jesus and begins with flattery. They respectfully call him “Rabbi,” meaning “Teacher.” They flatter His teachings and wisdom, as well as His independence and bravery. The setup makes it seem as if they are asking Him to settle a dispute between them and the Herodians. In political arenas, this kind of trickery is common; the group is trying to lower Jesus’ guard by saying He is so smart and truthful and unworried about what others think that He is the perfect arbiter for the question they are about to pose.

Likely, the Pharisees assumed Jesus would not believe any flattery they might use. So, they sent their students, rather than approach Jesus directly. In their minds, Jesus was more likely to fall to flattery from younger people. Of course, He does not, and would not (Matthew 22:18).

Verse 17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?”

Some Pharisees who want to get rid of Jesus have sent their disciples to spring a trap. They plan to soften Jesus up with flattery (Matthew 22:16), then pose a hard question. They hope His answer will offend His Jewish followers or get Him in trouble with the Romans. To further disguise their intent, they have recruited people from a group known as the Herodians to approach Jesus along with their own students. This setup attempts to give the illusion that a young group is asking Jesus to arbitrate a dispute. Jesus, however, is not fooled at all (Matthew 22:18).

Now they pop this dangerous question: Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?

The tax in question is apparently the Roman “head tax,” demanded from every Jewish citizen. The Pharisees, as cultural and religious purists, despised even the idea of paying taxes to a foreign, godless government. Those loyal to Jesus who hoped He was the Messiah may have wanted Him to signal the time for revolt by announcing that they should not pay the tax any longer. The Pharisees hope if Jesus says it is lawful to pay this tax, He will lose a sizeable number of followers. That will create an opening for them to have Jesus killed.

On the other hand, the Herodians wanted the Romans to trust them enough to make a Herod king over all of Israel once more. Because of that, they would not want to cause any unrest in Israel. If Jesus said not to pay the tax, the Herodians might be able to have Jesus arrested as a rebel and executed by the Romans.

The trap was set. Would Jesus risk offending His followers, suffering under a huge tax burden, by saying the law demanded they pay the tax? Or would He risk losing His freedom and life by saying they should defy Roman control and stop paying the tax? His answer, as usual, is brilliant and completely diffuses their attack.

Verse 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites?

The Pharisees were trying to set Jesus up. They have sent their own disciples, along with some from a group known as the Herodians, to spring a trap. The attempt began with flattery, then sprang what was meant to look like a dispute between those two groups. Their assumption is that Jesus will either claim paying taxes to Rome is part of the law, alienating His followers, or that it should not be paid, subjecting Him to prosecution as a rebel (Matthew 22:15–17).

Jesus, though, is never fooled, not even by a question this loaded. He knows they have approached Him with insincerity; in fact, this question is being asked out of “malice,” translated from the Greek root term poneros, which can also mean “wickedness or evil.” They pretend to be believers; in truth, they are trying to hurt Him. The English term “malice” implies a prejudicial intent to cause another person harm.

Jesus calls them out for the attempted deception, rightly calling them hypocrites. This is an especially apt term in this case, since the Greek term hypokritēs literally refers to an “actor.” These challengers are only pretending to respect Christ’s teaching. Their pretense is an outright lie for the purpose of getting Him arrested and killed.

And yet, Jesus does not neglect to give some answer to the issue. His response (Matthew 22:19–21) distinguishes between the secular and spiritual worlds and implies a deeper need for believers to commit themselves to God.

Verse 19 Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius.

A group of Pharisees, along with some Herodians, have set a trap for Jesus. Through flattery and deception, they pretend to seek arbitration for a dispute (Matthew 22:15–16). Their loaded question is whether it is “lawful” for a faithful follower of God to pay taxes to the pagan, oppressive Roman government. This tax—like those who helped Romans collect it (Matthew 9:11)—was deeply despised by the Jewish people. Some Israelites suggested they should defy the Roman government, believing they should trust God to send the Messiah to free them from Rome and return them to the glory days of Israel. The Pharisees hope these people will be offended if Jesus declares that Old Testament law requires them to pay this tax.

On the other hand, the Herodians wanted to keep the trust of Rome by keeping order in Israel. They wanted everyone to behave and to keep paying their taxes. If Jesus said not to pay the tax, the Herodians might have Him arrested and turned over to Rome as a rebel. Either outcome would suit the desires of Jesus’ enemies.

Jesus seems especially disgusted with this feeble attempt to trip Him up (Matthew 22:18). In somewhat dramatic fashion, He asks to see a coin that could be used to pay the tax, planning to use it as a visual aid (Matthew 22:20–21). More than one currency was in use in Israel at this time. The Jewish people did not like to use money with foreign gods on it and some had rebelled over the issue in AD 6. They lost that battle, so the Roman tax could now be paid only with the silver Roman denarius.

Verse 20 And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?”

Jesus is answering a question from some Pharisees and Herodians even though He knows it is a trap (Matthew 22:17–18). The Pharisees assume they will win no matter what Jesus says. If He says it is unlawful to pay the tax, the Herodians may have Him arrested and handed over to the Romans as a rebel. If He tells oppressed Jewish people that paying the despised Roman tax is “lawful,” hopeful followers who believe Messiah will overthrow Rome may abandon Him.

Jesus has asked for the only currency that can be used to pay the tax, a Roman silver denarius (Matthew 22:19). He is given one and asks about the image imprinted into it. Everyone there would have been very familiar with this. One side of the denarius had a profile of Tiberius Caesar, with a Latin inscription that read “Tiberius Caesar, son of the divine Augustus.” On the other side of the coin was the image of Pax, the Roman goddess of peace with the words “High Priest.”

The Jewish people found it offensive that they were made to carry the image of a foreign god around with them everywhere they needed money. An uprising over the issue in AD 6 had been severely crushed by the Romans.

Jesus will use one of the offensive aspects of the coin to make his point in the following verse (Matthew 22:21).

Verse 21 They said, “Caesar ‘s.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar ‘s, and to God the things that are God ‘s.”

Though Jesus knows the challenge is a feeble attempt by the Pharisees to trap Him, He is answering a supposedly no-win question: Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar (Matthew 22:15–20)? He has asked for a denarius, the coin required to pay the tax, and has asked whose image and inscription are on the coin. Everyone present would have known this, even without looking at the coin. The denarius was a required currency in Israel. Some quickly answered that Caesar’s name and inscription were on the coin. Specifically, the image was of “Tiberius Caesar, son of the Divine Augustus.” By this time, though, the word Caesar had become a title, meaning emperor of Rome and its occupied territories throughout the world.

Jesus now gives a masterful reply to a trick question: Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s.

In other words, that which bears the image of Caesar ultimately belongs to him. Why not give it to him? In this way, Jesus essentially shrugs off the challenge as a false dilemma. One can honor the requirements of a secular government (Romans 13:1) without embracing all it stands for. Paying the tax to Rome, then, is a separate question from the issues of the Old Testament law.

Interestingly, Jesus’ remark also begs an important question: if we owe Caesar that which bears his image, what then do we owe God? The assumed answer is that we owe God that which bears the image of God. This profound implication points to the creation account, where God created humanity in His own image (Genesis 1:27). Every human being bears the image of God. In that way, all of humanity belongs to Him, including ourselves. Jesus’ answer makes clear that human beings are responsible not just to give their money to whatever government issues it, but also to give ourselves to the God who made us.

Verse 22 When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away.

Jesus’ profound and brilliant answer to a challenge about paying taxes (Matthew 22:15–21) left His questioners speechless. They marveled. They started out lying about how impressed they were with Him, attempting to use flattery to manipulate Jesus. Their actual intent was to trick Him into making a statement they could use against Him. They ended up truly being impressed with Jesus and marveling at His wise and profound answer to their mean-spirited question.

Normally, an exchange between potential debaters would have seen back-and-forth responses go on for a while. Instead, Jesus’ testers recognize they lost this skirmish and simply walk away.

Context Summary
Matthew 22:15–22 is a famous event, containing Jesus’ response to the issue of taxes. This moment is also depicted in Mark 12:13–17 and Luke 20:20–26. In that context, Jewish people resented being forced to pay those fees to Rome. This makes the challenge a trap: the Pharisees want Jesus to make an unpopular statement or open Himself to arrest for rebellion against the Roman Empire. Instead, Jesus points out that the Roman denarius has Caesar’s image on it. He then tells the people to give Caesar what is his and give God what is God’s. This subtly implies that we should give ourselves to God, since we bear His image (Genesis 1:27; Matthew 22:37).

Verse 23 The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question,

A mixed group from the Pharisees and the Herodians had tried to trip Jesus up with a dangerous question about paying taxes. Now Jesus is approached by a religious group known as the Sadducees. This group based nearly all their theology on the Pentateuch: the first five books of the Old Testament, also known as the Law of Moses. Since those books do not explicitly discuss an afterlife, the Sadducees had become committed to the teaching that there was no resurrection and no afterlife. Life simply ended with death and was no more. They also did not believe in spirits or angels (Acts 23:8).

In effect, Sadducees were more of a political party than a denomination. Compared to the highly spiritual Pharisees, the Sadducees were notably more aristocratic and secular in their approach. This made them popular with the Roman occupiers, but much less beloved with the common people. Though there was a diversity of religious beliefs on some issues in Judaism at this time, the views of the Sadducees were not especially common and the group’s influence seems to have died entirely when Rome destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70.

Verse 24 saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.’

Members of the Sadducees have approached Jesus (Matthew 22:23). The Sadducees were unique in Judaism because they did not believe in resurrection or life after death. They were known for being aristocrats and politicians above all else, making them unpopular with common people, especially in comparison to the more spiritual Pharisees. In this challenge, they are hoping to stump Christ with a difficult question. Unlike the Pharisees, however, they are not likely trying to get Him arrested or killed. Later, the Sadducees will conspire with the Pharisees to have Jesus killed (John 11:45–57).

For now, their question is meant to prove a theological point: that resurrection of the dead, so far as they understand it, is absurd within the framework of the Law.

They address Jesus as “teacher,” but their respectful attitude is only slightly more sincere than the previous group of questioners. They begin by citing Deuteronomy 25:5–10, describing a Levirate marriage. That part of the Law states that if a man dies without having children, the man’s brother must take the dead man’s widow as his own wife. The first son they have together will be considered the son of brother who has died. This was a way of continuing the family line of the brother who had passed away, and of providing for the otherwise-destitute widow.

The practice dated prior to Moses, notably mentioned when Onan refused to carry out this apparent duty of a brother (Genesis 38:8–10). Moses’ law made the practice official, but it also allowed for the brother to refuse to take his late brother’s wife if he chose not to do so at the price of being publicly shamed by the wife (Deuteronomy 25:7–10). Scholars speculate that Levirate marriage was not frequently practiced in Israel during Jesus’ era.

Jesus will respond by correcting their misunderstanding of both marriage and the nature of life after death (Matthew 22:29–32).

Verse 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother.

A group of Sadducees have approached Jesus with a question (Matthew 22:23–24). Unlike the Pharisees, their intention does not seem to be to get Jesus arrested or accuse Him of blasphemy (Matthew 22:17). Instead, they are presenting a scenario they think illustrates absurdity in the idea of resurrection. This group was known for believing that there was no afterlife or spirit world. Death was the end, according to the Sadducees.

In this question, they have pointed to a law in Deuteronomy defining Levirate marriage. This applied to the brother of man who died married but childless. The surviving brother was obligated to marry the widow and have a son with her to continue his late brother’s family line (Deuteronomy 25:5–10). The Sadducees suggest a scenario in which there are seven brothers. The first gets married and then dies without having children, leaving his widow to the next brother in line. Then the pattern repeats, resulting in the woman having seven earthly husbands (Matthew 22:26).

When Jesus replies, He will begin by correcting the Sadducees’ mistaken beliefs about both marriage and the afterlife (Matthew 22:29–32).

Verse 26 So too the second and third, down to the seventh.

Some Sadducees—a more secular, political part of the Jewish ruling class—are hoping to stump Jesus on the issue of human resurrection. They do not believe in an afterlife, or even a spirit world. To illustrate what they see as absurdity of life after death in view of the Law of Moses, they point to a requirement from Deuteronomy 25:5–10. If a married man dies without children, his brother must take the widow as his own wife and have a son with her. The product of this Levirate marriage is considered the son of the late brother. This would continue the family line of the man who has died.

Now the Sadducees begin to make their case. They pose a scenario with seven brothers, where the first brother married and then died without having any children. He leaves his wife to the next brother in line. Then, one by one, each brother dies without having any children with her, and the next brother dutifully takes her as his wife. In other words, all seven brothers were married to her at some point.

This, in the Sadducees’ minds, creates an absurdity in the afterlife: a woman with seven husbands, or, at least, seven men with claims to that title (Matthew 22:28). Jesus will correct this misunderstanding in His response (Matthew 22:29–32)

Verse 27 After them all, the woman died.

This is part of a challenge posed to Jesus by the Sadducees. This highly political sect of Judaism did not believe that human beings will be resurrected from the dead. In fact, they did not believe in an afterlife or spirit world. What they are proposing to Jesus is a hypothetical scenario to illustrate what they see as an absurd theological idea: resurrection (Matthew 22:15–26).

Deuteronomy 25:5–10 defines a practice called Levirate marriage. This required the brother of a childless married man who has died to take the widow for his own wife. His duty was to have a son with his brother’s widow in his brother’s name and raise that son as the heir of his brother.

The Sadducees have imagined a group of seven brothers who each die childless, leaving the same widow to one brother after another until all of them have died. This would mean the woman was married to each of the seven brothers in turn. Now in this verse, the woman herself dies. The following verse reveals the point the Sadducees have been building to: their view that the resurrected woman now has seven men with claims to be her husband. Jesus will need to correct their mistaken assumptions in His response (Matthew 22:29–32).

Verse 28 In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her.”

The Sadducees have finally reached what they see as an absurd result of belief in resurrection (Matthew 22:15–27). According to them, a woman who was married seven times in life, then resurrected in an afterlife, will now have seven men with the right to claim her as their wife. This challenge is meant to show that human resurrection is ridiculous within the context of the Law of Moses. For the Sadducees, the Law of Moses—the first five books of the Old Testament, also known as the Pentateuch—are the only real Scriptures. Since those do not explicitly mention an afterlife, Sadducees reject the idea.

Now the Sadducees ask Jesus to untangle the situation: whose wife will this woman be in the afterlife? Which of the seven of them will she be married to there since all seven of them had her? The question reveals the Sadducees’ assumption that if there is an afterlife, it will be fundamentally the same as life on earth. Jesus will forcefully correct them in the following verses (Mathew 22:29–32).

Verse 29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.

Jesus is not fooled by the supposed paradox offered by the Sadducees (Matthew 22:15–28). Instead, He shows that what they see as a contradiction is a misunderstanding. In fact, Jesus harshly criticizes their knowledge of both Scripture and God. His response will correct their mistake (Matthew 2230). It will also turn the tables on them, using the same texts they claim to revere to prove that the resurrection must be real (Matthew 22:31–32).

The Sadducees were inclined to ignore all religious writings except for the Pentateuch: the first five books of the Old Testament, also known as the Law of Moses. Since those books do not directly define the resurrection or afterlife, the Sadducees were able to hold to their conviction about the lack of resurrection. If they had received the writings of the prophets as the revelation of God, these religious leaders would have found many references to the resurrection (Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:2; Job 19:25–27).

Jesus also says the Sadducees did not know God’s power. This was true in a broad sense: Sadducees were notably more secular than Pharisees and did not believe God was especially involved in daily life. It’s to be expected they could not imagine a reality beyond the one they saw on a regular basis. If they had expanded their idea of just how powerful God can be, they might have been able to accept the idea of an unimaginably wonderful eternity for the people of God.

Verse 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

The question raised by the Sadducees was meant to demonstrate the absurdity of a resurrection of the dead (Matthew 22:15–28). However, this challenge was based on completely wrong assumptions about the Scriptures and the power of God (Matthew 22:29). It’s been said that we often learn the most important truths by asking “dumb” questions. In this case, at least, an off-target question opens the door for correction and learning.

In short, Jesus says, there isn’t any contradiction or complication, at all. Resurrected human beings will be like angels in one respect: Men will not marry, and women will not be given in marriage. Marriage, the pairing of couples for life, will cease to exist there. As eternal beings, angels do not apparently reproduce, making marriage unnecessary. Humans will apparently exist in that non-married, non-reproducing status, as well. Jesus’ answer also corrects the Sadducees’ wrong idea that angels do not exist.

This gives a firm, if unexpected answer to the Sadducees: the wife married to seven consecutive brothers on earth will not be wife to any of them in heaven. He will not stop there, however. Christ will continue to show how the Sadducees’ own preferred Scriptures make a clear case for life after death (Matthew 22:31–32).

It’s important to note what Jesus does not say here, as it’s often taken out of context and misquoted. Jesus does not say humans will become angels after death. Angels and humans are entirely different kinds of beings. Jesus only says people will be “like” angels, and only in this one way: not being married. Otherwise, people and angels will remain unique and distinct creations of God.

Verse 31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God:

Jesus has forcefully corrected a collection of wrong assumptions held by the religious group known as the Sadducees. These errors were revealed by their question about a woman married to seven brothers, one by one, during her life on earth. In their minds, resurrection in an afterlife would imply she is now married to seven men (Matthew 22:15–28). Jesus has first corrected their mistaken belief that there is marriage after death (Matthew 22:29–30). His statement, in fact, proclaims two doctrines the Sadducees rejected: the existence of angels, and the reality of an afterlife.

Here, Christ demonstrates that the very Scriptures the Sadducees claim to follow demonstrate the reality of an afterlife. In a brilliant maneuver, Jesus uses their exact strategy against them. In the following verse, He will ask a question, rooted in Scripture, which shows that some interpretation is impossible. In this case, the logic works, and the Sadducees will be stumped (Matthew 22:32–33).

Jesus often debated with religious leaders by asking if they have read something from Scripture. This time, though, He makes it personal. He asks if they have not read what God said to them. He will then quote to them from the Pentateuch, the only part of Scripture the Sadducees accept.

Verse 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.”

Jesus has corrected the wrong assumptions built into a question put to Him by a group of Sadducees. Now He turns things around: using their own strategy against them. Their question attempted to use Scripture to prove something to be absurd, though the attempt failed. Christ is now showing a valid example, where Scripture proves that there is life after death. Since the Sadducees only accept the Pentateuch—the first five books of the Old Testament—Jesus makes the case for resurrection from the book of Exodus.

God spoke the words of Exodus 3:6 to Moses from a burning bush. Moses lived centuries after Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had died. And yet, as Jesus notes, God would not have described Himself as Jacob’s God if Jacob had ceased to exist. He did not say “I was the God of Jacob,” but claimed “I am the God of…” those patriarchs. Jesus insists that God is the God of the living and not the dead. This means Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all still existed, in an afterlife.

Matthew records in verse 34 that Jesus silences the Sadducees with this. They had no response to His correction.

Verse 33 And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching.

The picture of Jesus’ exchange with the various groups of religious leaders comes into sharper focus with this verse. He is likely still in the temple, in the huge outer courts, where all the religious people of Israel would gather, and debates would frequently take place between various rabbis (Matthew 21:23).

He has been addressing and trading questions with chief priests, elders, Pharisees, Herodians, and now Sadducees. A crowd of people has been witnessing these exchanges, growing more and more impressed with Jesus. Now they are astonished at His brilliant and revealing answers to the Sadducees. Watching Jesus confront these groups of men with so much power over the lives of everyday Israelites may have been quite gratifying for any of those everyday people watching it happen. It was increasingly infuriating and terrifying for the religious leaders themselves.

Context Summary
Matthew 22:23–33 contains another challenge for Jesus. This one comes from the Sadducees: a Jewish religious group that did not believe in an afterlife. Attempting to prove their view, they describe a hypothetical situation based on a requirement from the Law of Moses. A woman is married to seven brothers, one after another, as each dies and passes her on. Whose wife will she be in the resurrection? Jesus replies that the question is flawed: there is no marriage in the resurrection. He then references Scripture to show that the Lord is God of the living, including faithful patriarchs such as Abraham and Jacob. Parallel accounts are recorded in Mark 12:18–27 and Luke 20:27–40.

Verse 34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together.

This verse reads as if the various religious groups were cycling in and out to ask Jesus questions. This almost comically evokes the concept of “tapping in” and “tapping out” from tag-team wrestling. In those events, grapplers will touch hands with a teammate outside the ring, allowing them to trade places as they battle an opponent. In a sense, Christ’s enemies are circling in and out of the battle as their attacks are foiled.

The Pharisees heard that Jesus had ended the prior exchange with the Sadducees by silencing them (Matthew 22:23–33). His answer was so clear, correct, and profound, they had nothing left to say.

Perhaps the Pharisees were impressed with this. The Pharisees and Sadducees were rivals and known to have debated the issue of resurrection. Jesus’ ability to silence them with His wisdom and logic and revelation may have prompted the Pharisees to ask Him an honest question. Or perhaps they took it as a challenge to do better than the Sadducees had done in challenging Jesus. The question given next is intended to “test” Jesus (Matthew 22:35), but it is not necessarily invalid.

In any case, the Pharisees huddle together to craft a new approach, before picking one of their own to ask Jesus their new question.

Verse 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him.

A group of Pharisees heard that Jesus’ brilliant response to a challenge silenced the group known as Sadducees. This more secular, political wing of Judaism was a rival to the Pharisees. Despite their best efforts, they had no response to Jesus’ profound and insightful answer (Matthew 22:23–33). Now the Pharisees appear to want another chance to test Jesus. They pick one of the brightest and most educated of their number to ask Him a hard question. This man is unnamed, but he is a Pharisee and described as a lawyer. In this context, a “lawyer” is someone well versed in Scripture and the traditions built around it.

The “test” here is subtly different than the earlier ones. Those were explicitly designed to trip Jesus up: to trick Jesus into saying something that could be used against Him. The “test” contained in this question seems more aimed at wanting to know how Jesus will answer a hotly debated issue among the religious leaders themselves. It’s potentially controversial, but it’s not a “bad” question, at all.

Verse 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?”

The tone of the exchanges between Jesus and the various groups of religious leaders gathered in the temple seems to be shifting. It started with attempts to trip Jesus up. Some chief priests asked Him about where His authority comes from (Matthew 21:23). Later, some Pharisees engineered a trap in asking about Jesus’ stance on paying taxes to Rome (Matthew 22:15–22). Then the Sadducees attempted a logical trap, only to have it turned against them (Matthew 22:23–33).

Jesus answered everything asked of Him so profoundly and so meaningfully that the next question is merely difficult, not necessarily hostile. This “test” question (Matthew 22:35) may very well be entirely sincere, driven by interest in Jesus’ answer. This well-educated scholar of the law asks Jesus to identify the “greatest” of the commands in the Law of Moses.

It seems this topic was regularly debated among religious leaders of that era. Which commands were light, and which were weighty? Which were most essential? Which one was the greatest in the entire law, meaning in all the Old Testament Scriptures? Perhaps the question is meant to be a trap only if Jesus answers it poorly. If that’s the case, Mark’s account of this exchange shows that the lawyer was not prepared for Jesus to say exactly what he himself would have said (Mark 12:28–34).

Verse 37 It’s common to read through these exchanges between Jesus and the religious leaders and focus on the conflict and tension. We see Jesus’ brilliant answers to the difficult questions meant to trip Him up. It’s helpful, though, to stop and think for a moment about what is happening on another level. They don’t know it, but Israel’s religious leaders are asking these hard questions of the very Son of God. They are taking some of the most troubling issues of the day and getting a response straight from their Creator. Jesus was not simply good at answering questions about the law; He was there when the law was given!

The lawyer who asked Jesus which is the primary commandment in the law may have been trying to trip Jesus up. He certainly doesn’t realize he is asking the Son of God the question he might very well have chosen to ask God the Father, given the chance. It’s a powerful moment, especially for these men who had made understanding and teaching the law their entire life’s work.

For us, and for the exact same reason, Jesus’ answer carries an enormous opportunity. This answer is not merely the wise response of a human interpreter. His is not just another opinion among the debates of religious leaders. Jesus’ answer reveals the heart of God in giving the Law of Moses to His people Israel.

Jesus doesn’t hesitate to answer this question, either. He doesn’t respond with a counter-question or tell a parable or ask for object to use for illustration. Jesus answers directly from Deuteronomy 6:5. The great and first commandment in all of Scripture is to love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind.

God wants His people first and above all to love Him with every part of their being. The heart and soul and mind may describe the centers of emotion, action, and thought. The point of the command is not to separate them, though, but to join them together with every aspect of a person fully committed to loving God. A pure, uninterrupted commitment to God and His will is the very basis of a proper relationship with Him.

Verse 38 This is the great and first commandment.

A well-educated expert in Old Testament law has asked Jesus to identify the single greatest commandment in all of Scripture (Matthew 22:34–37). Jesus does not often answer questions from Pharisees without conditions or return questions or a challenge of His own. He does this time, though. Without hesitating, Jesus quotes from Deuteronomy 6:5: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.”

Here, Jesus even adds clarity to His answer. He says emphatically that this is the great and first commandment. Commentators stress that “great and first” are not two separate descriptors, but one thing. This command inseparably has the highest priority of all the commandments because it is the greatest. God’s highest priority for His people is to be fully and completely loved by them without holding anything back. Every other act of belief, faith, or obedience depends on this single fundamental idea.

Verse 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

The Pharisee who tested Jesus did not ask about the “two greatest commandments.” He asked for Jesus’ take on which was the single greatest (Matthew 22:34–38). Jesus, though, decides the second commandment is so essential that it must be mentioned along with the first one.

Both commands focus solely on what a person does with his or her affection and attention and actions. The greatest command is to love God with every aspect of our being. It comes from Deuteronomy 6:5. The second greatest commandment comes from Leviticus 19:18. Jesus says that it is similar to the first commandment, likely because it is about who and how we love: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

The second greatest commandment assumes an obvious fact of human nature: that human beings naturally love and care for themselves. This perspective is the basis for what has come to be known as the Golden Rule. Jesus taught this in His sermon on the mount (Matthew 5:1–2), and it helps to explain what it means to love another as we love ourselves: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them” (Matthew 7:12).

This first and second commandment were woven deeply into Judaism and Jewish life. It’s unlikely that anyone was greatly surprised by Jesus’ answer to what is the greatest commandment, but the fact that He gave it makes the answer meaningful for all time.

Verse 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Jesus has been asked by an expertly-trained Pharisee to name the greatest commandment in the law—meaning in all the Old Testament Scriptures (Matthew 22:34–39). Jesus has answered directly and simply that the great and first commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind (Deuteronomy 6:5). He has added that the second greatest is to love your neighbor as yourself (Leviticus 19:18).

Now Jesus concludes by saying that all the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commands. In other words, the entire law and all the prophecies from God are designed, ultimately, to motivate and enforce love for God and love for other people. Put another way, God’s greatest desire for any human being is that he or she love God and love others. Everything else we ever think about God, believe about God, say to God, or do for God, must be motivated by this core impulse. Ultimately, all the rules and directives in the Law flow from the ideas of loving God and loving others.

Jesus said something similar to this in the Sermon on the Mount, “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12). Treating other people as we would want to be treated is what it means to love others as we love ourselves. Most of the commands of the law about human relationships enforce that level of just and kind treatment.

Matthew does not include the response of the Pharisee who asked Jesus the question about the greatest commandment. Mark, though, shows the lawyer agreeing with Jesus:

“You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices” (Mark 12:32–33).

Jesus tells the man that he is not far from the kingdom of God (Mark 12:34). In other words, this specific Pharisee is close to believing in Jesus based on Jesus’ teaching of the Law and their agreement on what God truly wants from His people. At this point, the Pharisees give up and stop asking Jesus questions. He has one more for them, however, in the following verses (Matthew 22:41–42).

Context Summary
Matthew 22:34–40 describes a question to Jesus from a Pharisee described as a lawyer. In this context, this means someone well-versed in the Old Testament. He asks Jesus which is the great commandment in the Law. Jesus upholds Deuteronomy 6:5, indicating that loving God with everything about us is the great and first commandment. Christ then volunteers that the second greatest is closely related: to love your neighbor as yourself. Every command or law from God is distilled from those basic principles. Luke 10:25–28 and Mark 12:28–37 also describe this challenge.

Verse 41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question,

The Pharisees are close to giving up on asking Jesus challenging questions. He defeated their attempts to make Him look bad or get Him arrested. Worse, at least one of their own has started to agree with Jesus (Matthew 22:35–40; Mark 12:32–34). Their mission to “entangle him in his words” (Matthew 22:15) is failing badly. They seem to be huddling together, once again (Matthew 22:34), devising their next move.

Jesus, though, has one more question for these Pharisees gathered in the temple. In the following verses, He asks them a hard question that directly relates to His own identity. He will successfully stump them in the way they have attempted to stump Him. However, in this case, the actual answer to His question would tell them everything they really need to know about Jesus.

Verse 42 saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.”

The Pharisees are on the verge of giving up trying to fool Jesus with hard questions. Their strategy to get Him in trouble either with His own followers or with Rome has failed badly. Jesus is too smart to be drawn into one of their traps (Matthew 22:22, 33). Worse for the Pharisees, though, is that Jesus’ profound answers are starting to convince their own members (Mark 12:32–34). Their current huddle might be a last-ditch attempt to craft a knockout response (Matthew 22:41).

Jesus, though, is not done with the Pharisees. He has a hard question for them, though it starts out as an easy one: Whose son is the Christ?

“The Christ” comes from the Greek term Christos, itself a translation of the Hebrew term Mashiyach, from which we get the English term “Messiah:” the long-promised savior of Israel. The Jewish people had high expectations for the Messiah. They were sure the Christ was coming to return the political nation of Israel to her former glory. If He arrived in their time, He would surely overthrow the Romans and bring peace and security back to Israel, so they thought.

As expected, the Pharisees answer Jesus’ question quickly. The Christ is the son of David. “Son of David” was one of the many names the Jewish people had for the Messiah. They understood from prophecy that the Messiah would be a descendant of David, and they are right. Matthew began this book with the genealogy of Jesus to show that He was, in fact, descended from David.

Jesus has a bigger question in mind, however. For the fourth time in this passage, His explanation of Scripture (Matthew 22:43) uncovers a profound and crucial fact about God (Matthew 22:21, 32, 37–38).

Verse 43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying,

Jesus has turned the tables on the Pharisees (Matthew 22:15, 34–35) and is asking them a question. It seems to be an easy one at first glance. He has asked whose son the Christ—or Messiah—is. They have immediately answered from the prophetic Scriptures that the Christ is the son of David. By this, they mean that the Messiah will be directly descended from King David (Isaiah 11:1, 10; Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15).

Matthew demonstrated that Jesus was descended from David in the first chapter of this book (Matthew 1:1, 17). Jesus does not disagree with them, but He does ask them a follow-up question that complicates the answer. This point emphasizes the divinity of Christ, and strongly implies the concept we now refer to as the Trinity.

Jesus asks why David, under the inspiration of the Spirit of God, calls the Christ “Lord”? Jesus quotes from Psalm 110, written by King David, in the following verse. With the statement that David wrote these words “in the Spirit,” Jesus affirms that Psalm 110 was truly written by King David and that it was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as all Scripture is (2 Timothy 3:16–17).

In other words, Jesus’ question is how the ancestor, David, would call his own descendant “Lord.” That implies the Christ was more honored than David himself in some way. Jesus’ question implies that perhaps it matters who else might call the Christ “Son.”

Verse 44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord,”Sit at my right hand,until I put your enemies under your feet”’?

Jesus has asked the Pharisees a challenging question of His own: whose son is the Christ? Christ is from the Greek word Christos, a translation of the Hebrew word Mashiyach, meaning “Messiah.” They have answered, rightly, that the Christ is the descendant of David (Matthew 22:41–43). Jesus does not correct them (Matthew 1:1,17), but He does challenge the implications of their answer.

Nearly everyone agreed that Psalm 110, written by David, was about the Messiah. In the first verse of that Psalm, King David calls the Christ “Lord.” Now Jesus quotes the verse to show what He means (Psalm 110:1). Breaking it down, David writes that “the Lord” [God] said to [David’s] Lord [Christ] to sit at [God’s] right hand [the place of greatest honor]. Jesus is asking why David would call his “son,” meaning his own descendant, “my Lord” who sits at the right hand of God unless the Christ has some significant status beyond being David’s son.

This Old Testament reference is mentioned many other times in the New Testament, and for good reason (Acts 2:34; 1 Corinthians 15:25; Hebrews 1:13; 10:13). The divine status of the Messiah is a clear teaching of the Old Testament.

Verse 45 If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?”

The Pharisees who have been challenging Jesus have seen the tables turned. He has asked them to identify whose son the Christ is. They answer as all good Jewish people would: that the Christ, the Messiah, is the son of David. It is clear from the Old Testament Scriptures that the Messiah would be a descendant of King David, the great king from Israel’s golden age (Matthew 22:41–44).

Jesus, though, has pushed back with a hard question. If the Christ is David’s descendant, why in Psalm 110:1 does David call the Christ “my Lord”? Why would anyone describe their “son” as “my Lord”?

The answer, of course, was that the Messiah would not only be a descendant of David but would also be the Son of God, making Him both David’s son and Lord. The fact that Jesus is Messiah as well as the Son of God, making Him divine, is a truth the Pharisees and other religious leaders will willfully miss. It is a cornerstone in their commitment to condemn Him for blasphemy.

Verse 46 And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions.

The Pharisees, who loved to debate, sometimes challenged each other with hard questions from the Scriptures, including ones that involved resolving an apparent contradiction or conflict. Jesus has engaged them in such a question: If the Christ is the son of David, why does David call Him “my Lord” (Psalm 110:1)?

The Pharisees are completely stumped. They have no answer to this question, and Matthew reports that they stopped trying to use questions to trip Jesus up after this. They now fully realize they will never beat Him that way.

However, Jesus was doing more than just defeating the Pharisees in a legal and religious debate. The answer to His question was exactly what they were missing about Him. He was the Messiah and the long-promised “son of David,” but He was also the Son of God and David’s Lord. This was the very truth Israel’s religious leaders refused to hear and the very claim they were willing to have Jesus killed for making.

Context Summary
Matthew 22:41–46 records Jesus reversing the dialogue with the Pharisees, who have been asking Him trick questions. He rhetorically asks them whose son the Messiah is—knowing they will rightly answer that Messiah is the Son of David. Jesus then quotes from the Psalms and asks why King David calls the Christ “my Lord” if the Christ is his son. This raises the issue of Christ’s divinity and totally stumps the Pharisees. This incident is also mentioned in Mark 12:35–37 and Luke 20:41–44. In fact, religious leaders completely stop asking Him questions from this moment on.

Chapter Summary
Continuing a dialogue with hostile religious leaders, Jesus tells a parable comparing the kingdom of heaven to a wedding feast which ends up being attended by those not initially invited. He answers trick questions about taxes, marriage, resurrection, and the Law of Moses. These responses are the source of common English idioms such as “render to Caesar…” and “many are called but few are chosen.” Finally, Jesus asks how the Messiah can be both the son of David and the Lord of David. None can answer Him, so they stop challenging Him in public.