Visit our new blog. It lists all the new things that we are doing and what new material has been added to our site. We even list new missionaries who sign up with us for technical support so you can pray for them. FCM News
The Parable of the Wedding Banquet
1Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2"The kingdom
of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his
son. 3He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the
banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.
4"Then he sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who
have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened
cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the
wedding banquet.'
5"But they paid no attention and went off--one to his field,
another to his business. 6The rest seized his servants, mistreated
them and killed them. 7The king was enraged. He sent his army and
destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
8"Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready,
but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9Go to the street corners
and invite to the banquet anyone you find.' 10So the servants went
out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find,
both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.
11"But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed
a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12'Friend,' he
asked, 'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man
was speechless.
13"Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot,
and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping
and gnashing of teeth.'
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
Explanation: Scorning the King's Son (22:1-14)
Those who dishonor the Son shame and dishonor the Father who sent
him. It was common for kings or important personages to throw wedding
banquets for sons, to which they might invite the entire village
(compare, for example, Char. Chaer. 3.2.10). But the banquet here
makes special allusion to the promised banquet of the messianic
era. In the narrative logic of the Gospel, Jesus is finally ready
to unveil his identity in the final week (see Kingsbury 1986:81-84).
Other Jewish prophets had also applied the principle of special
accountability to those closest to the Word (for example, Amos 3:2;
9:7). Whether the parable emphasizes judgment on all Israel (compare
Sandmel 1978a:60; Mt 27:25), on Israel as a whole but not individual
Jews (Hare 1979:39) or on the Judean leadership in particular (21:43-45)
is debated, but the burning of the city in Matthew probably refers
to the destruction of Jerusalem (Jeremias 1972:33; Hare 1979:39).
In the context, Jesus' harsh words condemn Israel's leaders. Yet
as often in his Gospel, Matthew apparently uses the community's
opponents to warn members of his own community not to be like them.
Not only Jesus' enemies but even some of his supposed friends (22:11-14)
would betray him.
Refusing the King's Invitation
Is a Grievous Insult (22:1-6)
Papyri testify to the practice of double invitations, both among
upper classes and in regular village life (B. Scott 1989:169; Rohrbaugh
1991:139-41). The king long ago honored the guests with an invitation,
and they appropriately responded with a promise to come; the second
invitation in the parable is merely to inform them that the dinner
is now ready (v. 4). Because the exact time of completion of preparations
was difficult to determine in advance, a second invitation at the
appropriate hour was standard procedure, and the lower a person's
status, the more punctual the person was expected to be. Attendance
at weddings was a social obligation in Palestinian Judaism (Bonsirven
1964:151); attendance at a patron's banquet was incumbent on social
dependents throughout the Empire (compare Sirach 13:9-10). In such
a society, not inviting the right person, or inviting the wrong
person, could have disastrous, even fatal, consequences (b. Gittin
55b-56a). Thus, for example, one who invited the townsfolk but not
the king to a town banquet merited much severer punishment than
one who invited neither (t. Baba Qamma 7:2). Ignoring a king's proclamation
or invitation warranted severe punishment (as in Ruth Rab. Proem
7).
By refusing to come, the guests deliberately insult the dignity
of the king who has counted on their attendance and graciously prepared
food for them. For all the invited guests to refuse to come would
greatly shame the host; the unanimous refusal (and in Lk 14:18-20,
absurd excuses given) barely disguises what must be a concerted
plan to deliberately insult the host (B. Scott 1989:171).
This Act of Treason Warrants Serious Judgment
(22:7)
For the king to graciously extend the honor of an invitation to
a banquet and be rebuffed as if his benefaction were meaningless
was a traumatic breach of the social order, an act of rebellion.
The king can salvage some honor only by getting others to attend
the banquet and by punishing these who have insulted his kindness;
even in less dramatic circumstances, Jewish stories could envisage
a king avenging his honor by executing those who have scorned his
invitation to eat (Gen. Rab. 9:10).
Slaughtering messengers (v. 6) constituted an explicitly revolutionary
act (compare Jos. War 2.450-56; Ant. 9.264-66). The parable's audience
would naturally applaud the king's rage as just-except those who
were aware that the lesson was aimed at them (21:45). The violence
is realistic: after such an insult to a king's honor, nothing less
than such vengeance as verse 7 depicts would satisfy his honor.
Of course the parable is at the same time unrealistic to suppose
that the king would engage in a military expedition while his banquet
food was getting cold (Young 1989:171)! The expedition is noted
here so the parable can climax with its primary point at the end-a
point that also bursts the bounds of realism to show the horrible
fate of the disobedient.
The Kingdom Belongs to the Humble, Not the
Proud (22:8-10)
The arrogant often ignore God; God seeks the lowly of this world
who will humbly acknowledge his reign. Vengeance restores some of
the king's honor, but to recoup it more fully the king must invite
other guests who will accept his invitation, even if they are of
much lower status than the first invitees (compare p. Hagiga 2:2,
5; Vermes 1993:113). The matter is urgent: otherwise the freshly
prepared food will spoil. Commentators generally believe that those
gathered from outside the destroyed city represent the Gentiles
(Meier 1980:248; Theissen 1991:272). This view would fit Matthew's
emphasis on the Jewish-Christian mission to the Gentiles.
The welcoming of both good and bad (v. 10) echoes Jesus' own mission
to sinners (9:11-13), but it may also remind us that grace not only
forgives but also transforms. All are welcome, but no one dare remain
the way he or she entered, in view of the final separation of "the
wicked from the righteous" (13:49). Such echoes of earlier
passages in the Gospel prepare the reader for the parable that follows
(22:11-14): salvation is not simply a matter of those who begin
the race, for we must finish it (compare 13:20-23).Those Inside
the Church May Also Dishonor God (22:11-14)
Once the newly chosen guests have begun to dine, the host enters
after the banquet has begun, as was customary (Jeremias 1972:187).
Some hold that hosts may have provided wedding garments to guests
at the door (A. Bruce 1979:272; Gundry 1982:439). But wedding clothes
may simply refer to clean garments as opposed to soiled ones (Jeremias
1972:187-88); to come to a wedding in a soiled garment insulted
the host, and this host was in no further mood to be insulted. Patrons
invited their social dependents to banquets, expecting due honor
in return; this man, like the first guests the king invited, has
responded to grace with an insult.
Just as most of the Jewish leaders were unprepared at Jesus' first
coming (compare 23:13-33), some professing disciples of Jesus will
be unprepared at his second (24:45-51). (Judas proves merely a case
in point-compare friend in 22:12; 26:50; see also 20:13.) Professing
Christians who insult God's grace by presuming on it, failing to
honor his Son, will be banished to outer darkness (compare 8:12;
25:30) and weeping with gnashing of teeth (13:42; 24:51; 25:30;
compare Meier 1980:248-49). Many are "called" or invited
with the message of repentance (22:14; 21:32), but only those who
respond worthily will share the inheritance of the chosen covenant
people (also Jeremias 1971:131); compare 7:13-23.
Paying Taxes to Caesar
15Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his
words. 16They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians.
"Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity
and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.
You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they
are. 17Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes
to Caesar or not?"
18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites,
why are you trying to trap me? 19Show me the coin used for paying
the tax." They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them,
"Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and
to God what is God's."
22When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went
away.
Explanation: Caesar or God (22:15-22)
Devotion to God demands a higher allegiance to him than to anything
else, but it is not an excuse to avoid our other responsibilities
that do not conflict with it.
God's Mission Sometimes Produces Powerful
Enemies (22:15-17)
Courageously speaking God's message as Jesus did can yield adversaries
among those who suppose themselves his spokespersons. The Herodians
(v. 16) were unlikely allies with the Pharisees. Pharisees generally
cooperated with the aristocracy only when grave national interests
were at stake, providing an essential coalition between populist
and institutional leadership (as in Jos. Life 21-22). Here the extreme
situation presented by Jesus brings the two groups together (Smallwood
1976:164; Bowker 1973:41; compare Mk 3:6). The coalition hopes to
catch Jesus coming or going: either he will support taxes to Rome,
undercutting his popular messianic support, or he will challenge
taxes, thereby aligning with the views that had sparked a disastrous
revolt two decades earlier. In the latter case, the Herodians could
charge him with being a revolutionary-hence showing that he should
be executed, and executed quickly.
Locally minted copper coins omitted the emperor's portrait due to
Jerusalem's sensitivities, but because only the imperial mint could
legally produce silver and gold coins, Palestine had many foreign
coins in circulation. The silver denarius of Tiberius, including
a portrait of his head, minted especially at Lyon, circulated there
in this period and is probably in view here (Reicke 1974:137). The
coin related directly to pagan Roman religion and the imperial cult
in the East: one side bore Caesar's image and the words "Tiberius
Caesar, son of the Divine Augustus," while the other side referred
to the high priest of Roman religion (Ferguson 1987:70-71). Like
it or not, Jews had to use this coin; it was the one required for
the poll tax in all provinces (Lane 1974:424).
Jesus Reveals His Opponents' Hypocrisy and Greed (22:19-22)
To render to Caesar what was Caesar's was to return his own coin
to him (compare 17:25; Rom 13:6-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14; Jer 26:8-9; 27:6-22;
29:4-9; Ezek 8-9); to render to God what was God's was to render
worship to him alone (compare 4:10). Neither the image nor the superscription
on coins in common usage could prevent Jewish people's single-minded
devotion to God. The appropriate response to living in a society
whose beliefs differ from one's own is to critically evaluate and
withstand its claims, not to censor such claims from being heard
or to boycott all participation in the society.
Further, some suggest that Jesus was challenging the idea that his
opponents needed to hold on to the coins at all; why not return
them to Caesar? Jerusalemites preferred death to allowing Caesar's
image to enter Jerusalem on standards (Jos. Ant. 18.59), yet they
carried it in on coins. Those who hated Caesar's image to such an
extent would make an exception for coinage only if they valued money
too much (W. White 1971:233; Witherington 1990:102). By contrast,
surrendering to God what is God's implies the surrender of all one
is and possesses (Patte 1987:309-10). In Jesus' teaching elsewhere,
possessions have a zero value, and those who seek them are not the
simple who trust in God (6:19-34). Rather than compromising his
popular support, Jesus ends up embarrassing his challengers; they,
not he, are the ones carrying the offensive coin, so scruples against
it cannot be their own (Danker 1972:202-3). Thus they rightly earn
his derisive title for them: hypocrites (22:18; 6:2; 15:7; 23:13-29;
24:51).
Marriage at the Resurrection
23That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection,
came to him with a question. 24"Teacher," they said, "Moses
told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother
must marry the widow and have children for him. 25Now there were
seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since
he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26The same
thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to
the seventh. 27Finally, the woman died. 28Now then, at the resurrection,
whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married
to her?"
29Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know
the Scriptures or the power of God. 30At the resurrection people
will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the
angels in heaven. 31But about the resurrection of the dead--have
you not read what God said to you, 32'I am the God of Abraham, the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead
but of the living."
33When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.
Explanation: Proving the Resurrection (22:23-33)
This story line would make some sense in a variety of cultures.
Levirate marriage (Deut 25:5-6; compare Gen 38:8-26) and widow inheritance
(see Belkin 1970; as in Ruth 3:12-13) perpetuate the name of the
deceased and serve to provide for widows in many traditional societies
where women cannot earn sufficient wages for sustenance (for example,
Mbiti 1970:188-89). Yet many ancient hearers would assume a woman
who had outlived seven husbands was dangerous (Mart. Epig. 9.15;
t. Sabbat 15:8). The Sadducees borrow the story line of a woman
with seven husbands from the popular Jewish folktale in Tobit 3:8;
they want to illustrate the impossible dilemmas they believe the
doctrine of resurrection creates.
The Sadducees were known for their opposition to the doctrine of
the resurrection (Acts 23:6-8; perhaps Jos. Ant. 18.16; War 2.164-65).
When Jesus declares that they deny the power of God (compare 2 Thess
3:5), he may evoke the traditional Jewish view that God expresses
his power most visibly in the resurrection of the dead, a view attested
in the second of the regularly prayed Eighteen Benedictions (abbreviated
as "Power"; compare m. Ros Hassana 4:5; see also Rom 1:4).
Most Jewish people agreed that angels did not eat, drink or propagate
(1 Enoch 15:6-7; Test. Ab. 4, 6A; ARN 1, 37A). Some Jewish traditions
also compared the righteous after death with angels (1 Enoch 39:5;
104:2-4; 2 Baruch 51:10-11). Since angels did not die (unless God
destroyed them), they had no need to procreate. Jesus' statement
about lack of marriage and procreation in heaven (Mt 22:30) follows
largely from the logic of the resurrection, to which he now turns
(vv. 31-32).
Early Jewish teachers regularly argued apart from the Bible with
Gentiles or scoffers, but from Scripture for those who knew Scripture
(Moore 1971:2:381). When debating the views of Sadducees who doubted
the resurrection and demanded proof from the law of Moses, later
rabbis found ample proof for this doctrine in the Bible's first
five books (Sipre Deut. 329.2.1; b. Sanhedrin 90b). One later rabbi
went so far as to say that all texts implied the resurrection if
one simply had the ingenuity to find it (Moore 1971:2:383; Sipre
Deut. 306.28.3); however, this often meant reading it into the text!
As an expert Scripture interpreter, Jesus here exposes his opponents'
lack of Scripture knowledge with his standard formula, have you
not read . . . ? (v. 31; see 12:3; 19:4; 21:42, 46).Jesus may be
arguing for God's continuing purposes with an individual after death,
which for many Palestinian Jews would imply ultimate resurrection.
He implies that God would not claim to be the God of someone who
no longer existed (compare Doeve 1954:106; Longenecker 1975:68-69);
he also evokes God's covenant faithfulness to his people, which
Palestinian Jewish prayers regularly associated with the "God
of the fathers," Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Jeremias 1971:187).
If God was still God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and if his power
was unlimited, then he would ultimately fulfill his promise to them-not
only corporately through their descendants, but personally to them.
The crowds are again astounded by Jesus' quick wit (compare 7:28;
22:22), just as they are by his signs (8:27; 9:8; 12:23).
The Greatest Commandment
34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got
together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this
question:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart
and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first
and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your
neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these
two commandments."
Explanation: Love God and Neighbor (22:34-40)
"Testing" scholars with riddles-and God's vindication
of the divine wisdom given to his servant-is at least as old as
King Solomon (1 Kings 10:1; elsewhere, for example, Ep. Arist. 187-291).
In this context, however, the intent is more malicious (compare
16:1; 19:3), related to that of the supreme tempter (4:1).
Some Pharisees ask a question they had probably practiced before,
since their own teachers debated among themselves which commandment
was the greatest. Although all commandments were equally weighty
in one sense (see comment on 5:19), rabbis had to distinguish between
"light" and "heavy" commandments in practice
(see comment on 23:23).
Jesus' view does not contrast dramatically with views held by his
contemporaries. In the late first century Rabbi Akiba regarded love
of neighbor in Leviticus 19:18 as the greatest commandment in the
law (Gen. Rab. 24:7; Vermes 1993:42); while this is not where Jesus
ranks it, it is close. Other Jewish teachers also conjoined love
of God with love of neighbor (Test. Iss. 5:2; 7:6; Test. Dan 5:3;
Philo Decal. 108-10). Following the Jewish interpretive principle
gezerah sawah, it was natural to link two commandments on the basis
of the common opening Hebrew word we'ahabta ("you shall love";
Diezinger 1978; Flusser 1988:479).
Yet Jesus' combination of the two as the greatest commandments,
which exercised an authoritative influence on subsequent Christian
formulations (including Paul's frequent triad of virtues with love
as the greatest-1 Cor 13:13), is distinctive (see Vermes 1993:43).
Amid the multiplicity of proposals concerning the greatest commandment
in antiquity, only Jesus wielded the moral authority among his followers
to focus their ethics so profoundly on a single theme (compare Meier
1980:257). Thence comes the early Christian "law of love"
(as in Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8; Jn 13:34-35; compare Manson
1963:80).
The first passage Jesus cites in fact portrays the love of God as
a summary of the law (Deut 6:1-7); one who loved God would fulfill
the whole Torah (Deut 5:29). This passage about loving God was the
central and best-known text of Judaism, the Shema (Sema`). Likewise,
the command to love one's neighbor as oneself (Lev 19:18; compare
Lev 19:34; Mt 5:43; Rom 13:9) expresses a general principle, though
its original context applied it to a more specific situation. As
in 7:12, Matthew reminds us that these commandments epitomize all
the commandments in the Bible.
If left to ourselves, we tend to grasp for power rather than seeking
to serve, and this can apply even to the ways we interpret the Bible.
In contrast to some modern readings, Jesus here assumes rather than
commands self-love (so also Piper 1977; Gundry 1982:449). Thus he
elsewhere emphasizes that true love for neighbor is demonstrated
beyond one's own circle of favored people (5:43-47; Lk 10:29-37);
some texts in Scripture even warn us against self-centered love
(2 Tim 3:2; Paul here warns against selfishness, however, rather
than advocating masochism or self-punishment, which is also self-centered).
But while Scripture summons us to love that is other-directed, it
also assumes that all of us-including Christians-need other people's
love. Perhaps as we Christians learn to love and affirm one another
better (for example, Prov 12:18; 16:24; Eph 4:29), especially the
most wounded and vulnerable among us, we will not require as much
talk about self-love. Until we learn to behave that biblically,
however, it is difficult to blame broken people who desperately
try to affirm themselves when no one else will.
Whose Son Is the Christ
41While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
42"What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?"
"The son of David," they replied.
43He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by
the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says,
44" 'The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet." ' 45If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can
he be his son?" 46No one could say a word in reply, and from
that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.
Explanation: David's Son, David's Lord (22:41-46)
How can Jesus be David's Lord yet at the same time David's son,
younger in age yet superior in rank (Moule 1965:99)? Jewish teachers
often asked didactic questions that functioned as "haggadic
antinomy," in which both sides of a question were correct but
their relationship needed to be resolved (Jeremias 1971:259). The
Messiah, the "anointed" king, was by definition son of
David in various circles of Jewish expectation, but the title Lord
describes him far more adequately.
If David spoke to a Lord besides Yahweh, a Lord who would be enthroned
at God's right hand as his vice regent, then the eternal King was
someone greater than David, more than merely a descendant of David-perhaps
to be understood on the Near Eastern analogy of divine kings. Yet
Lord was sufficiently ambiguous (in contrast to, say, Is 9:6) to
make the point without yet giving the temple authorities words with
which to condemn Jesus from his own mouth. Early Christians often
followed Jesus' use of Psalm 110 (as in Acts 2:34-35; Eph 1:20;
Heb 1:13; Justin 1 Apol. 45).
Mark announced that "they dared ask him no further questions"
earlier in the narrative (Mk 12:34, my translation), but Matthew
reserves this "punch" for the end of Jesus' public controversies.
He had silenced and shamed his adversaries. The capacity of a wise
speaker's wisdom to overwhelm hearers was a common motif in narratives
meant to glorify their protagonists (for example, 1 Esdras 4:41-42;
compare Ep. Arist. 186, 200). Matthew's audience could see in Jesus
their hero who could answer all the objections raised by their opponents.
Jesus must remain both our Lord and our hero today as well.
