 |
 |
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
BIBLE STUDY MATTHEW 22:1-46 REVIEW: In chapter 21, Jesus finally arrives at Jerusalem. Both his Triumphal Entry and then his Cleansing the Temple of the merchants and the money changers illustrate and “fulfill” Old Testament prophecies:
It seems probable that Jesus intentionally planned these events in order to illustrate that HE was the one who had come to fulfill these prophecies. In the same way, the story of Jesus’ cursing of the fig tree that had no fruit was to illustrate that there would be judgment upon those that refused to bear the “fruit” of repentance. As I mentioned, this story is in Matthew and Mark but not in Luke – but in Luke’s gospel there is a parable of a fig tree that is given chance after chance to bear fruit, but eventually will be cut down if it does not do so. Many Bible commentators believe that the source of all these stories is one and the same. Jesus is then challenged by the chief priests and elders to explain the source of his authority for doing the things (probably the illustrations of prophecies mentioned above) that he did. Jesus does not answer them directly, but challenges them to explain the source of John the Baptist’s ministry. They fail to answer Jesus because even though they did not think that John was a prophet, the vast majority of the common people did. By implication, so it was with Jesus himself. Jesus then tells two parables: 1) The Parable of the Two Sons, and 2) The Parable of the Wicked Tenants. Both parables were obviously directed against the chief priests and Pharisees: the first demonstrating that they did not do God’s will even though they said that they would, and 2) that they refuse to give God (the vineyard owner) the fruit that they owed him, and even killed his son – and so therefore would be destroyed. The chapter ended by stating that the chief priests and Pharisees wanted to arrest Jesus, but they feared the crowds who regarded him (like they had John the Baptist) as a prophet. CHAPTER 22:1-14 “The Parable of the Wedding Banquet” “Once more Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying: “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding banquet, but they would not come. Again he sent other slaves, saying, ‘Tell those who have been invited: Look, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready; come to the wedding banquet.’ But they made light of it and went away, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his slaves, mistreated them, and killed them. The king was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and killed them. Then he said to his slaves, ‘The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore into the main streets, and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet.’ Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both good and bad; so the wedding hall was filled with guests. But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing a wedding robe, and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe?’ And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ For many are called, but few are chosen.” This parable is also found in Luke’s gospel (Luke 14:16-24), but with some important differences. Matthew, unlike Luke, states that a king gave a wedding banquet for his son; that those invited mistreated and killed his slaves; and that the king then sent his troops and destroyed those who originally had been invited. Also, there is no mention of the wedding garment story in Luke’s account. It seems apparent that Matthew’s original Jewish-Christian readers would understand this parable as referring to their fellow Jews who had rejected Jesus as being God’s Son. They had been invited to share in the JOY of God’s kingdom through Jesus, but had rejected the invitation. Matthew wrote his gospel about ten years after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans during the Jewish revolt of 66-70 AD. It seems clear that this is what is being referred to when Jesus says that the king “sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and killed them.” Matthew obviously views the destruction of Jerusalem as being the result of God’s judgment, in the same way that Old Testament prophets had likewise understood Jerusalem’s earlier destruction by the Babylonians as being for that reason. Afterwards, the king orders his slaves to invite “everyone you find” to the wedding banquet. Not just the “good” people, but everyone – both good and bad. Perhaps this also signifies Gentiles as well as Jews. The gospel invitation is for ALL people! Finally comes the scene indicating God’s Final Judgment (this is not in Luke’s account) in which the king came in to see the guests. The “wedding robe” signifies righteousness and repentance. The person who was not wearing a wedding robe may have been there in body, but NOT in spirit! As I (Pastor George) put it when preaching on this passage, this man had a “passive aggressive” attitude – perhaps sitting there with his arms crossed and a scowl on his face – showing everyone that he did NOT share in the joy of the wedding banquet! It was that attitude (which was affecting everyone else’s joy) that caused the king to order him thrown out. The point is that being invited into the kingdom does not guarantee our place in it, unless we respond with changed hearts and lives! CHAPTER 22:15-22 “The Question About Paying Taxes to the Emperor” “Then the Pharisees went and plotted to entrap him in what he said. So they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and teach the way of God in accordance with truth, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?” But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin used for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. Then he said to them, “Whose head is this, and whose title?” They answered, “The emperor’s.” Then he said to them, “Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” When they heard this, they were amazed; and they left him and went away.” As we read at the end of chapter 21, the chief priests and Pharisees wanted to arrest Jesus, but feared the crowds, because they regarded him as a prophet. This passage shows the Pharisees and Herodians trying to entrap Jesus into taking a position on whether or not they should pay taxes to the Romans. If he said that they should pay taxes, this would substantially affect his popularity with the crowds – who by and large bitterly resented Roman taxes. If on the other hand he said that they should not pay the Roman taxes, they could then report him as teaching sedition against Rome and have him arrested by them. The coin that Jesus asked them to show had the emperor’s image and title stamped on it. In ancient times, this indicated that he actually owned it – coinage was held to be the property of the king whose image it bore. By showing Jesus that coin, the Pharisees and Herodians actually answered their own question: it was lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, because he owned the money! Jesus also reminds his listeners, however, to pay God what belongs to him. According to The Interpreter’s Bible commentary, few sayings of Jesus have been more tragically misunderstood. Jesus never meant to imply that there should be a “separation of church and state” – that there is a secular sphere of existence and that the church should only be concerned with “spiritual” matters. The fact is, everything is within God’s sphere of existence – including the state! As we recite in the Pledge of Allegiance, we as a nation are under God, NOT “co-existing” with God! The state ultimately owes its sovereignty to God and is to do God’s work of preserving order and providing for the basic worldly well-being of people. Ultimately, however, we must remember that we are God’s subjects in every area of our lives. Paying God what belongs to God simply means living our lives in ways that accomplish his purposes – both “secularly” and “spiritually”! CHAPTER 22:23-33 “Controversy With the Sadducees About the Resurrection” “That same day some Sadducees came to him, saying there is no resurrection; and they asked him a question, saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies childless, his brother shall marry the widow, and raise up children for his brother.’ Now there were seven brothers among us; the first married, and died childless, leaving the widow to his brother. The second did the same, so also the third, down to the seventh. Last of all, the woman herself died. In the resurrection, then, whose wife of the seven will she be? For all of them had married her.” Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is God not of the dead, but of the living.” And when the crowd heard it, they were astounded at his teaching.” The Sadducees were not many in number, but they were wealthy and aristocratic, and the governing class. The Sadducees were different from the Pharisees in almost every way. The Sadducees often collaborated with Rome in order to preserve their privileges and power, while the Pharisees were mostly apolitical. The Sadducees were priests, while the Pharisees were laymen. The Sadducees were very “loose” on observing details for the law, while the Pharisees centered their theology on trying to live by the law in every possible detail. The Sadducees accepted only the first five books of the Bible (the Pentateuch) as Scripture, while the Pharisees accepted the prophetic writings, the Psalms, and other books of the Bible as all being authoritative for their faith. And (this is what pertains to our passage) the Sadducees denied the doctrine of the resurrection, while the Pharisees (like Jesus) accepted the resurrection as being an absolutely essential part of their faith. Matthew presents this controversy not only to show that Jesus believed in the resurrection, but also to “high light” the growing opposition to Jesus from all sides. We have previously read that the Pharisees wanted to arrest Jesus, as did the chief priests and elders. In the passage just before this, we read that the Herodians also were trying to entrap Jesus – and now for the first time, we also hear about the hostility of the Sadducees to his teaching. The Sadducees pose a theoretical question to Jesus based on the so-called “law of levirate marriage” (found in Deuteronomy 25:5-6). The purpose of this “law” was to make sure that the deceased should have a son to succeed him and carry on the family name. The Sadducees cite a purely hypothetical case involving seven brothers having the same woman as a wife one after another in order to show the “absurdity” of the resurrection doctrine. As the Interpreter’s Bible commentary puts it, their point is that if there is a resurrection, levirate marriage, which God has ordained, will surely make for domestic difficulties! As the Interpreter’s Bible commentary goes on to say, Jesus might conceivably have answered – on the same scholastic premises – that she really was the wife of the first brother and that the others were only “rearing a family for their brother.” Jesus, however, answers the resurrection question on its merits, relating it to God’s purpose (the scriptures) and God’s power. Jesus’ point goes back to the creation, in which God “formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.” (Gen. 2:7). That is God’s purpose – which does not end when that person dies. God will use his power to once again bring us back to life after we die! After making that fundamental point, Jesus then goes on to show that conditions in the age to come cannot be compared with our present life. We will be the same, and yet also very different – “like angels in heaven”. (See the Apostle Paul’s description of our future “spiritual bodies” in 1 Corinthians 15:42-49.) And likewise, our relationships (including the present earthly institution of marriage) will also be different! Finally, Jesus uses a passage from the Pentateuch (which the Sadducees accepted as scripture) to show that the resurrection is a reality. His point is not so much that God said “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”, but rather that when this phrase is used it nearly always is for the purpose of emphasizing God’s faithfulness to his promises! God will NOT let death sever us from our relationship with him (“he is not God of the dead”) – because of his love and power he will certainly resurrect us to eternal life (he is God of the living)! The phrase about the crowd being astounded at Jesus’ teaching is reminiscent of Mt. 7:28-29. CHAPTER 22:34-40 “The Greatest Commandment” “When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” Unlike the previous time when the Pharisees had tried to entrap Jesus with their question of paying taxes to the emperor, there is no hint of malice with this question. Perhaps they had been impressed by his answer to the Sadducees – which, as mentioned above, they would have totally agreed with! The Pharisees had come up with a list of 613 commandments: 248 of them positive (corresponding to the number of parts in the human body), and 365 of them negative (corresponding to the number of days in the year). Be that as it may, the Pharisees and scribes (lawyers) were on common ground with Jesus in the answer that he gave. Indeed, in Mark’s account of this passage (Mk. 12:28-34), one of the scribes (allied with the Pharisees) warmly commends Jesus for his answer and Jesus in turn tells him that he is not far from the kingdom of God. The first commandment about loving God is from Deuteronomy 6:5. It was called the Shema and was recited by Jews daily. The second commandment about loving one’s neighbor as their self is from Leviticus 19:18. Technically, Jesus never answered the lawyer’s question of which of the 613 commandments was the greatest. He rather held up the positive principle that loving God and loving our neighbors is the foundation of all the commandments. Martin Luther understood this “love” principle when explaining the Ten Commandments in his Small Catechism. In his explanations he does not only define what a commandment prohibits, but also what we should do in order to show love for God and neighbor. CHAPTER 22:41-46 “Jesus’ Question About Who the Messiah Is” “Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them this question: “What do you think of the Messiah? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.” He said to them, “How is it then that David by the Spirit calls him Lord, saying, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet”?’ If David thus calls him Lord, how can he be his son?” No one was able to give him an answer, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions.” Although this passage may seem to be obscure and the reasoning in it hard to follow, it was probably very significant to Matthew’s original Jewish-Christian readers. Most Jews of Jesus’ day (and even in the present as well) were waiting for the coming of the Messiah (literally, “the Anointed One”). Jesus by his question was inviting his listeners to consider who the Messiah was. The Pharisees instantly answer, “The son of David”. This was a popular title used to describe the Messiah. As we have seen in the previous chapters of Matthew, Jesus himself had been called “the son of David” a number of times (Mt. 9:27, 12:23, 15:22, 20:30-31, 21:9, 21:15). The term, however, meant that the Messiah would be David’s descendant. While that was literally true, Jesus wants to make the point that he would be more than just a just a “carbon copy” of who David was – that is, a great king who would restore glory to the nation of Israel. Jesus quotes Psalm 110:1, which was accepted by almost all Jews as referring to the Messiah. Jesus’ point is that David calls him “my Lord”, which means one who is greater than him. Although not explicitly stated, this can only mean that the Messiah is actually the son of God! This understanding obviously would have major implications for Matthew’s original Jewish-Christian readers in that it supplies a “biblical basis” for Christological titles applied to Jesus, and that he because of his unique relationship to God had the authority to correctly interpret and fulfill the Scriptures. Finally, this understanding confirmed to them that Jesus was truly Lord – which became a common title for Jesus among early Christians, and continues to be for us today as well. -------------------- George R. Karres, Pella Lutheran Church 418 W. Main Street Sidney, MT 59270
|
||||