Matthew 22:15-45: A Q&A with Jesus

Introduction

When we last left off in Matthew, Jesus was teaching about the kingdom of God in the temple during holy week. Today’s section picks up directly after that with Jesus being questioned by different groups. We will see the Herodians, the Sadducees, and the Pharisees each try and trap Jesus. In the end Jesus will wisely answer all of their questions, and then ask them a question of his own.

15-22: To pay or not to pay taxes

The first group to come and question Jesus are the Herodians, along with the disciples of the Pharisees.

This shows that the Pharisees were really behind this, but were using their disciples to try and hide their agenda.

They wanted to “entangle, snare, trap” Jesus in his words. The goal was to put him in a situation that would offend someone either way and (hopefully) the authorities.

The Herodians, as the name implies, were people loyal to Herod and his family.

They call him “teacher” which shows what they think of him (i.e they don’t believe he is the Christ). They also try to flatter him by admitting that he is “true and teaches the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances.” (literally, “you do not look at people’s faces”, this is important later).

While this is technically true, it also puts Jesus in the position of having to answer their question. If he just ignores them, it could look like he cares what they think - opposite of their compliment.

The question they pose is controversial: Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? There are seemingly only two possible answers to the question.

Yes it is lawful/right to pay taxes to Caesar.

But that would undoubtedly make the people who love Jesus angry. They already feel overtaxed and this particular tax seems to border on idolatry. To be cool paying the tax would seem to indicate Jesus is cool with the Roman oppressors.

No it is not lawful/right to pay taxes to Caesar.

That would undoubtedly make the Romans angry. Sorry, did someone say “Don’t pay taxes?” Can’t have that. The Romans could have claimed Jesus was inciting rebellion and encouraging people not to pay taxes, thus they would arrest him and probably kill him.

Since Jesus is the Wisdom of God, he is not trapped by this question. He is frustrated with them though and calls them hypocrites.

The word hypocrite means “two-faced” and referred to stage actors who would wear masks and costumes to change their appearances. I wonder if Jesus is making a play on their “complement” that he doesn’t look at people’s faces by saying, “I might not look at faces, but I still see right through your mask.”

His answer to their question is surprising. He holds up a coin, asks who’s face is on it, and then says, “Pay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God things that belong to God.”

It’s no surprise that they “marveled” at this. Could there be a more perfect and balanced answer?

This teaching would lead to wide-ranging social and cultural implications for centuries and millennia.

In a culture that hated paying taxes (sound familiar?), Christians were actually encouraged to be good citizens and pay their taxes, and they did. It became a hallmark of holiness - governments might not like Christians, but they were law-abiding tax paying citizens.

The other implication from Jesus here is that all governments are God-ordained, and by obeying them, we are obeying God.

This was a revolutionary idea in Israelite culture. They had spent most of their history living in a theocracy, with the belief that any other government/empire was pagan and idolatrous, and therefore should be rebelled against. Jesus demonstrates that that isn’t true.

These ideas are furthered in places like Romans 13 , Titus 3, and 1 Peter 2.

23-33: Okay, what about the Resurrection?

The second question comes from the Sadducees, and it is much less innocent and more direct.

The Sadducees were one of the two primary religious groups (along with the Pharisees). They actually were the primary group that ran the temple.

They might have only accepted the first five books of the Old Testament - this is heavily inferred from Josephus who says they rejected many things especially the traditions of the elders.

They rejected the idea of resurrection, as well as angels and spiritual things (Acts 23). This was the opposite of what the Pharisees believed.

This was a real point of contention. So much so that Paul will later use it to start a fight in the Sanhedrin when he was arrested in Acts 23.

The previous question was a political trap. This question is a theological trap. And it is asked very smugly. You can almost picture some annoying Bible college freshmen thinking they are going to outsmart the Son of God.

They give this ridiculous hypothetical scenario based on Deuteronomy 25:5. To me, this question is on par with asking, “How many angels can fit on the head of pin?”

I love that Jesus flatly tells them, “You are wrong,” but then for good measures add, “because you don’t know the Bible or the power of God.”

Jesus then gives some insight into the resurrection at the end of the age.

The “general” resurrection is what will occur when the Lord returns. Everyone will be brought back to life (1 Corinthians 15, 1 Thessalonians, Revelation 21).

Their thought process was wrong because they believed that life will function exactly the same as it does now. Jesus says that that isn’t true.

In this case, there will be no more marriage after the resurrection. It simply won’t be necessary.

When we think about the purpose of marriage which is to be a shadow/reflection of Christ and the Church, as well as to produce children, neither will be necessary anymore. We won’t need a reflection because we will be fully living out that relationship. And producing children will not be necessary anymore either since humanity will be complete.

For good measure he says that “they are like the angels in heaven”. Our resurrection bodies, as unimaginable as they are to us now, will be like the angelic bodies.

Angels and Christians (Children of God) are something like heavenly cousins, although we have a much closer relationship to God than the angels do (servants vs children). The angels do not get married, and neither will we after the resurrection.

As to the question of the resurrection as a whole, Jesus points to Exodus 3:6, where God is talking to Moses in the burning bush. A smart choice if the Sadducees really did only accept the first five books of the Bible.

To us, this is a strange “proof text”. It certainly wouldn’t be the first text I think of when asking, “Where does the OT talk about the resurrection?”

So what is Jesus doing here? He’s saying that since God is talking in the present tense, the implication is that these three men must be alive (or will be alive). Therefore “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”

There was no thought of the “immortality of the soul” in this culture. So Jesus isn’t saying that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are ‘alive’ in some incorporeal spiritual sense somewhere.

In Jewish thought at the time, you were either totally dead (and basically non-existent), and to be alive meant body and all.

Another way to think of this interpretation is this: if those three men were dead (for good), then it could be argued that the Lord is not a powerful God if his claim to fame is being the God of dead people. But thankfully He is not the God of the dead.

34-40: Okay, what’s the Greatest Commandment?

This third and final question comes again from the Pharisees, but this time they do it directly (previously they just sent their disciples).

“When they heard that he had silenced the Sadducees...” since the Sadds were their enemies, they would have been licking their chops to get “win” here.

One of the experts in the law now asks him a question about the law, “What’s the greatest commandment?”

This had been a longstanding discussion among the religious leaders: were any of the OT laws greater than the others, and what extent? If you were to claim one as greater than the other, which would it be?

The Lord’s response actually wasn’t that radical. Most scholars at the time agreed that Deuteronomy 6:5 was a very very important law, and probably one of the greatest. Here Jesus declares it to be categorically true.

But he doesn’t just stop there. He also adds what He says is the second greatest commandment: Leviticus 19:18.

What was truly new and unique about this from the Lord is that he ties the two together. Love of God must come first, and out of this love for God must come love for your neighbor.

Through this, Jesus shows that the one thing that the entire law “hangs” on is the love shown in these two commandments. If we can obey them, everything else falls into place.

Their order is important. It is popular today to try and “love your neighbor” without first “loving God”. This leads to a baseless love that doesn’t really accomplish much. It’s wanting the kingdom without the king.

On the other hand, loving God but not loving our neighbor isn’t truly loving God.

41-46: How the turntables have turned.

The section ends with Jesus now asking the Pharisees a question. They got two in on him, he gets at least one on them, right?

They wouldn’t have been trying to trap him if they had simply believed that he really was the Christ (Messiah). And so that’s exactly what Jesus keys in on now.

He asks them, “Whose son is he?”

The answer wasn’t that complicated. Most everyone would have agreed that the expected Messiah was the son (descendent) of David, which is exactly what they say.

It’s a trap! Jesus uses their answer to ask another question. Basically, “If that’s true, how do you make sense of Psalm 110:1?”

Psalm 110 is an incredibly Messianic Psalm. The whole thing is about the Father setting the Messiah at His right hand in order to rule over the world.

The verse first is exactly as Jesus quotes it.

Since David was the author of this Psalm, Jesus takes the words as coming right from David’s mouth. Jesus’ question then is, “If David calls him Lord, how is he his son?”

This might be a little confusing to us because two different words are translated as “Lord” in Psalm 110:1. For clarity, it’s “Yahweh said to my Lord.”

How is Jesus’ question a trap for them? In the OT (and Bible in general, but especially the OT), order mattered. It demonstrated priority or superiority.

With that in mind, there wasn’t really a case when someone’s son would be their Lord. A son comes after, therefore he is lesser than his father.

So, if the Messiah is David’s son, but David calls him “lord” this must mean that the Messiah is greater than David. But it doesn’t just mean he’s greater than David - it also heavily implies that the Messiah existed before David. And if he existed before David, this means that the Messiah is someone far greater than they had ever conceptualized (which to this point was just a powerful military leader).

This same line of thinking is what got Jesus in hot water in John 8:56–59 “Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.”

By saying he was “before Abraham” he not only claimed to be older than Abraham, but also superior to Abraham.

They are once again left speechless, and decided to save face by not asking anymore questions.

It’s also worth noting that Psalm 110 would go on to be the most quoted Psalm in the entire New Testament. The NT authors were enamored with how much it applied to Jesus.

Conclusion

The Lord Jesus was challenged on an array of issues in an attempt to trap him. But time and time again he answered their questions expertly, demonstrating His great wisdom. In turn, he trapped them by making them question their own understanding of the Messiah. The implications of all of his answers not only have strong theological implications for our lives, but his final question is one that gave key insight into who He is as the Christ.