We left off in our last segment with an encounter between the Lord Jesus and the religious leaders of Israel. The Lord rebuked them with three parables all resulting in exposing the nature of their heart and the coming judgment that would fall upon them for not receiving the Son of God and in return for their unfaithfulness to God. We now turn to the rebuttal from the religious leaders.
THE CHALLENGE OF THE PHARISEES (Matthew 22:15-22/ Mark 12:13-17/ Luke 20: 20-26)
We now move to the texts of Matthew 22:15-22. After His rebuke against them in the form of parables, the Pharisees gathered with the purpose to devise an ill-intentioned plan to trap Him. They needed to discredit Him especially in front of the crowds that were listening to the great teacher. Once the plan was conjured, instead of going to the Lord themselves to execute the plot, they sent some of their disciples[1] accompanied by Herodians whom Luke calls “spies”. The Herodians didn’t generally have any dealings in Judea since it was no longer under Herod. The purpose of their visitation was most likely to bring political representatives into the debate. They begin with their custom insincere flattery in focusing upon His honesty and His ability to give an answer without being a respecter of persons. The questions stemmed from the necessity for a Jew to pay a pole tax to Caesar. Once again, N.T. France points out about the poll tax that The poll tax had been among the taxes imposed on Judea following the imposition of direct Roman rule in A.D. 6, not long before, and had been fiercely resented by patriotic Jews, resulting in serious revolt led by Judas[2]. It was a symbol of their slavery to Rome and was an incredibly hot topic in Palestine since its inception. These Pharisaical disciples were attempting to drag Jesus into a heated political issue. His answer would stir the proverbial pot in one of two directions. An affirmative response meant that He sided with paying the tax which would have stirred the nationalistic Jewish crowds against Him. On the other hand, a negative response would have placed Him in rebellion against the Romans so that they could deliver Him to the rule and the authority of the governor (Luke 20:20).
The Lord recognized their insincerity and asked why they are attempting to trap Him. He then asks them for a silver denarius and wittingly poses a question of His own. He inquires of them who’s image was on the coin. The coin bore the image of Caesar and was a representation of his authority. The Lord doesn’t allow Himself to be pulled in either direction[3]. He tells them to give back to Caesar what he is owed but to give to God what He is owed. It should be noted that the hypocrisy of the Pharisees was publicly manifested in this encounter. As R.T. France points out:
Pious Jews objected to the “idolatrous” coin, which carried not only a human portrait (in contravention of the second commandment, Exod 20:4) but also an inscription which described the Roman emperor as Divi Filius, son of a god (in contravention of the first commandment, Exod 20:3). Roman imperial policy, aware of this sensitivity, allowed the Jews to coin their own nonidolatrous copper money, which sufficed for normal everyday business; there was no need for them to carry the silver denarius, a coin of higher value. And Jesus apparently did not have one – but they did, and in the holy precincts of the temple at that! Well, then, if they were using the emperor’s (idolatrous) coinage, they could hardly object to paying his tax. The verb in v.21, “give back to the emperor” neatly presses the point and underlines Jesus’ description of them as “hypocrites” (v.18).[4]
We shouldn’t miss the primary point of His response which was to give back to God what is God’s. We saw in the three previous parables that God is the ruler, and they had a responsibility to give Him His owed payments (fruits).
THE CHALLENGE OF THE SADDUCEES (Matthew 22:23-32/ Mark 12:18-27/ Luke 20:27-40)
We now move to Matthew 22:23-32 and the confrontation of the Sadducees. The Sadducees were notorious for having theological disagreements with the Pharisees, whether in the belief in angels or spirits (Acts 23:8). Their primary point of incongruity was on the topic of the resurrection. The Sadducees didn’t believe in a resurrection from the dead and decided to use their pet doctrine to confront the Lord Jesus. They questioned Him based upon a portion in Deuteronomy 25:5 where Moses issues one of the sundry laws on the topic of widows.
When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. (Deuteronomy 25:5)
The law stated that if a married man died and didn’t have a son to take care of his widowed mother that the brother of the deceased had a responsibility to marry her (Deut. 25:6-10). He was also to take care of her and provide a family for her. Their scenario then conflagrates the situation by adding multiple deaths and multiple marriages. Finally, the wife in their parable dies and they ask the Lord whose wife of the seven will she be in the resurrection? Their purpose in this scenario is to demonstrate how foolish the resurrection is and in return to discredit those who believe in it including the Lord Jesus.
The response from the Lord Jesus is to fundamentally critique their understanding of scripture and the law[5]. They didn’t understand the scriptures nor the power of God and not having read what was spoken to them by God. The foundational point was that they lacked an understanding of the Words of God and were reading much more into this text than warranted. Firstly, the Lord’s answer clearly indicates that He believes in a resurrection. Secondly, He explains that the state of a man or woman in the resurrection is not the same as state on earth. Those enjoying that age will no longer be given in marriage and our earthly marriage will no longer be relevant. These marriages are temporary and focused upon this age. He follows up with a quotation from Exodus 3:6: “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” to answer their ill-informed argument. Notice that prior to the quotation, the Lord Jesus states that the scriptures were written/spoken “to you”, Israel and its leaders. The covenant God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not a God whose relationship with them ceases at death but continues even in the afterlife. To understand the power of God is to not question His ability to raise the dead but also His purpose in granting everlasting life, to His children of promise.
Their attempt to discredit Him demonstrates their lack of faith and their rejection in the coming Messiah. They were so interested in the law and debate that they missed what the OT described as the Messiah to the extent where they didn’t recognize that He was standing right in front of them. While they claimed to know the law, they lacked an understanding of the fulfillment of the OT texts which they held so dear.
THE SECOND CHALLENGE OF THE PHARISEES (Matthew 22:34-40/ Mark 12:28-31)
The Sadducees failed to trap the Lord with their primary theological ploy and their rivals, the Pharisees, were not prepared to give up just yet on discrediting the Lord Jesus, as we see in Matthew 22:34-40. The crowds were amazed by His answers, which produced the opposite of their intentions, and in return, they were winning the people over to Him. We read in this passage that They gathered themselves together indicating the continuation of their scheme to smear Him and draw the crowds away. An unnamed lawyer approached the Lord with a question to test Him again. The question seems innocent when we first read it but ultimately the motive was less than pure. The question posed by the Sadducees was based upon an interpretation of the law and the Pharisees decide to follow-up with another Mosaic law question. This unnamed lawyer (scribe) raised the question on which of the commandments of the law is the greatest of all[6]. The Lord replies with a pointed answer in quoting Deuteronomy 6:5 relating to loving God and Leviticus 19:18 a commandment to love your neighbour. Both would have been commonly known among them and the crowd.
The text in Deuteronomy focuses upon the person of God and the imperative to love Him with all our heart, soul and mind (Mark adds strength)[7]. This was the actual answer to the question posed by the lawyer however the Lord Jesus furthers the response with a second great commandment. Not only were they to love God but by necessity they were commanded to love their neighbour as themselves. One cannot say that he loves God but in return hates his neighbour (1 John 4:20 -21). He summarizes His response to His opponents; the law and prophets hangs upon this principle. His words were not meant to abolish the law but to demonstrate that the law was fulfilled in doing it with the mindset of loving God and loving one’s neighbour. The Pharisees had focused upon other motives for keeping the law instead of justice, mercy and faithfulness (23:23). The same principle He previously taught in treating people the same way you want to be treated (7:12). When reading the tablets of the law, one could easily discern that it is summarized in our inward and outward affections toward God and men. The Pharisees had missed this and in return were placing burdens upon others which they refused to fulfil. Much like the Sadducees, they had not truly read what was spoken to them by God!
In Mark’s gospel, the lawyer responds to the words of the Lord Jesus by confirming that he understood His answer by expressing to Him that the summary of the commandments is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices (Mark 12:33). This lawyer had understood that all the laws of the Torah flowed from this principle to which the Lord answers that the Kingdom was not far from him.
In our next segment, we will turn to the self-identity of the Lord Jesus and a revelation of the hypocrisy of the religious leaders. Both these factors will play in their condemnation and that of the city.
[1] In Mark’s rendition, the Pharisees went with the Herodians to trap Him. The disciples in this event were probably Pharisees themselves who were sent by other Pharisees.
[2] France P. 829
[3] The NT teaches that God appointed the leaders that are over Christians and that we should respect them (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17) and pray for them and live quiet lives with them (1 Timothy 2:1-2). This doesn’t necessitate that we should obey them without any discrimination. We are to obey God before man and if an attempt to force us to worship other gods, we should quietly rebel against them (Revelation 2-3).
[4] France Page 830
[5] The Sadducees probably had an alternate interpretation of texts that clearly teach the resurrection in the OT such as Isaiah 26:19 & Daniel 12:2.
[6] There were some who calculated that there was a total of 613 commandments in the Torah.
[7] Note that Mark’s quotation added shema (Deut. 6:4) at the beginning of the address.