2 ＂The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who gave a wedding feast 2 for his son.
3 3 He dispatched his servants to summon the invited guests to the feast, but they refused to come.
7 4 The king was enraged and sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.
10 The servants went out into the streets and gathered all they found, bad and good alike, 5 and the hall was filled with guests.
11 6 But when the king came in to meet the guests he saw a man there not dressed in a wedding garment.
13 7 Then the king said to his attendants, ‘Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.'
16 They sent their disciples to him, with the Herodians, 10 saying, ＂Teacher, we know that you are a truthful man and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. And you are not concerned with anyone's opinion, for you do not regard a person's status.
17 11 Tell us, then, what is your opinion: Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not?＂
19 12 Show me the coin that pays the census tax.＂ Then they handed him the Roman coin.
21 They replied, ＂Caesar's.＂ 13 At that he said to them, ＂Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.＂
24 saying, ＂Teacher, Moses said,‘If a man dies 16 without children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up descendants for his brother.'
29 17 Jesus said to them in reply, ＂You are misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God.
31 And concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you 18 by God,
35 and one of them [a scholar of the law] 20 tested him by asking,
36 ＂Teacher, 21 which commandment in the law is the greatest?＂
37 He said to him, 22 ＂You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.
39 The second is like it: 23 You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
40 24 The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.＂
45 28 If David calls him‘lord,' how can he be his son?＂
1 [1-14] This parable is from Q; see Luke 14:15-24. It has been given many allegorical traits by Matthew, e.g., the burning of the city of the guests who refused the invitation (Matthew 22:7), which corresponds to the destruction of
6  A wedding garment: the repentance, change of heart and mind, that is the condition for entrance into the kingdom (Matthew 3:2; 4:17) must be continued in a life of good deeds (Matthew 7:21-23).
8 [15-22] The series of controversies between Jesus and the representatives of Judaism (see the note on Matthew 21:23-27) is resumed. As in the first (Matthew 21:23-27), here and in the following disputes Matthew follows his Marcan source with few modifications.
9  The Pharisees: while Matthew retains the Marcan union of Pharisees and Herodians in this account, he clearly emphasizes the Pharisees' part. They alone are mentioned here, and the Herodians are joined with them only in a prepositional phrase of Matthew 22:16. Entrap him in speech: the question that they will pose is intended to force Jesus to take either a position contrary to that held by the majority of the people or one that will bring him into conflict with the Roman authorities.
11  Is it lawful: the law to which they refer is the law of God.
12  They handed him the Roman coin: their readiness in producing the money implies their use of it and their acceptance of the financial advantages of the Roman administration in
13  Caesar's: the emperor Tiberius (A.D. 14-37). Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar: those who willingly use the coin that is Caesar's should repay him in kind. The answer avoids taking sides in the question of the lawfulness of the tax. To God what belongs to God: Jesus raises the debate to a new level. Those who have hypocritically asked about tax in respect to its relation to the law of God should be concerned rather with repaying God with the good deeds that are his due; cf Matthew 21:41, 43.
14 [23-33] Here Jesus' opponents are the Sadducees, members of the powerful priestly party of his time; see the note on Matthew 3:7. Denying the resurrection of the dead, a teaching of relatively late origin in Judaism (cf Daniel 12:2), they appeal to a law of the Pentateuch (Deut 25:5-10) and present a case based on it that would make resurrection from the dead ridiculous (Matthew 22:24-28). Jesus chides them for knowing neither the scriptures nor the power of God (Matthew 22:29). His argument in respect to God's power contradicts the notion, held even by many proponents as well as by opponents of the teaching, that the life of those raised from the dead would be essentially a continuation of the type of life they had had before death (Matthew 22:30). His argument based on the scriptures (Matthew 22:31-32) is of a sort that was accepted as valid among Jews of the time.
15  Saying that there is no resurrection: in the Marcan parallel (Matthew 22:12, 18) the Sadducees are correctly defined as those ＂who say there is no resurrection＂; see also Luke 20:27. Matthew's rewording of Mark can mean that these particular Sadducees deny the resurrection, which would imply that he was not aware that the denial was characteristic of the party. For some scholars this is an indication of his being a Gentile Christian; see the note on Matthew 21:4-5.
16  ＂If a man dies . . . his brother': this is known as the ＂law of the levirate,＂ from the Latin levir, ＂brother-in-law.＂ Its purpose was to continue the family line of the deceased brother (Deut 25:6).
17  The sexual relationships of this world will be transcended; the risen body will be the work of the creative power of God.
18 [31-32] Cf Exodus 3:6. In the Pentateuch, which the Sadducees accepted as normative for Jewish belief and practice, God speaks even now (to you) of himself as the God of the patriarchs who died centuries ago. He identifies himself in relation to them, and because of their relation to him, the living God, they too are alive. This might appear no argument for the resurrection, but simply for life after death as conceived in Wisdom 3, 1-3. But the general thought of early first-century Judaism was not influenced by that conception; for it human immortality was connected with the existence of the body.
19 [34-40] The Marcan parallel (Mark 12:28-34) is an exchange between Jesus and a scribe who is impressed by the way in which Jesus has conducted himself in the previous controversy (Mark 12:28), who compliments him for the answer he gives him (Mark 12:32), and who is said by Jesus to be ＂not far from the kingdom of God＂ (Mark 12:34). Matthew has sharpened that scene. The questioner, as the representative of other Pharisees, tests Jesus by his question (Matthew 22:34-35), and both his reaction to Jesus' reply and Jesus' commendation of him are lacking.
20  [A scholar of the law]: meaning ＂scribe.＂ Although this reading is supported by the vast majority of textual witnesses, it is the only time that the Greek word so translated occurs in Matthew. It is relatively frequent in Luke, and there is reason to think that it may have been added here by a copyist since it occurs in the Lucan parallel (Luke 10:25-28). Tested: see the note on Matthew 19:3.
21  For the devout Jew all the commandments were to be kept with equal care, but there is evidence of preoccupation in Jewish sources with the question put to Jesus.
22 [37-38] Cf Deut 6:5. Matthew omits the first part of Mark's fuller quotation (Mark 12:29; Deut 6:4-5), probably because he considered its monotheistic emphasis needless for his church. The love of God must engage the total person (heart, soul, mind).
23  Jesus goes beyond the extent of the question put to him and joins to the greatest and the first commandment a second, that of love of neighbor, Lev 19:18; see the note on Matthew 19:18-19. This combination of the two commandments may already have been made in Judaism.
24  The double commandment is the source from which the whole law and the prophets are derived.
25 [41-46] Having answered the questions of his opponents in the preceding three controversies, Jesus now puts a question to them about the sonship of the Messiah. Their easy response (Matthew 22:43a) is countered by his quoting a verse of Psalm 110 that raises a problem for their response (43b-45). They are unable to solve it and from that day on their questioning of him is ended.
27 [42-44] David's: this view of the Pharisees was based on such Old Testament texts as Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5; and Ezekiel 34:23; see also the extrabiblical Psalms of Solomon Psalm 17:21. How, then . . . saying: Jesus cites Psalm 110:1 accepting the Davidic authorship of the psalm, a common view of his time. The psalm was probably composed for the enthronement of a Davidic king of
28  Since Matthew presents Jesus both as Messiah (Matthew 16:16) and as Son of David (Matthew 1:1; see also the note on Matthew 9:27), the question is not meant to imply Jesus' denial of Davidic sonship. It probably means that although he is the Son of David, he is someone greater, Son of Man and Son of God, and recognized as greater by David who calls him my ＂lord.'