Last month we noted that having entered triumphantly into Jerusalem and cleansed the Temple the Lord Jesus taught in the Temple (Lk 19.47). He told three parables and was asked three questions. We now turn to the questions.
Question 1: "Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?" (Mt 22.15-22; Mk 12.13-17; Lk 20.20-26)
This was one of the most hotly disputed questions of the day. It was asked by Herodians – a political party who supported the rule of the Herods in Palestine, and favoured taxation – and Pharisees, who opposed Roman rule and the annual poll tax. Common hatred for Christ united them. Their opening flattery prepared the trap. "Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man" (Mt 22.16), even Caesar, being the insinuation. Their question was full of danger. If Christ said, "Yes", He would instantly lose favour with the crowds, who resented taxation. The Pharisees could then arrest Him without fear of angry reprisals. If He replied, "No", they could justifiably "deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor" (Lk 20.20) to be tried for treason. And if the Lord confessed, "I don’t know", He would lose face. They had Him. He could not escape. Their plan was flawless, or so they thought.
The Lord’s answer was marvellous (Mt 22.22; Mk 12.17; Lk 20.26). The tribute money was a silver denarius which bore the emperor’s image, together with a superscription proclaiming his deity: "Tiberius Caesar Augustus, the son of the Divine Augustus".1 When the Lord Jesus said, "Shew me the tribute money" (Mt 22.19), He was unashamedly admitting His poverty and demonstrated that His accusers owned Roman currency, lived under and benefitted from Roman rule. Therefore, they ought to render "unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and [of course] unto God the things that are God’s" (Mt 22.21). This truth still applies (Rom 13.1-7). Christians must pay taxes and honour God.
Question 2: Resurrection (Ex 3.1-6; Deut 25.5-10; Mt 22.23-33; Mk 12.18-27; Lk 20.27-40)
Sadducees were the leading priestly family in Jerusalem during the Lord’s earthly ministry. They denied the miraculous, saying "that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit" (Mt 22.23; Act 23.8). Their best argument to date was built on the Mosaic command, "If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother" (Mt 22.24; Deut 25.5-10). This Law, which codified a longstanding principle (see Gen 38.6-10), prevented land passing from one family to another, or to strangers; thus it was linked to land inheritance (Lev 25.25; Ruth 3.8-13; 4.1-12). The Sadducees dreamed up a ridiculous scenario. One woman sequentially married seven brothers, all dying childless. "Therefore", they asked, "in the resurrection [which they denied] whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her" (Mt 22.28).
Christ proved the Sadducees’ theological stance to be ignorant of Scripture, of God, and of His power (Mt 22.29). Their denial of resurrection had massive implications, not least in relation to the establishment of the millennial Kingdom. If the dead do not rise, God’s promises to the patriarchs of inheriting the land can never be fulfilled (Gen 13.15; 26.3; 28.13; Heb 11.13). Believing in Moses’ authorship of Exodus (Mk 12.26), Christ quoted God’s words from the burning bush: "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (Ex 3.6; Mt 22.32). Since He is the God of the living, for "all live unto him" (Lk 20.38; cp. Ps 104.10-30; 145.15; Act 17.28), the patriarchs still live, awaiting the fulfilment of God’s promises in that "[age] to come" (Lk 20.35; Heb 6.5, Newberry). Through resurrection, those counted worthy will join them, as "sons of God, being sons of the resurrection" (Lk 20.36, JND). Since like the angels of God they will never die, marriage and its procreative element will be redundant for them (Gen 1.26-28; Lk 20.35-36). The Sadducees’ disbelief in resurrection thus barred them from entering the millennial Kingdom. The multitudes were astonished, the Sadducees silenced (Mt 22.33-34).
Question 3: "Which is the great commandment in the law?" (Mt 22.34-40; Mk 12.28-34)
The lawyer’s question had probably been debated for generations, no final solution ever being reached. Perceiving that Christ had answered the Sadducees well, he seems to have been genuinely interested in the Lord’s reply (Mk 12.28). Instead of just elevating one command above all others – a truly bold step – the Lord Jesus condensed the entire Law of God down to two basic commandments, the first of which was embedded in the Shema, portions of Scripture recited by devout Jews twice daily (Num 15.37-41; Deut 6.4-9; 11.13-23): "Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these" (Deut 6.4-5; Lev 19.18; Mk 12.29-31; cp. Rom 13.8).
The Lord Jesus declared, "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (Mt 22.40). It took a perfect knowledge of the whole Law to summarize it so concisely, and indisputably – no one questioned His answer. The lawyer confessed, "Thou hast said the truth" (Mk 12.32), concluding that obedience to these two commandments outweighed the entire Old Testament sacrificial system which was a core element of Israel’s religion (Mk 12.33). Of course, we know retrospectively that "the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, [could] never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect" (Heb 10.1), their true value lying in what they promised: "the precious blood of Christ" (1 Pet 1.19). This lawyer was not far from the Kingdom of God (Mk 12.34).
Christ’s Question: "What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he?" (Mt 22.41-46; Mk 12.35-37; Lk 20.41-44)
The Pharisees answered quickly: "The son of David" (Mt 22.42). Matthew’s Gospel begins with Christ’s genealogy, tracing His ancestry back to Abraham and through the royal line, proving that as the son of David He is rightful heir to Israel’s throne. In his autobiography Flavius Josephus, the Roman historian, claimed to have recorded his own genealogy "as I have found it described in the public records".2 Therefore, it is quite possible that the Lord’s human genealogy was available for public scrutiny. Edmund Hiebert suggested that since "no questions were raised on this part against Jesus as Messiah proves that His Davidic descent was unassailable".3
The Pharisees were baffled by the next question. Basing His question on the Spirit’s inspiration of Scripture (see 2 Tim 3.16; 2 Pet 1.21), and David’s authorship of Psalm 110, which clearly predicts Messiah’s ultimate victory over all His foes, the Lord Jesus asked, "How then doth David in Spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?" (Mt 22.43-45). The answer, of course, is that Christ is not only David’s descendent, but also His Lord: "the root and the offspring of David" (Rev 22.16). While "the common people heard Him gladly" (Mk 12.37), the Lord’s enemies were speechless (Mt 22.46). Their attempt at publicly humiliating Christ had completely backfired.
Concluded.
1Hiebert, D.E. A Portrait of The Servant (Moody Press, 1974).
2The Life of Flavius Josephus cited http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/life.html#EndNote_Auto.2b.
3Hiebert, D.E. A Portrait of The Servant (Moody Press, 1974).
