HolyStudy
Bible IndexRead BibleNotesChurchesMissionPrivacyTermsContact
© 2026 HolyStudy
HomeRead BibleBible NotesChurchesSign in
HolyStudy
HomeRead BibleBible NotesChurches
Sign in

Matthew 22

1

And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,

2

The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,

3

And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.

4

Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.

5

But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:

6

And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.

7

But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

8

Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.

9

Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.

10

So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.

1
1
11

And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:

1
12

And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.

1
13

Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

14

For many are called, but few are chosen.

15

Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.

16

And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.

17

Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cesar, or not?

18

But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

1
19

Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

20

And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

21

They say unto him, Cesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.

22

When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

1
23

The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

24

Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

1
25

Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:

26

Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.

27

And last of all the woman died also.

28

Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

29

Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

31

But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

32

I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

33

And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

34

But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.

35

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

36

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38

This is the first and great commandment.

39

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

41

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,

42

Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.

43

He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,

44

The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

45

If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

46

And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

← Previous ChapterNext Chapter →

Matthew 22

The wedding banquet parable continues the sequence of Jerusalem confrontations: those invited to the king's son's wedding refuse and mistreat the servants, so the invitation goes out to the roads and the banquet hall is filled — but the man without a wedding garment (without the righteousness of the kingdom) is cast out. The Pharisees' tribute-to-Caesar question (designed to catch Jesus between Roman loyalty and Jewish nationalism) receives the give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's answer that refuses both the trap and a simple answer. The Sadducees' resurrection question about the multiply-married widow receives the answer that in the resurrection people neither marry nor are given in marriage, and that God's self-identification as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob proves the resurrection — he is God of the living, not the dead. The expert's question about the greatest commandment receives the love-God-and-love-neighbor double answer, and Jesus' question about how the Messiah can be both David's son and David's Lord (Psalm 110:1) silences everyone and ends the Jerusalem controversy dialogues.

Matthew 22:26

After them all, the woman died. The woman who outlived all seven brothers finally dies, setting up the impossible resurrection question.

Matthew 22:27

In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her. The question the Sadducees believe makes the resurrection look absurd: whose wife will she be in the resurrection? The assumption is that resurrection life reproduces the social structures of earthly life — an assumption Jesus will directly challenge.

Matthew 22:28

But Jesus answered them: you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. The double error: they do not know the Scriptures and they do not know the power of God. The error about the resurrection comes from both a misreading of what the Scripture teaches and a misunderstanding of what divine power can do. Both errors will be addressed in turn.

Matthew 22:8

Then he said to his servants: the wedding feast is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the feast as many as you find. The mission to the highways: those who were invited and refused are declared not worthy; the servants are sent to the roads to invite anyone they find. The main roads are the places where the unexpected, unqualified, and uninvited can be found — the tax collectors and sinners, the Gentiles, the marginalized.

Matthew 22:1

And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying. The continuing parabolic confrontation in the temple: the third parable of judgment — the Wedding Banquet — follows the two-sons parable and the wicked-tenants parable. The again communicates the sustained teaching in the face of the religious establishment's hostility.

Matthew 22:2

The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son. The Wedding Banquet parable moves from the vineyard imagery of the previous parable to the feast imagery of the messianic banquet. The king who gives a wedding feast for his son is the Father who gives the messianic banquet for the Son. The invited guests who refuse are the religious establishment; the later guests are those from the highways and byways.

Matthew 22:3

And sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they were unwilling to come. The first invitation refused: the invited guests who were unwilling to come are the covenant people who have received the long-standing invitation and declined. The were unwilling communicates that the refusal is not ignorance but choice.

Matthew 22:4

Again he sent other servants, saying: tell those who are invited, see, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast. The second invitation with a more detailed description of what awaits: the feast is prepared, the animals are slaughtered, everything is ready. The urgency of the come communicates that the only missing element is the guests' presence.

Matthew 22:5

But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business. The second refusal: the invited guests went off to their ordinary pursuits — farm and business — rather than to the feast. The paying no attention communicates the indifference that characterizes the rejection: not active opposition but passive disinterest. The ordinary activities of agricultural and commercial life take priority over the extraordinary invitation.

Matthew 22:6

While the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. The violence of some of the invited guests — seizing, shaming, and killing the king's servants — corresponds to the tenants' treatment of the vineyard owner's servants in the previous parable. Both parables encode the history of Israel's treatment of the prophets.

Matthew 22:7

The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. The king's judgment on the murderous guests: armies, destruction, burning city. The burning city is widely understood as a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD — the judgment that Jesus will announce explicitly in Matthew 24. The parable encodes the judgment that the rejection of the messianic invitation produces.

Matthew 22:9

And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests. The gathering of both bad and good from the roads mirrors the net that gathered every kind of fish (Matthew 13:47): the invitation goes to everyone, and both bad and good come. The filling of the wedding hall communicates the success of the mission: those who refused are absent; those who accepted fill the space.

Matthew 22:10

But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. The third movement of the parable: within the diverse gathered crowd, one man has no wedding garment. The wedding garment was typically provided by the host — so the man's absence of garment communicates a deliberate refusal of the host's provision, not poverty.

Matthew 22:11

And he said to him: friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment? And he was speechless. The friend address — formal, not intimate — and the question about the garment are the king's confrontation of the man's choice. The speechless response communicates that there is no defense for the refusal of the provided garment: no words can justify the deliberate rejection of what the host offered.

Matthew 22:12

Then the king said to the attendants: bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The outer darkness with weeping and gnashing of teeth — the judgment image from Matthew 8:12 and 13:42 — is the destination of the one who entered the feast without the wedding garment. The parable's third movement addresses those who accept the invitation outwardly but do not receive the transformation that the invitation requires.

Matthew 22:13

For many are called, but few are chosen. The summary principle: the many who are called through the invitation and the few who are chosen for the feast's fulfillment. The called-but-not-chosen does not teach double predestination but the reality that the invitation's reception requires the genuine transformation (the wedding garment) that some who come refuse.

Matthew 22:14

Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his words. The transition from the parables to the controversy dialogues: the Pharisees shift from listening to plotting. The entangle in his words is the legal-trap strategy that the next three questions will attempt — questions about taxes, resurrection, and the greatest commandment.

Matthew 22:15

And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying: teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone's opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances. The flattery that precedes the trap: the Pharisees' disciples and Herodians together approach Jesus with the extravagant praise that is designed to make him feel safe from political consequences. The you do not care about anyone's opinion is the trap's setup: they are daring him to answer honestly about taxes, knowing that any honest answer creates a political problem.

Matthew 22:16

Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? The tax question is a perfect trap: if Jesus says yes, he endorses collaboration with the Roman occupation and loses the Jewish nationalists; if he says no, he can be reported to the Romans as a rebel. The either/or allows no safe answer — or so the questioners believe.

Matthew 22:17

But Jesus, aware of their malice, said: why put me to the test, you hypocrites? The awareness of their malice is Jesus' consistent insight into the questioners' hearts. The hypocrites address names the flattery for what it is: performance designed to manipulate rather than genuine recognition. The why put me to the test communicates that he is not fooled.

Matthew 22:18

Show me the coin for the tax. And they brought him a denarius. The request for the tax coin — the denarius — is itself a revelation: the questioners have the Roman coin, which bears Caesar's image and inscription. The presence of the coin in their possession already communicates their use of the Roman currency system.

Matthew 22:19

And Jesus said to them: whose likeness and inscription is this? They said: Caesar's. Then he said to them. The image-and-inscription question forces the acknowledgment that the coin belongs to Caesar — in the sense that it bears his image and name. The Genesis logic underlies the response: what bears someone's image belongs to that person.

Matthew 22:20

Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. The famous distinction: Caesar's things to Caesar, God's things to God. The coin that bears Caesar's image belongs to Caesar; the human being who bears God's image (Genesis 1:27) belongs to God. The answer transcends the either/or of the trap: it acknowledges the legitimacy of the political sphere without making it absolute, and it places the ultimate claim on the human person with God rather than Caesar.

Matthew 22:21

When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away. The marveling and departure communicates the failure of the trap: the answer was so brilliant that the questioners could not press further without looking foolish. The going away is the recognition that the entangling strategy has failed.

Matthew 22:22

The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question. The Sadducees — who denied the resurrection — approach with the second trapping question. The Sadducees are the priestly aristocracy who accepted only the Pentateuch as authoritative and rejected the Pharisaic oral tradition and the doctrine of resurrection as post-Pentateuchal additions.

Matthew 22:23

Saying: teacher, Moses said, if a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. The levirate marriage principle from Deuteronomy 25:5–6 is the setup for the resurrection absurdity the Sadducees will construct. They use the Torah (which they accept as authoritative) to argue against the resurrection (which they reject).

Matthew 22:24

Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother. The hypothetical scenario of seven brothers and one wife — each brother dying without children and leaving the widow to the next brother — is designed to make the resurrection look absurd.

Matthew 22:25

So too the second and third, down to the seventh. The succession of all seven brothers marrying the widow without producing children is the setup for the final question.

Matthew 22:29

For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. The nature of resurrection life: no marriage in the resurrection, angels as the model. The resurrection is not the resuscitation of earthly social structures but a transformation into a different mode of existence. The Sadducees' absurdity depends on the assumption that resurrection life reproduces earthly marriage — an assumption that is simply wrong.

Matthew 22:30

And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God. The Scripture argument against the Sadducees' denial of the resurrection uses the Pentateuch — the only Scripture the Sadducees accepted — to prove the resurrection from the text they already accepted.

Matthew 22:31

I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not God of the dead, but of the living. The Exodus 3:6 quotation: God identifies himself to Moses as the God of the patriarchs who had already died. But if God is the God of the dead rather than the living, the identification makes no sense — God is the God of the living, which means Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are alive in God's presence. The resurrection is implied in the patriarchal covenant: if God is their God, they must be alive.

Matthew 22:32

And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching. The crowd's astonishment at Jesus' Scripture-argument against the Sadducees communicates the brilliance of the response: using the Pentateuch against those who accepted only the Pentateuch to prove the resurrection that they denied.

Matthew 22:33

But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they came together. The Pharisees, hearing that Jesus silenced their rivals the Sadducees, come together to press the third test. The coming together communicates the Pharisees' residual antagonism: even though they agree with Jesus about the resurrection, they are still opponents.

Matthew 22:34

And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. The lawyer — the specialist in the Torah's legal interpretation — asks the third test question. The test character of the question is openly stated: the lawyer is not genuinely seeking wisdom about the greatest commandment but testing Jesus' scriptural competence.

Matthew 22:35

Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law? The greatest commandment question was itself a point of debate in the rabbinic tradition: which of the 613 commandments is the summary or foundation of all the others? The question is not inherently malicious — it is a legitimate theological question used as a test.

Matthew 22:36

And 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. The Deuteronomy 6:5 Shema response: love the Lord your God with everything you have — heart, soul, mind. The Shema is the foundation of Jewish devotion, the prayer recited twice daily. Jesus' selection of the Shema as the greatest commandment is the expected answer — and his pairing of it with Leviticus 19:18 is the unexpected addition.

Matthew 22:37

This is the great and first commandment. The great and first designation: the love of God is the foundational commandment, the one on which everything else hangs. The first communicates priority rather than mere sequence: this commandment precedes and undergirds all others.

Matthew 22:38

And a second is like it: you shall love your neighbor as yourself. The pairing of Deuteronomy 6:5 with Leviticus 19:18 — love God and love neighbor — is Jesus' distinctive summary of the law. The like it communicates the inseparability of the two commandments: the second is of the same character as the first, both being commands to love.

Matthew 22:39

On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets. The entirety of the Law and the Prophets — all of Scripture — depends on the two love commandments. Depends (kremantai, literally hangs) communicates that the two commandments are the structure from which everything else is suspended. Romans 13:9 says the law is summed up in this one command: love your neighbor as yourself. Galatians 5:14 says the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command.

Matthew 22:40

Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question. The counter-question: Jesus has answered three test questions; now he asks the Pharisees a question that they cannot answer. The question is not a test but an invitation: if they could answer correctly, they would understand who Jesus is.

Matthew 22:41

Saying: what do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he? They said to him: the son of David. The Christ's identity question is the same question Jesus asked his disciples at Caesarea Philippi (Matthew 16:15). The Pharisees' answer — the son of David — is correct as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough.

Matthew 22:42

He said to them: how is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying. The Psalm 110 counter-question: if the Christ is David's son, how does David in the Spirit call him Lord? The Spirit inspiration of David's psalm communicates the divine authority of the psalm's testimony about the Christ.

Matthew 22:43

The Lord said to my Lord: sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet? Psalm 110:1 — the most quoted Old Testament text in the New Testament — presents the Lord (YHWH) addressing my Lord (David's Lord) and inviting him to sit at the right hand of honor. David's Lord is the Christ — and David's descendant cannot be merely David's son if David calls him Lord.

Matthew 22:44

If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son? The logical conclusion: if David calls the Christ Lord, the Christ must be more than merely David's descendant. The question points to the divine sonship that Peter confessed (Matthew 16:16) and that the Sadducees' arguments implicitly denied: the Christ is both David's son (fully human, born in David's line) and David's Lord (fully divine, worshipped by David).

Matthew 22:45

And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions. The silence of all questioners communicates the completeness of Jesus' victory in the three controversy dialogues: the Pharisees, Herodians, and Sadducees have all been silenced; the three test questions have all been answered beyond objection. From that day no one dared to ask him more questions — the public confrontation strategy has failed.

Matthew 22:46

And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions. The repeated emphasis on the silence — this verse repeats the substance of verse 45 in Matthew's text — communicates the finality and completeness of the silencing. The opposition that will eventually arrest and crucify Jesus has no further arguments to make; they will resort to force rather than persuasion.