THE APOLOGETIC OF JESUS IN MATTHEW 22:41-46

THE APOLOGETIC OF JESUS IN MATTHEW 22:41-46 By Douglas E. Potter One important aspect of Matthew’s Gospel is to consider it as an apologetic1 for Jesus and thus Christianity. This study will devote attention to the meaning and significance of Matthew 22:41-46. This text is the climax in a series of controversy stories, or conflict sayings, in Matthew’s Gospel.2 The aim of this exegesis is to understand the conflict saying in the context of Jesus’ interaction with the Pharisees as recorded in Matthew’s Gospel. Particular emphasis is placed upon its apologetic value with respect to the Pharisees. The purpose of such a study is to gain a greater understanding of Jesus’ conflicts and apologetic work concerning the Pharisees. Connected to this is the desire to understand, in a larger context, his influence upon his disciples in their apologetic endeavors with the Jews. The approach is to place the passage in the proper context. This is accomplished in four steps. First, the general and specific context of the passage is explained in a narrative form. Second, a commentary is used to explain the meaning, historical background, and significant issues in the text. Third, the purpose of Matthew’s Gospel that has bearing on this passage is explored. Finally, some concluding suggestions and observations on Jesus’ apologetic are made. Exegesis General Context and Literary Form The outline assumed here for Matthew’s Gospel follows the work of Craig Blomberg 1The word apologetics comes from the Greek words apologeomia (ajpologeJomai) and apologia (ajpologiva). In the New Testament it concerns a defense in the form of a speech or some kind of reply. (see William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, trans. and ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2d ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 95f. 2Sherman Johnson, “Matthew,” in The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. VII, ed. by George A Buttrick (New York: Abigdon Press, 1951), 526. 1 who combines the work of Kinsbury and Bacon.3 Matthew is divided into three major sections: I. Introduction to Jesus’ Ministry (1:1-4:16), II. Jesus’ Ministry (4:17-16:20) and III. Climax of Jesus’ Ministry (16:21-28:20). The subsections from 4:17-25:46 follow a regular pattern that presents discourses (or sermons) followed by narrative. In 18:1-35 there is a discourse explaining what it means to be a disciple and follow Jesus’ example. This is followed by a section of narrative. As described by Blomberg, “Matthew 19:1-22:46 depicts Jesus literally on the road to Jerusalem, arriving there and teaching in word and deed about God’s impending judgment on that city.”4 The section containing 22:41-46 is clearly narrative concerning controversies Jesus encountered while around the temple court in Jerusalem (21:23-22:46). The classification of this literary form is most likely a conflict dialogue.5 Specific Context Before this controversy dialogue Jesus had made his final journey to Jerusalem (the only trip described in Matthew). Along the way he was engaging in dialogue with the Pharisees and a young man (19:3f., 16f.). In chapter 21 Jesus makes his triumphal entry into Jerusalem and his cleansing of the temple (21:1-13). During his triumphal entry people in the city asked “Who is this?” (21:10).6 The multitude, revealing how they understood Jesus at that time, responded, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee” (21:11). After his cleansing of the temple 3Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press), 22ff. 4Blomberg, Matthew, 25. 5According to Bultmann conflict dialogues are in the broader category of apophthegm (Gk “to utter forth”) in which “Mk. 12:35-37 (the question about who is David’s son) is a passage that does not appear in Mark in the form of a debate, but in Matt. 22:41-46, it becomes a controversy dialogue, in which, on this occasion, Jesus himself launches the attack.” Rudolf Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, Trans. by John Marsh (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Pub., 1963.), 51. 6All Scripture quotation taken from the New American Standard Bible, except were noted. 2 and his healing of two blind men, the chief priests and scribes saw what he had done (21:15). The next day Jesus returned to the city in the morning. When he had come to the temple, he was asked and challenged by Jewish religious leaders. The chief priests asked him, “By what authority are You doing these things, and who gave You this authority?” (21:23). Jesus spoke a parable in the presence of the chief priests and Pharisees that was speaking about them as killing the prophets God had sent, including his own Son (21:33-46). After another parable that compares the kingdom of heaven, four controversy stories proceed without interruption. “The Pharisees counseled together how they might trap Him [Jesus] in what He said.” (22:15). The Pharisees sent one of their disciples and a Herodian to ask Jesus, “What do you think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?” (22:17). On the same day Sadducees approached Jesus and tried to trap him in a dilemma. According to Moses, “If a man dies, having no children his brother as next of kin shall marry his wife, and raise up an offspring to his brother” (22:24). A man with seven brothers died. Each of his brothers, in turn, married his wife and died. “In the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven shall she be? For they all had her” (22:28). In both answers to these questions designed to trap Jesus, the multitudes first marveled (22:22) and then were astonished (22:34) at his teaching. Finally, the Pharisees, aware that Jesus had put the Sadducees to silence, gathered themselves together. One of them, a lawyer, tested Jesus. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” (22:36). Jesus answered them directly by quoting the law: “You shall love the lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets (22:37-40). These three questions are perhaps the most difficult questions Jesus had faced. Jesus, in his climactic controversy dialogue, reverses the flow of answering their questions by initiating his own question to the Pharisees. Commentary 3 Opening Narrative (v. 41) Now the Pharisees after having gathered, Jesus asked them saying,7 The Pharisees had gathered together a few times before (22:15, 34). They were nonetheless resilient to bounce back from another defeat and embarrassment to challenge Jesus again. After having been silenced and the crowds astonished on every other attempt to trap Jesus, they were perhaps desperate to pool their resources. They were desperate, perhaps, to find something that they could use against Jesus before his followers. The irritation by this time had grown to a climax. Why was there such irritation between Jesus and the Pharisees at this point? The Pharisees were a group of people that emerged after the Maccabean revolt. In the first century they numbered around 6,000 and exerted their greatest influence on the common people. In fact, most adherents were small landowners, shopkeepers, and artisans in towns. Their program was based upon the Torah, i.e., the five books of Moses and Tradition, which was how to interpret and apply the Torah. They gave divine authority not only to the Torah but also to their interpretations and applications.8 In contrast with the Pharisees, Jesus accepted the authority of the Torah, as well as the rest of the Old Testament, and did not give such authority to their interpretations (Mk. 6:56; 1:40-45; 14:12; 12:36). Jesus, therefore, had a very different interpretation and application at several points. For example, when Jesus healed on the Sabbath or plucked grain with his disciples he did not counter any Old Testament text. But he did run counter to the Pharisaic interpretation of the law. Jesus would justify such action on his messianic authority. This was a point the Pharisees refused to accept about Jesus and the point that Jesus forces them to consider in his question. Question (v 42a) “What are you thinking about the Christ? Whose son is he?” Notice that Jesus did not directly ask what the Pharisees thought about him. Jesus first 7Author’s own translation is used in the commentary headings. 8Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 480f. 4 asks them to consider the Christ (touÚ CristouÚ). The use of the definite article clarifies that Jesus is referring to the Messiah (cf. Matt. 2:4) and not just any anointed person. Immediately he follows with a particular question concerning the descendent, i.e., son (uJiovß). Jesus is asking from whom will the Christ come? The question posed by Jesus to the Pharisees reveals the true issue they need to deal with. They had avoided the question and the evidence concerning Jesus being the true Messiah. This was simply because Jesus, a man from Nazareth, did not fit their preconceived notions concerning the Messiah of Israel. It is true that according to modern scholarship “there was no single, monolithic and uniform ‘messianic expectation’ among first-century Jews.”9 Nonetheless, some things can be known, with caution, about first century messianic hopes. New Testament scholar N. T. Wright identifies a few features of messianic expectations in the first century.10 First, focus was generally on the nation and not any one particular individual. Second, under certain circumstances it was focused on an individual. Third, Davidic descendent was not a fixed notion and the idea of two Messiahs was not viewed as contradictory. Fourth, the main task of the Messiah was to liberate Israel and reinstate them as the true people of God. Fifth, the Messiah was seen as the agent of Israel’s God. As Wright notes, This must be clearly distinguished from any suggestion that he is in himself a transcendent figure, existing in some supernatural mode before making his appearance in space and time. . . . Certainly there is no reason to hypothesize any widespread belief that the coming Messiah would be anything other than an ordinary human being called by Israel’s god to an extraordinary task.11 And sixth, the Messiah in no way was expected to suffer. These things clearly differ with the view of a divine Messiah pointed out by Jesus and yet fit the naturalistic understanding expressed by the Pharisees in this passage (see below). 9N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992), 307. 10Ibid., p319-320. 11Ibid., 320. 5 Answer (42b) They say to him, “[son] of David.” The Pharisees, at first, might have thought, “What a simple question!” and thus, gave Jesus an answer without hesitation or need to reason among themselves as they did concerning Jesus’ counter question about John the Baptist (21:25-26). Perhaps the immediacy of their answer is explained by the fact that the Hebrew and Septuagint Bibles were so frequently read and heard by the Jews, especially Pharisees. Certainly, a prominent part of these readings included the promise made to David (2 Sam. 7:4-29; cf. 1 Kgs. 3:6; 8:23-26) which was celebrated in the Psalms (Pss. 2, 89, 110). There are also numerous references concerning the Davidic origin of the Messiah.12 Some have even suggested that the Pseudepigrapha Psalms of Solomon was a Pharisaic work.13 If this is true, then the answer can be found in their own writings, See, Lord, and raise up for them their king, the son of David, to rule over your servant Israel in the time known to you, O God (Ps. Sol. 17:21)14 Counter Question (v 43) He [Jesus] says to them, “How therefore is David in the Spirit calling him Lord saying, Next, Jesus responds with a counter question. This is something he uses frequently in his dialogues with religious leaders (cf. 22:18-20). Jesus, in this counter question, sets up the authority by which he is going to make his point. Assumed by Jesus is the traditional authorship and inspiration of his quotation from the Old Testament, a point denied by many modern liberal critics. Yet, in view of the Pharisaic acceptance of divine inspiration of the Old Testament, it is perhaps a reminder of its inspiration 12See also 2 Sam. 7:11-15; 22:51; Ps. 18:50; 89; Isa. 9:6-7; 11:1-9; 16:5; Jer. 23:5-6; 30:8-9; 33:15, 17, 22; Ezek. 34:23-24; 37:24; Hos. 3:5; Amos 9:11. 13N. T. Wright suggests that this idea, though not as widely held among scholars today, has not yet been disproved (ibid., 312, see also note 94). 14See also Qumran literature (1QS 9:11; 1 Qsa 2:14, 20; CD 20:1). 6 or an emphasis of what David said as opposed to their traditions about the Messiah. It clearly adds force to Jesus’ overall point that they should understand the Scriptures concerning the Messiah because they are words inspired by God’s Spirit. Some have also believed it was an acknowledgment of the superscript for Psalm 109 in the LXX “A Psalm of David” (Yalmo;ß twÆ÷ Dauivd) and Hebrew text. Regardless, it is certainly reminiscent of David’s own view of his writings, “The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, and his word was upon my tongue” (LXX 2 Kgs. 23:2; cf. 2 Sam. 23:2). David certainly had the skill in poetry and music to write such Psalms. This is recognized in the Old Testament15 as well as the works of Josephus, Rabbinic literature and the Apocrypha. Scripture Quotation (v 44) ‘Lord said to my lord you sit at my right until I make your enemies under your feet?’ Jesus gives an almost exact quotation from the LXX.16 Psalm 110 is generally understood to be a royal psalm because of its king motif. Yet, debate exists over its historical context. That is, does David refer to someone in his time or is he only referring to the coming divine Messiah?17 Most important here is to understand how Jesus can use this text in reference to a divine Messiah, i.e., Himself, without violating the original meaning of Psalm 110. If David is referring to an earthly king, in his own time, some suggest that the most likely candidate is his son, Solomon. Under this view the Psalm was written by David when Solomon ascended to the Davidic throne in 971 B.C.18 In other words, “the phrase ‘to my lord’ apparently indicates that 15See 1 Sam. 16:15-23; 2 Sam. 1:17-27; 3:33; 6:5; 23:1-7; 1 Chron. 23:5; Neh 12:36; Amos 6:5. 16The only difference being the use of the improper preposition uJpokavtw (“under your feet”) as opposed to LXX uÓpopovdion (“footstool”). These terms were commonly exchanged in Greek because of their similarity, influence of Ps. 8:6 and relationship of ideas. 17See articles by Elliott E. Johnson, “Hermeneutical Principles and the Interpretation of Psalm 110,” Bliotheca Sacra 149 (Oct 1992) and Herbert W. Bateman, “Psalm 110:1 and the New Testament,” Bliotheca Sacra 149 (Oct 1992). 18Bateman, Psalm 110:1,” 451. 7 David was directing this oracle from Yahweh to a human lord, instead of the divine messianic Lord or to himself.”19 But if such is the case, and David is not referring to a divine Messiah, how can anyone in the New Testament use this Psalm to refer to a divine Messiah, i.e., Jesus? This question persists, however, only if David’s referent is exclusively an earthly king. If David’s referent is the divine Messiah, then no problem exists. If David’s referent is an earthly king, then the solution must lie in understanding that biblical prophecy can have only one meaning but can have duel (or multiple) applications. Jesus, or an author of a New Testament book, does not reinterpret in such a way as to change the meaning of the text. Instead, the meaning is extended or applied differently. In this case, it involves the Lord (Yahweh) speaking to another lord of David (i.e., his son in whose line the Messiah will come). The application, or use, could be understood to be Yahweh speaking to a human king in David’s time. And a different application could legitimately be made by Jesus to refer to Yahweh speaking to David’s Lord, the divine Messiah who must come through his line. Hence, both a dual application (not meaning) and a direct Messianic prophecy may support Jesus’ point that David called him (Messiah) Lord. However, as will be shown below, a direct Messianic prophecy interpretation does seem to make Jesus’ point stronger. Finally, what does it mean for the lord to sit at my right until I make your enemies under your feet? The right hand was a place of the highest honor and authority that the lord would be at until all of his enemies are defeated. Climactic Question (v 45) If therefore David is saying to him Lord, how is he his son?” The Pharisees, to say the least, are in a dilemma. They have admitted that the Messiah is to be the son of David. And here, David under inspiration of the Holy Spirit calls the Messiah Lord. How can David speak of the Messiah as Lord if he is his descendent?20 Jesus’ point does 19Ibid., 449. 20Contrary to Bultman, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 136-137, Jesus is not denying that the Messiah is David’s son. As pointed out earlier, Jesus is showing that the Messiah must be more than David’s son. 8 suggest, and rest on, the notion that David’s referent was the divine Messiah. This would indeed make Psalm 110 a direct Messianic prophecy as opposed to an indirect application. Making this refer to the divine Messiah is still in keeping with David’s original meaning. That is, David’s utterance implies that the Messiah must be more than human. This is the point Jesus expected the Pharisees, and other religious leaders, to know. It is almost as if Jesus is scolding them for not knowing that the Messiah is the God (Lord) - man (son of David). At least they should have known it in the words of the Old Testament; that the Messiah would be both the offshoot and root of David (Isa. 11:1, 10). Further, Jesus here applies the text to the divine Messiah, thus giving divine authority to this application and extension. It is Jesus’ use of this text that influenced other authors of the New Testament to use the same argument thus making Psalm 110 the chapter most often quoted in the New Testament. In further defense of this view, there is a legitimate background to Jesus’ point. David applied a Hebrew construction of the name for God Yahweh (yhwh) that always refers to God and the title “Lord” (adonai) to speak of the Messiah. This expression is commonly used in the Psalms to refer to Yahweh (Ps. 8:1).21 The LXX expresses a similar pun by placing the titles side by side (Ei\pen kuvrioß twÆ÷ kurivw÷ mou, lit. “He said lord to lord my”).22 If that is the case, then David is giving the same title to the Messiah that he is giving to God. He could have given the Messiah a different title, e.g., king, but he did not. He is in effect ascribing the same allegiance to the Messiah, his descendent, that is reserved only for God (yhwh). There may also be a connection between this passage and the previous one (Matt. 22:3540). In the previous controversy dialogue, Jesus answered with the great commandment: “You shall love the lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” 21Robert L. Alden, Word no. 27b “’ādôn” in R. Laird Harris et al. eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1980.), 12f. 22This pun also exists if translated back into Aramaic, “The Mar (Lord) said to my Mar (Lord).” 9 (22:37 Italics added). Jesus may also be making the point that the same allegiance of one’s whole being given to God as lord should also be given to the Messiah. Thus, allegiance due to God is also due to the Messiah. The logical outworking of this point is that the Messiah must be “Immanuel” or “God with us” (Matt. 1:23). But Jesus does not explicitly state the logical connection of his point nor does he identify himself as the “Lord.” Instead, he leaves the Pharisees to ponder the title “Lord,” especially how David used it and how he just used it in citing the law (22:37). How could the Pharisees have responded to this dilemma? They could have responded in only three ways. First, they could deny that this passage refers to the Messiah. But they just previously admitted that the Messiah is David’s son and who else would David give the same allegiance that is due only to God? Second, they could have denied Jesus’ application that “my lord” applied to a divine Messiah. They might argue that it can only be applied to a human descendent of David (e.g., Solomon). This response would escape the dilemma. However, had they taken this route, they would have opened the door to any descendent in the line of David to claim to be the Messiah.23 Such a claim would only need proof. Thus, they would have opened the door for Jesus to claim that he is the human descendent David spoke about. Even more, the miracles of Jesus they had witnessed would serve as evidence of God’s blessing upon his ministry. Therefore, since neither option was open to them they took the third route: silence! In the end, they conceded Jesus point. Closing Narrative (v 46) And no one was being able to answer him a word, no one dared from that day to ask him any longer. This is perhaps Matthew’s conclusion to the four continuous conflict sayings presented in chapter twenty-two. In almost all of Jesus conflict sayings the Pharisees, or religious leaders, are left as making no further response. If the analysis of Jesus’ argument above is correct, then it is 23It would also open the debate concerning the proper interpretation of Psalm 110. The fact that they did not respond does suggest that they at least conceded Jesus’ interpretation. 10 easy to see why they were not able to answer him. Jesus’ argument or apologetic was very strong. And the dilemma his opposition found themselves in was quite difficult to escape. Considering the number of times Jesus gave an answer to the Pharisees and the reaction of the crowd that approved of Jesus with astonishment, there is no wonder a point came at which the Pharisees ceased to pursue dialogue with Jesus. Instead, their strategy changed to a plot as to how they could get rid of him. Matthew indicates that nobody asked him any questions from that day on. It is almost as if they were afraid to ask him any questions. Matthew says no one dared (ejtovlmhsevn means “dare, have the courage, be brave enough”)24 to ask him. Immediately after this passage Jesus goes into his discourse concerning his warnings against the Pharisees. There is no further question, accept at his trial, asked by any antagonists of Jesus. And there is no further direct question from the Pharisees. A few comments about the use of this conflict saying in the other Synoptic Gospels seem to be appropriate (Mk. 12:35-37a, Lk. 20:41-44). While a complete analysis of the relation of this passage and current theories of how the Synoptic Gospels developed is not possible, a few significant things can be noted. First, concerning the context of each parallel passage, Mark, Matthew and Luke seem to be describing the same event. Mark also has the four conflict sayings in the same order as Matthew. Luke only includes the question of the Sadducees and does not have the great commandment passage. Mark indicates that this saying occurred “in the temple.” Matthew and Luke do not indicate where it occurred. Mark, interestingly, says that no one asked him any questions after Jesus answered with the great commandment (Mk. 12:34b). This obviously does not contradict Matthew, because this is an instance when Jesus asked the Pharisees a question. Second, there is nothing in any of the synoptic parallel passages that contains a contradiction. Mark and Luke both have shorter versions than Matthew, yet they include small 24Arndt, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 821. 11 details that are unique to their version. Examples include Jesus, in Mark, asking “How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?” Mark also adds “Holy” (aJgivw)÷ to Spirit. Luke adds the reference to the “Book of Psalms” but leaves out that David spoke in the Spirit. These, nonetheless, are minor differences and common idiosyncrasies to diverse accounts concerning the same event. Additionally, the possibility of Jesus using this argument on a number of different occasions should not be discounted. Any itinerant teacher or debater can use the same argument or point before different crowds even if addressing the same opponent, (i.e., the Pharisees) at different times. Relation to the Purpose of Matthew’s Gospel Most will assume that Matthew wrote his Gospel to meet the needs of believers in his own area.25 Matthew may well have had several purposes for writing his Gospel. Carson suggests that Matthew’s purpose is to show that “Jesus is the promised Messiah, the son of David, the son of God, the Son of Man, Immanuel, the one to whom the Old Testament points.”26 Our text certainly would support such a purpose because it attempts to show not only who Jesus is (Son of David) but what he must be like (Divine). Yet, another purpose emerges when the historical background is examined. Craig Blomberg explains that, Matthew’s church has recently been severed from the synagogue; but its predominantly Jewish members remain in frequent, vigorous, and sometimes polemical dialogue with their non-Christian Jewish families and friends.27 If this situation existed, then Matthew may very well have been motivated to write his Gospel so that it included and recalled a number of instances where Jesus answered the questions of the 25D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1992.), 79. 26Ibid., 81. 27Blomberg, Matthew, 35. 12 religious Jewish leaders of his day. In fact, Matthew’s Gospel no less than eight times must answer the charges or questions of the Pharisees.28 As Blomberg suggests, The Gospel then reinforces Christian faith and encourages Matthew’s audience to stand fast in their allegiance to Christ despite the hostilities they incur as a result. But it also gives them more “apologetic ammunition” as they seek to win others to their convictions and loyalties.29 In the passage considered, Matthew gives a bit more detail and argumentation than either Mark or Luke. This might suggest that Matthew is more concerned with an apologetic purpose. Regardless, conflict sayings played a significant role in achieving Matthew’s purpose for writing his Gospel. Conclusion From this analysis, and others that could be given on other conflict sayings, there is little doubt that Jesus was an apologist concerning who he was and what he did and taught. Apologetics was something Jesus gave great weight to in his meetings with opponents. He could have ignored them, walked away or denounced them, but instead he gave them a reasoned answer. However, as evidenced here, Jesus also went on the offensive and asked his own important questions. Jesus made his case in the form of questions that drove a thinking person to consider the dilemma his own view created with respect to the Scriptures. As in this instance, he used knowledge of his opponent’s views to bring them to the realization of truth. No doubt Jesus’ complete apologetic did not rest upon arguments alone. He preached the gospel, taught and performed many miracles as well. All of this combined clearly won Jesus a following. Jesus even had success with some of the Pharisees. At least some, in secret, believed (Jn. 20:38-39). This more than likely influenced his closest disciples who passed on Jesus’ apologetic to later Christians. These Christians, likewise, used and adapted Jesus’ apologetic to their situation as 28Matt. 9:11; 12:2, 24, 38; 15:2; 16:1; 19:3; 22:36. 29Blomberg, Matthew, 35. 13 evidenced even in the New Testament use of Psalm 110.30 If apologetics was a significant part of Christ’s ministry, than how much more should it be a part of today’s ministries? Christians today, in a Christlike manner, should meet (defensively and offensively) the challenges that oppose and resist the absolute truth of the Christian Faith (1 Pet. 3:15; Jude 3). 30Acts 2:34-35; Rom. 2:5; 8:34; 11:29; 1 Cor. 15:25; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, 13; 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:3, 11, 15, 17, 21; 8:1; 10:12-13; 12:2. 14