Matthew 22:15–46
15 Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his words. 16 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.1 17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius.2 20 And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” 21 They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” 22 When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away.
23 The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question, 24 saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother. 26 So too the second and third, down to the seventh. 27 After them all, the woman died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her.”
29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 32 ‘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.” 33 And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching.
34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 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. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, 42 saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.” 43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying,
44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at my right hand,
until I put your enemies under your feet”’?
45 If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” 46 And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions.
1 Greek for you do not look at people’s faces 2 A denarius was a day’s wage for a laborer
Section Overview
After Jesus raises Lazarus, John records how the priests and Pharisees worry that “everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” The solution, they resolve, is to kill him (John 11:45–57). But the crowds adore Jesus and judge him to be a prophet. In Matthew 22:15–40 Israel’s leaders put questions to Jesus designed either to trap him and diminish his popularity (vv. 15–22) or to give themselves more grounds to oppose him (vv. 23–40).
Matthew organizes the events of Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem into several blocks. First, Jesus enters the city and judges the temple (21:1–27). Second, he relates three parables that diagnose Israel’s condition (21:28–44). The chief priests and Pharisees understand that his parables label their sin, yet instead of repenting they resolve to arrest Jesus (21:45–46). But first, they seek to “entangle him” in their questions (22:15–46).
Section Outline
VII.C. Jewish Leaders Question Jesus (22:15–46)
1. Taxes for Caesar (22:15–22)
2. Marriage in the Resurrection (22:23–33)
3. The Greatest Commandment (22:34–40)
4. The Son of David (22:41–45)
5. Conclusion: The Questioners Silenced (22:46)
Matthew 22:15–46 is a series of four controversy dialogues of moderate length. The structure of the first two controversies is identical; the last two are reasonably similar. The dialogues include six elements: an identification of the questioner, an address to the one questioned, a question, a rejoinder from the one questioned, an answer, and a response from the questioner.
David Daube asserts that the four questions fit four types of inquiry found in rabbinic traditions. The question about taxes is “wisdom,” or the right interpretation of a legal text. The question about the resurrection is “vulgarity,” or the ridicule of a belief. The question about the greatest commandment is “the way of the land,” or a moral question. Jesus’ question is “legend,” or the interpretation of texts with apparent contradictions. Jewish readers might see that Jesus masters every form of debate.
Scholars appeal to passages such as verses 15–46 when they argue for literary dependence among the Synoptics. Here Matthew and Mark record the same questions in the same order, with similar wording.
TABLE 1.5: Four Controversy Dialogues in Matthew 22:15–46
|
Text
|
Group Asking
|
Address
|
Question Topic
|
Rejoinder
|
Answer
|
Response
|
|
vv. 15–22
|
Pharisees, Herodians
|
Teacher
|
Paying taxes
|
Why test me?
|
Give to Caesar
|
All marvel
|
|
vv. 23–33
|
Sadducees
|
Teacher
|
The resurrection
|
You don’t know the power of God
|
I am the God of Abraham . . .
|
All astonished
|
|
vv. 34–40
|
Pharisees, a lawyer
|
Teacher
|
Greatest command
|
—
|
Love the Lord, love your neighbor
|
—
|
|
vv. 41–46
|
Jesus
|
—
|
The Christ is the son of whom?
|
Then explain these Scriptures
|
The Son of David
|
No one dares to question Jesus
|
Response
The dictum “Render to Caesar . . . and to God” teaches disciples to give civil authorities their due. Disciples obey whenever possible, pay taxes, and grant authorities the respect due to their office, even if they are not personally respectable (Rom. 13:1–7; 1 Pet. 2:13–17). But emperors, kings, and (later) powerful states tend to deify themselves, to make promises and demand loyalty in forms appropriate to God rather than men (Revelation 13). The triune God deserves worship and absolute obedience; men do not. Therefore, the church needs the limiting command, “Render . . . to God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21). This calls for discernment.
Readers may pause briefly to notice Jesus’ strategy during conflict. As usual, he refuses to answer a hostile question directly. By posing a superior counterquestion, he reclaims and recasts the agenda. He also manages to tell the truth, doing so in a winsome, captivating way without causing unnecessary offense.
Response
This passage conveys great truths. First, the Lord eternally is the God of his people. He knows them forever. Second, he grants believers life after death, a life manifesting both continuity and discontinuity with this life (John 20–21). But when Jesus appears to announce the end of marriage, it raises questions.
The end of marriage, not to mention sexual fulfillment, troubles people. Does that mean relationships, even memories, from our first life will be lost? Jesus does not say so. More likely, marriage ends not because intimate relationships cease but because they proliferate. Because humans are prone to betray or mishandle secrets, they hesitate to reveal their sacred thoughts. If broken trust is common, wariness is sound policy. But when sin perishes, all relationships become safe. The trust that is currently unique to marriage and the strongest friendships will be universal. On earth our intimate thoughts, not just our bodies, are rightly private. But, Peter Kreeft says, “In Heaven, we share each other’s secrets without shame, and voluntarily. In the Communion of Saints, promiscuity of spirit is a virtue.” This would be why marriage ends. Further, if procreation ceases, the need for marriage disappears, especially if, per classic Catholic teaching, procreation is the prime goal of marital intercourse.
Still, there will be sexes forever, since men will be men and women will be women forever, in both soul and body. Since humans are a psychosomatic unity, masculinity and femininity permeate both body and soul. Since sexual differentiation is the Creator’s design, not a social convention, it must endure. Paul’s word “in Christ Jesus . . . there is no male and female” (Gal. 3:26–28) applies to soteriology, not ontology. Individuals have a pervasive essence or tincture of maleness or femaleness, all the way through. In this sense, relationships continue to be sexual.
But will sexual intercourse be a feature of the new creation? Since the redeemed will have physical bodies, male and female, it is possible. Following Kreeft, we can exclude certain reasons for intercourse in the new creation: biological urges, the sealing of marriage, procreation. Kreeft affirms that one valid reason might remain: “the desire to express personal love.” Yet he judges this unlikely, since he expects “more adequate ways to express love than the clumsy ecstasy of fitting two bodies together.” Further, “even the most satisfying earthly intercourse between spouses cannot perfectly express all their love.” He proposes an analogy: “If the possibility of intercourse in Heaven is not actualized, it is only for the same reason earthly lovers do not eat candy during intercourse: there is something much better to do. . . . Candy is one of children’s greatest pleasures; how can they conceive a pleasure so intense that it renders candy irrelevant?” So Kreeft expects no sexual union because there will be better forms of union, better ways to express love, and higher pleasures, even if we cannot imagine them.
People ask similar questions about beloved pleasures: Will the new creation include golf and kayaking? Ice cream and guacamole? New music and inventions? Will there be sleep or competition not from compulsion but from delight? If the Lord wills them for our good and his glory, then yes. If not, we will not miss them, since he will grant higher joys. There can be no sense of grief or loss, for we will be satisfied in the new creation, experienced less as reward than as the home God has created for us.As for details, remember that the Sadducees failed to extrapolate from this life to the next. Hear Paul: “No eye has seen, . . . nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Cor. 2:9).
Response
The first commandment directs us to love the Lord: not to serve or to obey or to fear God, although these all have merit, but to love him. Jesus names love because nothing but our free and willing service fully pleases him. “God disdains the forced services of men, and chooses to be worshiped freely and willingly.” So the man, woman, or child who comes to obey God must love him first. Jonathan Edwards agrees, making religious affections the core of the believer’s life. True faith is grounded in love: faith works through love (Gal. 5:6) and proves itself in acts of love (1 John 3:16–18). The letters and diaries of the Continental Army can give the impression that nothing but universal affection for Washington sustained that fight force. Far more does God’s love for the church, and its answering love for him, sustain the church.
Interpreters must remember both theory and practice. Theoretically, we realize that we can neither understand nor obey God’s commandments apart from love. The commandments teach how to love God and man. Any interpretation of the law that dishonors God or wounds man is certainly erroneous. Concretely however, one must remember that it is easier to love a neighbor understood as a concept than it is to love the repulsive person next door.
Response
Misconceptions about the Messiah are a prime source of the Pharisees’ hostility toward him (envy plays a role too). But whereas Israel’s leaders ask difficult questions designed to trap Jesus, he asks a difficult question to liberate them, if they would but listen. Their questions are hostile; his question leads to truth and grace. But they reject that path, and the transition to chapters 23 and 26 becomes inevitable.
Jesus’ question might befuddle the Pharisees, but Matthew does not leave his readers in the dark. Chapters 1–3 have already identified Jesus as the Son of Abraham, the Son of David, and the Anointed One (1:1). But he has more roles, deeper roles. He is begotten of the Spirit, Immanuel, and God’s beloved Son (1:20, 23; 3:17). He is the Redeemer, King, and Shepherd of Israel (1:21; 2:2, 6). It is beautiful when the faithful read the Scriptures, looking to learn more of the Christ, to believe him more deeply and love him more completely.
Greek for you do not look at people’s faces
A denarius was a day’s wage for a laborer
22:15–22 Jesus and Caesar. The Pharisees “plot” the best way “to entangle” Jesus in his talk (v. 15). They send “their disciples . . . with the Herodians.” The Herodians support the Herodian dynasty and Roman rule. “Pharisees and Herodians” make a strange group, since the Pharisees are purists and separatists, whereas the Herodians seek power and privilege through alliance with Rome and its puppet kings. Nothing unites them but a common antipathy for Jesus. But if the Pharisees can ask a question that elicits an answer that sounds subversive to the Herodians, perhaps they can rid themselves of their troublesome prophet.
They begin with a polite title and flattery: “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” (v. 16). Whatever their motives, the Pharisees and Herodians accurately praise Jesus in four ways in short compass, as “sincere, faithful to the truth, fearless, and no respecter of persons.” The Greek for Morris’s term “fearless” (ou melei soi peri oudenos) might be translated “you do not care about anyone” or “no one matters to you.” Jesus refuses to adjust his teaching to please one person or to avoid offending another. The final phrase, “you are not swayed by appearances” is literally “you do not see the face of men.” Even his enemies notice that he is courageous and uncompromising, and they decide to use it against him, hoping to entice him to make a politically self-incriminating comment before the Herodians, who would tell Herod. They ask, “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” (v. 17).
The tax in view is the head tax (kēnson), despised less for its cost (normally a denarius, a good day’s wage) than for its nature. It was a fee Israelites paid Rome for living in their own land. “Lawful” may mean they want Jesus to declare if payment of the tax to Gentiles violates biblical law, which Deuteronomy 17:15 could imply.
The Pharisees and Herodians surely think they have constructed a fine dilemma. However Jesus answers their question, he will lose status. If he says to pay the tax, he will lose credit with the people, who detest it and suspect it to be illicit. If he says not to pay the tax, the Roman authorities might arrest or even execute him for sedition. Both parties stand ready to pounce, the Pharisees protesting if he says to pay, since it would signal collaboration with Rome, and the Herodians if he says not to, since that would signal rebellion against Rome.
But Jesus detects “their malice” and asks, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites?” (Matt. 22:18). He counters, “Show me the coin for the tax.” When they bring him a denarius, he asks, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” (vv. 19–20).
“Caesar’s,” they admit. Jesus concludes, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (v. 21).
By asking a counterquestion (as he often does), Jesus recasts the debate. By asking to see the coin used for the tax, Jesus puts the proper topics in play. Coins are laden with information. They bear the images of leaders and terse mottos.
Notice first that they produce the coin. Coins were part of the Roman system; technically the emperor owned them. Israelites accepted this (perhaps unwillingly) when they used coins. Like Roman roads and aqueducts, coins were useful, since they eased commerce. On the other hand, the coin in question, the silver denarius of Tiberius, bore offensive inscriptions. One side read, “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, son of the Divine Augustus.” If Emperor Tiberius is the son of a divine Caesar, then he is divine. The reverse side had the inscription “Pontifex Maximus,” or high priest. So the coin supported homage or worship of the emperor. While the Romans excused Jews from emperor worship, Jesus still calls for discernment when he says, “Render to Caesar.” When Caesar provides water, roads, and coins, those who receive those benefits should render Rome its due. The verb translated “render” is apodidōmi, which means to give, pay, or repay (v. 21). By using apodidōmi rather than the generic word for paying the tax (didōmi), Jesus hints that payment of taxes returns to Caesar what is his.
One should give the state its due by paying taxes, showing respect, and obeying valid laws. Yet the Roman state, like many others, glorified itself (Rev. 13:1–5). God’s people resist idolatry and grant God the reverence, loyalty, and obedience he deserves (Matt. 22:21). So Jesus slips the trap and offers positive instruction besides. The crowds marvel, and the Pharisees and Herodians leave in defeat.
22:23–33 Marriage in the Resurrection. After the Pharisees finish testing Jesus, the Sadducees try their hand (v. 23). The Sadducees “say that there is no resurrection” and ask a question designed to make resurrection look ridiculous. Like the Pharisees, they begin respectfully: “Teacher . . .” They cite the law that specifies “If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother” (v. 24). Deuteronomy 25:5–6 (also Gen. 38:8–9) says the widow’s first son “shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out.”
The Sadducees imagine seven futile attempts to fulfill the command. A family has seven brothers. The first marries a woman and dies childless; all seven brothers attempt to raise up a child, but each dies childless and is succeeded by another until all die childless. The Sadducees ask, “In the resurrection . . . whose wife will she be?” (Matt. 22:25–28).
The hypothetical is probably a fiction designed to confound belief in the resurrection. Still, if a woman has seven husbands in this life, will she have seven in the next or be separated from six of them? The tale falsely assumes that future life closely resembles this life.
Jesus tells the Sadducees that they have deceived themselves (Gk. planasthe, taken reflexively) because they “know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God” (v. 29). First, there is a resurrection of the just (v. 30; Luke 14:14; John 11:25–26). Isaiah 26:19 declares, “Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise. . . . The earth will give birth to the dead.” Job 19:25–27 exults, “I know that my Redeemer lives. . . . And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God.”
The Sadducees underestimate God’s power to raise the dead and to renew creation. When the forms of this world perish, the faithful will inhabit a perfect home, free from sin, frustration, pain, or tears (1 Cor. 7:31; Rev. 21:4, 8). But marriage as currently known will end. “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matt. 22:30). This requires explication. First, in that culture, men “married” by taking a wife and women were “given in marriage” by their fathers. To be (overly) precise, therefore, verse 30 says that there will be no more weddings, not that marriage will cease. Still, no weddings implies no marriage.
Second, “like angels” does not mean people will be disembodied and sexless. Scripture reveals more about the functions of angels than it does about their essence. In Scripture, the form of angels varies. They can take human form (Gen. 18:2–22; Luke 24:4), although they may be radiant (Matt. 28:3), or invisible (Num. 22:31; 2 Kings 6:17). All have male names or pronouns. Since this passage affirms that angels do not marry and implies no reproduction, it seems that humans will likewise do neither in the resurrection.
Still, third, there will be a “new world” (palingenesia; Matt. 19:28). When God regenerates and perfects creation (2 Pet. 3:11–13), there will be a measure of continuity with this life. There will be music and praise to God (Rev. 5:9; 15:3); there will be food, for we will feast with Jesus (Matt. 8:11; Rev. 19:9). People will be liberated, satisfied, and well rested (Rom. 8:18–23; Heb. 4:1–11).
The Sadducees miss all this because they deny the authority of all but the Pentateuch—and misread that too. “Have you not read . . . ?” (Matt. 22:31; cf. 12:3; 19:4) rebukes careless reading, not lack of reading. Jesus corrects them by plumbing Exodus 3:6 (from their canon) and locating proof that God, in his faithfulness, did not let the patriarchs die. God says, “I am”—not “I was”—“the God of Abraham,” Isaac, and Jacob (Matt. 22:32). If the Lord is Abraham’s God, then Abraham is alive and God preserves believers beyond the decades of this first life and continually keeps all his promises to them.
When the crowds hear this, they are “astonished” (v. 33), for Jesus has outwitted the Sadducees. Luke reports how some of the scribes even say, “Teacher, you have spoken well” (20:39). Neither astonishment nor quick compliments count as faith, but recognition of Jesus’ skill and authority might be a step in that direction.
22:34–40 The Greatest Commandment. When the Pharisees hear that Jesus has silenced the Sadducees, they test him with another question. A “lawyer,” an expert in both law and theology, politely asks, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” (vv. 34–36). The rabbis discussed this question, some arguing for love, others for obedience to parents, so it was inevitable that some would disagree with Jesus, whatever he said. But the trap goes deeper. God gave Israel ten commandments and, by tradition, Jews count 603 more. No matter which law Jesus calls the greatest, he could be accused of slighting the rest.
Twice recently, Jesus has refused to answer direct questions from authorities. Instead, he has answered questions with questions (21:23–27; 22:15–22). He thereby reclaims the agenda and avoids snares. But this time the question is worthy, even if the motives are not, so Jesus answers directly: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment” (vv. 37–38). This answer quotes Deuteronomy 6:5, with slight variations (see next paragraph). Pious Jews recite Deuteronomy 6:5 daily. It is manifestly a climactic statement. In its original context, Moses has just reviewed the covenant between God and Israel, including the Decalogue (Deut. 4:1–5:21). Moses then introduces the command with “Hear, O Israel” (Deut. 6:3–4), followed by a call to remember it (Deut. 6:7–15).
The command summons the redeemed to love God with every faculty. Deuteronomy names heart, soul, and might. Matthew 22:37 says heart, soul, and mind, while Luke 10:27 and Mark 12:30 list heart, soul, mind, and strength. To ask if Jesus said, “mind,” “strength,” or “mind and strength” misses the point. Jesus summons disciples to love God with their essential being—the heart—and with every faculty: mental, physical, and emotional. The heart represents core values and commitments; the mind signifies thoughts and plans. There is no Hebrew word for “mind,” and the OT often uses the Hebrew term “heart” to speak of the place where thinking happens. Thus the addition of “mind” could be a natural translation when the Hebrew is brought into Greek. Strength is energy in body and will. One could add every other human capacity: emotions, memory, humor, creativity.
The lawyer asks Jesus to name the greatest commandment, and it could seem that Jesus strays by naming two laws, not one. Yet, as Jesus says, the two hang together. First John 4:19–21 notes that love of God necessarily instills love of neighbor: “Whoever loves God must also love his brother.” Love of God is the enduring motive for love of neighbor. Further, whoever loves God adopts his vision of the world. Such a person sees his fellow man as God does and treats him as Jesus would.
The Law and the Prophets “depend” on love of God and neighbor (Matt. 22:40), but love does not abrogate other laws, for there is no conflict between them. Justice and faithfulness are weightier, but a lighter command such as tithing teaches one how to love God (23:23). Love has primacy within the law, not over the law. It is the greatest, but not the only, command. Even when love outweighs regulations—such as those related to the Sabbath, for example (12:1–8)—love and Sabbath are not opposed. Rather, Sabbath laws, properly practiced, promote love of God and mankind. So love for neighbor and obedience to law cohere, as the Sabbath offers true rest, including freedom to meet human needs on the Sabbath. Genuine love and obedience cohere. The law teaches God’s children how to love. They love him through worship and the right use of his name. They love their neighbors by honoring their parents, protecting life, respecting marriage and property, telling the truth to and about neighbors, and willing their good rather than coveting their goods.
22:41–46 David’s Son. Once Jesus’ brilliant answers lead the Pharisees to abandon hope of trapping him, he puts a question to them (v. 41), a theological riddle reaching one root of their conflict. Their defective notions about the Messiah (along with their envy) has led to strife between them and Jesus. Jesus asks, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” That is, from what great person is the Messiah descended? They give the standard answer, “the son of David” (v. 42). This rests on well-known texts: 2 Samuel 7:12–14; Isaiah 11:1–10; Jeremiah 23:5. The standard is true, but incomplete, for the Messiah is more than a Davidic king, as Jesus shows.
If the Messiah is David’s son, Jesus asks, then why does David, “in the Spirit,” call him “Lord” (Matt. 22:43)? How could David say, “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.’” (v. 44, citing Ps. 110:1)? The question is effective because the Pharisees accept Jesus’ premises: David wrote Psalm 110, as God’s Spirit led him. Further, many Jews understood Psalm 110 to be messianic. The question, to paraphrase, is this: “How could David, in a messianic psalm, say the Lord, the God of Israel, spoke to someone whom David calls ‘my Lord’? Further, the Lord told David’s Lord to sit at his right hand, in a position of authority next to his own. How do you explain that?”
Who is this “Lord of David” who has such authority? Why did King David, by God’s Spirit, predict the coming of one whose reign would exceed his own? He would sit at God’s right hand until God vanquished his enemies (Ps. 110:1; Matt. 22:44). He would have a “mighty scepter” until he ruled his enemies (Ps. 110:2). How, Jesus asks, could David call this person “Lord” if he is David’s son (Matt. 22:45)? Moreover, this Lord is also a “priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” (Ps. 110:4). No son of David is a priest from Aaron’s line, and Melchizedek had no heirs.
The Pharisees cannot answer any of this, but Jesus can. He is David’s Lord because he is the very Son of God (Matt. 3:17; 16:16; 17:5). Jesus will vanquish all his enemies and has already renewed the line of Melchizedek (Heb. 7:1–17). Priests teach, pray, and offer sacrifices (Mal. 2:7; 2 Chron. 30:27; Hebrews 5–10); Jesus performs all three as a priest from Melchizedek.
This passage is important for the church as well as for the Pharisees, for here Jesus teaches disciples to read the old covenant Scriptures that exceed expectations for any king, priest, or prophet and to find their fulfillment in him. The NT quotes Psalm 110 more than any other passage, and for good reason. In it, King David predicts the coming of a greater king, calling him “Lord.” So Jesus suggests the answers to his own question. Whose son is the Messiah? He is the Son of David and the Son of God, God’s servant and our King.
The episode ends with the Pharisees silenced, wordless (Matt. 22:46). Such silence mimes their grudging respect for Jesus, the unlettered, undefeated Galilean. Alas, their silence does most of them no good. Would that they had humbled themselves to think of Jesus as their teacher, saying “Explain to us . . .” (13:36).