This section of Matthew's Gospel presents Israel's formal rejection of her Messiah. Jesus had made a formal presentation of Himself to the nation's populace and leadership in the messianic capital (21:1-17). Now Matthew recorded Israel's response.779
The Triumphal Entry happened on Monday. The cursing of the fig tree took place on Tuesday, and the disciples' mention of its withering followed on Wednesday (cf. Mark 11:1-14).780
21:18-19 Jesus passed the lone fig tree somewhere between Bethany and Jerusalem.
"Fig leaves appear about the same time as the fruit or a little after [in April]. The green figs are edible, though sufficiently disagreeable as not usually to be eaten till June. Thus the leaves normally point to every prospect of fruit, even if not fully ripe. Sometimes, however, the green figs fall off and leave nothing but leaves."781
The leaves on this tree suggested that it was bearing fruit, but it was not. Jesus saw an opportunity to teach His disciples an important truth using this tree as an object lesson. He cursed the tree to teach them the lesson, not because it failed to produce fruit.
Most interpreters of this pericope have seen Jesus' cursing of the fig tree as closely related to the context, namely the cleansing of the temple and Jesus' denunciation of Israel's leaders. Many see the fig tree as a symbol of the whole nation of Israel not bearing the fruit of repentance.782The problem with this view is that Jesus did not abandon Israel forever for rejecting Him (Rom. 11). A similar view takes the fig tree as representing the generation of Jews who rejected Jesus.783God would judge them by withholding the kingdom from them. This is the best view from my viewpoint. A third view is that the fig tree illustrates a segment within Jesus' generation of Jews, namely the hypocrites within the nation who made a show of bearing fruit but did not (cf. 6:2, 5, 16; 7:5; 15:7; 22:18; 23:1-39).784They were barren spiritually. These were the temple merchants and the chief priests and scribes but not the children or the blind and the lame. However, Jesus cursed the whole tree and nation, not just the parts in it that proved unfruitful.
The idea that Jesus cursed a helpless fig tree for no fault of its own has bothered some people. However, Jesus also cast demons out of people and into pigs that drowned in the sea (8:28-34). This really demonstrates Jesus' compassion for people as distinct from the animal and vegetable forms of life. Humankind was God's special creation, and Jesus' recognition of this superior form of life shows that He did not regard all life as equally valuable. In the destruction of the swine Jesus warned people of Satan's destructive power. In the cursing of the fig tree He warned them of God's judgment for unbelief.
"One of the Old Testament images of God's judgment on Israel was the picture of the land being unable to bear figs (Jer. 8:13; Mic. 7:1-6)."785
21:20-22 Mark separated the cursing of the tree and the disciples' discovery that it had withered by one day (Mark 11:13, 20). Matthew simply combined both events into one story without saying anything that would make Mark's account incompatible.
Jesus' response has led some commentators to conclude that what He was teaching with the cursing of the fig tree was simply the importance of faith, not God's judgment on Israel.786However this seems unlikely to me in view of the preceding context and the symbolism of the fig tree. It seems to me that Jesus was teaching both lessons. The disciples' amazement that the fig tree had withered so quickly led Jesus to comment on that lesson but not on the other. He used the miracle to teach them a lesson on the power of believing prayer.
Jesus had exercised faith in God when He cursed the tree. God had rewarded Jesus' trust by killing the tree. Jesus pointed out that trust in God can have amazing consequences. The hyperbolic figure of casting a mountain into the sea was one that Jesus had used before to illustrate the power of faith (17:20). There His point was that even a little faith can accomplish great feats. Here His point was that His disciples should believe God rather than disbelieve Him. The disciples had been observing many doubters in those who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah in spite of the evidence that God had given them. They themselves had struggled with doubt. Jesus was urging them to have full confidence in Him as the Messiah with the promise that that kind of faith can accomplish supernatural feats (cf. Acts 3:6-7).
". . . belief in the NT is never reduced to forcing oneself to believe' what he does not really believe. Instead, it is related to genuine trust in God and obedience to and discernment of his will . . ."787
Jesus may have been teaching a deeper lesson with His reference to the mountain cast into the sea. A mountain in the Bible sometimes stands for a kingdom (Ps. 30:7; Isa. 2:2; 41:15; Jer. 51:25; Dan. 2:35, 44; cf. Rev. 8:8; 16:20; 17:9). The sea likewise has the metaphorical meaning of the Gentile nations (Deut. 33:19; Ps. 72:8; 114:3, 5; Isa. 11:11; 60:5). Perhaps with this illustration Jesus was anticipating the coming of His kingdom that would destroy Gentile world dominion (cf. 6:10).
Verse 22 assumes what Jesus taught elsewhere about prayer, namely that God will grant the petitions of His people when they are in harmony with His will (6:9-13; 7:7-11; cf. John 14:13-14; 15:16; 16:23-24; 1 John 5:14-15). His point was that when we pray we should believe that God can do anything we request and that He will do what is consistent with His will and what He has promised to do.
The cursing of the fig tree happened as Jesus and the disciples walked from Bethany to Jerusalem on Tuesday. The disciples' exclamation about the withered tree and Jesus' lesson followed on Wednesday. Jesus and His disciples proceeded into Jerusalem where confrontations with three groups erupted in the temple courtyard that day.
The dialogue continued in the temple courtyard. Israel's leaders proceeded to confront Jesus three times attempting to show that He was no better than any other rabbi. Jesus responded with great wisdom, silenced His accusers with another question of His own, and disclosed His identity again in a veiled way.
22:15-16a The Pharisees wanted to ensnare or entrap (Gr. pagideuo) Jesus by their question. Clearly their purpose was not simply to get Jesus' opinion on a controversial issue. It was to alienate Him from a major portion of the Jewish population or to get Him to lay Himself open to a charge of treason, depending on His answer.
The Pharisees had come into existence during the Babylonian exile. The word "Pharisee"means "separate one."During the Exile the Jews were in danger of assimilation by the Gentiles. The Pharisaic party began because the Jews wanted to maintain their distinctiveness from their pagan neighbors. This was a good thing then. However as time passed and the Jews returned to the Promised Land, the Pharisees' separation became too much of a good thing. It resulted in isolation as those Jews built up traditions designed not just to keep the Mosaic Law but to enforce the rabbis' interpretations of the Law. The result was what we have seen in this Gospel, namely Pharisaic devotion to the traditions of the elders that surpassed devotion to the Word of God.
The Herodians constituted a party within Judaism that favored cooperation with the Herods who ruled Israel under Rome's authority. They supported the reigning Herods and their pro-Roman policies. This position compromised Jewish independence and distinctiveness in the minds of many Jews including the Pharisees. Consequently it was very unusual that representatives from these two competing groups would unite in opposing Jesus. They rarely united on any subject, but both parties viewed Jesus as a threat to their individual interests.
22:16b-17 The unholy alliance introduced its question with a flattering preamble. The leaders credited Jesus with being a teacher or rabbi. Moreover they said they believed He spoke the truth and taught God's will truthfully. If Jesus failed to reply to their question after such an introduction, He would appear to be trying to hide something, perhaps because of pressure He felt. His integrity would be open to question.
Their question was theological since all such issues involved God's will in Israel. They wanted to know how Jesus felt about their Roman overlords. Paying the poll or head tax was a kind of litmus test of one's feelings toward Rome, as one's attitude toward paying taxes has indicated one's attitude toward government throughout history. This was a particularly volatile issue in Israel since it was a theocracy. The poll tax was not objectionable because it was large. Really it was quite small. However it was almost universal, covering women between the ages of 12 and 65 and men between 14 and 65. "Caesar,"the family name of Julius Caesar, had become a title for Roman rulers by this time. The Roman emperor then was Tiberius. The accusers phrased their question to elicit a yes or no answer from Jesus. They thought that either answer would embroil Him in controversy.
22:18-20 Jesus refused to give the yes or no answer they wanted. Instead He initially pointed out, for the benefit of the crowd standing around, that they were testing Him (Gr. peirazo, to demonstrate intrinsic quality by testing, cf. 4:1; 16:1). This was a more gracious word than the one Matthew used to describe their real intent (v. 15). Their question did not intimidate Jesus even though He perceived their malice, but He saw it as an opportunity to reveal His identity. They were hypocrites in that they came under a pretense of great respect, but they really had little respect for Him.
Jesus chose to answer on His own terms, not theirs. The coin that most people used to pay their Roman poll tax was a denarius, the value of which was one day's wage for a working man. This coin bore the image of the emperor and the inscription "Tiberius Caesar, son of the divine Augustus"on one side and "pontifex maximus"on the other. The Jews understood "pontifex maximus"(lit. chief bridge-builder) in the sense of high priest. Both inscriptions were offensive to the Jews.816
The fact that Jesus asked someone to give Him a denarius has led some readers to conclude that He was extremely poor. Others believe He did this because He and His disciples shared a common purse. Still others believe He was using a pedagogical technique. Whatever His reason may have been, we should probably not make much of it since Matthew did not.
22:21-22 Jesus' answer accorded with the Old Testament teaching that people should pay taxes to those over them, even pagans, because rulers ultimately owe their positions to God (Prov. 8:15; Dan. 2:21, 37-38; cf. Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-17). He did not side with the Zealots, a party that sought the violent overthrow of Rome, or with any other group that wanted Messiah to bring immediate political independence to Israel.
"The questioners had said dounai["to give"] (v. 17), as though of a gift which might be withheld; the Lord replies with apo dote["render to"], the payment of a rightful due."817
However, Jesus also advocated rendering to God what belonged to Him. As the coin bore the emperor's image and so testified to his ownership of it, so human beings bear God's image and so testify to His ownership of them. God has an even more fundamental claim on people than Caesar did. The Jews should acknowledge Caesar's claim by paying their taxes, but what is more important they should acknowledge God's claim by obeying Him. This was a condemnation of Israel's leaders who were not obeying God as well as an exhortation to all the people to follow God's will. For them that involved believing in and following Jesus.
This incident shows Jesus' great wisdom and authority, the intensity of the leaders' opposition to Him, and how Jesus prepared His disciples for what lay ahead of them (cf. Rom. 13; 1 Pet. 2:11-17).
Sometime later that day another group of leaders approached Jesus with another question but with the same purpose, to trap Him in a theological controversy that would destroy His reputation.
22:23 The Pharisees believed in resurrection from the dead (Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12:2). The Sadducees did not because they did not find it explicitly taught in the Pentateuch. They believed that both the material and the immaterial parts of man perish at death (cf. Acts 23:8).818There was much diverse opinion concerning death and the afterlife in Jesus' day.819
22:24-28 The Sadducees also approached Jesus with hypocritical respect calling Him "teacher"(cf. v. 16). They had evidently learned to appreciate Jesus' high regard for the Old Testament because they came to Him with a question of biblical interpretation (Deut. 25:5-6).
Levirate marriage was an ancient Near Eastern custom that antedated the Mosaic Law (Gen. 38:8). The law incorporated it and regulated it. This law encouraged the younger brother to marry his deceased brother's widow and have children by her. People considered the children born to be the older brother's heirs, and they would perpetuate his name in Israel.
This was an unlikely question for Sadducees to ask since they did not believe in resurrection. Probably they knew that Jesus believed in resurrection and wanted to create what they thought was an impossible situation to embarrass Him.
"It was probably an old conundrum that they had used to the discomfiture of the Pharisees."820
The case they posited could have been a real one or, more likely, a hypothetical one. Their question presupposed that life the other side of the grave will be exactly as it is this side, in terms of human relationships. Since the woman had had seven husbands, whose wife would she be in the resurrection, or would she be guilty of incest? For the Sadducees, belief in resurrection created insuperable problems. Would Jesus deny the resurrection and so obviate the problem but alienate Himself even further from the Pharisees?
22:29-30 The Sadducees did not understand the Scriptures because the Scriptures taught resurrection. They did not understand God's power because they assumed life after resurrection would be the same as it is now. God is able to raise people to a form of existence unlike what we experience now.
In the resurrection form of existence, sexual relationships will be different from what they are now. Jesus was speaking of the resurrection life, not a particular resurrection event, as is clear from the Greek preposition en("in,"v. 30, not "at,"NIV). Marriage relationships as we now know them will not exist in the resurrection. Jesus' reference to the angels was an additional correction of their theology since the Sadducees also denied the existence of angels (Acts. 23:8).
Jesus did not say that in the resurrection state all memory of our former existence and relationships will end. This is a conclusion some interpreters have drawn without warrant.
"The greatness of the changes at the Resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 15:44; Phil 3:21; 1 John 3:1-2) will doubtless make the wife of even seven brothers (vv. 24-27) capable of loving all and the object of the love of all--as a good mother today loves all her children and is loved by them."821
22:31-32 Jesus returned to what Scripture teaches (v. 29). He introduced His clarification with a customary rebuke, "Have you not read?"(cf. 21:42; et al.). The passage He cited, Exodus 3:6, came from the Pentateuch, a part of the Old Testament that the Sadducees treated with great respect.
God described Himself to Moses as then being the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He was still their God even though they had died hundreds of years earlier. This statement implied the continuing bodily existence of the patriarchs. The logical conclusion is that if God will fulfill His promise to continue to be the God of the patriarchs He must raise them from the dead. Thus Jesus showed that the Pentateuch, the abbreviated canon of the Sadducees, clearly implied the reality of a future resurrection.
22:33 Matthew closed his account of this encounter by recording the reaction of the multitude, not the reaction of the Sadducees. Probably few of the Sadducees changed their theology as a result of this conversation since they continued to oppose Jesus. However the reaction of the crowd shows that Jesus' teaching had a powerful impact. To the unprejudiced observer, Jesus' arguments, authority, and understanding of the Old Testament were astonishing. Matthew undoubtedly hoped this would be the reaction of his readers too.
This pericope reveals the intensity of the opposition to Jesus that existed among Israel's leaders. This was the third group to try to trap Him in one day. It also shows the guilt of Israel's leaders since they did not understand either the Scriptures or God's power. Jesus had spoken of people entering the kingdom after death (v. 10). To do so there would have to be a resurrection. Jesus also confirmed belief that the patriarchs would live in the kingdom by what He said. Thus Jesus' teaching about resurrection answered questions about participation in the kingdom because of its postponement. Not many in Jesus' immediate audience may have understood this, but Matthew's readers could.
